There are a number of methods to visualise details about just about something. Hydrogen is not any totally different. There are whole shade wheels dedicated to the economic feedstock at current, which presumably are informative to people who find themselves much less shade blind than I’m. However one of many extra helpful hydrogen infographics over the previous few years has been Michael Liebreich’s Hydrogen Ladder, and now he’s up to date it after a few years of stability.
I’ve mentioned the ladder quite a few occasions, each with Liebreich himself, but in addition with members of the Hydrogen Science Coalition similar to Paul Martin, and with coverage makers and purchasers. It’s a helpful framework to think about.
Liebreich is, in fact, the founder of what’s now Bloomberg New Power Finance, and has been assessing the place the large cash is in half-trillion greenback chunks for the previous 20 years or so. He’s been investing personally within the transition. He’s often been proper.
I’ve my very own means of visualizing hydrogen and its future, one I’ve iterated a number of occasions as nicely. I most just lately up to date mine earlier this 12 months after I stepped via the total scope of iron and metal globally, the applied sciences which had been already commercialized or confirmed commercially at small scale similar to HYBRIT, and projected demand, options, and decarbonization via 2100.
The variations between the data dumps, each of which have copious pondering, evaluation and element behind them, make for fruitful floor to think about. By the way in which, totally different individuals use totally different numbers for the present hydrogen demand. I labored mine up and am proud of 120, however others use 100 or 110. And, in fact, error bars on my situation are giant, and it’s a single situation of many I might mission, simply the one I feel probably.
One of many first issues that’s apparent in contrasting the 2 is that my projection is thru time whereas Liebreich’s is a cut-off date perspective by him of the relative competitiveness of hydrogen in several domains. When he and I mentioned our views earlier this 12 months in London, he’s barely much less bearish on hydrogen demand than I’m, pondering that complete demand will likely be within the 200 or maybe 250 million ton per 12 months vary, whereas I mission a decline to the 90 million ton vary from the present 120 million ton.
I think Liebreich’s is a shorter time period perspective, maybe via 2030 and even 2040, nevertheless it’s unspoken. Actually I used to be stunned to see an upward blip between 2040 and 2050 in my very own projection after I built-in the iron new demand projection. And in my aviation projection, demand for biofuels goes up earlier than it goes down as electrification takes over an increasing number of of the area, so take the whole lot like this with a grain of salt and use it as a springboard for pondering and dialogue.
Unsurprisingly, at the very least to me, the underside row of fully uncompetitive proposed makes use of for hydrogen has develop into a double stack. Liebreich is way from a hydrogen hopium addict, fairly the other, however even very bullish hydrogen for power sorts like former chief scientist of Australia Alan Finkel are realizing that it’s simply not match for lots of makes use of, similar to automobiles. I’ve been watching hydrogen for power performs crumble for the previous few years as spreadsheet jockeys who had to make use of actual numbers received concerned and located what’s apparent from serviette math, that hydrogen is a really costly service of power and that electrolyzers and gasoline cells don’t come as giveaways with a tank of gasoline.
The underside row is now replete with eight use instances, together with automobiles, taxis, metro transit, agricultural and mining gear, bulk supply of fuels between nations, heating underneath 200° Celsius, home heating, and burning hydrogen that’s simply been created to make electrical energy. Personally, I feel the entire hydrogen for power use instances above it will collapse into the fully non-competitive row over time as Liebreich continues to iterate this. The one progress space in power for hydrogen in my projection is expounded to hydrotreating biofuels in a lot the identical method as hydrogen is used with crude oil right this moment, however the quantity is far smaller.
Having executed my international evaluation of aviation and maritime delivery demand and answer projections via 2100, together with plenty of work on battery chemistries and biofuels, I’m fairly comfy that batteries and biofuels will dominate, whereas Liebreich is extra bullish on biologically sourced carbon with electrolyzed hydrogen for these use instances. He asserts that there’s restricted feedstock availability, which I don’t assume is correct.
My projections — bear in mind, massive error bars, opinion, not carved in granite — present that the demand for burnable fuels for transportation is within the low a whole bunch of tens of millions of tons. Present waste meals is 2.5 billion tons of the 7.5 billion tons we manufacture yearly all over the world. Each ton of dried waste biomass (lower than the two.5 billion tons clearly) turns into 0.4 tons of biofuel. Simply the waste meals stream, ignoring the waste agricultural stalks and leaves, waste livestock dung, and waste timber residue is in the identical order of magnitude as all demand. European livestock dung alone is within the order of 1.5 billion tons. My evaluation of aviation gasoline necessities discovered that present waste stalks had been greater than sufficient.
Burning stuff for power is deeply inefficient, and as we gained’t be simply digging the stuff up and processing it comparatively evenly, however manufacturing it at nice expense, I see no motive to assume we are going to perpetuate the follow the place there’s the choice of electrification. There’s plenty of waste biomass from human trade.
On that observe, there’s plenty of yellow on the chart (in response to individuals who aren’t shade blind). That’s all of the stuff the place the choice is extra immediately utilizing electrical energy, both from the grid or by way of the magic of electrochemistry, aka batteries. Apart from metal on the second row, the place I mission a progress of probably 30 million tons for the HYBRIT inexperienced metal course of and comparable ones, which use 55 or so kilograms of hydrogen per ton of recent metal, I anticipate all of these to break down into row G over time.
There will likely be brief time period exceptions, however they are going to be brief time period. Hydrogen followers had been delighted that India was shopping for electrical locomotives, for instance, as a result of they didn’t have a look at the rails they might be used on or examine to electrification. India is dedicated to 100% heavy rail electrification by 2025, and is approaching 90% of the way in which there. The hydrogen engines had been for historical, slim, windy, ornamental vacationer trains operating via scenic areas, as I perceive it. They didn’t need to spoil the view with overhead traces and it could have been costly, too. That’s going to develop into accessible to rising battery power densities, so the hydrogen engines will develop into superfluous and too costly.
Decrease Saxony’s expertise is the fact of hydrogen rail trials. They cease them when what was apparent earlier than the trials began turns into too apparent to disregard, that hydrogen for transportation is at minimal 3 times as costly as grid-ties and batteries.
Liebreich remains to be contemplating high-temperature industrial warmth as a spot the place hydrogen can play. I don’t assume it should, though I feel anthropogenic biomethane will play within the area till it’s value scrapping legacy infrastructure for rather more environment friendly and price efficient electrified infrastructure. Some very costly hydrogen for warmth performs will likely be tried, however I feel it’s deeply unlikely that they are going to be aggressive.
Let’s discover why it is a little bit. Let’s have a look at blue and inexperienced hydrogen as the 2 main pathways.
Blue hydrogen is fascinating. It begins with pure gasoline, aka fossil methane, aka CH4, aka one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms bonded collectively by tens of millions of years of strain and warmth appearing on lengthy useless crops, with the occasional dinosaur combined in.
Pure gasoline is a reasonably helpful supply of warmth. It burns comparatively cleanly in comparison with coal and it burns scorching in comparison with alcohols like ethanol and methanol, 900° Celsius to 1,000° Celsius hotter. It’s additionally grime low cost plenty of the time with the appearance of shale oil and fracking, so the warmth hasn’t been costly and its price was secure from the early 2000s till just lately.
Keep in mind that it’s made up of carbon and hydrogen. Effectively, 45% of the power from burning it comes from that one carbon atom. Solely 55% of the power is from the 4 hydrogen atoms. And stripping that carbon atom off by bonding it with oxygen from the air to kind carbon dioxide, then capturing that carbon dioxide, delivery it to a sequestration web site and shoving it underground takes power too. Once we make ‘blue’ hydrogen we are literally utilizing power to throw away 45% of the power in pure gasoline, in addition to including a bunch of capital and operational prices.
That signifies that blue hydrogen, even when it’s made out of pure gasoline on the actual place the place the warmth is required, will likely be greater than twice as costly per unit of warmth as burning the pure gasoline. There aren’t any methods round that. The fundamentals of chemistry and physics don’t bend to wishful pondering by finance sorts.
Inexperienced hydrogen can be costly. It takes plenty of electrical energy to show water into hydrogen, about 60 MWh per ton with the steadiness of plant. That’s inefficient as a result of when the hydrogen is used, as soon as once more even whether it is manufactured precisely at level of use, it could return a most of 70% of the power with a bunch of further capital and operational prices. Electrical energy per unit of warmth is dearer than grime low cost pure gasoline, so inexperienced hydrogen is much more costly.
That remark about ‘at level of use’ is necessary. The overwhelming majority of hydrogen is manufactured on the level the place it’s plugged right into a chemical course of like manufacturing methanol or hydrocracking crude oil. That’s as a result of it’s one of the crucial costly molecules to move. It must be compressed massively or chilled to twenty° above absolute zero, and even then, its density is decrease than alternate options. It’s simply costly to retailer and transfer.
This isn’t to extol the virtues of pure gasoline, by any means. It’s to level out that hydrogen is a very dumb thought for industrial warmth in several methods than pure gasoline or coal are. It’s all the time going to be very costly no matter how we make it, and electrical warmth sources are going to be cheaper to function. So long as we are attempting to truly clear up local weather change, not deal with the ambiance as an open sewer and never destroy our financial system, utilizing electrical energy immediately for warmth will all the time be cheaper and decrease emissions.
And in my work digging via the entire varied use instances and expertise for all features of heating, I haven’t discovered a single use case that we didn’t have electrical applied sciences that had been match for goal. What I did discover had been lots of people who framed the query as changing their burning gases or liquids with clear gases or liquids as a substitute of asking the place the power would come from and apply it. That misframing has plenty of causes behind it, a lot of them venal.
As all the time with Liebreich’s Hydrogen Ladder, I wish to remind folks that the highest row isn’t a press release of continued or growing demand of excessive volumes of hydrogen. Hydrocracking and desulphurisation (and hydrotreating) are virtually solely issues executed to crude oil in refineries. Whereas there could also be no alternate options to hydrogen for these use instances, these use instances are going to be in critical decline over the approaching a long time. Peak oil demand is that this decade, and the heavy, bitter crude which calls for probably the most hydrogen to refine goes to be off the market first on account of financial challenges.
Methanol is an issue of a special order, and having reassessed my place on it, extra more likely to diminish as a requirement supply for hydrogen, not enhance, one thing I’ll deal with in my subsequent hydrogen projection. Liebreich factors out that biomass / biogas could present the feedstock for it, however the course of nonetheless goes via steam reformation of methane into hydrogen. As hydrogen should decarbonize it should get dearer, and alternate options for the economic solvent and feedstock will develop into extra aggressive. Whereas it’s being touted as a maritime gasoline different, I’m on file as noting the bait and swap nature of the trouble. In different phrases, economics will doubtless drive a discount in methanol demand regardless of the trade’s lobbying to make it multiply as a substitute.
Fertilizer is a special concern as nicely. Once we say fertilizer within the context of hydrogen, we’re actually speaking ammonia, aka a nitrogen atom and three hydrogen atoms. The previous 60 years of fantastic crop productiveness will increase has been due largely to manufacturing ammonia from fossil fuels and placing it on fields. The fields don’t care in regards to the hydrogen, that’s added to make a molecule that crops can do one thing with. The crops care in regards to the nitrogen. As much as 5% of a plant’s dry mass is nitrogen.
Each ton of ammonia placed on fields leads to about 14 tons extra of crops. That’s why we’re utilizing much less land to develop much more meals than we used to. Because the begin of the present Inexperienced Revolution in agriculture, progress in ammonia fertilizers has not stored tempo with progress in inhabitants or GDP. It’s been an excellent market progress, however we’ve been utilizing it an increasing number of effectively. With the current worth spikes in pure gasoline and shutting down Russian exports — Russia is a giant producer and exporter of ammonia for fertilizer — agribusinesses have been on the lookout for alternate options.
We’re not going to get rid of ammonia fertilizers. However they’re a giant local weather downside coming and going. Each ton of ammonia comes with about six tons of greenhouse gases from manufacturing and distributing it, and when utilized to fields a bunch turns into nitrous oxides that are the equal of about three tons of greenhouse gases per ton of ammonia. Each ends of which are priced in carbon pricing schemes, together with the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism as of 2026, so fertilizer prices to farmers are going up, not down.
Their use will be minimized with out anybody ravenous. Agrigenetics just like the nitrogen fixing microbes from Pivot Bio are already decreasing ammonia necessities by 25% on tens of millions of acres of corn within the USA, and so they have a goal of 100% for all three main grain crops by 2030. Precision spraying with electrically powered megadrones is grounding the helicopters and lightweight plane that used to overspray fields, and reducing product plenty by 30% or extra with the identical crop yield. And low-tillage agriculture has benefits on this regard as nicely.
I mission a discount in ammonia fertilizer demand, if not elimination of it, whereas Liebreich asserts that there’s no actual different for it. As soon as once more, timeframes for that query matter.
Lastly, there’s lengthy length grid balancing on the second row. I actually don’t see something about seasonal electrical energy storage for 10 or 100 12 months issues which means the traits of inexperienced hydrogen are the perfect ones. I feel it’s extra doubtless that diverting the large quantities of anthropogenically created methane to salt caverns makes extra financial and local weather sense than manufacturing low-carbon hydrogen and shoving it underground the place it should strive actually laborious to leak. It’s the Houdini of molecules, in any case.
I additionally assume {that a} 10 or 100 12 months downside is a really totally different beast economically than the whole lot else we’re speaking about. It’s extra within the class of the Svalbard International Seed Vault, a critical wet day concern. For the following few a long time, placing fossil methane away for a wet day is nice sufficient, as if we have now to burn it solely a few weeks each few years, we’re means forward of the local weather sport.
None of that is to say unfavorable issues in regards to the Ladder. It’s a really useful gizmo for discussing the comparative deserves of the totally different use instances for the Swiss Military knife molecule. Just like the tiny corkscrew, blade, and toothpick on the Swiss Military knife, hydrogen simply isn’t the go-to molecule if there are alternate options, and there are virtually all the time alternate options. And in hydrogen’s case, plenty of the present use instances are going to decrease on account of financial and local weather imperatives, not develop.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Need to promote? Need to recommend a visitor for our CleanTech Speak podcast? Contact us right here.
EV Obsession Every day!
I do not like paywalls. You do not like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Right here at CleanTechnica, we carried out a restricted paywall for some time, nevertheless it all the time felt flawed — and it was all the time robust to resolve what we should always put behind there. In concept, your most unique and finest content material goes behind a paywall. However then fewer individuals learn it!! So, we have determined to fully nix paywalls right here at CleanTechnica. However…
Thanks!
Tesla Gross sales in 2023, 2024, and 2030
Commercial
CleanTechnica makes use of affiliate hyperlinks. See our coverage right here.