Green Hydrogen as a Fuel is a Zombie Meme
Paul Martin
Chemical process development expert. Antidote to marketing #hopium . Tireless advocate for a fossil fuel-free future.
TL&DR summary:? hydrogen as a fuel is a zombie idea.? Thermodynamics and the properties of the molecule ensure that it will never be alive in economic terms.? Hydrogen’s dirty present hasn’t meaningfully changed over the last 20 years, and hydrogen as a fuel isn’t a real decarbonization idea.? However, while it will never be alive, don’t be too hopeful- you can’t kill it.? It’s a meme.? It is the simpleminded answer you get when you ask the wrong questions about decarbonization.? And it’s too valuable as a predatory delay strategy to ever be truly abandoned.
I’ve seen a lot of claims in recent days, that the hydrogen as a fuel #hopium epidemic is showing signs of coming to an end.? That the hydrogen hyperbole bubble is popping.? That the hydrogen souffle, as Michael Liebreich calls it, is collapsing.? Governments and major businesses are starting to wake up and smell the rotten stench arising from the idea that decarbonization was as simple as substituting what gas flows in the natural gas pipelines, or swapping which fuel is used in vehicle and aircraft engines. They're starting to realize that their subsidy schemes won't result in hydrogen cheap enough to serve as a fossil fuel substitute- even after spending trillions.? While these high profile cancellations and project collapses are all good, hopeful signs, this article serves as a warning.? Those who are hoping that the hydrogen hyperbole will rapidly shrink back to the nothing upon which it was based, are not being realistic.? Hydrogen as a fuel isn’t a simple idea, or alternative among many, or tool in the toolbox etc.:? it’s a meme- an idea that spreads by imitation.? And while you can combat a meme, killing one outright is very difficult.
My previous writings have explained in detail that hydrogen is a massive commodity chemical, made the same way that it was 20 years ago:? 99% of it is made from fossils such as natural gas and coal, with carbon capture nowhere in sight.? It is made where and when its unique properties as a chemical are required. Almost no hydrogen is made today by the deliberate electrolysis of water using dedicated new renewable electricity resources. ?Hydrogen is rarely transported, and rarely burned as a fuel, unless it’s a byproduct without any other practical use nearby, or when it’s mixed with a bunch of low value gases to the point where its only value is its heat energy value.? The ~ 120 million tonnes of yearly world hydrogen production, both as a pure gas and as hydrogen in syngas, generates as much as 4% of world GHG emissions today- more than aviation, and almost as much as aviation and shipping combined.
Hydrogen is therefore a massive decarbonization problem, not a decarbonization solution to much of anything.
The notion that we will use renewable electricity to make hydrogen for use as a fossil fuel substitute, however, remains popular in the public imagination.? Why is that?? Because the concept satisfies an important human need:? the need for familiarity.? We’ve spent 800,000 years as a species, burning stuff whenever we needed heat.? Very old ideas like that are almost woven into our DNA- they are very difficult to remove and re-think.
If you ask yourself the wrong question:? “We can’t burn fossils any more because of global warming.? What else can we burn?”, you often get hydrogen as a simpleminded answer.? Therein lies the mematic nature of the “hydrogen as a fuel” concept.
This is very similar to a story told about Dimitri Mendeleev.? People asked the great chemist, father of the periodic table, what he thought about burning petroleum as a heating fuel.? He said, “I suppose you could also keep warm by burning banknotes in the kitchen stove.” ??Wasting hydrogen for low value uses for which it is poorly suited, is very much like burning petroleum- a precious, finite resource, of incredible value as a feedstock for making tens of thousands of materials and chemicals.? Even while we didn’t know for sure that the atmosphere wasn’t a free and limitless public sewer, Mendeleev saw the inherent waste in that decision. ?And burning hydrogen- just like burning banknotes, or petroleum- is the “let them eat cake” of the energy transition.? It works as a concept only under the influence of #hopium about future prices, and OPM, i.e. “other people’s money”.
?For hydrogen, it’s even worse- because petroleum derived gasoline and diesel and jet fuel are highly effective fuels, even though they are burned in comparatively inefficient engines.? The effectiveness- arising from the ease with which these energy dense liquids can be moved and stored- outweighed their inefficiency, at least until we understood global warming.? The need to collect or eliminate their combustion CO2 emissions, totally destroyed their effectiveness as transport fuels.
Sadly, hydrogen, when wasted as a fuel, is neither efficient nor effective.? And its properties, and its thermodynamics, ensure that it will never be either when it is wasted in that way.
And no, it’s not getting as cheap as some seem to imagine.
When you ask yourself the right question:? “We can’t burn fossils any more because of global warming.? How else can we make the energy services we need, without generating fossil GHG emissions?” , the answer to that question is rarely hydrogen!
Certainly not as a vehicle fuel.
