When it comes to addressing climate change, Job One has to be getting off carbon. There are multiple ways to go: wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, biofuels — and hydrogen.
Here’s what the Environmental Defense Fund has to say about hydrogen:
Hydrogen holds tremendous potential in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating the effects of climate change. Policymakers and industry are pouring tens of billions of dollars into various hydrogen energy technologies...
But…
...But hydrogen is a leak-prone gas with a potent warming effect of its own that is widely overlooked. Whether a hydrogen energy revolution helps the climate will depend on how it’s produced, managed and used.
EDF’s Executive Director Amanda Leland had more to say in a December 2022 statement. She lists three concerns: Leakage and previously underestimated warming effects, the issue of the carbon impact of different production methods, and whether or not hydrogen use will harm communities.
I’m writing this up because lately I’ve been seeing EDF posts on Facebook that seem to play up the problems they cite with hydrogen. It almost seems like concern trolling — like the kind of stories that play up bird-killing wind turbines and how their blades are filling landfills, solar panels wearing out and ending up in landfills, and the batteries for electric vehicles that are produced in part with slave labor while devastating the land with mining operations.
I’m not taking issue with EDF for trying to legitimately raise concerns about issues with hydrogen that have come up in light of a better understanding of their consequences, but I am concerned they will be used to block adoption of a technology we need where it fits and can be done ‘right’.
There are some practical rules it would be useful to consider here. (There’s more explanation about them at the links.)
Kauffman’s Rule 1. Everything is connected to everything else. Looking at the issues with hydrogen in isolation from the larger context doesn’t go far enough: what are the alternatives, what are their trade offs, and how big are these problems compared to each other — which leads to…
Kauffman’s Rule 18. Every solution creates new problems. Gasoline-powered cars were a great solution to the problem of horse manure and keeping stables in cities. Fossil fuel use meant we didn’t have to keep cutting trees to heat our homes or hunt whales for oil to light our homes. But, we’re now dealing with the problems those solutions created.
Kauffman’s Rule 21. Remember the Golden Mean. There’s a problem with finding a solution to a problem and applying it long after it stops making sense. There’s a big push to electrify cars and trucks with batteries charged with renewable power — but that’s not always the best way to use that power. If we electrified our nation’s rail corridors with renewable energy, that power would go three times farther while cutting emissions by a huge amount. Instead we’re still locked into highway-centric transportation and car culture to the point where we’ve lost sight of alternatives.
As it happens, there is a developing hydrogen economy
EDF notes that hydrogen is just beginning to get attention; it makes up only a small fraction of the ways we use energy. Although some have scoffed at the idea of a hydrogen economy, the fact remains that one is already happening.
Hydrogen is being looked at as one way to produce steel without fossil fuels. That alone would be a significant step in cutting emissions.
It’s being incorporated into a way to capture and store energy from renewable sources, and even transport it. It would be one way to get full use out of wind and solar. When they’re producing more power than the grid needs, it can be used to make green hydrogen. When demand is greater than their output, that banked energy can be called on.
[As an aside, I am well aware that there’s a loss of efficiency going back and forth with hydrogen compared with battery farms, but A) batteries use critical resources with their own impacts from the manufacturing chain and supply constraints, B) have recycling issues, C) hydrogen is a commodity in its own right that can also be used for other things, and D) ultimately it’s all about cutting greenhouse gas emissions when all is said and done. Cost and efficiency have to be considered against that more important task. YMMV.]
As a means of supplying power to vehicles, hydrogen has its issues such as the supply infrastructure — but there are places where it makes sense. Electric trucks are in demand, but the weight of their batteries cuts the payload they can carry, uses energy just hauling the batteries around, and may be a problem for highway wear and tear. There’s also the range problem in the cold.
For airplanes, weight is critical — and there are already efforts underway to build hydrogen powered aircraft with zero emissions. That such aircraft could be refueled quickly instead of needing charging time would make them a better fit for commercial operations.
