5 Filters

Blue hydrogen is often hyped as clean, but in actuality, it might be even worse than burning coal

"August 14, 2021

Stanford and Cornell-based scientists had a closer look at blue hydrogen, frequently touted as a clean and green fuel that can help in our ongoing fight against climate change. However, it turns out that it may even be more harmful than burning fossil fuels.

Image Credit: Scharfsinn via Shutterstock / HDR tune and edited by Universal-Sci

By now, most of us have heard about hydrogen as a potential future energy source for cars and other applications. However, fewer of us know that there are many different ways to create or extract hydrogen, each identified with a different color code.

What is the difference between green, gray, purple, turquoise and blue hydrogen?

Green hydrogen, for example**,** is formed using renewable electricity (wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. Purple/red hydrogen is created by the use of nuclear power. Turquoise hydrogen is created by thermal splitting methane via methane pyrolysis. Natural gas is passed through a molten metal that releases hydrogen gas as well as solid carbon (this technology has not yet made it through its experimental phase).

Almost all of the hydrogen currently produced worldwide is so-called ‘gray hydrogen.’ Gray hydrogen is produced via SMR (Steam Methane Reforming). Here high-pressure steam (H2O) reacts with natural gas (CH4), resulting in hydrogen (H2) and the greenhouse gas CO2.

This article deals with blue hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is actually gray hydrogen but with one difference: CO2 released in the process of hydrogen production is mostly captured and stored. This process is called CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage).

Blue hydrogen is often touted as a clean and green fuel that can help combat climate change. However, Stanford and Cornell-based scientists now think it may harm the climate even more than burning fossil fuel.

According to a new study authored by Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, and ark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, the carbon footprint of creating blue hydrogen is more than 20% larger than using natural gas or coal directly for heat and approximately 60% larger than using diesel oil for heat.

Green hydrogen is a far better alternative - Image Credit: petrmalinak via Shutterstock / HDR tune by Universal-Sci

As mentioned above, the creation of blue hydrogen starts with converting methane to hydrogen and carbon dioxide by using heat, steam, and pressure (gray hydrogen) but goes further to capture some of the carbon dioxides. Following the definition from the U.S. Department of Energy, gray hydrogen officially becomes blue hydrogen once the byproduct carbon dioxide and the other impurities are sequestered.

According to Howarth, no effort was made to capture the carbon dioxide byproduct of gray hydrogen in the past, and the greenhouse gas emissions have been tremendous. Currently, the industry promotes blue hydrogen as a solution, an approach that still uses the methane from natural gas while attempting to capture the byproduct carbon dioxide. But, unfortunately, emissions remain very large.

Howarth continues by explaining that methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. It is over 100 times more potent as an atmospheric warming agent than carbon dioxide when first emitted. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report confirms that cumulatively to date over the past century, methane has contributed about two-thirds as much to global warming as carbon dioxide.

Emissions resulting from the creation of blue hydrogen are less than for gray hydrogen, but just by about 9% to 12%.

“Blue hydrogen is hardly emissions free,” wrote the researchers. According to them, the use of blue hydrogen as a method to combat climate change is only effective if it is actually feasible to store carbon dioxide permanently without it leaking back into the atmosphere.

Howarth stated in a press release that politicians have yet to catch on with the science surrounding blue hydrogen. Currently, billions of tax dollars are earmarked to subsidize the hydrogen industry. ''Blue hydrogen sounds good, sounds modern, and sounds like a path to our energy future. It is not."

Green hydrogen, made with renewable electricity on the other hand, is actually eco-friendly. But as it is green, hydrogen production is tiny and insignificant, too small to make an impact globally.

Howarth: “The best hydrogen, the green hydrogen derived from electrolysis – if used wisely and efficiently – can be that path to a sustainable future,” Howarth said. “Blue hydrogen is totally different.”

If you are interested in more details about the study, check out the paper published in the science journal: Energy Science & Engineering, listed below.

Sources and further reading:

1 Like

Just remember: Hydrogen isn’t a net-energy-yielding fuel, just a - highly problematic - energy carrier. And the Laws of Thermodynamics still function: energy out is ALWAYS less than energy in, giving a net loss. There is zero chance of ‘salvation’ for techie-techie industrial ‘civilisation’ in hydrogen.

Nothing to see here. No story.

Well that’s for current usage levels…I hear what you say though…how efficient (in comparison), are the actual engines?..I thought, whilst reading the article, much as you have said, hydrogen can only be useful if there is no alternative energy source and the activity is worth the effort…

That’s always a consideration if we were looking for some sort of fluid fuel for ICEs; just as it’s postulated that we might continue to mine fossil hydrocarbons, even when the net energy result is negative: doing this because the liquids are so precious for some designated special purposes.

These could only be niche applications, though. Mass application becomes societally, and eventually physically impossible, when EROEI for fhs drops below about five to one POSITIVE. Even then, though, gases of the methane homologous series make more practical sense than pure H2.

