Past the Hydrogen Mirage: A Candid Dialog with Joe Romm

Not too long ago, I had the chance to sit down down once more with Dr. Joseph Romm to debate his then about to be launched e-book, The Hype About Hydrogen, accessible now on Amazon. That is the second half of our dialog, frivolously edited.

Michael Barnard [MB]: Welcome again to Redefining Power — Tech. I’m your host, Michael Barnard. My visitor at the moment is Dr. Joseph Romm, senior analysis fellow on the College of Pennsylvania heart for Science, Sustainability and the Media, working with Michael Mann. His work focuses on the sustainability, scalability and scientific underpinnings of main local weather options. The twentieth anniversary model of his e-book The Hype about Hydrogen dropped on Earth Day, and we’re right here to speak about it. That is the second half of our dialog.

Joe Romm [JR]: Let’s be trustworthy. A part of the resurgence of curiosity in oil and gasoline corporations is as a result of they’re those who know learn how to use hydrogen. They’re those who know learn how to transfer it round. I’ve all the time felt the explanation they pushed it so exhausting is that they by no means believed inexperienced hydrogen could be cost-effective. They assumed individuals would finally come working again to them to make it from methane—with guarantees to seize some carbon alongside the best way.

And so they had been proper. Now we’re seeing all these apologists saying, “Okay, properly, inexperienced hydrogen might not be cost-effective for some time, so within the meantime, we’ll make it from methane. We promise we’ll seize the carbon.” However as we’ve seen with common carbon seize, virtually nobody delivers. Everybody claims they’ll hit 90 or 95 %, however hardly anybody captures something near that.

[MB]: I used to level to Sleipner’s North Sea facility as most likely the best-case state of affairs. And even then, it was nonetheless a bit odd. For individuals who don’t know, it’s an offshore pure gasoline platform. They extract gasoline from beneath the seabed, nevertheless it accommodates an excessive amount of carbon dioxide—about 8%, if I bear in mind accurately. In order that they separate out the CO₂ and get large tax credit from the Norwegian authorities to inject it again underground. And so they really do it.

I used to assume, no less than it was Norwegian engineering—environment friendly, dependable. However then final 12 months we discovered they’d been underperforming for 5 years. They’d pumped far much less CO₂ underground than they claimed. Even the Norwegians can’t get it proper.

[JR]: I’ve a bit within the e-book on Sleipner as a result of there’s a standard false impression on this nation about carbon seize and storage. The individuals pushing it are principally oil corporations, and more often than not they use the captured CO₂ to extract extra oil from the bottom. Occidental’s acquisition of Carbon Engineering was clearly for that function. I hope all of us perceive that capturing CO₂—from an influence plant or from the air—after which utilizing it to extract extra oil shouldn’t be a sustainable resolution. It doesn’t remedy local weather change.

The fact is that efficient carbon storage requires some huge cash for monitoring and verification. Sleipner is an efficient instance: the CO₂ is injected underwater, beneath the ocean ground, right into a formation they declare is geologically sealed. However to comprehend it’s actually sealed—and that the CO₂ isn’t migrating—you want steady, costly monitoring. CO₂ spreads. It could actually discover outdated cracks you didn’t know had been there, or create new ones over time.

Within the e-book, I focus on two case research: Sleipner and the In Salah mission in Algeria. In each circumstances, long-term monitoring revealed that the CO₂ didn’t simply keep the place they put it. It moved. This issues. Particularly now, when the literature is obvious—and we noticed this emphasised at COP 29 in Azerbaijan with two main research—that if you wish to genuinely displace fossil gasoline emissions, it’s good to retailer CO₂ completely. CO₂ stays within the environment for a very long time. So when you’re going to take away it, it’s good to lock it away for hundreds of years. If it leaks in 100 years, you haven’t actually solved something. You’ve simply delayed the issue.

For this reason measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) are so necessary—however nobody needs to pay for them on this nation. Oil corporations say, “Give us the CO₂, pay us a tax credit score, and belief us—we’ll bury it and it gained’t come again.” However they don’t need legal responsibility. They need immunity in case one thing goes flawed. If a CO₂ plume resurfaces in a decade and harms individuals, they don’t wish to be held accountable.

That’s the definition of an ethical hazard. No accountability, no actual incentive to get it proper. When you actually wish to do carbon seize and storage responsibly, you need to put money into long-term monitoring and verification. In any other case, it’s simply one other phantasm.

[MB]: Effectively, the excellent news about Northern Lights—the Norwegian carbon storage mission—is that the ships are lastly going to begin transferring this 12 months. And I say it’s excellent news not as a result of it makes any actual sense, however as a result of it can quickly develop into painfully apparent to everybody that it doesn’t.

