The first Coalition for the Science of Hydrogen was launched by a group of European scientists, academics, and engineers with the goal of issuing recommendations on the role of hydrogen in the energy transition, generating debate, and providing informed data to policymakers so that they can make decisions about hydrogen based on concrete evidence and not on commercial interests.
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Cambridge, David Cebon, has warned that politicians in the United Kingdom and the European Union are placing “big bets” on the future of hydrogen in the energy transition, despite the “important” role that this gas is called upon to play, experts are “concerned” about the growing” overdependence “of this, when cheaper and more scalable solutions, such as electrification, already exist.
The organization, which was created by five specialists with a substantial understanding of hydrogen, chemical engineering, and the economic decarbonization process from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands, has released a manifesto that is open to an endorsement from other experts.
One of them, Tom Baxter, a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde and a former BP engineer, believes that any choice to spend public funds in hydrogen must be based on evidence. “Relying solely on corporate interests to lead the development of a hydrogen industry risks undermining what the research indicates hydrogen’s potential role,” he warns.
In reality, it warns that hydrogen is a “challenge for decarbonization,” because it is still used as a key component in the production of nitrogen fertilizers, for example. In this regard, Paul Martin, a Toronto chemical engineer who specializes in development processes, claims that today’s fossil-based hydrogen emits almost the same amount of greenhouse gases as the worldwide aviation sector. As a result, he believes that policymakers should place a higher priority on making hydrogen green before considering how to use it.
According to the new coalition’s manifesto, science confirms that decarbonizing the global economy by mid-century is required to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and the International Energy Agency has stated that “To achieve these global zero-emission targets, the priority must be to leave fossil fuels behind.” This is not a small task for these specialists, and they believe hydrogen will be a part of the inventive solutions as “a key piece of this jigsaw.”
They claim in the manifesto that hydrogen is a “major decarbonization challenge that must begin to be addressed,” because most of the world’s hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels. Furthermore, they emphasize that there is “some misunderstanding” about which types of hydrogen should be prioritized and in which final industries, and they caution that many governments are exploring using hydrogen in areas where there are already cheaper and more efficient alternatives. They defend hydrogen’s “totally zero emissions” system as “important,” but note that it “does not exist on a wide scale,” thus they don’t anticipate hydrogen to have an influence on emissions in the next decade.
They also emphasize that the construction of a hydrogen economy is still a long way off, while science reminds us that we must act “now” to meet the zero-emissions objectives. The Hydrogen Science Coalition intends to bring evidence-based opinions to the table for political discussion in both the EU and the UK, amid all the uncertainty regarding the benefits and downsides of hydrogen. The manifesto reads, “We want to guarantee that policy decisions on hydrogen reflect the most effective approach toward attaining net-zero emissions by 2050.”
In this context, they advise governments to consider zero-emission hydrogen as a way to speed up the energy transition. They do point out, however, that the “only” true zero-emission hydrogen comes from renewable energy. According to him, policies should focus solely on green hydrogen, which can be produced using additional renewable energy sources such as solar or wind. They guarantee that if it doesn’t, it won’t have the essential influence on climate change.
Blue hydrogen, for example, which is formed from the combustion of natural gas and the attempt to capture CO2, should be utilized with caution. In this regard, they point out that a growing number of studies are shedding light on the lack of understanding about blue hydrogen’s impact on the climate, implying that its emissions may be as bad as or worse than simple emissions from burning fossil fuels. fossils, in addition to being a very expensive route.
On the other hand, they recommend that green hydrogen be developed to decarbonize sectors by utilizing it where gray hydrogen is already used: the alliance argues that it is a chance to decarbonize the economy in areas such as chemicals, agriculture, steel, and aviation.
They do caution, however, that hydrogen should not be used to postpone the implementation of other electrification options since “it is not currently the ideal answer if it carries a bigger risk or is more expensive than those that are already being developed.” Finally, this coalition, whose recommendations aim to fuel the debate around this energy option, asserts that using hydrogen to heat buildings or for transportation is “too expensive” at the moment because its production requires vast amounts of energy when compared to other electrification options.
