Seeing Red About Blue Hydrogen

by Bill Tracy

In recent discussions on Bacon’s Rebellion, readers have been talking about hydrogen as an emerging fuel source. Hydrogen, not electricity, may be the ultimate transposition fuel of the future. Let’s call it the 800-lb blue “gorilla” in the room.

U.S. liberals and electric vehicle advocates see hydrogen as a threat to their vision of the energy future. They believe in one winner, and only one winner, and that winner needs to be battery-electric vehicles (no hybrids). The problem with this “blue” logic is that we could be putting political correctness ahead of the best vehicle choices for America. Among other issues, the lithium, rare earth minerals, and electrode-grade graphite, needed in great abundance for EVs, come mostly from China.

Let’s give hydrogen, H2, the consideration it deserves. Today, most H2 is called “Gray Hydrogen” because the process of extracting it from natural gas generates some CO2 emissions as a chemical byproduct. However, the CO2 so generated is high purity and is easily recovered for other uses. If the CO2 is recovered, we get so-called “Blue Hydrogen,” which is seen as more sustainable. Some purists demand only “Green Hydrogen,” in which hydrogen is extracted via electrolysis using renewable energy.

Last but not least, there is “Turquoise Hydrogen,” a hoped-for technology that makes H2 from natural gas without creating any CO2 byproduct; eg: reacting methane (CH4) to form hydrogen and elemental carbon. The turquoise vision is in the R&D stage.

Globally, the H2 future is quickly emerging. Toyota recently produced a prototype Corolla that runs on hydrogen gas. The H2 Corolla has no fancy fuel cells: it burns H2 instead of gasoline in a conventional internal combustion engine. Toyota is also refining its fuel-cell Mirai sedan, which is already on the roads in California. For those who feel we need to keep up with China, China is certainly making progress towards the H2 society of the future as well.

There is one sticky logistics problem with Blue Hydrogen: Where can we dispose of the recovered CO2? Last week, it came to light that the oil industry believes that the geologic formation underneath the Gulf of Mexico is a major CO2 disposal option. For eastern USA, I have heard that the basalt layer, deep underneath some states including parts of Virginia, could accept large amounts of CO2.

To my knowledge, however, nobody but me is thinking about that basalt layer.  If hydrogen is the energy source of the future, it would behoove Virginians to think how to exploit it. One action item might be to define commercial uses for CO2 and/or disposal options in our region. And if the Mountain Valley Pipeline is ever approved, another might be to start thinking about establishing Southwestern Virginia as a hydrogen manufacturing hub for the I-81 truck traffic of the cleaner future.

These ideas might seem pie-in-the-sky, but the technology is progressing quickly, and we should entertain as many energy options as possible.

Bill Tracy is a retired engineer living in Northern Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

49 responses to “Seeing Red About Blue Hydrogen”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: “U.S. liberals and electric vehicle advocates see hydrogen as a threat to their vision of the energy future. They believe in one winner, and only one winner, and that winner needs to be battery-electric vehicles (no hybrids). The problem with this “blue” logic is that we could be putting political correctness ahead of the best vehicle choices for America.”

    the hydrogen-powered vehicles are ALSO envisioned to be ELECTRIC:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86449f4757355b31bbde71d4417e6be85005c7e4a40f3c0f7514dafd2aff92a8.jpg

    https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do-fuel-cell-electric-cars-work

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Hybrids are electric too, but US liberals and US Auto companies are not interested in hybrids, full electric is
      the mandate they request from elected officials.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I thought there was a SLEw of hybrids on the market right now, no? Are you talking about NOW or the future?

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          You can buy a Toyota hybrid, but the US subsidies and mandates are proposed for EV’s only. Detroit apparently wants to offset gassers with CAFE credits for selling EV’s. Basically an EV mandate, Detroit is asking for rules that meet CAFE by selling EVs and giving large credits for that, as opposed to say going all hybrids.

  2. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    This article is what I call “politically correct engineering” except there is no engineering!

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Not that correct either. What’s left?

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “U.S. liberals and electric vehicle advocates see hydrogen as a threat to their vision of the energy future.”

    Absolutely untrue. In fact, hydrogen is the key to energy storage – the achilles heal of renewables (according to the anti-renewables crowd).

    “There is one sticky logistics problem with Blue Hydrogen”

    The other bigger problem with so-called Blue Hydrogen is fugitive methane emissions from the NG feedstock. Leakage of methane in transport and processing is why Green Hydrogen is preferable along with sequestration issues for the CO2.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      In the auto forums I participate in, I see huge push back on H2. California EV advocates are really upset.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Not being on those forums, I can’t comment on the particulars. But if you look at the published plans of utilities, H2 will be a big part of addressing the storage issues for grid reliability with renewable generation. That renewable electric may end up going to EVs instead of distributing H2 separately to IC automobiles in the end though. That is hard to say.

