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.
The US solar industry put nearly 18 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity on the grid in the first half of 2025. Even as the Trump administration rolled out anti-clean energy policies, solar and storage still made up 82% of all new power added to the grid in the first six months of the year. But the growth picture isn’t as sunny as it looks, according to the SEIA.
Trump’s big bill (HR1) and new administration actions targeting solar have dragged down deployment forecasts. The latest US Solar Market Insight Q3 2025 report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie warns that these policies could cut 44 GW of US solar growth by 2030 – an 18% decline. Compared with pre-HR1 forecasts, that’s a total loss of 55 GW, or 21% fewer solar projects by 2030.
“Solar and storage are the backbone of America’s energy future, delivering the majority of new power to the grid at the lowest cost to families and businesses,” said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper. She added that the administration is “deliberately stifling investment, which is raising energy costs for families and businesses, and jeopardizing the reliability of our electric grid.” Still, Hopper stressed that demand will keep the industry growing because “the market is demanding what we’re delivering: reliable, affordable, American-made energy.”
Ironically, the report found that this year, 77% of new solar capacity has been built in states Trump won. Eight of the top 10 states for new installations — Texas, Indiana, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, and Arkansas — all went red in 2024.
On the manufacturing side, the US added 13 GW of new solar module capacity in the first half of the year, with factories ramping up in Texas, Indiana, and Minnesota. That brings total domestic capacity to 55 GW. But momentum stalled in Q2, with no new upstream manufacturing investment as federal policy uncertainty spooked private capital.
Looking ahead, SEIA and Wood Mackenzie expect solar deployment to land 4% lower than pre-HR1 projections by 2030. Near-term solar growth is buoyed by projects already underway, developers racing against tax credit deadlines, and surging electricity demand as new gas generation becomes pricier and less reliable.
The report also highlights the risk of federal permitting changes. A Department of the Interior order throws up obstructions for solar permits, threatening about 44 GW of planned projects. Arizona, California, and Nevada are expected to be hit hardest.
“There is considerable downside risk for the solar industry if the federal permitting environment creates more constraints for solar projects,” said Michelle Davis, head of solar research at Wood Mackenzie. “The solar industry is already navigating dramatic policy changes as a result of HR1. Further uncertainty from federal policy actions is making the business environment incredibly challenging.”
SEIA has urged Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to reverse course, warning that the administration’s approach could mean lost jobs, higher power bills, and a weaker US economy.
The stakes stretch beyond energy: SEIA notes that if solar growth stalls as projected, the Trump administration will blow its chances at winning the global AI race – something it’s keen to do. Last week, the trade group rolled out a grid reliability policy agenda calling on leaders at all levels of government to shore up the grid with solar and storage to meet surging demand.
Read more: FERC: Solar + wind made up 91% of new US power generating capacity in H1 2025
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.
Inflation is back, with prices rising 2.7% compared to last year (and that doesn’t include food, fuel, or rent, which are up even more), which is objectively bad. But it’s not true that everything is getting more expensive. These inflation-busting EVs are heading into 2026 with prices that are lower than they were in 2025!
There’s plenty of reasons for prices to go up or down in a market – everything from tariffs and taxes and increased domestic production to changes in inflation or even just a manufacturerwillingness to take a smaller profit on per-unit sales in order to drive volume. There’s a little bit of all of that happening in the American EV market this year, especially in the face of the expiring Federal EV tax credit that kind of makes most EVs cost $7,500 more than they would have otherwise.
That said, as I was putting this list together, I realized there were plenty of ways for me to present these MY26 price cuts. “Best deals?” Too opinion-based. “Biggest discounts by percentage?” Too much math. In the end, I went with alphabetical order, by make. Enjoy!
Cadillac OPTIQ
Cadillac is the industry’s luxury EV leader these days – and for good reason. Its electric crossovers are good-looking, have long range, great acceleration, and ultra-fast charging. Heck, they can even power your home in a pinch.
Even so, the powers that be at GM are worried about how their EV sales will fare in an American without a $7,500 Federal EV tax credit, so they’re offering a rear-wheel-drive version of the OPTIQ crossover with 300 miles of range for the 2026 model year with a starting price that’s nearly $2,000 lower than the least-expensive 2025.