Norway paid for roughly 80% of the capital value utilizing cash from its sovereign wealth fund, so it’s already pulled an enormous quantity of worth out of fossil fuels to fund this. On high of that, they’re subsidizing BECCS crops to ship CO₂ to Northern Lights. The one facility that even approaches fiscal sanity is Yara’s dockside ammonia plant, which produces a comparatively pure stream of CO₂.

However even then, Yara has to buffer, compress, and liquefy that CO₂ at nice expense, whereas ready for one of many Northern Lights ships to reach. Then the ship travels 700 kilometers round-trip to the injection web site. And that web site, whereas technically on land, is reached by way of a 100-kilometer undersea pipeline that dives 2 kilometers right down to a storage formation supposedly sealed by impermeable shale that can maintain the gasoline ceaselessly.

It’s an astonishing quantity of engineering and cash. They’ve gone as far as to equip the ships with Flettner rotors to achieve an additional 3% effectivity. They’re additionally utilizing air lubrication methods below the hulls, sluggish steaming—ways we don’t usually apply on normal cargo vessels barring the sluggish steaming—all to scale back the CO₂ emissions from the maritime gasoline powering the ships. When the phantasm breaks and other people begin including up the actual prices, it’s going to be eye-opening.

[JR]: It’s necessary for individuals to grasp that while you seize CO₂, it’s a gasoline—however to retailer it, it’s good to convert it into supercritical CO₂. That’s a state the place it’s neither a real gasoline nor a real liquid. It has about half the density of water, and it’s saved at round 1,000 kilos per sq. inch. In that state, it behaves as a solvent—supercritical CO₂ is definitely utilized in business for precisely that function.

So while you inject it underground, you’re injecting a high-pressure solvent into geological formations. This isn’t a easy “hearth and overlook” course of. It requires critical engineering, long-term oversight, and a deep understanding of subsurface conduct. The primary time I noticed the equation for this, it actually hit me—that is way more advanced and dangerous than most individuals understand.

Vaclav Smil did a calculation the place he identified that if you wish to seize and transfer round 3 billion tons of CO₂—whether or not it’s from energy crops or some other supply—you’re coping with a logistical burden equal in quantity to greater than 90 million barrels of oil per day. That’s roughly the identical scale as your entire world oil manufacturing and supply system, which took a century to construct. When you assume you’re going to recreate that sort of infrastructure in a technology, you may wish to assume once more.

And that’s only for 3 billion tons. Complete world greenhouse gasoline emissions are 50 billion tons yearly. Even when you’re solely aiming for a 6% resolution, you’re nonetheless speaking about constructing a whole world petroleum-scale infrastructure simply to bury waste—and it higher keep buried. If it leaks out over the subsequent hundred years, you haven’t solved the issue.
The purpose isn’t that carbon seize or hydrogen are utterly nugatory. The purpose, as I emphasize within the e-book, is that we have to concentrate on applied sciences which are scalable now and able to driving emissions down quickly. We’ve been growing emissions for over 30 years. We’re at COP29 now. In a TEDx speak, I identified that there have been over 30 annual world local weather conferences—together with one we missed throughout COVID—and emissions have saved rising your entire time.

So except we begin slicing emissions sharply and shortly, we’re in deep trouble. That’s what I posted about not too long ago, and that’s what the monetary sector appears to be acknowledging quietly. As an alternative of screaming for speedy motion, they’re hedging—investing in air con, insurance coverage, and adaptation. That tells you one thing.

The actual trick is to spend as a lot cash as attainable on the issues which are more likely to work—and as little as attainable on issues that most likely gained’t. I’m a physicist, and I ran a billion-dollar R&D workplace. I’d by no means say an issue can by no means be solved, however the factor about hydrogen is, it’s not fixing only one downside.

Folks discuss “gold hydrogen”—naturally occurring hydrogen underground—as if simply discovering it solves all the pieces. However, as I argue within the e-book, there are no less than 5 main challenges. Twenty years in the past, I used to say you wanted three or 4 miracles to make hydrogen viable. And normally, it solely takes one deadly flaw to kill an concept. However over time, I spotted one thing deeper: when you’re keen to consider in a single miracle, you’ll consider in 4. It’s like infinity—whether or not it’s one or 4, it’s nonetheless an infinite leap of religion.

