Making hydrogen a primary energy source for a sustainable future is the incorrect path to take. Instead, we should use renewable power to directly replace fossil energy wherever practical, particularly in transportation and heating.
By the middle of the century, the world must have phased out fossil fuels in order to reduce global warming. We’re heading in the correct path now. Renewable energy sources account for nearly all new energy investments. BEVs (battery-powered electric vehicles) are gaining popularity. Furthermore, the majority of new structures are devoid of fossil fuels. Of course, there are obstacles to overcome. All of this must occur more quickly, and a more consistent climate policy is required. What most endangers change, in my opinion, is now “camouflaged” as part of the solution: hydrogen.
Hydrogen, like electricity, is an energy transporter rather than an energy source. It may be made in three different ways. Gray hydrogen, which today accounts for nearly all use, is made from methane, which emits a lot of CO2 and uncontrolled methane. Blue hydrogen, like gray hydrogen, captures and stores CO2, but it still releases more greenhouse gases than the oil or natural gas it is designed to replace owing to methane losses (methane slip) and process inefficiencies.
Electrolysis and renewable power are used to create green hydrogen from water. It produces no direct emissions and is the sole environmentally friendly choice. The difficulty with green hydrogen is that, in most circumstances, using renewable energy directly is more efficient, cheaper, and resource-efficient. These elements are critical to the entire system’s success.
Take use of ground transportation. Compared to gasoline and diesel cars, BEVs are now cost competitive and are fast gaining market share. For the remaining 1% of travels, rapid chargers along highways provide extra ranges of over 400 km in less than 30 minutes – which generally corresponds to the breaks that drivers require anyhow. According to new research, battery-electric trucks are now cost-effective and perform as well over long distances. There are worries about battery manufacture being hazardous to the environment; nevertheless, circular economy principles can and will address this.
The electricity grid, which is required to charge BEVs, is already in place. As the number of BEVs on the road grows, we can steadily boost renewable energy output while also expanding the network of charging stations.
Heat pumps work in a similar way. They are the most efficient and cost-effective approach to heat using renewable energy. With the growing market share of heat pumps, the infrastructure may also be steadily expanded.
To the element hydrogen. Fuel cell electric cars (FCEVs) have the benefit of being able to refill faster than battery electric vehicles (BEVs). However, because the charging speed and range of BEVs are always improving, this becomes less essential over time. FCEVs have a significant disadvantage in that their overall efficiency – from power to green hydrogen, back to electricity, and on the bike – is half to a third of that of BEVs. FCEV is much more expensive than BEV, petrol, or diesel because to its greater energy consumption.
In addition, a new infrastructure for distributing and refueling hydrogen is required. Unlike BEVs, FCEVs would need to be built up first before they could be sold to the general public.
When it comes to heating, a similar image emerges: this is where “hydrogen-compatible” boilers, which can burn a mixture of natural gas and hydrogen, enter the market. Pure hydrogen boilers, as we will require them in the future, do not yet exist. Boilers have the short-term benefit over heat pumps in that they don’t require as much renovation. However, there are severe drawbacks, just as there are with traffic. Green hydrogen heating takes around six times the amount of renewable power as a heat pump. Because more energy is used, the expenses are greater. In addition, in order to employ pure hydrogen boilers, a new hydrogen distribution infrastructure would be required in parallel, and this would be necessary by 2050 at the earliest.
The main hurdle in transitioning away from fossil fuels, in my opinion, is increasing renewable power rapidly enough. More solar capacity is being constructed in Switzerland than ever before, but if we want to electrify all ground transportation and heating in part by 2050, we’ll need to double these rates. If green hydrogen triumphs, the already ambitious expansion will have to be accelerated significantly.
Despite these issues, there is widespread political support for hydrogen. To be clear, there are applications where hydrogen may help with decarbonization, such as seasonal energy storage, steel manufacturing, or as a stage in the synthesis of sustainable aviation fuels. The present ideas, on the other hand, go much beyond that.
For example, the EU’s hydrogen policy aims to make hydrogen a primary energy source for land transportation and heating by allocating billions of euros to research, planning, and infrastructure development. Although the Swiss government has no similar plans for heating, local cantons have stated that expanding infrastructure for BEV and FCEV is equally important. That doesn’t make sense from a scientific standpoint.
The closest answer I can come up with is that the government’s generosity toward hydrogen appears to be attributable to political meddling. According to a research by Corporate Europe Observatory, a group that investigates corporate influence on EU politics, the European hydrogen lobby spends more than 50 million euros per year on lobbying. The hydrogen lobby outnumbers environmental organizations by nearly five times when it comes to meetings with high-ranking members of the EU Commission. The majority of the money come from fossil fuel industries.
The oil and gas industry’s final chance for survival is hydrogen; as a result, they play the political game. If they succeed, the environment and society will suffer as a result.
Because the energy shift threatens to render gas and oil obsolete, this makes sense for the sector. The processing, storage, and transportation of fuels to clients via pipelines and sales stations are the key competencies of the fossil energy sector. Prioritizing hydrogen would slow the energy transition and help fossil assets last longer. If the demand for hydrogen exceeds the capacity of green hydrogen generation, natural gas-derived gray or blue hydrogen will be employed.
I know I’m not the only one who is concerned. Michael Liebreich, one of the top energy and cleantech analysts, has long thought that the oil business is pushing for hydrogen “in order to postpone electrification.” 17 British scholars recently published an open letter to their government, voicing grave reservations about similar hydrogen ambitions.
Again, green hydrogen has the potential to help with the energy transition in some locations. However, hydrogen is a horrible concept for ground transportation and heating, which account for the majority of fossil energy usage. The oil and gas sector is playing the political game because it is their final shot to survive.
If they win, the move to renewable energy will be postponed. More greenhouse gases will be released. Increase the amount of land and resources consumed. It will also be more expensive. The ecology and society would suffer as a result.
The author: Anthony Patt is a professor for climate protection and adaptation at the ETH Zurich.
