Biden administration adds exemptions into new climate rules for hydrogen energy

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

01/03/25 8:45 AM ET


The Biden administration on Friday finalized fairly strict climate rules for the nascent hydrogen energy industry — but the rules contain new flexibilities that are expected to make them less stringent than the administration’s original proposal.

The final rule issued by the Treasury Department on Friday determines which facilities can qualify for lucrative tax credits for hydrogen energy.

The tax credits are seen as an important piece of the Biden administration’s climate agenda since hydrogen power could be an important tool to lower carbon emissions from industries like aviation, steel and cement — whose emissions are particularly difficult to eliminate.

The tax credits are key for making hydrogen from low- or no-emitting sources economically viable. Hydrogen energy can be made by either using electricity to separate the hydrogen out of water molecules in an electrolyzer or through a reaction between methane and steam.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5064545-biden-administration-climate-rules-hydrogen/

---

Link to Department of Treasury PRESS RELEASE - U.S. Department of the Treasury Releases Final Rules for Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit

[NNadir]

1. By virtue of the second law of thermodyamics, hydrogen is an extremely dirty fuel.

Exempting it from climate rules is rather like exempting high fructose corn syrup from a diabetic's diet restrictions.

The hydrogen scam is an effort to greenwash fossil fuels.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. It's also the most abundent element of the universe

so not much one can do about that fact.

[NNadir]

3. Yes, but on earth it is chemically bound. Looking at it...

...in simplistic ways accounts for the pernicious, and frankly dangerous, public perception of it as a form of energy, one of those urban myths that threaten the future.

[Think. Again.]

5. Hydrogen is not a "form of energy", it is an energy storage medium...

....like natural gas, gasoline, or batteries.

[GoreWon2000]

8. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe

Natural gas is still fossil fuel and most electricity that currently charges batteries is generated by burning fossil fuel.

[Think. Again.]

10. Yes, we need to make some very big progress building out non-CO2 emitting electrical production.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Well...

It's literally the "simplest" (and most reactive) element, which is why it is probably looked at that way.

What will be interesting, in a related note, is what kind of data is obtained by that flyby of the Parker solar probe (given the sun is over 90% H).

[nmmi]

14. His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2025, 03:00 AM - Edit history (4)

Journal: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=119031

A recent post related to hydrogen and "so-called" renewables
A solar-hydrogen economy for U.S.A., (December 22)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127179284

which links to his massive magnus opus on hydrogen
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127164320

On energy issues, he hates wind, solar, hydro, EV's, batteries, hydrogen. The only one he likes (and likes a lot): nuclear.

This thread has a lot of the why --
A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548

From the thread, post#8   https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548#post8
citing Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620307522

and this from same thread https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548#post3
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

In short, in my words, the number who have died from nuclear energy production (as opposed to military use of course) is a tiny, almost infinitessimal fraction of the 8 million who die annually from air pollution -- most of which is from fossil-fuel air pollution. (And that solar and wind are dependent on fossil-fuel generation to cover their woefully low capacity factors (like 25-30%) and weather-dependent unreliablility; and that solar and wind may not even decrease fossil fuel consumption at all when considering the inefficiencies caused by the added startups and shutdowns and more frequent inefficient operating levels of the fossil-fueled generators in the system).

ETA - He has a number of people on Ignore, so that might be why he's not responded (as of the time of this posting) to some of the comments on the thread. It's not because he lacks for words.

ETA - He posts frequently in the Environment and Energy Group and the Science Group.

A son of his is in a nuclear engineering PhD program last I heard, so someone he can readily check out some nuclear questions with.

[Think. Again.]

4. As explained in the article...

Hydrogen is only a "dirty fuel" when made using methane or with a "dirty" electricity source.

Green Hydrogen (which doesn't use fossil fuels at all to be produced) does not emit any CO2 at all.

[NickB79]

11. Except when it leaks

Then it's 10X as powerful as CO2. And pure hydrogen is the leakiest gas known to man.

