Moving hydrogen from hype to hope

I see a pivotal role for hydrogen,” in Europe’s efforts to achieve its climate goals, said Frans Timmermans. And up jumped the crowd in a rare standing ovation for a climate commissioner. Hydrogen is the talk of the town and the Commission is widely expected to make it a big priority in its green industrial strategy. So, are we about to enter the golden age for hydrogen and - if so - what does it mean for transport? 

Seasoned observers will remember that this isn’t the first time hydrogen has created huge excitement. Jeremy Rifkins’ famous book, The Hydrogen Economy, exemplifies the starry-eyed enthusiasm of the 2000s. Egged on by fears that oil was running out, the then American president, George W Bush, launched the ‘Freedom Fuel’ initiative to boost hydrogen and make the US energy independent. Carmakers joined the race with Toyota, Daimler and others promising to build models that would popularise hydrogen cars for the mass market.

But, a decade later, hydrogen has not taken off. There are few hydrogen fuel cell cars and most of them are actually demonstration vehicles. There are also close to no hydrogen trucks, although Hyundai will be providing 1,000 fuel cell electric trucks to the Swiss market. Meanwhile, the first truck by Nikola - the hope of hydrogen trucking enthusiasts - will apparently be a battery electric truck. 

A cynic might say that hydrogen is and will always remain the future. But the accelerating climate crisis does not allow us to be cynical. T&E’s own analysis suggests hydrogen is currently the only energy carrier that would enable zero-emission shipping and aviation, either as an end fuel or as the basis for a liquid fuel. It is also too early to write it off as an option for long-distance trucking but here hydrogen will have to compete with more efficient options such as catenary or battery electric. 

But there’s a big difference between a technology’s theoretical potential in a climate model and its ability to take off economically. As the example of battery technology has shown, a technology can be expensive and underperforming to begin with but become competitive very soon after. Could something similar happen for hydrogen? And what will it take for that to happen?

There are two main ways to produce hydrogen. The first and most common method - accounting for 95% of current hydrogen production - is steam methane reforming based on fossil gas. Gas-based or ‘grey’ hydrogen isn’t exactly green. It is theoretically possible to add carbon capture and storage (CCS) to the process, producing so-called ‘blue’ hydrogen. But CCS deployment has run into a number of problems and blue hydrogen would cost twice as much as grey hydrogen although a higher carbon price could narrow that gap. 

The green alternative to steam methane reforming is electrolysis, whereby water is split into hydrogen and oxygen using (vast amounts of) clean electricity. Some argue that the prospect of below €20/MWh electricity prices for utility-scale solar electricity coming from North Africa and the Middle East, or €50/MWh from massive offshore wind farms, means the poor efficiency of green hydrogen is no longer an issue. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, “future costs of green hydrogen will be below those for blue hydrogen”.

But green hydrogen won’t just have to compete with grey and blue hydrogen. It will compete with petrol, diesel, marine fuel oil, kerosene and, of course, electricity. Wherever batteries are a practical solution - cars; vans; urban, regional and perhaps long-haul trucks; ferries - hydrogen will face an uphill struggle because of its lower efficiency and, as a result, much higher fuel costs. As the CEO of Volkswagen recently put it: “To drive the same 100km you need three times the wind farms than you do with electric cars.”

The lesson from half a century of hydrogen enthusiasm is that the technology won’t just take off. Pouring money into R&D isn’t enough. We’ll need a comprehensive and sustained public support programme to bring the technology to scale and reduce the costs. Most importantly, we will need lead markets. 

Our proposal would be to focus on two sectors where there is a clear role for hydrogen and where regulatory action has so far been lacking almost completely: aviation and shipping. The goals set should be realistic and achievable and should focus on creating a secure market for green hydrogen (or hydrogen derived efuels) with high sustainability standards so that industry can make the long-term investments that are required to scale up sustainably. 

One way to achieve this would be to introduce a standard requiring fuel suppliers to blend a low percentage of efuels into aviation fuel; or to require airlines to purchase certain volumes. For shipping, stringent operational CO2 and zero-emission port standards could be used to require cargo and luxury cruise ships to run on green hydrogen or ammonia. Ports will play a major role in any successful hydrogen strategy as this is where hydrogen would likely come on shore. So it would also make sense to roll out hydrogen refueling infrastructure for trucks in major port areas.

The advantage of this approach is that it would avoid massive expenditure on gas grid upgrades or on the roll-out of an inland hydrogen refueling infrastructure network across Europe. And it would focus the hydrogen effort on where no better alternatives exist. It might not offer us a standing ovation from hydrogen economy enthusiasts but it would be an effective, responsible and sustainable strategy.

Comments

Lyn Harrison's picture

Comment: 

Perfect. Precisely the point that needs to be made. I keep making it, but few seem to be listening, least of all governments who should be spending our money wisely on advancing the energy transition, not hindering it in ill-advised spending. In a just-completed edit of a big article about hydrogen, I attempt once more to get the message across, as you do.

Hugo Tente's picture

Comment: 

I completely agree with T&E view on this issue. Hydrogen will surely act as an energy carrier or (perhaps more correct) as an energy storage since competing with electricity for most of the applications will make no sense (for all the energy density and volumetric issues raised).

