All You Need to Know About Hydrogen Gas and Why It Won’t Save Us

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.” 

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. 

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.

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. 

Perhaps the worst consequence of the outsized attention on hydrogen gas is that it distracts from more viable and cheaper climate solutions and policies. And, more importantly, these solutions are available now. The only clean type of hydrogen – green hydrogen (produced with zero-emission renewable energy) – could only be produced on a large-scale sometime in the 2030s, and that’s according to the most optimistic predictions. 

Clean Energy Solutions That Improve, Not Harm, Our Communities

For the vast majority of our everyday lives, better energy alternatives should be deployed before limited uses of green hydrogen should even be considered, including:

• Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, to meet rising demand and to decarbonize the electricity, energy, and transportation sectors
• Energy storage to meet needs after the sun goes down
• Demand-side management to increase energy efficiency and reduce the need for substitute fuels like hydrogen gas
• Electric alternatives for appliances, buses, cars, etc., which are more efficient, cost-effective, and pollution-free compared to using hydrogen gas

Overall, the best course of action is to double down on clean, renewable energy to generate electricity wherever and whenever possible. This would create more jobs and improve, rather than harm, our local communities. In addition, we need fundamental changes in how we move, live, build, and govern to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy. 

Limited Roles for Green Hydrogen, Only As A Last Resort 

When the aforementioned pathways fall short, hydrogen gas may play a role when both of the following circumstances are met:

• Require hydrogen production to be pollution-free and green: The only carbon-free way to produce hydrogen is through electrolysis powered by renewable, zero-emission energy. Policies spurring investments in hydrogen must clearly define “green hydrogen.” For example, Illinois defines “green hydrogen” as producing “zero carbon and copollutant emissions… using 100% renewable zero carbon emission energy.” 
• Require green hydrogen to be used in fuel cells only in difficult-to-electrify sectors: Fuel cells in vehicles using hydrogen gas, assuming no leakages, are emission-free. But fuel cells are more inefficient, costly, and highly flammable compared to battery-powered electrification, so they should only be deployed in specific cases such as in long-haul trucks and trains. With careful decision-making and design, larger stationary fuel cells using hydrogen gas can provide energy for difficult-to-electrify sectors, such as aviation and maritime shipping. 

Cutting Through The Hype

The bottom line is that hydrogen combustion and anything other than green hydrogen should have no place in an equitable clean energy transition. Gas companies and hydrogen advocates will overlook what is truly green, pollution-free, and cost-effective for consumers, and call for an “all-of-the-above” hydrogen production approach reliant on dirty and polluting methods. These claims are dangerous and detrimental, as the hype around hydrogen will only hinder the zero-emission future we need for the climate-just world we deserve. 

We cannot wait another decade or two for investments in hydrogen hubs to tell us what we know already: the future of hydrogen is overpromised, at best.