Companion to Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy

Leave a Comment / Stock Market / By



Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Recently I published a simple debunker for many of the hydrogen for energy claims that perpetuate the hype, Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy: How to Respond to Enthusiasts. In the style of John Cook’s Cranky Uncle vs Climate Change — illustrative cartoons and colorful analogies illustrating the debunk — and guided by Cook et al’s Debunking Handbook‘s guidance, it’s intended to be engaging and straightforward, not detailed and technical.

As such, it is reference free. In the spirit yet again of Cook — this time the site he was a core founder of, the Skeptical Science website, which maintains a list of denialist and anti-solution assertions, currently 252, with multiple levels of evidentiary debunking from simple and straightforward to referenced — this document is a companion to the Cranky Stepdad material, with each debunked point supported by reference material with brief summaries of their content.

All omissions and misrepresentations of the source material are my own. If you spot any, please point them out.

Misleading Claims List:

  1. Hydrogen is abundant and readily available.
  2. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel across multiple sectors practically and cost-effectively.
  3. Electrolysis is a clean and efficient way to produce hydrogen for energy.
  4. Hydrogen fuel cells are highly efficient compared to other energy solutions.
  5. Surplus renewable electricity makes hydrogen production cheap and viable.
  6. Hydrogen burns clean with no emissions or environmental drawbacks.
  7. Hydrogen is widely used in industry, so it is a suitable energy carrier.
  8. Existing gas pipelines can easily be repurposed for hydrogen transport.
  9. Liquefying hydrogen solves its storage and transport challenges.
  10. Ammonia is a practical and efficient hydrogen carrier.
  11. Hydrogen is a zero-emissions energy source.
  12. Green hydrogen is the future of energy.
  13. Hydrogen has high energy density, making it ideal for energy storage and transport.
  14. Hydrogen will replace natural gas for heating buildings and water.
  15. Expanding hydrogen in heavy industry is the best path for decarbonization.
  16. Hydrogen will dominate the transportation sector.
  17. Blue hydrogen is a low-carbon solution.
  18. Hydrogen is necessary due to mineral shortages for batteries.
  19. Hydrogen is a renewable energy source.
  20. Hydrogen infrastructure is easy to develop.
  21. Hydrogen can be used in existing gas turbines and engines without modification.
  22. Hydrogen leaks are not a significant environmental concern.
  23. Hydrogen is the cheapest way to decarbonize energy systems.
  24. Hydrogen is easy and inexpensive to store for long periods.

Misleading claim: Hydrogen is abundant and readily available.

  • Ocko, I. B., & Hamburg, S. P. (2022). Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(12), 9349–9368.
    • This study explains that while hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it does not exist freely on Earth and must be extracted from compounds like water or hydrocarbons, requiring significant energy input and infrastructure.
  • Glenk, G., & Reichelstein, S. (2019). Economics of converting renewable power to hydrogen. Nature Energy, 4(3), 216–222.
    • Hydrogen production is energy-intensive, and its availability is constrained by the need for dedicated infrastructure, high electricity input, and costly extraction processes, meaning it is not readily accessible as an energy source.
  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). Global Hydrogen Review 2021. Paris: IEA.
    • This IEA report states that despite hydrogen’s abundance in compounds like water and natural gas, producing pure hydrogen at scale is expensive and energy-intensive, with over 96% of global hydrogen currently derived from fossil fuels.
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2020). Hydrogen Strategy: Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy. Washington, DC: DOE.
    • DOE highlights that hydrogen requires significant processing and energy input to be usable as a fuel, refuting the claim that it is a freely available energy source.
  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). The Role of Green Hydrogen in Energy Transitions.
    • This report emphasizes that hydrogen’s natural abundance is irrelevant to its practical availability, as separating it from water or methane requires large amounts of energy and infrastructure investment.

Misleading claim: Hydrogen can be used as a fuel across multiple sectors practically and cost-effectively.

  • Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Velazquez Abad, A., et al. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491.

    • This study finds that hydrogen fuel use is limited by high costs, low energy efficiency, and infrastructure challenges, making it impractical for widespread deployment across multiple sectors compared to electrification.

  • Rouwenhorst, K. H., van der Ham, A. G., & Mul, G. (2021). The feasibility of green hydrogen production for decarbonization of industrial sectors. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(58), 30236–30250.

    • The research highlights that while hydrogen can technically be used in industry and transport, its high production, storage, and conversion costs make it economically uncompetitive in most applications compared to direct electrification.
  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities. Paris: IEA.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen Economy Outlook.

    • BNEF states that hydrogen fuel cell technology is expensive, with green hydrogen costing 2-5 times more than direct electrification, making its use across multiple sectors largely uneconomical outside of niche applications.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Hydrogen’s Role in the Decarbonisation of Transport and Industry.

    • This industry report finds that hydrogen is highly inefficient compared to direct electrification in transport and industrial applications and that its widespread use is neither cost-effective nor practical without massive subsidies.

Misleading claim: Electrolysis is a clean and efficient way to produce hydrogen for energy.

  • Bhandari, R., Trudewind, C. A., & Zapp, P. (2014). Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis – A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 151–163.

    • This study finds that hydrogen production via electrolysis is highly energy-intensive and only as clean as the electricity source used, with efficiency losses making it much less effective than direct electricity use in applications like transport and heating.

  • van Renssen, S. (2020). The hydrogen solution? Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 799–801.

    • This article discusses how electrolysis is significantly less efficient than direct electrification and that its reliance on renewable energy sources means it competes with other, more efficient uses of green electricity.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities. Paris: IEA.

    • IEA notes that while electrolysis can be low-carbon if powered by renewables, the efficiency losses of 30-50% make it an inefficient way to store and use energy, especially when compared to direct electrification.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Shot: Electrolysis Cost Reduction Roadmap. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE acknowledges that current electrolysis processes have high costs and energy losses, and despite improvements, electrolysis is unlikely to reach efficiency levels that would make it competitive with battery storage or direct grid use of renewables.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2022). Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling Electrolyzers to Meet Net Zero Goals.