  4. George Kafantaris Avatar
    George Kafantaris

    “Toyota recently produced a prototype Corolla that runs on hydrogen gas. The H2 Corolla has no fancy fuel cells: it burns H2 instead of gasoline in a conventional internal combustion engine.”
    Yes.
    Moreover, the Cummins CEO thinks that hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines can help address climate change:
    “By creating a viable use case and demand for hydrogen in the near term, we can accelerate hydrogen infrastructure build-out and increase scale production of vehicle storage tanks. Both advances are necessary for the widespread adoption of fuel cell powertrains.”
    Good point.
    Along this thinking, using all hydrogen in the beginning — without regard to its source — should also help “accelerate hydrogen infrastructure build-out.”
    As far as setting up the refueling infrastructure is concerned, green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, and gray hydrogen are all the same. Indeed, gray hydrogen should be used first because it is already here and can easily help us set up and test the new delivery network. Once we have it in place and things are working, we can then shift to blue hydrogen and ultimately to green.
    This is the sound way of doing things and the way we have done things before. So stop conflating the source of the hydrogen with the means of delivering it. One has nothing to do with the other. Arguments against the source of hydrogen should not get in the way of us setting up a safe and efficient way to deliver it to those that need it.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I was under the impression that hydrogen costs about 3 times what gasoline does and that was the big obstacle.

      no?

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        You have valid point about “H2 pump price” for cars in California…I believe they are mostly using electrolytic grade H2 for the cars, and there is also added cost of compression for filling the car “gas” tanks. The question would be the extent to which the cost can come down. Also in California Toyota covers the Mirai fill-ups for about 3 years.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          did not know that. If a process is found that results in lower cost Hydrogen – not only for cars, but trucks, ships and even power plants – the game changes and all this yammering about natural gas and the anti solar/wind blather will also change dramatically.

          If SOLAR can generate hydrogen when solar is available AND store it for use when needed 24/7 – the world changes.

          We should want that. Why would we oppose it?

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Remember when the argument was that PV panels were too expensive and would never economically produce electric at rates competitive with fossil fuel produced electric? Then the Chinese entered the game and stole the market (to much hand wringing on the Right)? Well, it’s looking like groundhog day…

            https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/120621-china-scaling-up-electrolyzer-manufacturing-base-for-domestic-export-markets

            “Several private sector companies are formulating plans to leverage China’s manufacturing expertise to lower the cost of equipment used in the hydrogen supply chain and produce electrolyzers, which crack the water molecule, at less than half of the cost of overseas manufacturers”

          2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            Couple things- if you say ALL fossil fuels must banned and be left in the ground, then you may oppose H2 because it can be made from fossil fuels, and you may want to ban any possibility of that.

            The cost issue is complex. You really have to ask, what is the cost in the USA with our regulations and rules? For example, natural gas cars were quite common overseas, due to cheap conversion. USA did not allow the cheap conversion…it costs about $12000+ here to make the conversion. So it starts to not make much sense here, except for fleets.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            If I never said that and it was, instead, some of the “anti’ claims that I did say it?

            really?

            Virtually every blog post in BR from the “anti” folks makes such specious claims that all “liberals” and “leftists” think this way or that way as if it’s actually true.

            we is true is what you said – the issues are complex … AND evolving… and only easy for the naysayers to categorize.

            It’s like we pick winners and losers- 20-30 years ahead of time because we “like” fossil fuels and don’t like “solar and wind” .

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “One has nothing to do with the other.”

      Well it sort of does. If you promote the infrastructure to PRODUCE gray or blue hydrogen that is very different from the infrastructure needed to PRODUCE green hydrogen. Once the gray or blue H2 production facilities are built and feeding a H2 distribution system, the industry will fight tooth and nail against abandoment or retrofitting to green H2 production. You are therefore delaying the changeover by maybe as much as a generation. Heck, the only reason we are even considering the much more complex natural gas feedstock is because the industry doesn’t want to abandon its fossil fuel production infrastructure. Better to focus on promoting green hydrogen from the get go. Even the big oil producers are starting to see that.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Now we are seeing red.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” U.S. liberals and electric vehicle advocates see hydrogen as a threat to their vision of the energy future. They believe in one winner, and only one winner, and that winner needs to be battery-electric vehicles (no hybrids). ”

    yet another lame strawman from the BLOG that loves them as well as all or nothing propositions.

    The folks who want a cleaner energy future have not ruled out anything unlike the anti-wind/solar folks. All of these technologies have potential and the reality is that there won’t be one silver bullet but a mix/max range of options.

