Connect with us

Published

on

In this edition of CleanTech Talk, Paul Martin and I discuss Michael Liebreich’s hydrogen ladder. Paul is a working chemical process engineer, and has spent his career building prototypes of biofuel, hydrogen, and chemical processing plants as part of scaling them to full, modularized production systems for clients. Paul’s piece in CleanTechnica on why hydrogen is not suitable as a replacement for natural gas in buildings is a must read.

Liebreich is an entrepreneur, founder of what has become Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), chairman on multiple boards, has engineering and business degrees, and represented the UK on their skiing team in 1992. He’s had a rich and interesting life, but for the purposes of this pair of podcasts and attendant articles, it’s his iteratively improving hydrogen ladder Paul Martin and I are focusing on.

Regular readers of CleanTechnica will know that I have been assessing hydrogen’s place in the decarbonized economy in the areas of transportation, oil refining, and industry, among others. Paul and I share a strong opinion that “blue” hydrogen, which is sourced from fossil fuels with 10-30 times the mass of CO2 which is theoretically going to be sequestered or used, is a fossil-fuel industry lobbying effort and not a viable climate solution.

Michael Liebreich’s Hydrogen Ladder v4.1, used with permission under Creative Commons license.

Listeners are recommended to keep the hydrogen ladder in front of them as Paul and I talk through aspects of it.

We start with a discussion of one of Paul’s frequently used hashtags, #hopium, which he defines as the drug that is made out of our own hope to overcome our faculties and divert government money to things which aren’t useful. We agree that the fossil fuel industry are masters of PR when it comes to giving false hope to governments and individuals that we can just vacuum CO2 out of the air or out of smokestacks after emitting it, rather than the reality that we leave most fossil fuels unburned and unused.

Paul steps through existing hydrogen production, pointing out that of the 120 million tons used annually today, less than 0.1% could be considered green hydrogen, intentionally cracked from water using renewably generated electricity. All hydrogen today is actually black, at least 30% blacker per unit of energy than the fossil fuel it was made from. For coal, up to 30 kg of CO2 is created for every kg of hydrogen, with one data point suggesting a proposal in Australia to make hydrogen from low-grade coal with 35 kg of CO2 for each kg of hydrogen. For natural gas, it’s up to 10 kg, but there is also methane leakage with its 86x worse than CO2 on 20 years global warming potential. Creation of hydrogen from natural includes an almost equal amount of GHGs in methane leakage, which is typically not counted in the emissions.

We continue with a discussion of ground transportation, where there is no place for hydrogen, in our opinion. Paul draws out the efficiency versus effectiveness argument first. Gasoline isn’t efficient, as perhaps 15% turns into useful energy, but it is effective due to being cheap, easily poured into gas tanks, and easily transported.

Hydrogen is neither efficient or effective for ground transportation. The misleading truths that are used for #hopium are that it’s the most common element in the universe and has excellent energy density for its mass.

The first truth is not helpful, as all hydrogen available to us is tightly chemically coupled with other substances, whether that is fossil fuels or water. It takes a lot of energy to break those bonds.

The second truth is not helpful either. Hydrogen, as the lightest element and lightest gas, has very poor energy density by volume, regardless of whether you compress it to 700 atmospheres, a little over 10,000 pounds per square inch, or chill it to 24 degrees above absolute zero to liquify it. As a gas, it has less than a third the energy density by volume of methane, and as a superchilled liquid, its energy density by volume is only 75% better.

Paul points out that the Toyota Mirai vs Tesla Model 3, otherwise comparable cars, is illustrative in that the Mirai weighs as much as the Tesla, even though it only carries 5.6 kilograms of hydrogen. The tanks weigh hundreds of kilograms. A standard hydrogen cylinder weighs 65 kg and only delivers 0.6 kg of hydrogen, a problem that transportation uses have to overcome with expensive thin-walled aluminum tanks wrapped in carbon fiber. It’s also worth noting that hydrogen cars have less interior and luggage room due to the hydrogen storage and fuel cell component space requirements.

Paul points out the lost mechanical energy of compression. He calculated once that the energy used to compress 5 kg of hydrogen to 700 atmospheres was equivalent to the kinetic potential energy of suspending the car 500 meters in the air, ready to drop. That energy is lost. If superchilled hydrogen were used instead, 40% of the energy in the hydrogen would have to be used to chill it.

