Many write that hydrogen is the energy of the future. The electricity produced by solar panels is used to break down water to produce hydrogen. Now this is where the two concepts of ENERGY PRODUCER and ENERGY CARRIER become separated. Because this hydrogen is just an energy carrier, but it is not the energy source. OK – you could say that the sun is the source of all energy, but you’d still be wrong if you said it’s the solar panel system, or the electricity it generates. So in fact green electricity is the energy of the future, green hydrogen is just an energy storage or intermediate device, a temporary energy carrier where we cannot use green electricity.
(Some abstract artwork about energy – I just put it here because it looks good.)
What’s wrong with this?
There are always losses during energy transformations. We lose efficiency compared to using electricity directly. Therefore, hydrogen should only be used where there is no better alternative. (We are not talking about the fact that nuclear power is cheaper than solar power, and in 0-24 hours.) In addition, hydrogen is prone to leakage (escape) and damage to materials (e.g. steel pipes) due to its small molecular size, and we do not have the infrastructure to store, transport and use it.
More sympathetic is methane, green methane.
We have centuries of experience in storing, transporting and using it, and we have the infrastructure to do it. If we are already so green that we are producing hydrogen from electricity at great energy transformation losses in order to produce electricity from hydrogen again, is it not better to think one step further, to produce green methane from green hydrogen at further energy transformation losses. Carbon dioxide is extracted from the atmosphere and then burned back into the atmosphere. Okay, we will have an additional energy conversion loss, but we can continue to use our natural gas storage facilities, the pipeline network, and we don’t even have to throw out the existing boilers in the EU population, especially since a large part of the population has been converted to much more modern condensing boilers.
Are we so rich that we would throw out the entire existing natural gas infrastructure? Is that an environmentally friendly solution? Carbon neutral? In addition, the transition can be smoother, i.e. natural gas and green methane can support each other in the same system as needed.
I understand that there is such a thing as geo-hydrocarbons and that they are supposed to last for 200 years(read about it HERE), but we still don’t have the infrastructure. So even in this case, the possibility of converting to green methane should be considered.
However, there are also promising successes HERE, including a breakthrough at the Max Planck Institute that will allow a special crystal to increase the efficiency of water decomposition by a factor of 200. Well then, two hundredfold is something we should consider turning into green methane.
Let’s take a closer look at whether there is logic in all this
– if natural gas produced underground is not acceptable to us – and finite!
Hydrogen is indeed often referred to as the “energy of the future,” but this is a rather misleading simplification.
1. Hydrogen is energy intensive to produce:
- So far, we know that hydrogen is not found in large quantities in its natural form on Earth, although the article linked above says that there are trillions of tonnes of hydrogen gas available beneath the Earth’s surface. Even if we could not extract it, it would certainly require energy to produce it. One of the most sustainable methods is electrolysis, where water is broken down using electricity. If this electricity comes from a renewable source (such as solar panels or wind power), it can be called “green hydrogen”.
2. The role of hydrogen in energy storage:
- Hydrogen is therefore not an energy source, but an energy carrier. It is used to store the green energy produced, especially when renewable energy sources are over-produced (e.g. during sunny or windy periods). It can be used to balance the fluctuations in supply and demand in the energy grid.
3. Intermediary role:
- Hydrogen has a role to play where green electricity cannot be used directly, such as in heavy industry (steel, cement), transport (trucks, ships, planes) or long-term energy storage.
4. Efficiency issues:
- There are always losses in energy transformations. The green power → hydrogen → electricity process offers less efficiency than using electricity directly. Therefore, hydrogen should only be used where there is no better alternative.
As it stands, green electricity is the basis and hydrogen is a complementary means of storing and transporting energy. The real breakthrough is therefore the spread of renewables, and hydrogen is a useful but not exclusive component of this energy system.
The production and use of green methane could be a very logical and in many ways more practical solution than green hydrogen!
The benefits of methane (CH₄) are superior to hydrogen in many areas. Why is green methane preferable?