    The future may well have hydrogen, batteries, nukes, wind,solar and who knows what else might be discovered in the upcoming decades?

    Hydrogen has promise but it has for decades vexed researchers in finding a COST-effective solution.

    The other interesting thing is the attitudes of the skeptics/deniers of global warming WRT to these energy issues. Why should they even care about these technologies if they don’t believe there is a problem to start with?

    😉

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      They’re not afraid of losing, or wasting, money on renewables. Their greatest fear is that they’ll actually work.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        It seems that way. It’s inexplicable , they cheer and root for failure…..

    2. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      There is nothing unclean about CO2. It is the global food supply. This just out:
      https://www.cfact.org/2022/02/12/farming-the-air/

      “Clean Energy” is false advertising personified.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Even plants cannot tolerate too much. Plus, 12,13, or 14 makes a difference.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        so why worry about alternatives like hydrogen?

        is that also false?

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Oxygen is also a poison, you know… smh…

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      H2 cost has two aspects: H2 can be made relatively cost effectively from natural gas, but filling a car with H2 is currently costly in California . I believe cars are mostly using electrolytic grade H2 right now, and the cost of compression etc. Toyota pays the H2 cost right now, so that’s how it makes some sense in Ca.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Two sources, CxHx or H2O. If you break it from a hydrocarbon, it’s gonna make varying levels of CO2 and soot. Plus, we’re really not all that good at obtaining methane without releasing that into the atmosphere, which breaks down to CO2 and water.
    https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2020/04/25/5b614b8b-d559-48c3-add5-f5b305bb6d9e/ezgif-com-optimize-2.gif

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The Holy Grail would be able to crack H2 from H20 – cost effectively or as you cite – a way to crack it from hydrocarbons without releasing the carbon.

      I don’t think until the last decade, has science seriously focused on how to produce clean energy. Fossil Fuels were always the easy answer and when fracking came along, as even more abundant and cheaper , there was little reward for pre-Global Warming for cleaner energy.

      There were continuing efforts to reduce “pollution” but more in terms of direct impacts to humans rather than dire damage to the earth itself.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      So you show a oil-well upset situation and try to tell the audience the H2 manfacturing process makes soot. No soot made to my knowledge. Liberal thinkology to say if liberals can imagine a problem, claim it.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Carbon is soot. Soot is carbon. What? You’re expecting maybe brickettes?

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    There are a host of sticky logistical problems with hydrogen, and any plan that involve the mythical capture and sequestration of CO2 fails the serious test. Industrial uses for the byproduct make it more reasonable. Worth continuing to look at it, but no panacea (just another boondoggle for investors.)

    He’s right though that it is not universally hailed by the enviros…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/01/new-mexico-climate-activists-fighting-to-kill-hydrogen-economy-bill/

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Capture the CO2, and use it to chill nukes.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You’re a l’homme du monde, Google “viking cruises flourless chocolate cake”. Select the appropriate link, and it will get you into their recipes collection. Then, of course, show the spousal unit what you found. If you play your hand right, you may be served a surprise. Mine took one look at the French Pear Tart, and guess what I’m having tonight?

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You’re a l’homme du monde, Google “viking cruises flourless chocolate cake”. Select the appropriate link, and it will get you into their recipes collection. Then, of course, show the spousal unit what you found. If you play your hand right, you may be served a surprise. Mine took one look at the French Pear Tart, and guess what I’m having tonight?

    4. LarrytheG Avatar

      would you say the same about modern nuclear ?

      For me, in BOTH cases, I want them to continue their efforts to develop a practical solution. I am not opposed to either one or others.. Any and all ways forward are what we should do. Why some oppose is weird.

    5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Yes I am hearing some Virginia liberal readers say they are not anti-H2 and not anti-hybrid, but the national policy and national EV advocates are pushing for battery electric vehicles only. Also the US auto industry is pushing that vision.

    6. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Yes I am hearing some Virginia liberal readers say they are not anti-H2 and not anti-hybrid, but the national policy and national EV advocates are pushing for battery electric vehicles only.

