Connect with us

Published

on

In the first part of this series, I projected and explained the plummeting hydrogen demand from petroleum refining and fertilizer, the biggest sources of demand today, through 2100. In the second part, I explored the flat demand segments, and the single source of significant demand increase I see for hydrogen in the next 20 years. In this final assessment, I look at the great but false hopes for a hydrogen economy: transportation, long-term storage, and heat.

Hydrogen demand through 2100 by author

Hydrogen demand through 2100, by author.

Transportation — 0 rising to 1 (one) million tons H2

This is one of the great hopes of the current fossil fuel industry, and a couple of car companies which have managed to capture their governments in Korea and Japan. However, there’s no significant place for hydrogen or synthetic fuels made from it in ground transportation. Electrification is simply too easy, prevalent, cheap, and effective. Hydrogen can’t compete outside of tiny niches like vintage vehicles. For short- and medium-haul aviation, and short- and medium-haul water freight shipping, the clear path is battery electric as well.

That only leaves long-haul shipping and long-haul aviation as areas where hydrogen might have a play. Mark Z. Jacobson and I discussed this on CleanTech Talk a year and a half ago. His perspective was that in order to get to a zero-carbon world, hydrogen would have to be used for long-haul shipping and aviation.

His perspective on shipping was that we needed to eliminate black carbon, with its 100-year global warming potential of 1,055–2,240. Subsequently, I spent a couple of hours talking with Hadi Akbari, a PhD of mechanical engineering who has spent the last several years of his fascinating career spanning two continents building scrubbers for heavy marine vessels. Just as particulates are scrubbed from coal plant emissions, they can be scrubbed from marine emissions, and so biofuels with their lower black carbon emissions will be fit for purpose in my opinion. (Note: this is my opinion after talking with Hadi and researching further, not Hadi’s expressed opinion.) Biofuels use nature to do most of the heavy lifting and have advanced substantially over the past decade. There is no value in using them in ground transportation, they no longer consume food sources and there is little real concern about them competing with agriculture, although there is a lot of expressed concern nonetheless.

On aviation, Jacobson rightly points out that we have to solve emissions, but it’s a hard problem, with CO2 emissions, nitrous oxide emissions (anything burned in our atmosphere combines the nitrogen and oxygen into nitrous oxides), and the water vapor which creates contrails. In discussion with Paul Martin, it’s clear that both hydrogen storage and fuel cells would have to be in the fuselage, leaving a lot less room for passengers and luggage or making the fuselage bigger with attendant efficiency losses, and creating a heavy burden of excess heat from the fuel cells that makes them deeply unlikely. In his perspective, hydrogen would be burned directly in jet engines in this model, and that wouldn’t eliminate nitrous oxides or water vapor hence contrails.

Once again, low-carbon biofuels are likely to be the solution here. Certified versions have existed since 2011, after all, while there are exactly zero certified hydrogen drive train planes in the world. And contrails require fairly minimal operational changes, as a regular CleanTechnica reader who holds my feet the fire pointed out (and thank you for doing so, Hazel). Those operational changes still have to be mandated for the airlines, but it’s not as significant a problem as I had originally assumed.

Biofuels are enhanced with some hydrogen in some cases, and there are always going to be edge cases where hydrogen persists, but my projection for all modes of transportation including biofuel use is still only an increase from effectively 0 tons today to a million tons a year by 2100.

Long-term storage — 0 rising to 1 (one) million tons

Hydrogen is also projected as a solution for the dunkelflaute, long dreary periods when there is little wind or sunshine. However, it only makes into the also-ran categories of my projections for grid storage, not into the three major technologies.

Projection of grid storage capacity through 2060 by major categories by author

Even there, it’s not going to be a big player in the also ran category, fighting for scraps with all the other contenders a long way back in the pack. Some of the reasons are the same as always. It’s ineffective, it’s inefficient and it will be vastly more expensive. But more than that, the need just isn’t there unless you assume a whole bunch of other solutions aren’t already occurring.

