Past the Hydrogen Mirage: A Candid Dialog with Joe Romm

---

---

---

Just lately, I had the chance to take a seat down once more with Dr. Joseph Romm to debate his then about to be launched ebook, The Hype About Hydrogen, out there now on Amazon. That is the second half of our dialog, evenly edited.

Michael Barnard [MB]: Welcome again to Redefining Power — Tech. I’m your host, Michael Barnard. My visitor in the present day is Dr. Joseph Romm, senior analysis fellow on the College of Pennsylvania middle for Science, Sustainability and the Media, working with Michael Mann. His work focuses on the sustainability, scalability and scientific underpinnings of main local weather options. The twentieth anniversary model of his ebook The Hype about Hydrogen dropped on Earth Day, and we’re right here to speak about it. That is the second half of our dialog.

Joe Romm [JR]: Let’s be sincere. A part of the resurgence of curiosity in oil and gasoline firms is as a result of they’re those who know tips on how to use hydrogen. They’re those who know tips on how to transfer it round. I’ve at all times felt the explanation they pushed it so arduous is that they by no means believed inexperienced hydrogen can be cost-effective. They assumed folks would ultimately come operating again to them to make it from methane—with guarantees to seize some carbon alongside the best way.

They usually have been proper. Now we’re seeing all these apologists saying, “Okay, effectively, inexperienced hydrogen will not be cost-effective for some time, so within the meantime, we’ll make it from methane. We promise we’ll seize the carbon.” However as we’ve seen with common carbon seize, virtually nobody delivers. Everybody claims they’ll hit 90 or 95 %, however hardly anybody captures something near that.

[MB]: I used to level to Sleipner’s North Sea facility as in all probability the best-case state of affairs. And even then, it was nonetheless a bit odd. For many who don’t know, it’s an offshore pure gasoline platform. They extract gasoline from beneath the seabed, nevertheless it comprises an excessive amount of carbon dioxide—about 8%, if I bear in mind accurately. So that they separate out the CO₂ and get huge tax credit from the Norwegian authorities to inject it again underground. They usually truly do it.

I used to assume, no less than it was Norwegian engineering—environment friendly, dependable. However then final 12 months we came upon they’d been underperforming for 5 years. They’d pumped far much less CO₂ underground than they claimed. Even the Norwegians can’t get it proper.

[JR]: I’ve a piece within the ebook on Sleipner as a result of there’s a typical false impression on this nation about carbon seize and storage. The folks pushing it are principally oil firms, and more often than not they use the captured CO₂ to extract extra oil from the bottom. Occidental’s acquisition of Carbon Engineering was clearly for that function. I hope all of us perceive that capturing CO₂—from an influence plant or from the air—after which utilizing it to extract extra oil isn’t a sustainable resolution. It doesn’t clear up local weather change.

The fact is that efficient carbon storage requires some huge cash for monitoring and verification. Sleipner is an effective instance: the CO₂ is injected underwater, beneath the ocean ground, right into a formation they declare is geologically sealed. However to comprehend it’s actually sealed—and that the CO₂ isn’t migrating—you want steady, costly monitoring. CO₂ spreads. It will probably discover previous cracks you didn’t know have been there, or create new ones over time.

Within the ebook, I talk about two case research: Sleipner and the In Salah challenge in Algeria. In each circumstances, long-term monitoring revealed that the CO₂ didn’t simply keep the place they put it. It moved. This issues. Particularly now, when the literature is evident—and we noticed this emphasised at COP 29 in Azerbaijan with two main research—that if you wish to genuinely displace fossil gasoline emissions, you might want to retailer CO₂ completely. CO₂ stays within the ambiance for a very long time. So in case you’re going to take away it, you might want to lock it away for hundreds of years. If it leaks in 100 years, you haven’t actually solved something. You’ve simply delayed the issue.

That is why measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) are so necessary—however nobody desires to pay for them on this nation. Oil firms say, “Give us the CO₂, pay us a tax credit score, and belief us—we’ll bury it and it gained’t come again.” However they don’t need legal responsibility. They need immunity in case one thing goes mistaken. If a CO₂ plume resurfaces in a decade and harms folks, they don’t wish to be held accountable.

That’s the definition of an ethical hazard. No accountability, no actual incentive to get it proper. If you happen to actually wish to do carbon seize and storage responsibly, it’s a must to spend money on long-term monitoring and verification. In any other case, it’s simply one other phantasm.

[MB]: Properly, the excellent news about Northern Lights—the Norwegian carbon storage challenge—is that the ships are lastly going to begin transferring this 12 months. And I say it’s excellent news not as a result of it makes any actual sense, however as a result of it’s going to quickly turn out to be painfully apparent to everybody that it doesn’t.

