Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Does it make any sense to source that 20% from gray hydrogen, generated from natural gas, then burned, as opposed to just burning natural gas? Has anyone done the emissions math on that? Because in my mind, you have efficiency losses every time you convert. Clearly they aren't going to use green hydrogen.
Just found this. hrmmmm....
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...tes-180978451/
Maybe we should think these policies through before assuming they are worth doing. |
The best quote I heard in regards to hydrogen:
Hydrogen is a hurdle to carbon emission reduction, not a tool to get there.
We need to replace the amount we use already and 95+% is grey hydrogen which is more carbon intensive than simply fossil fuel combustion. When taking into account upstream methane losses, even blue hydrogen is also more carbon intensive than methane combustion. If the goal is decreasing carbon emissions, only green hydrogen will work and it's more expensive (currently anyways). With scaling up of electrolyzers we should see a significant drop in costs and increase in efficiency, but it'll be a while before it's cheaper than straight methane combustion. And I'm not sure it'll ever be comparable to liquid fuels.
Alberta's plans with hydrogen are going to increase emissions, not decrease them.