For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.
Ben Klein
Scientific paper (Energy Science and Engineering)
Both the article and paper that I chose focused on the skepticism surrounding “blue hydrogen” fuel as a low-emission alternative to traditional fossil fuels. The article, titled, “For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts,” was published in the New York Times in August of 2021. It cites a scientific paper also published in August 2021 in the journal Energy Science and Engineering titled, “How green is blue hydrogen?”. This paper investigates the claim that “blue hydrogen” can be used as a lower-emission source of energy instead of the more common “gray hydrogen”, natural gas, and coal.
The study first discusses the different types of hydrogen fuel. According to the study, 96% of all hydrogen fuel is generated from fossil fuels. Hydrogen generated from coal gasification is called “brown hydrogen”, whereas hydrogen generated from the heating and pressurization of methane is called “gray hydrogen”. When hydrogen is produced from the electrolysis of water, and the hydrolysis is driven by renewable energy sources, it is called “green hydrogen”. Gray hydrogen, the most common form of hydrogen fuel, is generated through a process called steam methane reforming (SMR), which heats and pressurizes methane to drive a chemical reaction producing H2 and CO2. In an attempt to eliminate the emission of this newly generated CO2 into the atmosphere, some companies have chosen to utilize carbon capture and storage technology during the SMR step of production. The production of gray hydrogen in combination with this added carbon capture step has created a new category of hydrogen fuel, “blue hydrogen”, which is the focus of the study.
The paper focuses on the claim from natural gas companies that blue hydrogen is a low greenhouse gas emission form of fuel. It examines the process used to produce blue hydrogen and the emissions that come from each step. The combustion of natural gas to create the heat and pressure to perform SMR, the natural gas lost in the transportation process, the SMR process itself, and the energy to power the carbon capture equipment all sum up to 139g CO2eq emitted per MJ of H2 energy produced. While CO2 emissions were successfully cut by 85% using carbon capture during the SMR step, blue hydrogen production facilities fail to capture CO2 or methane emissions during any other part of the process. With the CO2 produced in SMR comprising less than half of the emissions for the entire production process, blue hydrogen production still emits a massive amount of greenhouse gasses. Compared to gray hydrogen (153g CO2eq/MJ) or natural gas (86-105 Co2eq/MJ), blue hydrogen isn’t significantly cleaner than gray hydrogen and emits much more CO2eq/MJ than standard natural gas.
Hydrogen fuel emissions (in g CO2eq/MJ) compared to fossil fuels, Howarth and Jacobson 2021.
The New York Times article begins by clearly stating that current hydrogen fuel is much more costly to the environment than most people think. It does a good job of pointing out that blue hydrogen has allowed natural gas companies to expand their pipeline networks and infrastructure while claiming that they are producing a “cleaner” alternative to natural gas. They also adequately sum up the factors taken into account and assumptions made by the researchers to reach the overall emissions estimates for blue hydrogen. This is important to note as neither of the two blue hydrogen facilities in the world have reported complete emission statistics for the production of blue hydrogen. The article expands its analysis beyond the study, referencing the additional revenue that could be brought to the natural gas industry through government investments in the current hydrogen fuel infrastructure. This was a great addition as it points out to the reader that a portion ($8 million) of the proposed bipartisan infrastructure bill dedicated to what was thought to be low-emission energy infrastructure would actually in part go to fossil fuel companies.
While I think the article did a great job overall of highlighting the major takeaways of the scientific paper, some improvements could have been made. As we’ve seen often in class, the title of the article, “For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts,” could lead to misunderstandings. To me, the title casts doubt on all types of hydrogen fuels by not specifying the specific type of hydrogen fuel that the article and the paper both focus on. Additionally, the author doesn’t clearly define what blue hydrogen is, or the difference between blue and green hydrogen until the last few paragraphs of the article. When I first read the article, I was under the impression that blue hydrogen was the only form of hydrogen fuel available until the end of the article. Readers who just read the title or skim the article may get the impression that blue hydrogen is the only type of hydrogen fuel and that hydrogen fuels as a whole are not an option when considering a clean energy future.