I’ve actually converted one of my Land Rovers, years ago, to run on bottled propane/butane. That’s feasible. During WW2 there were people running cars with rubberised-canvas gas-bags on their roofs, like barrage balloons, containing methane harvested from methanogen micro-organisms digesting animal manures in contraptions like miniature gasometers; pig’s being best, reportedly! :slight_smile:

Only for niche use, though, even then; and that’s assuming that you still have an industrial society that can still produce Land Rovers and the like; which I don’t think we should always expect in the medium-term future… :slight_smile: :wink:

1 Like

Seems to me we need biodiversity in supply, sustainable transport systems and minimal storage…the resource always being most highly prized when it does not have to be transported for primary use…

Hi folks, the thought struck me with all this talk of climate chnge in the covid era that in the next lock down we’ll all be handed treadmills with dynamos linked to the grid - the final solution for their green energy supplies!

cheers

1 Like

Something like this you mean?

“Blue” hydrogen is as eco friendly as “clean” coal. Not at all. It pumps out so much CO2 as well as other waste products that there really is no difference to using hydrocarbons. The carbon capture piece of the puzzle remains a dream in a capitalists eye.

As RG points out, the ever critical EROEI is in bad territory for hydrogen of any stripe, and makes it of very limited use in general. I’m not sure we’ll ever get to the stage of having so much extra solar or wind capacity to be using a ton of it to crack seawater into H2.

However, none of that seems to be putting in a dent in our govt’s plan to move our gas boilers over to hydrogen in this country. No doubt there’s plenty of money to be made as we do cartwheels down the Seneca curve…

3 Likes

LOL! I hope you’re right, P, and Ugo Bardi’s original formulation - of a cliff - is kind enough to turn into an easier curve. I think that’s quite possible actually. The situation with the Long Descent, and climate shift, is so complex that no human ingenuity can make any actually-reliable, detailed prediction on how it will pan out; even though the shysters-in-charge (shics? :wink: :slightly_smiling_face:) try to pretend they can, for dirty politics’ sake.

1 Like

I think solar is the way to go.

With improved technology, even with just 1000 quid spent you can power up a large part of your home (this obviously won’t cover hot water, etc.)

1 Like

Useful for a household, in sunny climes - for the moment. But only passive solar works, before - and after - industrial ‘civilisation’. People living the neo-mediaeval life won’t have access to the technology/commodities to make any of the modern techie-techie forms of sun-energy harvesting. The best folk at doing that at such times are… trees and grasses! :slight_smile: Also, of course, all those creatures living downstream in the solar-energy food-chain cascade from the primary photosynthesising collectors.

It pains me to have to admit it, but I grow persuaded by Dmitry Orlov’s reports from Russia of new nuclear technologies now being developed there which eat ALL the radioactive products of fission-generated electricity, leaving a final residue of waste with zero - sic! - radioactivity. (I imagine that fusion tech. will remain, along with Arthur C Clarke’s tractor- and pusher-beam technologies and such, a figment of sci-fi imagination.)

If Dmitry turns out to be right, then nuclear might be the best way to go - for a while. I imagine that Russia, if it manages to hold its current territorial integrity together for the next few centuries, may well be one of the last places on Earth to retain industrial ‘civilisation’. No chance for China until it’s undergone a drastic population-reduction period. Which Mam G has in hand…

Even then, though, I see no prospect for anywhere at all to go on with industrialism, once the Long Descent has played itself out to its final conclusion: a planet where the “Single Giant Pulse Event” of industrialism in Earth’s life-history has come and - having scattered ALL the commodities which enable industrialism - gone.

Bear in mind that in order to harvest commodities from - for example - the Asteroid Belt, you first have to have a thriving society-wide industrial technology here on Earth with which to create the super-effective robot machinery to go and collect such stuff. And we’re losing that steadily right now, forever. Musk, Kurzweil and ilk are incorrigible PROGRESS!!-hypnotised delusionists.

I was a tenant in a recently built house (split into a top flat (me) and lower flat (the owner)). Much of the electricity was generated with solar power, there was a mechanical air circulation system and mega insulation. A gas combi boiler took care of hot water and central heating.

I’ve no idea of the cost-benefit ratio looked at in the longer term, and the maintenance costs are not cheap I’m sure, but monthly fuel, water, sewage charge of under £40 (which was one third of the total) was mightily persuasive evidence to support what @RobG says.

2 Likes

Could some please spell the acronym out for me (it is trad. to detail the full title first before using one guys), …

G

Rhisiart Gwilym you’re becoming a Green-washer…radioactive cr*p is bad for you…I predict that we will find ways to shoot it into the Sun…as the least worst option…mark my words (anyone around to read them at the time), …

G

Bioremediation

"Quote: "The Mainichi Daily News, November 11, 2011:

“A research team here has succeeded in developing a method of removing radioactive cesium from sludge using bacteria” […]

They “collected sludge from a swimming pool at a public school in the Fukushima Prefecture capital of Fukushima and ran experiments there in September.”