Not even as a fuel for “hard to decarbonize” vehicles like transoceanic ships and aircraft. ?The ineffectiveness arising from hydrogen’s extremely low energy density per unit volume, even as an ultra-cryogenic liquid, kill those ideas dead- once you’ve spent a few minutes looking into the details.? So instead, we see people focusing on using hydrogen to make fuels from water-derived electrolytic hydrogen and CO2, or even worse, from nitrogen.? Trading even more efficiency in a vain attempt to gain some effectiveness. E-fuels range from the absurdly expensive and wasteful of public subsidy, to the dangerously ridiculous.
Certainly also not as a heating fuel.
Not for homes and commercial spaces, where now about 60 independent studies have panned the idea as just what it is:? expensive nonsense, intended to keep us feeling happy about burning fossil gas for longer.
And not even for high temperature heating.? No, it still makes more sense to make heat from electricity directly, than indirectly through turning part of the energy in electricity into chemical energy in a fuel.? Not even for cement clinkering kilns.
It’s literally as simple as my Drake meme:? if you’re thinking the hydrogen you’re making is green, if the local grid isn’t green, you’re wrong- even if your project is islanded.? Remember that even in the best case, “green” hydrogen isn’t totally free of GHG emissions.
And even if the local grid is green, the focus must remain on the decarbonization of the easy to decarbonize sectors via direct electrification.? That’s going to yield the biggest reductions in GHG emission per dollar spent.? Only once that obvious problem is solved, should we begin to concern ourselves with making green hydrogen to replace black hydrogen, in applications where its unique chemical properties are needed.
?And only after that is accomplished, should we be concerning ourselves with building new applications for green hydrogen as a chemical- the direct reduction of iron being an obvious one.
So:? what can we expect?? We can expect more plans, targets and studies.? More public money wasted on what is fundamentally a dead end.? A gradual morphing of the idea of hydrogen as a decarbonization panacea, to a narrower and narrower focus on industrial decarbonization (industries who can be enticed to participate in the scam by subsidies).? The shrinking of the concept of hydrogen as a fuel for cars and light trucks, to one for heavy trucks and heavy equipment- where it will also, gradually, fail.? And away from home heating to industrial heating, where it will similarly fail, for the same reasons: ?the cost per tonne of CO2e emissions averted is just way, way too high.? Project plans will continue to be delayed or cancelled, failing to find willing offtakers at realistic prices for the product.
But will the idea die one day?? No way.? It will remain for a long, long time.? Because it serves a key, important purpose:? it delays real decarbonization action.? It keeps us happy to burn fossils, for longer, in the false hope that the propellor-headed engineers and scientists will invent us a decarbonization strategy that allows us to keep doing what we’re comfortable with, without extra cost or a need to change anything.? It provides a nice, simpleminded fuel substitution- off at some point comfortably in the future, so we can keep burning fossils for now with less guilt about it.? And there will be plenty of charlatans, shysters, and snake oil salespeople out there to sell the public and our politicians on this simpleminded notion.
Disclaimer:? ?this article was written by a human, and hence is subject to error.? Provide me with corrections with good references and I will gratefully correct my work.
However, if your principal concern is that I’ve taken a dump on your pet idea, please contact my employer, Spitfire Research Inc., who will be happy to tell you to piss off and write your own article.
Principal at Clarity Environment
3 小时前Untill our grid is decarbonised, so-called “Green Hydrogen” isn’t green at all causing 3 times the emissions of “Grey” hydrogen from gas and so-called “Green Steel” made with “Green Hydrogen” has 4 times the consequential emisssions of steel from coal. This all changes the moment new renewable power stops displacing coal fired power from our grids. https://johnmenadue.com/the-green-hydrogen-myth/
no such thing as green hydrogen or blue hydrogen both put high demand on power and water utilities. Enbridge & Yara will take methane (CH4) from the West Texas oilfields, strip the hydrogen out and release the Carbon into the atmosphere. only then, the H is "clean." What's wrong with this picture?
Delivering ‘Off Grid’ Green Energy Projects using Micro-Hydro and Hydrogen
20 小时前The stupidity of the headline is laughable - because fossil fuel based energy is essentially…”Zombie Energy”????????
Process Engg. Profsnl. : SME in Reaction Eng;Unit Ops;Equipment Design;Material Synthesis & Catalysis; Process Modeling;Scale-Up;Troubleshooting & Optimization,Six-Sigma certified;strategic mindset for sustainability.
3 天前https://h2-tech.com/news/2025/02-2025/air-products-exits-three-u-s-projects-takes-write-down-not-to-exceed-3-1-b/?oly_enc_id=9463D5096034C1T
Researcher at NREL
3 天前"If you publish a peer-reviewed article that presents well-supported arguments with legitimate references or calculations—rather than relying on personal opinions—it contributes meaningfully to the field. Keeping discussions professional and constructive, without personal attacks, ensures a positive and respectful academic exchange. Thank you for upholding these principles!"