The debate over the position of hydrogen in the new energy revolution has come to the fore again thanks to Japan’s hosting of the Olympic Games. The Olympic buses run on hydrogen, and even the Olympic Cauldron is a hydrogen flame. But rather than showcasing how green this miracle new fuel is, it has highlighted its many problems.
In the perfect hydrogen scenario, wind farms, solar panels, ebbing tides, waves and other intermittent renewable energy sources would be filling tanks with hydrogen whenever they can, to be used later when needed. It’s a valid argument when renewable energy is abundant because it can be much more variable than a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant that can be spun up when needed. But, in reality, this is not how the vast majority of hydrogen is produced.
Currently, around 95% of hydrogen production is what is called “grey”, including that being used at the Tokyo Olympics. It is made by reacting natural gas with high-temperature steam. This is the cheapest way to manufacture hydrogen but produces loads of CO2. In fact, it has been calculated that producing 1kg of hydrogen by this method will generate 9.3kg of CO2, which is actually more than the 9.1kg of CO2 produced by burning a gallon of gasoline, usually considered to have a similar energy value. Taking Toyota’s original Mirai as the benchmark, 1kg of hydrogen can provide about 60 miles of range. That equates to around 97g of CO2 per km, which is good but hardly zero emissions. It’s about the same as that produced by a Toyota Yaris hybrid.
Hydrogen evangelists will counter this by claiming that “in the future” renewables will take over, and in the interim, we have carbon capture producing “blue” hydrogen. But currently the amount of blue hydrogen being produced is infinitesimal (less than 1%) and well below expectations. It’s also highly problematic technology that remains unproven. In fact, Chevron recently admitted its failure at Australia’s only carbon capture and storage facility in Gorgon. Instead of storing 4 million tonnes of CO2 a year, it has managed to store 5 million tonnes in total since the project started in 2009.
Of course, you should consider the “well to wheel” emissions of each vehicle type and how much greenhouse gases are produced in manufacturing as well. There is no denying that battery-electric vehicles do create more emissions during production than conventional cars, particularly the batteries, at least for now while manufacturers look for ways to reduce this factor. Electricity supplies also vary greatly in CO2 emissions. But fossil fuel manufacturers have overstated this differential grossly, most famously in the “#AstonGate” controversy in the UK, which deliberately twisted a worst case scenario in an attempt to make fossil fuel cars somehow appear greener than BEVs.
More recent and comprehensive research by the International Council on Clean Transportation has shown that over their lifespan, BEVs produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than internal combustion, even in regions with highly polluting electricity grid energy sources such as China and India. This report also makes it clear that no car with an internal combustion engine, even a hybrid, will be sufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement for greenhouse gas reduction. In other words, companies promoting “self-charging hybrids” over BEVs are threatening environmental disaster almost as much as those promoting traditional internal combustion without hybrid drivetrains.
Fuel cell cars could be a solution too. The International Council on Clean Transportation reports gives these as much potential to achieve Paris Agreement goals as BEVs. The problem is that their development is far behind BEVs, with FCEV prices much higher than equivalent BEVs, and the refuelling networks worse than electric charging networks were a decade ago. Even in Japan, the poster child of H2, those Olympic hydrogen buses have proven to be five times as expensive to buy and much less convenient to refuel than diesel buses. The fuel cost is also 2.6 times higher – and that is with grey hydrogen. Properly environmental green hydrogen is even more expensive.
So what is the pro-hydrogen lobby really all about? Clearly, Toyota has invested heavily in this technology and wants to get its money’s worth, particularly as its BEV strategy is so far behind the competition. The bZ4X looks great, and Toyota is even mooting ground-breaking solid state batteries. But let’s judge the bZ4X when we see it in production. The company is clearly trying to delay BEVs, as the New York Times reported recently, in an attempt not to lose market share now that Tesla has taken its crown as the most valuable car company in the world.
But this isn’t just a battle between car manufacturers. The fact is, while the visible discussions revolve around battery-electric versus fuel cell-electric vehicles, there is a much deeper conflict going on between energy businesses. If we all stop using fossil fuel vehicles we fill up at the local gas station and switch to BEVs that we charge at home, that’s a big problem for oil and gas companies with huge consumer fuel supply lines that haven’t invested in electrical infrastructure, and a big win for energy supply companies. Since 95% of current hydrogen is produced from fossil fuel, conversely its adoption would maintain the status quo for the oil and gas companies.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that disruptive new energy companies like the UK’s Octopus Energy are also developing electric car leasing such as its Octopus EV and charging consortiums such as its Octopus Electric Juice, both of which help promote BEV ownership. They complement the electricity supply business perfectly. This is another area where the “convenience” of hydrogen shows itself to be a myth. Sure, you can fill your car up in five minutes (that is, if you can find an H2 station at all). But how is that more convenient than leaving your house with a “full tank” in your BEV that you charged at home, every single day?
This is clearly a massive problem for oil and gas companies with a fuel delivery system based around forecourt destinations. In fact, while the climate emergency is an existential threat for human life as we know it, even planetary life, it’s also a disruptive opportunity for new business. It’s a chance for less polluting green energy suppliers to take over from dirty oil and gas that regularly causes environmental disasters like Deepwater Horizon. It’s a chance for new car companies like Tesla and smaller players such as Kia-Hyundai to win market share from decades-old incumbent automotive giants like Toyota.
Calling hydrogen oil and gas greenwashed is hyperbolic, and if you’ve read this far, please forgive the use of this phrase to get your attention. There are some clear places where hydrogen will be essential, such as cement and steel production. It could also come into its own if and when we get to a stage where renewable electricity production is abundant. But, for now, many of the companies pushing hydrogen aren’t doing so to save the planet. They’re doing so to save their business models in a time of extreme transition towards greener technologies and e-mobility. If we are to solve the climate crisis, we need to take their propaganda with a pinch of salt and opt for solutions that can actually deliver the emissions reductions we need in time.
by James Morris
France has launched an offshore green hydrogen production platform at the country’s Port of Saint-Nazaire this week, along with its first offshore wind farm. The hydrogen plant, which its operators say is the world’s first facility of its type, coincides with the launch of another “first of its kind” facility in Sweden dedicated to storing hydrogen in an underground lined rock cavern (LRC).
The project sets up the Hydrogen Valley in Rome, the first industrial-scale technological hub for the development of the national supply chain for the production, transport, storage and use of hydrogen for the decarbonization of industrial processes and for sustainable mobility.
At first glance, hydrogen seems to be the perfect solution to our energy needs. It doesn’t produce any carbon dioxide when used. It can store energy for long periods of time. It doesn’t leave behind hazardous waste materials, like nuclear does. And it doesn’t require large swathes of land to be flooded, like hydroelectricity. Seems too good to be true. So…what’s the catch?