High-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission has been around since the 1950s, but in 2012 they finally solved a major technical inhibitor to its wide scale use. Despite the presence of multiple grids on continents already sharing electricity with HVDC asynchronous connections between high-voltage alternative current (HVAC) synchronized grids, despite massive HVDC construction projects under way, planned and proposed, despite electricity already being transmitted long-distances today with much more lossy HVAC, many people seem to think that electricity won’t be transmitted from renewables between opposing ends of continents and even across continents.

Electricity already flows from Africa to Europe across the Bosphorus Strait. Expanding that with big HVDC pipes from solar installations and wind farms in northern Africa is trivial, just as getting more HVDC pipes to ease the logjam from North Sea offshore wind into the population centers of Europe is straightforward and being constructed.

Renewables are cheap to build, and just as with every other form of electrical generation except nuclear, will be overbuilt and run under capacity part of the year.

Demand management strategies vs V2g projection

Demand management strategies vs V2g projection by author

And the emergence of massive electrification increases the ability to do demand management at much larger scales.

The assumption of the need for long-term storage assumes narrow geographical boundaries, an archaic concept of energy independence in a world of global trade, and actively hostile neighbors. Liebreich and I have started this conversation online, with his opening salvo being a question of whether Japan would ever accept the proposed HVDC links with China, to which I respond now that China is already 20% of Japan’s annual trade, so why is electricity different?

Germany will likely be the one outlier in this space. They have underground salt deposits that they can turn into caverns, they have a weird love affair with hydrogen too, and dunkelflaute being a German word isn’t a coincidence. If anybody builds significant hydrogen storage, it will probably be them.

As a result, my projection for global demand for hydrogen for electricity storage rises from effectively zero tons today to a million tons in 2100. Someone will waste the money, but very few.

Heating — 0 tons rising to … 0 (zero) tons

And finally, heating, the beloved hope of natural gas utilities globally, all of whom are lobbying hard to convince governments to let them ship hydrogen into homes and buildings to replace natural gas, and to allow them to inject tiny amounts of hydrogen into existing natural gas lines to produce close to zero emissions reductions.

There are no certified hydrogen home furnaces or stoves today. The existing natural gas distribution network would have to be completely replaced to handle hydrogen. Current challenges with leaking natural gas would be multiplied vastly by leaking hydrogen due to the tiny size of the molecule. SGN in Scotland is trying to retrofit 300 homes in Fife with hydrogen appliances for free, one of the many efforts going on around the world by utilities whose life is rapidly ending.

No, what will happen is that all of that natural gas distribution infrastructure will be shoved into electrical minimills to create steel for useful things, and the world will convert to heat pumps and induction stoves.

My projection for global demand for hydrogen for heating is effectively zero tons today, and remaining at so far under a million tons through 2100 that it rounds down to zero.


And so, that’s the projection. It’s flawed, of course, but not fatally in my opinion. It’s my first iteration of the projection, and it’s withstood me writing 4,000 words over three articles explaining it, so there’s that. But as with my projections on grid storage and vehicle-to-grid, I offer it to create a useful discussion about what the world will become, and welcome challenges to it.

Hydrogen demand today is two-thirds for petroleum refining and fertilizer manufacturing. Both of those uses are going to drop precipitously in the coming decades. The one growth area, steel, will not replace them, in my opinion. Green hydrogen only has to replace the useful two-thirds of hydrogen demand seen today, and grow to 75% of 2021 demand by 2100 to fulfill all needs.

 

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

Toyota the EV battery supplier? Honda will use them to power up its 400,000 hybrids in the US

Published

on

By

Toyota the EV battery supplier? Honda will use them to power up its 400,000 hybrids in the US

Toyota is now a battery supplier? That’s the plan. Honda will use Toyota’s batteries to power up its around 400,000 hybrids sold in the US.

Toyota will supply batteries for Honda hybrids in the US

Toyota’s $14 billion battery plant in North Carolina is ready for business. The facility will begin shipping out batteries next month, and it looks like Toyota already has its first customer.

