Past the Hydrogen Mirage: A Candid Dialog with Joe Romm

Not too long ago, I had the chance to sit down down once more with Dr. Joseph Romm to debate his then about to be launched e-book, The Hype About Hydrogen, obtainable now on Amazon. That is the second half of our dialog, calmly edited.

Michael Barnard [MB]: Welcome again to Redefining Power — Tech. I’m your host, Michael Barnard. My visitor right this moment is Dr. Joseph Romm, senior analysis fellow on the College of Pennsylvania middle for Science, Sustainability and the Media, working with Michael Mann. His work focuses on the sustainability, scalability and scientific underpinnings of main local weather options. The twentieth anniversary model of his e-book The Hype about Hydrogen dropped on Earth Day, and we’re right here to speak about it. That is the second half of our dialog.

Joe Romm [JR]: Let’s be sincere. A part of the resurgence of curiosity in oil and fuel firms is as a result of they’re those who know use hydrogen. They’re those who know transfer it round. I’ve at all times felt the explanation they pushed it so laborious is that they by no means believed inexperienced hydrogen could be cost-effective. They assumed folks would ultimately come operating again to them to make it from methane—with guarantees to seize some carbon alongside the best way.

And so they had been proper. Now we’re seeing all these apologists saying, “Okay, nicely, inexperienced hydrogen will not be cost-effective for some time, so within the meantime, we’ll make it from methane. We promise we’ll seize the carbon.” However as we’ve seen with common carbon seize, nearly nobody delivers. Everybody claims they’ll hit 90 or 95 p.c, however hardly anybody captures something near that.

[MB]: I used to level to Sleipner’s North Sea facility as in all probability the best-case situation. And even then, it was nonetheless a bit odd. For many who don’t know, it’s an offshore pure fuel platform. They extract fuel from beneath the seabed, nevertheless it accommodates an excessive amount of carbon dioxide—about 8%, if I bear in mind accurately. In order that they separate out the CO₂ and get large tax credit from the Norwegian authorities to inject it again underground. And so they really do it.

I used to assume, at the very least it was Norwegian engineering—environment friendly, dependable. However then final yr we came upon they’d been underperforming for 5 years. They’d pumped far much less CO₂ underground than they claimed. Even the Norwegians can’t get it proper.

[JR]: I’ve a piece within the e-book on Sleipner as a result of there’s a typical false impression on this nation about carbon seize and storage. The folks pushing it are principally oil firms, and more often than not they use the captured CO₂ to extract extra oil from the bottom. Occidental’s acquisition of Carbon Engineering was clearly for that objective. I hope all of us perceive that capturing CO₂—from an influence plant or from the air—after which utilizing it to extract extra oil just isn’t a sustainable answer. It doesn’t resolve local weather change.

The fact is that efficient carbon storage requires some huge cash for monitoring and verification. Sleipner is an efficient instance: the CO₂ is injected underwater, beneath the ocean flooring, right into a formation they declare is geologically sealed. However to realize it’s really sealed—and that the CO₂ isn’t migrating—you want steady, costly monitoring. CO₂ spreads. It could possibly discover outdated cracks you didn’t know had been there, or create new ones over time.

Within the e-book, I talk about two case research: Sleipner and the In Salah venture in Algeria. In each instances, long-term monitoring revealed that the CO₂ didn’t simply keep the place they put it. It moved. This issues. Particularly now, when the literature is evident—and we noticed this emphasised at COP 29 in Azerbaijan with two main research—that if you wish to genuinely displace fossil gas emissions, you could retailer CO₂ completely. CO₂ stays within the environment for a very long time. So should you’re going to take away it, you could lock it away for hundreds of years. If it leaks in 100 years, you haven’t actually solved something. You’ve simply delayed the issue.

That is why measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) are so necessary—however nobody desires to pay for them on this nation. Oil firms say, “Give us the CO₂, pay us a tax credit score, and belief us—we’ll bury it and it received’t come again.” However they don’t need legal responsibility. They need immunity in case one thing goes fallacious. If a CO₂ plume resurfaces in a decade and harms folks, they don’t wish to be held accountable.

That’s the definition of an ethical hazard. No accountability, no actual incentive to get it proper. If you happen to really wish to do carbon seize and storage responsibly, it’s important to put money into long-term monitoring and verification. In any other case, it’s simply one other phantasm.

[MB]: Nicely, the excellent news about Northern Lights—the Norwegian carbon storage venture—is that the ships are lastly going to begin transferring this yr. And I say it’s excellent news not as a result of it makes any actual sense, however as a result of it’ll quickly grow to be painfully apparent to everybody that it doesn’t.

