Of all the molecules in the universe, hydrogen is the smallest yet most abundant. In the United States, one form of hydrogen is being touted as a clean energy solution. However, the reality surrounding this so-called “clean” energy source is far more complicated and troubling than you think. This has led many to question whether hydrogen is truly the answer to America’s energy crisis or simply an elaborate ruse.
Blue hydrogen: Its controversial role in the US energy landscape
Hydrogen can be classified into different forms based on its production method: brown, gray, pink, green, and blue.
As per the latest data, the majority of the world’s hydrogen (about 96%) is produced from fossil fuels, specifically coal (brown) and gas (gray). As for the rest, pink hydrogen is produced through nuclear energy; green hydrogen is extracted from water via electrolysis, a process powered by renewable energy.
Blue hydrogen is also derived from gas. Despite this, the fossil fuel industry claims that it’s cleaner than gray hydrogen and can capture a whopping 80–90% carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Unfortunately, the facts tell a different story: per a 2021 study conducted by scientists at Cornell University, blue hydrogen only manages to capture about 12% of CO2 emissions, falling drastically short of industry promises. This begs the question: why is it taking America by storm?
Blue hydrogen’s popularity lies in a combination of political and economic factors
The fossil fuel industry’s desire to sustain its operations has led to its advocacy for hydrogen as the ultimate, eco-friendly energy source. Although blue hydrogen could potentially replace brown and gray hydrogen used in synthetic fertilizers and steel production, the methods of extraction are hardly clean.
Analyses on blue hydrogen by the US government also significantly downplay its environmental impact. For example, they claim that only 1% of methane escapes into the atmosphere during hydrogen production. However, recent scientific studies have proven this figure to be far less than what it actually is.
Indeed, a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reveals that optimistic assumptions regarding methane emissions, hydrogen leakage, and carbon capture technology paint a misleading picture of blue hydrogen.
Even worse, the government’s analyses overlook hydrogen’s atmospheric effects, namely that leaked hydrogen can exacerbate the greenhouse gas impacts of methane.
Prioritizing renewable energy over blue hydrogen
“The reality is, blue hydrogen is not clean or low-carbon,” says David Schlissel, IEEFA director of resource planning analysis and co-author of this report. “Pursuing this technology is wasting precious time and diverting attention from investing in more effective measures to combat global warming like wind and solar resources, battery storage, and energy efficiency.”
This is exemplified by recent US legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, which have channeled nearly $26 billion in taxpayers’ money towards hydrogen projects. Critics argue that this funding could have been better spent on these aforementioned measures.
While hydrogen has limited applications, particularly in specialized transportation such as long-haul flights, renewable energy sources provide immediate and significant benefits. As such, government officials and energy industry leaders should be promoting genuine zero-emission innovations instead.
If push comes to shove, green hydrogen represents the only sustainable solution among the various hydrogen forms. Still, experts warn that for a carbon-free future, green hydrogen must emerge from new renewable projects rather than depending on existing energy grids powered by fossil fuels.
Clearly, blue hydrogen highlights the challenges of navigating clean energy solutions. While it offers a short-term alternative, its flaws raise red flags about long-term sustainability. Truly, the path forward lies in prioritizing genuinely renewable energy sources.