In addition to production costs for hydrogen there are storage and distribution costs. Shafiee and Schrag of Harvard have a paper out this month in Joule.
They write “Many governments have set policy targets and, in some cases, financial incentives for green hydrogen production, with the expectation that production costs will fall rapidly in the coming decades…”
However, “many recent analyses do not consider the storage and distribution costs of delivering green hydrogen to different sectors…”
They “show that at current prices, green hydrogen is a prohibitively expensive abatement strategy across all end uses examined…” Even with costs reduced to $2/kgH2 only ammonia production makes the grade.
More on the Shafiee and Schrag study. They point out that the costs of distribution are dependent on how intensely that infrastructure is used. (The more often the storage gets cycled, the lower the charge for each unit of energy stored and then used.)
Some sectors, such as steel and petrochemicals, could cycle hydrogen storage multiple times per month, thus driving down costs (even though remaining elevated).
Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the power sector:
“If storage and distribution infrastructure is used at a low rate, costs increase significantly.Salt cavern storage costs increase from less than $0.50/kgH2 to $6/kgH2, on average, if stores are cycled fewer than 10 times per year, for example, in the context of seasonal changes in demand (e.g., heating or electricity generation).”
$6/kgH2 converts to $45/MMBTU (for comparison the current spot price for natural gas is $2.73). Of course, that $6/kgH2 does not include the cost of actually producing the hydrogen.
Ultimately the cost of green hydrogen depends on low cost electricity. Abundant orphan electricity in South America has been mentioned as a possible exporter.
Hydrogen is a small molecule. Filters to separate it from gas streams are available. Prism filters developed by Monsanto are an example.
This means you can distribute hydrogen by blending it into natural gas pipelines. Those who want pure hydrogen can separate it when and where needed.
Current levels and trends of hydrogen demand mean the EU is likely to miss its 2030 strategic goal of 20 Mt renewable hydrogen consumption…so far uptake has been slow.
Slow electrolysers rollout means the EU is likely to miss its renewable hydrogen production target.
High costs prevent renewable hydrogen uptake.
Significant infrastructure plans face uncertainties in implementation.
Someday (some decade?) there may be a technological breakthrough, but in the meantime focus on what is practicable in other areas of emission reduction.
This situation once again highlights why the IPCC says that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is necessary to reach net zero.
I think govt as EPA can do much more about it than you imply.
But you imply global warming is not worth adjustment. So people would rather pay for it in insurance costs for fires and storms. And accept the life style changes implied as farm land turns to deserts. Not to mention rise in sea level.
Well, it’s not like governments aren’t trying. Back in September Cleveland-Cliffs was offered half a billion in subsidies.
Big steelmaker weighs abandoning $500M Biden climate grant https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/13/steelmaker-biden-climate-grant-00179145 In an interview with POLITICO, Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves said the Ohio-based company produces the steel with the lowest carbon emissions in the world. But he said his company cannot persuade buyers, mostly in the automobile sector, to pay the price to cover the costs of producing more environmentally friendly steel…
And in Germany…
The federal government as well as the state of North Rhine-Westphalia have committed to provide €2bn for the project. Reportedly, €500m of state subsidies have already been paid. If the project is cancelled, the company would have to pay back these funds.
I prefer spending more money on adaptation; mitigation spending should at least concentrate on the cheaper projects. The IRA, with its trillion dollar spending, is estimated to reduce temperatures by less than 0.02 degrees.
Let’s consider a more win-win spending approach. Imperial Beach is a small city south of San Diego down near the Mexican border. It’s elevation is 20 feet, but if they are concerned about future sea level rise they could
change zoning laws to prevent new construction within X yards of the ocean.
build a low wide sea wall for protection against storm surges. It could be designed to be used as a bike and pedestrian path, providing benefits to both residents and tourists. If sea level rise turns out to be more in line with the more extreme projections (so far this century we are on the low to medium-low trajectory) then the sea wall could be built higher to protect from storms.
One of the “easiest” things people can do to greatly reduce CO2 emissions would be to stop warring with each other. Wars, and the war machine preparing for wars, are a very significant producer of CO2. Yet people keep warring. So it appears that people indeed would “rather” …
The hydrogen industry is currently waiting to see what impact the upcoming president-elect Donald Trump administration will have on the Inflation Reduction Act, with panelists specifically highlighting the draft hydrogen production tax credit.
Gonzalo Ramirez, vice-president of clean ammonia at oil and gas company INPEX, said he expects the hydrogen production tax credit, called 45V, will “remain relatively stable” under the new administration.
Hydrogen companies worldwide are already struggling with canceled projects and sluggish demand. In the US, billions of dollars of projects have been stalled waiting for President Joe Biden’s administration to issue final rules for a tax credit meant to spur production.
BNEF had in the past forecast steep declines in the price of green hydrogen, which is made by splitting it from water with machines called electrolyzers running on renewable power. But in its forecast published Monday, the firm more than tripled its 2050 cost estimate, citing higher future costs for the electrolyzers themselves.
The last Conservative Government launched its hydrogen delivery roadmap back in December 2023. This called for “up to” 10GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030 made up of 6GW of green hydrogen and 4GW of blue hydrogen.
The first tranche of this capacity was also announced in December 2023, with 11 projects totalling 0.125GW of capacity being announced in the first hydrogen allocation round (HAR1) at a strike price of £175/MWh (in 2012 prices) or about £244/MWh in 2024 money. By way of comparison, today’s elevated UK gas price is ~99p/therm or £34/MWh. Green hydrogen will cost about seven times the current UK gas price or ~23 times US gas prices.
Recent article noted that geological hydrogen might be as cheap as natural gas. I don’t know abt UK but Michigan looked promising for drilling in the article.
Geological hydrogen is known. So far no one is capturing it and no one knows how abundant it might be. But as a clean fuel it sounds like an attractive aspect to explore.