Norway paid for roughly 80% of the capital price utilizing cash from its sovereign wealth fund, so it’s already pulled an enormous quantity of worth out of fossil fuels to fund this. On prime of that, they’re subsidizing BECCS vegetation to ship CO₂ to Northern Lights. The one facility that even approaches fiscal sanity is Yara’s dockside ammonia plant, which produces a comparatively pure stream of CO₂.

However even then, Yara has to buffer, compress, and liquefy that CO₂ at nice expense, whereas ready for one of many Northern Lights ships to reach. Then the ship travels 700 kilometers round-trip to the injection website. And that website, whereas technically on land, is reached by way of a 100-kilometer undersea pipeline that dives 2 kilometers right down to a storage formation supposedly sealed by impermeable shale that may maintain the fuel eternally.

It’s an astonishing quantity of engineering and cash. They’ve gone as far as to equip the ships with Flettner rotors to achieve an additional 3% effectivity. They’re additionally utilizing air lubrication programs beneath the hulls, sluggish steaming—techniques we don’t usually apply on normal cargo vessels barring the sluggish steaming—all to scale back the CO₂ emissions from the maritime gas powering the ships. When the phantasm breaks and folks begin including up the true prices, it’s going to be eye-opening.

[JR]: It’s necessary for folks to know that if you seize CO₂, it’s a fuel—however to retailer it, you could convert it into supercritical CO₂. That’s a state the place it’s neither a real fuel nor a real liquid. It has about half the density of water, and it’s saved at round 1,000 kilos per sq. inch. In that state, it behaves as a solvent—supercritical CO₂ is definitely utilized in business for precisely that objective.

So if you inject it underground, you’re injecting a high-pressure solvent into geological formations. This isn’t a easy “hearth and neglect” course of. It requires critical engineering, long-term oversight, and a deep understanding of subsurface conduct. The primary time I noticed the equation for this, it actually hit me—that is way more advanced and dangerous than most individuals understand.

Vaclav Smil did a calculation the place he identified that if you wish to seize and transfer round 3 billion tons of CO₂—whether or not it’s from energy vegetation or another supply—you’re coping with a logistical burden equal in quantity to greater than 90 million barrels of oil per day. That’s roughly the identical scale as your entire international oil manufacturing and supply system, which took a century to construct. If you happen to assume you’re going to recreate that sort of infrastructure in a technology, you may wish to assume once more.

And that’s only for 3 billion tons. Complete international greenhouse fuel emissions are 50 billion tons yearly. Even should you’re solely aiming for a 6% answer, you’re nonetheless speaking about constructing a whole international petroleum-scale infrastructure simply to bury waste—and it higher keep buried. If it leaks out over the subsequent hundred years, you haven’t solved the issue.
The purpose isn’t that carbon seize or hydrogen are utterly nugatory. The purpose, as I emphasize within the e-book, is that we have to concentrate on applied sciences which are scalable now and able to driving emissions down quickly. We’ve been rising emissions for over 30 years. We’re at COP29 now. In a TEDx speak, I identified that there have been over 30 annual international local weather conferences—together with one we missed throughout COVID—and emissions have saved rising your entire time.

So except we begin chopping emissions sharply and shortly, we’re in deep trouble. That’s what I posted about lately, and that’s what the monetary sector appears to be acknowledging quietly. As a substitute of screaming for speedy motion, they’re hedging—investing in air con, insurance coverage, and adaptation. That tells you one thing.

The true trick is to spend as a lot cash as attainable on the issues which are more likely to work—and as little as attainable on issues that in all probability received’t. I’m a physicist, and I ran a billion-dollar R&D workplace. I’d by no means say an issue can by no means be solved, however the factor about hydrogen is, it’s not fixing only one drawback.

Individuals discuss “gold hydrogen”—naturally occurring hydrogen underground—as if simply discovering it solves all the things. However, as I argue within the e-book, there are at the very least 5 main challenges. Twenty years in the past, I used to say you wanted three or 4 miracles to make hydrogen viable. And normally, it solely takes one deadly flaw to kill an thought. However over time, I spotted one thing deeper: should you’re keen to consider in a single miracle, you’ll consider in 4. It’s like infinity—whether or not it’s one or 4, it’s nonetheless an infinite leap of religion.

So, saying “we simply have to make inexperienced hydrogen” isn’t sufficient. That also doesn’t get hydrogen to finish customers. It nonetheless leaks. It’s nonetheless some of the harmful substances recognized to humankind. And nobody desires to speak concerning the issues of safety. So no, I’m not saying we should always abandon all hydrogen. We’ll, sooner or later, want to interchange the soiled hydrogen we at present produce. Proper now, we make about 100 million tons of it a yr, and manufacturing retains rising by about 5% yearly.