But no one likes to talk about that very much.

[Think. Again.]

12. Natural gas leaks are 28X as powerful as CO2....

-snip-

"But other scientists have reported much larger figures for methane leaks. In a 2022 study focused on gas production in New Mexico, a group of Stanford researchers estimated that leaks equated to more than 9 percent of all production in the area, based on aerial surveys.7 A 2023 study suggested methane emissions were 70 percent higher than U.S. government figures from 2010 to 2019.8 Plata says there’s no current consensus on the magnitude of methane leaks.

-snip-

To make matters more confusing, even if we knew exactly how much methane was leaking from our natural gas system, experts disagree about how best to quantify the warming from those methane emissions. Methane has a much shorter lifespan than CO2, but traps much more heat while it’s still floating around in the atmosphere. We’ve previously covered the challenge of comparing methane to CO2 at Ask MIT Climate, but in short, the EPA and other organizations usually say methane is about 28 times more warming than CO2—if you look 100 years in the future. Over 10 or 20 years, though, methane is 80 to 100 times more warming than CO2."

-snip- source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned

[NickB79]

17. And hydrogen leaks twice as much as methane, by it's very nature as the smallest element

To back up my previous claim of hydrogen being 10x as powerful as CO2:

https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/

I was wrong; it's 11X as powerful.

So, if we theoretically replaced the world's natural gas infrastructure with a green hydrogen infrastructure, on paper we're just treading water as far as climate impacts go. Half the CO2 potential as methane, but twice of it entering the atmosphere.

But, the kicker is that the primary source of the current spike in atmospheric methane is actually microbes consuming biomass from warming wetlands currently, and thawing permafrost in the future:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/exceptional-surge-in-methane-emissions-from-wetlands-worries-scientists/

Why is that relevant? Because hydrogen isn't a direct greenhouse gas. Rather, it acts to prolong the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, amplifying it's greenhouse gas potential. We've already kicked off so many positive feedback loops that we've guaranteed that biological methane emissions will keep rising for the rest of the 21st century. And if the primary source of atmospheric methane isn't from our natural gas infrastructure, that means that there will still be plenty of methane naturally venting for leaking green hydrogen to interact with, even if we drastically reduced our fossil fuel emissions.

The only way hydrogen doesn't have a massive, negative impact on the climate is if it remains a niche tool for energy storage. If it were ever ramped up to be a major energy player, the losses from manufacturing, transport, storage and distribution would be as bad as the current natural gas infrastructure we're trying to replace.

And that ignores the worst-case scenario: a future where there's a prolonged overlap, with green hydrogen ramping up, BUT natural gas still consumed (and leaked) in massive quantities for decades. During this time, natural gas is still a valuable feedstock for chemical and plastics production, and a cheaper alternative for poorer nations to turn to before they can afford domestically produced green hydrogen. And currently, the planet is building out massive amounts of LNG shipping ports to satisfy this future demand. That one-two punch would be absolutely devastating to the climate.

[Think. Again.]

19. A small mistake you made...

...you said "Half the CO2 potential as methane, but twice of it entering the atmosphere." when the CO2 potential is actually less than half (methane is 28%, H2 11%) and only twice as leaky, making H2 a better bet.

Also, the amount of H2 that would have to leak to have that effect on atmospheric methane is around 9%, considering the cost of producing Green H2, that's quite a bit of loss that the industry would want to avoid, but of course a brand new infrastructure built specifically to avoid H2 leakage would be needed anyway (our current methane infrastructure sucks).

"For hydrogen referred to as green hydrogen, which is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from renewable sources, Bertagni said that the critical threshold for hydrogen emissions sits at around 9%. That means that if more than 9% of the green hydrogen produced leaks into the atmosphere -- whether that be at the point of production, sometime during transport, or anywhere else along the value chain -- atmospheric methane would increase over the next few decades, canceling out some of the climate benefits of switching away from fossil fuels."

- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230313162740.htm

Also,

"The researchers emphasized the importance of the time scale over which the effect of hydrogen on atmospheric methane is considered. Bertagni said that in the long-term (over the course of a century, for instance), the switch to a hydrogen economy would still likely deliver net benefits to the climate, even if methane and hydrogen leakage levels are high enough to cause near-term warming."

(Both quotes from: - https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/03/13/switching-hydrogen-fuel-could-prolong-methane-problem

So, knowing that the only possible goal is to replace all fossil fuel burning with alternative forms of supplying energy, Hydrogen is still something we must pursue.

(And as a personal disclaimer, I only consider Green H2 as a viable consideration in the advancement of a Hydrogen economy.)

[GoreWon2000]

7. Green hydrogen is the future

My engineer father firmly believed that green hydrogen is the future. My engineer father had bachelors and master's degrees in engineering, more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience and was a member of the Society of Automotive engineers. Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, you don't need fossil fuel to generate hydrogen. The development of green hydrogen technology is in its infancy. FYI, Airbus is currently developing hydrogen powered commercial airplanes and NASA is looking for water on both Mars and the Moon in order to be able to use the hydrogen to fuel long distance interplanetary space travel. It'll be impossible to use batteries for such long distance travel because of the weight of the batteries. FYI, most electricity that charges batteries right now is generated by burning fossil fuel. Most people don't realize this.
The really big scam is the one that the nuclear power industry is trying to pull by claiming to be green energy. It's not. My engineer father always taught me that nuclear power isn't green because no one has figured out how to dispose of the toxic nuclear waste that's every bit as bad as burning fossil fuels. I fear that the nuclear power industry is becoming the fossil fuel industry of the 21st century.
BTW, I'm curious to know what your engineering credentials are?

[Miguelito Loveless]

13. When will the scam that is the "hydrogen economy"

end?

[Caribbeans]

15. If you're Anti-Hydrogen, whatever you do - DO NOT LOOK AT CHINA or India

Might cause some indigestion

'Murikants aren't supposed to know what either of the most populous nations are doing with H2

[Miguelito Loveless]

16. Simple math

Hydrogen requires more energy in than comes out. It requires roughly 50-55kWh of electricity to make 1kg of H2. That kg contains 34kWh of energy.

And that doesn’t address transport energy, or the very real problem of hydrogen embrittlement.

[nmmi]

18. And then fuel cells lose about 40%-60% of the 34kWH in the H2 converting it into electricity? /nt

[Think. Again.]

23. Which is still less than the energy lost by our current long distance delivery systems...

"Losses of electricity through the delivery system are significant. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that losses through the delivery system are 65%. Another way of saying this is that nearly two-thirds of the primary energy used to create electricity is lost before the electricity arrives at the customer meter." - https://energyknowledgebase.com/topics/electricity-losses.asp

...making on site fuel cells a slightly more efficient method.

[nmmi]

24. 59% is losses in the power plant itself in converting the fuel's energy to electricity at the power plant and net of

station use of electricity.

From your link

It is estimated that of the 65% of primary energy lost, 59% of it is lost in the generation process. This includes:

Waste heat occurring due to inefficiencies in the process of converting primary energy to electricity. This makes up about 54% of the primary energy lost.
Electricity used internally by the power plant during operations. This makes up about 5% of the primary energy lost.

In the above, they are talking about fossil-fuel and nuclear thermal power plants that convert fuel energy (coal, oil, natgas, nuclear) to steam which spins a turbine-generator that produces the electricity

Transmission and distribution grid
Another 5 to 7% of the original primary energy is lost during the delivery of electricity through the T&D system. The energy becomes waste heat released in the air due to line losses and conversion losses in transformers and other line equipment.

To make H2,

one first needs electricity. If supplied from the grid, and if it comes from the above described fossil-fuel or nuclear thermal power plants, then one incurs that loss in primary energy (coal, oil, natgas, nuclear). And we have not yet made a mg of H2 yet.

Let's say that the hydrogen facility is at or very near the power plant so we don't have electric transmission losses described above as "Transmission and distribution grid".

