For Many, Hydrogen Is the Fuel of the Future. New Research Raises Doubts.

[Zorro]

Industry has been promoting hydrogen as a reliable, next-generation fuel to power cars, heat homes and generate electricity. It may, in fact, be worse for the climate than previously thought.

It is seen by many as the clean energy of the future. Billions of dollars from the bipartisan infrastructure bill have been teed up to fund it.

But a new peer-reviewed study on the climate effects of hydrogen, the most abundant substance in the universe, casts doubt on its role in tackling the greenhouse gas emissions that are the driver of catastrophic global warming.

The main stumbling block: Most hydrogen used today is extracted from natural gas in a process that requires a lot of energy and emits vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Producing natural gas also releases methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas.

And while the natural gas industry has proposed capturing that carbon dioxide — creating what it promotes as emissions-free, “blue” hydrogen — even that fuel still emits more across its entire supply chain than simply burning natural gas, according to the paper, published Thursday in the Energy Science & Engineering journal by researchers from Cornell and Stanford Universities.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/climate/hydrogen-fuel-natural-gas-pollution.html

[brush]

1. Have they solved the flammability problem?

It's explosive.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. You'd kind of expect a combustible fuel to be flammable.

Note that the Hindenburg did not explode. It burned.

The problem with hydrogen is more basic than that.

[brush]

3. It burned from a spark. So have they solved the flammability problem?

Why the switch was made to helium dirigibles?

[Jim__]

4. Joule: A framework for a hydrogen economy

I can't read the cited Times article - paywall. But there is an very readable, short essay in the peer-reviewd journal Joule on using hydrogen as a source of energy. This article obviously takes a different point of view from the Times article, but I doubt anything in it contradicts anything in the Times article.

The Introduction of the essay in Joule:

...

If the world is to avoid exceeding the Paris Agreement goal of 2°C for the global average temperature rise, the deployment of current solar, wind, and battery technologies for the grid and mobility is necessary, but far from sufficient. A zero-carbon electricity grid with nuclear power and carbon capture for fossil fuel use is also insufficient. A chemical form of energy storage that can enable zero-carbon transportation and provide high-temperature industrial heat is also needed.

Hydrogen (H2) that is free of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is emerging as a prime candidate for these purposes. Hydrogen and its derivatives such as ammonia1 are receiving significant attention and resources in Europe2 and Japan;3 the possibility of a “hydrogen economy” is being revisited in the United States.4 Designations such as gray, green, blue, and turquoise hydrogen are entering the lexicon, often evoking strong sentiments and opinions. But rarely do the public discussions offer a systems view of a hydrogen infrastructure that includes production, transport, storage, and use—and, most importantly, its economic viability.