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“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed.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

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Published

on

By

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Florida AG opens probe into Robinhood. Here's the latest

Robinhood stock hit an all-time high Friday as the financial services platform continued to rip higher this year, along with bitcoin and other crypto stocks.

Robinhood, up more than 160% in 2025, hit an intraday high above $101 before pulling back and closing slightly lower.

The reversal came after a Bloomberg report that JPMorgan plans to start charging fintechs for access to customer bank data, a move that could raise costs across the industry.

For fintech firms that rely on thin margins to offer free or low-cost services to customers, even slight disruptions to their cost structure can have major ripple effects. PayPal and Affirm both ended the day nearly 6% lower following the report.

Despite its stellar year, the online broker is facing several headwinds, with a regulatory probe in Florida, pushback over new staking fees and growing friction with one of the world’s most high-profile artificial intelligence companies.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier opened a formal investigation into Robinhood Crypto on Thursday, alleging the platform misled users by claiming to offer the lowest-cost crypto trading.

“Robinhood has long claimed to be the best bargain, but we believe those representations were deceptive,” Uthmeier said in a statement.

The probe centers on Robinhood’s use of payment for order flow — a common practice where market makers pay to execute trades — which the AG said can result in worse pricing for customers.

Robinhood Crypto General Counsel Lucas Moskowitz told CNBC its disclosures are “best-in-class” and that it delivers the lowest average cost.

“We disclose pricing information to customers during the lifecycle of a trade that clearly outlines the spread or the fees associated with the transaction, and the revenue Robinhood receives,” added Moskowitz.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev explains 'dual purpose' behind trading platform's new crypto offerings

Robinhood is also facing opposition to a new 25% cut of staking rewards for U.S. users, set to begin October 1. In Europe, the platform will take a smaller 15% cut.

Staking allows crypto holders to earn yield by locking up their tokens to help secure blockchain networks like ethereum, but platforms often take a percentage of those rewards as commission.

Robinhood’s 25% cut puts it in line with Coinbase, which charges between 25.25% and 35% depending on the token. The cut is notably higher than Gemini’s flat 15% fee.

It marks a shift for the company, which had previously steered clear of staking amid regulatory uncertainty.

Under President Joe Biden‘s administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission cracked down on U.S. platforms offering staking services, arguing they constituted unregistered securities.

With President Donald Trump in the White House, the agency has reversed course on several crypto enforcement actions, dropping cases against major players like Coinbase and Binance and signaling a more permissive stance.

Even as enforcement actions ease, Robinhood is under fresh scrutiny for its tokenized stock push, which is a growing part of its international strategy.

The company now offers blockchain-based assets in Europe that give users synthetic exposure to private firms like OpenAI and SpaceX through special purpose vehicles, or SPVs.

An SPV is a separate entity that acquires shares in a company. Users then buy tokens of the SPV and don’t have shareholder privileges or voting rights directly in the company.

OpenAI has publicly objected, warning the tokens do not represent real equity and were issued without its approval. In an interview with CNBC International, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged the tokens aren’t technically equity shares, but said that misses the broader point.

JPMorgan announces plans to charge for access to customer bank data

“What’s important is that retail customers have an opportunity to get exposure to this asset,” he said, pointing to the disruptive nature of AI and the historically limited access to pre-IPO companies.

“It is true that these are not technically equity,” Tenev added, noting that institutional investors often gain similar exposure through structured financial instruments.

The Bank of Lithuania — Robinhood’s lead regulator in the EU — told CNBC on Monday that it is “awaiting clarifications” following OpenAI’s statement.

“Only after receiving and evaluating this information will we be able to assess the legality and compliance of these specific instruments,” a spokesperson said, adding that information for investors must be “clear, fair, and non-misleading.”

Tenev responded that Robinhood is “happy to continue to answer questions from our regulators,” and said the company built its tokenized stock program to withstand scrutiny.

“Since this is a new thing, regulators are going to want to look at it,” he said. “And we expect to be scrutinized as a large, innovative player in this space.”

SEC Chair Paul Atkins recently called the model “an innovation” on CNBC’s Squawk Box, offering some validation as Robinhood leans further into its synthetic equity strategy — even as legal clarity remains in flux across jurisdictions.

Despite the regulatory noise, many investors remain focused on Robinhood’s upside, and particularly the political tailwinds.

The company is positioning itself as a key beneficiary of Trump’s newly signed megabill, which includes $1,000 government-seeded investment accounts for newborns. Robinhood said it’s already prototyping an app for the ‘Trump Accounts‘ initiative.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Watch CNBC's full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Continue Reading

Environment

Hyundai and Kia are betting on lower-priced EVs to ride out tariffs

Published

on

By

Hyundai and Kia are betting on lower-priced EVs to ride out tariffs

Korean auto giants Hyundai and Kia think lower-priced EVs will help minimize the blow from the new US auto tariffs. Hyundai is set to unveil a new entry-level electric car soon, which will be sold alongside the Kia EV2. Will it be the IONIQ 2?

Hyundai and Kia shift to lower-priced EVs

Hyundai and Kia already offer some of the most affordable and efficient electric vehicles on the market, with models like the IONIQ 5 and EV6.