So we've lost 59% of the fossil or nuclear fuel energy making electricity to feed the H2 plant. (The efficiency of the thermal power plant is 100% - 59% = 41%).

Now according to Miguelito, 50-55 kwh of that electricity goes into electrolysis that produces H2 containing 34 kwh of energy. (If we use the midpoint, that's an efficiency of 34/52.5 = 64.8%)

Then, the fuel cell converts 40-60% of that H2 energy into electricity, leaving only about 17 kwh out of the 50-55 kwh that went into the electrolyis.

If we use midpoints:

Efficiency = 41% * 64.8% * 50% = 13.3%.

==============================================================

Case 2A: the ultimate power source is a solar farm or wind turbine, located near the hydrogen facility.

Leaving aside the amount of wind or sunlight that is not converted (which is kind of irrelevant, since if we didn't have the solar farm or wind turbine, it would all go to waste anyway. Yes, I know there are dollar cost and environmental costs in making solar and wind facilities).

Efficiency in converting the solar/wind facility's output electricity into H2 and then back into electricity is 64.8% * 50% = 32.4%

Case 2B. Same but we use batteries instead of hydrogen for storage. I think efficiency of converting input electricity to battery energy is about 90%. And its about 90% efficiency for converting battery energy into electricity. If that's true

Efficiency in converting the solar/wind facility's output electricity into battery energy and then back to electricity is 90% * 90% = 81%

==============================================================

To me, the argument that makes me somewhat sour on H2 is that a battery system would be much more efficient than H2 (case 2B vs. 2A), as one person in the E&E group often posts and I haven't seen a response.

On the other hand, the environmental impact of making batteries is a lot higher, it seems to me (mining lithium for example), than to make H2 production facilities.

==============================================================

Thanks much for your reply. I'm just trying to sort it all out

Edit in the above I had used 59% as the efficiency of the thermal power plant -- I corrected to 41%. 59% is lost, meaning 41% is left.

[Think. Again.]

25. Yes, the Hydrogen would not replace batteries...

...I don't think it's an either/or situation, but the lighter weight and better energy retention of H2 compared to batteries would make H2 as an energy storage medium more transportable and it can also be usable in combustion engines when those designs are preferable.

We are going to need every non-CO2 energy tech we have, very soon, and luckily we do have a variety of both energy production and energy storage techs to fit all the various situations, restrictions, and uses we will be dealing with.

Edit to add: I mentioned in an earlier reply that I donct consider Hydrogen made using fossil fuels in any way as a worthwhile pursuit. I believe all our H2 attention should be focussed on building out a Green H2 economy only.

[Miguelito Loveless]

34. The problem is

98% of H2 is made from FF. Do we build massive renewable projects to directly power our grid and transport system, or do we divert huge portions of those green plants to power our transportation sector at a fraction of the efficiency? Yes, better efficiency than FF, but way less efficient than batteries.

This is what makes H2 uneconomical.

[Think. Again.]

37. Correct, I personally believe only a Green H2 economy is worthy of pursuing....

Hydrogen production plants are mostly being built with their own dedicated non-ff power plants attached, so nothing is being diverted from the grid or any other uses.

And when batteries are charged from ff-sourced electricity, they are far less efficient than the complete electric production/delivery H2 fuel cell system.

[Miguelito Loveless]

44. That doesn't alter the fact

that the electricity from a renewable source is more efficiently used directly charging EVs, or powering heat pumps, than creating H2, storing it, then converting it back to electricity, then charging EVs/powering heat pumps. H2 the plants and infrastructure are more complicated, thus more expensive, and have a higher maintenance cost.

Also, you did bring up the issue of weight, with H2 being much lighter as a storage medium than batteries, but weight is irrelevant to a power plant. Weight is an issue in transportation, but the current HFCEV still have chemical batteries, and don’t weigh that much less than BEVs. The loss in efficiency converting H2 back into electricity still has pure BEVs more efficient per unit of weight than a fuel cell vehicle.

