Why use 'molecules' if we generate 'electrons'?

In the future, wind and sun will cover our energy needs and replace fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. We harvest wind and sun as power, that is: in the form of electrons. However, in 2020, ~ 90% of our primary energy was fed into our energy system in the form of molecules, mostly from as coal, oil or gas. And ~ 80% was also consumed in molecular form (see graph below which I took from an analysis done by PWC). So, today we live in a 'molecule world' - what if more and more energy will be generated in the form of electrons? What will the impact on the consumer side be? Wouldn't it then be more efficient to use energy directly in the form of electrons as well?

The answer is: it depends. If your electric car is connected to a wallbox at home when the sun is shining on your solar roof, that's perfect. And there will be many more use cases with direct power usage than today. However, there are three good reasons why energy in the form of molecules will continue to play a major role in the future - across all sectors:

1. Chemistry and industry need the molecule. Today, steel is produced using coal and coke and generating about 7% of global CO2 emissions [1]. If these are to be reduced, a molecular alternative is needed. Science and industry are focusing on green hydrogen, i.e. hydrogen generated from water using wind and solar power. This helps to reduce CO2 emissions (in today's dominating Integrated Steelmaking process in blast furnaces) or to eliminate them (using a process called Direct Reduced Iron or DRI) [2]. The chemical industry also requires oil and gas. Today, it requires 14% of the world's fossil raw materials to produce plastics, fertilizers or pharmaceutical products based on the fossil molecules [3, 4]. Alternatively, the basic materials required here, ammonia or methanol, can be produced fossil-free with green hydrogen.
2. Energy must be transported and stored. Today, we live in a world in which primary energy supply takes place where fossil raw materials (coal, oil and gas) occur and can be extracted economically. We then import these (in Germany for example, 70% of its energy demand is imported). The new 'oil and gas producers' in a fossil-free world, will be the countries with the most sunshine hours per day and available land [5]. Germany will not be one of them. So, to meet our energy needs, we will have to continue to import energy. Over long distances, it is more efficient and cheaper to do this in the form of molecules [6]. In addition, whenever generation and use are separated in time, storage is needed. Depending on the scale, hydrogen has a clear (cost) advantage.
3. There are two zero-emission solutions for mobility: Driving electric cars with batteries is commonly described as 'direct use' of electricity. Undeniably and for good reasons, the course has been set in the direction of a battery-electric mass market. However, before rushing to see only one solution for everything in transport, one should consider the overall picture: After all, electricity is only used directly in the lifecycle phase in which the electric car is driven [8]. However, one aspect is often overlooked: when the car drives its first kilometer, significant amounts of 'electrons' have already been invested: a lot of electricity and thermal energy is needed during battery production. And this 'investment' increases proportionally to the size of the battery, in addition to the CO2 that is released in the process. The hydrogen and fuel cell system has a structural advantage here: the storage of energy (in the tank) is separate from generation of power (in the fuel cell). From a lifecycle resource perspective, the FCEV is the more reasonable solution when large amounts of energy are needed - to travel long distances or to transport heavy loads. Thats why I am convinced that it will also become the significantly more cost-effective solution for these applications in the medium term.

In summary: in order to use the full potential of our planet for solar and wind power, green hydrogen molecules are necessary. Industry cannot do without them, and transport should not: therefore, I cannot get tired to emphasise that green (hydrogen) molecules and green electrons are not opponents but natural allies across all sectors on the mission to using our planets resources most efficiently and make our energy system CO2 -free.

SOURCES:

[1] Here is a concise overview of the different methods from The Conversation

[2] The challenge is described in a well structured article by the steel manufacturer BHP (not entirely independent though).

[3] See this IEA report about the Chemicals sector.

[4] After steel and cement production, the chemical industry is the world's third-largest industrial CO2 emitter.

[5] See here in the EIA Country Briefing.

[6] Electricity from current PV projects has become the "cheapest electricity in history" due to drastic cost reductions.

[7] A standard pipeline can transfer up to ten times as much energy as a 380-kilovolt twin overhead power line with a rating of 1.5 gigawatts, at about one fourteenth of specific cost.?

[8] Not to mention the sometimes considerable charging losses in winter or with ultra-high-power charging in any case. And of the fact that with an increasing number of BEVs, intermediate storage will also become necessary - see current developments where hydrogen is converted back into electricity on site to enable fast charging.