Overall I’d give this article an 8.5/10. It does a great job of accurately summarizing the findings of the study in a way that is easy to understand while also stating the implications of the research on current energy policy. They successfully conveyed the point that blue hydrogen should not be considered a low-emission fuel, and that green hydrogen is the clear choice for a reduced-emission form of hydrogen fuel. It also does a good job of giving background information on why the natural gas industry is pushing hard to portray blue hydrogen as a cleaner energy source in the eyes of the public, and what the industry stands to gain from government investments in its infrastructure. The article also notes that the blue hydrogen CO2 emission estimates from the study are reliant on models and assumptions, an important point emphasized by the researchers in the study. Although improvements could be made to the wording of the title and the organization of the article, it includes the most important findings of the study while adding insightful commentary on the hydrogen fuel industry as a whole.
Hi Ben, thanks for the analysis. The idea that gas companies use blue hydrogen as an excuse to continue producing and transporting natural gas seems like a really weird logical leap to me. Surely the solution is to move towards cleaner sources of energy, rather than to keep using fossil fuels with the promise that one day it may be slightly cleaner, which based on this article isn't even true. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteHey Tarun thanks for the comment! I also thought the argument that natural gas companies are using blue hydrogen as a way to increase production of fossil fuels was odd at first, but the authors of the study go into further explanation towards the end of the paper. Based on their models, "the switch from natural gas to blue hydrogen may be viewed as economically beneficial [for the fuel companies] since even more natural gas is needed to generate the same amount of heat." Even if companies planned to add additional carbon capture technology to more parts of blue hydrogen production, it would still have greater emissions than natural gas.
DeleteI think it's important to note that blue hydrogen production is the same as grey hydrogen production, only with carbon capture added during one of the many steps. Unless there's plans to produce cleaner blue hydrogen that wasn't mentioned in the article or paper, I think it's a legitimate claim to say that blue hydrogen is the industry's attempt at making an already existing fuel "clean" while gaining profits from the increased use of natural gas.
Hi, Ben! Great analysis. I was wondering how you felt about there not being error bars on the main figure (Figure 1) that shows the findings of the overall study? Not having these on the figure makes me more skeptical of the findings because looking at the figure gives me no way to gauge how similar each emission really is (especially since the units on the y-axis are so large). Upon skimming I didn't see any discussion about if they took these or not, so maybe I just did not see that. I still think it is mildly troubling that these were not placed though, considering the strength that the claim being made holds in regards to the relevancy of climate change. Just some thoughts!
ReplyDeleteHey Sofia, great point on the error bars. The authors of the paper do talk a little about their process of making assumptions and estimates, mostly during the SMR emissions/carbon capture part of blue hydrogen production due to lack of actual data from the manufacturers. They test ~20 possible emissions scenarios in table 2 and 3, including the best case scenario according to the manufacturers, and blue hydrogen is worse than natural gas emissions-wise in all but one. I think it's an oversight to not include error bars, adding them would reinforce their data and excluding them introduces skepticism (as you pointed out!).
DeleteThank you for this interesting couple of articles! I noticed that there were 2 corrections to the New York Times article at the bottom of the page. If the general public also read these corrections, would it cause them to wonder what else might be wrong with this article and not take it as seriously?
ReplyDeleteHi Monica! Interesting point on the corrections. I think it could go either way. One one hand correcting an article after it was published shows accountability and a commitment to providing correct information. On the other, it does make me wonder if there are other mistakes that haven't been caught already. In the case of this specific article, I don't think that it loses much credibility since the corrections made were relatively minor. Additionally, the article provides links to both the scientific study it references and other outside sources for the reader to reference.
DeleteHi Ben, these articles were a really interesting read as I also didn't know much about the production and use of hydrogen as a fuel. I also noticed the corrections at the end of the article and saw that one of the corrections they made was incorrect. The correction states that, "An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the steam reforming process, a method of making hydrogen fuel. The process uses high heat and pressure to break down methane into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide." However, their original version was actually the correct version, as the research article directly states, "heat and pressure are used to convert the methane in natural gas to hydrogen and carbon dioxide." Do you think that this misinformation takes away from the overall credibility of the article, especially since it is focusing so heavily on the production and emission of CO2 in the process?
ReplyDeleteHi Veronica thanks for the question! I also thought it was odd that they would make an incorrect "correction" so I looked into the steam-methane reformation process a bit more. It appears that first the SMR reaction is performed: CH4 + H2O + heat --> CO + 3H2 and is almost always followed by a second reaction called the "water-gas shift reaction" to extract all possible hydrogen gas: CO + H2O --> CO2 + H2. It's super confusing, but I think the scientific paper chose to lump these two reactions together into a net reaction: CH4 + 2H2O + heat --> CO2 + 4H2, and the NYT article chose to define only the SMR part of the two-part reaction.
