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“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed.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.
Tesla has agreed to settle another wrongful death lawsuit from a fatal crash involving Autopilot before the case could get to trial later this year.
It’s one of many lawsuits involving several crashes involving Tesla’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), after the floodgates were open following a watershed trial.
Over the last few years, Tesla vehicles have been involved in numerous accidents involving the automaker’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS): Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), better known as ‘FSD’.
Despite the names of those feature packages, they are not considered automated driving systems. They are Level 2 driver assistance systems and require the driver’s attention at all times.
Drivers and victims involved in those crashes have often sued Tesla, but the automaker has managed to have the cases dismissed, placing most of the blame on the drivers.
However, things started to change over the last year.
Last year, Tesla settled a wrongful death lawsuit involving a crash on Autopilot that happened in 2018, and last month, the automaker lost its first trial over a crash that occurred in Florida in 2019.
For the first time, a case went to trial before a jury, and they decided to assign a third of the blame for the crash to Tesla for the role Autopilot played. The rest of the blame was assigned to the driver, who had already settled with the victims and their families before the Tesla trial began.
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $243 million. The automaker has made clear its intentions to appeal the verdict.
Before the trial, the plaintiffs offered Tesla to settle for $60 million, and the company refused.
The trial process cost them much more.
The jury didn’t buy Tesla’s usual argument that it couldn’t be blamed because it clearly informs the driver that they are always responsible for the vehicle. The plaintiffs’ lawyers successfully argued that Tesla was careless in the way it deployed Autopilot, without implementing geofencing and marketing it to customers in a manner that encouraged the abuse of the system.
Following the trial results, Electrek reported that the “floogates of Autopilot lawsuits” were open.
There are dozens of additional lawsuits against Tesla involving incidents with Autopilot and FSD, and they are all riding on the verdict as well as all the information that came from the trial.
The same lawyers and law firms that represented the plaintiffs in the trial in Florida are also representing victims and the families in those other lawsuits.
Brett Schreiber, the lead attorney in the Florida case, is also leading Maldonado v. Tesla, another wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla involving its Autopilot feature. The case was set to go to trial in the Alameda State Superior Court by the end of the year.
The case involves a Tesla vehicle on Autopilot that hit a pickup truck on the highway, killing fifteen-year-old Jovani Maldonado, who was a passenger in the pickup truck. His father was driving him back home from a soccer game.
In a new court filing, Tesla and the plaintiffs have requested that the court approve a settlement that the two parties have reportedly agreed upon.
The settlement is confidential.
Electrek’s Take
Like I said, the floodgates are open. We are now starting to see the crashes that occurred in 2018 and 2019 being addressed in court.
This is just the beginning.
Crashes on Autopilot and then FSD have greatly ramped up starting in 2020-2021 with greater delivery volumes and Tesla launching FSD Beta.
I hope that more cases reach trial, as we do learn a lot more about Tesla and its deployment of driver assistance systems through them.
But with how the first one went, I am sure the automaker is much more eager to settle those cases.
However, can it just keep doing that?
There have already been over 50 deaths related to crashes involving Tesla Autopilot or FSD.
As morbid as it sounds, if the going rate for a Tesla Autopilot-related death is around $50 million, that’s already more than $2.5 billion and growing.
This is nuts. Will this continue to happen?
More people die in crashes involving Tesla’s half-baked ADAS products. Tesla continues to compensate the victims and their families with millions each time, essentially using the money it earns from selling the dream of those half-baked ADAS features eventually leading to real autonomy.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Lucid (LCID) rolled out a software update for the Gravity, which makes towing “a breeze” with helpful new features. Plus, Lucid is giving Gravity buyers the chance to try out exclusive new features still in development.
Lucid launches Gravity UX 3.3 software update
The Gravity already stands out, boasting up to 450 miles of range, lightning-fast charging speeds, and an Escalade-sized interior.
Through its new over-the-air (OTA) software update, launched on Tuesday, Lucid unlocked several new features and functions for Gravity drivers.
The Gravity UX 3.3 update introduces new features that Lucid promises will make towing “a breeze,” including an Integrated Trailer Brake Control, Hitch View, and a Trailer Light Check.