While railroads can be directly powered with electricity, hydrogen powered passenger rail with zero emissions is in use, and is an alternative where the expense of electrification is a barrier. Canadian Pacific is one railroad evaluating powering freight operations with hydrogen. Their plan calls for dedicated fueling facilities supplying green hydrogen. Anyone who lives near a rail yard would appreciate eliminating diesel emissions — and railroads are under a lot of pressure to cut emissions in any case.
Mother Jones has an article by Gregory Barber which does a good job providing perspective on the hydrogen situation and the assorted pros and cons. It has this bit from the EDF discussing hydrogen as a greenhouse gas problem.
...Ocko [a senior climate scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund] points to another problem: Even if hydrogen is produced in a clean way, it can still warm the planet. “Hydrogen is the tiniest molecule in existence,” she says—which makes it extraordinarily good at escaping from the pipes that carry it. There’s been little research or monitoring of these leaks, but a picture is emerging that shows when hydrogen gas is released into the air, it reacts with hydroxyl radicals—pairs of hydrogen and oxygen atoms—to form water vapor. That prevents the hydroxyls from doing another job: destroying methane molecules. In an ironic twist, a gas produced by destroying methane ends up letting more methane stay in the atmosphere.
Assuming a 10 percent rate of leaks—high, but a reasonable estimate—Ocko’s team found that replacing fossil fuels even with so-called green hydrogen would only cut warming by half over the next 20 years, though the benefits increase over time to an 80 percent reduction by 2100. (That’s because the effects of hydrogen in the atmosphere are short-lived, while carbon emissions last for thousands of years and accumulate.)
emphasis added
I’m not certain I fully understand the point Ocko is trying to make here; is she talking about problems with completely replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen, or is she just pointing out that any substituting of hydrogen for fossil fuels will still have a warming effect — if not as bad, and mainly in the short term? The net result is still a reduction in warming.
In either case, I have some issues with the EDF on this. We are not going to go carbon-free solely with hydrogen; there are going to be multiple paths ahead. But — there are still places where hydrogen can play an important role regardless.
If leakage is a problem, well that’s something that will have get attention in the same way we are going to have to accommodate all the changes other alternative energy strategies will require. As we gain experience with hydrogen, the technology will improve with experience and continued research.
The EDF Facebook posts I have been seeing don’t do nuance; they raise questions about hydrogen with a link to find out more about the whole story — but how many people will bother?
There’s no question fossil fuel interests are trying to ‘green’ their products and extend their use by finding ways to make them the source of hydrogen for growing demand. Is the EDF trying to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about hydrogen to preclude their efforts even if it totally blocks hydrogen? I don’t know if they are, but I fear that may be what the effect is with their messaging.
Electrifying everything looks like a good idea — but it requires beefing up the grid to make it work. Batteries are one way to capture and store clean power for use — but it’s a question of how far the battery supply chain can reach as demand grows. It might be more efficient to concentrate efforts on a particular path, but too much efficiency can be a trap.
I have a reluctance to shut any doors to possible answers on how we can decarbonize our civilization at this time. In the absence of a single perfect solution, it makes sense to pursue multiple paths if only for redundancy and resilience. There’s some more rules that apply here:
Kauffman’s rule 13.There are no simple solutions. The real world is not a simple place; looking for a one-size-fits-all answer will only lead to frustration.
Kauffman’s rule 19. Sloppy systems are often better. A common complaint is that “If We only just did X, we could…” fill in the blank. It’s efficient to focus on one path — until an unforeseen roadblock turns up or some limit is reached. Then what?
Tomorrow someone might develop a catalyst that would make electrolysis cheap, easy, and fast. Or they might discover a light-weight high-capacity fast-charging battery material. Or they might make the breakthrough that gives us working cold fusion. Or they might discover a cheap super-efficient way to make photovoltaic panels...
None of that may happen — but it will never happen if no one is looking. I rather hope the EDF isn’t making a mistake here.