Norway paid for roughly 80% of the capital price utilizing cash from its sovereign wealth fund, so it’s already pulled an enormous quantity of worth out of fossil fuels to fund this. On high of that, they’re subsidizing BECCS vegetation to ship CO₂ to Northern Lights. The one facility that even approaches fiscal sanity is Yara’s dockside ammonia plant, which produces a comparatively pure stream of CO₂.

However even then, Yara has to buffer, compress, and liquefy that CO₂ at nice expense, whereas ready for one of many Northern Lights ships to reach. Then the ship travels 700 kilometers round-trip to the injection web site. And that web site, whereas technically on land, is reached through a 100-kilometer undersea pipeline that dives 2 kilometers all the way down to a storage formation supposedly sealed by impermeable shale that may maintain the gasoline eternally.

It’s an astonishing quantity of engineering and cash. They’ve gone as far as to equip the ships with Flettner rotors to achieve an additional 3% effectivity. They’re additionally utilizing air lubrication techniques underneath the hulls, gradual steaming—ways we don’t sometimes apply on commonplace cargo vessels barring the gradual steaming—all to cut back the CO₂ emissions from the maritime gasoline powering the ships. When the phantasm breaks and other people begin including up the true prices, it’s going to be eye-opening.

[JR]: It’s necessary for folks to know that if you seize CO₂, it’s a gasoline—however to retailer it, you might want to convert it into supercritical CO₂. That’s a state the place it’s neither a real gasoline nor a real liquid. It has about half the density of water, and it’s stored at round 1,000 kilos per sq. inch. In that state, it behaves as a solvent—supercritical CO₂ is definitely utilized in business for precisely that function.

So if you inject it underground, you’re injecting a high-pressure solvent into geological formations. This isn’t a easy “fireplace and neglect” course of. It requires severe engineering, long-term oversight, and a deep understanding of subsurface conduct. The primary time I noticed the equation for this, it actually hit me—that is much more advanced and dangerous than most individuals understand.

Vaclav Smil did a calculation the place he identified that if you wish to seize and transfer round 3 billion tons of CO₂—whether or not it’s from energy vegetation or another supply—you’re coping with a logistical burden equal in quantity to greater than 90 million barrels of oil per day. That’s roughly the identical scale as the complete international oil manufacturing and supply system, which took a century to construct. If you happen to assume you’re going to recreate that form of infrastructure in a era, you would possibly wish to assume once more.

And that’s only for 3 billion tons. Complete international greenhouse gasoline emissions are 50 billion tons yearly. Even in case you’re solely aiming for a 6% resolution, you’re nonetheless speaking about constructing a whole international petroleum-scale infrastructure simply to bury waste—and it higher keep buried. If it leaks out over the subsequent hundred years, you haven’t solved the issue.
The purpose isn’t that carbon seize or hydrogen are utterly nugatory. The purpose, as I emphasize within the ebook, is that we have to deal with applied sciences which can be scalable now and able to driving emissions down quickly. We’ve been growing emissions for over 30 years. We’re at COP29 now. In a TEDx speak, I identified that there have been over 30 annual international local weather conferences—together with one we missed throughout COVID—and emissions have stored rising the complete time.

So except we begin chopping emissions sharply and shortly, we’re in deep trouble. That’s what I posted about not too long ago, and that’s what the monetary sector appears to be acknowledging quietly. As a substitute of screaming for instant motion, they’re hedging—investing in air-con, insurance coverage, and adaptation. That tells you one thing.

The true trick is to spend as a lot cash as potential on the issues which can be more likely to work—and as little as potential on issues that in all probability gained’t. I’m a physicist, and I ran a billion-dollar R&D workplace. I’d by no means say an issue can by no means be solved, however the factor about hydrogen is, it’s not fixing only one drawback.

Folks speak about “gold hydrogen”—naturally occurring hydrogen underground—as if simply discovering it solves all the pieces. However, as I argue within the ebook, there are no less than 5 main challenges. Twenty years in the past, I used to say you wanted three or 4 miracles to make hydrogen viable. And often, it solely takes one deadly flaw to kill an thought. However over time, I spotted one thing deeper: in case you’re prepared to consider in a single miracle, you’ll consider in 4. It’s like infinity—whether or not it’s one or 4, it’s nonetheless an infinite leap of religion.

So, saying “we simply must make inexperienced hydrogen” isn’t sufficient. That also doesn’t get hydrogen to finish customers. It nonetheless leaks. It’s nonetheless probably the most harmful substances identified to humankind. And nobody desires to speak concerning the questions of safety. So no, I’m not saying we should always abandon all hydrogen. We are going to, sooner or later, want to switch the soiled hydrogen we at the moment produce. Proper now, we make about 100 million tons of it a 12 months, and manufacturing retains rising by about 5% yearly.