However hydrogen accounts for less than about 2% of worldwide greenhouse fuel emissions. So sure, it’s necessary—however not pressing. There are hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like worldwide air journey, that contribute 2–3% of worldwide emissions. All of us agree they’re troublesome and costly to repair proper now. So possibly let’s not concentrate on them first.

What we want is the sort of cost-curve pondering that McKinsey and others used to do. Let’s go after the comparatively simple 80%. Let’s focus R&D on the troublesome 20%, like hydrogen, with out prematurely scaling up costly, dangerous applied sciences for marginal beneficial properties. We have to cease chasing shiny distractions and concentrate on what really will get emissions down—quick.

[MB]: The factor about hydrogen is that round 40% of worldwide manufacturing is used for refining oil—and that 40% is overwhelmingly tied to heavy, high-sulfur crude from locations like Alberta, Mexico, and Venezuela. I really did the maths and the workup on this, and people at Schlumberger checked out it and stated, “Yeah, that checks out.” And they might know.

It really works out to about 7.7 kilograms of hydrogen per barrel for Alberta’s crude. In contrast, for gentle, candy crude—like a number of the greatest from Brent or Saudi Arabia—it’s solely about 1.2 kilograms per barrel. So if you have a look at that, it turns into clear: if hydrogen turns into costlier, and if oil demand declines, hydrogen demand goes to say no as nicely.

The identical logic applies to ammonia-based fertilizers. If hydrogen turns into extra pricey, we’ll cease overusing them. Options like agrigenetics and precision agriculture grow to be extra aggressive, and in lots of instances, cheaper. There’s an actual financial argument there.

I had a dialog lately with Michael Liebreich the place he admitted he’d gotten the value level for hydrogen fallacious when doing the primary model of the hydrogen ladder. He had different causes for pondering hydrogen wouldn’t be an enormous deal, however he stated the hydrogen ladder would have seemed totally different if he’d had the correct worth assumptions. I obtained fortunate—I did the price workups and the modeling earlier than I put out my hydrogen projections. I maintain saying this: I don’t assume I’m proper. I simply assume I’m much less fallacious than most. And on this case, I obtained fortunate. I may have been simply as embarrassed as numerous different individuals are right this moment.

However there’s one thing we haven’t actually talked about: hydrogen leakage. There are two main considerations. First, if hydrogen accumulates in an enclosed area and ignites, it’s extraordinarily harmful. However the second concern is extra delicate and infrequently ignored.

You’ve smelled pure fuel earlier than—it stinks. That’s as a result of we add odorants in order that leaks might be detected and folks can evacuate. However you possibly can’t try this with hydrogen. The odorants that work for different gases destroy gas cells. So if you wish to use hydrogen for each electrical energy and heating, you’d want two fully separate distribution programs: one for clear hydrogen feeding gas cells, and one other with odorants for security in buildings.

Oddly, this appears to be utterly missed by many hydrogen proponents. I discover that unusual. Do they simply not know? Are they refusing to take care of it? Or is that this only one extra miracle they assume will in some way be solved later

[JR]: The security concern round hydrogen is commonly casually hand-waved away by individuals who say, “Nicely, it’s used safely.” And positive, that’s true—beneath very strict situations. However let’s have a look at what nations like India really do to make use of it safely. Their rules require a 100-foot setback between any constructing that produces or shops hydrogen and the closest construction. That’s as a result of the fireplace danger is so excessive. You additionally want large air flow in any enclosed area the place hydrogen may accumulate. In any other case, you danger a fuel bubble forming—and hydrogen, as we all know, burns.

However it’s worse than that. Hydrogen is odorless, and as you identified, it burns invisibly. That’s why, in NASA security handbooks, you’ll discover steerage like this: should you’re getting into a room the place there may be a hydrogen hearth, carry a brush. As a result of the broom will ignite earlier than you do. That’s not a joke—it’s a workaround for the truth that hydrogen flame detectors aren’t excellent. Possibly individuals are engaged on higher sensors, however hydrogen is the tiniest molecule within the universe. It leaks by means of seals, gaskets, joints—supplies that simply include different gases.

And that leakiness issues. In any facility the place hydrogen may be current, employees should put on static-free clothes. Why? As a result of hydrogen has one-twentieth the ignition vitality of gasoline. It’s so flamable {that a} static discharge—or perhaps a lightning storm miles away—may set it off. It additionally burns at a a lot increased velocity than pure fuel, rising the blast danger.