1. Storage and transport advantages
- Existing infrastructure: Decades of pipelines, underground storage facilities and technical equipment (e.g. liquefaction systems) are available for the transport and storage of methane. They are safer and more cost-effective than hydrogen, which is more prone to leakage and material degradation due to its smaller molecular size.
- Long-term storage: Green methane can be stored well for months without significant energy loss. This is ideal for seasonal energy storage (e.g. energy produced in summer for winter use).
2. Compatibility of use
- Domestic heating systems: Condensing gas boilers are widely used. The use of methane in these systems could be seamlessly continued, while the switch to hydrogen would require more drastic modifications.
- Transport: Methane (CNG or LNG) vehicle technology has long been available. Compared to hydrogen fuel cell cars, methane vehicles are more technologically mature and the infrastructure (filling stations) is more widely available.
3. Energy efficiency
- More efficient conversion: Synthesising green hydrogen into methane (via the Sabatier reaction ) involves some energy loss, but the end result – a readily storable and transportable energy carrier – is often more practical than using pure hydrogen.
- This process also offers the possibility of recycling CO₂ from air or industrial emissions, which can help reduce carbon emissions.
- Reducing energy losses: The direct combustion of methane or its use in internal combustion engines requires fewer conversion steps than hydrogen fuel cell systems, which involve additional losses in electricity production.
4. Carbon neutral emissions
- When producing green methane, if the required carbon dioxide is obtained from biomass or atmospheric CO₂, the process can remain carbon neutral.
Indeed, green methane has a number of advantages over green hydrogen, in particular in terms of infrastructure, flexibility of use and long-term storage. While green hydrogen can play an important role in certain industrial processes and energy systems, green methane may be a more rational solution for a wider, faster and more cost-effective energy transition.
There are several factors behind the hype around green hydrogen
– that are politically, economically, technologically and communicationally understandable – even if not always logical.
1. Political factors
- Decarbonisation targets: The EU and other countries have set ambitious climate targets (e.g. carbon neutrality by 2050). The widespread use of hydrogen is attractive because it can decarbonise industries where direct electrification is difficult (e.g. heavy industry, shipping, aviation).
- Industrial policy and lobbying: Several large companies and economies (e.g. Germany) have made significant investments in hydrogen technology. These industry players are putting pressure on politicians to support the financing of hydrogen projects.
2. The myth of technological innovation
- Enthusiasm for new technologies: Hydrogen technology is seen by many as futuristic and labelled as the “energy of the future”. The hype surrounding these innovations often overshadows the benefits of existing technologies such as green methane.
- Another ‘revolution’ after electric cars: Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle technology is new and many expect it to be another breakthrough, as it has been for electric cars.
3 Economic interests.
- New markets and investment: The hydrogen economy represents a huge new market for technological development, investment and job creation. This is particularly attractive for policy and economic decision-makers.
- Energy giants and infrastructure: Large energy companies have an interest in ensuring that energy supply and distribution remain centralised. Hydrogen infrastructure requires huge investments to be built, which generates profits for these companies.
4. Communication and media aspects
- Simple narrative: “Hydrogen is the energy of the future” is a simple and easy to understand message for the general public. The media are keen to seize on such sensational claims.
- Greenwashing: Many companies use hydrogen technology to improve their green image, even if the hydrogen produced is not actually green (e.g. grey or blue hydrogen produced from fossil fuels).
5. Why is green methane being marginalised?
- Less spectacular: Green methane may seem like an “old technology”, as natural gas infrastructure has been around for a long time. It is less exciting for the media and policy makers.
- Carbon dioxide perception: Methane requires CO₂ to produce, which many see as problematic. Although the process may be carbon neutral, it is difficult to explain in communications why it does not increase emissions.
Political goals, industrial interests, technological optimism and simplistic media narratives are behind the hype around green-hydrogen. This does not necessarily mean that hydrogen is a bad solution, but it is often not the most efficient or practical one. Green methane could be a logical alternative in many areas, but it is often overshadowed by the simpler narrative and enthusiasm for new technologies.
The real solution is likely to be a combination of different technologies, depending on the needs and opportunities where they exist.
This article was written in consultation with ChatGPT – How cleverly he blames politics, profit motives and the media. 🙂