    • BNEF finds that electrolysis is highly inefficient compared to battery storage or direct electricity use, with significant energy losses at every stage, making it impractical for large-scale energy applications.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Electrolysis for Hydrogen: A Costly Detour for the Energy Transition.

    • This report highlights that electrolysis requires vast amounts of renewable energy, making it a costly and inefficient solution compared to direct electrification for most applications.
  • Temple, J. (2021, February 4). The hard truths about green hydrogen. MIT Technology Review.
    • This article explains that hydrogen from electrolysis wastes significant energy compared to using electricity directly, making it an inefficient option for decarbonization in most sectors.

Misleading claim: Hydrogen fuel cells are highly efficient compared to other energy solutions

  • Kendall, K. (2018). Progress in fuel cell efficiency and durability: A review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(5), 2303–2315.

    • This study finds that while fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines in theory, real-world performance is affected by efficiency losses in hydrogen production, transport, and storage, making the overall system efficiency only marginally better than ICEs when considering full energy pathways.

  • Rabbani, R., & Grant, G. (2020). Well-to-wheel efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: A comparative analysis. Energy Reports, 6, 98–110.

    • This research highlights that while fuel cells are more efficient at converting hydrogen to energy than internal combustion engines are at burning gasoline, the full well-to-wheel efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) is significantly reduced due to losses in hydrogen production and compression.

  • Bossel, U. (2006). Does a hydrogen economy make sense? Proceedings of the IEEE, 94(10), 1826–1837.

    • Bossel’s widely cited analysis shows that hydrogen fuel cells, despite having higher theoretical efficiency than ICEs, suffer from significant losses in fuel processing, resulting in an overall system efficiency that does not vastly outperform modern ICEs and hybrid vehicles.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE finds that hydrogen fuel cells can reach efficiencies of 40-60% in optimal conditions, compared to 20-35% for internal combustion engines, but hydrogen production, compression, and transport reduce overall efficiency to levels close to or below hybrid gasoline-electric systems.

  • California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2022). Well-to-Wheel Energy Efficiency of Alternative Fuel Vehicles.

    • CARB’s lifecycle efficiency assessment shows that hydrogen fuel cells, while superior to ICEs in direct conversion efficiency, lose a significant amount of energy in hydrogen production, distribution, and storage, making them less efficient on a total energy basis.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen Fuel Cells vs. Combustion Engines: The Efficiency Debate.

    • BNEF finds that while fuel cells outperform gasoline and diesel engines in efficiency, they do not offer a major advantage when considering the full energy cycle from production to vehicle use, especially when compared to hybrid and battery-electric alternatives.

  • International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). (2022). Efficiency Losses in Hydrogen Supply Chains for Transport Applications.

    • ICCT concludes that while hydrogen fuel cells can be twice as efficient as gasoline engines at the point of use, overall efficiency drops to levels comparable with efficient hybrid gasoline vehicles due to upstream hydrogen processing losses.
  • Temple, J. (2021, June 1). Why hydrogen cars are still not a thing. MIT Technology Review.
    • This article explains that despite fuel cells being more efficient than internal combustion engines, the overall energy losses from hydrogen production, distribution, and storage mean that hydrogen cars do not offer substantial efficiency advantages over modern hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles.

Misleading Claim: Surplus renewable electricity makes hydrogen production cheap and viable.

  • Ruhnau, O., & Qvist, S. (2022). The impact of electricity market dynamics on the cost of green hydrogen production. Energy Reports, 8, 3236–3248.

    • This study shows that surplus electricity is often insufficient to sustain consistent hydrogen production and that high electrolyzer capital costs require high utilization rates, making the business case for surplus-powered hydrogen weak.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe. Brussels: European Union.

    • This EU report highlights that surplus renewable energy is not available in sufficient quantities to produce hydrogen at scale, and relying on excess electricity alone does not provide a viable economic model for large-scale hydrogen production.

  • California Energy Commission (CEC). (2023). Hydrogen Production from Surplus Renewables: Economic and Technical Challenges. Sacramento, CA: CEC.

    • The study finds that using surplus renewable energy for hydrogen results in low electrolyzer utilization, increasing capital costs per unit of hydrogen produced and making it an unreliable and expensive approach.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). The Role of Green Hydrogen in Energy Transitions.

    • IRENA finds that the availability of surplus renewable electricity is insufficient to sustain the scale of hydrogen production required for economic viability, contradicting the claim that it makes hydrogen cheap.

  • Energy Transitions Commission (ETC). (2021). Making Hydrogen Competitive: Scaling Up Electrolysis with Renewable Energy.

    • This report concludes that while surplus renewables can reduce some production costs, the need for dedicated renewable generation to maintain high electrolyzer utilization means surplus power alone cannot make hydrogen production consistently cheap.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen burns clean with no emissions or environmental drawbacks.

  • Ocko, I. B., & Hamburg, S. P. (2022). Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(12), 9349–9368.

    • This study finds that hydrogen has an indirect global warming potential (GWP100) of 12 and GWP20 of 37, meaning leaked hydrogen contributes to climate change by extending the lifetime of methane and increasing ozone levels, refuting the claim that hydrogen use has no emissions or environmental drawbacks.

  • Derwent, R. G., Simmonds, P. G., Manning, A. J., & Spain, T. G. (2020). Global environmental impacts of hydrogen leakage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(7), 3875–3893.

    • The study highlights that hydrogen leakage into the atmosphere alters atmospheric chemistry by increasing methane and ozone levels, both of which are potent greenhouse gases, demonstrating that hydrogen use is not truly clean.

  • Zhang, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, S. (2019). NOx emission characteristics of hydrogen/methane blends in domestic gas boilers. Energy & Fuels, 33(11), 11202–11209.

    • This research shows that hydrogen combustion can produce significant nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, which contribute to air pollution and smog formation, contradicting claims that hydrogen burns cleanly.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Hydrogen’s Role in the Global Energy System: Challenges and Climate Impacts. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA report explains that hydrogen leakage can substantially increase its net warming effect, and that hydrogen combustion generates NOx pollution similar to fossil fuels, undermining its reputation as a clean fuel.

  • UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2022). Atmospheric Impacts of Hydrogen: UK Research Programme Summary.

    • DEFRA finds that hydrogen’s indirect greenhouse gas effects could be significantly higher than currently estimated, with leakage rates of 1-10% across production and distribution systems, increasing climate risks.
  • Marris, E. (2022, June 2). Hydrogen leak risks: A climate blind spot. Anthropocene Magazine.
    • This article explains that hydrogen leakage is a frequently ignored climate risk, with recent studies showing that its indirect GWP could be significantly higher than CO₂ over short time frames, making uncontrolled hydrogen emissions a serious problem.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen is widely used in industry, so it is a suitable energy carrier.

  • Howarth, R. W., & Jacobson, M. Z. (2021). How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Science & Engineering, 9(10), 1676–1687.

    • This study highlights that most hydrogen used in industry today is gray hydrogen (produced from fossil fuels) and is used as a feedstock, not as an energy carrier, indicating that hydrogen’s current industrial role does not translate to widespread energy use.

  • Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Velazquez Abad, A., et al. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491.

    • This research finds that while hydrogen is widely used in refining, chemical production, and ammonia synthesis, its energy use applications are limited by inefficiencies, high costs, and infrastructure challenges, making it unsuitable as a broad energy carrier.

  • Bertuccioli, L., Chan, A., Hart, D., Lehner, F., Madden, B., & Standen, E. (2014). Study on development of water electrolysis in the EU. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(36), 21647–21662.

    • The study emphasizes that the industrial use of hydrogen today does not justify its viability as an energy carrier, as its costs, storage, and distribution barriers remain significant obstacles to energy sector adoption.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe. Brussels: European Union.

    • The EU’s hydrogen strategy acknowledges that current hydrogen demand is mainly in industry and that using hydrogen as an energy carrier is far less efficient than direct electrification in most applications.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Program Plan: Evaluating Its Role in Energy Systems. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • This DOE report finds that hydrogen’s industrial usage does not inherently make it viable as an energy carrier, due to its high energy losses, infrastructure needs, and competition from more efficient alternatives like electrification.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). Hydrogen in Industry: Its Role in the Energy Transition.

    • IRENA highlights that hydrogen’s industrial use does not mean it is suitable as an energy carrier, as its production, transport, and storage present major efficiency losses that make direct electrification preferable in most sectors.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Hydrogen: Feedstock vs. Energy Use Debate.

    • This report states that while hydrogen is essential for certain industrial processes, attempting to scale its use for energy applications is inefficient and costly compared to electrification.

Misleading Claim: Existing gas pipelines can easily be repurposed for hydrogen transport.

  • Wescott, J., Sudholt, A., & Carter, J. (2021). Materials challenges for hydrogen transportation and storage. Joule, 5(9), 1905–1908.

    • This study highlights that hydrogen embrittles pipeline materials, leading to increased failure risks, and that significant upgrades, including new linings and reinforcements, are required for repurposing existing natural gas pipelines for hydrogen transport.

  • Melaina, M. W., Antonia, O., & Penev, M. (2013). Blending hydrogen into natural gas pipeline networks: A review of key issues. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Technical Report.

    • This research finds that even at low hydrogen concentrations, pipeline materials may degrade, and that adapting natural gas pipelines for hydrogen transport requires costly modifications to avoid embrittlement and leakage issues.

  • Zhang, X., Wang, Y., & Chen, Z. (2022). Hydrogen leakage and safety challenges in repurposed natural gas pipelines. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(5), 3206–3219.

    • This study highlights that hydrogen’s small molecular size leads to significant leakage rates, raising both economic and safety concerns when repurposing natural gas pipelines.

  • UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE). (2021). Hydrogen Transport Safety Report.

    • This UK government report finds that modifying natural gas pipelines for hydrogen requires significant infrastructure upgrades, as hydrogen can cause embrittlement, sensor malfunctions, and higher failure risks due to increased permeability.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Infrastructure and Pipelines: Technical and Economic Challenges. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that existing natural gas pipelines are not easily repurposed for hydrogen due to embrittlement, leakage risks, and the need for specialized compressors, reinforcing that full conversion is neither simple nor cost-effective.

Misleading Claim: Liquefying hydrogen solves its storage and transport challenges.

  • Cardella, U., Decker, L., & Klein, H. (2017). Roadmap to economically viable hydrogen liquefaction. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(19), 13329–13338.

    • This study finds that liquefying hydrogen consumes 30-40% of its energy content, making it highly inefficient as a storage or transport solution, with additional losses occurring due to boil-off during storage and transfer.

  • Amin, N., Khan, M. S., & Bari, S. (2021). Hydrogen storage and transportation: A review of challenges and emerging technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111079.

    • This paper highlights that liquefied hydrogen (LH₂) requires extreme cryogenic conditions (-253°C), making its storage and transport highly energy-intensive, and that current insulation technologies cannot fully prevent hydrogen losses.

  • Kamiya, S., & Matsumoto, R. (2022). The limitations of liquid hydrogen as an energy carrier. Energy Reports, 8, 3200–3214.

    • This study emphasizes that hydrogen liquefaction remains prohibitively expensive and energy-consuming, and that alternative hydrogen carriers such as ammonia or LOHCs (liquid organic hydrogen carriers) may be more practical in some applications.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Storage and Distribution: Technical and Economic Barriers. Brussels: European Union.

    • This EU study finds that liquid hydrogen transport remains economically unviable due to energy losses and complex handling requirements, making it less practical than other storage methods such as compression or chemical carriers.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Liquefaction and Cryogenic Storage: Barriers and Solutions. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE finds that liquefying hydrogen is not an efficient solution for large-scale transport, as boil-off rates can reach 0.3–1% per day, leading to significant hydrogen losses and economic inefficiencies.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen Transport and Storage: The Liquefaction Dilemma.

