The Bauer Et Al “Blue” Hydrogen LCA Paper Isn’t Useful In The Real World (Part 1 of 2)
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“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed.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.
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 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.
If you want to ditch snow blowing and shoveling forever, Yarbo’s got just the solution. The robotics company that took home a 2023 CES Innovation Award is redefining what it means to have a “smart yard” in all four seasons. Yarbo’s autonomous outdoor robots use advanced sensors, cameras, and algorithms to do the heavy lifting – literally. From snow blowing to mowing to leaf clearing, these machines handle tough jobs with precision, safety, and zero supervision.
Yarbo’s innovative “1+N” design is centered around one core unit (“1”) that can be expanded with multiple modular attachments (“N”) to meet a variety of yard care needs. This design allows users to save space and cost by owning a single core robot instead of multiple separate machines. Customize functionality by adding modules such as Lawn Mower, Snow Blower, Plow Blade, Cutting Disc, and more. Easily upgrade or adapt to different seasons and tasks without replacing the entire system.
And right now, you can snag a fantastic discount of up to $1,200 at Yarbo’s biggest sale of the year. Check out the official Black Friday launch deals below – you won’t want to miss these!
❄️ Yarbo Snow Blower: The robot that eats snow for breakfast
Yarbo has you covered this winter with the only fully autonomous, 24/7 snow blower on the market, featuring smart scheduling that clears your driveway and sidewalks automatically – with zero human intervention. Once you’ve drawn the areas you want cleared in the app, it requires zero human intervention. The Yarbo 2-stage Snow Blower remembers your layout, wakes up on its own as soon as the flakes fall, and tackles dry, wet, and packed snow with ease.
Its 38.4 Ah lithium battery clears up to 6,000 square feet of light snow (or 2,000 square feet of heavy snow) per charge. When the battery drops below 20%, the snow blower robot automatically returns to the charging dock to recharge in just over an hour, and then picks up where it left off. This prevents snow buildup with 24/7 autonomous clearing and recharging.
This robot is rugged. With a 12-inch intake, 24-inch clearing width, 40-foot throwing distance, and a rugged 200+ lb track drive with traction spikes, deep-bite tread, and anti-slip control, the Yarbo Snow Blower clears deep snow in layers and grips icy slopes and gravel like a pro. It can even raise its intake to glide over uneven terrain. With a Q355 steel frame, it’s tough enough for -13°F winters and has an IPX5 waterproof rating for use in wet conditions. It can also clear some serious footage – 6,000 square feet, to be exact.
If heavy, wet snow falls, attach the snow blade to push through it. If the snow is packed, then the two-stage intake breaks it up and clears it in passes. And if powder is coming down, then a 6- to 40-foot throw keeps the drive clear.
In short: You stay inside with cocoa, while the Yarbo Snow Blower clears the storm.
And here’s the good news: From November 20 to December 1, the Yarbo Snow Blower is $700 off.
🌿 Yarbo Lawn Mower: A perfectly cut lawn, hands-free
When spring and summer roll around, the Yarbo Lawn Mower makes traditional mowing look like ancient history. With dual 20-inch cutting discs and up to 210 minutes of runtime per charge, it covers up to six acres.
It uses binocular cameras, ultrasonic radar, and bumper sensors to dodge obstacles and mow right to the edge. Define up to 150 zones in the app to customize cutting heights and schedules for each part of your yard. The Yarbo Lawn Mower Pro glides smoothly over various terrains while maintaining a consistent cut. Set it once, and it takes care of your lawn for the season.
If you purchase a Yarbo Snow Blower, you get a free Yarbo Lawn Mower during the Black Friday sale!
🍂 Yarbo Blower: Meet your all-season cleanup crew
The Yarbo Blower isn’t just for autumn leaves; it’s for all-around yard cleanup. Its 21-newton blowing force means this robot can clear driveways, yard waste piles, help with post-project cleanup, and can even remove light snow.
Powered by RTK-GPS, Stereo Vision, and ODOM navigation tech via app activation or remote control, it moves precisely even under trees or around tricky terrain. You can track the Yarbo Blower in real time with GPS, set geofences, and control it from the Yarbo app. It’s as close to a self-thinking yard assistant as it gets.
From November 20 to December 1, the Yarbo Blower is $1,000 off.
A smarter winter starts with Yarbo on Black Friday
Yarbo’s lineup isn’t just about robots – it’s about giving you your precious time back. Whether clearing snow before your morning commute, mowing a picture-perfect lawn, or keeping your property spotless, Yarbo’s robots handle it all without supervision.
Ready to give your yard an upgrade? Visit Yarbo’s website and take advantage of Yarbo’s Black Friday discounts before they melt away!
Yarbo offers free and fast shipping, a warranty of up to five years, and 0% financing is available.