According to a new Nikkei report, starting in fiscal 2025, Toyota will supply batteries for the roughly 400,000 Honda hybrids sold in the US.

Honda currently uses batteries from China and Japan for vehicles sold in the US, but the company is (like most) preparing for changes under Trump.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Honda’s electrified vehicles, including EVs and hybrids, accounted for over a quarter of US sales last year. The company sold over 308,500 hybrids and 40,400 electric vehicles in the US in 2024. The batteries will likely be used in the CR-V and other Honda hybrid vehicles.

Honda-Toyota-EV-batteries
Honda Prologue Elite (Source: Honda)

Earlier this month, an extra 10% tariff on imports from China took effect. And that’s on top of the 10% imposed in February.

With more expected, including a 25% increase in vehicles imported from Japan, automakers are tightening up their supply chains.

Toyota-new-bZ4X
Toyota’s new bZ4X AWD model introduced in Europe (Source: Toyota)

A 25% tariff on Japanese vehicles, up from 2.5% currently, is estimated to cost the six major Japanese automakers about $20 billion in the US.

Tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada could cost Honda roughly $4.7 billion alone. Teaming up with Toyota to use its batteries for its hybrids is part of Japan’s broader global plans to ween off dependence on China and others for batteries and other emerging tech.

Toyota-Honda-EV-batteries
(Source: Toyota)

The new US plant, Toyota Battery Manufacturing North Carolina (TBMC), is over seven million square feet, or about the size of 121 football fields.

As Toyota’s first in-house battery factory outside of Japan, the plant could be a game changer as Trump’s tariffs take effect. Securing Honda as a buyer will already help Toyota cut costs as it ramps up output.

Toyota plans to ramp up electrified vehicle (EV, PHEV, and hybrid) sales in North America from around 40% last year to 80% by 2030.

Electrek’s Take

Trump’s tariffs are already causing havoc, with nearly every automaker warning that they put the US further behind. Overseas automakers are not the only ones feeling the heat, either.

The “Big Three,” GM, Ford, and Jeep maker Stellantis all build vehicles in Canada and Mexico. GM cut output at its plant in Mexico in January, where the electric Chevy Equinox, Blazer, and Honda Prologue are made. Stellantis halted operations at its Brampton Assembly Plant in Canada last month, where it was expected to launch the Jeep Compass EV production. What’s next?

For Toyota, it looks like its $14 billion bet to build batteries in the US is already paying off. Now, we just need it to introduce more EVs.

After unveiling three new electric SUVs in Europe last week, including the updated bZ4X, Toyota hinted more is on the way for the US. Check back soon for updates.

What do you think? Do you want to see more Toyota EVs in the US, like the new C-HR+? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Oil rises as Trump says Iran will be held responsible for any future Houthi attacks

Published

on

By

Oil rises as Trump says Iran will be held responsible for any future Houthi attacks

U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as military strikes are launched against Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis over the group’s attacks against Red Sea shipping, at an unspecified location in this handout image released March 15, 2025.

White House | Via Reuters

Oil prices rose on Monday after President Donald Trump said the U.S. would hold Iran responsible for any future attack by the Houthis, a militant group in Yemen that has launched missile strikes on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and on Israel.

U.S. crude oil futures rose 40 cents, or 0.6%, to $67.58 per barrel. Global benchmark Brent traded higher by 44 cents, or 0.62%, at $71.02 per barrel.

“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN,” Trump said in a post on social media platform Truth Social. “IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

Trump’s threat comes after the U.S. launched a new wave of airstrikes against the Houthis over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday the U.S. campaign will continue until the militant group halts its attacks.

“This campaign is about freedom of navigation and restoring deterrence,” Hegseth told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “The minute the Houthis say we’ll stop shooting at your ships, we’ll stop shooting at your drones, this campaign will end. But until then, it will be unrelenting.”

