Why some of the 'clean' hydrogen hubs in the U.S. plan to use natural gas, a fossil fuel

[mahatmakanejeeves]

CLIMATE POLICY

Why some of the ‘clean’ hydrogen hubs in the U.S. plan to use natural gas, a fossil fuel

PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 31 2023 • 9:00 AM EDT | UPDATED 19 MIN AGO

Catherine Clifford
@IN/CATCLIFFORD/
@CATCLIFFORD

KEY POINTS
• Of the seven hydrogen hubs announced earlier in October, two plan to use exclusively renewable energy and the other five will use a combination of renewables, nuclear power, and natural gas with carbon capture and storage.
• Making hydrogen from natural gas is not necessarily a climate boondoggle, but the only way it’s positive for the climate is with careful execution and ultra-rigorous oversight from the federal government.
• It is possible to make low-carbon hydrogen from natural gas, but right now this kind of “blue hydrogen” is made at very small scale in the United States.

President Joe Biden recently approved seven regional hydrogen hubs to receive $7 billion in federal funding intended to spur the development of “clean” hydrogen in the United States. Hydrogen, if produced in a way that does not generate copious greenhouse gas emissions, could be a critical tool to decarbonize some particularly challenging segments of the economy like heavy shipping.

“Clean hydrogen is the Swiss Army Knife of zero-carbon solutions because it can do just about everything: Powering trucks, buses, and airplanes … Heating homes and fertilizing crops … Revolutionizing shipping … And cleaning up America’s manufacturing industry,” Jennifer Granholm, head of the U.S. Department of the Energy, said when she announced the selection of the hubs earlier in October.

Of the seven hubs, two plan to use renewable energy exclusively. The others will use a combination of renewables, nuclear power, and natural gas with carbon capture and storage. ... Putting federal money behind a program to fight climate change while using natural gas, a fossil fuel, as one of its main ingredients may not seem intuitive.

Making hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture — called “blue hydrogen” in the industry — is not necessarily a climate boondoggle, but the only way it’s positive for the climate is with careful execution and ultra-rigorous oversight from the federal government.

{snip}

[ancianita]

1. Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it provides. Hydrogen is not a solution. Too much storage & leakage risk

Last edited Tue Oct 31, 2023, 05:42 PM - Edit history (2)

once it is made, anyway.

Better to stick with solar, wind, geothermal, oceanic, and modular nuclear energy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. "Portable Nuclear Energy!?"

You’re worried about risks associated with Hydrogen!?

[NNadir]

4. Anyone who's got a fetish about the alledged "danger"...

Last edited Tue Oct 31, 2023, 03:08 PM - Edit history (2)

...of nuclear energy is invited to show that in the 70 year history of commercial nuclear energy, it has killed as many people with radiation exposure as will die in the next six hours from air pollution, about 4500 people.

Note, only peer reviewed papers from the respectable primary scientific literature can be accepted as evidence.

No journalist tripe can be accepted.

What is "dangerous" is antinuke paranoia. It kills about 80 million people every decade, in the form of air pollution, not that antinukes give a rat's ass about fossil fuels, climate change, energy justice, sustainability, and health.

Portable nuclear energy has a history of about half a century, on spacecraft and ships. There is no evidence that it is as dangerous as climate change, some of which is the result of the appalling and deadly selective attention of poorly educated and poorly informed antinukes.

[ancianita]

5. Crap, I'm so sorry. I meant "modular." I brought it up a couple of years ago in a climate series I posted here.

https://www.intelligentliving.co/bill-gates-mini-reactor-energy-storage/

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. OK, that makes more sense

“Modular” nuclear reactors and hydrogen are different things though. A nuclear reactor is an energy source, while hydrogen is primarily thought of as an energy carrier (although if “White Hydrogen” pans out, maybe it’s an energy source as well. — Not counting on that though.)

Using nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen has been seen as a natural application for decades.

[ancianita]

7. Yeah, I just forgot, sorry.

The way climate dynamics are coming at humans, one approach is to try everything -- that means everything, no capitalist suppression of geothermal projects, etc. -- and use whatever works wherever it works best through trial and error.

Earth is way different everywhere, so no one or two energy fixes would really address that, not to mention how many continents have different resources and building materials to create stable energy.