So, saying “we simply have to make inexperienced hydrogen” isn’t sufficient. That also doesn’t get hydrogen to finish customers. It nonetheless leaks. It’s nonetheless some of the harmful substances recognized to humankind. And nobody needs to speak in regards to the questions of safety. So no, I’m not saying we must always abandon all hydrogen. We’ll, in some unspecified time in the future, want to exchange the soiled hydrogen we at the moment produce. Proper now, we make about 100 million tons of it a 12 months, and manufacturing retains rising by about 5% yearly.

However hydrogen accounts for less than about 2% of worldwide greenhouse gasoline emissions. So sure, it’s necessary—however not pressing. There are hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like worldwide air journey, that contribute 2–3% of worldwide emissions. All of us agree they’re tough and costly to repair proper now. So possibly let’s not concentrate on them first.

What we want is the sort of cost-curve considering that McKinsey and others used to do. Let’s go after the comparatively simple 80%. Let’s focus R&D on the tough 20%, like hydrogen, with out prematurely scaling up costly, dangerous applied sciences for marginal positive factors. We have to cease chasing shiny distractions and concentrate on what really will get emissions down—quick.

[MB]: The factor about hydrogen is that round 40% of worldwide manufacturing is used for refining oil—and that 40% is overwhelmingly tied to heavy, high-sulfur crude from locations like Alberta, Mexico, and Venezuela. I really did the maths and the workup on this, and folk at Schlumberger checked out it and mentioned, “Yeah, that checks out.” And they’d know.

It really works out to about 7.7 kilograms of hydrogen per barrel for Alberta’s crude. Against this, for mild, candy crude—like among the greatest from Brent or Saudi Arabia—it’s solely about 1.2 kilograms per barrel. So while you take a look at that, it turns into clear: if hydrogen turns into costlier, and if oil demand declines, hydrogen demand goes to say no as properly.

The identical logic applies to ammonia-based fertilizers. If hydrogen turns into extra expensive, we’ll cease overusing them. Alternate options like agrigenetics and precision agriculture develop into extra aggressive, and in lots of circumstances, cheaper. There’s an actual financial argument there.

I had a dialog not too long ago with Michael Liebreich the place he admitted he’d gotten the worth level for hydrogen flawed when doing the primary model of the hydrogen ladder. He had different causes for considering hydrogen wouldn’t be a giant deal, however he mentioned the hydrogen ladder would have appeared completely different if he’d had the best worth assumptions. I received fortunate—I did the fee workups and the modeling earlier than I put out my hydrogen projections. I preserve saying this: I don’t assume I’m proper. I simply assume I’m much less flawed than most. And on this case, I received fortunate. I may have been simply as embarrassed as numerous different individuals are at the moment.

However there’s one thing we haven’t actually talked about: hydrogen leakage. There are two main issues. First, if hydrogen accumulates in an enclosed area and ignites, it’s extraordinarily harmful. However the second concern is extra delicate and sometimes ignored.

You’ve smelled pure gasoline earlier than—it stinks. That’s as a result of we add odorants in order that leaks could be detected and other people can evacuate. However you may’t do this with hydrogen. The odorants that work for different gases destroy gasoline cells. So if you wish to use hydrogen for each electrical energy and heating, you’d want two completely separate distribution methods: one for clear hydrogen feeding gasoline cells, and one other with odorants for security in buildings.

Oddly, this appears to be utterly missed by many hydrogen proponents. I discover that unusual. Do they only not know? Are they refusing to take care of it? Or is that this only one extra miracle they assume will by some means be solved later

[JR]: The security concern round hydrogen is usually casually hand-waved away by individuals who say, “Effectively, it’s used safely.” And certain, that’s true—below very strict situations. However let’s take a look at what nations like India really do to make use of it safely. Their rules require a 100-foot setback between any constructing that produces or shops hydrogen and the closest construction. That’s as a result of the hearth danger is so excessive. You additionally want large air flow in any enclosed area the place hydrogen may accumulate. In any other case, you danger a gasoline bubble forming—and hydrogen, as we all know, burns.

However it’s worse than that. Hydrogen is odorless, and as you identified, it burns invisibly. That’s why, in NASA security handbooks, you’ll discover steerage like this: when you’re getting into a room the place there could be a hydrogen hearth, carry a brush. As a result of the broom will ignite earlier than you do. That’s not a joke—it’s a workaround for the truth that hydrogen flame detectors aren’t superb. Possibly individuals are engaged on higher sensors, however hydrogen is the tiniest molecule within the universe. It leaks by seals, gaskets, joints—supplies that simply include different gases.

And that leakiness issues. In any facility the place hydrogen could be current, staff should put on static-free clothes. Why? As a result of hydrogen has one-twentieth the ignition power of gasoline. It’s so flamable {that a} static discharge—or perhaps a lightning storm miles away—may set it off. It additionally burns at a a lot increased velocity than pure gasoline, growing the blast danger.