The Houthis began targeting commercial shipping traversing the Red Sea in late 2023 in support of Hamas, after the Palestinian militant group launched a surprise attack on southern Israel and Israel responded with a ground and air campaign in Gaza. The Houthis and Hamas are both allied with Iran.

The Houthi missile strikes have forced international shipping companies to reroute container ships that would normally pass through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

Trump has reimposed a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran with the goal of driving down the Islamic Republic’s oil exports. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said the Trump administration’s goal is to collapse Iran’s economy.

The White House believes Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, an allegation the Islamic Republic denies. Trump’s national security advisor, Mike Waltz, said Sunday that “all options are on the table” to ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear bomb.

“We cannot have a situation that would result in an arms race across the Middle East in terms of nuclear proliferation,” Waltz said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Trump has said he wants to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. In 2018, the president withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal negotiated by President Barack Obama, an agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Environment

If Musk wants to sell Tesla cars to conservatives, Tesla needs stores and service in red states

Published

on

By

If Musk wants to sell Tesla cars to conservatives, Tesla needs stores and service in red states

Elon Musk wants to sell Tesla cars to conservatives, but if that’s the strategy, the automaker should start with having stores and service centers in red states and rural areas.

It’s no secret that Elon Musk’s approval ratings with progressives have been plummeting over the last few years and even more so in the previous few months.

Since he has control over Tesla and he is the only official spokesperson since he let go of the PR department in 2020, the CEO is dragging the automaker along for the ride.

This is a problem for Tesla as Democrats are much more likely to buy electric vehicles than Republicans:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Tesla’s sales have been crumbling over the last few months, and after the stock crashed 15% last Monday, President Trump held a controversial commercial for Tesla with Musk on the steps of the White House on Tuesday.

A day later, it was reported that Musk plans to give Trump another $100 million in political donations.

It was an apparent attempt to try to promote Tesla to Trump’s fans: conservatives.

Based on a Tesla inventory check and new order delivery timeline, we reported that the Trump ad appeared to have little to no impact on the demand for Tesla vehicles.

It could be that people see through Musk and Trump’s quid pro quo and, therefore, don’t value Trump’s “Tessler” endorsement seriously. Still, there’s also a more practical reason why Trump’s fans and conservatives generally don’t buy more Tesla vehicles: the locations of Tesla’s stores and service centers (hat tip to Ben).

Even if some Trump fans were interested in buying a Tesla after the White House commercial last week, they might have been turned off by the idea of having to drive several hours to a store or service center.

Tesla does not have stores or service centers in Alabama, Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, or Wyoming.

In some cases, it’s not entirely Tesla’s fault, as some of these states have laws against Tesla’s direct sale models. They force automakers to go through third-party franchise dealerships. This is an abuse of old state laws aimed at protecting dealers against unfair competition from the automakers they represent.

Car dealer lobbies use their influence on state legislatures to use these laws to block Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, and other automakers who never had franchise dealerships from operating their own stores and service centers.

But on top of not having locations in several red states, Tesla also primarily has locations in urban areas, whereas conservatives disproportionally live in rural areas.

The automaker has several dead zones and doesn’t operate locations in smaller cities and towns where there are several Ford, GM, Toyota, and other car dealers:

While it certainly does happen, it’s hard to convince someone to buy a car if they have to drive several hours to pick it up and have it serviced.

Electrek’s Take

In short, it’s not only harder to convince conservatives, on average, to buy an electric vehicle, but Tesla is also not correctly set up to sell and service cars in conservative regions of the US.

Though, I think that’s a small part of the problem.

Cars are not supposed to be political.

Even if Tesla successfully converted a significant percentage of conservatives to electric vehicles, it wouldn’t stop the company’s brand destruction.

Tesla’s reputation amongst Democrats and independents has sharply decreased over the last few years, and especially over the last few months, and that’s thanks to Elon Musk alienating them.

It’s tough to be a successful consumer product company when you have alienated 50% or so of your market.

Tesla is basically becoming the MyPillow of Trump’s second term.

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

Continue Reading

Trending