All You Need to Know About Hydrogen Gas and Why It Won’t Save Us [PART 1]
Photo Credit: WildEarth Guardians.
For the Navajo community in New Mexico, the fight against hydrogen gas is personal. To thousands of Navajo and Puebloan families, a proposed hydrogen hub will not “expand clean energy” as their state’s governor claims. Instead, it will undermine multi-generational efforts to protect their ancestral home, the Greater Chaco Landscape – an area long-sacrificed for oil and gas drilling, uranium mining, and toxic waste dumping.
New Mexico’s “clean” hydrogen hub would use existing fossil gas infrastructure and rely on unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to mitigate some of its climate impact. But toxic air pollution and methane would still be emitted, meaning communities such as the Navajo that have long-lived at the frontlines of harmful energy extraction will continue to do so – all under the guise of “clean energy.”
“In reality, only hydrogen produced from zero-emission, renewable energy – known as green hydrogen – and used in a fuel cell is truly carbon-free and pollution-free.”
Unfortunately, what is happening in New Mexico is not unique. Since the federal government authorized $9.5 billion for hydrogen development through the 2021 Infrastructure Act, states have been scrambling to win their bid as the “clean” hydrogen hub. As it stands, the Act authorizes a myriad of “cleaner” hydrogen production methods that actually still increase greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and/or toxic contaminants. In reality, only hydrogen produced from zero-emission, renewable energy – known as “green hydrogen” – and used in a fuel cell is truly carbon-free and pollution-free. But fossil fuel advocates downplay this fact and want us to think that many types of hydrogen gas will play a big role in the clean energy transition. This is wrong.
Based on our recent Equity Fund policy brief, Hydrogen Gas: A False Promise, we dispel what does and does not have a potential role in a truly clean and equitable energy transition. In Part 1, we describe what is incompatible with a climate-just future.
Most Types and Uses of Hydrogen Do Not Have A Role In An Equitable Clean Energy Transition
The following do more harm than good for our climate, environment, and communities, and ultimately have NO role in an equitable clean energy transition:
Hydrogen produced from fossil gas and CCS, nuclear energy, biomethane and biomass: All of these methods maintain and/or worsen environmental pollution and long-standing injustices. In fact, hydrogen relying on carbon capture (if carbon capture is even feasible) is shown to be more polluting than just burning fossil fuels.
Like in New Mexico, the most frequent and dangerous claim is how current gas-powered plants can be retrofitted to burn fossil fuels blended with hydrogen (e.g., West Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania). At least 96% of hydrogen is currently made from fossil fuels, with already-devastating air and water pollution impacts to frontline communities.
Hydrogen that is burned and/or blended with fossil gas to power cars, buses, short-haul trucks, homes, and buildings: Regardless of how it is produced, burning hydrogen generates significant air pollution. Burning pure hydrogen would emit more than six times as much nitrous oxides (a health-damaging pollutant) as burning fossil gas.
“Hydrogen blending” claims from gas companies raises serious concerns. First, blending too much hydrogen with fossil gas can create major safety hazards, such as explosions, because the existing pipelines were not designed to handle hydrogen (the ceiling is typically ~20% hydrogen blends, which would have minimal climate benefits). Second, hydrogen leaks easily so even in moderate leakage situations, hydrogen emissions could increase near-term warming.
Much More Expensive - And Who Will Burden The Costs?
Above all, hydrogen gas is simply not economical. It is more expensive, less efficient, more water-intensive, and less safe than direct electrification. Modern electric space heaters and water heaters require 1/6th the renewable energy of hydrogen-gas-powered appliances. Especially when it comes to powering our homes, pushing for more expensive, potentially explosive hydrogen/fossil gas blends is simply irresponsible when cheaper, safer, and zero-emission options exist.
“At least 96% of hydrogen is currently made from fossil fuels, with already-devastating air and water pollution impacts to frontline communities.”
The upfront costs are also enormous. In order to burn hydrogen as a fuel, massive and expensive infrastructure upgrades will need to be made to transport and store hydrogen. And history tells us that costs will ultimately become the burden of the consumer. For example, a hydrogen proposal from an investor-owned utility in California shows they could only make the “several hundreds of millions of dollars” of infrastructure upgrades work by shifting costs to ratepayers.
When the promise of “clean” hydrogen hubs entails CCS and other unproven “clean” production methods, blending with fossil gas, and expensive gas infrastructure upgrades, the promise is false. Frontline communities like the Navajo in New Mexico will continue to suffer, and our chances for an equitable, clean energy transition are at deep risk.
In Part 2, we describe better alternatives for clean energy solutions and – with caution – the limited roles truly green and pollution-free hydrogen could play. Read here.
For more information on the problems with relying on hydrogen gas, flaws in arguments made by the fossil fuel industries, and alternative policy paths, check out the full policy brief.
Jillian Du is the research and engagement strategist at the Equity Fund.