There’s one other essential distinction. Pure fuel solely ignites in air at a reasonably slender focus—one thing like 5% to fifteen%. Hydrogen, alternatively, can ignite in air throughout an enormous vary—from roughly 4% all the best way as much as 75% or 80%, relying on situations. Which means it’s way more more likely to discover an ignition level.

The underside line is, it’s important to deal with hydrogen with excessive care. And that sort of care prices cash—cash folks don’t wish to spend. That’s additionally one motive it makes little sense to place hydrogen wherever close to a nuclear reactor. In truth, nuclear engineers have studied hydrogen intimately due to what occurred at Three Mile Island. Throughout that catastrophe, a hydrogen bubble fashioned contained in the reactor containment vessel. It shocked the general public. Nobody had anticipated it, and there was actual concern it may explode and breach the containment construction.

So sure, hydrogen can be utilized safely—however solely with critical precautions. And most of these precautions make it too advanced and dear for broad, distributed use.

[MB]: That’s really what occurred at Fukushima—it was hydrogen that exploded. The reactors generated hydrogen, which collected and ultimately ignited, inflicting the blasts that destroyed components of the ability.

However I’ll level out one thing fascinating: hydrogen can be utilized in a really managed approach at nuclear vegetation. It’s used to lubricate the bearings on massive generators as a result of it’s a wonderful coolant and lubricant in these high-speed environments. There’s really one small-scale nuclear-hydrogen use case that I assumed made numerous sense. A plant put in a small electrolyzer onsite particularly to interchange the grey hydrogen they’d beforehand trucked in for turbine lubrication. As a substitute, they used a tiny quantity of auxiliary “vampire” energy—round 0.003% of complete output—to supply all of the hydrogen they wanted.

That’s a genuinely good use case. However it was small, and crucially, it wasn’t about utilizing hydrogen as a gas. That’s an necessary distinction I wish to emphasize: all the things we’re speaking about right here—hydrogen’s security, leakage, infrastructure challenges—it’s all within the context of hydrogen for vitality. That’s the place the issues lie.

Joe and I are each very supportive of inexperienced hydrogen when it’s used as an industrial feedstock. In that position, it is sensible. It has actual use instances. It’s hydrogen for vitality that continues to be basically flawed.

[JR]: Making ammonia cleanly is feasible—it’s simply costly.

[MB]: Making hydrogen to burn it or run it by means of a gas cell is a foul thought—plain and easy.

[JR]: Proper. And I do know we regularly attempt to keep away from moving into ethics, nevertheless it’s value stating the fundamentals. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. Whenever you burn them, you oxidize the hydrogen into water and the carbon into CO₂. Each reactions launch warmth, which we’ve traditionally valued. However water and CO₂ are the tip merchandise of combustion. That’s the tip of the thermodynamic street.

So when folks attempt to reverse that—after they discuss turning water again into hydrogen and pulling CO₂ from the air, the place it’s current at simply 420 components per million—after which combining them to make artificial fuels, they’re attempting to reverse entropy. And thermodynamics tells us very clearly: should you try and reverse entropy, you’re going to pay an enormous effectivity penalty. That’s the second legislation—the well-known idea of exergy. If it’s dangerous for hydrogen, it’s worse for direct air seize.

And should you’re silly sufficient to say, “I’m going to take hydrogen from water and CO₂ from air and run them by means of a Fischer-Tropsch course of to make an artificial gas, simply to burn it once more”—nicely, possibly take into account that it might be higher to not burn something within the first place. The literature is evident: that pathway is 10 to twenty occasions much less environment friendly than direct electrification.

And other people neglect—or conveniently ignore—that it’s not simply the electrolyzer that has to run on 100% clear electrical energy. That electrical energy needs to be new, native, and hourly matched. And it’s important to energy the direct air seize system with that very same clear vitality. And the Fischer-Tropsch plant too. The entire renewable vitality requirement is staggering.
So then the query turns into: the place are you going to place this factor? We’ve already used a lot of the simply accessible, high-quality renewables. Are we going to construct this large artificial gas advanced in the midst of the Sahara Desert? Is that basically the sign?

That’s the sort of logic we’re seeing from Germany, for instance. I used to be speaking to a Bloomberg reporter who talked about a narrative about plans to make use of photo voltaic in Namibia to make hydrogen for export to Germany. I stated: so as a substitute of utilizing that African solar energy to construct up the native financial system, you’re going to make hydrogen, discover some method to ship it north in some pricey and inefficient type, after which burn it in a metal plant in Europe?