The power of hydrogen comes exactly from being the other (besides electricity) only option of zero emission transports so for transport modes such as aviation and shipping it might work (I would still not rule them out from long-range road transport). The issue comes afterwards since both the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) seem to be much slower than the slowest vessel they regulate. Clearly betting in specific areas as port areas should be the bet, not only because financial feasibility of the production might require to have hydrogen being transported by sea but also as defining H2 as a kind of future logistics operation fuel (complemented with some infrastructures within major roads but without a need of a high-density network since H2 trucks should be able to have significant autonomies). Focusing on cruise ships and on major airports (through efuels) is also a good rationale since those are sectors that might be able to pay (in support with European Member States) the bigger initial cost of such an approach. And they will also be the future end users of such a strategy.

antonio's picture

Comment: 

llevo varios años estudiando y analizando al HIDRÓGENO VERDE como combustible alternativo pero veo que Europa comienza ahora y si antes dependiamos de los hidrocarburos de las países árabes si no nos pònemos las pilas lo vamos ha hacer delos países asiáticos (corea ,China Japon ) y sobre todo España
antonio pomares Cecu Consejo nacional de transportes

Raphael's picture

Comment: 

Well written article, most of the statements make sense. Keep your pressure on politics towards decarbonisation, there are enough hinderers and ignorants around!
Where I disagree with various T&E studies is the strong focus on battery based electric road mobility. I just would like to remind that especially Europe and North East Asia will not be able to serve themselves with renewable electricity under exploitation of the available potential. For example, Germany plans with up to 50% of imports of the required primary energy. You already see moves to discuss with NEMA states a local production of green hydrogen. The distances are too long for electric lines, even HVDC comes with a loss of 6% per 1000 km, transformation losses not counted in.
What would then be the consequence? Hydrogen or Power-to-X energy carriers would be imported to Europe and converted back to electricity to power cars and trucks. Why not use the fuel directly? The packaging for long-haul trucks would be advantageous over batteries for hydrogen and Power-to-X fuels even more. Why to carry around tons of batteries, when you can have it in a better shape? Don't forget that for fast charging you need additional storage systems to avoid overloading the electric networks. All-in-all, the argument with conversion losses for hydrogen based mobility makes only sense, if you just concentrate on the car/truck, but not when you consider the entire energy supply system.
Why does Mr. Diess from Volkswagen then push for battery powered cars, and is even the loudest in doing so (apart from Tesla)? He has a legacy from the Diesel scandal and imminent fines for exceeding fleet average consumption for his company. The European law favours electric cars by double counting them as zero-emission cars. For the moment it is the most attractive solutions, as easiest to implement. To avoid an Osbourne effect he needs to be dim about any positive statements about alternative technologies. Asking for internal combustion engines would be destructive due the Diesel scandal. So, it seems to me that Mr. Diess is in a politically driven race rather than he leads a honest discussion about clean cars.
With this I just would like to invite T&E to consider more the effects of a decarbonized global energy system on mobility than to just focus on a very constrained view on vehicle propulsion systems.
Looking forward to reading studies and opinions from T&E also in future!

Chiny's picture

Comment: 

Let's be real; hydrogen has missed the boat. Vehicles are mostly going to be electric. Ships could be sail, a proven technology, albeit with a serious update in tech. No-one is going to sink masses of money into hydrogen tech or it would have been done by now.

Raphael's picture

Comment: 

Sails could at best support ship propulsion by a few percent of the required power (check to this topic e.g. DNV-GL reports). Currently e-fuels like methanol and ammonia are considered possible ways to go for deep sea shipping.
For your comment that no one is going to invest in hydrogen you unfortunately just choose the wrong day. Shell just announced that they will invest billions into the installation of offshore wind power to produce hydrogen in the Netherlands. This will be distributed through the then obsolete natural gas pipelines (Netherlands will exit gas production in 2022).

Raphael's picture

Comment: 

I'm afraid, but your statements are not correct, most likely just based on gut feeling and personal opinion.
Sails can at maximum be a supportive power source for shipping in the single-digit percentage range of the required propulsion power. Shipping industry sees e-fuels in internal combustion engines as the most likely power source for deep sea shipping in future. No other technology can provide the required range and power density.
In addition you just chose the wrong day to publish your statement about investment into hydrogen. Shell today announced that they will install GW scale offshore wind power in the Netherlands to produce hydrogen. This will be distributed within the existing, then obsolete natural gas network of GasUnie (in 2022 NL will stop gas production).

Jens Schabacher's picture

Comment: 

1. In Short-Sea Shipping, we will see the use of solid-state batteries in the future. Today, maritime batteries have a comparatively low energy density, but high safety and durability. They can be used in 80 percent of all ships worldwide - mostly hybrid solutions, saving from 5 to 35 percent. The majority of European ferries can be hybrid or fully electric driven - with batteries. Do that. Solid state batteries for cars, and so for ships, will have energy densities around 400Wh per kilo and maybe more. Almost all big car producers are developing solid state batteries. Being three times more energy effective than hydrogen and even safer than todays batteries, solid state batteries will be widely used in short-sea-shipping :)

2. Unfortunately tanks and systems never will be totally hydrogenetight. Sorry for that.

I recommend to read this article carefully:
https://www.tu.no/artikler/statens-vegvesen-vil-ha-hydrogenferge-pa-vest...?

And this: https://www.tu.no/artikler/tenner-pa-tre-tonn-flytende-hydrogen-for-a-si...?

3. We should have focus on ships, using a multitude of technologies, like foils. Saving up to 15 percent. Great! https://www.marinelog.com/news/video-wavefoil-fits-a-ferry-with-underwat...

4. Anyhow, electric fuels have to play a large role in green shipping, so the hydrogen narrative have to be rewritten - in electric fuels and high temperature fuel cells. Thousands of terawattours green electricity will be necessary on a global scale, from one to severale times the actual electricity generation of the USA. Every technology should be developed further, and every technological narrative as well.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • ShortCodes usage

    1. [mailchimp_signup title="Interested in this kind of news?" placeholder="Enter your email address" form_url="https://transp..." button_label="Sign Up"]Receive them directly in your inbox[/mailchimp_signup] Outputs Mailchimp sign up widget. All values have defaults, shown in snippet.

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

William Todts's picture

Executive Director