by Bob Ciesielski, Chapter Energy Committee Co-Chair
In answer to industry hype on hydrogen as a “clean” fuel, the Sierra Club issued a report “Hydrogen: The Future of Clean Energy or a False Solution?”.
The Sierra Club only supports the use of green hydrogen, which is necessarily sourced using electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower. Green hydrogen is produced in an electrolysis process utilizing renewable electricity to break down water molecules (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Even in the case of green hydrogen, other conditions must be met for its use to be a good idea:
- Green hydrogen is a promising solution only for uses that cannot otherwise directly rely on clean electricity, which is much more efficient.
- Green hydrogen should not be used to justify a buildout of facilities that otherwise increase pollution or fossil fuel use.
- If green hydrogen is being used, the goal should be to switch to 100 percent green hydrogen once the technology is available. We should not support projects that label themselves as “sustainable” because their fuel source includes a small fraction of hydrogen when the lion’s share of it is fracked gas.
As far as uses of green hydrogen, the Sierra Club made findings for the following sectors:
- Buildings - Hydrogen is not a reasonable replacement for gas in heating buildings or for use in ovens, stoves, and cooking appliances. Electrification is the better option.
- Electric Sector - Hydrogen should not be largely used to generate electricity. Hydrogen, even green hydrogen, should not be used to mask gas plants as “clean,” nor to justify investment in new gas plants.
- Transportation - Hydrogen should not be used to power most vehicles. Electric vehicles, especially light-duty cars and trucks, are available, more efficient, and less expensive to purchase and operate than hydrogen vehicles. Transit buses, school, buses, and trucks that maintain shorter routes should also be electric.
The production process of green hydrogen immediately reduces energy efficiency by 20-40% through the operation of the electrolysis process. This waste of energy is important for several reasons. The wasted electricity makes it more difficult to reach an important goal of the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of attaining 70% of the State’s electricity production from renewable sources by 2030. Wasted renewable electricity also supports the fossil fuel industry in its attempt to extend the life of gas, oil, and coal in our country’s energy system. The 20-40% of wasted renewable electricity will have to be made up by fossil fuels. It may take 1.5 Gigawatts (GW) of renewable electricity to produce 1 Gigawatt of green hydrogen.
This is also a reason that the fossil fuel industry often supports the cryptocurrency industry. For example, although Texas is a large producer of wind and solar electricity, it has already approved 9GW of electricity for cryptocurrency and is reviewing another 35GW of cryptocurrency mining.
Also, green hydrogen utilized to lessen emissions of existing gas pipelines only provides an excuse to extend the life of gas pipelines. We should remember that NYSERDA has already spent millions to operate a demonstration power project on Long Island using renewable Canadian hydropower to produce green hydrogen to be mixed in fracked gas lines. This demonstration project shows many problems with mixing green hydrogen with fracked gas including massive problems with nitrogen oxide (NOx) which causes smog. Copious amounts of fresh water were required to keep NOx emissions to safe levels. When the maximum amount of 35% hydrogen was mixed with methane gas in the demonstration, it only resulted in a 14% reduction in emissions.
The combustion of hydrogen produces six times the amount of NOx as does burning methane. Moreover, any mixture of more than 20% hydrogen with fracked gas embrittles the metal in existing pipeline systems, generators, or any equipment. Leaked hydrogen is 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is CO2 over a 20-year timeframe. The small size of the hydrogen molecule makes it three times more likely to leak from existing pipeline systems.
We are aware that the fossil fuel industry wishes to forestall the development of renewable electricity so as to maintain the dependence on gas, oil, and coal. The fossil fuel industry’s message is that any type of hydrogen, including that produced from burning fossil fuels to break down methane molecules, is “clean.” They also promote hydrogen to power light-duty vehicles, building heating and cooling, the production of electricity, and mixture with fracked gas in pipelines. None of these false solutions match the goals of the Sierra Club.
At this time, the State should be doing everything possible to reach its CLCPA goal of 70% renewable electricity by 2030. Diverting State funds to support expansion of hydrogen production, especially for unknown or unstated uses, should be opposed.
The gas industry points to the development of green hydrogen in Europe in support of its hydrogen projects. However, Europe has some 28,000 Gigawatts of electricity for offshore wind turbines which produce excess electricity which can be used to produce green hydrogen. The United States has no excess renewable energy resulting from the long-time political opposition of the fossil fuel industry and its political supporters to renewable energy development. Even in Europe, it has been found that the cost of a pure hydrogen economy would be much too expensive, and that some 80-90% of the economy would depend on hydrogen produced using fossil fuel. Such an outcome would only create more greenhouse gasses.
In encouraging NYS to develop renewable sources of electricity, we note the CLCPA identified the set of ten “renewable energy systems” at PSL § 66-p (1)(b). These are limited to “solar, thermal photovoltaics, on land and offshore wind, hydroelectric, geothermal electric, geothermal ground source, heat, tidal energy, wave energy, ocean thermal and fuel cells which do not utilize a fossil fuel resource in the process of generating electricity.” These are “renewable energy” programs which are to be used to attain 70% of the State’s electricity by 2030. The tenth listed item includes fuel cells not utilizing a fossil fuel resource. However, the 70% goal can only be reached by emphasizing the sources with the largest potential – not using renewable electricity to build small fuel cells.
The inclusion of only non-fossil fuel “fuel cells” in the CLCPA definition of renewable electricity sources was probably in recognition that while fuel cells release no emissions, the combustion of hydrogen emits nitrogen oxide (NOx). The release of NOx accompanies the combustion of any type of hydrogen- including green hydrogen. The combustion of hydrogen is not, by definition, “zero emission.”
The push to include hydrogen as a “clean” fuel by the fossil fuel industry includes the efforts of the Independent Power Producers of New York, National Fuel Gas, and other industry figures to change the definition of “zero emissions.” This change in definition would change the goals of the CLCPA to sanction energy systems which would merely reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. This would permit hydrogen to be mixed with fracked gas to permit gas pipelines to remain in use. It could feasibly also justify the use of renewable natural gas (RNG), which is also a false solution to the elimination of greenhouse gasses. The Atlantic Chapter's position is to oppose any change in definition of "zero emissions" as currently defined in New York law and regulations. In this crucial time of climate change NYS must keep its current, scientifically based emission goals for carbon, methane and other greenhouse gasses.