Hydrogen’s Harsh Reality: Plug Power, Ballard, and FuelCell Near the End?

Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and/or follow us on Google News!

Plug Power’s stock has dipped into dangerous territory, trading below the critical $1 threshold required by Nasdaq, signaling yet another existential crisis for the firm. This isn’t the first time Plug has flirted with financial oblivion, of course; the company executed a 1-for-10 reverse stock split back in 2011 to dodge delisting. But despite repeated rescues and perpetual financial gymnastics, the underlying realities remain unchanged: Plug Power continues to burn cash at unsustainable rates, with little indication that profitability is on any near horizon.

Plug Power was founded in 1997 with grand promises of revolutionizing energy through residential hydrogen fuel cells, a market that never materialized. A swift pivot brought Plug into the industrial forklift fuel cell space, signing marquee customers such as Amazon and Walmart. These deals, initially lauded as transformative, merely provided a brief illusion of commercial traction without ever achieving sustainable profit margins. 60 years after the first hydrogen forklift was manufactured, there are still homeopathic numbers of them, 50,000-70,000, mostly in U.S. distribution centers, when million of battery electric forklifts are sold annually.

The company’s latest iteration, pivoting aggressively into green hydrogen production, only magnified its cash burn problem. Recent financial reports reveal staggering losses exceeding $2 billion annually, dwarfed only by their steadily declining cash reserves, now perilously close to exhaustion without new capital infusions.

Plug’s management recently secured a $525 million credit facility from Yorkville Advisors and has been awarded a $1.66 billion DOE loan guarantee to finance new hydrogen production plants. On paper, these moves temporarily shore up Plug’s financial foundation, but loans eventually mature, and government guarantees don’t erase fundamental cost problems. Further, the DOE money isn’t guaranteed given Trump Administration clawbacks. Given the persistently high cost of green hydrogen relative to electrification, Plug’s gamble on a hydrogen future remains highly speculative, particularly as market skepticism deepens.

Ballard Power Systems presents a contrasting yet equally troubling scenario. Founded in 1979, Ballard initially set out to revolutionize rechargeable battery technology before switching lanes entirely into proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells in the late 1980s. Ballard’s early automotive ambitions attracted heavyweights like Daimler and Ford, but those partnerships evaporated without meaningful commercial success. After shedding automotive aspirations, Ballard pivoted repeatedly—into stationary power, buses, marine, rail, and finally heavy-duty trucking. Despite these continual strategic adjustments, Ballard has never reported an annual profit in its public history, amassing losses exceeding a billion dollars cumulatively.

Like Plug, Ballard has been fighting to stay above delisting territory. The last time its stock price ducked under $1 was a dozen years ago, and it’s been trending strongly downward since the last hype-buoyed blip in 2021, when it peaked at 30 times its current valuation. Now it’s back under $2 and heading for penny stock territory again, with absolutely no market or economic reason to believe investors are going to throw more money at it.

What Ballard has, however, is an absurdly strong balance sheet for a company that’s lost almost $1.4 billion dollars since 2000: nearly $637 million in cash reserves, zero debt, and a low burn rate, enough to maintain operations well into the late 2020s without further fundraising. Investors have grown increasingly wary, as the firm has repeatedly promised market breakthroughs that have never arrived. Despite recent restructuring and cost-cutting initiatives, revenue remains stubbornly low, and stock prices have steadily eroded toward the delisting precipice. Ballard may avoid immediate financial distress, but it increasingly resembles a zombie corporation, rich in cash but poor in genuine market traction.

FuelCell Energy, founded in 1969 as Energy Research Corporation, originally targeted advanced batteries before spinning off those operations to concentrate on molten carbonate fuel cells for stationary power. FuelCell’s narrative followed familiar arcs: big strategic partnerships, pivoting toward promising markets like carbon capture (with ExxonMobil) and hydrogen generation (with Toyota), but ultimately chronic financial underperformance. Unlike Ballard, FuelCell carries moderate debt and has employed repeated financial engineering maneuvers to stay afloat. A 1-for-12 reverse stock split in 2019 was followed by another drastic 1-for-30 reverse split in November 2024 to stave off Nasdaq delisting.