Hitch view gives you the ability to see the trailer hitch directly on the Gravity’s infotainment screen. You know, to make sure it’s still connected and all. To ensure your trailer lights are working, the new Trailer Light Check feature illuminates them in a sequence. You can use it directly on the Lucid mobile app.
Lucid is offering Gravity drivers the chance to try out two new Halo Secure features, Live View and Drive Recorder, which are still in development.
Live View uses the external cameras, enabling you to see what’s around your vehicle in real-time remotely using the Lucid mobile app. Drive Recorder will capture clips, such as an accident, saving it directly to your USB storage device (which is not provided).
Lucid introduced a slew of other tweaks and modifications to make the Gravity’s infotainment system quicker and easier to use. You can now drop a bookmark on the home screen as a shortcut to navigate to your favorite places.
The Gravity’s audio system now “delivers clearer sound than ever,” Lucid said during phone calls with less background noise.
Lucid currently offers the Gravity Grand Touring, which starts at $94,900 in the US. Soon, Lucid will launch the lower-priced Touring model, starting from $81,550.
Orders for the Lucid Gravity Grand Touring opened in Europe last week with deliveries set to begin in early 2026. Lucid’s electric SUV starts at 116,900 euros ($137,000) in Germany, including VAT. Soon, the Lucid Gravity Touring will be available, starting at 99,900 euros ($117,000) in Germany.
Lucid is currently offering some of its biggest promotions to date, with the $7,500 federal tax credit set to expire at the end of the month. The Air is the most affordable it’s ever been this month, with leases starting at just $509 per month.
Ready to test drive it out for yourself? We’re here to help you get started. You can use our links below to find Lucid Air and Gravity models in your area.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
California just awarded $1.1 million to Brooklyn-based EV charging company it’s electric to develop what would be the world’s first curbside vehicle-to-grid (V2G) EV charger.
The grant comes from the California Energy Commission’s Enabling Electric Vehicles as Distributed Energy Resources program, part of the state’s Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) initiative. Working with UC Berkeley and the University of Delaware, it’s electric plans to have the technology ready for the market by 2028.
The V2G charger won’t just pull electricity from the grid to charge a car; it will also be able to push energy back into the grid directly from the EV – something that has never been done in a curbside format, where millions of cars sit parked every day.
The new hardware will look the same as it’s electric’s current design but will bring bidirectional charging to city streets, including in low-income and disadvantaged communities. That means more equitable access to V2G technology, which can speed up EV adoption and cut emissions in line with California’s climate goals.
The project also includes the development of the J3068 Active Cable with the University of Delaware. This cable combines the SAE-standard untethered charging format with Delaware’s Active Cable Communication Module. That combo enables bidirectional charging while linking driver account info to the cable, making the system reliable and compatible across different charging setups.
Nathan King, cofounder and CEO of it’s electric, said, “Seven million light-duty vehicles are routinely parked on city streets in California. As these vehicles convert to electric, their batteries have enormous potential to help offset peak demand in critically overstrained electric utility service areas.” He added that all EV drivers should have equal access to programs that reward participation in demand-response and V2G services.
Commissioner Nancy Skinner added that the project could let cars do more than just drive: “it’s electric’s impressive project will pilot EV chargers that can not only power a car but also help that car power our grid, demonstrating the economic and resiliency benefits of V2G technology.”
At scale, curbside V2G chargers could allow cars parked on city streets to serve as distributed energy resources, helping both drivers and grid operators. By turning EVs into mobile batteries, the tech could reduce strain on the grid and avoid costly infrastructure upgrades.
UC Berkeley professor Scott Moura said his team is “excited to get to work on this project, and proud to be hosting deployment and testing of the world’s first bidirectional curbside charger.”
And University of Delaware professor Willett Kempton, a longtime V2G pioneer, called the investment another step forward: “We applaud the California Energy Commission for investing in this project, which will advance the ability of all communities to take advantage of V2G opportunities.”
Read more: San Francisco just joined the curbside EV charger movement
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. 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.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports2 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
-
Environment12 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024