There’s No Such Thing as a Free Tank of Water
For a century, the water-powered car has been the perfect parable of hidden costs. Washington’s hydrogen saga shows the lesson still hasn’t sunk in.
Every generation gets its water car. The details change, but the pitch never does: pour in tap water, drive off, never pay at the pump again. And every generation, the pitch runs into the same wall.
Economists have a name for that wall, popularized by Milton Friedman: there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Physicists have a sterner version. They call it the laws of thermodynamics.
The physics nobody can repeal
Nothing in science forbids splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and burning the hydrogen to move a car. The problem is that burning hydrogen just makes water again, and pulling that water apart always takes more energy than you got out of it. Put in 12 units to get 10 back, and the obvious question is why you didn’t simply use the 12. Water isn’t a fuel. It’s ash: what’s left over after hydrogen has already burned.
So every water car that has ever “worked” has had a hidden power source somewhere: a battery, a generator, or a reactive chemical made in a factory using plenty of energy. The cost doesn’t disappear. It just gets moved somewhere the customer can’t see it.
A long parade of free lunches
Ohio inventor Stanley Meyer spent the 1980s and ’90s promoting a “water fuel cell” he said could run a dune buggy on water, and he sold dealership rights in the technology to investors. When two of them sued in 1996, expert witnesses found nothing revolutionary about the device, just ordinary electrolysis. The court ruled Meyer had committed “gross and egregious fraud” and ordered him to repay the $25,000. Believers still insist he was silenced by Big Oil.
In the Philippines, engineer Daniel Dingel spent decades claiming his “hydrogen reactor” let a car run on water. His own government’s science department called it a hoax, and in 2008 a court convicted him of fraud at the age of 82.
That same year, as gas prices spiked, a Japanese company called Genepax unveiled a car it said ran on water. Energy analyst Robert Rapier quickly spotted the trick: the company hinted at a reaction like the one between metal hydrides and water. Those compounds release hydrogen eagerly, but they have to be manufactured first, at a steep energy cost. The water was the match, not the fuel.
And whenever pump prices climb, so do the ads for “HHO” kits promising to turn water into extra mileage. The EPA has said it has no credible data showing such devices improve fuel economy, and after testing more than 100 supposed gas-saving gadgets, it found none that meaningfully helped.
The pattern never changes: a visible benefit, an invisible cost, and somebody left holding the bill.
Washington’s hydrogen hangover
It would be comforting to think only cranks and con artists fall for this. But governments run the same play, just with bigger budgets.
Take the federal hydrogen hubs. The 2021 infrastructure law set aside roughly $7 billion to stand up regional hydrogen economies, chosen by officials rather than customers. Then the politics flipped. In October 2025, the Energy Department pulled about $2.2 billion from the California and Pacific Northwest hubs, and in a court filing this July, the government conceded those cuts were based solely on the political identity of the states involved. The other five hubs, worth nearly $5 billion and backed by firms like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, kept their money.
Read that again. One administration handed out billions according to its political priorities. The next clawed some back according to which states voted the wrong way. At no point did the people who would actually have to buy, use and pay for hydrogen get much of a say. Meanwhile, the policy whiplash has spooked private investors and driven up borrowing costs, which is the opposite of what a healthy energy market needs.
This isn’t an argument against hydrogen. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, more like a battery than an oil well, and whether it makes sense depends on how much energy it takes to produce and what that energy costs. That is exactly the kind of question prices answer well and political enthusiasm answers badly. Whether a subsidy is being granted or yanked, the decision is made by people who don’t bear the loss if they’re wrong.
The 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat called this the difference between what is seen and what is not seen. The seen is the ribbon-cutting, the press release, the gleaming prototype. The unseen is the tax bill, the deficit, and the better ideas that never got funded because capital was steered somewhere else.
Let the people making the bet bear the loss
Markets aren’t magic. Inventors overpromise, and investors chase stories. But when a private bet goes bad, the people who made it eat the loss, and the failure ends. Meyer’s investors could take him to court; Genepax’s car quietly vanished. Publicly funded failures are different. They get extended, rebranded and reauthorized, because the people who championed them aren’t the ones paying.
None of this means we should stop trying to build better cars or cleaner fuels. Innovation thrives when people are free to experiment, compete and fail. It means we should be skeptical of anyone, whether inventor, corporation or politician, who promises energy for nothing. The answer isn’t a new agency, a new subsidy, or a partisan purge of the old ones. It’s honest accounting and open competition: let every fuel, from gasoline to hydrogen to batteries, stand on its full costs and win customers on its merits.
When something looks free, the first question shouldn’t be “How do we get more of it?” It should be “Who’s paying, and where did they hide the bill?”
Sooner or later, someone always pays.
You may also enjoy: Washington Keeps Forgetting Who Pays the Bills
