Navigant Says Revenue From Hydrogen Consumption Will Hit $49.8 Billion in 2030


In your dreams is really all we need to say, but we suppose we should add a bit more.

This Looks a Bit Iffy to Me...Higly Pressurized Extremely Flammable Fuel Pump Through a Humongous Nozzle?

This Looks a Bit Iffy to Me…Highly Pressurized Extremely Flammable Fuel Pump Through a Humongous Nozzle?

Here’s what Navigant Research says:

“Worldwide revenue from hydrogen consumption for new and emerging markets will grow from $1.3 billion annually in 2013 to $49.8 billion in 2030.”

Not all of that revenue will come from the transport sector though.  Navigany says that high-demand areas will be in hydrogen as a fuel for fuel cells in both transport and stationary applications.

Let’s please limit this to stationary-use only.

Unfortunately, Navigant says that’s not likely to be the case.

Navigant predicts that fuel cell transportation, especially light-duty fuel cell passenger vehicles, will account for the bulk of hydrogen use.

Lucky for us, most of this hydrogen won’t be used in the US.  Navigant says that the bulk of the hydrogen fuel revenue will come from the Asia Pacific region, the Middle East and Africa.  These three regions consume the bulk of transport hydrogen today and will even more so by 2030.

As long as hydrogen as a transport fuel stays out of the US, then we suppose it’s okay…no, it’s really not okay.

So we return to how we started this post.  Navigant’s prediction of revenue from hydrogen consumption hitting $49.8 billion in 2030 is an “in your dreams” prediction that won’t come true.  If it did, then hydrogen vehicles would be forced to compete with plug-in vehicles vehicles and in that matchup, hydrogen doesn’t stand a chance.  Plug-ins for the win!!!

Categories: General

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

25 Comments on "Navigant Says Revenue From Hydrogen Consumption Will Hit $49.8 Billion in 2030"

newest oldest most voted

I’m not really sure what the point of this article is. Is it just to state that Navigant Research – a respected market research firm – has no idea what they’re talking about? If so, you could at least include some facts to the contrary rather than just point the finger.

And the conclusion is exactly backwards. If this were to happen, it’s fuel cell vehicles that would be forced to compete with plug-ins. And they won’t stand a chance!

Mark H

Let the best mouse trap win. Partly, there has to be more education.

When comparing a ICE to EV, for the most part, a car is a car minus the motor,the drive train, and heating system.
When comparing a fuel cell (FCV) to an EV, the FCVs motor is also electric so really we are down to what is necessary for range. The FCV is just a range extender. The range extender is only needed 10% of the time. So the broken down question is “what range extender makes the most sense” or “will battery capacity suffice by 2030”?

I can not see the scenario where this will make sense for light duty vehicles. For long distance? Let the best mouse trap win. Maybe it is FCVs, maybe CNGVs, or some form of LNG. For light duty vehicles I can not see the scenario. The car is the car. The motor is the motor. I don’t see storage winning the day.

Last thoughts. Oil companies say that EVs are not ready but lets get on board with fuel cells. And then there is that infrastructure thingy.


Why don’t more state governments think like you? Reichmuth, at UCS, makes the large FCV argument, but doesn’t see how costs displace PHEV + charging. These are cars!


What ICE “heating system”? I think you meant, “waste energy (in the form of heat) resulting from the combustion of gasoline, that is occasionally used to heat the cabin, but is otherwise normally throw away”.

Jouni Valkonen

I think that solar powered cargo air ships are the biggest consumers of hydrogen in 2030.

There was just a years ago market opportunity for hydrogen with the upper stages of rockets, but it seems that SpaceX has ditched this in favor of methane on a short term. As methane has lower specific impulse than hydrogen, it may well be that hydrogen gets some market share as rocket fuel.

I think that the bulk of the hydrogen however goes for synthetic hydrocarbon production. From hydrogen it is possible to make methane and from methane it is possible to make synthetic kerosene to serve as jet fuel.