    • BNEF states that liquefying hydrogen is one of the most expensive and energy-intensive ways to store and transport it, and that boil-off and infrastructure costs make it impractical for most energy applications.
  • Hume, N. (2021, Oct 4). World’s first bulk hydrogen shipment underscores hurdles to global trade. Financial Times.
    • This article discusses a trial shipment of liquefied hydrogen from Australia to Japan and highlights significant energy losses, technical challenges, and high costs, questioning the viability of liquid hydrogen as a global transport solution.

Misleading Claim: Ammonia is a practical and efficient hydrogen carrier.

  • Adochiei, F. C., Stroe, D. I., & Christensen, A. B. (2023). Challenges in ammonia as a hydrogen carrier: Energy efficiency and conversion losses. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48(12), 5897–5913.

    • This study finds that ammonia has significant energy losses during synthesis, cracking, and purification for hydrogen recovery, making it an inefficient energy carrier compared to direct hydrogen storage or other alternatives.

  • Valera-Medina, A., Xiao, H., Owen-Jones, M., David, W. I., & Bowen, P. J. (2018). Ammonia for power: A review on its prospects, technologies, and challenges. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 69, 63–102.

    • The study highlights efficiency issues, high NOx emissions, and the complexity of ammonia cracking, making its use as a hydrogen carrier difficult in practical applications.

  • Qiu, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, X., & Ding, Y. (2021). Comparative life-cycle analysis of hydrogen carriers: Ammonia, liquid hydrogen, and LOHCs. Energy Reports, 7, 3950–3962.

    • The research finds that ammonia has lower energy efficiency due to losses in production, storage, transport, and reconversion to hydrogen, making it less practical than direct hydrogen compression or alternative carriers like liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs).

  • European Commission. (2022). Ammonia as a Hydrogen Carrier: Technical and Economic Barriers. Brussels: European Union.

    • The EU report finds that ammonia’s conversion back to hydrogen (cracking) is energy-intensive and costly, leading to low overall energy efficiency when compared to other hydrogen storage solutions.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Storage and Transportation: Evaluating Ammonia’s Role. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that while ammonia can store hydrogen, its conversion back into usable hydrogen is expensive, inefficient, and leads to energy losses exceeding 30-40%, making it a suboptimal hydrogen carrier.
  • Khan, B. (2023, July 15). Ammonia’s hydrogen potential faces serious efficiency and safety challenges. Bloomberg Green.
    • This article discusses how ammonia’s conversion inefficiencies, toxicity, and NOx emissions present major obstacles to its adoption as a scalable hydrogen carrier.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen is a zero-emissions energy source.

  • Ocko, I. B., & Hamburg, S. P. (2022). Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(12), 9349–9368.

    • This study finds that hydrogen leakage contributes to indirect global warming by extending the atmospheric lifetime of methane and increasing ozone levels, meaning that hydrogen energy use is not truly zero-emissions.

  • Howarth, R. W., & Jacobson, M. Z. (2021). How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Science & Engineering, 9(10), 1676–1687.

    • This research finds that most hydrogen production today (including blue hydrogen) emits substantial CO₂ due to fossil fuel use, and that hydrogen’s indirect emissions make it far from being a zero-emissions energy source.

  • Derwent, R. G., Simmonds, P. G., Manning, A. J., & Spain, T. G. (2020). Global environmental impacts of hydrogen leakage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(7), 3875–3893.

    • The study highlights that hydrogen leakage affects atmospheric chemistry by increasing methane and ozone levels, both potent greenhouse gases, meaning hydrogen energy systems are not completely free of climate impacts.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). The Role of Hydrogen in Decarbonization: Addressing Climate and Emissions Challenges. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA report confirms that hydrogen is not inherently zero-emission, as its production, transport, and leakage contribute to indirect greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution (such as NOx emissions when combusted).

  • UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2022). Atmospheric Impacts of Hydrogen: Indirect Greenhouse Gas Effects.

    • DEFRA finds that hydrogen has a global warming potential (GWP) of 12 over 100 years and 37 over 20 years, making leakage a significant climate risk that undermines its zero-emissions claims.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Emissions and Lifecycle Carbon Footprint Analysis. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen production methods (including electrolysis) still have lifecycle emissions, depending on the electricity source, and that hydrogen combustion produces NOx emissions, contradicting the notion of zero emissions.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen’s Hidden Emissions: Leakage, NOx, and Upstream Carbon Costs.

    • BNEF finds that hydrogen energy systems are not emissions-free, as leakage and NOx pollution from combustion make hydrogen an imperfect climate solution.

Misleading Claim: Green hydrogen is the future of energy.

  • Sepulveda, N. A., Jenkins, J. D., de Sisternes, F. J., & Lester, R. K. (2018). The role of firm low-carbon electricity resources in deep decarbonization of power generation. Joule, 2(11), 2403–2420.

    • The research highlights that green hydrogen is unlikely to replace fossil fuels at scale due to its inefficiencies, high costs, and reliance on renewable electricity that is often more effectively used directly.

  • Ruhnau, O., & Qvist, S. (2022). The impact of electricity market dynamics on the cost of green hydrogen production. Energy Reports, 8, 3236–3248.

    • This study finds that relying on surplus renewable electricity for green hydrogen production leads to low utilization of electrolyzers, making green hydrogen economically unviable in most scenarios.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Future of Hydrogen: Challenges and Market Realities. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA report states that while green hydrogen has potential, it remains too costly and inefficient compared to direct electrification, with large-scale adoption requiring decades of technological improvements and infrastructure investments.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe: Economic and Technical Barriers. Brussels: European Union.

    • The EU report highlights that green hydrogen is currently too expensive for widespread deployment and that direct electrification remains the preferred option for most energy applications.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Strategy: Evaluating the Viability of Green Hydrogen for Energy Systems. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • The DOE report finds that green hydrogen faces major economic and infrastructure hurdles, and that using renewable electricity directly in power, transport, and industry is typically far more efficient and cost-effective.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Green Hydrogen Economics: Hype vs. Reality.

