[GWSG] H2 to replace fossil fuels?; leakage rates; H2 best left in the ground, and unproduced

[Tilley, Al]

1. Natural hydrogen is generated in the earth’s crust in such quantities that some believe it alone could replace fossil fuels. https://climatecrocks.com/2023/02/27/could-we-be-standing-on-the-hydrogen-solution-or-is-this-cold-fusion-2-0/



2. If hydrogen were to replace fossil fuels, and have a leakage rate of only 1%, it would produce the equivalent of .6 of the current fossil fuel pollution, for H2 is an indirect greenhouse gas. Of course, the actual leakage rate is likely to be higher. The disputed leakage rate for commercial methane—taking into account discovery, production, processing, transportation, and use—is (my guess) around 6%, and the H2 molecule is smaller and more prone to leakage than CH4. https://agage.mit.edu/publications/global-environmental-impacts-hydrogen-economy#:~:text=Hydrogen%20is%20therefore%20an%20indirect,a%20100%2Dyear%20time%20horizon.



3. Whatever the source of hydrogen, it will be less devastating than methane only if the leakage of methane is below 1%. I could not follow some of this article. So far as I understand it, though, it indicates that H2 would be preferable to CH4 only if the leakage rate were to be low. Even if were to be preferable to CH4, it will not be preferable to carbon-free power.  Since the time is long past for climate solutions which provide only partial gains over fossil fuels, I conclude that hydrogen as a fuel is a dead end, even if the earth affords renewably copious amounts of the gas. We must leave it in the ground; we should not pursue even green hydrogen. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35419-7

I hope list members who have some questions, info, or guidance on this significant issue will share them. Please email me (and not the gwsg url): atilley at unf.edu.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.unf.edu/pipermail/gwsg/attachments/20230228/138961e6/attachment-0001.htm>