      Also the US auto industry is pushing that BEV only vision. GM and Ford are betting their future on full electric vehicles. The US auto industry will be up a creek and if consumers do not start buying them. This will require the government to start mandating (more than the Blue states already are). We can’t let the US auto industry go belly-up, so we must mandate BEVs?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I know of at least one major oil company (these days they are known as major energy companies) that after decades of divesting itself of retail fueling facilities are suddenly heavily investing in retail EV charging stations. Getting H2 to all those retail facilities will be an added step. It can be done mind you but it will cost. Assuming EV charging technology will improve to where it can be done quickly at a retail center, this could determine who wins the car wars. The oil companies and utilities are really the only players here in the end as they have the real money needed to shift the energy production in the US – them and the government. They will likely dictate whether we will have H2 or EV automobiles (or both). It is way easier for car manufacturers to shift production of their product than it is for energy producers to shift theirs.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I know of at least one major oil company (these days they are known as major energy companies) that after decades of divesting itself of retail fueling facilities are suddenly heavily investing in retail EV charging stations. Getting H2 to all those retail facilities will be an added step. It can be done mind you but it will cost. Assuming EV charging technology will improve to where it can be done quickly at a retail center, this could determine who wins the car wars. The oil companies and utilities are really the only players here in the end as they have the real money needed to shift the energy production in the US – them and the government. They will likely dictate whether we will have H2 or EV automobiles (or both). It is way easier for car manufacturers to shift production of their product than it is for energy producers to shift theirs.

    7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Well, that looks like the target is using natural gas as the feedstock and we have already pointed out the issues with that approach (methane fugitive emissions, sequestration, etc). That does not translate to clean energy advocates being against Green Hydrogen.

      But, a word to the wise… remember when China started investing in manufacturing PV and cut us out of the sector (and drove down the price – that used to be the Right’s argument against solar, btw)… well take a look at this news… we are going to be left in the lurch yet again…

      https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/120621-china-scaling-up-electrolyzer-manufacturing-base-for-domestic-export-markets

  8. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    The good news is we can stop funding EVs and charging stations. But we have to fund HVs and hydrogen distribution systems. The greens likely want to fund both, just in case, right?

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Well, since we may well have both types of vehicles in the end then distributing both fuel types might actually make sense. Btw, the “we” funding the new infrastructure are often oil corporations – granted we are paying for it at the pump…

      The EV-only approach may be best in the end as it saves having to build out both infrastructures. My next car will be an EV to be sure.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yes, There will be an evolving “mix” of vehicles, just like it is now with ICs, hybrids and EVs… but I would not expect hydrogen to become a major player until it’s cost is more comparable. Some “Tesla”-types might buy hydrogen to virtue signal their “clean” creds but for the average guy, a tank of H-gas is going to have to be somewhere in the ballpark of fossil-fuel gas.

        And that can also be different in other countries where gasoline already costs $5-6-7 a gallon.

        And similar with our grid and home heating – if natural gas skyrockets in cost – the dynamics with other fuel types will change.

        That’s why these ‘projections” that focus only o wind/solar or hydrogen are misleading if they do not also consider the other fuels and their costs.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Once we consider cost per gallon, EV soars. Right now a 400 mile “tank full” equivalent charge runs about $14 (at $0.10/kWh). Probably why you are seeing EV popularity grow as well.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep. AND much easier to put up EV charging stations that build extensive hydrogen infrastructure.

            but that won’t change the “anti” naysayers.. a whit… if electricity costs more but fuel for cars costs less and it’s a wash overall…

            nope…

            https://rayyanek.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/torch-and-pitchfork.jpg

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Until just recently the anti-renewable crowd was arguing that EVs could not go far enough on a charge to compete with IC. That is changing. There are many EV models available with a range-per-charge of 150 to 250 miles. There are some high-end EVs that can get over 330 miles on a single charge. So they shift to it takes too long to charge to be useful for long road trips like ICs. Charge time is now down to 15 minutes meaning that is likely changing. Now it is that EVs are being forced on us over H2…?? They can’t build both types of automobiles (of course they can). Really, every time they throw up a supposedly in surmountable hurdle to converting, the market responds and shows that the hurdle is more of a step. They are running out of straws to grasp at.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            yeah…but they’re using batteries mined by slave labor from China and _hithole countries .. right and no way to recycle it…

            bad. bad. bad.!

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      When you say “greens” I like to say which country, because USA greens are fervently anti-oil and gas industry and fervently EV-only as the future. They could possibly agree long-term use of green H2 if fossil H2 was banned. First step for them is urgent and massive public funding and mandates to force an EV-centric USA car market. Simultaneous with complete elimination of all USA fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel use. And as you can see from the SuperBowl ads, GM/Ford in agreement with that approach: betting their future on it. They will need mandates, and Dems aim to do just that. And some Repubs might not mind too much either due to investing in green stocks.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        The big push for hydrogen is not for cars. It is for storage to make wind and solar reliable. I now frequently see the term “wind, solar and hydrogen”. A lot of skeptical policy analysts, including me, have been hammering on the astronomical cost of the required batteries. Hydrogen is better because we have no cost figures, like we now do for grid scale batteries.

        But there is in fact an internal green debate over the acceptable types of hydrogen.

Leave a Reply