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“These are preliminary reports which have not been peer-reviewed.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.
General Motors (GM), EVgo, and Pilot Co. just hit a milestone: their joint EV charging network can now be found at more than 200 locations across nearly 40 states. They’ve rolled out almost 850 new fast-charging stalls in just over two years.
Less than a year ago, it spanned 25 states; now it covers almost 40. Some of the newest additions include Colorado, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, with big growth across Texas, Missouri, and Florida, including in rural counties, where EV chargers are still scarce.
The chargers are sited at Pilot and Flying J locations, which means drivers can access free Wi-Fi, restaurants, groceries, and convenience items while they charge. The EVgo stalls can deliver up to 350 kW, cutting charging times and quickly getting people back on the road. Many sites include overhead canopies for weather protection and pull-through stalls for trucks, trailers, and vans. Plug and Charge is also available for compatible EVs.
EVgo CEO Badar Khan said the goal is to make highway charging as flexible as the American road trip itself: “Our EVgo eXtend network, built in collaboration with Pilot and GM, is delivering reliable charging to communities large and small – ensuring freedom of fueling choice for every driver.”
GM is adding more electric models across Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac, and it wants its customers to be able to take them wherever they want to go. Wade Sheffer, VP of GM Energy, said, “Through our collaboration with Pilot and EVgo, we’re committed to helping ensure that charging access doesn’t get in the way of your EV journey.”
The three companies announced their collaboration in 2022, with a goal of building up to 2,000 fast-charging stalls at up to 500 Pilot and Flying J locations across the US. They’re nearly halfway there: By the end of 2025, they expect to hit 1,000 stalls across 40 states.
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.
Harley-Davidson’s electric spin-off brand LiveWire may be gearing up to launch a new model under the name “S4 Honcho,” according to a recent trademark filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The trademark was filed for use on “electric motorcycles and structural parts therefor.” That’s about as vague as it gets, but it’s enough to get the speculation wheels turning, especially since the name “Honcho” feels a little more wild west than LiveWire’s current city-slicker lineup.
LiveWire currently offers two motorcycle platforms: the flagship LiveWire One, and the more affordable S2 line (which just went on supersale), built on a more adaptable platform that currently serves the S2 Del Mar, S2 Mulholland, and S2 Alpinista. The company has already previewed two more models in the works, likely to become the new S3 platform, and so this “S4 Honcho” filing could be our first hint at an entirely new platform. Based on LiveWire’s naming system, an S4 designation would point to a larger, more premium electric motorcycle, potentially even one with touring or adventure capabilities. It also fits with previous indications from LiveWire that an S4 flagship platform could follow in the future.
That fits with the name “Honcho,” which carries an aggressive, take-the-lead kind of vibe. Could this be LiveWire’s entry into the ADV segment? Or perhaps a full-size electric cruiser to win over traditional Harley riders who haven’t yet gone electric? Is it meant to compete with heavier-weight gas motorcycles? Or could it be something else entirely? Such new directions could help expand LiveWire’s currently limited lineup into new categories, especially as more brands enter the commuter and urban e-moto space. But at the same time, LiveWire has struggled to move its already full-sized electric motorcycles, leading many to speculate that its best chance of short-term success could lie in the upcoming smaller format and more affordable S3 line.
Of course, it’s worth noting that companies often file trademarks for names that never see the light of day, or that take many years to eventually work their way to production. Filing for trademarks early is a common industry tactic to secure intellectual property, even if a product isn’t finalized yet – or might not be built at all. Still, the fact that LiveWire has applied for the S4 Honcho trademark suggests this is more than a back-of-the-napkin idea.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Eco Wave Power held a grand opening for the first onshore wave power station in the US today, at the Port of Los Angeles. The station is just a pilot so far, but Eco Wave Power has big aspirations.
The station is on the site of AltaSea, an “ocean technology hub” in a warehouse at the Port of LA.
The idea behind wave power is to use motion of waves in the ocean to generate electricity. Waves are relatively constant, and hold more power than wind, given that water is so much denser than air. They also add another dimension to renewable power generation, which can help reduce intermittency.
However, wave power has been considered for centuries and has been tried several times, with little evidence yet of its scalability. The industry, such as it is, is definitely still in the development stage. So this pilot program has a big hill to climb if it’s going to succeed as a demonstration.
Eco Wave Power’s project is rather humble for now, consisting of seven blue painted buoys, which the company calls “floaters,” approximately in the shape of boats. The floaters are designed to lift and drop with the waves, driving a hydraulic ram to create pressure in a bank of storage tanks in a nearby shipping container (the “conversion unit”), which is then used to spin a turbine generator.
The project will run for two years, though it’s still primarily for demonstration and research purposes. Ocean environments are caustic and chaotic, so there are a lot of problems that could come up. But Eco Wave Power has tried to mitigate one of the potential problems by using biodegradeable hydraulic fluid, just in case there’s any sort of leak.
There could be potential terawatts of power generation available from wave power nationwide, but that would require deployment over much of the US coastline. Eco Wave Power says it could power 60,000 homes with a larger deployment, taking up around 8 miles of breakwater structures built around the Port of LA/Long Beach complex. The system is designed to be modular, so that more floaters and shipping containers could be added depending on the available area.
Alternately, the power could be used to help fuel the port itself. Ports tend to be dirty areas, and Long Beach/LA is no difference. Air quality in the area is quite poor, which is why the port is rushing to clean up pollution. Wave power could provide some onsite power for port operations, and perhaps help to run electrified port equipment.
And if the project were big enough to export power beyond the port, the benefit of being in a port is that there are always nearby electrical substations, so it’s not hard to find a grid connection.
But as of now, we’ve got 7 floaters to start.
Currently, the floaters are placed inside the breakwater, in the channel that is protected from ocean waves. Therefore, they’re not going to generate nearly as much power as if they were placed on the outside of the breakwater itself, where waves are larger, more consistent, and much more powerful. But this is a test project, after all.
At the opening event, minutes after the floaters were dropped into the water, we saw them turn the system on and generate… 1.6kW worth of power. It’s a pretty calm day, after all, and the system hadn’t really had time to build up any pressure.
Eco Wave Power says that a setup of this size could have a potential output of 100kW, though we did get some conflicting numbers on that, and we suspect the numbers change drastically based on positioning and water conditions. It has one grid-connected power station in Israel which has been operational for a few months now, but we asked how much energy it has produced, and the company said that it had not released that information yet.
The new LA station is actually the first onshore wave power station in the US, though there has previously been an offshore wave power pilot in Hawaii. There are benefits and downsides to each method, but onshore is cheaper to install and maintain, if you can get access to the shoreline needed – and port breakwaters are a good opportunity for that.
Eco Wave Power says it also has projects in Taiwan, India and Portugal coming soon. It formerly operated a pilot program in Gibraltar. Its projects so far have been in relatively protected areas (Israel and Gibraltar are both on the Mediterranean, and LA is inside the port), but it has future projects coming that will be exposed to the ocean, like in Taiwan and Portugal, which should offer a whole new set of challenges – and unlock much more power, if the company is able to harness the turbulence of the Pacific.
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 agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
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
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024