However hydrogen accounts for under about 2% of world greenhouse gasoline emissions. So sure, it’s necessary—however not pressing. There are hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like worldwide air journey, that contribute 2–3% of world emissions. All of us agree they’re tough and costly to repair proper now. So possibly let’s not deal with them first.

What we’d like is the form of cost-curve pondering that McKinsey and others used to do. Let’s go after the comparatively straightforward 80%. Let’s focus R&D on the tough 20%, like hydrogen, with out prematurely scaling up costly, dangerous applied sciences for marginal beneficial properties. We have to cease chasing shiny distractions and deal with what truly will get emissions down—quick.

[MB]: The factor about hydrogen is that round 40% of world manufacturing is used for refining oil—and that 40% is overwhelmingly tied to heavy, high-sulfur crude from locations like Alberta, Mexico, and Venezuela. I truly did the maths and the workup on this, and folk at Schlumberger checked out it and mentioned, “Yeah, that checks out.” And they might know.

It really works out to about 7.7 kilograms of hydrogen per barrel for Alberta’s crude. In contrast, for mild, candy crude—like among the finest from Brent or Saudi Arabia—it’s solely about 1.2 kilograms per barrel. So if you take a look at that, it turns into clear: if hydrogen turns into costlier, and if oil demand declines, hydrogen demand goes to say no as effectively.

The identical logic applies to ammonia-based fertilizers. If hydrogen turns into extra pricey, we’ll cease overusing them. Options like agrigenetics and precision agriculture turn out to be extra aggressive, and in lots of circumstances, more cost effective. There’s an actual financial argument there.

I had a dialog not too long ago with Michael Liebreich the place he admitted he’d gotten the worth level for hydrogen mistaken when doing the primary model of the hydrogen ladder. He had different causes for pondering hydrogen wouldn’t be a giant deal, however he mentioned the hydrogen ladder would have appeared completely different if he’d had the suitable worth assumptions. I acquired fortunate—I did the price workups and the modeling earlier than I put out my hydrogen projections. I preserve saying this: I don’t assume I’m proper. I simply assume I’m much less mistaken than most. And on this case, I acquired fortunate. I might have been simply as embarrassed as a number of different persons are in the present day.

However there’s one thing we haven’t actually talked about: hydrogen leakage. There are two main issues. First, if hydrogen accumulates in an enclosed area and ignites, it’s extraordinarily harmful. However the second situation is extra refined and sometimes ignored.

You’ve smelled pure gasoline earlier than—it stinks. That’s as a result of we add odorants in order that leaks may be detected and other people can evacuate. However you may’t do this with hydrogen. The odorants that work for different gases destroy gasoline cells. So if you wish to use hydrogen for each electrical energy and heating, you’d want two solely separate distribution techniques: one for clear hydrogen feeding gasoline cells, and one other with odorants for security in buildings.

Oddly, this appears to be utterly neglected by many hydrogen proponents. I discover that unusual. Do they only not know? Are they refusing to take care of it? Or is that this only one extra miracle they assume will by some means be solved later

[JR]: The protection situation round hydrogen is commonly casually hand-waved away by individuals who say, “Properly, it’s used safely.” And certain, that’s true—underneath very strict circumstances. However let’s take a look at what international locations like India truly do to make use of it safely. Their rules require a 100-foot setback between any constructing that produces or shops hydrogen and the closest construction. That’s as a result of the hearth danger is so excessive. You additionally want huge air flow in any enclosed area the place hydrogen would possibly accumulate. In any other case, you danger a gasoline bubble forming—and hydrogen, as we all know, burns.

However it’s worse than that. Hydrogen is odorless, and as you identified, it burns invisibly. That’s why, in NASA security handbooks, you’ll discover steering like this: in case you’re coming into a room the place there is perhaps a hydrogen fireplace, carry a brush. As a result of the broom will ignite earlier than you do. That’s not a joke—it’s a workaround for the truth that hydrogen flame detectors aren’t excellent. Possibly persons are engaged on higher sensors, however hydrogen is the tiniest molecule within the universe. It leaks by seals, gaskets, joints—supplies that simply include different gases.

And that leakiness issues. In any facility the place hydrogen is perhaps current, staff should put on static-free clothes. Why? As a result of hydrogen has one-twentieth the ignition power of gasoline. It’s so flamable {that a} static discharge—or perhaps a lightning storm miles away—might set it off. It additionally burns at a a lot larger velocity than pure gasoline, growing the blast danger.

