Dave Borlace doesn't just compare hydrogen fuel cells to batteries; he reframes the entire energy transition as a historical replay of the VHS versus Betamax battle, arguing that technical superiority often loses to infrastructure momentum. While the physics of hydrogen are undeniably complex, Borlace's most striking insight is that the winner of the electric vehicle race may not be determined by who has the better engine, but by who built the gas stations first.
The Efficiency Trap
The core of Borlace's argument rests on a brutal accounting of energy loss. He begins by acknowledging hydrogen's theoretical promise, noting that "on the face of it hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe" and is "packed full of energy." However, he quickly pivots to the thermodynamic reality that extracting this energy is a costly endeavor. He explains that whether using steam reforming or electrolysis, the process is inherently wasteful. "You lose about 30% of the energy you've put into the reaction," Borlace writes, contrasting this sharply with the "99% charging efficiency of a lithium-ion battery."
This framing is effective because it moves the debate away from the romanticized idea of "clean fuel" to the hard math of energy density and conversion. He illustrates the logistical nightmare of distribution, noting that by the time hydrogen is produced, compressed, transported, and delivered, the total system efficiency plummets. "By the time you get to the end user you've lost between 30 and 60 percent of the energy compared to only about 6 percent of the energy with a lithium-ion battery," he states. This stark comparison suggests that the current push for hydrogen cars is fighting a losing battle against the laws of physics and the economics of scale.
Critics might argue that this analysis focuses too heavily on passenger vehicles, where batteries currently hold a distinct advantage, and ignores the specific use cases where hydrogen's high energy density is essential. However, Borlace anticipates this by distinguishing between the "de facto industry standard" of batteries and the niche potential for other applications.
The Infrastructure Hurdle
The piece shifts to the market dynamics, drawing a parallel to the video cassette wars of the 1980s. Borlace posits that "the biggest problem that hydrogen fuel cells may well face though is the same one that Betamax faced against VHS back in the 80s." The argument here is that infrastructure, not just technology, dictates the winner. He points out that "the infrastructure for battery-powered electric vehicles is already pretty well-established and rapidly becoming almost as ubiquitous as traditional fossil fuel filling stations."
He highlights the role of aggressive marketing and early adoption in cementing this lead, citing figures like Elon Musk who have "publicly declared hydrogen fuel cell technology to be very silly indeed." While the tone is slightly dismissive of the hydrogen camp, the underlying point about market penetration is sound. Borlace notes that despite Japan's ambitious targets to have "800,000" fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2030, the economic reality remains stark: "the cost per mile for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is about eight times higher than the cost per mile battery-powered vehicle."
Ultimately though for us car driving road users it'll most likely be the level of market penetration rather than any comparative technical superiority that determines the winner.
The Real Future: Heavy Industry and Fleets
Where Borlace's commentary becomes most compelling is when he abandons the passenger car market to look at sectors where batteries struggle. He argues that the "real limitation" for hydrogen is refueling infrastructure for individuals, but that this is less of an issue for centralized fleets. "The real limitation that hydrogen fuel cells are facing at the moment though is refueling," he admits, before pivoting to the bright spots: "where hydrogen power really does appears have a bright future though is in the heavier industries and in the fleet markets."
He provides concrete examples of this viability, from the "world's first hydrogen powered train" launched in Germany to maritime applications in Orkney where excess wind and wave power can be converted to hydrogen. He even touches on aviation, noting that "even air travel may also be a viable candidate for a switch from the current kerosene." This nuanced view prevents the piece from being a simple dismissal of hydrogen; instead, it positions the technology as a specialized tool rather than a universal solution.
Bottom Line
Borlace's strongest contribution is his refusal to treat hydrogen as a silver bullet for personal transport, grounding the debate in the unglamorous realities of energy loss and infrastructure costs. The argument's greatest vulnerability is its heavy reliance on current efficiency metrics, which may shift if solid-state batteries fail to scale or if green hydrogen production costs drop precipitously. The reader should watch not for a hydrogen revolution in cars, but for its quiet, decisive victory in heavy industry and long-haul transport.