The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 creates the opportunity for up to $100 billion in federal tax and production credits, known collectively as Section 45V credits. Now, $100 billion is a lot of money, which means those who have no right to it will try to game the system in order to line their own pockets with some of that lovely federal money even if they don’t deserve it. Not surprisingly, two of the world’a largest fossil fuel companies — ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco — want Uncle Sugar to dole our a big chunk of the money to them so they can make dirty hydrogen from methane.
Hydrogen
Earlier this year, MAN trucks’ CEO Alexander Vlaskamp told reporters that it was, “impossible for hydrogen to effectively compete with battery electric trucks.”
He was right then, and he’s still right now. “It’s one thing to have the technology and another thing for the technology to be viable,” Vlaskamp told the magazine Expansión (translated from Spanish). “Green hydrogen is not available for transportation and there is no point in switching from diesel to hydrogen if the energy source is not sustainable.”
With absolutely zero costs in the document, Hong Kong’s ‘strategy’ on hydrogen fails the Rumelt test. The fundamental problem with hydrogen is that in any form, including unabated fossil hydrogen, it’s far more expensive to manufacture, distribute, and use than fossil gases it purports to replace, and it’s far more expensive than electrification full lifecycle. In many cases, it’s just more expensive for initial capital costs.
I’m going to stop calling the document a strategy. It’s a hydrogen marketing and climate action delay document. From now on, I’ll refer to it as the hydrogen marketing document.
Towering ambitions predominate European hydrogen policy. Politicians believe this energy carrier can help greenify the industry, heat houses, and make air and road transport climate-neutral. But these goals are unrealistic, and politicians are being fooled by the fossil fuel industry, says energy analyst Michael Liebreich. ‘The political body has no antibodies. There is no scepticism at all.’
For anyone curious about the origins of all the hydrogen hype that has recently made its way to Canada — including Nova Scotia as the Halifax Examiner has reported extensively — the European investigative publication, “Follow The Money” has a fascinating article called “How one professor made the EU fall in love with hydrogen.”
Batteries’ domination is likely to be extended as the money pouring into research and infrastructure addresses questions of range and charging times. Compared with that flood of investment, hydrogen is a trickle.
Hydrogen’s advocates now face the question of whether they can build profitable businesses in longer-distance, heavy-duty road transport. They need an answer soon on where they will source enough green, cheap hydrogen – and whether the gas would be better used elsewhere.
About 25 years ago, hydrogen was the solution of choice for climate-aware technocrats and politicians, and with good reason. At the time, there really wasn’t much choice in terms of low-carbon energy carriers. Batteries were good enough for laptops and phones, but clearly no one was going to be running transportation, heating or grid storage with them.
And besides, you could make hydrogen with electricity, something first done in 1800, and a staple of kids’ science classes as early as grade 4. Easy to make, high energy density and you didn’t even have to burn the stuff. You could use fuel cells, and again, those were really old technology with the first one constructed in 1842, and fuel cells used in Gemini spacecraft as far back as 1962. What’s not to love?
Over the past year or so, as the hydrogen for energy hype bubble has started to leak badly, a clear indicator of the end times for hydrogen energy proponents has started to emerge, anger and hostility. Why is this a clear indicator? Let’s cast our minds back eight years. Sometime before then I’d created the above continuum of climate change denial positions, from utter and mind-boggling refusal to accept reality all the way to the tiny category of people who thought it would be worse than it is going to be. As I noted at the time, Climate Change Deniers Are Getting Angrier & Here’s Why.
As I observed, it was all about cognitive dissonance.
So, to sum up, hydrogen refueling stations in the biggest public data set, covering 55 stations over six years with millions of kilograms of hydrogen having been delivered, show that hydrogen stations are out of service 20% more time than they are pumping hydrogen and that annual maintenance costs are 15% of capex, not 4%.
Do I expect the ICCT, Daimler, hydrogen refueling vendors and the US DOE to now start using 15%? No, I expect them to recreate the study I’ve just done using California’s data and more real data on capital expenditures, and come up with a number that is much more realistic than 4%. Personally, I’m comfortable with 15% and will be using it and recommending to groups I engage with that they use it.