There’s one other essential distinction. Pure gasoline solely ignites in air at a reasonably slim focus—one thing like 5% to fifteen%. Hydrogen, however, can ignite in air throughout an enormous vary—from roughly 4% all the best way as much as 75% or 80%, relying on circumstances. Meaning it’s much more more likely to discover an ignition level.

The underside line is, it’s a must to deal with hydrogen with excessive care. And that form of care prices cash—cash folks don’t wish to spend. That’s additionally one purpose it makes little sense to place hydrogen wherever close to a nuclear reactor. The truth is, nuclear engineers have studied hydrogen intimately due to what occurred at Three Mile Island. Throughout that catastrophe, a hydrogen bubble fashioned contained in the reactor containment vessel. It shocked the general public. Nobody had anticipated it, and there was actual concern it might explode and breach the containment construction.

So sure, hydrogen can be utilized safely—however solely with severe precautions. And most of these precautions make it too advanced and dear for broad, distributed use.

[MB]: That’s truly what occurred at Fukushima—it was hydrogen that exploded. The reactors generated hydrogen, which gathered and ultimately ignited, inflicting the blasts that destroyed components of the power.

However I’ll level out one thing attention-grabbing: hydrogen can also be utilized in a really managed method at nuclear vegetation. It’s used to lubricate the bearings on massive generators as a result of it’s a wonderful coolant and lubricant in these high-speed environments. There’s truly one small-scale nuclear-hydrogen use case that I believed made a number of sense. A plant put in a small electrolyzer onsite particularly to switch the grey hydrogen they’d beforehand trucked in for turbine lubrication. As a substitute, they used a tiny quantity of auxiliary “vampire” energy—round 0.003% of whole output—to provide all of the hydrogen they wanted.

That’s a genuinely good use case. However it was small, and crucially, it wasn’t about utilizing hydrogen as a gasoline. That’s an necessary distinction I wish to emphasize: all the pieces we’re speaking about right here—hydrogen’s security, leakage, infrastructure challenges—it’s all within the context of hydrogen for power. That’s the place the issues lie.

Joe and I are each very supportive of inexperienced hydrogen when it’s used as an industrial feedstock. In that function, it is smart. It has actual use circumstances. It’s hydrogen for power that is still essentially flawed.

[JR]: Making ammonia cleanly is feasible—it’s simply costly.

[MB]: Making hydrogen to burn it or run it by a gasoline cell is a nasty thought—plain and easy.

[JR]: Proper. And I do know we frequently attempt to keep away from moving into ethics, nevertheless it’s value stating the fundamentals. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. While you burn them, you oxidize the hydrogen into water and the carbon into CO₂. Each reactions launch warmth, which we’ve traditionally valued. However water and CO₂ are the top merchandise of combustion. That’s the top of the thermodynamic street.

So when folks attempt to reverse that—after they speak about turning water again into hydrogen and pulling CO₂ from the air, the place it’s current at simply 420 components per million—after which combining them to make artificial fuels, they’re attempting to reverse entropy. And thermodynamics tells us very clearly: in case you try and reverse entropy, you’re going to pay an enormous effectivity penalty. That’s the second regulation—the well-known idea of exergy. If it’s unhealthy for hydrogen, it’s worse for direct air seize.

And in case you’re silly sufficient to say, “I’m going to take hydrogen from water and CO₂ from air and run them by a Fischer-Tropsch course of to make an artificial gasoline, simply to burn it once more”—effectively, possibly contemplate that it might be higher to not burn something within the first place. The literature is evident: that pathway is 10 to twenty instances much less environment friendly than direct electrification.

And folks neglect—or conveniently ignore—that it’s not simply the electrolyzer that has to run on 100% clear electrical energy. That electrical energy needs to be new, native, and hourly matched. And it’s a must to energy the direct air seize system with that very same clear power. And the Fischer-Tropsch plant too. The overall renewable power requirement is staggering.
So then the query turns into: the place are you going to place this factor? We’ve already used a lot of the simply accessible, high-quality renewables. Are we going to construct this huge artificial gasoline advanced in the course of the Sahara Desert? Is that actually the sign?

That’s the form of logic we’re seeing from Germany, for instance. I used to be speaking to a Bloomberg reporter who talked about a narrative about plans to make use of photo voltaic in Namibia to make hydrogen for export to Germany. I mentioned: so as an alternative of utilizing that African solar energy to construct up the native financial system, you’re going to make hydrogen, discover some solution to ship it north in some pricey and inefficient type, after which burn it in a metal plant in Europe?

