The Promise of Blue Hydrogen
Blue hydrogen, to produce hydrogen by reforming natural gas and capturing the resulting CO₂, has been positioned as a low-carbon “bridge” fuel. It offers a way for energy companies to keep using existing natural gas infrastructure while reducing carbon emissions, at least in theory.
But What Does the Data Say?
-
1. Higher Overall GHG Emissions Than Direct Fossil Fuel Use
Leading analysis by Cornell and Stanford researchers found that when considering both CO₂ and fugitive methane emissions, blue hydrogen’s lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint can be 20% greater than simply burning natural gas or coal, and 60% higher than burning diesel oil for heat. This startling result stems largely from additional methane leaks due to increased natural gas use to power carbon capture, as well as the fossil fuel–dependent steam reforming process itself.
Moreover, even under assumptions of 85% CO₂ capture and indefinite sequestration, optimistic conditions not realized in practice, blue hydrogen still fails to outperform direct fossil fuel combustion.
-
2. Challenges with Carbon Capture at Scale
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology remains largely unproven at commercial scale, especially for hydrogen production. Actual capture performance often falls short of industry claims. For example, Shell’s Quest facility in Canadaachieved capture rates of 77–83%, but when additional emissions from powering CCS were included, the effective rate dropped to 68%, well below the advertised 90–95% target.
This suggests that blue hydrogen may lock in continued reliance on fossil fuels, rather than serving as a genuine step toward decarbonisation.
Broader Perspectives and Criticisms
Some industry experts push back on these findings, questioning the assumptions used, especially around methane leakage rates and energy penalties for carbon capture. One critic argues that the study may have double-counted energy costs and underestimated achievable capture efficiencies, citing ammonia or carbon monoxide plants as examples of industries that approach 99% capture.
Yet peer reviews and engineers have defended the original study’s robustness. For instance, David Cebon (Cambridge University) applauded the study’s rigor and highlighted that including CO₂ sequestration risks would likely worsen blue hydrogen’s climate profile even more.
Why It Matters
- Risk of Greenwashing: Blue hydrogen can appear to be a path to lower emissions, but without effective CO₂ capture and leakage control, it may offer false solutions that delay real progress toward zero-carbon energy.
- Policy Implications: Governments in the US, UK, EU, and beyond are investing in blue hydrogen projects. But these investments might entrench fossil fuel infrastructure and misallocate public funds, instead of accelerating green alternatives.
- The Better Alternative: Truly green hydrogen, made via water electrolysis powered by renewables, avoids fossil feedstocks entirely. Though currently more expensive, renewable hydrogen has a genuinely low-carbon profile and aligns with long-term climate goals.
Haush – The Verdict on Blue Hydrogen
|
Factor
|
Blue Hydrogen
|
Direct Natural Gas Use
|
|---|---|---|
| Lifecycle GHG emissions | Often higher (≥ 20%) | Baseline |
| CO₂ capture reliability | Questionable at scale | N/A |
| Methane leakage | High due to added processes | Significant but lower |
| Climate suitability | Potential distraction from decarbonization | Clear fossil fuel path |
While blue hydrogen may appear attractive in a transition toward cleaner energy, peer-reviewed data repeatedly highlight its higher total emissions and reliance on unproven CCS technology. For climate integrity, investments and policies should prioritise green hydrogen or direct electrification methods.
The post Blue Hydrogen: A Cleaner Alternative, or a Climate Challenge in Disguise? first appeared on Haush.