Hydrogen, and electrofuels (e-fuels) produced with hydrogen are currently raising high expectations as a form of energy that could pervade all sectors, including mobility and heating. However, they will likely not be able to fully decarbonize the global economy, due to lack of capacity and too-high prices.
This conclusion was drawn in research conducted by scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany, and the Paul Scherrer Institute, in Switzerland, in which they stated that the use of hydrogen-based fuels should be prioritized in sectors that are difficult to electrify, such as long-distance aviation, feedstocks in chemical production, steel production and high-temperature industrial processes.
The scientists cite short-term scarcity and long-term uncertainty as a major obstacle for hydrogen to reach sectors that are easier to electrify, such as transport and heating, although hydrogen fuels will probably not be completely excluded from applications of this kind. “There will likely be small-scale niche applications and also regional-specific responses to this question,” researcher Falko Ueckerdt told pv magazine.
“If we use hydrogen-based fuels instead of direct electrification alternatives, two to 14 times the amount of electricity generation is needed, depending on the application and the respective technologies,” explained research co-author Romain Sacchi. “Efficiency losses happen both on the supply side, in the production process of the hydrogen-based fuels, and on the demand side – a combustion engine wastes a lot more energy than an electrical one.”
The academics defined the current race for green or blue hydrogen and e-fuels as a “potential distraction” from the task of electrifying the global economy, which they claim is more urgent as well as cheaper and easier to achieve. E-fuel costs, on the other hand, may become competitive only if carbon prices will rise significantly before the end of this decade – a scenario that the German-Swiss group described as rather unlikely.
“Even if assuming 100% renewable electricity, the costs of avoiding one ton of CO2 emissions by using hydrogen-based fuels would currently be €800 for liquid and €1,200 for gaseous fuels,” the research team explained. “This is much higher than current CO2 prices, for instance in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which currently are below €50 per ton.”
According to its calculations, hydrogen-based fuels may be cost-competitive, eventually, by 2040, but this would be too late for relying on hydrogen as a climate solution. Direct electrification alternatives already exist, it further explained, and these must be applied if climate change needs to be tackled.
Considering that carbon prices may need more than a decade to reach sufficient levels to better support a hydrogen economy, public policies will be necessary to support research and the market introduction of hydrogen-based fuels, the researchers went on to say. Government strategies should support innovation and initial scale-up, including direct electrification and enacting energy tax reforms to create a level-playing field for all technologies.
“Fuels based on hydrogen as a universal climate solution might be a bit of false promise,” Ueckerdt concluded. “While they’re wonderfully versatile, it should not be expected that they broadly replace fossil fuels.”
The paper Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation was recently published in Nature Climate Change.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
Usually PIK produce good reports, this is not one of them. A number of straw men are erected (and duly demolished). Nobody with half a brain is claiming that green-H2 can “fully decarbonize the global economy”.
One of the problems is the focus on “efficiency” – using electricity directly is efficient, turning it into H2 is not. This rather avoids a point that exists but is not raised by PIK: rising levels of renewables in any energy system automatically leads to electricity surpluses. If you have 80% RES in an electric system, very roughly you need to generate 120% to get to 80% i.e. you have 40% that you need to put somewhere. Step forward H2.
As for cost competitive, clearly PIK has not been reading PV magazine. LCOEs for PV in Spain are circa Euro15/MWh heading for Euro10/MWh. This delivers H2 at a price equivalent to yet-to-be-built-without-a-massive-subsidy Blue H2 in the case of the former price and puts green-H2 at parity with unabated SMR-H2 in the case of the latter. PV magazines profile of HyDeal confirms this point. Cost competitive with Blue H2 right now and certainly unabated SMR-H2 by at latest 2025. So much for PIKs 2040 date.
I expected better from PIK, pity they are not keeping up to date with the evolution of RES prices.
@Mike Parr, Good points. I see hydrogen as a means to balance out seasonal fluctuations in renewables supply (with pumped storage, batteires and demand shaping balancing out daily fluctuations). That means large scale PV plants in southern Europe, sized to supply electriicty in winter. What do they do with all their surplus electricity in the summer?
The marginal cost of this electricity is less than €15/MWh. But …. the electrlysers will be running at a utilisation rate of about 20%. So crucial is the capital cost of the electrolysers, and their ability to sit through the winter unused.
I always thought hydrogen would not be used as fuel for a combustion engine, but rather in a fuel cell to generate electricity directly.
The energy inefficiency of producing ‘green hydrogen’ is the major stumbling block.
This inefficiency leads to the lack of price competitiveness.
One aspect that I have yet to see receive much, if any, attention is the need for super ‘clean’ fresh water as the feed stock. Clean fresh water is something that is in short supply globally.
In Australia, the driest inhabited continent there are massive ‘green hydrogen’ projects being proposed (with the ever eager consultants receiving tens of millions in Govt grants). To be built in parts of Australia’s vast deserts (85%+ of land area) yet where will the clean fresh water be pumped hundreds of kms from?
Australia already has built desalination plants to try & keep up with imported population growth however droughts are ever present.
The water as feedstock needs to literally be ‘pure’ water – so additional energy is required.
Does not add-up.