    • BNEF states that green hydrogen is unlikely to become the dominant energy source due to its high costs, inefficiencies, and competition from battery storage and direct electrification.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). The Green Hydrogen Illusion: Why It Won’t Be a Silver Bullet for Energy Transition.

    • This report concludes that green hydrogen is not the future of energy but rather a niche solution for hard-to-electrify sectors, while most energy needs will be met by direct electrification.
  • Temple, J. (2021, February 4). The hard truths about green hydrogen. MIT Technology Review.
    • This article explains that green hydrogen remains expensive and inefficient compared to direct electricity use, and that its role in the energy transition will be limited rather than revolutionary.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen has high energy density, making it ideal for energy storage and transport.

  • Bossel, U. (2006). Does a hydrogen economy make sense? Proceedings of the IEEE, 94(10), 1826–1837.

    • This study shows that while hydrogen has high energy density by weight, its low volumetric energy density makes storage and transport inefficient compared to other energy carriers like natural gas or batteries.

  • Bertuccioli, L., Chan, A., Hart, D., Lehner, F., Madden, B., & Standen, E. (2014). The limitations of hydrogen as an energy storage medium. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(36), 21647–21662.

    • The research finds that hydrogen storage requires extreme pressures, cryogenic temperatures, or chemical conversion, all of which significantly reduce its practical energy density and efficiency.

  • Qiu, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, X., & Ding, Y. (2021). Comparing hydrogen storage with alternative energy carriers: A lifecycle efficiency assessment. Energy Reports, 7, 3950–3962.

    • This study finds that despite hydrogen’s high gravimetric energy density, its low volumetric energy density and high storage losses make it less suitable than other alternatives like batteries or ammonia for large-scale energy storage.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Future of Hydrogen: Storage and Transport Challenges. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA report highlights that hydrogen’s volumetric energy density is much lower than fossil fuels and even batteries, requiring high compression or liquefaction, both of which add major energy losses.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Storage and Transport: Technical and Economic Barriers. Brussels: European Union.

    • The EU report finds that hydrogen’s low volumetric density results in high costs and energy losses during compression, liquefaction, and distribution, making it impractical for many transport applications.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Storage and Distribution: Assessing Efficiency and Costs. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE states that storing and transporting hydrogen is far less efficient than direct electrification, as hydrogen requires either high-pressure tanks, cryogenic storage, or conversion to carriers like ammonia, all of which introduce significant energy penalties.
  • Hume, N. (2021, Oct 4). Hydrogen’s energy density problem: Why storage and transport remain key obstacles. Financial Times.
    • This article explains that hydrogen’s low volumetric density makes storage and distribution highly inefficient, requiring compression, liquefaction, or chemical conversion, all of which introduce significant costs and energy losses.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen will replace natural gas for heating buildings and water.

  • Rosenow, J. (2022). Is heating homes with hydrogen all but a pipe dream? Joule, 6(7), 1475–1479.

    • This study finds that hydrogen for home heating is significantly less efficient and cost-effective than heat pumps, and that existing gas networks are not easily convertible to hydrogen without expensive retrofits.

  • Staffell, I., Brett, D. J., Brandon, N. P., & Hawkes, A. D. (2019). A review of the efficiency and economics of hydrogen technologies for heating. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(33), 17936–17958.

    • The research finds that heat pumps use 3-5 times less energy than hydrogen boilers, making hydrogen an inefficient choice for heating compared to direct electrification.

  • Cebon, D. (2023). Why hydrogen is unlikely to decarbonize heating. Energy Policy, 174, 113440.

    • This study highlights that hydrogen is both more expensive and less efficient than electrification, and that replacing natural gas with hydrogen for heating would require major infrastructure overhauls.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). The Future of Heat Pumps and Hydrogen in Residential Heating. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA states that hydrogen is far less efficient than heat pumps for home heating, and that its high cost makes it an impractical replacement for natural gas in residential applications.

  • UK Climate Change Committee (CCC). (2021). Hydrogen for heating: A dead-end solution? London: CCC.

    • This UK government advisory report concludes that hydrogen should not be prioritized for home heating, as heat pumps and district heating are cheaper, more efficient, and available today without the need for massive infrastructure changes.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen in Buildings: Feasibility and Alternatives. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report finds that retrofitting buildings and pipelines for hydrogen is prohibitively expensive, while electric heating alternatives are already commercially viable and more energy-efficient.
  • Pickard, J. (2021, August 17). Hydrogen boilers in homes could cause four times more explosions than gas, says study. Financial Times.
    • This article covers UK government research showing that hydrogen home heating is not only expensive but also poses higher safety risks due to increased explosion potential compared to natural gas.

Misleading Claim: Expanding hydrogen in heavy industry is the best path for decarbonization.

  • Bataille, C. G. (2020). Physical and policy pathways to net-zero emissions industry. Energy & Climate Change, 2, 100035.

    • This study finds that direct electrification is the most efficient and cost-effective decarbonization path for many heavy industries, and that hydrogen should only be used in niche cases where electrification is impractical.

  • Gielen, D., Saygin, D., & Wagner, N. (2022). The role of hydrogen in decarbonizing industry: Myths and realities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 155, 111931.

    • This study argues that many industrial hydrogen applications can be directly electrified, reducing the need for an expanded hydrogen economy, and that the focus should be on replacing existing gray hydrogen rather than creating new demand.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). The Role of Hydrogen in Industry: Prioritizing Feedstock Over Energy Use. Paris: IEA.

    • IEA finds that hydrogen demand in refineries will decline as fossil fuel use decreases, meaning hydrogen expansion should prioritize replacing existing gray hydrogen feedstocks in ammonia and chemicals rather than being used broadly for energy applications in industry.

