Hydrogen Should Be Focused On Cement And Steel, Not Cars

One of the debates that causes the most ferocious arguments amongst new energy vehicle evangelists is what part hydrogen should play in the future of transportation. The conversations can be very inflammatory, with robust comments coming from both hydrogen and battery enthusiasts. But the question is not whether hydrogen has a place in decarbonizing our future. It is how.

This is a very complicated debate and imbued with big business politics and accusations of ulterior motives. Toyota is the leading automotive proponent of hydrogen for cars. The second generation of its Mirai is a perfectly nice vehicle, and if the original Mirai is anything to go by, likely to be of quality construction. But Honda recently announced the discontinuation of its hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle (HFCEV), the Clarity Fuel Cell. Volkswagen’s Herbert Diess has totally distanced his company from developing HFCEVs, putting all his eggs in the battery electric vehicle (BEV) basket.

That doesn’t stop keyboard warriors claiming that “hydrogen is the future”, because the refueling model is closest to the gas station one of just a few minutes to fill a tank with which they are familiar. The most common reason given against this (which I’ve argued myself on more than one occasion) is just how inefficient HCFEVs are compared to BEVs. Assuming renewable electricity as a source and “green” hydrogen produced from water via electrolysis, the now infamous research by Transport & Environment shows that BEVs are 77% efficient and HFCEVs only 33% efficient – 2.3 times less.

In a world where electricity is scarce, this is a solid argument against wasting so much of it on the convenience of an easily refueled HFCEV. But it’s not a complete one. The whole premise of hydrogen in personal vehicles is how it is used to manage spare capacity from renewable energy sources. Traditional power stations, be they coal, gas, or nuclear, can be turned on when required. This may not be an immediate reaction to increased demand, but it allows the managers of national grids to vary output to meet surges in demand.

Most renewable energy doesn’t operate like that. Solar energy is available when the sun shines, and wind turbines deliver power when it’s windy. Hydroelectric power can be turned off and on, and geothermal as well (ask Switzerland). But with wind and solar, when you have spikes in output that don’t match demand, you need somewhere to store the surplus, and hydrogen could fulfil that role, converting renewable electricity you don’t need into a form that can be used later. The efficiency is less important if you would be wasting the energy anyway. The island of Eday in the Orkneys off Scotland has loads of wind power it converts into hydrogen, which is then used in a fuel cell to generate electricity on demand for the rest of the Orkneys to use.

But this is an unusual case, and very few places have this kind of surplus renewable energy to produce hydrogen. In fact, renewable energy and electricity in general remains scarce. So is green hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water. Right now, the vast majority of hydrogen is “grey” or “blue”, meaning it has been produced using methane either without (grey) or with (blue) carbon capture. But either way its production is not zero emissions. The HFCEVs that then receive the hydrogen will be, but “well to wheel” they won’t.

You can say the same about BEVs not being zero emission “well to wheel”, depending on where they are manufactured and the split of the national grid of the country in question. The UK hardly uses any coal in its national grid anymore, but it does use a lot of gas. The US has a greater reliance on fossil fuel, as does China and Australia, for example. But that is as much a problem for green hydrogen as it is for BEVs.

The other issue is that once we produce plenty of green hydrogen, unless it is truly abundant, there will be other demands for it. Transportation should be lower down the pecking order compared to other applications where it will be key for reducing emissions. Blast furnaces used in the steel industry currently use coking coal, and contribute 7% to global emissions. This is an application that can’t be replaced with batteries, whereas it can with hydrogen. Volvo, for example, is working with SSAB to decarbonize the steel it uses in its car manufacturing.

Another industry that direly needs hydrogen is the cement industry. Cement also contributes 7-8% to global CO2 emissions (7% according to this article, 8% according to this one). The production of clinker used in Portland cement, like steel manufacturing, is another process requiring high temperature furnaces, which again could use hydrogen instead as a zero-emission alternative to coal.

In an ideal world replete with surplus renewable energy, maybe hydrogen has a future because then its inefficiency is negated by its convenience. But we aren’t in that situation right now, won’t be for decades, and might never be. Until then, hydrogen’s place is where it is essential as a replacement for coal. For personal transportation, BEVs are much more efficient. Yes, they have their own problems with the supply of materials for batteries and inconsistent infrastructure. But if our end goal is combating climate change and global warming, the best place for hydrogen is not cars.