The final devil in the details is thermal management. Hydrogen is an interesting gas in that unlike many other gases, it gets warmer as it expands. Anyone used to compressed air cans know that the jet of air comes out cold, but an equivalent jet of hydrogen would come out hot. Even though compressed hydrogen isn’t liquified, in other words, it has to be chilled in its tanks before being pumped into cars, another loss of energy.

This all leads to the common myth that hydrogen cars are quick and convenient to refuel. The reality is shown by Toyota’s entry in the 24-hour enduro Super Taikyu Series in Japan’s Shizuoka Prefecture. They prepped a racing Corolla with a hydrogen combustion engine. It had four huge carbon-fiber tanks in the area where you would normally have back seats. They brought four tractor trailers full of equipment to fuel the car. The car had to spend four hours of the 24 hours of the race refueling. Ineffective, inefficient, and with startling infrastructure requirements.

As Paul says, the devil isn’t hiding in the details, he’s waving his pitchfork in plain sight of anyone willing to see him.

We move on to agreeing in general that hydrogen might have a direct play in long-haul shipping, or at least hasn’t proven itself uncompetitive in that space. I recently assessed Maersk’s methanol drivetrain dual-fuel ships announcement, and 40-day journeys with thousands of tons of fuel are a very hard problem to crack. Maersk has proposed a green methanol manufacturing facility capable of producing enough synthetic green methanol annually to cover half of one trip for one of the eight ships.

For the rest of the first half of the podcast, aviation is in our sights. Paul and I agree that short- and medium-haul aviation — basically all air trips within the boundaries of most continents — are going to be battery electric. Hydrogen has no advantages for those ranges.

And we agree that long-haul aviation is another hard problem. I went deep on long-haul aviation’s global warming contributions and challenges recently, so had the concerns at top of mind. First was the problem of direct carbon dioxide emissions of course, but aviation also has contrail and nitrous oxides emissions problems.

Contrails are water vapor, effectively clouds. Due to the altitude of especially night-flying high-altitude planes, they keep more heat in than they reflect. That’s something that can partially be managed by changing operations, reducing altitude and night-time operations, but there are economic reasons why planes fly high and at night that need to be addressed with economic incentives.

Nitrous oxides are trickier. Any fuel burned in oxygen produces nitrous oxides with a bunch of the nitrogen from the air, which is, after all, 78% nitrogen. Nitrogen combined with oxygen in the form of N20, nitrous oxide or laughing gas, has a global warming potential of 265 times that of CO2, and persists in the atmosphere a long time.

Another form of nitrous oxide, NO2 or nitrous dioxide, is the chemical precursor to smog, causing asthma and other heart lung problems. For those following along, yes, if you have a natural gas stove or furnace in your home, it’s also putting NO2 into your home’s air along with carbon monoxide, which you need a detector for if you don’t have it. All the more reason to electrify to induction stove tops and heat pumps as your appliances age out.

Paul’s perspective is that hydrogen for long-haul aviation has multiple problems. The first is that it can’t be stored as a pressurized gas in airplanes due to the increasing loss of atmospheric pressure and bulk as planes ascend to 30,000 ft. The second is that even chilled, it’s much less dense by volume than kerosene, so it would have to be stored in the fuselage. The third is that fuel cells are bulky for energy output of sufficient electricity, so would also have to be within the fuselage, and fuel cells give off a lot of heat. So that means either jets lose a fair amount of passenger and luggage storage, or get a lot bigger and heavier, even before the cooling and venting requirements for the fuel cell heat. That makes the economics of jet travel problematic, which might be just fine, as it arguably should be more expensive than it is.

However, this means that it would be hydrogen jet engines that would be used if hydrogen were to be used directly as a fuel. And burning hydrogen in a jet engine will produce a lot of water vapor, hence the same contrails, and nitrous oxides, hence the high global warming potential. Hydrogen would only deal with two-thirds of the problem.

Paul and I agree that biofuels for hard-to-service transportation modes such as long-haul shipping and aviation, along with operational changes and reduced use, are likely the best we can do until we achieve a battery as much better than lithium-ion as lithium-ion is than lead acid, and that took a century.

But we’ve had biofuels certified for aviation use since 2011, and they just aren’t being used. They are more expensive, despite being much lower CO2 emissions cradle-to-grave than kerosene. Once again, negative externalities have to be priced.

The next half of the podcast discussion gets into places where hydrogen actually has a place in the sun, but makes it clear that hydrogen is actually a decarbonization problem, not a decarbonization solution.

