Consider a world without any fossil fuels. Most of our everyday items (such as driving a vehicle, heating a house, charging a phone or computer) are powered by electricity, and that energy can originate from sources such as the wind, the sun, and the natural movement of water.
There is hydrogen for industries that require more power than solar or wind energy can give (such as aircraft, steel, and concrete manufacturing). And he’s all over the place.
The hydrogen business is generating a lot of buzz and billions of dollars, but not all forms of hydrogen are made equal. Although hydrogen is the most plentiful element on the planet, it must be separated from its source, which requires energy. It is currently generated mostly from fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, and oil) in the form of “grey” hydrogen. When carbon dioxide (CO2) is collected during the manufacturing process, ‘blue’ hydrogen is produced.
Major fossil fuel industries are pressing to keep blue hydrogen in the mix as governments across the world explore new energy policies to swiftly remove carbon from their economies. However, according to energy and climate experts, doing so might prevent the global usage of natural gas, a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming, for decades.
The most promising hydrogen for the environment is “green” hydrogen, which is generated from water and processed using 100 percent renewable energy, making it a zero-emission energy source. Green hydrogen is touted as a revolutionary answer to emissions in heavy sectors, but it still has a long way to go: according to Fitch Ratings, fewer than 1% of the world’s hydrogen is green today. The remainder is derived from fossil fuels.
According to an investigation, many significant fossil fuel corporations are utilizing an advertising Hydrogen campaign to keep gas in the game, and this is having an influence on a key decision that will be made in the European Union.
The European Union’s (EU) 27 countries are so split on natural gas’s future significance that the bloc’s executive arm, the European Commission, has been unable to publish what should be a straightforward list of energy sources it considers sustainable for months.
The decision was again postponed this week as nations discussed whether gas and nuclear power should be included in the list and if they should be labeled “green” or “transitional” energy sources.
Earlier drafts of the list, known as the Sustainable Financial Taxonomy, omitted gas and nuclear power, but EU officials have already said publicly that the sources will almost probably be included. This might allow natural gas activities to continue with a green stamp of approval, resulting in a flurry of private investment and governmental green recovery money for new projects.
Greta Thunberg and other climate campaigners called the list “fake climate action” in an opinion article on the Euractiv website.
InfluenceMap has discovered some of the biggest fossil fuel businesses that have pressured the EU to vote on sustainable fuels, as well as two additional gas and hydrogen policies, using a database of over 350 of the world’s largest companies. Equinor, TotalEnergies, and BP were the three most active businesses, according to the report.
Natural gas might be blended with hydrogen, including blue hydrogen, in future initiatives to make it “cleaner,” according to gas industry organizations representing fossil fuel companies operating in Europe. This lobbying, according to InfluenceMap researcher Vivek Parekh, represents a “slow infiltration” of natural gas back into EU energy policy.
“The European Commission’s first stances were targeted at driving the fossil gas infrastructure to the bottom and avoiding it as much as possible,” Parekh added.
“However, it appears that the gas sector has succeeded in weakening the sustainability standards in its favor after such a protracted war.” As a result, the role of fossil gas and its long-term energy destiny are basically assured. This occurs in the European Union, which is intended to be a political leader in the field of climate change.”
With a legislated aim of lowering emissions by 55 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, the EU has one of the most aggressive climate programs in the world. Its policies have a strong impact on those in other regions of the world, making this a crucial decision.
Pascal Canfin, the EU legislator who leads the bloc’s influential environment committee, expressed optimism that a compromise could be reached to end the impasse. According to Canfin, one option is to include gas but set a limit on how much carbon dioxide (CO2) new projects are permitted to produce. The second option is to allow new gas projects only if they replace coal, and the third option is to impose a “sunset clause” that would prevent any new gas infrastructure from being built beyond December 31, 2030.
“So here are three basic conditions under which you may describe your project, namely the space where the gas, even if it’s a fossil, can be regarded as valuable for the transition, “he explained.
According to InfluenceMap, firms such as Equinor and TotalEnergies have fought against the proposed CO2 cap.
