While hydrogen has a lot going for it as a replacement for fossil fuels, its benefits are being oversold and its costs underplayed. That’s the view of Tom Baxter a senior lecturer in chemical engineering at Scotland’s University of Aberdeen. Writing recently in The Conversation (the university is a founding partner of the UK publication), Baxter lays out the positives of H: most common element, can be produced from water, can be stored, no CO2 emissions, the existing natural gas grid can transport it, and it burns at a similar temperature as gas.
Wait a minute, Baxter writes. “Although hydrogen is the most common element in the universe it does not come for free. It is bound up in compounds such as fossil fuels and water and requires energy to break the chemical bonds to release it. It is not energy efficient: for every three units of energy provided by hydrogen you have to put one unit of energy in.”
In the United Kingdom, says Baxter, the current fossil fuel industry is pushing hydrogen to protect its existing interests. The Johnson government and British oil giant Shell chairs an advisory group, the “All Party Parliamentary Group” (APPG).The sponsors include “fossil fuel companies, gas grid operators, gas boiler manufacturers, and power companies.”
Baxter acknowledges, “There is nothing new or wrong in big business promoting their service or product, as they are mandated by their shareholders to turn a profit.” But these interests are over-hyping hydrogen, particularly when compared to other approaches to net zero emissions, such as electrification or biofuels. He cites a study by academics at Exeter and Imperial universities, which concluded, “Incumbents [actors within the heat sector] are overselling ‘green-gas’ to policy makers in order to protect their interests and detract from the importance and value of electrification.”
Baxter quotes Jacob Young, a 28-year-old Conservative Party member of Parliament, the APPG chairman, in a message to members that he wants to hear from those “relevant businesses and authorities” in the inquiry to “understand what needs to be done to ensure that hydrogen plays a crucial role in industrial decarbonization.” To Baxter, that means the inquiry’s outcome is “pre-determined.”
Hydrogen, Baxter says, “will have a role in reaching net zero. Hydrogen is a very useful building block for a range of chemicals that benefit society, none more so than ammonia which is used to produce fertiliser and help feed the planet. So our first hydrogen action should be to decarbonise current CO₂-emitting hydrogen production.
“Hydrogen may also find applications in heavy haulage, aviation, shipping and high temperature industrial processes. Let’s identify where hydrogen is to be used from comparative, sustainable people, profit and planet evidence and not from hype.”
In the meantime, the hydrogen optimism continues. Bloomberg New Energy Finance issued a report last week that by 2050, the levelized cost of hydrogen from renewable electricity and alkaline electrolysis (green hydrogen) will be cheaper than the current conventional technology of getting hydrogen from natural gas (blue hydrogen). BNEF said its latest analysis found that green hydrogen costs are “13 percent lower in 2030, and 17 percent lower in 2050 than the renewable H2 forecast BNEF made before this one.”
Also, in February, researchers reported in the American Chemical Society’s ES&T Engineering journal that they have found a catalyst that can remove contaminants from waste water while allowing sunlight to generate elemental hydrogen. The research is at an early stage and the platinum catalysts are expensive, so practical applications appear a long way off.
A caveat about optimistic predictions. In general, going back decades, when it comes to energy, science fiction writers have a better track record at predicting the future than basic scientists, academic modelers, industry and financial analysts, and governments.
–Kennedy Maize
(kenmaize@gmail.com)