There’s one other essential distinction. Pure gasoline solely ignites in air at a reasonably slender focus—one thing like 5% to fifteen%. Hydrogen, alternatively, can ignite in air throughout an enormous vary—from roughly 4% all the best way as much as 75% or 80%, relying on situations. Which means it’s way more more likely to discover an ignition level.

The underside line is, you need to deal with hydrogen with excessive care. And that sort of care prices cash—cash individuals don’t wish to spend. That’s additionally one cause it makes little sense to place hydrogen anyplace close to a nuclear reactor. In actual fact, nuclear engineers have studied hydrogen intimately due to what occurred at Three Mile Island. Throughout that catastrophe, a hydrogen bubble fashioned contained in the reactor containment vessel. It shocked the general public. Nobody had anticipated it, and there was actual worry it may explode and breach the containment construction.

So sure, hydrogen can be utilized safely—however solely with critical precautions. And most of these precautions make it too advanced and expensive for broad, distributed use.

[MB]: That’s really what occurred at Fukushima—it was hydrogen that exploded. The reactors generated hydrogen, which amassed and finally ignited, inflicting the blasts that destroyed elements of the ability.

However I’ll level out one thing attention-grabbing: hydrogen can also be utilized in a really managed approach at nuclear crops. It’s used to lubricate the bearings on massive generators as a result of it’s a wonderful coolant and lubricant in these high-speed environments. There’s really one small-scale nuclear-hydrogen use case that I believed made numerous sense. A plant put in a small electrolyzer onsite particularly to exchange the grey hydrogen they’d beforehand trucked in for turbine lubrication. As an alternative, they used a tiny quantity of auxiliary “vampire” energy—round 0.003% of whole output—to supply all of the hydrogen they wanted.

That’s a genuinely good use case. However it was small, and crucially, it wasn’t about utilizing hydrogen as a gasoline. That’s an necessary distinction I wish to emphasize: all the pieces we’re speaking about right here—hydrogen’s security, leakage, infrastructure challenges—it’s all within the context of hydrogen for power. That’s the place the issues lie.

Joe and I are each very supportive of inexperienced hydrogen when it’s used as an industrial feedstock. In that position, it is sensible. It has actual use circumstances. It’s hydrogen for power that is still basically flawed.

[JR]: Making ammonia cleanly is feasible—it’s simply costly.

[MB]: Making hydrogen to burn it or run it by a gasoline cell is a foul concept—plain and easy.

[JR]: Proper. And I do know we regularly attempt to keep away from moving into ethics, nevertheless it’s price stating the fundamentals. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. Once you burn them, you oxidize the hydrogen into water and the carbon into CO₂. Each reactions launch warmth, which we’ve traditionally valued. However water and CO₂ are the top merchandise of combustion. That’s the top of the thermodynamic highway.

So when individuals attempt to reverse that—once they discuss turning water again into hydrogen and pulling CO₂ from the air, the place it’s current at simply 420 elements per million—after which combining them to make artificial fuels, they’re attempting to reverse entropy. And thermodynamics tells us very clearly: when you try and reverse entropy, you’re going to pay an enormous effectivity penalty. That’s the second legislation—the well-known idea of exergy. If it’s dangerous for hydrogen, it’s worse for direct air seize.

And when you’re silly sufficient to say, “I’m going to take hydrogen from water and CO₂ from air and run them by a Fischer-Tropsch course of to make an artificial gasoline, simply to burn it once more”—properly, possibly contemplate that it will be higher to not burn something within the first place. The literature is obvious: that pathway is 10 to twenty instances much less environment friendly than direct electrification.

And folks overlook—or conveniently ignore—that it’s not simply the electrolyzer that has to run on 100% clear electrical energy. That electrical energy needs to be new, native, and hourly matched. And you need to energy the direct air seize system with that very same clear power. And the Fischer-Tropsch plant too. The whole renewable power requirement is staggering.
So then the query turns into: the place are you going to place this factor? We’ve already used many of the simply accessible, high-quality renewables. Are we going to construct this large artificial gasoline advanced in the course of the Sahara Desert? Is that actually the sign?

That’s the sort of logic we’re seeing from Germany, for instance. I used to be speaking to a Bloomberg reporter who talked about a narrative about plans to make use of photo voltaic in Namibia to make hydrogen for export to Germany. I mentioned: so as a substitute of utilizing that African solar energy to construct up the native financial system, you’re going to make hydrogen, discover some technique to ship it north in some expensive and inefficient type, after which burn it in a metal plant in Europe?

