Guest Post by Vijay Jayaraj
Fanciful dreams of green hydrogen powering the future have met reality. The cost of producing this much-hyped fuel will remain prohibitively high for decades to come, crushing hopes of its rapid adoption across industries.
Green hydrogen start-ups are shuttering operations, major projects are being shelved, and investors are retreating from what was once seen as the next frontier in “renewable” energy. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone whose attention to fundamentals has not been diverted by the extravagant claims of promoters.
I spent a year in Aberdeen, Scotland, a city that operates one of the world’s first hydrogen-powered double-decker bus fleets. The cost of a one-way ticket is among the highest in the country. It doesn’t take an economist to connect the exorbitant fares to the eye-popping energy costs of producing hydrogen, which priced out ordinary commuters. An Aberdeen family of four could travel cheaper in a cab than on the bus,
Welcome to the insane world of hydrogen.
Not-So-Green Hydrogen
Governments, corporations and activists painted a utopian vision. Entire industries – from steelmaking to aviation – would be revolutionized by green hydrogen power. The EU earmarked billions in subsidies, while India and Australia announced grand plans to become global hubs for green hydrogen.
However, this enthusiasm has been dampened by unyielding barriers of economics and safety.
So-called green hydrogen is the form favored by environmentalists promoting the gas. What makes it green in the eyes of enthusiasts is the manufacturing process: the electrolytic splitting of hydrogen atoms from water with wind- or solar-generated electricity. Never mind that there is nothing “green” about these expensive, unreliable energy sources.
The latest analyses predict that green hydrogen prices are likely to remain stubbornly high for decades. The goal of achieving production costs below $2 per kilogram – the threshold for competitiveness with fossil fuels – remains far out of reach. In most parts of the world, the economics simply do not add up.
The reasons are multifaceted. One of the fundamental flaws of green hydrogen is its reliance on wind and solar energy that is expensive, intermittent and unreliable.
The entire green hydrogen cycle is also inherently inefficient.
Electrolysis remains an energy-intensive process. In some cases, producing hydrogen from wind and solar electricity and then using the gas to generate electricity for consumers results in a loss of 50% to 80% of the energy value. Add to this the energy required for compression, storage and transportation, and you have a fuel requiring massive amounts of expensive electricity to process.
Moreover, hydrogen is dangerous. Being a tiny molecule with low viscosity, hydrogen is more susceptible to leakage than natural gas and cannot be detected by human senses. Capable of igniting over a wide range of concentrations in air – between 4% and 75% – hydrogen is more volatile than currently used gas fuels. “It is perplexing that we’ll have hydrogen in our homes, businesses, buses, trucks and airports. Indoors it can rapidly turn into an explosion hazard,” warns Michael Barnard from Clean Technica.
Bloomberg’s recent exposé on green hydrogen lays bare the financial toll of the misplaced optimism. Start-ups that once boasted billion-dollar valuations are now scaling back or shutting down altogether. Over a fifth of European clean hydrogen capacity is now either stalled or canceled.
In the UK, British Petroleum and Orsted have ditched green hydrogen plans and three hydrogen transportation firms have declared bankruptcy. Predicting a “bloodbath” this year for hydrogen transportation, Barnard said that “the reality sunk in that hydrogen would remain too expensive, fuel cell vehicles would remain unreliable, and actual greenhouse gas emissions were much higher than hyped.”
Investors are losing patience as promised cost reductions fail to materialize and companies struggle to deliver commercially viable projects.
The story of green hydrogen’s fall from grace is eerily reminiscent of past technological bubbles. We saw similar patterns with first-generation biofuels and concentrated solar power. Each time, the lesson is the same: we must be wary of silver-bullet solutions that promise to solve all our energy challenges without confronting the fundamentals of physics and economics.
Originally posted at RealClearEnergy.org, reposted with permission.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the UK, and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Hydrogen, even as a cryogenic liquid, lacks enough density to be suitable transportation fuel, which no technological fix can solve.
I can fix the Hydrogen Density issue…
Bond 4 Hydrogen Atoms to a single Carbon Atom and issue solved.
Or chain five or more carbons together, and have a liquid at room temperature. . .
add one oxygen per carbon and you can have methanol CH3OH, which is a liquid at STP and can run automobiles easily.