Rick Danger
While gas burning engines wouldn’t be my 1st choice to use as range extenders (if we were starting with a blank sheet), the fact is, they’re here, manufacturing is in place, and so is the infrastructure for them. The better batteries get, the more range they will provide, and range extenders will be needed less and less. In another 10-20 years, batteries and chargers should be to the point where 90% of drivers won’t need range extenders at all. As someone else mentioned recently on this site (Bonaire?), if everyone in the US drove a Volt right now, how many millions of gallons of gas would be saved each year? With technology available today? To spend so many billions on what will be nothing more than a stop gap measure is lacking brilliance, to say the least. Last thoughts: Nikola Tesla planned to transmit power through the air, but the Entrenched Interests saw no way to control and profit from such a system and it was shot down before he had a chance to perfect it. How great would such a system be for powering EVs? Problem Solved. If we’re going to invest billions in something, why not that? (Note… Read more »

It blows me away that there are people actually being paid who can pass off this stuff as “research”. This is not rocket science. Anyone with a 4-function calculator, a basic understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and 10 minutes will conclude that H2 will never pencil out.

Maybe you just need a new calculator.. check out the recent advacements related to hydrogen generation in Oslo and one in Canada.. only a matter of time.. these guys aren’t using yesterdays methods.. the battery heads posting here have blinders on. If you don’t take them off, you may be run over by a fcev in a few months. Surplus wind/solar will be converted to hydrogen… yes h2, not stored in batteries and will be powering h2 vehicles.. going to happen.. stay tuned

Chris O

I can’t imagine people shelling out billions for hydrogen as long as Tesla’s Superchargers remain “free for life”. It’s hard to justify a multi billion hydrogen infrastructure if automotive energy is something people expect to get for free, or at least pay very little for in the future.

So tesla super charger gives you half a charge in 20 mins… stop for a second and picture every car in the U.S. being electric and waiting 20 minutes for half a tank.. the nation would come to a screaming halt. Not to mention the time you will have to wait for a super charging outlet to open up.. we’re talking hours here. Even if every pump were converted to a charging station over night. We. Spent billions importing oil for years.. spending billions to build out the h2 infrastructure makes more sense.


Except of course that wouldn’t happen since a majority of the charging would still be done at home. That’s the beauty of plug-in cars!

Right and all the people who live in large cities and park on city streets would?? Yes.. the city is going to install a charging station for every car and we will never run out cuz no one travels away from home and everyone will stay home on the holidays so we don’t have to wait in line for 10 hours for a super charger. And when it snows and the cords get frozen in snow banks and plows come by and rip them off and people with metal shovels get electrocuted.. And the increase in power usage will cause more power outages and when they happen we will have more chaos.. And if the plug next to your car doesn’t work for some reason you need do drive around and find a spot that has one working.. I think it

sounds great really.. sign me up.. I don’t even mind the battery degradation issue.




dummy plug to store charging cable in and crisis averted!
cordless charging for residential, work, malls, etc.


/end sarcasm
/end cynicism


I guess it’s not for you then, they’ll be people all around you using plug on cars day I’m day out with no problems (as I do) but no one is going to stop you continuing to use gas.


The home charging issue is a very simple one. Charge it where you park it. It’s not a problem. If the tech makes it, the problem will gradually diminish. Cable and

There is a potential contention issue, but in my view that will also diminish as technology improves (Tesla’s already indicating 150kW is coming) and destination charging becomes more common.

Advancemens are supposed to make things easier.. electric cars failed before and will fail again as most of the U.S. will not go to new technology that’s not an improvement over what they have today. Going to H2: cell tower backups, data center backups, tow motors ect.. lithium is not infinite, is toxic and does not beat the convenience we currently have.. it will not win over 95% of motorists without 5 minute charges


So, there can only be one kind of vehicle out there? Yes, majority of charging at home and in parking garages. Municipalities are increasing mandating charging spaces in parking lots. I doubt there will be on-street charging in the large cities. Maybe inner city drivers remain with gas – it won’t disappear anytime soon. Owning a car in the urban environment is enough of a pain now, I see it diminishing. A lot of city dwellers forgo cars altogether.

I just don’t see H2 as a viable fuel. Gasoline will prevail over H2.


The challenges for HFCVs are pretty significant. While people talk about safety, the fact is handling H2 is a lot trickier than NG. Those tiny H2 molecules will find their way out so losses will be significant. I’m not aware of a clean industrial process for making H2. H2 transport and distribution infrastructure costs are going to be pretty high. In addition, the proliferation of HAL2 and DCFC (and, yes, superchargers) will make range extension a relatively smaller issue.

And to agree with HVACman, it’s easy to hang out a “research” shingle, not so easy to predict the future 16 years from now.