Two primary methods
of producing hydrogen:
1) Steam reforming
This process typically uses
natural gas as the feedstock,
but produces CO2 emissions
as a by-product.
Carbon capture
and storage of the CO2
would be necessary.
Not all of the CO2
can be captured.
Allowing for upstream
emissions, the process
will only reduce CO2
emissions by 60 to 85%,
compared to burning
natural gas.
The cost of producing
hydrogen via steam reforming
with CCS is estimated to be
triple the current wholesale price
of natural gas (before adding
distribution costs).
2) Electrolysis
According to IEA figures,
the cost of production
via electrolysis is about
three times as much
as steam reforming
( nine times more
than natural gas ).
Hydrogen for heating
Full electrification
(mainly heat pumps).
But heat pumps can't
meet peak demand
in winter.
Hydrogen for Transport
Running costs seem
similar to gasoline cars,
but the vehicle cost
could be double the price
of a conventional car.
BMW revealed that
a fuel-cell power-train
is around 10 times
more expensive
than an equivalent
electric one.
The lack of any proper
refueling infrastructure
is a huge problem
There would be no logic
in spending billions
of public money
for electric car charging
points, and upgrading
electricity networks,
if we are going to be
driving hydrogen cars.
Mercedes halted
their development
of hydrogen cars.
Car manufacturers
can't afford to develop
electric and hydrogen
technology at the
same time.
For tractor trailer trucks,
medium sized trucks
and buses, hydrogen
could be useful
There are
real pollutants
from combustion of
fossil hydrocarbons
which do not result
from extremely pure
synthetic fuels.
There is is
no sulphur,
so no SOX,
NOX production
is negligible and
no PM2.5
particulates.
Injecting these
real pollutants
into the atmosphere
is not a good idea.
But CO2 itself
is not pollution.
CO2 is the
staff of life
n our planet.