Racing cars use methanol, and they go very fast. The world’s largest producer of methanol is Methanex. In the US, the price for methanol $2.68 per gal. Methanol is made from natural gas.
Need to consider impact on fuel efficiency (mpg). Methanol’s lower heating value (BTU/gal for this Luddite) is roughly half that of gasoline. Meaning fuel $/mile will be higher. Meaningful if you’re not overly worried about emissions from current ICE-powered automobiles.
Perhaps for some niche rocketry applications, hydrogen is useful.
Notably, SpaceX went to CH4 for their reusable boosters.
But we still do not have the facts re these new catalysts and certainly Lord Bamford seems still to be showing the way on hydrogen and his own engine..
At least Concentrated Solar works longer than Solar PV over a 24hr period.
Though it still can’t Stay Hot Enough overnight without FF assistance.
And it only works in certain places…
And it requires Sq Miles of mirror space for the amount of daily production…
And those mirror require periodic cleaning…
In other words, while it may work longer, it still doesn’t work.
Exactly😉
And it will supply free lunch for all if you like roasted bird.
And they kill anything that flies into the rays.
No news coming out about those newly discovered pure gas deposits we heard so much about last year then..?.
Good question. Here’s one company touting it.https://hyterra.com/
A couple of orders of magnitude less than methane content is not “pure”.
Much speculation and modelling of possibilities, but even it is was being made underground as the smallest and lightest element it will just leak upwards. The clue is they have never found any.
The US Geological Survey has a new publication on “Geological” hydrogen – naturally occurring hydrogen. see here https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1900/pp1900.pdf The upshot is that although geological hydrogen potential does exist and because we have not actively looked for it, we don’t know how viable a fuel-stock it may be. Stay tuned!
Every so often I read a press release from MIT about a new electrolysis breakthrough that will enable the hydrogen economy. I haven’t read one in a few years, so maybe they’ve given up for now.
The main thing I learned from them is that the more prestigious the university, the more vocal their press release people are.
Also please note that electrolyzers do not work as well when started up and shut down, as in response to the availability of intermittent renewables. Efficiency, output, and maintenance suffer.
That’s okay, the thorium/molten salt nuclear reactors are about to take over the world. OTOH, I haven’t heard much from their proponents lately. I guess they’re busy.
And 50 years later, nuclear fusion is still just 10 years in the future.
There needs to be a house rule about writing “fusion is still just 10 years in the future“, like the one about calling someone the WW2 German guy with the terrible mustache.
Sure ….. hydrogen can be used as a fuel ……
and, you can cut your lawn with your scissors …..
😉
Hmmm…scissors… Works though inefficient. Try Sheep
Tell California to invest in goat herds.
And capture the methane from goat farts
Too late, the state’s already full of Sheeple
It should be criminal offence for any politician to support any such initiative that the known physics makes it clear cannot be delivered, as with green hydrogen, because it is demonstrable that known science shows that nature does work like that.
Most of these ideas deny the most basic laws of thermodynamics and a simple costing shows them to be a nonsense.
This pre-release test should be a legal pre-requisite before anyone holding a political office can make such a suggestion. Failing to do this should disbar them from any future political office and create a by-election.
Because it is blatant fraud or total incompetence to promote such a fraud from public office, knowingly or not. The obligation must be to check the engineering reality and likely costs and benefits of any such recommendation made to the public, for scale at the very least.
How can a society that is exquisitely dependnent on its technology for its prosperity be successfully ruled by people who understand nothing about that technology, or its optimal commercial delivery? And prefer their ignorant beliefs to the informed expertise of the people qualified to deliver such things?
I think the penalty should be death for being SO stupid while seeking power over others. But debarring from any position of political or government position for life will have to do as a minimum, I suppose. Western democracies are ruled by the most stupid people imaginable for the job, who could not last in any commercial scenario when what you sell has to work well or you are gone. WE get the worst ideas covered up, that make the most possible money fastest from whatever supposed problem for the politicains, often an artificial problem they create, with thehelp of civil servants and crony lobbyists involved, who are all in the money go round. It’s your money.