That’s your plan? You’re going to construct a metal plant that is dependent upon imported hydrogen from an African desert? And what’s actually arduous for you and me is attempting to speak about this with a straight face—as a result of these are sensible folks. Critical folks. They usually’re critically speaking about investing billions into one thing that is dependent upon a number of miracles to even operate.

[MB]: Yeah, a couple of years in the past I did a serious research of the Maghreb area and North Africa—Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt—and the European plans to construct inexperienced hydrogen packages there for export to Europe. I spoke about it at a convention in Tunisia, the place I used to be on a panel, and I mentioned fairly plainly: that is all going to fail.

However whereas the Europeans are being silly and spending some huge cash, the chance for these international locations is to leverage that funding. Construct out wind, photo voltaic, transmission, and storage infrastructure. Use it to decarbonize your personal economies. As a result of whether or not or not the hydrogen export plans succeed, you’re nonetheless going to be affected by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Every part you at the moment export to Europe will face growing carbon tariffs. The best way to keep away from that? Decarbonize domestically.

However what struck me—and I’ll attempt to say this politely—is the diploma to which Europe nonetheless behaves as if it doesn’t have a colonial legacy. It does. And it’s usually blind to that truth. The remainder of the world isn’t.

There’s a robust second captured on video: a German minister—probably even a chancellor—is chatting with an African chief, laying out local weather or power expectations. And the African chief simply blasts them. He says, in impact: you don’t have the ethical authority to inform us tips on how to dwell effectively. And he’s proper.

[JR]: I attempt to give you analogies within the ebook to assist folks perceive this. For me, the very best analogy is that this: think about you wish to ship water someplace. So as an alternative of simply sending water, you exchange it into champagne, ship the champagne, after which distill it again into water on the vacation spot. That’s the plan. And by some means we’re purported to assume that is smart.

Sure, it’s true that hydrogen can be utilized for direct power purposes. However is it the one solution to do these issues? No—not even shut.

Within the ebook, I interviewed one of many senior leaders of the Worldwide Power Company’s hydrogen program, and I quote him at size within the conclusion. One of many causes persons are nonetheless so constructive about hydrogen is that the IEA’s Internet Zero by 2050 roadmap contains it. Hydrogen is within the mannequin as a result of for some sectors, there’s no different apparent pathway. So it turns into a placeholder.

However what he advised me was hanging. He mentioned, principally, all the key technological advances of the previous decade have made hydrogen much less believable, no more. Each huge step has been pro-electric: advances in batteries, in warmth pumps, in electrical automobiles. All of it factors to electrification because the cheaper, extra environment friendly, extra scalable path.

[MB]: Molten oxide electrolysis is now being developed in labs all over the world. Then there’s China’s new inexperienced metal course of, which is reportedly primarily based on their present copper manufacturing methodology. Neither of those approaches—molten oxide electrolysis or China’s new course of—makes use of hydrogen in any respect.

I’m nonetheless listening to rumblings, and I haven’t had time to completely dig into them—one particular person, two eyeballs—however some early indications counsel that molten oxide electrolysis could also be utilizing much less electrical energy end-to-end than different decarbonized steelmaking strategies. And if it consumes much less power and avoids the problems of hydrogen solely, it’s in all probability going to be cheaper too.

[JR]: Proper. That’s precisely the purpose—something you are able to do instantly with electrical energy, you’re by no means going to do extra effectively with hydrogen. And even when electrical energy has some limitations, they’re nowhere close to as extreme because the challenges that include hydrogen.

Right here’s what I’d say to the metal business: let’s record the sectors which can be arduous to decarbonize however that we don’t should rush proper now. We don’t want to switch all of the soiled hydrogen instantly—it solely accounts for about 2% of world emissions and comes with excessive prices. We don’t want to completely decarbonize long-distance air journey but. We don’t have to switch all worldwide delivery. And we don’t have to completely decarbonize metal in the present day. These are 4 of the toughest issues. Let’s give them a while.

As a result of the selection proper now’s this: are you going to spend billions constructing a hydrogen-based metal plant in the present day, though there’s no inexperienced hydrogen out there and certain gained’t be at scale for years—if ever? Or might we spend money on R&D on various steelmaking applied sciences that don’t rely on hydrogen in any respect? A few of these are already rising.
Sure, they won’t be prepared tomorrow. However till we’ve achieved the comparatively straightforward 80 to 90 % of emissions reductions—by electrification, renewables, effectivity, and grid upgrades—we shouldn’t be spending enormous sums to chase applied sciences that find yourself costing $500 or extra per ton of CO₂ diminished. That’s not local weather technique—that’s waste.