  • European Commission. (2023). Electrification vs. Hydrogen in Industry: Finding the Optimal Path. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report states that electrification is a more efficient solution than hydrogen for many industrial processes, particularly in sectors like steelmaking, where scrap-based electric arc furnaces outperform hydrogen-based reduction.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap: The Role of Hydrogen vs. Electrification. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that while hydrogen is necessary for some hard-to-abate industrial processes, electrification is generally cheaper and more efficient, and should be prioritized wherever possible.
  • Temple, J. (2023, March 1). Why hydrogen isn’t the best solution for most industrial decarbonization. MIT Technology Review.
    • This article explains that many industrial processes can be electrified at lower costs than switching to hydrogen, and that the decline in refinery demand means hydrogen expansion should focus on displacing gray hydrogen, not creating new industrial applications.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen will dominate the transportation sector.

  • Rogstadius, J. (2023). Battery vs. hydrogen fuel cell road transport in Europe by 2035: A cost and efficiency analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48(5), 3021–3038.

    • This study finds that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are far more energy-efficient and cost-effective than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) in road transport, with FCEVs struggling due to high hydrogen production and distribution costs.

  • Brenna, M., Foiadelli, F., & Zaninelli, D. (2021). Comparative analysis of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: Efficiency, cost, and infrastructure. Energy Reports, 7, 5592–5604.

    • BEVs achieve 70–90% well-to-wheel efficiency, while FCEVs struggle with 30–40% efficiency, making hydrogen a poor choice for mass adoption in road transport.

  • Bouman, E. A., Lindstad, H. E., Rialland, A. I., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art technologies for greenhouse gas emissions reduction in maritime transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 408–421.

    • This study shows that hydrogen-based fuels are significantly more expensive and less efficient than ammonia, biofuels, or battery-electric solutions for decarbonizing shipping.

  • Pach-Gurgul, A. (2023). Hydrogen trains vs. battery-electric trains: A European perspective. Railway Economics & Policy, 18(3), 245–260.

    • This study finds that hydrogen trains are far less efficient than battery-electric and electrified rail alternatives, making them a niche solution only for non-electrified routes where direct electrification is infeasible.

  • European Commission (2022). Electrification vs. Hydrogen in Rail Transport. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report concludes that direct electrification is the most viable solution for rail, with hydrogen trains being expensive and inefficient compared to battery-electric options for non-electrified routes.

  • Schafer, A. W., Barrett, S. R. H., Doyme, K., Dray, L. M., Gnadt, A. R., Self, R., & O’Sullivan, A. (2018). Technological, economic, and environmental prospects of all-electric aircraft. Nature Energy, 3(3), 216–224.

    • The study finds that hydrogen-based aviation faces substantial technical and economic barriers, with sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and hybrid-electric aircraft being more viable short-to-medium term solutions.

  • International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) (2023). Hydrogen vs. Battery-Electric Aviation: Which is More Feasible?

    • ICCT concludes that hydrogen-powered planes require significant redesigns, large fuel tanks, and cryogenic storage, making them highly impractical for long-haul aviation, with SAFs being the preferred decarbonization pathway.

  • European Commission (2022). Hydrogen in Transportation: Challenges and Feasibility by 2035. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report finds that hydrogen will play a limited role in transport, with battery electrification and alternative fuels dominating road, rail, maritime, and aviation decarbonization.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2023). Hydrogen Transport: High Costs, Low Efficiency, and Niche Applications. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen’s inefficiency and high costs make it a poor choice for widespread transport use, with electrification leading in most sectors.

Misleading Claim: Blue hydrogen is a low-carbon solution.

  • Howarth, R. W., & Jacobson, M. Z. (2021). How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Science & Engineering, 9(10), 1676–1687.

    • This study finds that blue hydrogen has a carbon footprint worse than burning natural gas or coal when methane leakage and incomplete carbon capture are considered, making it a poor low-carbon alternative.

  • Bauer, C., Treyer, K., Antonini, C., Bergerson, J., Gazzani, M., Gencer, E., & Gibbins, J. (2022). On the climate impacts of blue hydrogen production. Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 6(1), 66–75.

    • The study concludes that blue hydrogen is not a truly low-carbon solution due to methane leakage, partial carbon capture efficiency, and upstream emissions from natural gas extraction.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Role of Blue Hydrogen in Decarbonization: Limitations and Challenges. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA report finds that blue hydrogen’s carbon capture rates vary widely (50-90%) and that methane leaks in the supply chain can negate its climate benefits, making it an unreliable low-carbon solution.

  • European Commission. (2022). Assessing the True Carbon Footprint of Blue Hydrogen. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report states that blue hydrogen cannot be considered a low-carbon fuel due to the high emissions associated with natural gas extraction, methane leakage, and imperfect carbon capture technology.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Carbon Capture and Blue Hydrogen: Technical and Emissions Challenges. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that blue hydrogen is not a viable low-carbon solution at scale, as current carbon capture technologies cannot prevent significant upstream and process emissions.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). Blue Hydrogen: A Bridge or a Roadblock to Decarbonization?

    • IRENA’s report finds that carbon capture rates for blue hydrogen projects are inconsistent and that methane emissions significantly undermine its claimed environmental benefits.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Why Blue Hydrogen Is Not a Climate Solution.

    • This report states that blue hydrogen does not significantly reduce emissions compared to unabated fossil gas due to methane leakage and inefficiencies in carbon capture technology.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen is necessary due to mineral shortages for batteries.

  • Harper, G., Sommerville, R., Kendrick, E., Driscoll, L., Slater, P., Stolkin, R., & Anderson, P. (2019). Recycling lithium-ion batteries: A critical review of current technologies and future opportunities. Joule, 3(10), 2237–2260.

    • This study finds that battery recycling and new material developments (such as sodium-ion and solid-state batteries) reduce concerns over lithium and other critical mineral shortages, undermining the claim that hydrogen is needed due to battery material constraints.

  • Gielen, D., Boshell, F., Saygin, D., Bazilian, M. D., Wagner, N., & Gorini, R. (2019). The role of critical minerals in clean energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 116, 109434.

    • This research highlights that alternative battery chemistries and enhanced recycling programs are expected to mitigate material supply risks, making the shift to battery-electric vehicles feasible without needing hydrogen as a fallback.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA finds that mineral shortages are manageable through improved supply chains, recycling, and alternative chemistries, meaning hydrogen is not a required alternative to batteries.

