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“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed.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.
Rush Township supervisors in Centre County, Pennsylvania, voted this week to greenlight a key permit for the Black Moshannon Solar project – a large solar development that would turn toxic former mineland into a major source of clean power.
If built, the Pennsylvania solar project would generate 265 megawatts of electricity – enough to power about 200,000 homes annually – on nearly 2,000 acres of toxic mineland. Developers deliberately chose the site, as the project is designed to reclaim land left behind by mining and fold environmental cleanup into the solar buildout.
According to project plans, the site would be restored with pollinators and pollinator-friendly ground cover planted beneath the solar panels. Developers have also committed to ongoing water quality and soil testing during construction and operations, along with soil improvements such as applying lime to help neutralize mining-related contamination and support vegetation growth.
Beyond the environmental cleanup, the project is expected to deliver a financial boost to the region. Black Moshannon Solar is projected to generate more than $5 million in tax revenue for the Phillipsburg-Osceola Area School District, along with more than $700,000 in direct tax payments to Centre County.
Environmental and energy advocates praised the township’s decision. David Masur, executive director of PennEnvironment, called the vote a model for other communities across the state. “We are hopeful that other local government officials across Pennsylvania will follow Rush Township’s lead and implement similar, much-needed solar projects all across the Keystone State.”
Jim Gregory, executive director of the Conservative Energy Network-Pennsylvania, also applauded the approval. “In 40 years, their forward-thinking decisions will be recognized as catalysts for environmental protection, public health improvements, and economic prosperity.”
Read more: Trump admin OKs $1B loan for Three Mile Island nuclear reboot
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.
![Genesis GV90 leaks as breathtaking ultra-luxe SUV with coach doors [Video]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/11/Genesis-GV90-leak-coach-doors.jpeg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Genesis is gearing up to launch the stunning new flagship SUV. Ahead of its official debut, the GV90 leaked during an internal presentation, revealing our first look at the ultra-luxe electric SUV.
Genesis GV90 leak reveals coach doors and more
The GV90 is arriving as the largest, most luxurious Genesis SUV to date. Based on the Neolun Concept, the new flagship SUV will sit above the GV80 as Genesis expands into new segments.
As Genesis calls it, the “ultra-luxe, state-of-the-art SUV” stole the spotlight at the New York Auto Show last March.
It wasn’t the stunning, reductive design inspired by Korea’s moon-shaped porcelain jars or the premium Royal Indigo and Purple silk materials that caught most people’s attention at the event, but the B-pillarless coach doors.
The SUV was showcased with Rolls-Royce-like coach doors, offering a new level of luxury for Genesis. Although we’ve seen the GV90 spotted out in public testing a few times now with coach doors, we wondered if they would make it to the production model.
After the full-size SUV reportedly leaked during an internal presentation, it looks like we’ve found our answer. The Genesis GV90 leak reveals two versions: a standard model and a coach-door model.
The leaked images from our friends at ShortsCar offer our first look at the production version in full. Earlier this month, a GV90 prototype was spotted out in public with the coach doors wide open, providing a sneak peek of the interior.
From what was shown, the cabin will feature a similar layout to the concept, with high-end purple and indigo materials. The GV90 was also caught with an all-black interior, which is expected to be the standard version.
A new video from the folks over at HealerTV offers a closer look at the breathtaking interior ahead of its official debut.
The GV90 appears to retain the gear selector located near the top of the steering wheel from the Neolun concept.
Another report, from TheKoreanCarBlog, confirms the new gear selector after the first interior spy shots surfaced.
From what we’ve seen so far, the GV90 is shaping up to be a near replica of the ultra-luxe Neolun concept. Genesis has yet to announce a launch date for the GV90, but it is expected to make an official debut by the end of the year with sales starting in mid-2026.
Prices and final specs, like driving range, will be revealed closer to launch, but the Genesis GV90 is rumoured to be the first vehicle to ride on Hyundai’s new eM platform.
Hyundai said the new platform will deliver a 50% improvement in range compared to its current E-GMP-based EVs, such as the IONIQ 5. It’s also expected to offer Level 3 autonomous driving as well as other advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Turning cheap daytime solar into electricity you can actually use at night just got a lot cheaper. A new analysis from energy think tank Ember shows that utility-scale battery storage costs have fallen to $65 per megawatt-hour (MWh) as of October 2025 in markets outside China and the US. At that level, pairing solar with batteries to deliver power when it’s needed is now economically viable.
Battery storage costs have fallen dramatically over the past two years, and the decline continues. Following a steep decline in 2024, Ember’s analysis indicates that prices continued to fall sharply again in 2025.
The findings are based on real-world data from recent battery and solar-plus-storage auctions in Italy, Saudi Arabia, and India, as well as interviews with active developers across global markets.
According to Ember, the cost of a whole, grid-connected utility-scale battery storage system for long-duration projects (four hours or more) is now about $125 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as of October 2025. That figure applies to projects outside China and the US. Core battery equipment delivered from China costs around $75/kWh, while installation and grid connection typically add another $50/kWh.
Those lower upfront costs have pushed down the levelized cost of storage (LCOS) to just $65/MWh. Ember’s calculation reflects real-world assumptions around financing costs, system lifetime, efficiency, and battery degradation.
Cheaper hardware isn’t the only reason storage costs are falling. Longer battery lifetimes, higher efficiencies, and lower financing costs, helped by clearer revenue models such as auctions, have all contributed to the sharp drop in LCOS. Ember has published a live calculator alongside the report, allowing users to estimate LCOS using their own assumptions.
Why this matters comes down to how solar is actually used. Most solar power is generated during the day, so only a portion needs to be stored to make it dispatchable. Ember estimates that if half of daytime solar generation is shifted to nighttime, the $65/MWh storage cost adds about $33/MWh to the cost of solar electricity.
With the global average price of solar at $43/MWh in 2024, adding storage would bring the total cost to about $76/MWh, delivering power in a way that better matches real demand.
As Ember global electricity analyst Kostantsa Rangelova put it, after a 40% drop in battery equipment costs in 2024, the industry is now on track for another major fall in 2025. The economics of battery storage, she said, are “unrecognizable,” and the industry is still adjusting to this new reality.
“Solar is no longer just cheap daytime electricity; now it’s anytime dispatchable electricity. This is a game-changer for countries with fast-growing demand and strong solar resources,” Rangelova added.
Together, solar and battery storage are increasingly emerging as a scalable, secure, and affordable foundation for future power systems.
Read more: EIA: Solar + storage soar as fossil fuels stall through September 2025
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.
-
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