If you live in New York’s Hudson Valley, there are two main routes of public transportation. To the east of the Hudson River, there are trains. To the west, there are buses. I live on the bus side. I found myself on the phone recently with one of the higher-ups at the company that operates the majority of these buses that go in and out of Port Authority Bus Terminal. He mentioned he’s interested in hydrogen buses.
I was also interested in hydrogen for a variety of applications until I did a little research recently. Now I’m wary, cautious. It’s hard not to be interested; hydrogen is being touted all over as a possible form of clean energy. Its potential to help the world transition from fossil fuels has led to monumental investments in hydrogen projects—$600 billion!
In the US, the Biden administration has an $8 billion plan for up to 10 regional hydrogen hubs, the name for what will basically be networks of hydrogen producers and consumers in close proximity. This is a big number, historic actually, for the Department of Energy.
Usually when something sounds too good to be true, it is. Scratch below the surface and concerns emerge. When it comes to the production of hydrogen energy and the new technology being developed to transport, store, and use it, nothing is black and white. There are three types of hydrogen currently being widely promoted. Only one of them is being produced at scale, and only one of them is created with renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. That’s not the one being produced at scale, unfortunately. There are also concerns about hydrogen from an environmental justice perspective.
If you’re like me—i.e., not a scientist—maybe you need a hydrogen refresher. I know I did. It’s an abundant chemical element found in most living things, including water. It’s the H in H20. It’s a low-density gas, which is why it can be used as fuel. Before it can be used, it needs to be separated from the elements it typically bonds to, including oxygen. That’s the O in H2O. Hydrogen can be produced from a variety of resources, including natural gas, nuclear power, biomass, solar, and wind. Some of these have less impact on global warming than others.
At the moment, hydrogen is mainly used in fertilizer production and oil refining. The going thought is that by ramping up production, it can be used in the future for a bunch of other things from home heating to cooking. But why would we spend all this money to use it for things like that? Electricity is currently less expensive, readily available, and easier to use for these things. Which brings me back to my local commuter buses. Why not just use electric right now? That technology already exists and works well.
Hydrogen may prove useful for sectors without similarly easy solutions, like airplanes and giant boats used for shipping. But it doesn’t make sense to reinvent the wheel where we have good options. This is especially true when you consider climate impact. Hydrogen production is kind of confusing, but at the moment, there are three common kinds: “gray,” “blue,” and “green.”
Gray and blue hydrogen are created from a methane source, typically natural gas. Making hydrogen out of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. When blue hydrogen is made, residual CO2 is captured and stored, which is expensive. That’s why gray accounts for 95% of hydrogen currently produced in the US—no residual CO2 is captured and stored. Green has the least climate impact; it comes from water, and renewable energy is used to strip hydrogen from oxygen molecules. But it requires a lot of water and diverts renewable energy from other applications.
All three kinds of hydrogen can also leak in storage and transport. Hydrogen is a tiny, hard-to-contain molecule. These leaks matter. Scientists do not fully understand their risks yet, or the ways they may contribute to climate change. There’s currently no technology to contain leakage during all phases of production, transport, and storage. We do know that hydrogen emitted into the atmosphere has the potential to dangerously fuel global warming by amplifying the effects of other greenhouse gases. Hydrogen may be worse for the climate than fossil fuels! And yet the investments in it are ginormous.
There’s obviously an urgent global need for low-carbon energy sources. But when it comes to hydrogen, there are red flags. Hydrogen is supposed to further a rapid and equitable transition away from fossil fuels and is, at present, being made with them. Proceeding with caution, prioritizing green hydrogen, and finding leakage solutions seems necessary.
And when existing green electricity is faster, cleaner, and more effective than creating green hydrogen, it should be used. I am hoping to see electric buses on my well-traveled route to and from New York City ASAP.
LEARN MORE ABOUT HYDROGEN, WHERE IT COMES FROM, AND ITS RED FLAGS.
Learn about Moms’ work on clean energy.
TELL EPA: SET STRONG LIMITS ON CLIMATE POLLUTION FROM HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS