The Bauer Et Al “Blue” Hydrogen LCA Paper Isn’t Useful In The Real World (Part 2 of 2)
The first part of this analysis on the recently released life-cycle assessment of “blue” hydrogen covered the provenance and background for the paper, as well as the significant and questionable assumptions that the authors make about both expected demand for “blue” hydrogen and the scalability of carbon capture and sequestration it would demand. This second half continues the analysis of assumptions and statements in the paper.
“In general, large-scale blue hydrogen production will be connected to the high-pressure natural gas transmission grid and therefore, methane emissions from final distribution to decentralized consumers (i.e., the low-pressure distribution network) should not be included in the quantification of climate impacts of blue hydrogen.”
The first problem with this is the assumption that massive centralized models of hydrogen generation will be preferable to the current highly distributed creation of hydrogen at the point of consumption. The challenges with distributing hydrogen are clear and obvious, so it’s interesting that they make an assumption that is completely contrary to what is occurring today, and wave away the significant additional challenges — including carbon debt — of creating a massive hydrogen distribution system essentially from scratch.
This also assumes that there will continue to be a distribution network for natural gas. Electrification of heat will continue apace, eliminating this market. But supposing that it does continue, this assumes that perpetuating the leakage problem is in line with actual climate mitigation, which is decidedly not the case. This is not the point of the paper, but is in line with the rest of the paper’s assumptions.
“… natural gas supply must be associated with low GHG emissions, which means that natural gas leaks and methane emissions along the entire supply chain, including extraction, storage, and transport, must be minimized.”
This is in context of what requirements “blue” hydrogen would have to meet in order to be low-carbon hydrogen per the paper.
I agree with this statement, but further say that there is zero reason to believe that this will be widely adhered to as the fossil fuel industry is already lagging substantially in maintenance with declining revenues in regions impacted by the Saudi Arabian-Russian price war, the history of the industry consists of a Ponzi-scheme of paying for remediation with far distant and non-existent revenues — witness the $200 billion in unfunded remediation in Alberta’s oil sands as merely the tip of the iceberg, and as long-distance piping and shipping of natural gas requires a great deal of expensive monitoring and maintenance to maintain that standard.
In other words, while the statement is true as far as it goes, it is so unlikely to be common as to be irrelevant to the actual needs of the world for hydrogen, something that the authors barely acknowledge.
“Our assessment is that CO2 capture technology is already sufficiently mature to allow removal rates at the hydrogen production plant of above 90%. Capture rates close to 100% are technically feasible, slightly decreasing energy efficiencies and increasing costs, but have yet to be demonstrated at scale.”
Once again, 90% is inadequate with over a thousand billion tons of excess CO2 already in the atmosphere. Second, carbon capture at source has been being done since the mid-19th century. It’s not getting magically better. The likelihood that approaching 100% capture rate technologies will be deployed by organizations and individuals who think 90% is good enough and are likely to be rewarded handsomely for achieving that level approaches zero. After all, Equinor has received what I estimate to be over a billion USD in tax breaks for its Sleipner facility, which simply pumps CO2 they extracted back underground, and ExxonMobil touts its Shute Creek facility as the best in the world when it pumps CO2 up in one place then back underground in another place for enhanced oil recovery, benefiting nothing except their bottom line.
Removal of carbon from the atmosphere to draw down CO2 levels toward achieving a stable climate will not be realized by “good enough,” and close to 100% will be so rarely realized globally that it’s not worth discussing.
“It is important to reiterate that no single hydrogen production technology (including electrolysis with renewables) is completely net-zero in terms of GHG emissions over its life cycle and will therefore need additional GHG removal from the atmosphere to comply with strict net-zero targets.”
The authors appear to think that the current CO2e emissions from purely renewable energy are going to persist. As mining, processing, distribution, manufacturing and construction processes decarbonize, the currently very low GHG emissions of renewables full lifecycle will fall. This is equivalent to the common argument against electric cars, that grid electricity isn’t pure. It’s also a remarkable oversight for a group of authors committed to a rigorous LCA process.
The argument that “blue” hydrogen at its very best in the best possible cases will be as good as renewably powered electrolysis as it decarbonizes fails the basic tests of logic and reasonableness.
“… natural gas with CCS may be a more sustainable route than hydrogen to decarbonize such applications as power generation.”
This is so completely wrong that it’s remarkable that it made it into the document. First, there is no value in hydrogen as a generation technology. That’s a complete and utter non-starter beginning to end, making electricity vastly more expensive to no climate benefit. Secondly, all bolt-on flue capture programs for electrical generation have cost hundreds of millions or billions and failed. They increase the costs of electrical generation to the level where it was completely uncompetitive in today’s markets.
When wind and solar are trending to $20 per MWh, long-distance transmission of electricity using HVDC exists in lengths thousands of kilometers long and underwater around the world, and there are already 170 GW of grid storage and another 60 GW under construction at the bare beginning of the development of storage, assuming that either natural gas with CCS or hydrogen have any play in electrical generation makes it clear that the authors are simply starting with the assumption that natural gas and hydrogen have a major part to play in the future, and have created an argument for it.
The authors’ argument boils down to that in a perfect world, perfectly monitored and perfectly maintained, “blue” hydrogen would be similar in emissions to green hydrogen today, ignoring the rapidly dropping GHG emissions per MWh of renewables and ignoring that the world of fossil fuels in no way adheres to the premise of perfect monitoring and perfect maintenance.
The authors are performing a life-cycle assessment focusing on greenhouse gas emissions, and it is not scoped to include costs. Having reviewed the costs of the technologies that they are proposing for this hypothetical perfect “blue” hydrogen world, they are vastly higher than just not bothering, shifting to renewables rapidly and electrifying rapidly.
As a contribution to the literature on what will happen in the real world, this is a fairly slight addition, one which is being promoted far beyond its actual merit by the usual suspects.
Featured image by akitada31 from Pixabay
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