When it comes to climate, there is no one answer, and no one best energy source (except the sun, maybe).
Even if there were, we'd have to use other energy buildouts to buy time until humans could scale that answer across this planet.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Here, I disagree

We need to narrow things down a little bit, not so much that we’re looking for a “silver bullet” but, a “”Let’s try everything all at once” approach (IMHO) is not prudent. Each effort, approached seriously will require a commitment of time, resources, effort and money, and we do not have infinite supplies of any of these.

So, we need to narrow things down to a few promising candidates, and pursue them vigorously.

[Caribbeans]

8. Ever heard of the Rocky Mountain Institute?

Anyone that claims to be "Green" ought to know what RMI is.

Hydrogen Reality Check #1: Hydrogen Is Not a Significant Warming Risk

May 9, 2022
By Thomas Koch blank, Raghav Muralidharan, Kaitlyn Ramirez, Alexandra Wall, Tessa Weiss

The Myth
Recent reports have suggested that large-scale production of hydrogen could do more harm than good in the effort to reduce global warming.

The Reality
The climate benefit from a well-regulated clean hydrogen economy outweighs the impact of any emissions that hydrogen would add to our energy system, especially if we prioritize hydrogen produced from renewables-powered electricity.

Realizing Hydrogen’s Potential
Hydrogen is a powerful tool for decarbonizing parts of the economy where electrification isn’t viable. It has the potential to reduce emissions by 11–13 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilogram used compared to fossil alternatives. In processes like steelmaking, it can deliver even greater emissions reductions (abating 25–30 kg CO2e per kg H2 used). By deploying hydrogen at scale, the United States could abate roughly 15 percent of its yearly carbon dioxide emissions.

The realization of this potential depends on producing, storing, transporting, and consuming hydrogen in a way that minimizes emissions at each step. Every choice made in the hydrogen supply chain will be crucial in determining the ultimate emissions benefit achieved.

In clean hydrogen production, this means ensuring regulators and producers actively address the carbon intensity of the power supply, upstream methane leakage, and carbon capture rates. In theory, both “blue” and “green” hydrogen — the most commonly considered production pathways — can achieve close to zero emissions. For green hydrogen (produced by splitting water molecules), it requires the use of renewable electricity to power the electrolyzers. For blue hydrogen (produced from natural gas), near-zero production pathways require carbon capture technologies that can achieve unprecedented capture performance, as well as the near elimination of upstream methane leakage from the supply of natural gas...more
https://rmi.org/hydrogen-reality-check-1-hydrogen-is-not-a-significant-warming-risk/

#1 problem with the "energy transition" right NOW?

Ignorance

[ancianita]

9. Thanks for your post. No, I don't have complete exposure to all the current energy orgs out there, or the RMI.

So thank you for this information. I'd say, yes, ignorance is the problem. But it's not for lack of trying by many DU'ers here. It's been a collective effort to learn and understand what's become a fluid situation across the range of non-fossil energy projects and who all's funding and operationalizing them.

To your #1 problem I'd add inertia. It's a big country, big economy; it needs some smart people in the DoE and White House. The administration we have, that runs a 'whole of government' action plan, commits to a serious operationalizing an at scale 'energy transition' right now. There isn't a better administration out there, on any horizon, to develop short and long term systems that help mitigate climate crises that face us.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. The Rocky Mountain Institute is not exactly new

https://rmi.org/about/history/

[ancianita]

14. Sorry, it's just a hole in my exposure, apparently. Thank you for the info. I'll be reading more on them.

[NickB79]

15. I know I've corrected you on this before

But again, here is the newest research, done a year after the report from Rocky Mountain you cited.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysis/hydrogen-is-a-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-than-previously-reported-new-study-reveals/2-1-1463495

Hydrogen is a more potent greenhouse gas than previously reported, new study reveals.

Indirect atmospheric warming effects of H2 shown with more certainty to be higher than ever, increasing climate risk of hydrogen leakage.

[NNadir]

3. Wrong. It IS necessarily a climate boondoggle.

Making hydrogen from dangerous natural gas destroys exergy. It's a law of physics and no amount of "rigorous oversight" can change that law of physics.

No matter how many times hydrogen stupidity is repeated, hydrogen remains a filthy fuel.

[ancianita]

10. Thank you for confirming what I've recently been reading elsewhere.

[NNadir]

12. My pleasure. "Green hydrogen" is a giant climate lie...

I calculated, from references from the primary scientific literature just how destructive hydrogen is in climatic terms, albeit in a somewhat technical way.

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.