That’s your plan? You’re going to construct a metal plant that depends upon imported hydrogen from an African desert? And what’s really laborious for you and me is attempting to speak about this with a straight face—as a result of these are sensible folks. Critical folks. And so they’re significantly speaking about investing billions into one thing that depends upon a number of miracles to even perform.

[MB]: Yeah, just a few years in the past I did a significant research of the Maghreb area and North Africa—Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt—and the European plans to construct inexperienced hydrogen packages there for export to Europe. I spoke about it at a convention in Tunisia, the place I used to be on a panel, and I stated fairly plainly: that is all going to fail.

However whereas the Europeans are being silly and spending some huge cash, the chance for these nations is to leverage that funding. Construct out wind, photo voltaic, transmission, and storage infrastructure. Use it to decarbonize your personal economies. As a result of whether or not or not the hydrogen export plans succeed, you’re nonetheless going to be affected by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Every little thing you at present export to Europe will face rising carbon tariffs. The way in which to keep away from that? Decarbonize domestically.

However what struck me—and I’ll attempt to say this politely—is the diploma to which Europe nonetheless behaves as if it doesn’t have a colonial legacy. It does. And it’s typically blind to that reality. The remainder of the world isn’t.

There’s a robust second captured on video: a German minister—probably even a chancellor—is talking to an African chief, laying out local weather or vitality expectations. And the African chief simply blasts them. He says, in impact: you don’t have the ethical authority to inform us dwell nicely. And he’s proper.

[JR]: I attempt to give you analogies within the e-book to assist folks perceive this. For me, the perfect analogy is that this: think about you wish to ship water someplace. So as a substitute of simply sending water, you exchange it into champagne, ship the champagne, after which distill it again into water on the vacation spot. That’s the plan. And in some way we’re presupposed to assume that is sensible.

Sure, it’s true that hydrogen can be utilized for direct vitality purposes. However is it the one method to do these issues? No—not even shut.

Within the e-book, I interviewed one of many senior leaders of the Worldwide Power Company’s hydrogen program, and I quote him at size within the conclusion. One of many causes individuals are nonetheless so optimistic about hydrogen is that the IEA’s Internet Zero by 2050 roadmap consists of it. Hydrogen is within the mannequin as a result of for some sectors, there’s no different apparent pathway. So it turns into a placeholder.

However what he advised me was placing. He stated, mainly, all the foremost technological advances of the previous decade have made hydrogen much less believable, no more. Each huge step has been pro-electric: advances in batteries, in warmth pumps, in electrical automobiles. All of it factors to electrification because the cheaper, extra environment friendly, extra scalable path.

[MB]: Molten oxide electrolysis is now being developed in labs world wide. Then there’s China’s new inexperienced metal course of, which is reportedly primarily based on their present copper manufacturing technique. Neither of those approaches—molten oxide electrolysis or China’s new course of—makes use of hydrogen in any respect.

I’m nonetheless listening to rumblings, and I haven’t had time to totally dig into them—one particular person, two eyeballs—however some early indications recommend that molten oxide electrolysis could also be utilizing much less electrical energy end-to-end than different decarbonized steelmaking strategies. And if it consumes much less vitality and avoids the problems of hydrogen fully, it’s in all probability going to be cheaper too.

[JR]: Proper. That’s precisely the purpose—something you are able to do instantly with electrical energy, you’re by no means going to do extra effectively with hydrogen. And even when electrical energy has some limitations, they’re nowhere close to as extreme because the challenges that include hydrogen.

Right here’s what I’d say to the metal business: let’s listing the sectors which are laborious to decarbonize however that we don’t should rush proper now. We don’t want to interchange all of the soiled hydrogen instantly—it solely accounts for about 2% of worldwide emissions and comes with excessive prices. We don’t want to totally decarbonize long-distance air journey but. We don’t have to interchange all worldwide transport. And we don’t have to totally decarbonize metal right this moment. These are 4 of the toughest issues. Let’s give them a while.

As a result of the selection proper now could be this: are you going to spend billions constructing a hydrogen-based metal plant right this moment, though there’s no inexperienced hydrogen obtainable and certain received’t be at scale for years—if ever? Or may we put money into R&D on various steelmaking applied sciences that don’t rely on hydrogen in any respect? A few of these are already rising.
Sure, they may not be prepared tomorrow. However till we’ve achieved the comparatively simple 80 to 90 p.c of emissions reductions—by means of electrification, renewables, effectivity, and grid upgrades—we shouldn’t be spending big sums to chase applied sciences that find yourself costing $500 or extra per ton of CO₂ decreased. That’s not local weather technique—that’s waste.

