Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nature Editorial: Overhyping hydrogen as a fuel risks endangering net-zero goals
Nature has the highest impact factor of any scientific journal in the world. I'll bet the editors know all about the second law of thermodynamics.The Editorial: Overhyping hydrogen as a fuel risks endangering net-zero goals (EDITORIAL 16 November 2022)
Subtitle:
Hydrogen is touted as a wonder fuel for everything from transport to home heating — but greener and more efficient options are often available.
It should be open sourced, but an excerpt:
As governments across the world scramble to find ways to reform energy systems to meet climate commitments, hydrogen looms large. The fuel is now seen as a pillar of most net-zero emissions scenarios. Production is expected to at least quintuple by mid-century.
On one level, the enthusiasm is understandable. If hydrogen were freely available, it would be something of a decarbonization wonder. It can make carbon-free fuels for transportation and heating, and power some energy-intensive industries that can’t easily be electrified, such as the manufacture of steel or fertilizer (see Feature).
The problem is that hydrogen is not freely available. On Earth, it exists mostly in molecules bound to other elements, from which it must be extracted at huge energetic cost. Policymakers should beware potential unintended negative consequences for both people and the planet from an overwrought dash for hydrogen.
Most hydrogen is currently made by processes — such as steam reformation of natural gas (methane) — that produce large amounts of CO2 as a by-product. Although ‘green’ hydrogen can be made by using electricity from renewable sources to split water molecules, this process is costly compared with more conventional production methods.
It can also be an inefficient use of renewable resources. Using green electricity to make hydrogen at times of peak demand, when that energy could be feeding the grid and displacing electricity generated from fossil fuels, could result in higher overall emissions than intended. Making hydrogen with electricity generated from unabated use of fossil fuels would be even worse.
All this means that hydrogen should be used judiciously, to address emissions that can’t be eliminated in other ways. Many of the uses being touted do not tick that box. For example, some groups are advocating burning hydrogen to heat homes, as an alternative to natural gas, but this is much less efficient than using electricity directly. Most immediately, this means higher costs for consumers. But it also means that using even truly green hydrogen to heat homes displaces a smaller chunk of current CO2 emissions than would using it for other tasks, for which there are no alternatives...
On one level, the enthusiasm is understandable. If hydrogen were freely available, it would be something of a decarbonization wonder. It can make carbon-free fuels for transportation and heating, and power some energy-intensive industries that can’t easily be electrified, such as the manufacture of steel or fertilizer (see Feature).
The problem is that hydrogen is not freely available. On Earth, it exists mostly in molecules bound to other elements, from which it must be extracted at huge energetic cost. Policymakers should beware potential unintended negative consequences for both people and the planet from an overwrought dash for hydrogen.
Most hydrogen is currently made by processes — such as steam reformation of natural gas (methane) — that produce large amounts of CO2 as a by-product. Although ‘green’ hydrogen can be made by using electricity from renewable sources to split water molecules, this process is costly compared with more conventional production methods.
It can also be an inefficient use of renewable resources. Using green electricity to make hydrogen at times of peak demand, when that energy could be feeding the grid and displacing electricity generated from fossil fuels, could result in higher overall emissions than intended. Making hydrogen with electricity generated from unabated use of fossil fuels would be even worse.
All this means that hydrogen should be used judiciously, to address emissions that can’t be eliminated in other ways. Many of the uses being touted do not tick that box. For example, some groups are advocating burning hydrogen to heat homes, as an alternative to natural gas, but this is much less efficient than using electricity directly. Most immediately, this means higher costs for consumers. But it also means that using even truly green hydrogen to heat homes displaces a smaller chunk of current CO2 emissions than would using it for other tasks, for which there are no alternatives...
It's pretty much what I say frequently in this space, but the hydrogen hydra, which has been carrying on for half a century refuses to die its deserved death.
There is a path to relatively clean hydrogen as a captive intermediate, but it industrial nowhere on Earth. This is thermochemical hydrogen. It should be industrial and I believe it could be industrial, but right now it isn't.
Consumer hydrogen even were it possible to make bulk hydrogen cleanly - electrolysis powered by the useless solar and wind industries won't cut it - would be a terrible idea, all the cartoons to the contrary notwithstanding.
I hope your holiday preparations are going well.