If I have an HFCEV, I am back to going to a special station to get re-fueled, and must pay for that fuel each time. Right now, I re-fuel my EV every night when I come home, at a fraction of the cost of the traditional way (FF), or H2.

And to power my house, why would I use my solar array to make H2, and then power my house at a fraction of the efficiency of simply using the electricity and skipping the whole electricity-to H2-to electricity step? My house averages 50-60kWh of electricity production a day, why would I use that to make a single kg of H2, that would provide me with 34kWh of electricity?

[Think. Again.]

45. Correct, directly powering your home from solar makes the most sense...

...and H2 for daily driver passenger vehicles is not in the near future, batteries are better for that.

I brought up weight and volume for the uses such as flight, marine shipping, locomotives, heavy equipment, etc, not for passenger cars.

[Miguelito Loveless]

51. To me, marine and flight uses

are the major possibilities for H2. Also smelting steel.

[Think. Again.]

54. Yes, and other uses where easily transportable fuel for combustion or on-site electric generation is needed.

[Miguelito Loveless]

31. The environmental impact for lithium-ion

batteries is high (lithium/cobalt/nickel), but other battery chemistries are now available, or coming by 2030. Lithium iron phosphate, cuts cobalt and nickel out of the equation, but even if it didn’t, 90% of the materials can be recycled.

[Think. Again.]

40. Yes, and H2 can be used when weight and volume are considerations...

...such as heavy machinary, freight ships, jets, farm equipment, etc.

It can also be used in combustion engines when that is preferable and in heat applications such as steel making.

[Miguelito Loveless]

46. So far,

Batteries are more efficient in personal transport and farm equipment, than any H2 fuel cell. Also easier to re-fuel and maintain. Claims have been made about trains and heavy trucking, but so far maintenance costs have made them far more expensive than their battery counterparts.

Combusting H2 means all of the headaches of ICE engines, greater inefficiency than fuel cells/batteries, plus lots of brand new infrastructure costs.

Steel smelting is a definite yes.

[Think. Again.]

49. Yes, passenger vehicles are better for batteries...

...it's mostly farm equipment that is being built with H2 combustable engines for the ease of refueling in the field, and Hydrogen trains, busses, and heavy trucks are already in use in most first world countries, and the fleets are growing (DUer Carribeans has a great collection of videos on that in their journal).

[Miguelito Loveless]

29. My losses are much lower

despite my fuel traveling 93 million miles from our actual fusion reactor, to my photovoltaic array, then 10 feet to my inverter, which converts it to AC for my home to use. Or, I can charge my EVs/backup batteries without conversion.

[Think. Again.]

33. Yes, no one is suggesting H2 should replace batteries, or any other form of energy storage.

[Miguelito Loveless]

39. But, in using H2 for power

the most common way is to convert electricity to H2, store it, then convert back to electricity on demand. That is essentially using H2 as a storage medium, i.e., a battery. Yes, you can burn H2 to make heat, or in a redesigned combustion engine, but you are now back at square one in terms of efficiency, with higher cost, than if you had simply used the electricity to directly charge a chemical battery or run a heat pump.

[Think. Again.]

43. Yes, and in situations where batteries are not viable due to weight or volume or non-existent power grid lines...

...H2 can be transported easily.

[Miguelito Loveless]

50. By very expensive tanker trucks

That require r]treatment against embrittlement, or super-expensive carbon fiber tanks.

[madville]

20. It doesn't make much sense does it

Hydrogen is just the inefficient middleman, could simply cut that step out and just put the electricity into a battery and skip all the losses.

[Think. Again.]

22. A loss of energy also occurs when it is transferred into batteries...

...however the energy stored in hydrogen instead of batteries is much lighter weight for transport, and is more stable over much longer periods of time.