DeleteWhile the NYT article is not wrong, it's an odd choice to only focus on the first SMR reaction without mentioning the net reaction as a whole. I don't think it takes away from the credibility of the article, but I can see why mentioning carbon monoxide when the article/paper are focused on carbon dioxide could be very confusing to the average reader.
Great analysis! I'm curious if you know why the different 'types' of hydrogen are called blue, grey, green, etc? is it solely related to how the hydrogen is produced?
ReplyDeleteHey Alison! Yep, the different types of hydrogen are solely based on their method of production. It's interesting that brown and grey hydrogen are produced with natural gas and coal respectively, where green hydrogen is produced with renewable energy. The colors aren't necessarily indicative of how environmentally friendly each type of hydrogen is, but there does seem to be a trend. Maybe that's why the industry coined the term "blue hydrogen", as blue hydrogen sounds a lot cleaner to me than alternative names like black or red hydrogen.
DeleteGreat analysis! I think it would useful in the article to explain if the carbon capture was different for the different types of hydrogen (green ,blue, grey) or more efficient.
ReplyDeleteHey Faridat, I agree that the article could have touched a little more on the other types of hydrogen fuels. Carbon capture is a process that is pretty specific to blue hydrogen, as blue hydrogen is produced exactly like grey hydrogen but with the added step of carbon capture. I'm also not sure if carbon capture could be applied to green hydrogen production as it's defined as hydrogen fuel made with zero-carbon energy and water hydrolysis, neither of which produce carbon emissions. I agree the article could have explained this in better detail, along with discussing avenues to add carbon capture to brown hydrogen production (produced via coal gasification).
DeleteHi Ben - I really like the point that you brought up about the NYT article not defining other types of hydrogen, i.e. green and gray. It's really difficult for the reader to contextualize the concept of "blue" hydrogen when the alternatives aren't explicitly explained and I agree that this is a major weak point in the article. Also, I think it's interesting to consider the political implications of reporting on a study like this - like you mention, the NYT drives home the point that "blue" hydrogen is often just used as a tactic by natural gas companies to expand their infrastructure. I wonder how this scientific study would be interpreted/presented by a more conservative news source that is pro-fossil fuel industry? Or would they just not report on this type of paper?
ReplyDeleteHi Emily, great question! I think reporting on a paper like this, whether it's in a positive or negative light, will inevitably cast doubt on the fossil fuel industry's claims that blue hydrogen is a low-emission fuel. Because of this, I agree that a pro-fossil fuel news source probably would ignore scientific papers like this one as long as they don't gain a significant amount of traction in the media. Interestingly, the researchers reference other non-peer reviewed reports on hydrogen fuel emissions with questionable sources of data that estimate slightly lower carbon emissions than this study. If a pro-fossil fuel news company were to report on hydrogen fuel, I'd think that they would choose to reference one of these other studies that view hydrogen more favorably.
DeleteThis was an interesting read! The naming scheme with the colors sticks out to me because it's inherently very visual. By calling something green or blue, it gives it positive connotations in terms of environmental friendliness, and these colors have been used by many corporations in advertising and branding to greenwash products. I wonder if there is a better way to differentiate the sources of hydrogen without using colors, and if that would affect how they are viewed.
ReplyDeleteHey Katie, I totally agree about the colors/naming system. Since there's no official naming rules for hydrogen fuels, companies can adopt any name they want for a new hydrogen fuel. I think it would be better if hydrogen fuels were named based on the process used to produce them, as that would provide a little more transparency than the current system.
DeleteHello Ben,
ReplyDeleteFirst of, nice review! I think you really evaluate both the news articles and scientific journal in detailed, and it is easy to read! This is my first time knowing there are so many types of hydrogen as fuel so I also felt it is interesting to read. I also think that the title is misleading, where it almost seems like the author was rejecting the entire concept of hydrogen as fuel. Thus, if it was me, I might deduct more points from that. What do you think?
This is a super interesting topic I did not have much knowledge on! I agree with many of the points you raised - this overall seems like an excuse for fossil fuel companies to not really change much of their infrastructure while looking like they are progressing toward cleaner energy. Have you heard of using methane ice as an energy source? I find it to be very similar- companies have proposed burning methane ice as a "renewable source", but it actually creates just as many emissions.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! You did a great job of summarizing both the NYT article and the paper. I didn't know that there were so many types of hydrogen fuel before this reading this. I left the NYT article still confused. How would you have made the differences more apparent?
ReplyDelete