 

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Volvo set to ditch LiDAR for 2026 – and Luminar is BIG mad

Published

on

By

Volvo set to ditch LiDAR for 2026 – and Luminar is BIG mad

It seems like the writing was already on the wall last week when Volvo moved to make its Luminar-supplied LiDAR system an option – there are now reports that the Swedish car brand is set to ditch LiDAR tech entirely in 2026.

In a recent SEC filing following a missed interest payment on its 2L notes, Luminar confirmed that Volvo’s new ES90 and EX90 flagship models (along with the new Polestar 3) would no longer be offered with LiDAR from Luminar. The move signals a full reversal on the safety tech that had started as standard equipment, then became an option, and is now (according to reports from CarScoops) gone altogether.

In a statement, a Volvo Cars USA spokesperson added the decision was reportedly made, “to limit the company’s supply chain risk exposure, and it is a direct result of Luminar’s failure to meet its contractual obligations to Volvo Cars.”

This is what Luminar had to say about the current, icy state of the two companies’ relationship as of the 31OCT filing:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The Company’s largest customer, Volvo Cars (“Volvo”), has informed us that, beginning in April 2026, Volvo will no longer make our Iris LiDAR standard on its EX90 and ES90 vehicles (although Iris will remain an option). Volvo also informed the Company that it has deferred the decision as to whether to include LiDAR, including Halo (Luminar’s next generation LiDAR under development), in its next generation of vehicles from 2027 to 2029 at the earliest. As a result of these actions, the Company has made a claim against Volvo for significant damages and has suspended further commitments of Iris LiDAR products for Volvo pending resolution of the dispute. The Company is in discussions with Volvo concerning the dispute; however, there can be no assurance that the dispute will be resolved favorably or at all. Furthermore, there can be no guarantee that any claim or litigation against Volvo will be successful or that the Company will be able to recover damages from Volvo.

As a result of the foregoing, the Company is suspending its guidance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025.

LUMINAR

On November 14, Luminar confirmed that Volvo had terminated its contract altogether, in a blow that could leave Luminar rethinking its long-term future and planning litigation against its biggest ex-customer.

The news follows a host of significant upgrades to the EX90 that include a new, more dependable electronic control module (ECM) and 800V system architecture for faster charging and upgraded ADAS that improves the automatic emergency steering functions and Park Pilot assistant.

Electrek’s Take


You can’t spend years telling everyone you’re miles ahead because you have LiDAR, then ditch LiDAR, and pretend no one is going to call you out on it. They had better hope they don’t up on Mark Rober’s YouTube channel doing a Wile E. Coyote impression (above).

That said, it’ll be interesting to see if ditching the LiDAR has a negative impact there. Or, frankly, whether ditching the LiDAR and its heavy compute loads will actually help mitigate some of the EX90’s niggling software issues. It could go either way, really – and I’m not quite sure which it will be. Let us know which way you think it’ll go in the comments.

SOURCE: Luminar, via SEC filing; featured image by Volvo.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

John Deere electric riding mower gets removable batteries from EGO

Published

on

By

John Deere electric riding mower gets removable batteries from EGO

The new John Deere Z370RS Electric ZTrak zero turn electric riding mower promises all the power and performance Deere’s customers have come to expect from its quiet, maintenance-free electric offerings – but with an all new twist: removable batteries.

The latest residential ZT electric mower from John Deere features a 42″ AccelDeep mower deck for broad, capable cuts through up to 1.25 acres of lawn per charge, which is about what you’d expect from the current generation of battery-powered Deeres – but this is where the new Z370RS Electric ZTrak comes into its own.

Flip the lid behind the comfortably padded yellow seat and you’ll be greeted by six (6!) 56V ARC Lithium batteries from electric outdoor brand EGO. Those removable batteries can be swapped out of the Z370RS for fresh ones in seconds, getting you back to work in less time than it takes to gravity pour a tank of gas.

And, because they’re EGO batteries, they can be used in any 56V-powered EGO-brand tools and minibikes for unprecedented cross-brand interoperability. Tools and minibikes that, it should be noted, can be purchased at John Deere dealers across the country.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The upsell scripts write themselves, kids. And when you start your dialing, tell your prospective customers their new Z370RS Electric ZTrak electric mower lists for $6,499, and if you order now we can bundle it with EGO minibike for the kiddos – just in time for the holidays!