[MB]: I’m a broad-spectrum nerd—I simply must know the way issues work. After which I depart a breadcrumb path of what I’ve discovered. More often than not, I’m not terribly mistaken. I get nice corrections from folks, and that helps refine issues. In relation to metal, I truly see a very encouraging story—with or with out hydrogen.
China produces half of the world’s metal, and it’s on the finish of its infrastructure growth. It stopped allowing new blast furnaces final 12 months and is pivoting towards electrical arc furnaces (EAFs) to utilize its 260 to 280 million tons of home scrap. That’s a giant shift.

In the meantime, Europe and the UK are sitting at simply 20 to 40% scrap utilization. They’re nonetheless exporting tens of hundreds of thousands of tons of scrap every year as an alternative of turning it into new metal, and so they’re nonetheless operating blast furnaces. It’s simply baffling.
The USA—regardless of my numerous critiques, each historic and present—has been operating EAFs for about 70% of its metal demand since round 2000. They’re truly the worldwide chief in electrical arc furnace deployment. Sure, they nonetheless use pure gasoline for preheating and will electrify additional, however the basis is already there.

Between the worldwide shift towards electrical arc furnaces and a probable discount in whole metal demand, we’re going to see main adjustments within the metal sector’s carbon footprint. This is likely one of the few vivid spots.

And sure, we did speak about leakage. I discussed eager to go in two instructions with that. As a result of, 20 or 25 years in the past, hydrogen was hyped because the clear resolution—it burns cleanly, and when utilized in a gasoline cell, the one byproduct is water. That was the narrative. However the extra we’ve discovered about leakage, infrastructure prices, and real-world implementation, the much less convincing that story has turn out to be.

It’s offered as a local weather resolution. Sure, we all know it leaks—however by some means that’s brushed apart as only a security situation. And for some purpose, folks really feel snug discounting it. Why? I don’t know. However I’m guessing you’ve been following the rising analysis on the worldwide warming potential of hydrogen.

[JR]: Because it seems, hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse gasoline within the conventional sense—it doesn’t instantly lure warmth. However it’s an oblique greenhouse gasoline, as a result of it extends the atmospheric lifetime of different heat-trapping gases, most notably methane.

Over the previous 5 to seven years, scientists have revisited the numbers. Our understanding of atmospheric chemistry has improved, our fashions have gotten higher, and—frankly—I don’t assume anybody ten years in the past imagined we’d nonetheless be critically entertaining a hydrogen financial system. However as soon as curiosity resurged, the scientific neighborhood took one other look. And what they discovered is regarding.

The 20-year international warming potential (GWP) of hydrogen is now estimated to be round 35, give or take. That’s a lot larger than we beforehand thought—and it’s a significant issue.

Traditionally, the main target was on the 100-year GWP, which is why we didn’t fear an excessive amount of about pure gasoline. Carbon dioxide lasts a very long time within the ambiance, so it dominates the hundred-year body. However now, with rising consciousness of short-lived local weather forcers, we’re wanting on the 20-year affect extra carefully—as a result of we urgently must restrict warming within the close to time period to purchase time for deeper, long-term options.

That’s why methane has come underneath such scrutiny. Over 20 years, methane has a GWP of about 80. And we now know there’s widespread methane leakage throughout the financial system. Robert Howarth at Cornell was closely criticized for elevating this early on, however he’s since been vindicated. His analysis confirmed that you simply solely want 2–3% methane leakage earlier than pure gasoline isn’t any higher than coal. And because it seems, hydrogen leaks much more simply than methane.

This brings us to the infrastructure drawback. How will we transport hydrogen? Ideally, by pipelines—however these require a assured purchaser and vendor earlier than they’re constructed. That’s the basic chicken-and-egg drawback. If you happen to don’t have established hydrogen demand, nobody builds the pipelines. However with out the pipelines, nobody builds hydrogen-using amenities. So nobody goes first. That drawback was recognized over 20 years in the past—and it nonetheless hasn’t been solved.

In follow, most hydrogen is more likely to be moved by truck, both compressed to very excessive pressures—as much as 10,000 psi—or liquefied. Liquefaction permits for a lot better power density, so you may transport extra hydrogen per journey. However it comes with enormous power penalties. And in sure circumstances—like tunnels—liquid hydrogen poses further security issues that compressed gasoline won’t.

So between its oblique warming results, its excessive leakage price, and the unsolved logistics of secure and environment friendly distribution, hydrogen as a local weather resolution seems to be far much less promising than proponents would love us to consider.

[MB]: Proper—you’re not allowed to take liquid hydrogen by tunnels. The protection dangers are simply too excessive.