Equinor, which is investing in green hydrogen while continuing to drill for more oil and gas, confirmed that it has been involved in EU policy and stated that it would support the CO2 cap on electricity and heating projects, but not in other circumstances, such as new gas projects to assist in the coal transition in some regions.
“We regard natural gas as a cornerstone to the EU’s decarbonization initiatives, as do many member state governments,” the business added. Natural gas may be “decarbonized” by carbon capture and storage, according to the text.
However, no present technology can remove 100 percent of CO2 from natural gas, and a key Cornell University blue hydrogen research published in August found that blue hydrogen currently emits 20% more CO2 than natural gas. This is partly due to the fact that methane, a greenhouse gas, leaks into the carbon capture process.
TotalEnergies, a French corporation, declined to comment on its stance on the emission limit but did say it is investing in blue and green hydrogen. She asserted that natural gas is now “the greatest choice for providing the world with the energy it needs while combating global warming,” and that she is even “an energy transition advocate.”
Natural gas, despite its clean reputation, is a big contribution to the climate issue. Methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term, makes up the majority of it. It was first utilized in the 1970s and became popular in the 1990s when it was marketed as a “bridge fuel,” a cleaner alternative to coal that would ultimately be phased out as renewable energy became more prevalent.
However, the globe has gotten addicted to gas, and this “bridge” has grown so long that governments are beginning to realize they have no idea when or where it will terminate.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global natural gas consumption is at an all-time high. In the EU, usage has decreased slightly since its peak in 2010, although not significantly, and is still higher than it was in the 1990s.
The rate of increase in the EU is a strong indication that gas is not going away anytime soon, especially in Europe.
According to the Global Energy Monitor (GEM), over 17,000 kilometers of pipelines were under construction in the EU by the end of 2020. There are 65 projects totaling 72.6 billion euros (about R$ 467 billion) spread across 23 nations. The total value of other liquefied natural gas projects is 15.5 billion euros (about R$99.7 billion).
New natural gas projects, depending on how they are constructed, can last for a long period.
The pipelines and gas plants that the GEM’s Europe Gas Tracker service have a usable life of 30 to 40 years, according to Greig Aitken, who warns that any new gas infrastructure will block fossil fuel and undermine the world’s climate ambitions. Block or compel the cancellation of projects.
“A tipping point has been reached,” he added, “and given the timelines involved, there really shouldn’t be any new gas infrastructure commissioning from now on unless corporations and their financiers absolutely embrace the concept of having lost assets on their books.” Aitken.
So, where has the green hydrogen vanished to? To create additional electrolyzers (machines that produce hydrogen from water), as well as a significant rise in renewable energy sources, the sector needs a windfall in the capital.
A decision like the EU’s on taxonomy might result in money going to blue hydrogen instead of green hydrogen.
However, the industry is gaining traction. On a monthly basis, a new green hydrogen initiative appears somewhere in the world, and even the fossil fuel businesses that support blue hydrogen are beginning to look green as well. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, green hydrogen might become cheaper than blue hydrogen by 2030, if – and this is a huge “if” – the sector obtains enough buy-in.
“Green hydrogen demonstrates that the world has a clean, practical, and implementable route out of global warming,” said Andrew Forrest, whose business Fortescue Future Industries is significantly invested in the technology.
Forrest, an Australian mining magnate who founded Fortescue Metals Group, is banking big on green hydrogen to not just decarbonize his company’s whole mining business, but also to turn Fortescue into a global renewable energy powerhouse.
All this discussion of blending blue hydrogen with natural gas is a diversion for Forrest. He argues that the energy transition must occur immediately, rather than relying on another “bridge” fuel.
“Fossil fuel firms who claim natural gas, blue hydrogen, or gray hydrogen is a solution to climate change are lying to the world,” Forrest added.
“Any type of hydrogen that isn’t green is unclean and requires the use of fossil fuels to manufacture.” It’s like non-carcinogenic charcoal or cigarettes.”