Chevy Silverado EV
Chevy is crushing it right now. After setting EV range records and surpassing Ford in EV sales this semmer, Chevy is now the fastest-growing domestic EV brand in the US – and they’re seemingly intent on keeping that momentum into 2026 with a more affordable WT trim level that starts at $54,895, compared to $57,095 for the ’25 WT Standard Range.
The financial picture is looking rosier at the top of the Silverado EV model range, too. The range-topping model for 2026 is the $88,695 Trail Boss, while the $97,895 RST Max Range topped the 2025 lineup.
Mercedes-Benz EQS
Despite being objectively capable, technologically-advanced, and supremely luxurious long-range electric vehicles, the Mercedes EQS and EQS SUVs were saddled with a somewhat anonymous, jellybean-like styling language that’s seen the flagship EVs struggle to find a foothold in the ultra-luxury segment they inhabit.
To that end, Mercedes kicked off its 2025 with big discounts on its in-stock EQS and EQS SUVs, and is responding to lower-than-expected market demand by reducing the cars’ MSRPs. In the case of the EQS SUV, by an inflation-busting $15,000 (!).
Toyota bZ
For 2026, Toyota has axed the bZ4X name and added a raft of both functional and cosmetic improvements to its five-passenger electric crossover, including body color fenders, up to 25% more range, and – thanks to a new thermal management system and battery preconditioning – a bigger battery that can charge from 10-80% capacity in about thirty minutes.
Even with those upgrades, the new and improved 2026 Toyota bZ is cheaper than the outgoing bZ4X, starting at $34,900 – or $2,170 less than the outgoing model.
Disclaimer: the prices above were sourced from CarsDirect, Motor1, and a number OEM websites. All offers were current as of 07SEP2025, and all links provided are from trusted affiliates. These prices may not be available in every market, with every discount, or for every buyer (the standard “with approved credit” fine print should be considered implied). Check with your local dealer(s) for more information.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. 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.
Sennebogen’s new 824 G Electro Battery material handler is being put through its paces at a recycling site in Munich’s Aubing district. And, thanks to its innovative grid-connected/battery system, it never has to stop to recharge!
With its emphasis on the recycling of stainless steel, ferroalloys, and superalloys, CRONIMET Alpha’s recycling operations are loud, and adding the ceaseless drone of diesel engines straining against the mass of all that metal as it’s sorted and fed into bailing presses. That’s why the company was so excited to test out Sennebogen’s new, all-electric 824 G Electro Battery material handler during an extensive trial at its Munich site.
So far, CRONIMET’s operators have been impressed with the new Sennebogen. “The battery-powered machine drives just like a diesel-powered one,” explains equipment operator Zoran Alexsic. “You don’t notice any difference in power – only that everything runs much more smoothly and quietly … you don’t have to take breaks to escape the noise.”
Quiet, but powerful
The Sennebogen 824 G comes standard with a 98 kWh battery, but operators can install up to four modular packs for a total of 392 kWh and roughly eight hours of runtime. Even with a single pack—good for 1.5 to 3 hours—the machine can keep CRONIMET’s operations running almost nonstop, thanks to its built-in dual power mode.
Sennebogen’s dual power mode enables the 824 G to run on battery while drawing power from the grid at the same time. When connected to grid power, the machine can recharge its batteries as it works, eliminating the downtime other BEVs need for charging and giving operators the freedom to reposition the machine on battery power, then plug back in when convenient.
Beyond flexibility, the electric handler is also cleaner, quieter, and more cost-effective than the diesel models it’s designed to replace. By seamlessly cycling between battery and grid power, it reduces both noise on the job site and energy costs during peak hours.
Electrek’s Take
We’ve seen grid-connected equipment assets like this before, and with good reason. Simply put, it takes many more kilowatts of energy to dig up tons and tons of dirt and rocks than it does to send an aerodynamically smoothed sedan down a road. That’s why you still see a push towards hydrogen and other energy-dense fuels in construction – but permanently grid connected assets, whether wired or inductive, could solve for some of the limitations of batteries on job sites that can support them.
If the 824 G Electro Battery is a commercial success, expect Sennebogen to roll out more grid-connected options in the years to come.
SOURCE | IMAGES: Sennebogen.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. 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