[JR]: There are at all times problems. One in all them is that canisters can’t truly dispense all of the hydrogen they maintain—the stress dynamics forestall it. These are the sorts of sensible realities that get brushed apart within the magical pondering that usually surrounds hydrogen.

When folks think about hydrogen-powered vehicles, they usually speak about utilizing liquid hydrogen—as a result of in case you attempt to cram compressed hydrogen onboard at 10,000 psi, you don’t find yourself with a lot gasoline. You want specialised, inflexible, non-moldable tanks, which limits the way you design the car. And each fueling station would must be outfitted with 12,000 psi overpressure pumps simply to refill these tanks.

That provides huge complexity and value. And right here’s the kicker: all of that infrastructure is totally nugatory if the hydrogen financial system doesn’t materialize. If you happen to construct 1,000 hydrogen fueling stations with ultra-high-pressure pumps and the market doesn’t take off, you’re left with stranded belongings—amenities nobody can repurpose and nobody desires to take care of.

There are simply so many factors of failure on this imaginative and prescient, and that’s why nobody’s writing the verify. The chance is simply too excessive, the return too unsure, and the options—electrification particularly—are easier, cheaper, and already scaling.

[MB]: They usually’re vastly costlier and much much less modular or manufacturable than megawatt-scale charging infrastructure.

[JR]: However if you wish to produce inexperienced hydrogen domestically at every fueling station, then each station must be situated close to an enormous renewable power supply. In any other case, you’re simply pulling electrical energy from the grid—which possible contains fossil era—and that defeats the entire function. You’re not fixing the emissions drawback; you’re simply shifting it round.

[MB]: Let’s face it—even when we energy battery-electric vehicles with in the present day’s grid electrical energy, they’re nonetheless not as clear as they could possibly be. However they’re vastly higher than hydrogen-powered vehicles. Hydrogen has about one-third the effectivity of direct electrification for street freight. So in case you’re utilizing electrical energy to make hydrogen, you’re successfully multiplying any CO₂ emissions from that electrical energy by three.

However let’s get again to the core level—you’re going to a particular place with this, as a result of we’re speaking about international warming potential. And that adjustments how we consider all of this.

[JR]: Leakage is a serious situation, particularly given the pressures concerned. That’s why lots of people counsel switching to liquid hydrogen as an alternative. I preserve seeing proposals: liquid hydrogen for planes, liquid hydrogen vehicles, vehicles powered by liquid hydrogen, or vehicles delivering liquid hydrogen. It’s far and wide. However the assumption appears to be that utilizing liquid type by some means solves the storage and transport drawback—when in actuality, it simply introduces a complete new set of challenges.

[MB]: Daimler is closely invested on this. They’ve even acquired a member of their board of administrators performing as a vocal spokesperson for hydrogen, particularly in transport.

[JR]: This is likely one of the craziest concepts on the market. First, liquefying hydrogen consumes about 40% of its power content material—it’s a must to cool it down to close absolute zero. We’re speaking a lot colder than liquid nitrogen or liquid CO₂. The power inefficiency of that course of is staggering.

However it doesn’t cease there. As soon as the liquid hydrogen is within the tank, it begins to heat up. It sloshes round throughout transport—and sure, there are precise research on the sloshing impact. Because it warms, it begins to re-gasify, creating stress contained in the tank. And proper now, the usual solution to take care of that stress? You vent it. You simply let the hydrogen escape into the ambiance.

[MB]: I’ll say that Air Liquide truly captures boil-off in Europe—as a result of they’re required to by regulation.

[JR]: And certain, you may pay to do this—seize the boil-off—however within the U.S., I don’t assume there’s a single truck doing it. To make that potential, you’d should scrap the present fleet and set up solely new know-how. And bear in mind, you’re not simply capturing the vented hydrogen—you additionally should re-cool it.

So by some means this truck that’s already transporting liquid hydrogen would additionally want to hold the ability and gear to maintain it chilly sufficient to stop boil-off. That’s an enormous ask. It means you may’t transport it very far. And that’s the purpose—I’ve been taking a look at this, and it simply doesn’t add up.

[MB]: Hydrogen leaks in all places. Each time you do something with it—each switch level, each contact level—you’re taking a look at no less than 1% leakage. That’s what the info constantly reveals. In California, there was one hydrogen fueling station with 35% leakage. After years of remediation, they managed to deliver it down to simply underneath 10%.

In South Korea, after they inspected hydrogen vehicles and buses, 15% have been leaking. An electrolyzer station in Northern Europe—engineered to excessive requirements—nonetheless confirmed leakage charges between 1% and 4%. That’s simply the fact.
And if you begin multiplying these numbers throughout a full hydrogen provide chain, issues worsen quick. In case your worth chain has seven or eight switch factors—and plenty of do—you’re simply taking a look at 10% leakage end-to-end.