IMO Politics is mostly about failing to deliver pre-failed stupid ideas while lying to people about how successful you are and pocketing your taxes.
Your politicians may vary.
No, the Uniparty is alive and well in the UK, 4+ years before we have a chance.
The obligation must be to check the engineering reality and likely costs and benefits of any such recommendation made to the public, for scale at the very least.
… and risks.
In the clash between ideology and reality, reality remains undefeated!
We don’t allow school kids to vote, due to their lack of maturity and real world experience. Too bad we can’t keep politicians with much the same problems from enacting policy for the benefit of their donors, friends and family!
If you vote for someone who unashamedly buys your vote you have to expect some warts. Fixing the problem starts with you.
Western democracies are infused with political parties which ensures mediocre performance at best which is seldom achieved. Stupidity has no bounds.
Political parties are a better solution to religion, when the science that underpins the society is questionable as part of the process of decision making
When that condition is no longer present, because politicians control the funding of science and the bodies that surround it, and politicians must be believed by default, not by exception, then we are back to religions and inquisitions.
And all the corruption that goes with answers that cannot be questioned, because of who gives them. If science and engineering reality is not followed, the end (of free, prosperous for all, developed societies) is nigh. We are into Eloi and Morlock land.
“Rule by the stupid,” is an inherent risk of all forms of elected government. “Rule by the cruel” is an inherent flaw of all despotic forms of government.
Education in the hard sciences would help. For starters, learn the Laws of Thermodynamics and the importance of energy density.
Prosecuting, jailing, and executing people for stupidity, even for superstition, would not help. For starters, that tips the balance of power towards despots. For another, it’s like the Aesop’s fable about the mice arguing over who’s gong to bell the cat? Besides, you’d never be able to build enough jails for every blockhead.
Keep plugging away at disputing “pre-failed stupid ideas.” Tedious yes, but incrementally effective. Teamsters no longer use ox carts. Doctors no longer bleed patients to drain away the “bad humors.” So learning is possible.
The cost of hydrogen was why a project to make the hydrogen fuel cell car a commercial reality was shelved in the late 1980s. The platform worked extremely well (used Ballard fuel cell technology) but then the bean counters were called in and they reported to the oversight committee that the cost of operation, which at the time worked out to about equivalent to $10/gal, would only increase when costs of hydrogen distribution were added. The executive decided that the costs associated with a sale of a commercial model would be “too rich” for the target consumers.
The project was fun while it lasted.
Dysfunctional Hydrogen is 4 to 5 times worse than dysfunctional wind/solar/batteries
Our only economically viable approach is to build several hundred 2000 to 4000 MW standard-design nuclear plants during the next 5 decades, plus smaller plants in special locations, as needed, such as Greenland.
Plus one for “Greenland“.
I knew this hydrogen stuff would go boom like the infamous zeppelin.
Story tip – Hyzon lays off workers, plans to liquidate business | Trucking Dive
Dive Brief:
They took money from government and sucker, paid themselves well, then closed up. A story as old as government.
Imagine re-branding natural gas and petroleum as carbon-stabilized hydrogen from natural deposits. Of course we would need to ditch the ridiculous claim that the “carbon” part should be considered “pollution” when it is re-supplied to the atmosphere as CO2.
Just a thought.
Here is a press release for you:
Engineers at a small firm in Maryland have discovered a low-cost method of transporting Hydrogen through existing infrastructure. According to Jerry Taylor, the project lead, Carbon-stabilized Hydrogen requires no more energy to create than natural gas and can use the existing natural gas distribution infrastructure. “The issues that are present with Hydrogen transport, such as the need for high pressures, are removed with carbon stabilized hydrogen,” said Taylor. The manufacturing costs are “basically the same” as natural gas production. Taylor declined to provide specifics on the manufacturing method, as they are looking for a partner to help exploit the technology.
“Carbon-stabilized Hydrogen requires no more energy to create than natural gas”
Huh?
Is someone out there creating natural gas?
I thought the industry started by assuming the natural gas already existed- “natural”.
See: The patent on DiHydrogen Monoxide … related, I think …
re: “Is someone out there creating natural gas?”
Propane is a valid retort/answer too.
I agree, sounds like a euphemism for hydrocarbon gases.
