Reference no: EM133613356

Assignment

It's hailed as the clean energy of the future. But hydrogen produces'substantial' emissions, study shows.By Rachel PannettNovember 18, 2021 at 3:50 a.m. ESTHydrogen has been billed as the clean energy of the future by governments worldwide, including in theUnited States, Europe, Australia and Japan.But a new study published in the journal Applied Energy found making hydrogen from fossil fuelsproduces "substantial" greenhouse gas emissions that are the driver of global warming, even withcarbon capture technology - which captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphereand pumps it underground."Hydrogen made from natural gas leads to more fugitive emissions - methane that is leaked into theenvironment during the extraction and processing of natural gas - compared to just burning natural gasdirectly," said Fiona Beck, from the Australian National University, who co-authored the peer-reviewedpaper. "Including [carbon capture and storage] in the process actually increases fugitive emissionsfurther, as more natural gas is needed to fuel the process."More than 100 countries, including the United States, signed up to a Global Methane Pledge at a UnitedNations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, this month, vowing to cut methane emissions - aparticularly potent greenhouse gas - by 30 percent on 2020 levels by 2030.Many countries are banking on hydrogen to help lift their ambitious carbon-neutral plans.

Somegovernments have given priority to "green hydrogen," which uses renewable energy - such as thatgenerated by wind turbines or solar panels - to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.Others, including the United States, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Norway and Australia, have made thecase for a technology-neutral approach: potentially paving the way for a prominent role for "blue"hydrogen, as it is known, produced from fossil fuels such as natural gas.In Washington and other world capitals, the natural gas industry has been lobbying for fossil-fuel-based hydrogen to become a reliable, next-generation fuel to be used to power cars, heat homes andburn in power plants. This week's bipartisan infrastructure package dedicated $8 billion to creatingregional hydrogen hubs in the United States.

But scientists have recently started to examine some of the industry claims around hydrogen. A study published by Cornell and Stanford University researchers in August found that the greenhousegas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 percent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat.

The ANU researchers compared both the emissions and financial cost of producing hydrogen using fossilfuels or renewable energy. Recent studies have compared these technologies, typically assuming highcarbon capture rates, but have not assessed the impact of fugitive emissions and lower capture rates ontotal emissions and costs, the researchers said.

In many places, there isn't yet enough renewable energy to produce vast amounts of green hydrogen,and the process remains costly. But that could be about to change, the researchers said, leaving governments that invest heavily in fossil-fuel-based technologies with stranded assets. Arecent study suggested that green hydrogen may already be cheaper than blue in Australia, where thecountry's abundant sunshine, huge land area and powerful winds have fueled growth in renewables inrecent years and lowered costs."Our work highlights that large investment in fossil-fuel-based hydrogen with CCS could be risky, lockingin a new fossil fuel industry with significant emissions, and one that is likely to be out-competed byrenewable technologies in the future," Beck said.

Question I. What are two advantages of using hydrogen?
Question II. What are two disadvantages of using hydrogen?
Question III. Why is Australia being considered for hydrogen production? Use the concept of power density to explain your answer.