Follow Yarbo on Facebook and X/Twitter.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Hyundai’s electric vehicles, like the IONIQ 5, are among the fastest charging EVs, but the company says it’s still not quick enough. To match a typical gas fill-up, Hyundai believes 3 minutes is the magic number for EV charging times.
Hyundai aims for 3-minute EV charging
Built on the E-GMP platform, the Hyundai IONIQ 5 and IONIQ 6 can recharge from 10% to 80% in as little as 18 minutes using a 350 kW DC fast charger and 800V system.
Although that’s already among the best in the industry, Hyundai is pushing for even faster charging. According to Tyrone Johnson, head of Hyundai Motor Europe Technical Center, drivers are looking for EV charging times of around 3 minutes.
“The expectation from customers is that it will take three minutes to fill a car, the same as it does with an internal-combustion engine,” Johnson told Auto Express, even if it’s only for their own reassurance.
Hyundai’s exec explained that “It’s maybe perception rather than reality, but they worry about range anxiety and whether they will suddenly need to drive 200 miles,” adding the ultimate goal “is to get to the same speed as ICE.”
Drivers who can’t charge at home need to know how quickly they can recharge at public fast charge stations, Johnson said. The biggest hurdle is to deliver faster charging speeds, without just plugging in bigger batteries.
To achieve 3-minute charging times, Hyundai is working to bring 400 kW charging to market. By doing so, Hyundai will not only cut EV charging times to match the time it takes to fill up a gas tank, but also provide a longer driving range without using a bigger, more expensive battery.
Although Hyundai promotes 350 kW charging, actual charging rates are typically closer to 250 kW, depending on factors such as battery temperature and charging station speed.
The Porsche Taycan is currently the fastest-charging EV, capable of up to 320 kW. Several new EVs, including the Lucid Gravity and Porsche Cayenne Electric, are rolling with peak charging power of 400 kW as charge times continue to improve.
Interested in testing one out for yourself? With leases starting at just $189 per month, the Hyundai IONIQ 5 is hard to pass up right now. Check out our links below to find Hyundai’s EVs in your area.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has confirmed that the automaker’s next-generation self-driving computer, known as AI5, will not be available in volume until mid-2027.
The new timeline confirms that Tesla’s upcoming Cybercab, scheduled for 2026, will launch on current-generation AI4 hardware – raising more questions about the capability of the vehicle, which isn’t supposed to have pedals or a steering wheel.
As usual with Tesla timelines, we are seeing a significant slip from the previously promised timeline.
For the past year, Musk has been hyping “AI5” (formerly known as Hardware 5, or HW5) as the key to unlocking the next phase of Tesla’s self-driving capabilities. The new computer is expected to be significantly more powerful than the current Hardware 4 (AI4) in Tesla vehicles today and produced since 2024.
Back in June 2024, Musk officially renamed HW5 to AI5 and gave a specific timeline for its release, stating it would be “applied to autos in the second half of next year [2025].”
He also claimed at the time that the new system would be “10x” the power of the current hardware, creating the impression that the current computers might soon be obsolete for the true “unsupervised” autonomy Tesla has been promising for a decade, but as yet to achieve.
However, Musk took to X (formerly Twitter) this weekend to provide a “clarification” that effectively pushes that timeline back by nearly two years.
When discussing the production ramp of the new chip, Musk stated:
“AI5 will not be available in sufficient volume to switch over Tesla production lines until mid 2027, as we need several hundred thousand completed AI5 boards line side.”
This is a massive delay from the “second half of 2025” timeline provided just last year.
Perhaps more importantly, this delay creates a conflict with Tesla’s product roadmap. Tesla has scheduled the production of its dedicated robotaxi, the Cybercab, for 2026 (Musk recently cited Q2 2026 as the target).
Suppose the Cybercab enters production in 2026 and AI5 isn’t ready until mid-2027. In that case, the purpose-built robotaxi will have to launch on AI4 hardware, the same computer currently in the cars Tesla is selling today, which can’t achieve an unsupervised level of autonomy.
Musk seemed to confirm this implementation path, noting that while “samples” of AI5 might exist earlier, the volume needed for a vehicle launch won’t be there.
Recently, Tesla chairwoman opened the door to the automaker adding a steering wheel and pedals to the Cybercab if unsupervised autonomy is not ready by the time it launches.
Musk shut down this idea, which came from his board chair, just days later – claiming that Cybercab won’t have pedals or a steering wheel.
Electrek’s Take
There’s good news and bad news here.
The good news is that AI4 will remain on top for an extended period of time, which means that Tesla will have to keep working the software to fit the computer rather than take advantage of the higher compute power of AI5.
However, it’s also bad news because Tesla is delaying another tech improvement, and Tesla is still not capable of delivering unsupervised self-driving on the hardware.
I have a feeling that Cybercab is going to have a steering wheel and pedals. It’s too big a risk otherwise to launch a vehicle program that would be virtually worthless beyond a very limited use case in some geo-fenced area.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024