Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NickB79

(19,692 posts)
17. And hydrogen leaks twice as much as methane, by it's very nature as the smallest element
Sat Jan 4, 2025, 11:34 AM
Saturday

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

By virtue of the second law of thermodyamics, hydrogen is an extremely dirty fuel. NNadir Friday #1
It's also the most abundent element of the universe BumRushDaShow Friday #2
Yes, but on earth it is chemically bound. Looking at it... NNadir Friday #3
Hydrogen is not a "form of energy", it is an energy storage medium... Think. Again. Friday #5
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe GoreWon2000 Friday #8
Yes, we need to make some very big progress building out non-CO2 emitting electrical production. Think. Again. Friday #10
Well... BumRushDaShow Friday #6
Post removed Post removed Friday #9
His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll nmmi Friday #14
As explained in the article... Think. Again. Friday #4
Except when it leaks NickB79 Friday #11
Natural gas leaks are 28X as powerful as CO2.... Think. Again. Friday #12
And hydrogen leaks twice as much as methane, by it's very nature as the smallest element NickB79 Saturday #17
A small mistake you made... Think. Again. Saturday #19
Green hydrogen is the future GoreWon2000 Friday #7
When will the scam that is the "hydrogen economy" Miguelito Loveless Friday #13
If you're Anti-Hydrogen, whatever you do - DO NOT LOOK AT CHINA or India Caribbeans Saturday #15
Simple math Miguelito Loveless Saturday #16
And then fuel cells lose about 40%-60% of the 34kWH in the H2 converting it into electricity? /nt nmmi Saturday #18
Which is still less than the energy lost by our current long distance delivery systems... Think. Again. Saturday #23
59% is losses in the power plant itself in converting the fuel's energy to electricity at the power plant and net of nmmi Saturday #24
Yes, the Hydrogen would not replace batteries... Think. Again. Saturday #25
The problem is Miguelito Loveless Sunday #34
Correct, I personally believe only a Green H2 economy is worthy of pursuing.... Think. Again. Sunday #37
That doesn't alter the fact Miguelito Loveless Sunday #44
Correct, directly powering your home from solar makes the most sense... Think. Again. Sunday #45
To me, marine and flight uses Miguelito Loveless Yesterday #51
Yes, and other uses where easily transportable fuel for combustion or on-site electric generation is needed. Think. Again. Yesterday #54
The environmental impact for lithium-ion Miguelito Loveless Sunday #31
Yes, and H2 can be used when weight and volume are considerations... Think. Again. Sunday #40
So far, Miguelito Loveless Sunday #46
Yes, passenger vehicles are better for batteries... Think. Again. Yesterday #49
My losses are much lower Miguelito Loveless Sunday #29
Yes, no one is suggesting H2 should replace batteries, or any other form of energy storage. Think. Again. Sunday #33
But, in using H2 for power Miguelito Loveless Sunday #39
Yes, and in situations where batteries are not viable due to weight or volume or non-existent power grid lines... Think. Again. Sunday #43
By very expensive tanker trucks Miguelito Loveless Yesterday #50
It doesn't make much sense does it madville Saturday #20
A loss of energy also occurs when it is transferred into batteries... Think. Again. Saturday #22
It must be stored either in liquid form Miguelito Loveless Sunday #28
Hydrogen containment tanks are made of materials that are impervious to embrittlement.... Think. Again. Sunday #32
The tanks are Miguelito Loveless Sunday #36
Yes, they can be. And older existing lines can even be coated to be impervious. Think. Again. Sunday #42
That means digging up old lines and replacing them Miguelito Loveless Yesterday #48
No, if the cost is 2 million, that's what it is, not more. Think. Again. Yesterday #53
The issue is not flammability Miguelito Loveless Sunday #38
Precisely. Miguelito Loveless Sunday #27
Any transfer of energy results in a loss... Think. Again. Saturday #21
True, Miguelito Loveless Sunday #26
Yes, but Lithium is not infinite nor renewable, while Hydrogen basically is.... Think. Again. Sunday #30
Lithium can be recycled from batteries Miguelito Loveless Sunday #35
Yes, with additional energy costs. Think. Again. Sunday #41
The additional energy cost is far lower Miguelito Loveless Yesterday #47
The Hydrogen economy infrastructure would be a cost of doing business.... Think. Again. Yesterday #52
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Biden administration adds...»Reply #17