Electrek’s Take


When John Deere launched the first Z370R, Peter Johnson wrote that electrifying lawn equipment needs to be a priority, citing EPA data that showed gas-powered lawnmowers making up five percent of the total air pollution in the US (despite covering far less than 5% of the total miles driven on that gas). “Moreover,” he writes, “it takes about 800 million gallons of gasoline each year (with an additional 17 million gallons spilled) to fuel this equipment.”

It should go without saying, then, that states like California, which are banning small off-road combustion engines, have the right idea.

SOURCE | IMAGES: John Deere.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Daimler CEO just dropped some pretty WILD pro-hydrogen claims [update]

Published

on

By

Daimler CEO just dropped some pretty WILD pro-hydrogen claims [update]

Daimler Truck AG CEO Karin Rådström hopped on LinkedIn today and dropped some absolutely wild pro-hydrogen talking points, using words like “emotional” and “inspiring” while making some pretty heady claims about the viability and economics of hydrogen. The rant is doubly embarrassing for another reason: the company’s hydrogen trucks are more than 100 million miles behind Volvo’s electric semis.

UPDATE 22NOV2025: Daimler just delivered five new hydrogen semis for trials.

While it might be hard to imagine why a company as seemingly smart as Daimler Truck AG continues to invest in hydrogen when study after study has shut down its viability as a transport fuel, it makes sense when you consider that the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) holds approximately 5% of Daimler and parent company Mercedes’ shares.

That’s not a trivial stake. Indeed, 5% is enough to make KIA one of the few actors with both the access and the motivation to shape conversations about Daimler’s long-term technology bets, and as a major oil-producing country whose economy would undoubtedly take a hit if oil demand plummeted, any future fuel that’s measured molecules instead of electrons isn’t just a concept for the Kuwaiti economy: it’s a lifeline.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

What’s more, Kuwait’s “Oil Strategy 2040” includes plans to nearly double crude oil production and invest billions of dollars in new oil extraction projects and downstream refining facilities, even as the rest of the world rushes to decarbonize.

In that context, the push to make hydrogen seem like an attractive decarbonization option makes more sense. So, instead of giving Daimler’s hydrogen propaganda team yet another platform to try and convince people that hydrogen might make for a viable transport fuel eventually by giving five Mercedes-Benz GenH2 semi trucks to its customers at Hornbach, Reber Logistik, Teva Germany with its brand ratiopharm, Rhenus, and DHL Supply Chain, I’m just going to re-post Daimler CEO Karin Rådström’s comments from Hydrogen Week.

You let me know if they sound any more credible now that there are five (5!) whole trucks on the road.


Earlier this month, Daimler Truck AG issued a press release entitled, “Five and a Half Times Around the World: Daimler Truck Fuel Cell Trucks Successfully Complete More Than 225,000 km (~139,000 miles) in Real-World Customer Operations.” Don’t bother looking for it on Electrek, though. I didn’t run it. And I didn’t run it because, frankly, a fleet of over-the-road semi trucks managing to cover a little over half the number of miles that David Blenkle put on his single Ford Mustang Mach-E isn’t particularly impressive.

In the meantime, Daimler competitors like Volvo, Renault, and even tiny Motiv are racking up millions and millions of all-electric miles and MAN Truck CEO Alexander Vlaskamp is saying that it’s impossible for hydrogen to compete with batteries. Heck, even Daimler’s own eActros BEV semi trucks are putting up better numbers than those hydrogen deals.

So, why then is Rådström pouring on the hydrogen love over at LinkedIn?

For some reason – posts about hydrogen always stir up emotions. I think hydrogen (not “instead of” but “in parallel to” electric) plays a role in the decarbonization of heavy duty transport in Europe for three reasons:

  1. If we would go “electric only” we need to get the electric grid to a level where we can build enough charging stations for the 6 million trucks in Europe. It will take many years and be incredibly expensive. A hydrogen infrastructure in parallel will be less expensive and you don’t need a grid connection to build it, putting 2000 H2 stations in Europe is relatively easy.
  2. Europe will rely on import of energy, and it could be transported into Europe from North Africa and Middle East as liquid hydrogen. Better to use that directly as fuel than to make electricity out of it.
  3. Some use cases of our customers are better suited for fuel cells than electric trucks – the fuel cell truck will allow higher payload and longer ranges.

At European Hydrogen Week, I saw firsthand the energy and ambition behind Europe’s net-zero goals. It’s inspiring—but also a wake-up call. We’re not moving fast enough.

