VCG
- Hydrogen has the potential to be a climate solution, but right now it's a dirty business.
- The White House is spending $7 billion to spur "clean" hydrogen.
- Some climate advocates, scientists worry that fossil-fuel companies will cash in.
- This article is part of Insider's weekly newsletter on sustainability. Sign up here.
Most of us probably think of hydrogen in terms of H2O — the water we drink, bathe in, and cook with — but it has the potential to help build a low-carbon future.
President Joe Biden is pouring up to $7 billion into seven hydrogen hubs in regions including the Gulf Coast, Pacific Northwest, and Appalachia. The goal is to spur the production of "clean" hydrogen, because the way it's currently produced is a dirty business.
Most hydrogen is separated from methane in natural gas through an energy-intensive process that produces greenhouse-gas emissions responsible for warming the planet. Hydrogen is mainly used to refine oil and make chemical fertilizers, but experts say it can also be used for energy storage and as a fuel for long-haul trucks and airplanes. If the production process is cleaned up, it could help decarbonize industries that use hydrogen.
But as with so many climate solutions, there's a debate over the best path forward. It boils down to this: Should hydrogen continue to be made from natural gas but paired with carbon-capture technology and storage? This is so-called "blue" hydrogen. Or should it be made from a renewable-energy powered process known as electrolysis, which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen? This is known as "green" hydrogen — an approach favored by many climate advocates. Both are still in the early stages of development.
The White House said about two-thirds of the overall investment in hydrogen hubs will be associated with the green kind. That still didn't land well with some climate advocates and scientists, who cite research suggesting that blue hydrogen isn't clean at all.
"I think it's a scam," Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, told Insider. "I don't use that word lightly."
Howarth found that blue hydrogen requires more natural gas, and therefore produces more methane emissions. That's concerning because methane heats up the planet 80 times faster than carbon dioxide over a two-decade period, he said.
"It takes a lot of energy to capture the carbon dioxide, and that comes from burning even more natural gas," Howarth said. "So it's not a surprise to me that the oil and gas industry likes the idea of blue hydrogen."
The Clean Air Task Force, an environmental nonprofit that's working with the US Department of Energy, hydrogen-hub project developers, and community-based groups, told Insider that they also support the White House's approach.
Anna Menke, the task force's senior hydrogen-hubs manager, said she wants the debate to move away from green versus blue hydrogen because each technology has its pros and cons.
Green hydrogen is more expensive and could lead to more emissions than its conventional version if electrolyzers aren't powered by additional renewable energy on the grid, Menke said. She acknowledged that for blue hydrogen to truly be a climate solution, oil and gas companies must reduce methane leaks in their infrastructures and develop carbon-capture systems that trap a lot of emissions and store them permanently, according to US and European researchers.
Hydrogen hub projects that applied for federal funding had to meet a range of criteria, including low emissions targets, Brian Korgel, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, told Insider. Korgel is working on the HyVelocity Hub along the Gulf Coast, which was awarded $1.2 billion by the Biden administration and is led by companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Sempra Infrastructure.
The project aims to demonstrate that both blue and green hydrogen can be made with low emissions at a competitive cost, while creating jobs and other benefits for disadvantaged communities. Korgel's team at the Energy Institute is conducting environmental and economic analyses of the project.
"There's some safeguards," Korgel said. "These projects have to meet emissions standards, and it's not in companies' benefit to do the smoke and mirrors thing because they won't get the grant money, which ratchets up over time."
Korgel noted that the federal definition of "clean" hydrogen has been evolving, but should be more clear soon.
An unlikely government agency could settle the debate. The Internal Revenue Service has to decide what "clean" hydrogen is eligible for a tax credit worth up to an estimated $100 billion over its lifetime.