That’s your plan? You’re going to construct a metal plant that is dependent upon imported hydrogen from an African desert? And what’s actually exhausting for you and me is attempting to speak about this with a straight face—as a result of these are sensible individuals. Severe individuals. And so they’re severely speaking about investing billions into one thing that is dependent upon a number of miracles to even operate.

[MB]: Yeah, a couple of years in the past I did a serious research of the Maghreb area and North Africa—Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt—and the European plans to construct inexperienced hydrogen packages there for export to Europe. I spoke about it at a convention in Tunisia, the place I used to be on a panel, and I mentioned fairly plainly: that is all going to fail.

However whereas the Europeans are being silly and spending some huge cash, the chance for these nations is to leverage that funding. Construct out wind, photo voltaic, transmission, and storage infrastructure. Use it to decarbonize your personal economies. As a result of whether or not or not the hydrogen export plans succeed, you’re nonetheless going to be affected by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Every part you at the moment export to Europe will face growing carbon tariffs. The way in which to keep away from that? Decarbonize domestically.

However what struck me—and I’ll attempt to say this politely—is the diploma to which Europe nonetheless behaves as if it doesn’t have a colonial legacy. It does. And it’s usually blind to that reality. The remainder of the world isn’t.

There’s a strong second captured on video: a German minister—probably even a chancellor—is chatting with an African chief, laying out local weather or power expectations. And the African chief simply blasts them. He says, in impact: you don’t have the ethical authority to inform us learn how to dwell properly. And he’s proper.

[JR]: I attempt to give you analogies within the e-book to assist individuals perceive this. For me, the most effective analogy is that this: think about you wish to ship water someplace. So as a substitute of simply sending water, you exchange it into champagne, ship the champagne, after which distill it again into water on the vacation spot. That’s the plan. And by some means we’re speculated to assume that is sensible.

Sure, it’s true that hydrogen can be utilized for direct power purposes. However is it the one technique to do these issues? No—not even shut.

Within the e-book, I interviewed one of many senior leaders of the Worldwide Power Company’s hydrogen program, and I quote him at size within the conclusion. One of many causes individuals are nonetheless so optimistic about hydrogen is that the IEA’s Web Zero by 2050 roadmap contains it. Hydrogen is within the mannequin as a result of for some sectors, there’s no different apparent pathway. So it turns into a placeholder.

However what he advised me was placing. He mentioned, principally, all the most important technological advances of the previous decade have made hydrogen much less believable, no more. Each large step has been pro-electric: advances in batteries, in warmth pumps, in electrical automobiles. All of it factors to electrification because the cheaper, extra environment friendly, extra scalable path.

[MB]: Molten oxide electrolysis is now being developed in labs world wide. Then there’s China’s new inexperienced metal course of, which is reportedly primarily based on their current copper manufacturing methodology. Neither of those approaches—molten oxide electrolysis or China’s new course of—makes use of hydrogen in any respect.

I’m nonetheless listening to rumblings, and I haven’t had time to completely dig into them—one particular person, two eyeballs—however some early indications recommend that molten oxide electrolysis could also be utilizing much less electrical energy end-to-end than different decarbonized steelmaking strategies. And if it consumes much less power and avoids the problems of hydrogen completely, it’s most likely going to be cheaper too.

[JR]: Proper. That’s precisely the purpose—something you are able to do instantly with electrical energy, you’re by no means going to do extra effectively with hydrogen. And even when electrical energy has some limitations, they’re nowhere close to as extreme because the challenges that include hydrogen.

Right here’s what I’d say to the metal business: let’s record the sectors which are exhausting to decarbonize however that we don’t should rush proper now. We don’t want to exchange all of the soiled hydrogen instantly—it solely accounts for about 2% of worldwide emissions and comes with excessive prices. We don’t want to completely decarbonize long-distance air journey but. We don’t have to exchange all worldwide transport. And we don’t have to completely decarbonize metal at the moment. These are 4 of the toughest issues. Let’s give them a while.

As a result of the selection proper now could be this: are you going to spend billions constructing a hydrogen-based metal plant at the moment, despite the fact that there’s no inexperienced hydrogen accessible and certain gained’t be at scale for years—if ever? Or may we put money into R&D on various steelmaking applied sciences that don’t rely on hydrogen in any respect? A few of these are already rising.
Sure, they may not be prepared tomorrow. However till we’ve achieved the comparatively simple 80 to 90 % of emissions reductions—by electrification, renewables, effectivity, and grid upgrades—we shouldn’t be spending enormous sums to chase applied sciences that find yourself costing $500 or extra per ton of CO₂ decreased. That’s not local weather technique—that’s waste.