What we need:

  • Large-scale hydrogen production and transport to Europe
  • A robust refueling network that goes beyond AFIR
  • And real political support to make it happen – we need smart, efficient regulation that clears the path instead of adding hurdles.

To show what’s possible, we brought our Mercedes-Benz GenH2 to Brussels. From the end of 2026, we’ll deploy a small series of 100 fuel cell trucks to customers.

Let’s build the infrastructure, the momentum, and the partnerships to make zero-emission transport a reality. 🚛 and let’s try to avoid some of the mistakes that we see now while scaling up electric. And let’s stop the debate about “either or”. We need both.

KARIN RÅDSTRÖM

Commenters were quick to point out that Daimler recently received €226M in grants from German federal and state governments to build 100 fuel cell trucks – but, while Daimler for sure doesn’t want to give back the money, it’s also pretty difficult to believe that Rådström’s pro-hydrogen posturing is sincere.

Especially since most of it seems like nonsense.

We’re not doing any of that


Daimler CEO at European Hydrogen Week; via LinkedIn.

At the risk of sounding “emotional,” Rådström’s claims that building a hydrogen infrastructure in parallel will be less expensive than building an electrical infrastructure, and that “you don’t need a grid connection to build it,” are objectively false.

Further, if her claim that “putting 2,000 H2 stations in Europe is relatively easy” isn’t outright laughable, it’s worth noting that Europe had just 265 hydrogen filling stations in operation in 2024 (and only 40% of those, or about 100, were capable of serving HD trucks). At the same time, the IEA reported that there are nearly five million public charging ports already in service on the continent.

Next, the claim that, “Europe will rely on import of energy, and it could be transported into Europe from North Africa and Middle East as liquid hydrogen” (emphasis mine), is similarly dubious – especially when faced with the fact that, in 2023, wind and solar already supplied about 27–30% of EU electricity.

I will agree, however, with one of Rådström’s claims. She notes that, “some use cases of our customers are better suited for fuel cells than electric trucks – the fuel cell truck will allow higher payload and longer ranges.” That’s debatable, but widely accepted as true … for now. Daimler’s own research into lighter, more energy-dense, and lower-cost solid-state battery technology, however, may mean that it won’t be true for long, however.

Unless, of course, Mercedes’ solid-state batteries don’t work (and she would know more about that than I would, as a mere blogger).

Electrek’s Take


Mahle CEO: "We will fail if we don't use blue hydrogen"
Via Mahle.

As you can imagine, the Karin Rådström post generated quite a few comments at the Electrek watercooler. “Insane to claim that building hydrogen stations would be cheaper than building chargers,” said one fellow writer. “I’m fine with hydrogen for long haul heavy duty, but lying to get us there is idiotic.”

Another comment I liked said, “(Rådström) says that chargers need to be on the grid – you already have a grid, and it’s everywhere!”

At the end of the day, I have to echo the words of one of Mercedes’ storied engineering partners and OEM suppliers, Mahle, whose Chairman, Arnd Franz, who that building out a hydrogen infrastructure won’t be possible without “blue” H made from fossil fuels as recently as last April, and maybe that’s what this is all about: fossil fuel vehicles are where Daimler makes its biggest profits (for now), and muddying the waters and playing up this idea that we’re in some sort of “messy middle” transition makes it just easy enough for a reluctant fleet manager to say, “maybe next time” when it comes to EVs.

We, and the planet, will suffer for such cowardice – but maybe that’s too much malicious intent to ascribe to Ms. Rådström. Maybe this is just a simple “Hanlon’s razor” scenario and there’s nothing much else to read into it.

Let us know what you think of Rådström’s pro-hydrogen comments, and whether or not Daimler’s shareholders should be concerned about the quality of the research behind their CEO’s public posts, in the comments section at the bottom of the page.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Karin Rådström, via LinkedIn.


If you drive an electric vehicle, make charging at home fast, safe, and convenient with a Level 2 charger installed by Qmerit. As the nation’s most trusted EV charger installation network, Qmerit connects you with licensed, background-checked electricians who specialize in EV charging. You’ll get a quick online estimate, upfront pricing, and installation backed by Qmerit’s nationwide quality guarantee. Their pros follow the highest safety standards so you can plug in at home with total peace of mind.

Ready to charge smarter? Get started today with Qmerit. (trusted affiliate link)

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending