Connect with us

Published

on

As hydrogen hype is ramping up again, this time very clearly due to the fossil fuel industry putting its very large, well-funded thumb on the scales of public perception and policy-making, a pair of academic papers on the climate merits of “blue” hydrogen have been published recently. The first was by Howarth and Jacobson, and found that “blue” hydrogen had full lifecycle emissions that made it a non-starter as a climate solution. The second, by a host of authors — 16 of them, which is an unusually large number for an academic paper in this field, and more in keeping with a pile-on letter with signatories — finds that “blue” hydrogen can be a good low-carbon addition to the solution set.

The Howarth, Jacobson, et al paper will be assessed in a separate article, but this pair of pieces will assess the merits of the hyper-authored paper favoring “blue” hydrogen, On the climate impacts of blue hydrogen production, in the journal ChemRxiv. Note that this journal is in the same vein as other journals appearing at present, in that it publishes non-peer reviewed material, a very acceptable practice for important fields with long peer-review cycles but one that comes with a proviso.

“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health related behaviour, or be reported in news media as established information.”

As such, this article is an assessment of something that is very early in the review cycle, and some comments may become stale as the paper moves through to final publication. As a non-peer reviewed early publication journal, it doesn’t have an impact factor. By comparison, the Howarth Jacobson paper is peer-reviewed and published in Wiley’s open access journal Energy Science & Engineering, which has an impact factor of 4.07. This is not in any way dismiss the paper, but to acknowledge that it is somewhat less reliable by this measure at this time. I refer to papers in similar early publication journals regularly, most notably Cornell’s arXiv on machine learning, where peer review cycles can take two years.

The paper appears to have been in the works for a while with a subset of the authors, then the Howarth and Jacobson paper was published, and this paper was rushed to early publication in reaction, presumably with the addition of authors who wanted to make their disagreement with Jacobson known as well. This is reminiscent of the 20 author critique of Jacobson et al’s 2015 published study on 100% renewables by 2050 for the USA, a critique I found without particular merit, but in this case the publication is parallel to Jacobson’s, not directly critiquing it. My observation at the time was that everyone was agreeing that up to 80% was fully achievable with renewables, but that the last 20% would be too hard or expensive. My further observation is that last 20% is now often the last 10% according to many. I suspect Jacobson will be proven right, and further that his vision is by far the fastest and cheapest one to get electricity decarbonized by 80% t0 90%, so if other technologies prove necessary for the last bit, they can wait.

That the authors are reacting to the Howarth-Jacobson paper is clear from the abstract by the way, where they say “However, recent research raises questions about the effective climate impacts of blue hydrogen from a life cycle perspective.” This is not to denigrate the authors. Like the authors of the previous critique, they have a different belief about what will be necessary to decarbonize the world, and so this is, in my opinion, something of a tempest in a teapot. Except that it isn’t. The credibility of “blue” hydrogen is essential for the fossil fuel industry to maintain its current level of policy and opinion pressure for adoption of fossil-fuel sourced hydrogen in a much larger way than any current use of the molecule.

And so, to the contents of the paper. The approach to this will be to quote key elements from the paper and respond to them.

“Hydrogen is foreseen to be an important energy vector in (and after) the transition to net-zero Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission economies.”

This is an overstatement at best. Hydrogen as an energy vector is being promoted heavily by the fossil fuel industry, but fails multiple tests associated with economics, efficiency and effectiveness after decades of attempts. Hydrogen will be required as a chemical feedstock in industry, but is unlikely to be widely used in transportation, storage or heating. There are much better alternatives for the vast majority of use cases.

Hydrogen demand projection through 2100 by author

For those who missed it, I recently published a three part series with a contrarian but I think more accurate perspective on the future of hydrogen demand, one which saw global hydrogen demand falling, not rising. This is version 1.0 and intended to provide the basis for a fuller discussion. And to be clear, it’s a singular non-academic analyst’s perspective and in no way peer reviewed or intended to be peer reviewed, much like Liebreich’s excellent and useful hydrogen ladder. There are large error bars and it’s an opinion, not a prediction. But it is an opinion based on what is necessary across multiple domains for us to actually take action on climate, the laws of thermodynamics and basic economics. My perspective that hydrogen demand will be falling is a large part of the reason I don’t think that “blue” hydrogen is even necessary. Perpetuating and expensively remediating the significant negative externalities of the fossil fuel industry isn’t required to nearly the degree that the fossil fuel industry is trying to convince people it is.

If an updated version of the paper is produced that the authors might make this a more accurate statement, but note that it is not the direct point of the paper. It is, however, indicative of their assumptions, something which becomes clearer and clearer through the paper.

“The reductions in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq.) emissions per unit of hydrogen production were in the order of 50-85% when compared to standard NG-based hydrogen production without CCS”

There are two concerns with it. The first is that the goal cannot be 50% or even 85%. The goal is 100%. In connection with the expectation of a very large role for hydrogen in energy, 50–85% simply perpetuates the damage of climate change.

Later in the paper, the authors find that in the best cases with high monitoring and maintenance, it can exceed 90%. Further, they say that technologies that are in prototype today but not scaled could achieve 100%. It’s important to recognize that the authors make it clear that only in the best case scenarios with the absolute best practices and technology that is currently unproven will “blue” hydrogen be compatible with climate change requirements.

Magnitude of challenge vs tiny scale of CO2 use today

Magnitude of challenge vs tiny scale of CO2 use today by author

The second concerns CCS. Having reviewed all major CCS implementations and most proposed technologies, publishing regularly on the subject for several years, there is no way that CCS can or will scale to the magnitude of the emissions. At present, the total global CCUS market is 230 million tons of CO2 annually. 90 million tons of that is for enhanced oil recovery, and as the CO2 being ‘sequestered’ is first pumped from underground where it was already sequestered, is strongly negative for climate change. Meanwhile, the current scale of annual emissions is in the 40 billion tons range, and the total excess atmospheric CO2 is over a thousand billion tons. In order to stabilize the climate, we have to get to net zero and start drawing down the thousand billion tons.


This concludes the first half of the assessment of the “blue” hydrogen life-cycle assessment. As a reminder, this is non-peer reviewed draft apparently rushed to publication, and so comments in this article may not reflect the final published version of the paper. That said, given the assumptions and provenance, it’s unlikely to be substantially altered unless other reviewers find substantive errors in the modeling. I don’t dispute the LCA work that the authors have done, but am merely pointing out that their arguments about “blue” hydrogen’s value have little merit in the actual world we inhabit.

 

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

Oil giant Saudi Aramco posts 15% drop in third-quarter profit but maintains dividend

Published

on

By

Oil giant Saudi Aramco posts 15% drop in third-quarter profit but maintains dividend

Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura oil refinery and oil terminal

Ahmed Jadallah | Reuters

Saudi state oil giant Aramco reported a 15.4% drop in net profit in the third-quarter on the back of “lower crude oil prices and weakening refining margins,” but maintained a 31.05 billion dividend.

The company reported net income of $27.56 billion in the July-September period, topping a company-provided estimate of $26.9 billion. The print is also a 5% drop from the previous quarter, which came in at $29.1 billion, as lower global oil prices, weaker demand and prolonged OPEC+ production cuts led by Saudi Arabia continue to impact crude prices.

The average selling price of oil for the second quarter of 2024 stood at $85 per barrel, but dropped to $78.7 per barrel during the third quarter, according to Saudi-based bank Al Rajhi capital, as non-OPEC supply volumes grew.

The oil firm said its year-on-year decline was partly offset by a “reduction in selling, administrative and general expenses primarily driven by a gain from derivative instruments, and a decrease in production royalties largely reflecting lower crude oil prices and a lower average effective royalty rate compared to the same quarter last year.”

Aramco’s dividend includes a base payout of $20.3 billion and an atypical performance-linked one of $10.8 billion. The Saudi government and the kingdom’s sovereign wealth vehicle, the Public Investment Fund, are the main beneficiaries of the dividend, holding stakes of roughly 81.5% and 16% in the company.

The remaining shareholding trades freely on Saudi Arabia’s Tadāwul stock exchange, with the company having finalized its second public share offering back in June.

Aramco’s earnings before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) came in at $51.45 billion in the third quarter, down 17% year-on-year. Aramco’s capital expenditure guidance was brought up 20% to $13.23 billion.

The company was trading at 27.45 riyals following the announcement, down 0.18% on the previous day.

The earnings align with a broader trend across oil majors, whose third-quarter profits have also suffered from declines in crude prices and refining margins. Aramco said it achieved average realized crude price of $79.3 per barrel in the third quarter, compared with $89.3 per barrel in the same period of last year.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest crude exporter who produces roughly 9 million barrels per day of crude at present, serves as the de facto leader of the OPEC+ oil producers’ alliance, a subset of whom agreed over the weekend to delay a planned December output hike by one month.

OPEC chief says delayed December output hike is 'nothing unusual'

“Aramco delivered robust net income and generated strong free cash flow during the third quarter, despite a lower oil price environment,” CEO Amin Nasser said in a statement. “We also progressed our upstream developments, strengthened our downstream value chain, and advanced our new energies program as we continue to invest through cycles.”

The revenues will be a boon to the Saudi economy, which is currently undergoing a diversification process under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s legacy Vision 2030 scheme spanning a slew of high-cost infrastructure “gigaprojects.”

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Finance cut the kingdom’s growth forecast to 0.8% in 2024, in a steep decline from a previous projection of 4.4%, and raised the outlook for the national budgetary shortfall to roughly 2.9% of GDP, from a prior indication of 1.9%.

Continue Reading

Environment

Cybertruck backlog runs out, Model S gets stuck, GM hits a sales milestone

Published

on

By

Cybertruck backlog runs out, Model S gets stuck, GM hits a sales milestone

On today’s episode of Quick Charge, Tesla’s Cybertruck is now available in Canada – and, like in the US, there’s no waiting! Plus, we’ve got an “actually” smart summon Tesla that’s actually stuck, GM reaches a sales milestone, and we get a brand-new title sponsor!

Today’s episode is the first with our new title sponsor, BLUETTI – a leading provider of portable power stations, solar generators, and energy storage systems.

Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple PodcastsSpotifyTuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.

New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonusLucid proves than an EV company can keep its promises while Xiaomi teams up with Chevrolet and Honda to prove – at least conceptually – that records are made to be broken. audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news!

Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show!

Read more: Renewables now make up 30% of US utility-scale generating capacity

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

Continue Reading

Environment

This ‘supercharger on wheels’ brings fast charging to you [update]

Published

on

By

This 'supercharger on wheels' brings fast charging to you [update]

Mobile car care company Yoshi Mobility launched a DC fast charging EV mobile unit that it likens to “a supercharger on wheels.”

November 4, 2024 update: Yoshi Mobility will only be charging EVs on the side of the road now – it announced today that it’s selling its fleet fueling operation to EZFill Holdings (Nasdaq: EZFL).

It was originally founded as a direct-to-consumer, mobile fueling business in 2016, but now it’s going to focus on mobile EV charging, virtual vehicle inspections for partners like Uber and Turo, and onsite preventative maintenance.

Bryan Frist, Yoshi Mobility’s CEO & cofounder, said, “By spinning off our fuel business and focusing all of our energy on solving hair-on-fire problems that fleet owners face, we are meeting the changing needs of enterprise customers while making the future of transportation safer, cleaner, and more sustainable.”


May 22, 2024: Yoshi Mobility saw that its existing customers needed mobile EV charging in places where infrastructure has yet to be installed, so the Nashville-based company decided to bring the mountain to Moses.

“We recognized a demand among our customers for convenient daily charging, reliable private charging networks, and proper charging infrastructure to support their fleet vehicles as they transition to electric,” said Dan Hunter, Yoshi Mobility’s chief EV officer and cofounder.

The company says its 240 kW mobile DC fast charger, which can turn “any EV” into a mobile charging unit, is the first fully electric mobile charger available. It can provide multiple charges in a single trip but doesn’t detail how they charge the DC fast charger or who manufactured it. (I asked for more details, and they replied that they won’t disclose client names or the manufacturer of its DC fast charger yet.)

Yoshi is launching its mobile charger on two GM BrightDrop Zevo 600s and will introduce additional vehicles throughout 2024. It aims for full commercialization by Q1 2025. (I wonder if the Zevo 600 ever charges itself? Yes, I asked that too.)

Yoshi Mobility says it’s already deployed its EV charging solutions to service “major OEMs, autonomous vehicle companies, and rideshare operators” across the US. Its initial customers are made up of large EV operators managing “hundreds” of light-duty vehicles requiring up to 1 megawatt of energy per day that don’t yet have grid-connected EV chargers. I’ve asked Yoshi for details of who it’s working with, and will update if they share that info.

The company says pricing is based on location and enterprise charging needs. Once under contract for service, the service will be deployed to US-based customers within 10 days.

To date, Yoshi Mobility has raised more than $60 million, with investments from GM Ventures, Bridgestone, ExxonMobil, and Y-Combinator in Silicon Valley.

Read more: Mercedes-Benz just opened more DC fast chargers at Buc-ee’s in Texas


If you’re an electric vehicle owner, charge up your car at home with rooftop solar panels. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing on solar, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have 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 Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –ad*

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

Continue Reading

Trending