[MB]: I’m a broad-spectrum nerd—I simply have to know the way issues work. After which I depart a breadcrumb path of what I’ve found out. More often than not, I’m not terribly fallacious. I get nice corrections from folks, and that helps refine issues. In the case of metal, I really see a extremely encouraging story—with or with out hydrogen.
China produces half of the world’s metal, and it’s on the finish of its infrastructure growth. It stopped allowing new blast furnaces final yr and is pivoting towards electrical arc furnaces (EAFs) to utilize its 260 to 280 million tons of home scrap. That’s an enormous shift.

In the meantime, Europe and the UK are sitting at simply 20 to 40% scrap utilization. They’re nonetheless exporting tens of hundreds of thousands of tons of scrap every year as a substitute of turning it into new metal, they usually’re nonetheless operating blast furnaces. It’s simply baffling.
The USA—regardless of my varied critiques, each historic and present—has been operating EAFs for about 70% of its metal demand since round 2000. They’re really the worldwide chief in electrical arc furnace deployment. Sure, they nonetheless use pure fuel for preheating and will electrify additional, however the basis is already there.

Between the worldwide shift towards electrical arc furnaces and a possible discount in complete metal demand, we’re going to see main modifications within the metal sector’s carbon footprint. This is likely one of the few vibrant spots.

And sure, we did discuss leakage. I discussed eager to go in two instructions with that. As a result of, 20 or 25 years in the past, hydrogen was hyped because the clear answer—it burns cleanly, and when utilized in a gas cell, the one byproduct is water. That was the narrative. However the extra we’ve realized about leakage, infrastructure prices, and real-world implementation, the much less convincing that story has grow to be.

It’s introduced as a local weather answer. Sure, we all know it leaks—however in some way that’s brushed apart as only a security concern. And for some motive, folks really feel comfy discounting it. Why? I don’t know. However I’m guessing you’ve been following the rising analysis on the worldwide warming potential of hydrogen.

[JR]: Because it seems, hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse fuel within the conventional sense—it doesn’t instantly entice warmth. However it’s an oblique greenhouse fuel, as a result of it extends the atmospheric lifetime of different heat-trapping gases, most notably methane.

Over the previous 5 to seven years, scientists have revisited the numbers. Our understanding of atmospheric chemistry has improved, our fashions have gotten higher, and—frankly—I don’t assume anybody ten years in the past imagined we’d nonetheless be significantly entertaining a hydrogen financial system. However as soon as curiosity resurged, the scientific group took one other look. And what they discovered is regarding.

The 20-year international warming potential (GWP) of hydrogen is now estimated to be round 35, give or take. That’s a lot increased than we beforehand thought—and it’s a major problem.

Traditionally, the main target was on the 100-year GWP, which is why we didn’t fear an excessive amount of about pure fuel. Carbon dioxide lasts a very long time within the environment, so it dominates the hundred-year body. However now, with rising consciousness of short-lived local weather forcers, we’re wanting on the 20-year affect extra intently—as a result of we urgently have to restrict warming within the close to time period to purchase time for deeper, long-term options.

That’s why methane has come beneath such scrutiny. Over 20 years, methane has a GWP of about 80. And we now know there’s widespread methane leakage throughout the financial system. Robert Howarth at Cornell was closely criticized for elevating this early on, however he’s since been vindicated. His analysis confirmed that you just solely want 2–3% methane leakage earlier than pure fuel isn’t any higher than coal. And because it seems, hydrogen leaks way more simply than methane.

This brings us to the infrastructure drawback. How will we transport hydrogen? Ideally, by means of pipelines—however these require a assured purchaser and vendor earlier than they’re constructed. That’s the basic chicken-and-egg drawback. If you happen to don’t have established hydrogen demand, nobody builds the pipelines. However with out the pipelines, nobody builds hydrogen-using amenities. So nobody goes first. That drawback was recognized over 20 years in the past—and it nonetheless hasn’t been solved.

In follow, most hydrogen is more likely to be moved by truck, both compressed to very excessive pressures—as much as 10,000 psi—or liquefied. Liquefaction permits for a lot better vitality density, so you possibly can transport extra hydrogen per journey. However it comes with big vitality penalties. And in sure instances—like tunnels—liquid hydrogen poses further security considerations that compressed fuel may not.

So between its oblique warming results, its excessive leakage fee, and the unsolved logistics of protected and environment friendly distribution, hydrogen as a local weather answer seems to be far much less promising than proponents would love us to consider.

[MB]: Proper—you’re not allowed to take liquid hydrogen by means of tunnels. The security dangers are simply too excessive.