[MB]: I’m a broad-spectrum nerd—I simply have to know the way issues work. After which I go away a breadcrumb path of what I’ve found out. More often than not, I’m not terribly flawed. I get nice corrections from individuals, and that helps refine issues. On the subject of metal, I really see a very encouraging story—with or with out hydrogen.
China produces half of the world’s metal, and it’s on the finish of its infrastructure increase. It stopped allowing new blast furnaces final 12 months and is pivoting towards electrical arc furnaces (EAFs) to utilize its 260 to 280 million tons of home scrap. That’s a giant shift.

In the meantime, Europe and the UK are sitting at simply 20 to 40% scrap utilization. They’re nonetheless exporting tens of thousands and thousands of tons of scrap annually as a substitute of turning it into new metal, and so they’re nonetheless working blast furnaces. It’s simply baffling.
The US—regardless of my numerous critiques, each historic and present—has been working EAFs for about 70% of its metal demand since round 2000. They’re really the worldwide chief in electrical arc furnace deployment. Sure, they nonetheless use pure gasoline for preheating and will electrify additional, however the basis is already there.

Between the worldwide shift towards electrical arc furnaces and a possible discount in whole metal demand, we’re going to see main modifications within the metal sector’s carbon footprint. This is among the few brilliant spots.

And sure, we did discuss leakage. I discussed desirous to go in two instructions with that. As a result of, 20 or 25 years in the past, hydrogen was hyped because the clear resolution—it burns cleanly, and when utilized in a gasoline cell, the one byproduct is water. That was the narrative. However the extra we’ve discovered about leakage, infrastructure prices, and real-world implementation, the much less convincing that story has develop into.

It’s introduced as a local weather resolution. Sure, we all know it leaks—however by some means that’s brushed apart as only a security concern. And for some cause, individuals really feel snug discounting it. Why? I don’t know. However I’m guessing you’ve been following the rising analysis on the worldwide warming potential of hydrogen.

[JR]: Because it seems, hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse gasoline within the conventional sense—it doesn’t instantly entice warmth. However it’s an oblique greenhouse gasoline, as a result of it extends the atmospheric lifetime of different heat-trapping gases, most notably methane.

Over the previous 5 to seven years, scientists have revisited the numbers. Our understanding of atmospheric chemistry has improved, our fashions have gotten higher, and—frankly—I don’t assume anybody ten years in the past imagined we’d nonetheless be severely entertaining a hydrogen financial system. However as soon as curiosity resurged, the scientific group took one other look. And what they discovered is regarding.

The 20-year world warming potential (GWP) of hydrogen is now estimated to be round 35, give or take. That’s a lot increased than we beforehand thought—and it’s a major problem.

Traditionally, the main target was on the 100-year GWP, which is why we didn’t fear an excessive amount of about pure gasoline. Carbon dioxide lasts a very long time within the environment, so it dominates the hundred-year body. However now, with rising consciousness of short-lived local weather forcers, we’re trying on the 20-year affect extra carefully—as a result of we urgently have to restrict warming within the close to time period to purchase time for deeper, long-term options.

That’s why methane has come below such scrutiny. Over 20 years, methane has a GWP of about 80. And we now know there’s widespread methane leakage throughout the financial system. Robert Howarth at Cornell was closely criticized for elevating this early on, however he’s since been vindicated. His analysis confirmed that you just solely want 2–3% methane leakage earlier than pure gasoline is not any higher than coal. And because it seems, hydrogen leaks way more simply than methane.

This brings us to the infrastructure downside. How will we transport hydrogen? Ideally, by pipelines—however these require a assured purchaser and vendor earlier than they’re constructed. That’s the traditional chicken-and-egg downside. When you don’t have established hydrogen demand, nobody builds the pipelines. However with out the pipelines, nobody builds hydrogen-using services. So nobody goes first. That downside was recognized over 20 years in the past—and it nonetheless hasn’t been solved.

In observe, most hydrogen is more likely to be moved by truck, both compressed to very excessive pressures—as much as 10,000 psi—or liquefied. Liquefaction permits for a lot higher power density, so you may transport extra hydrogen per journey. However it comes with enormous power penalties. And in sure circumstances—like tunnels—liquid hydrogen poses further security issues that compressed gasoline may not.

So between its oblique warming results, its excessive leakage charge, and the unsolved logistics of protected and environment friendly distribution, hydrogen as a local weather resolution seems far much less promising than proponents would love us to consider.

[MB]: Proper—you’re not allowed to take liquid hydrogen by tunnels. The security dangers are simply too excessive.