“exploit the technology.”
Several meanings for that word ‘exploit’…
use, leverage, manipulate, abuse, impose (on or upon),
Did I oversleep, and just wake up on April 1st!?
Just my little joke. It would be great to spread this on the interwebs and see who believes it.
Rather than “Fossil Fuel”, call it “Organic Fuel”. Should make them feel much better.
There is one reason to askew hydrogen as a fuel. It produces exactly what they say they want to avoid, a powerful (what warmists call) greenhouse gas called water vapor.
No amount of price reduction will prevent that. No amount of new supply. Nothing overcomes that.
eschew
His SpellWreck app seems to be a tad askew. Something to chew on!
Good point but might be correct either way.
Gesundheit!
Electrolyser hydrogen production projects have been cancelled in both Canada and Germany because of high construction costs and transportation costs.
Liverpool and Glasgow in the UK and Montpelier in France cancelled bus projects because of unreliable supply and costs up to 6 times higher than battery buses.
The Netherlands and Germany cancelled train projects, indeed the German state of Saxony introduced hydrogen trains to much fanfare but announced almost a year later they were withdrawing them because battery trains were cheaper to run.
The IEA say hydrogen demand remains concentrated in traditional applications such as refining, ammonia and methanol production and steel manufacture and that demand is almost completely met by hydrogen produced from unabated fossil fuels. The adoption of hydrogen in new applications accounts for less than 1% of global demand.
They also note that 2030 targets for hydrogen production set by governments had declined from 14 Mt to 11Mt during the year.
IEA ‘Global Hydrogen Review 2024’ (Oct 2024)
“using the gas to generate electricity for consumers results in a loss of 50% to 80% of the energy value.”
You lose 1/3rd of the input when you electrolyize water because you produce oxygen as well as hydrogen in the ratio of 2H:1O. Oxygen has no marginal value because it is freely available in the atmosphere. So you start behind the 8 ball and lag further as you go. Compression and liquefaction are also energy sucks that doom the whole enterprise.
O2 is available in the atmosphere, but there is a cost to isolate it from the other gases in the atmosphere. Pure O2 has a value, not a lot of value, but there is a market for it.
Since all you need to do is cool air to -200C and you get both liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen separated and both with commercial value, oxygen from electrolysis is not competitive.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.treadwellcorp.com/about-timeline.php&ved=2ahUKEwj3z5XMkJeLAxUQe_UHHTw4PWIQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2L0IQW456PcIkewFqn0ruT
a good use for O2
6L16s ….
Another unicorn/fairy disappointment.
“The Pure Evil Of Hydrogen Hyping”; David Archibald; Watts Up With That; September 24, 2020
Way back in the 1970s I briefly considered developing a wind turbine and electrolysis combination for farmers to produce their fuel and reduce dependence on volatile petroleum-sourced fuel supplies. The problems included storage and transport of a low-density fuel. Probably solvable but costly. The end of the energy crisis removed the motivation.
The only motivation today is a so-called climate crisis without any shortages besides common sense. a shortage unlikely to be alleviated soon.
About 22 years ago, Baldor Eliasson and others wrote a paper describing the difficulties of handling hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen requires much more energy and complexity to produce, contain and ship than methane and carries a fraction of the energy content as an equal volume of methane. It would, for example, require as many as 12 semi-trailer loads of hydrogen to deliver the same energy content to a “gas” station as one gasoline tanker delivers today and the station or hydrogen tankers require a hydrogen compressor to off load. Liquify it? Nope. Hydrogen must be cooled pretty close to absolute zero to liquify and stay that way. NASA does it but they don’t care what it costs. Hydrogen has been a non-starter as a fuel for decades or more and the the only reason the idea persists is the ignorance of politicians and the perfidy of industrial subsidy seekers, not unlike windmills and solar panels for electricity production.
“Hydrogen must be cooled pretty close to absolute zero to liquify and stay that way. NASA does it but they don’t care what it costs”
Anyone who thinks putting Liquid Hydrogen in any vehicle is a good idea, needs to remember the Space Shuttle Challenger !!
Careful or someone will start talking about fission energy.