[JR]: There are at all times problems. One in all them is that canisters can’t really dispense all of the hydrogen they maintain—the strain dynamics forestall it. These are the sorts of sensible realities that get brushed apart within the magical pondering that usually surrounds hydrogen.

When folks think about hydrogen-powered vans, they typically discuss utilizing liquid hydrogen—as a result of should you attempt to cram compressed hydrogen onboard at 10,000 psi, you don’t find yourself with a lot gas. You want specialised, inflexible, non-moldable tanks, which limits the way you design the car. And each fueling station would must be geared up with 12,000 psi overpressure pumps simply to refill these tanks.

That provides large complexity and value. And right here’s the kicker: all of that infrastructure is totally nugatory if the hydrogen financial system doesn’t materialize. If you happen to construct 1,000 hydrogen fueling stations with ultra-high-pressure pumps and the market doesn’t take off, you’re left with stranded property—amenities nobody can repurpose and nobody desires to keep up.

There are simply so many factors of failure on this imaginative and prescient, and that’s why nobody’s writing the verify. The chance is just too excessive, the return too unsure, and the alternate options—electrification particularly—are easier, cheaper, and already scaling.

[MB]: And so they’re vastly costlier and much much less modular or manufacturable than megawatt-scale charging infrastructure.

[JR]: However if you wish to produce inexperienced hydrogen regionally at every fueling station, then each station must be positioned close to an enormous renewable vitality supply. In any other case, you’re simply pulling electrical energy from the grid—which seemingly consists of fossil technology—and that defeats the entire objective. You’re not fixing the emissions drawback; you’re simply shifting it round.

[MB]: Let’s face it—even when we energy battery-electric vans with right this moment’s grid electrical energy, they’re nonetheless not as clear as they might be. However they’re vastly higher than hydrogen-powered vans. Hydrogen has about one-third the effectivity of direct electrification for street freight. So should you’re utilizing electrical energy to make hydrogen, you’re successfully multiplying any CO₂ emissions from that electrical energy by three.

However let’s get again to the core level—you’re going to a particular place with this, as a result of we’re speaking about international warming potential. And that modifications how we consider all of this.

[JR]: Leakage is a significant concern, particularly given the pressures concerned. That’s why lots of people recommend switching to liquid hydrogen as a substitute. I maintain seeing proposals: liquid hydrogen for planes, liquid hydrogen vans, vans powered by liquid hydrogen, or vans delivering liquid hydrogen. It’s in every single place. However the assumption appears to be that utilizing liquid type in some way solves the storage and transport drawback—when in actuality, it simply introduces a complete new set of challenges.

[MB]: Daimler is closely invested on this. They’ve even obtained a member of their board of administrators performing as a vocal spokesperson for hydrogen, particularly in transport.

[JR]: This is likely one of the craziest concepts on the market. First, liquefying hydrogen consumes about 40% of its vitality content material—it’s important to cool it down to close absolute zero. We’re speaking a lot colder than liquid nitrogen or liquid CO₂. The vitality inefficiency of that course of is staggering.

However it doesn’t cease there. As soon as the liquid hydrogen is within the tank, it begins to heat up. It sloshes round throughout transport—and sure, there are precise research on the sloshing impact. Because it warms, it begins to re-gasify, creating strain contained in the tank. And proper now, the usual method to take care of that strain? You vent it. You simply let the hydrogen escape into the environment.

[MB]: I’ll say that Air Liquide really captures boil-off in Europe—as a result of they’re required to by regulation.

[JR]: And positive, you possibly can pay to try this—seize the boil-off—however within the U.S., I don’t assume there’s a single truck doing it. To make that attainable, you’d should scrap the present fleet and set up fully new know-how. And bear in mind, you’re not simply capturing the vented hydrogen—you additionally should re-cool it.

So in some way this truck that’s already transporting liquid hydrogen would additionally want to hold the ability and gear to maintain it chilly sufficient to stop boil-off. That’s an enormous ask. It means you possibly can’t transport it very far. And that’s the purpose—I’ve been this, and it simply doesn’t add up.

[MB]: Hydrogen leaks in all places. Each time you do something with it—each switch level, each contact level—you’re at the very least 1% leakage. That’s what the info persistently reveals. In California, there was one hydrogen fueling station with 35% leakage. After years of remediation, they managed to convey it down to only beneath 10%.

In South Korea, after they inspected hydrogen automobiles and buses, 15% had been leaking. An electrolyzer station in Northern Europe—engineered to excessive requirements—nonetheless confirmed leakage charges between 1% and 4%. That’s simply the fact.
And if you begin multiplying these numbers throughout a full hydrogen provide chain, issues worsen quick. In case your worth chain has seven or eight switch factors—and plenty of do—you’re simply 10% leakage end-to-end.