[JR]: There are all the time problems. Considered one of them is that canisters can’t really dispense all of the hydrogen they maintain—the strain dynamics forestall it. These are the sorts of sensible realities that get brushed apart within the magical considering that always surrounds hydrogen.

When individuals think about hydrogen-powered vehicles, they usually discuss utilizing liquid hydrogen—as a result of when you attempt to cram compressed hydrogen onboard at 10,000 psi, you don’t find yourself with a lot gasoline. You want specialised, inflexible, non-moldable tanks, which limits the way you design the automobile. And each fueling station would have to be outfitted with 12,000 psi overpressure pumps simply to refill these tanks.

That provides large complexity and price. And right here’s the kicker: all of that infrastructure is totally nugatory if the hydrogen financial system doesn’t materialize. When you construct 1,000 hydrogen fueling stations with ultra-high-pressure pumps and the market doesn’t take off, you’re left with stranded property—services nobody can repurpose and nobody needs to keep up.

There are simply so many factors of failure on this imaginative and prescient, and that’s why nobody’s writing the verify. The danger is simply too excessive, the return too unsure, and the options—electrification specifically—are less complicated, cheaper, and already scaling.

[MB]: And so they’re vastly costlier and much much less modular or manufacturable than megawatt-scale charging infrastructure.

[JR]: However if you wish to produce inexperienced hydrogen domestically at every fueling station, then each station must be situated close to an enormous renewable power supply. In any other case, you’re simply pulling electrical energy from the grid—which doubtless contains fossil technology—and that defeats the entire function. You’re not fixing the emissions downside; you’re simply shifting it round.

[MB]: Let’s face it—even when we energy battery-electric vehicles with at the moment’s grid electrical energy, they’re nonetheless not as clear as they could possibly be. However they’re vastly higher than hydrogen-powered vehicles. Hydrogen has about one-third the effectivity of direct electrification for highway freight. So when you’re utilizing electrical energy to make hydrogen, you’re successfully multiplying any CO₂ emissions from that electrical energy by three.

However let’s get again to the core level—you’re going to a selected place with this, as a result of we’re speaking about world warming potential. And that modifications how we consider all of this.

[JR]: Leakage is a serious concern, particularly given the pressures concerned. That’s why lots of people recommend switching to liquid hydrogen as a substitute. I preserve seeing proposals: liquid hydrogen for planes, liquid hydrogen vehicles, vehicles powered by liquid hydrogen, or vehicles delivering liquid hydrogen. It’s in all places. However the assumption appears to be that utilizing liquid type by some means solves the storage and transport downside—when in actuality, it simply introduces a complete new set of challenges.

[MB]: Daimler is closely invested on this. They’ve even received a member of their board of administrators performing as a vocal spokesperson for hydrogen, particularly in transport.

[JR]: This is among the craziest concepts on the market. First, liquefying hydrogen consumes about 40% of its power content material—you need to cool it down to close absolute zero. We’re speaking a lot colder than liquid nitrogen or liquid CO₂. The power inefficiency of that course of is staggering.

However it doesn’t cease there. As soon as the liquid hydrogen is within the tank, it begins to heat up. It sloshes round throughout transport—and sure, there are precise research on the sloshing impact. Because it warms, it begins to re-gasify, creating strain contained in the tank. And proper now, the usual technique to take care of that strain? You vent it. You simply let the hydrogen escape into the environment.

[MB]: I’ll say that Air Liquide really captures boil-off in Europe—as a result of they’re required to by regulation.

[JR]: And certain, you may pay to try this—seize the boil-off—however within the U.S., I don’t assume there’s a single truck doing it. To make that attainable, you’d should scrap the present fleet and set up completely new know-how. And bear in mind, you’re not simply capturing the vented hydrogen—you additionally should re-cool it.

So by some means this truck that’s already transporting liquid hydrogen would additionally want to hold the facility and gear to maintain it chilly sufficient to stop boil-off. That’s an enormous ask. It means you may’t transport it very far. And that’s the purpose—I’ve been this, and it simply doesn’t add up.

[MB]: Hydrogen leaks in all places. Each time you do something with it—each switch level, each contact level—you’re no less than 1% leakage. That’s what the information persistently exhibits. In California, there was one hydrogen fueling station with 35% leakage. After years of remediation, they managed to carry it down to simply below 10%.

In South Korea, once they inspected hydrogen vehicles and buses, 15% had been leaking. An electrolyzer station in Northern Europe—engineered to excessive requirements—nonetheless confirmed leakage charges between 1% and 4%. That’s simply the fact.
And while you begin multiplying these numbers throughout a full hydrogen provide chain, issues worsen quick. In case your worth chain has seven or eight switch factors—and lots of do—you’re simply 10% leakage end-to-end.

