Happy New Year! As we march toward 2024, the need for a cleaner economy remains as important as ever. A quarter into the 21st century, and a quarter away from the proverbial 2050 net-zero deadline, in the quest of energy transition, humans have achieved quite a lot, but they have also fumbled a lot.
Looking Back on Energy Transition: The Good and the Bad
In industrialized countries, greenhouse gas emissions have peaked and are slowly coming down thanks to renewable energy becoming more mainstream in the electric power sector. New scientific and technological breakthroughs have contributed to the increasing popularity of vehicles that run on alternative fuels and powertrains (e.g., hybrid, battery electric, natural gas). Both private and public sectors have continued to invest in nascent but promising clean energy innovations such as clean hydrogen, carbon capture and utilization, sustainable aviation and marine fuels, modular nuclear with advanced reactors, and energy storage solutions.
But at the same time, GHG emissions continue to rise globally. As underdeveloped countries’ standard of living rise, their energy consumptions will also rise. None of these countries will voluntarily reduce energy consumption (thus sacrificing economic development) to make a dent in GHG emissions, especially when large and developed nations like the United States are the biggest polluters. Some of the highlights of the last few climate change conferences include confusing signals, weak and non-binding agreements, and finger-pointing among representatives on who bears the responsibility of climate loss and damage, as well as who should fund climate resilience, mitigation, and adaptation.
Top Clean Energy and Climate Issues to Tackle in 2024
Given the track record, needless to say, a lot remains to be done. But given current progress, it isn’t possible, feasible, nor realistic to act on all fronts. However, some issues are often considered critical for laying the foundation of a clean and sustainable economy. Here, I propose a few top priorities to tackle, as their importance can vary based on regional contexts, immediate challenges, and the urgency of certain environmental threats:
Transition to Renewable Energy: Shifting away from fossil fuels is a key step to mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. Carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture technologies are still not ready for deployment, for now, the best way to reduce emissions is to shift toward carbon free and low carbon fuel sources.
Energy Efficiency: Improving energy efficiency is still a cost-effective way to reduce overall energy consumption and decrease environmental impact. Improving energy efficiency also has the added benefit of lowering energy costs and saving money.
Sustainable Transportation: Transforming transportation systems to be more sustainable is crucial for reducing emissions and promoting cleaner modes of travel. As developing countries continue to improve their economic well-beings, demand for private automobiles is expected to increase.
Circular Economy: Moving towards a circular economy helps minimize waste and encourages the responsible use and disposal of products. We simply send too much junk into the landfills and are failing spectacularly on the 3Rs.
Carbon Pricing: Implementing effective carbon pricing mechanisms provides economic incentives for businesses to reduce their carbon footprint. Despite the recent surge in carbon price ($190 per ton), we can expect it to go up.
Technological Innovation: Investing in clean technologies and innovations can drive systemic change across various industries. Technological innovation on cleantech and climate tech may also reduce the burden on climate mitigation and adaptation.
Environmental Regulation and Governance: Strong environmental governance ensures that industries operate responsibly and adhere to sustainability standards. We all know that the private marginal environmental cost and the social marginal environmental cost are completely misaligned. But no one is currently incentivized to align the two.
International Collaboration: Global cooperation is essential for addressing environmental challenges that transcend national borders, such as climate change. But will future climate change conferences be mired in further infighting, finger pointing, and political bickering?
**Note: This is part 2 of the DOE H2 Hubs series
The previous post looked at the feedstock of the 7 winning H2 Hubs. This time, we will look at the use cases proposed by these hubs. Collectively, these hubs are expected to produce a collective three million metric tons of hydrogen annually—30% of DOE’s 10 million metric tons/year goal by 2030.
Hydrogen: Jack of All Trades, Master of None?
Hydrogen is the Swiss-Army Knife of energy, able to do many things across various greenhouse gas emitting sectors. But, just as you won’t use a Swiss-Army Knife for all possible purposes, you also won’t use hydrogen for everything you could possibly do with it. (Michael Liebreich has a pretty good analogy in his old Hydrogen Ladder post.) As much hype as hydrogen is receiving in the cleantech space, the reality is that it will have to be competitive compared to incumbent energy sources. Clean hydrogen will need to be cheaper, better, more scalable, safer, more convenient than other solutions in order to win its way into the global economy.
In other words, if clean hydrogen is to be an integral part of the clean economy, the hubs will need to successfully demonstrated hydrogen’s role in various end-uses. And that’s why we are talking about the proposed use cases. But right now, clean hydrogen is a jack of all trade and a master of none.
DOE’s End-Use Diversity Focus
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA) required four end-use sectors to be included in the hubs: industry, transportation, power, and residential and commercial heating. Furthermore, the DOE funding opportunity announcement (FOA) was specifically looking for end-use diversity.
Frankly, the explicit inclusion of residential and commercial heating in the FOA is strange. For space heating in buildings, heat pumps are better and more efficient than hydrogen. Using renewable energy like wind to generate hydrogen and then using hydrogen for heat has a system efficiency of ~50%, compared to over 100% for heat pumps.
Another strange decision from the FOA is that DOE doesn’t seem to differentiate between use cases within a sector. For example, within the transportation sector, while hydrogen can be an excellent fuel candidate for aviation (IPCC category 1A3a) and shipping (IPCC category 1A3d), it is a poor choice for on-road light-duty vehicles (IPCC categories 1A3bi and 1A3bii).