Multiply that by hydrogen’s 20-year international warming potential of 35, and also you’ve obtained a big warming affect. That’s not a local weather answer. That’s an issue.

[JR]: It’s numerous warming—full cease. And even setting apart hydrogen’s international warming potential, the inefficiency alone is motive sufficient to keep away from shedding any of it. It’s insane, actually. What we’re saying is that our supposed answer to international warming is a fuel that extends the lifetime and abundance of methane within the environment.

After which I hear folks say, “Nicely, we are able to’t do all of it with renewables, so we’ll simply make the hydrogen from pure fuel.” Proper—so we’re going to make use of a leaky fossil system to make hydrogen, which can then leak out itself, additional extending the lifetime of methane within the environment. That’s not an answer; it’s a suggestions loop. And as I say on the finish of the e-book, the very last thing you’d ever wish to do in a world frightened about near-term warming is develop using pure fuel. And but, that’s precisely what hydrogen does.

Even earlier than Trump, there have been actual questions on whether or not oil and fuel firms had been critical about tackling methane emissions. And remember—methane is efficacious. You possibly can promote methane. Hydrogen? Not a lot. So if we haven’t gotten critical about containing methane, the place there’s a revenue motive, what makes us assume we’ll do higher with hydrogen?

No matter framework you employ—three or 4 miracles, or “turtles all the best way down”—the purpose is identical: there isn’t a foundational layer the place this hydrogen financial system really is sensible. It’s constructed on a stack of wishful assumptions.
And I get it. The local weather disaster is dire. Emissions maintain rising. It appears like we’re not performing quick sufficient. However we’re optimistic folks—we consider know-how can resolve issues. And it will probably. There are actual applied sciences which are scaling right this moment and delivering emissions reductions.

However folks want to know: hydrogen isn’t considered one of them. Not for vitality. Hydrogen isn’t an answer that exists ready for only one breakthrough to make all of it work. It’s not like a “remedy for most cancers” scenario the place one discovery unlocks all the things. It’s a posh drawback that requires fixing dozens of laborious engineering, security, infrastructure, and financial challenges—lots of which don’t even overlap.

And that’s why the true reply—the sensible, scalable, financial reply—is the electrification financial system. That’s the longer term.

[MB]: So we’re on the prime of the hour. Usually I’d depart it with an open-ended query, however you’ve obtained a e-book popping out in six days. So let folks know the place they will get it, what codecs it’s obtainable in—and if there’s some sketchy black market vendor on the market, give people a heads-up to steer clear.

[JR]: Nicely, look—I get that some folks don’t wish to give cash to Amazon. And I’m not right here to defend Bezos. However the reality is, earlier than he grew to become no matter he’s now, he did revolutionize e-book manufacturing and supply. You possibly can consider him a bit like Elon Musk: there’s a “earlier than” and an “after.” The very fact stays—Amazon constructed a remarkably environment friendly system for each paperback and digital books.

So yeah, if you wish to really feel conflicted and virtuous on the identical time, purchase it from Amazon. You actually ought to. Even my writer doesn’t advocate shopping for the e book by means of different platforms as a result of they will’t legally make it suitable. It’s not a real PDF, and it’s not a real Kindle file, so that they’ve explicitly stated: don’t purchase it there.

This isn’t a e-book full of figures or advanced formatting, so the Kindle model works nice. There will probably be an audiobook ultimately, however for now, seize the paperback or the Kindle.

Personally, I like to recommend the Kindle. It’s extra environmentally pleasant, and truthfully, it’s extra helpful to me as an writer. I can see what readers are highlighting. And when a bunch of individuals underscore the identical line, I feel, okay, possibly that’s the half I ought to emphasize in a chat.

[MB]: Do you will have a launch occasion or something deliberate for the twenty second?

[JR]: No, I’ve been doing e-book talks, however we dwell in a world the place they don’t actually drive gross sales anymore. Podcasts are the trendy e-book tour, I feel..

[MB]: Nicely, I’m glad to be a part of it.

[JR]: Nicely, it’s digital, proper? And it’s Earth Day—that’s the purpose. I actually labored laborious to get this out by Earth Day. So go to Amazon and purchase the paperback.

[MB]: Glorious. That is Michael Barnard, the host of Redefining Power – Tech. My visitor right this moment has been Dr. Joseph Romm, whose twentieth anniversary version of The Hype About Hydrogen is out in six days. As he stated—purchase it on Amazon. Joe, thanks a lot for being on.

[JR]: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.