[Miguelito Loveless]

28. It must be stored either in liquid form

Or as a gas, both have energy and structural challenges. Also, hydrogen embrittlement means high maintenance costs, or serious safety issues if maintenance is skimped on. Right now I can power/heat/cooled my house safely, plus fuel my cars at home. Using H2 would add huge expense and inconvenience, and be more dangerous than methane.

[Think. Again.]

32. Hydrogen containment tanks are made of materials that are impervious to embrittlement....

And H2 is LESS dangerous than methane because it is lighter than air so it rises up and away instead of pooling and puddling down where an ignition would be more damaging.

[Miguelito Loveless]

36. The tanks are

but the various pipes and fittings are not.

[Think. Again.]

42. Yes, they can be. And older existing lines can even be coated to be impervious.

[Miguelito Loveless]

48. That means digging up old lines and replacing them

(Oil and gas companies are pushing H2 with the claim they can use existing tanks/pipelines, which isn’t true, but they have never let lies stop them in the past)

Current costs for a single H2 fueling station is around $2 million. Protection against embrittlement on all exposed surfaces would greatly add to that cost. Assuming economies of scale cut that in half, that i still 4 times the price of an 8 stall supercharger station (whose prices are also falling as increased demand cause prices to fall.

I would suggest you drop in on a few forums/reddit boards for HFCEV owners and read their real world experiences with existing fueling stations.

[Think. Again.]

53. No, if the cost is 2 million, that's what it is, not more.

And as I've said, H2 for passenger vehicles is not in the near future.

[Miguelito Loveless]

38. The issue is not flammability

Of H2, it is storage under pressure at 700 bar and low temps.

[Miguelito Loveless]

27. Precisely.

[Think. Again.]

21. Any transfer of energy results in a loss...

Even just charging an electric vehicle at a charging station loses a portion of that electricity and that doesn't include the loss of energy when that electricity is then transferred to the kinetic energy that moves the vehicle.

Loss of energy always occurs when energy is transferred.

[Miguelito Loveless]

26. True,

but H2 folks usually claim the energy is from renewables, so it doesn’t matter. Except it does if you are using the H2 for transport. You can use 55kWh of solar electricity for example to charge an EV and drive 200 miles, or you can make a kg of H2, and drive an HFCEV 50 miles. Which is a better and more economical use of the electricity?

FF requires energy to drill/mine and refine before it is a usable fuel. The energy contained in FF is more than the energy needed to turn it into usable fuel, which is great except 1) it took millions of years to make, 2) It’s finite, and 3) it pollutes when extracted, refined, and burned. Also, on average, an ICE vehicle wastes 80% of the energy from combustion as heat, compared to to about 10%-15% for an EV. A HFCEV wastes about 50% to 60% in converting electricity to H2, then H2 back to electricity.

Solar panels/wind turbines require power and materials to create, but then run for decades on fuel that is effectively free, so we wind up getting more energy out of them than put in after a few years of operation (My solar array has produced a bit shy of 160MWh (160,000 kWh) of electricity in 9 years of operation. It has powered my home, heated and cooled my home, and provided all my energy for transportation in that time).

H2 may have some energy applications in the future, but so far batteries are way more efficient, and getting better/cheaper annually.

[Think. Again.]

30. Yes, but Lithium is not infinite nor renewable, while Hydrogen basically is....

...and the environmental degradation of mining the Lithium should be considerd.

[Miguelito Loveless]

35. Lithium can be recycled from batteries

It is not consumed. Lithium batteries can last for 2-3 decades based on current applications (10-15 years as EV batteries, then a second life as stationary residential/utility storage.

[Think. Again.]

41. Yes, with additional energy costs.

[Miguelito Loveless]

47. The additional energy cost is far lower

than the cost of mining/refining virgin material, and less destructive to the environment.A new H2 infrastructure for piping/transporting would cost orders of magnitude more than upgrading/expanding existing electrical infrastructure already in place.

[Think. Again.]

52. The Hydrogen economy infrastructure would be a cost of doing business....

...much like how the railways are built and maintained by the rail-shipping companies.

It was the energy usage I was referring to.