These measures temporarily boosted share prices but fundamentally changed nothing about FuelCell’s underlying business challenges. That’s why the firm’s stock price, peaking at an inflated $13 after the 30:1 reverse split late in 2024, has trended down to less than a third of that today.

FuelCell currently maintains about $318 million in cash, giving it perhaps two years of runway at current burn rates. Its sizeable $1.16 billion project backlog provides some reassurance of future revenue, but investors remain skeptical, wary after decades of consistent disappointment. The firm’s ongoing pivots toward carbon capture and hydrogen production appear more driven by desperate market positioning than clear technological advantages or commercial viability. Given past execution challenges, there’s considerable doubt FuelCell can deliver profitability even from existing contracts.

The histories of Plug Power, Ballard Power, and FuelCell Energy are strikingly parallel: decades-long sagas of unfulfilled promise, continual strategic pivots, recurring near-death experiences, and irrational investor optimism. History also provides numerous examples of companies across various sectors surviving similar unprofitable trajectories. In biotech, firms like Inovio Pharmaceuticals have spent decades without approved products, continually raising funds based purely on hopes for breakthrough discoveries. In mining exploration, NovaGold Resources maintains decades-long unprofitability, sustained solely by speculative investor beliefs in its untapped gold reserves. In clean tech, Capstone Green Energy mirrors the fuel cell firms’ pattern of continual dilution and reverse splits, perpetually promising imminent profitability while consistently failing to deliver it. Even major tech disruptors like Uber Technologies survived years of heavy losses by persuading investors that market dominance would eventually yield profits.

However, hydrogen transportation firms have lost the narrative traction of these sectors. Unlike biotech, hydrogen’s fundamental market competitiveness is eroded each year by advances in battery electrification, as confirmed by rigorous studies from the IEA and numerous independent analyses. Unlike mining, there is no assayed resource awaiting future exploitation—just well-documented technological inefficiencies. Unlike Uber’s ride-hailing promise, the scale economics for hydrogen infrastructure remain stubbornly negative, not improving with growth but rather worsening due to complexity and energy inefficiencies inherent to the hydrogen supply chain. The macroeconomic environment has further dimmed hydrogen’s appeal; geopolitical disruptions and increased capital costs do not benefit hydrogen ventures but rather amplify their vulnerabilities.

Investor fatigue is increasingly evident. Institutional investors once eagerly participated in secondary offerings and strategic investments—SK Group’s billion-dollar injection into Plug, Weichai Power’s stake in Ballard—now pause at providing fresh capital as share prices collapse. The markets no longer view hydrogen ventures through a lens of hopeful innovation, instead focusing sharply on financial fundamentals: persistent losses, ongoing dilution, and tenuous business models. Nasdaq compliance is critical not just symbolically but practically, directly affecting these firms’ ability to raise additional funds and maintain stakeholder confidence. Each reverse split or emergency financing chips away further at credibility, even as they temporarily preserve listing status.

Looking toward 2026, survival prospects appear increasingly dim for all three. Plug Power, despite its DOE-backed funding lifelines, remains at acute risk due to staggering losses and precarious cash flow, likely forcing further dilutive financings or reverse splits. Ballard, with healthier cash reserves, may avoid bankruptcy, yet is stagnant with no hope of genuine market breakthroughs. FuelCell Energy, though buoyed by backlog projects, confronts ongoing execution challenges and limited runway; further slippage—highly probable—will rapidly consume remaining capital.

Ultimately, mere survival without meaningful market validation or profitability represents failure by another name. These hydrogen firms have defied gravity for decades through investor patience, speculative narratives, and financial engineering, but the walls are closing in. Their trajectories toward obsolescence are inevitable.

The story of Plug Power, Ballard Power, and FuelCell Energy is thus cautionary, highlighting the peril of investing based solely on promise rather than proven market fundamentals. While these firms may scrape through another year or two, their chances of sustainably surviving beyond 2026 grow slimmer with each passing quarter. The hydrogen dream they have long pursued may yet have a role somewhere in the energy mix—but it appears increasingly unlikely these firms, so battered by decades of failed promises, will play a profitable or even meaningful part in that future.