In Europe, Korea, Japan, and other overseas markets, Hyundai sells the Inster EV (sold as the Casper Electric in Korea), an electric city car. The Inster EV starts at about $27,000 (€23,900), but Hyundai will soon offer another lower-priced EV, similar to the upcoming Kia EV2.

The Inster EV is seeing strong initial demand in Europe and Japan. According to a local report (via Newsis), demand for the Casper Electric is so high that buyers are waiting over a year for delivery.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Hyundai is doubling down with plans to introduce an even more affordable EV, rumored to be the IONIQ 2. Xavier Martinet, CEO of Hyundai Motor Europe, said during a recent interview that “The new electric vehicle will be unveiled in the next few months.”

Hyundai-Kia-lower-priced-EVs
Hyundai Casper Electric/ Inster EV models (Source: Hyundai)

The new EV is expected to be a compact SUV, which will likely resemble the upcoming Kia EV2. Kia will launch the EV2 in Europe and other global regions in 2026.

Hyundai is keeping most details under wraps, but the expected IONIQ 2 is likely to sit below the Kona Electric as a smaller city EV.

Hyundai-Kia-lower-priced-EVs
Kia Concept EV2 (Source: Kia)

More affordable electric cars are on the way

Although nothing is confirmed, it’s expected to be priced at around €30,000 ($35,000), or slightly less than the Kia EV3.

The Kia EV3 starts at €35,990 in Europe and £33,005 in the UK, or about $42,000. Through the first half of the year, Kia’s compact electric SUV is the UK’s most popular EV.

Hyundai-Kia-lower-priced-EVs
Kia EV3 (Source: Kia)

Like the Hyundai IONIQ models and Kia’s other electric vehicles, the EV3 is based on the E-GMP platform. It’s available with two battery packs: 58.3 kWh or 81.48 kWh, providing a WLTP range of up to 430 km (270 miles) and 599 km (375 miles), respectively.

Hyundai is expected to reveal the new EV at the IAA Mobility show in Munich in September. Meanwhile, Kia is working on a smaller electric car to sit below the EV2 that could start at under €25,000 ($30,000).

Hyundai-Kia-lower-priced-EVs
Kia unveils EV4 sedan and hatchback, PV5 electric van, and EV2 Concept at 2025 Kia EV Day (Source: Kia)

According to the report, Hyundai and Kia are doubling down on lower-priced EVs to balance potential losses from the new US auto tariffs.

Despite opening its new EV manufacturing plant in Georgia to boost local production, Hyundai is still expected to expand sales in other regions. An industry insider explained, “Considering the risk of US tariffs, Hyundai’s move to target the European market with small electric vehicles is a natural strategy.”

Hyundai-Kia-lower-priced-EVs
2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 (Source: Hyundai)

Although Hyundai is expanding in other markets, it remains a leading EV brand in the US. The IONIQ 5 remains a top-selling EV with over 19,000 units sold through June.

After delivering the first IONIQ 9 models in May, Hyundai reported that over 1,000 models had been sold through the end of June, its three-row electric SUV.

While the $7,500 EV tax credit is still here, Hyundai is offering generous savings with leases for the 2025 IONIQ 5 starting as low as $179 per month. The three-row IONIQ 9 starts at just $419 per month. And Hyundai is even throwing in a free ChargePoint Home Flex Level 2 charger if you buy or lease either model.

Unfortunately, we likely won’t see the entry-level EV2 or IONIQ 2 in the US. However, Kia is set to launch its first electric sedan, the EV4, in early 2026.

Ready to take advantage of the savings while they are still here? You can use our links below to find deals on Hyundai and Kia EV models in your area.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Blink Charging just threw a lifeline to EVBox Everon customers

Published

on

By

Blink Charging just threw a lifeline to EVBox Everon customers

As EVBox shuts down its Everon business across Europe and North America, EV charging provider Blink Charging is stepping up to offer support to customers caught in the transition.

EVBox’s software arm Everon recently announced it’s winding down operations alongside EVBox’s AC charger business. That’s left a lot of charging station hosts and drivers wondering what comes next. Now, EVBox Everon is pointing its customers toward Blink as a recommended alternative.

Blink says it’s ready to help, whether that means keeping existing chargers up and running or replacing aging gear with new Blink chargers.

“EVBox has played a significant role in the growth of EV charging infrastructure across the UK and Mainland Europe, and we recognize the trust hosts have placed in its solutions,” said Alex Calnan, Blink Charging’s managing director of Europe. “With the recent announcement of Everon’s withdrawal from the EV charging market, it’s natural to have questions about what this means for operations. At Blink, we want to assure Everon customers that we are here to help them navigate this transition.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Blink says it’s able to offer advice, replacements, and ongoing network management to make the changeover as smooth as possible.

Everon users who switch to Blink will get access to the Blink Network portal via the Blink Charging app. That opens up real-time insight into charger usage and lets hosts set pricing, manage users, and download performance reports.

“At Blink, our charging technology is future-ready,” added Calnan. “With advancements like vehicle-to-grid technology on the horizon, our chargers are built to support the future of electric vehicles and charging habits.”

The company says its chargers are in stock and ready to ship now for any Everon customers looking to make the jump.

In October 2024, France’s Engie announced it would liquidate the entire EVBox group, which it said posted total losses of €800 million since Engie took over in 2017. EVBox is closing its operations in the Netherlands, Germany, and the US.


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.

Continue Reading

Trending