Multiply that by hydrogen’s 20-year international warming potential of 35, and also you’ve acquired a major warming affect. That’s not a local weather resolution. That’s an issue.

[JR]: It’s a number of warming—full cease. And even setting apart hydrogen’s international warming potential, the inefficiency alone is purpose sufficient to keep away from dropping any of it. It’s insane, actually. What we’re saying is that our supposed resolution to international warming is a gasoline that extends the lifetime and abundance of methane within the ambiance.

After which I hear folks say, “Properly, we will’t do all of it with renewables, so we’ll simply make the hydrogen from pure gasoline.” Proper—so we’re going to make use of a leaky fossil system to make hydrogen, which is able to then leak out itself, additional extending the lifetime of methane within the ambiance. That’s not an answer; it’s a suggestions loop. And as I say on the finish of the ebook, the very last thing you’d ever wish to do in a world fearful about near-term warming is develop the usage of pure gasoline. And but, that’s precisely what hydrogen does.

Even earlier than Trump, there have been actual questions on whether or not oil and gasoline firms have been severe about tackling methane emissions. And take note—methane is effective. You’ll be able to promote methane. Hydrogen? Not a lot. So if we haven’t gotten severe about containing methane, the place there’s a revenue motive, what makes us assume we’ll do higher with hydrogen?

No matter framework you employ—three or 4 miracles, or “turtles all the best way down”—the purpose is identical: there isn’t any foundational layer the place this hydrogen financial system truly is smart. It’s constructed on a stack of wishful assumptions.
And I get it. The local weather disaster is dire. Emissions preserve rising. It looks like we’re not performing quick sufficient. However we’re optimistic folks—we consider know-how can clear up issues. And it could possibly. There are actual applied sciences which can be scaling in the present day and delivering emissions reductions.

However folks want to know: hydrogen isn’t considered one of them. Not for power. Hydrogen isn’t an answer that exists ready for only one breakthrough to make all of it work. It’s not like a “remedy for most cancers” scenario the place one discovery unlocks all the pieces. It’s a fancy drawback that requires fixing dozens of arduous engineering, security, infrastructure, and financial challenges—a lot of which don’t even overlap.

And that’s why the true reply—the sensible, scalable, financial reply—is the electrification financial system. That’s the longer term.

[MB]: So we’re on the high of the hour. Usually I’d depart it with an open-ended query, however you’ve acquired a ebook popping out in six days. So let folks know the place they’ll get it, what codecs it’s out there in—and if there’s some sketchy black market vendor on the market, give people a heads-up to steer clear.

[JR]: Properly, look—I get that some folks don’t wish to give cash to Amazon. And I’m not right here to defend Bezos. However the reality is, earlier than he turned no matter he’s now, he did revolutionize ebook manufacturing and supply. You’ll be able to consider him a bit like Elon Musk: there’s a “earlier than” and an “after.” The very fact stays—Amazon constructed a remarkably environment friendly system for each paperback and digital books.

So yeah, if you wish to really feel conflicted and virtuous on the similar time, purchase it from Amazon. You actually ought to. Even my writer doesn’t advocate shopping for the e-book by different platforms as a result of they’ll’t legally make it appropriate. It’s not a real PDF, and it’s not a real Kindle file, so that they’ve explicitly mentioned: don’t purchase it there.

This isn’t a ebook full of figures or advanced formatting, so the Kindle model works nice. There might be an audiobook ultimately, however for now, seize the paperback or the Kindle.

Personally, I like to recommend the Kindle. It’s extra environmentally pleasant, and truthfully, it’s extra helpful to me as an writer. I can see what readers are highlighting. And when a bunch of individuals underscore the identical line, I believe, okay, possibly that’s the half I ought to emphasize in a chat.

[MB]: Do you might have a launch occasion or something deliberate for the twenty second?

[JR]: No, I’ve been doing ebook talks, however we dwell in a world the place they don’t actually drive gross sales anymore. Podcasts are the trendy ebook tour, I believe..

[MB]: Properly, I’m glad to be a part of it.

[JR]: Properly, it’s digital, proper? And it’s Earth Day—that’s the purpose. I actually labored arduous to get this out by Earth Day. So go to Amazon and purchase the paperback.

[MB]: Glorious. That is Michael Barnard, the host of Redefining Power – Tech. My visitor in the present day has been Dr. Joseph Romm, whose twentieth anniversary version of The Hype About Hydrogen is out in six days. As he mentioned—purchase it on Amazon. Joe, thanks a lot for being on.

[JR]: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.