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“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed.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.
Iconic British brand Moke International is officially landing in California, bringing a splash of retro style and electric fun to the West Coast with the launch of its California Collection. The medium-speed, open-air electric vehicles – reminiscent of classic beach buggies – are now street-legal in the state, with reservation deposits now open.
It’s a move that’s been years in the making, and we’re finally ready to see these fun-looking rides roll out on US streets thanks to a retail partnership with Shaver Automotive.
The California Collection marks the first time MOKE’s EVs are being sold in the US as fully compliant, street-legal vehicles, following a multi-year process to obtain certification under California’s tough emissions and safety regulations. The vehicles have now gone beyond the 25 MPH limitations of Low Speed Vehicles, doubling that figure to offer rides at up to 50 MPH (80 km/h).
The collection also includes three new colorways inspired by the nostalgic hues of the Golden State: ‘Sonoma Red’, ‘Laguna Blue’ and ‘Venice White.’
As the company explained, “This foray into the state follows MOKE’s groundbreaking achievement as the first low-volume EV manufacturer to secure California Air Resources Board (CARB) approval. With unmatched quality, all genuine MOKEs are handcrafted in the UK, with over 70% of parts sourced from Europe. A limited quantity of 325 MOKEs will be available to purchase throughout the US in 2026.”
Originally based on a British military vehicle from the 1960s, the Moke evolved into a cult-favorite beach car beloved in tropical destinations from the Caribbean to the French Riviera.
Now, it’s gone all-electric, with a 54-mile (87 km) range and a top speed of 50 mph (80 km/h) from a 33 kW motor that prioritizes fun over freeway.
“Launching in California feels like a true homecoming for us at MOKE,” said Lorne Vary, CEO of MOKE International. “California’s love of sunshine, freedom, and outdoor adventure reflects everything our brand stands for. Partnering with Shaver Automotive means we can finally share that feeling with Californians who have been waiting for their MOKE moment.”
The Electric MOKE is available for order now in California, via Shaver Automotive, with prices starting from $49,500. That puts it well into premium territory, meaning it likely won’t replace the family car, but could be a fun plaything to park at your beach house… for those who own a beach house.
While the MOKE won’t be replacing your daily commuter or long-range EV, it could be the perfect picturesque ride along a coastal road, in a resort rental fleet, or for anyone who values open-air, zero-emission fun over raw performance.
Electrek’s Take
We’ve seen a number of street-legal Low Speed Vehicles (LSVs) make their way into beach towns and gated communities in recent years, but few bring the retro flair and lifestyle appeal of the MOKE. And by going the low-volume manufacturer route, they get to offer speeds of twice that allowed by LSVs without needing to meet as many of the complicated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (for better or for worse).
At nearly $50k, it’s a luxury toy, sure. But for the right buyer, it looks like an awesome time on four wheels. California might just be the perfect place for this beach cruiser comeback.
Oh, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t share the image below of Electrek’s founder Seth Weintraub from his youth when he used to ride old school Mokes around Macau, and with a left-hand manual 4-speed gearbox, no less!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
bp pulse is continuing to roll out public DC fast charging across the US, and the company has opened its first-ever site in Arizona, along with new fast-charging locations in Texas, Florida, and Ohio.
In Arizona, bp pulse’s first site is now online at the Petro Travel Center in Eloy, just off Interstate 10 at Exit 200 (pictured). The location features 16 charging bays delivering up to 400 kilowatts, with both CCS and NACS connectors available. While charging, drivers can take advantage of the travel center’s onsite diner, convenience store, ATM, barber shop, and restrooms.
In South Florida, bp pulse’s new fast-charging site is at 2400 Miami Road in Fort Lauderdale, about three miles from Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport. The site features 16 charging bays, offering a mix of 150 kW and 400 kW speeds, with both CCS and NACS connectors. Its proximity to the airport makes it a handy stop for ride-hail drivers, EV rental returns, and airport pickups and drop-offs, with hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores nearby.
Texas is also getting more high-power charging, with a new bp pulse site at the Petro Travel Center in El Paso, located off Interstate 10 at Exit 37. This location offers 12 charging bays capable of delivering up to 400 kW, again with both CCS and NACS connectors. Drivers can take advantage of the diner, convenience store, barber shop, and restrooms while they charge.
In Ohio, bp pulse has opened a smaller but still high-powered site at a TravelCenters of America location in Hebron, just off Interstate 70 at Exit 126. The site includes six 400 kW charging bays with CCS and NACS connectors, along with access to a convenience store, fast-food options, and restrooms.
These openings are part of bp pulse’s broader plan to build out EV charging across bp’s retail footprint, including bp, Amoco, ampm, Thorntons, and TravelCenters of America locations. Many of those sites are designed to combine fast charging with food, restrooms, and other travel amenities. bp has also said it plans to begin adding EV chargers at Waffle House locations starting in 2026.
Read more: bp pulse opens a huge airport EV fast charging hub in Houston
If you’re looking to replace your old HVAC equipment, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you’re finding a trusted, reliable HVAC installer near you that offers competitive pricing on heat pumps, check out EnergySage. EnergySage is a free service that makes it easy for you to get a heat pump. They have pre-vetted heat pump installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions. Plus, it’s free to use!
Your personalized heat pump 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. – *ad
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The Cadillac Lyriq and Chevy Blazer EV were among the vehicles that saw the biggest lease price drops in December.
Cadillac and Chevy EV lease prices drop in December
With the $7,500 federal EV tax credit now gone, automakers are filling the gap with their own incentives. Some are passing on the savings as bonus cash, conquest cash, lease discounts, and more.
Two General Motors electric SUVs, the Chevy Blazer EV and the Cadillac Lyriq, had some of the largest lease price drops of any vehicle in December.
The 2026 Cadillac Lyriq AWD Luxury model is now listed at $439 per month for 24 months. With $4,979 due at signing, the effective rate is $646, or $28 less per month than in November.
That’s after the Lyriq already saw prices drop by $115 a month from October. However, the December deal includes a $2,000 competitive bonus for owners and lessees of a 2011 model year or newer non-GM vehicle.
The 2026 Chevy Blazer EV FWD LT is now available to lease for as low as $319 a month for 24 months. With $6,039 due at signing, the effective rate is $571 per month, about $60 less than in November. The deal includes a $750 competitive bonus and $1,000 customer cash allowance.
Chevy and Cadillac are offering discounts across their entire EV lineup. All 2025 Chevy electric vehicles, including the Blazer EV, Equinox EV, and Silverado EV, are available with 0% APR financing for 60 months.
Intestingly, the 2026 Chevy Equinox EV is also available with 0% APR financing, while the 2026 Blazer EV is listed with 1.9% APR for 36 months.
Cadillac is offering a $2,000 conquest or loyalty bonus for the 2026 Cadillac Vistiq and select 2025/2026 Optiq and Lyriq models, plus 2.9% APR for 60 months.
The 2026 Cadillac Optiq is available to lease for as low as $319 per month for 24 months, while the 2026 Vistiq is available to lease for $619 per month for 24 months.
Want to try one out? We’ve got you covered. Check out the links below to see what Cadillac and Chevy EVs are nearby.
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
-
Environment3 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