Examining the Use Case Diversity of the 7 H2 Hubs
Here is a summary of the proposed end-uses of the 7 winning hubs:
At first glance, the selected hubs do appear to have a diverse proposed use cases collectively, spanning the transportation, industry, agriculture, and the buildings sectors as well as power generation. As expected, transportation and industry have the most sub-sectors and activities listed as proposed end-uses.
Heavy-duty transportation (trucking, buses) lead the way, with 5 hubs proposing it as an end-use, followed by power generation and aviation with 3 hubs.
But is the pursuit of diverse end uses at the expense of optimal allocation of use cases?
It is complicated to say. On one hand, hydrogen may be great for application such as hydrogenation and hydrocracking (a source of diesel and jet fuels), but these applications are rather niche and make up only a sliver of total GHG emissions. On the other hand, hydrogen’s competitiveness varies greatly even within a sub-sector. For example, international shipping, river cruises, and local ferries all fall under the shipping, a transportation sub-sector. Hydrogen ranges from having great potential for decarbonizing international shipping to being uncompetitive for local ferries (where battery-powered ferries may be more suited).
Interestingly, Heartland is the only winning hub that has space heating as a proposed end use while also being the only one without any transportation end-uses. Meanwhile, ARCHES is the only one that has public transportation as a proposed use case. But the problem is, public transportation just doesn’t need hydrogen in most cases. Shuttles and buses don’t travel long distances in a given day, stops frequently to pick up and drop off passengers, have predictable routes, and have depots to return to at the end of every drive shift. Their drive cycles and duty cycles favor battery-powered versions over hydrogen fuel-cell ones. Trains? Probably easier and more economically feasible to electrify the tracks instead.
What about trucks? The majority of the trucks on the road are regional. They might not cover enough miles for hydrogen to make sense. Regional trucks also tend to have a base to return to at the end of shift like buses. That leaves long-distance trucks, which make up a fraction of the trucking fleet but travel a disproportionately large share of vehicle miles. Hydrogen fuel cell could make sense, but current FCEV trucks are multiple times more expensive than diesel-powered trucks or even BEV trucks.
Finally, use cases where hydrogen could really make sense (e.g., fertilizer, ammonia, methanol, and steel production) aren’t popular: each has only 1-2 hubs proposing as end uses. And of these use cases, only fertilizer has no alternative to hydrogen; the rest can be produced using either biofuels or electricity or powered by batteries.
Conclusion
Did DOE miss the mark in the selection process with respect to use cases? Maybe, maybe not. Sure, there are better or worse use cases for hydrogen. Some of these hubs might not even make it to later stages of funding or live up to their promises. But for now, we can expect clean hydrogen supply to remain limited for many years to come. DOE should focus its investments on use cases where hydrogen is irreplaceable instead of making many bets across several use cases.
]]>
All Aboard the Hydrogen Hubs Hype Train
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on Friday announced its selection of 7 much anticipated regional hydrogen hubs (H2Hubs), totalling $7 billion in awards. These hubs are located in various parts of the U.S.—the Appalachia, California, the Gulf Coast, the Northern Great Plains, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest. Collectively, these hubs are expected to produce a collective three million metric tons of hydrogen annually—30% of DOE’s 10 million metric tons/year goal by 2030.
The following table summarizes these 7 H2Hubs:
Hydrogen can be produced from diverse domestic resources and used across sectors. Production can be centralized or decentralized, grid-connected or off-grid, offering scalability, versatility, and regionality. Hydrogen can be produced from several technology pathways, feedstocks, and have several potential end-uses. It is no wonder that the Biden administration is all-in on the hydrogen hype train.
Recall that the funding opportunity announcement (DE-FOA-0002779) has three selection criteria focused on diversity: feedstock diversity, end-use diversity, and geographic diversity (see excerpt above). At first glance, the selected H2Hubs have covered these three fronts very well. But is that the whole story?
Hydrogen Hubs: A Cash Grab for Big Oil and Gas?
4 out of 7 H2Hubs (ARCH2, HyVelocity H2Hub, Heartland, and MachH2) will produce hydrogen using natural gas, a fossil fuel. This means over half of the H2 hubs will produce so-called blue hydrogen (using fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage). Right now, blue hydrogen is cheaper but dirtier than hydrogen produced from electrolysis from renewable energy and nuclear energy. Of these hubs, ARCH2 will produce hydrogen exclusively from fossil fuel.
Indeed, industry partners backing these 4 hubs include major oil and gas companies. See the table below.
Unfortunately, even the hubs that plan to produce hydrogen using electricity generated from renewable energy and/or nuclear energy aren’t blameless either. In a previous post, I wrote that a lot of renewable energy are waiting to be interconnected due to grid backlog. the grid is woefully outdated and there are not enough transmission lines to support the transition from a fossil fuel-based electric system to a decarbonized energy grid. This means the H2Hubs that plan to produce hydrogen from electrolysis should not divert clean energy from the grid. Otherwise emissions from electricity generation would increase.
Except for ARCH2, these hubs plan to use several methods for hydrogen production, but the exact mix may change depending on which projects make it through the DOE negotiations process. Although the Biden administration has emphasized that roughly two-thirds of the $7 billion pot is associated with the production of hydrogen from renewable energy, it’s too early to tell what the final result would look like (these hub demonstrations will run until around 2032, providing that they meet the milestones set by DOE.)
The next post will look at the end-uses proposed by these hubs.
]]>