A SRB, Solid Rocket Booster, failure burned through the external tank and triggered the explosion. I don’t recall any problems with Apollo or Shuttle launches due to hydrogen.
Hydrogen’s future – nailing this down in this encoded ‘spoiler’ (if I may), with PW/Rotor settings released later:
zqzuc hhmjd xurne pmtzg mvbgx wdeak jdyos bhmge miffi ryibj vfkho nmghp ptdfd cdihv tvewz bagtm xlzbr pcnxm ihbfy jjniw vdwcd wivkf ewkvz okwmm vhlny vujsu zfykw zysyc dubro rxryf txrjc dnfrj nkjue sq
Some of us remember ROT-13. The encoder is the decoder too.
Heh. Same with this.
Can you explain the ‘downvotard’ votes on this?
To the ID 10Ts (non-adults) downvoting this: I simply want to avoid a long, lengthy discussion on a particular point all the while marking this point in time via the hidden mention of a particular subject. It will be interesting at some point in the future to reveal what was known now, on Monday, 2025-01-27, but only becomes common knowledge in the future. Maybe some adults can appreciate this.
Is this the transcript of a answer Joe Biden gave to a question about using hydrogen as fuel?
Wildly undershoots …let’s wait until manifestation … (I don’t recall what he said, and if he said anything it came from an earpiece from an (unknowledgeable) aid anyway.) My opinion.
Has anybody come up with an energy transport ‘scheme’ using mainly/mostly Hydrogen that rivals CH4 (natural gas) besides propane C3H8 (which offers obvious _lower_ liquification working pressures than CH4)?
Is there a conversion process (opposite to ‘cracking’) to make propane C3H8 from natural gas (CH4) feedstock? Lower working pressures of LPG being the goal here …
‘Moar’ downvotard vote(s)? Seriously? Are any of you versed in anything besides sharp rhetoric?
Global Warming, The H2 economy, Net Zero…….they tell me to “Trust the science.”
All of the above have no basis in reality. Here is my question. Has science always be that corrupt? Is this corruption a direct result of government funding and its political implications?
Science is not corrupted. Corruption is tugging the mantle of science about its shoulders. It is akin to stolen valour.
Corruption only occurs when the classic scientific method is not followed rigorously.
And then – “science” isn’t being practised, it’s just some numpty dicking about, pretending.
Remember to go look for it in remote and costly corners like the mid-continent rift under Nebraska, etc. Gates needs the tax write off.
Snake oil always comes with a spectacularly shiny presentation followed by a cataclysmic failure to deliver.
HYDROGEN FOLLIES BRIEFING NOTES FROM THE ENERGY REALISTS OF AUSTRALIA
MISPLACED EXCITEMENT
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/technology/21-9-green-hydrogen
THE REAL COST
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/21-18-the-cost-of-green-hydrogen
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/Efficiency_of_Hydrogen_Fuelled_Gas_Turbines_Version_1.5.pdf
FULL LIST OF BRIEFING NOTES FROM THE ENERGY REALISTS OF AUSTRALIA
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/list-of-briefing-notes
The ‘H2 as fuel’ prophesy would be amusing, except WE have to pay for it..
Clearly, most ‘H2 as fuel’ advocates have never studied chemistry. That is a pity since it is chemistry and electrochemistry that are largely in play, along with some unforgiving physics.
The Chinese are learning electrochemistry the hard way – having blown a LOT of money on H2 electrolysis without first finding out that H2 electrolysis requires a quite stable source of electricity – and narrowly missed blowing up the electrolysis facility.
Other morons are blowing a lot of our tax money drilling for H2. There is some down there, 9 miles down there. So far, the evidence is there is not enough to warrant the drilling.
A big problem with H2 is storage and shipping. H2 is a cryogen fluid at 20K which cannot be contained for long. Its manufacture already is a major energy sink. Then, the average shipping would be 30 days, end to end, resulting in 25-30% loss. The fugitive H2 in the atmosphere then results in a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 or NG, though H2 is NOT a greenhouse gas!
Yes, H2 is alluring as long as the physics and chemistry is unknown to the allured. The list of drawbacks is longer than the list of plusses, a LOT longer. I discuss this topic in my lectures and it only gets worse as new problems arise and old ones are never solved.