“The researchers mixed 90 grams of photosynthetic bacteria with alginic acid and other chemicals” […]

“Radiation levels ranging from 12.04 to 14.54 microsieverts per hour at the start of the experiment were found to have dropped to between 2.6 and 4.1 microsieverts per hour by the end of the third day.” […]

“Through dehydration and incineration, the volume of the used bacteria mixture can be reduced to a seventy-fifth of its original volume, and weight to a hundredth.” […]

It’s reminiscent of the controversial ‘magic microbe‘ method used by during last year’s massive blowout in the Gulf of Mexico: “There’s a new form of microbiology that is… is attacking this plume and using it as a food source” -BP official Mike Utsler." Go to http://enenews.com/mainichi-photosynthetic-bacteria-used-in-fukushima-city-to-reduce-radioactive-cesium-levels

Project Abaris

Put simply we cannot afford to allow long-term storage of radioactive waste on Earth (NB. the above microbes are still radioactive, as would be any medium of “organic capture”), safe disposal can only mean The Sun, the human race has been living on borrowed time since it developed the hubris neccesary in order to attempt to exploit it’s imagined dominance of the atom, the consumption of the resulting waste within the fusion fires of The Sun is the only possible solution (it would be perhaps advisable however to ensure that those responsible for dropping the last two environmental monitoring satellites into The Pacific not be given responsibilty for the project).
The “rocket-Sun” method achieves Super-Symmentry in “Hyper-Time” (when performed correctly). re: “Astrotometry” (go to: https://www.youtube.com/user/astrotometry )

“Nuclear Scum” Nuclear Scum! - Fukushima Disaster Response - YouTube" https://www.arafel.co.uk/2012/08/toxic-clean-ups-radiation-and-project.html

It’s not just fungi of-course, certain reeds and grasses bio-accumulate both chemical and radiological toxins and I am certain that we will find that the same is true of some of the seaweeds, this will be the way we clean the oceans. Can we imagine a stable organic “gelly” we could pack into flasks and blast at the Sun? Something that would “capture” the radio-nuclides and help avoid dispersal should there be an accident?https://www.arafel.co.uk/2014/10/mycology-and-bio-remediation.html

Also: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2016/12/the-undiscovered-science-of-myco-magic.html

Sorry @GKH

EROEI = “Energy Returned on Energy Invested”

How many units do you get back for each unit put in. It is reckoned that a return of 10 to 1 is the minimum needed to maintain complex civilisation.

1 Like

Which way round is that?

It means that for each unit of energy we “spend”, we get 10 units back.

Drilling for oil in 1900 Texas, for example, would return 100 units of energy (in crude oil) for each unit of energy the we used to drill. Fracking was closer to 5 units returned for each unit spent (of I remember) and hydrogen from water might actually be negative - that is it takes more energy to create a units worth of H2 energy than is stored in the H2.

That might still be worth it if we have a big surplus of one type of energy (solar elec, say) and we use the excess to create the H2 as jet fuel or what have you. But solar has an EROEI much less than 10 (I think 2 or 3 maybe) so the chances of us having such a surplus is slim to none, without diesel or other fossil fuels making up the difference. And that’s for Green H2…

Cheers

1 Like

Chris Martensen did a great series of visits videos about a decade ago called The Crash Course in which he discussed these and a lot of other related issues. The segment on energy budgeting is very good on this topic (it’s where I learned about it from).

The EROEI stuff starts from about 6 min in.

3 Likes

I wonder what the real nuclear EROEI is…any info.? False economy regarding fossil fuels though surely…makes sense that sustainable sources (“renewables” is ridiculous of-course -I’ll just go build a sun…oooh sorry someone’s already doing that-), work on much smaller margins…

1 Like

The jury is still out for nuclear. Chris talks about it in the video I linked above. It’s not more than 10 though, for traditional fission reactors, that seems pretty sure.

The new breeder technology does seem to have promise, though. Even with a small ERoEI, they might still be worth it as a way to gobble up all the nuclear waste that we have accumulated and now don’t know what to do with. As a recycling project, if nothing else, they might be worth it…

1 Like

Er - G, did you not notice that line about eating ALL the radioactive waste, leaving nothing but non-active residues? How exactly is that green washing?

I don’t want to see us going down the nuclear-elec. line, even if it’s the sort of zero-radioactive-waste tech that Dmitry hints at (still in development, btw) because I think such hitech efforts, of ANY kind of technology, is a blind alley from which we will be obliged to reverse sometime in the next century or so: completely wasted effort and commodities with no genuinely sustainable future to them. The Long Descent will insist. We shan’t have the option.

As you know perfectly well, old buddy, I’m persuaded that we shall be climbing down from our modern techie-techie obsession steadily from here on, into something much more like the ways we got our livings a thousand years ago, mutatis mutandis (without nukes, natch). We shall have no choice about this, I think. It’s our self-inflicted fate.

My favoured preference is for some sort of permaculturist, Gaia-worshipping society, without nukes just as much as without all the other current excrescences of hitech soc. I expect, though, that people will try to resist this inevitability, and in Russia, for example, they will develop the no-rad-waste nukes and use them for a while, using Russia’s still-remaining stocks of commodities to spin out industrial society for a while longer. They will join the rest of us in the post-industrial future eventually, though.

If that’s greenwashing, then colour me green. :innocent: