'So many ways hydrogen can go wrong': Hub announcements viewed with caution

[NickB79]

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/16/so-many-ways-hydrogen-can-go-wrong-hub-announcements-viewed-with-caution/

Four of the projects (the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, Heartland and Midwest hydrogen hubs) that the DOE announced as winners will use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen. (In the bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress required that at least one hub “demonstrate the production of clean hydrogen from fossil fuels.”)

“There are so many ways hydrogen can go wrong. … We’re really concerned with the number of projects that rely in part or in whole on fossil fuel-based hydrogen production,” said Julie McNamara, a deputy policy director at Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program. “For hydrogen to be a clean energy solution, it has to be cleanly produced and it has to be strategically used.”

Snip

Schlissel and other critics also questioned the lack of details released by the Department of Energy about the projects, noting that much of the application materials have been treated as trade secrets by the states and the DOE. It’s unclear how the DOE scored the projects for funding, he added.

“How much hydrogen is going to be produced? What are going to be the CO2 emissions? How much CO2 is going to be captured? Then, where is it going to be used?” he said. “DOE and the applicants have taken the position that everything is confidential.”

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Still in the research stage?

I think this is seed money. But it is time to get this aspect of energy moving.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. Until the secrecy is eliminated, it's time to nip this in the bud.

It appears to be just another form of government subsidies for fossil fuel producers.

[NickB79]

3. 4 out of 7 hubs are using fossil fuels!

When the bill only required one. How did that sneak by literally everyone?

And carbon sequestration is code for repressurizing oil fields to get out more oil.

[Think. Again.]

4. Producing the H2...

...that we will need is one part of the very complex H2 economy that we need to start building.

I agree that we should only be producing green H2, but I also recognize that we must kickstart the entire H2 industry (including vehicles and all other ways we can replace fossil fuels with H2) and to kickstart that industry, we need to have H2 available now.

In the long term our H2 should only be green, but without any H2 now, we are holding back the start ups that want to move forward with fuel cells, H2 combustion engines, etc.

What's that old saying? "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?

[NickB79]

5. You're gambling that it doesn't turn into a permanent fixture

A way for fossil fuel giants to guarantee a revenue stream for decades to come. The fact that 4 of 7 hubs use fossil fuels adds to this suspicion.

Just look at the current push for carbon sequestration, which is turning into a way to boost oil production instead.

[Think. Again.]

6. I absolutely agree with you...

...there is a very serious risk because the fossil fuel industry WILL absolutely do whatever they can to continue selling their oil.

So, do we stop the progress we need to make on alternative energy systems just to stop the fossil companies from trying to co-opt our progress?

Or do we continue our progress to build a non-CO2 emitting energy industry WHILE ALSO WORKING TO STOP the fossil companies from co-opting our progress by ...oh, I don't know, maybe outlawing the production of H2 from from fossil fuels, or heavily taxing that method, or something.

But to throw away the baby with the bathwater isn't the wise way to go.