  • European Commission. (2022). Battery Supply Chains and Critical Mineral Availability. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report states that strategies such as battery recycling, expanded mining, and new battery chemistries reduce dependency on scarce materials, making battery-electric vehicles the dominant technology for transport decarbonization.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Battery Minerals and Alternatives: Addressing Supply Chain Concerns. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that lithium, cobalt, and nickel supply risks are declining due to improved recycling methods and the development of sodium-ion and solid-state batteries, eliminating the need for hydrogen vehicles due to mineral concerns.
  • Mann, S. (2022, August 21). Battery recycling is solving the material crisis—so why are we still talking about hydrogen? Bloomberg Green.
    • This article explains that battery recycling and sodium-ion alternatives are reducing material scarcity, making the hydrogen narrative around mineral shortages misleading.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen is a renewable energy source.

  • Bauer, C., Treyer, K., Antonini, C., Bergerson, J., Gazzani, M., Gencer, E., & Gibbins, J. (2022). On the climate impacts of hydrogen production: A lifecycle assessment. Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 6(1), 66–75.

    • The research highlights that only green hydrogen (produced via electrolysis using renewable electricity) can be considered low-carbon, but it is not a primary energy source like wind or solar.

  • Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Velazquez Abad, A., et al. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491.

    • This study finds that hydrogen is an energy carrier rather than a renewable energy source, as it must be produced using primary energy sources like fossil fuels, nuclear, or renewables.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Future of Hydrogen: Clarifying Its Role in the Energy Transition. Paris: IEA.

    • IEA states that hydrogen is not a renewable energy source but an energy carrier, requiring electricity or fossil fuels for production.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen’s Role in the Energy System: Energy Carrier vs. Renewable Energy Source. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report explains that hydrogen does not generate energy itself but is a vector that stores and transports energy produced from other sources.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Production Pathways: Why Hydrogen is Not a Renewable Energy Source. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE confirms that hydrogen is not a primary energy source like solar or wind; it must be produced through processes that consume energy.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). The Misconception of Hydrogen as a Renewable Energy Source.

    • IRENA’s report states that hydrogen does not meet the definition of a renewable energy source because it does not occur naturally in a usable form.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Hydrogen: A Carrier, Not a Source.

    • This report clarifies that hydrogen is not an energy source like wind or solar but a storage and transport medium for energy produced elsewhere.
  • Temple, J. (2021, June 1). Hydrogen is not a renewable energy source, experts clarify. MIT Technology Review.
    • This article explains that hydrogen does not generate energy like wind or solar; instead, it requires energy input, making it an energy carrier rather than a renewable source.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen infrastructure is easy to develop.

  • Bertuccioli, L., Chan, A., Hart, D., Lehner, F., Madden, B., & Standen, E. (2014). The challenges of hydrogen infrastructure development: Cost and technical barriers. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(36), 21647–21662.

    • This study finds that developing hydrogen infrastructure is significantly more complex and costly than existing fossil fuel or electrification infrastructure, requiring specialized transport, storage, and distribution networks.

  • Yang, C., & Ogden, J. (2007). Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32(2), 268–286.

    • This study finds that hydrogen delivery and distribution require significant investment in pipelines, high-pressure storage, and fueling stations, making infrastructure development expensive and complex.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). Global Hydrogen Review: Infrastructure Challenges and Investment Needs. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA states that building a hydrogen infrastructure requires extensive financial and policy support, as existing natural gas infrastructure is largely incompatible with pure hydrogen transport.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Infrastructure: The Economic and Technical Barriers. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report finds that hydrogen infrastructure development is expensive and requires significant upgrades to pipelines, storage facilities, and refueling stations, making it far from “easy” to deploy at scale.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Infrastructure and Distribution: Feasibility and Challenges. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen infrastructure deployment faces multiple technical hurdles, including embrittlement of existing pipelines, high energy losses, and costly storage requirements.
  • Hume, N. (2021, Oct 4). Hydrogen infrastructure faces significant hurdles, experts warn. Financial Times.
    • This article discusses how hydrogen pipeline and refueling station deployment is slow and costly, making widespread adoption highly challenging.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen can be used in existing gas turbines and engines without modification.

  • Choudhury, A., Ramesh, A., & Kumar, P. (2021). Challenges of using hydrogen in existing internal combustion engines and gas turbines. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(27), 14325–14338.

    • This study finds that hydrogen’s high flame speed, low ignition energy, and combustion characteristics require significant modifications to gas turbines and engines to prevent premature ignition and NOx emissions.

  • Verhelst, S., & Wallner, T. (2009). Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 35(6), 490–527.

    • This research highlights that hydrogen’s high combustion temperature increases NOx formation, and existing engines require redesigned fuel injection and ignition systems to function safely.

  • Wang, Y., Gong, Y., Zhang, S., & Li, C. (2022). Hydrogen combustion in turbines: Challenges and required modifications. Energy Reports, 8, 4567–4581.

    • The study concludes that gas turbines designed for natural gas cannot safely operate with hydrogen without modifications to address combustion instability, material durability, and emissions control.

  • European Commission. (2023). The Challenges of Hydrogen Use in Gas Turbines and Internal Combustion Engines. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report states that pure hydrogen combustion requires modifications to mitigate NOx emissions and ensure stable operation, making retrofitting costly and complex.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen and Gas Turbines: Technical Barriers and Solutions. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen combustion in existing gas turbines and engines without modifications results in increased NOx emissions, premature component failure, and efficiency losses.
  • Pickard, J. (2022, September 15). Gas turbines face hurdles in switching to hydrogen, industry warns. Financial Times.
    • This article explains that natural gas turbines and engines require substantial modifications to accommodate hydrogen safely and efficiently, contradicting claims that they can operate without changes.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen leaks are not a significant environmental concern.

  • Ocko, I. B., & Hamburg, S. P. (2022). Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(12), 9349–9368.

    • This study finds that hydrogen leakage has a significant indirect warming effect, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 12 over 100 years and 37 over 20 years, meaning it contributes to climate change by extending methane’s atmospheric lifetime.

  • Derwent, R. G., Simmonds, P. G., Manning, A. J., & Spain, T. G. (2020). Global environmental impacts of hydrogen leakage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(7), 3875–3893.

    • The research highlights that even small hydrogen leaks affect atmospheric chemistry by increasing ozone and methane levels, making hydrogen leakage an environmental risk.

  • Paulot, F., & Jacob, D. J. (2014). Hidden climate impacts of hydrogen leakage. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(18), 6443–6450.

    • This study concludes that hydrogen leaks lead to increased tropospheric ozone formation, contributing to air pollution and indirect global warming effects.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Hydrogen Leakage and Climate Risk: The Overlooked Issue. Paris: IEA.

    • IEA finds that hydrogen’s indirect warming potential is often underestimated, and leakage from pipelines and storage can significantly undermine its climate benefits.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Emissions and Global Warming: Assessing the Risks. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen’s small molecular size leads to high leakage rates, and its interaction with methane and ozone makes it a non-negligible climate concern.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). The Hidden Emissions of Hydrogen: Addressing Leakage Risks.

    • BNEF finds that hydrogen pipelines and storage systems experience leakage rates of 1-10%, which can significantly offset the climate benefits of hydrogen adoption.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). Hydrogen Leakage: A Climate Risk Assessment.

    • IRENA’s report highlights that even a small amount of hydrogen leakage can lead to substantial increases in atmospheric methane and ozone, making hydrogen leaks a critical issue for climate policy.
  • Marris, E. (2022, June 2). Hydrogen leak risks: A climate blind spot. Anthropocene Magazine.
    • This article explains that hydrogen leakage has been largely ignored in climate discussions, but recent research shows it can exacerbate global warming through indirect effects.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen is the cheapest way to decarbonize energy systems.

  • Glenk, G., & Reichelstein, S. (2019). Economics of converting renewable power to hydrogen. Nature Energy, 4(3), 216–222.

    • This study finds that green hydrogen production is significantly more expensive than direct electrification due to efficiency losses in conversion, storage, and transport.

  • Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Velazquez Abad, A., et al. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491.

    • This study finds that hydrogen pathways suffer from high energy losses, making direct use of electricity for transport, heating, and industrial applications significantly cheaper.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen vs. Direct Electrification: Cost and Feasibility Analysis. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report finds that direct electrification of buildings, industry, and transport is cheaper and more efficient than hydrogen in nearly all applications.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Decarbonization Strategies: Hydrogen vs. Electrification Cost Comparisons. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen is not cost-competitive for general energy use, with electrification and renewable energy storage being far more economical.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). Hydrogen vs. Electrification: A Cost Perspective.

    • IRENA’s report finds that hydrogen requires significant infrastructure investment, and in most cases, direct electrification is the more affordable pathway for decarbonization.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). The Hydrogen Illusion: Why Electrification is the Cheapest Solution.

    • This report concludes that hydrogen is not the cheapest way to decarbonize, as electrification is more cost-effective in transport, heating, and industry.

Misleading Claim: Hydrogen is easy and inexpensive to store for long periods.

  • Amin, N., Khan, M. S., & Bari, S. (2021). Challenges in hydrogen storage: A review of physical and chemical storage methods. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111079.

    • This study finds that hydrogen storage is expensive and energy-intensive, requiring either high-pressure compression, cryogenic liquefaction, or chemical carriers, all of which introduce significant losses and costs.

  • Heuser, P. M., Ryberg, D. S., Grube, T., Robinius, M., & Stolten, D. (2019). Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen storage technologies for long-term energy storage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(44), 23751–23773.

    • The research highlights that hydrogen storage for seasonal energy use is costly, requiring specialized underground caverns or high-pressure tanks, making it far less economical than alternatives like pumped hydro or batteries.

  • Pivetta, L., Santarelli, M., & Larcher, M. (2022). Long-term hydrogen storage: Assessing costs and energy losses in underground and above-ground solutions. Energy Reports, 8, 3201–3216.

    • This study concludes that hydrogen storage faces high efficiency losses (up to 40%) from compression, liquefaction, and conversion back to usable energy, making it impractical for widespread long-term storage.

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The Future of Hydrogen Storage: Cost and Feasibility Challenges. Paris: IEA.

    • The IEA report finds that hydrogen storage is significantly more expensive and inefficient compared to battery storage and pumped hydro, due to high energy losses during compression, liquefaction, and reconversion.

  • European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Storage and Distribution: Economic and Technical Barriers. Brussels: EU.

    • The EU report states that large-scale hydrogen storage requires extensive infrastructure investment, and existing options such as compressed hydrogen and cryogenic storage have high energy penalties.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Storage Challenges and Costs: A Technical Review. Washington, DC: DOE.

    • DOE concludes that hydrogen storage remains costly, with underground storage only viable in select geological formations and above-ground storage facing high energy requirements.

  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). The Economics of Hydrogen Storage: Challenges and Alternatives.

    • BNEF finds that hydrogen storage is not cost-competitive with battery storage or other long-term storage solutions due to high infrastructure costs and inefficiencies.

  • International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). Hydrogen Storage: Viability, Costs, and Energy Losses.

    • IRENA’s report highlights that hydrogen storage systems are costly and inefficient, with energy losses making it impractical for long-term energy storage compared to alternatives.

  • European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Hydrogen Storage: Why It’s Not the Best Option for Long-Term Energy Reserves.

    • This report concludes that hydrogen storage is impractical due to high capital costs, energy inefficiencies, and limited storage locations.

Whether you have solar power or not, please complete our latest solar power survey.

Chip in a few dollars a month to help support independent cleantech coverage that helps to accelerate the cleantech revolution!

Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one if daily is too frequent.

Advertisement



 

CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy





Source link

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay Connected

Twitter Linkedin-in Instagram Facebook-f Youtube

Subscribe

Subscribe
Subscribe