Multiply that by hydrogen’s 20-year world warming potential of 35, and also you’ve received a major warming affect. That’s not a local weather resolution. That’s an issue.

[JR]: It’s numerous warming—full cease. And even setting apart hydrogen’s world warming potential, the inefficiency alone is cause sufficient to keep away from shedding any of it. It’s insane, actually. What we’re saying is that our supposed resolution to world warming is a gasoline that extends the lifetime and abundance of methane within the environment.

After which I hear individuals say, “Effectively, we are able to’t do all of it with renewables, so we’ll simply make the hydrogen from pure gasoline.” Proper—so we’re going to make use of a leaky fossil system to make hydrogen, which is able to then leak out itself, additional extending the lifetime of methane within the environment. That’s not an answer; it’s a suggestions loop. And as I say on the finish of the e-book, the very last thing you’d ever wish to do in a world apprehensive about near-term warming is develop using pure gasoline. And but, that’s precisely what hydrogen does.

Even earlier than Trump, there have been actual questions on whether or not oil and gasoline corporations had been critical about tackling methane emissions. And bear in mind—methane is effective. You possibly can promote methane. Hydrogen? Not a lot. So if we haven’t gotten critical about containing methane, the place there’s a revenue motive, what makes us assume we’ll do higher with hydrogen?

No matter framework you employ—three or 4 miracles, or “turtles all the best way down”—the purpose is similar: there isn’t any foundational layer the place this hydrogen financial system really is sensible. It’s constructed on a stack of wishful assumptions.
And I get it. The local weather disaster is dire. Emissions preserve rising. It appears like we’re not performing quick sufficient. However we’re optimistic individuals—we consider know-how can remedy issues. And it could actually. There are actual applied sciences which are scaling at the moment and delivering emissions reductions.

However individuals want to grasp: hydrogen isn’t one among them. Not for power. Hydrogen isn’t an answer that exists ready for only one breakthrough to make all of it work. It’s not like a “remedy for most cancers” state of affairs the place one discovery unlocks all the pieces. It’s a fancy downside that requires fixing dozens of exhausting engineering, security, infrastructure, and financial challenges—lots of which don’t even overlap.

And that’s why the actual reply—the sensible, scalable, financial reply—is the electrification financial system. That’s the longer term.

[MB]: So we’re on the high of the hour. Usually I’d go away it with an open-ended query, however you’ve received a e-book popping out in six days. So let individuals know the place they will get it, what codecs it’s accessible in—and if there’s some sketchy black market vendor on the market, give of us a heads-up to steer clear.

[JR]: Effectively, look—I get that some individuals don’t wish to give cash to Amazon. And I’m not right here to defend Bezos. However the reality is, earlier than he grew to become no matter he’s now, he did revolutionize e-book manufacturing and supply. You possibly can consider him a bit like Elon Musk: there’s a “earlier than” and an “after.” The actual fact stays—Amazon constructed a remarkably environment friendly system for each paperback and digital books.

So yeah, if you wish to really feel conflicted and virtuous on the identical time, purchase it from Amazon. You actually ought to. Even my writer doesn’t suggest shopping for the e book by different platforms as a result of they will’t legally make it suitable. It’s not a real PDF, and it’s not a real Kindle file, so that they’ve explicitly mentioned: don’t purchase it there.

This isn’t a e-book crammed with figures or advanced formatting, so the Kindle model works nice. There shall be an audiobook finally, however for now, seize the paperback or the Kindle.

Personally, I like to recommend the Kindle. It’s extra environmentally pleasant, and actually, it’s extra helpful to me as an creator. I can see what readers are highlighting. And when a bunch of individuals underscore the identical line, I believe, okay, possibly that’s the half I ought to emphasize in a chat.

[MB]: Do you have got a launch occasion or something deliberate for the twenty second?

[JR]: No, I’ve been doing e-book talks, however we dwell in a world the place they don’t actually drive gross sales anymore. Podcasts are the trendy e-book tour, I believe..

[MB]: Effectively, I’m glad to be a part of it.

[JR]: Effectively, it’s digital, proper? And it’s Earth Day—that’s the purpose. I actually labored exhausting to get this out by Earth Day. So go to Amazon and purchase the paperback.

[MB]: Wonderful. That is Michael Barnard, the host of Redefining Power – Tech. My visitor at the moment has been Dr. Joseph Romm, whose twentieth anniversary version of The Hype About Hydrogen is out in six days. As he mentioned—purchase it on Amazon. Joe, thanks a lot for being on.

[JR]: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.