Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Climate

New Research Spells Trouble For Blue Hydrogen in Texas

Where natural gas comes from matters for hydrogen production.

Texas pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Oil giants Exxon and Chevron are among a group of energy companies that could receive up to $1.2 billion in federal grants to make so-called “clean” hydrogen in Texas. Their proposal to produce the clean-burning fuel using natural gas and carbon capture, in addition to other methods, was selected by the Biden administration a year ago to become one of the country’s seven clean hydrogen hubs. But a trio of researchers at the University of Texas at Austin just showed that there’s a dirty paradox at the heart of the plan.

In a study published in the journal Nature Energy on Monday, the researchers show that upstream emissions in the natural gas supply chain in Texas are so high that it’s essentially impossible to make hydrogen from it that would meet federal standards for “clean” hydrogen. But, the authors warn, the government’s proposed method for measuring the carbon intensity of hydrogen overlooks these emissions. That means these Texas hydrogen projects could get millions in public funding in the name of tackling climate change, all while making the problem worse.

“You’re investing so much in developing a hydrogen economy, and then it turns out, 10 years later, half of them are not even low carbon,” Arvind Ravikumar, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the authors of the new paper, told me. “I think that’s a real risk.”

This story might sound familiar. I’ve written extensively about the emissions accounting challenges plaguing another method for making clean hydrogen that requires only water and carbon-free electricity, known as electrolysis. The problem there is that the electric grid still runs largely on fossil fuels, and so plugging in a hydrogen plant will produce indirect emissions, even if the production process itself is clean.

The new study highlights a similar issue with hydrogen made from natural gas. Of course, since this method uses fossil fuels, it’s already substantially more difficult to prove it has any climate benefits at all. In theory, the emissions can be greatly reduced, although likely not entirely eliminated, by capturing the carbon emitted from the plant. The authors show, however, that the more important factor is where the natural gas comes from.

Natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term, and leaks are notoriously underestimated. But any assessment of the benefits of hydrogen made from methane must take leakage into account, and some natural gas fields are leakier than others.

The paper analyzes a range of scenarios for two hypothetical hydrogen plants — one on the Gulf Coast that sources natural gas from the Permian Basin, and one in Ohio that gets gas from the Marcellus Shale. The Treasury Department’s draft rules for calculating the carbon intensity of hydrogen for the clean hydrogen tax credit say these two plants should assume that a national average of 1% of the natural gas extracted from the ground is leaked into the atmosphere where it warms the planet. But more than a decade of on-the-ground measurements, combined with more recent satellite data, has shown that methane leaks vary widely from well to well and basin to basin.

Using the more accurate, though still approximate, leakage rates of 5.2% in the Permian and 1.25% in the Marcellus, the authors calculated the carbon intensity of hydrogen produced at the two plants under various assumptions. What if the carbon capture system is more effective? Or less effective? What if the capture equipment is powered by renewables? What if we measure the warming effects of methane over 20 years versus over 100 years?

No matter which variable they changed, one result stayed the same: Hydrogen made from Permian Basin gas greatly exceeded the government’s definition of clean hydrogen, i.e. 4 kilograms of CO2 released per kilogram of hydrogen produced. In fact, the emissions from natural gas production in the Permian Basin alone pushed it over that standard. Hydrogen made from Marcellus Shale gas, on the other hand, has the potential to qualify as clean if at least 90% of the carbon at the plant is captured.

The findings suggest that without enormous efforts to reduce those upstream emissions, which come from leaks, venting, and flaring at the wellhead and along the pipeline system, natural gas-based hydrogen projects on the Gulf Coast should not qualify for federal subsidies.

The authors advocate for the Treasury’s final guidelines for calculating the carbon intensity of hydrogen to account for these regional differences. “I think that, to begin with, will make a huge difference in accurately estimating the emissions intensity of these projects,” Ravikumar said. As new methane regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency go into effect, it’s possible that projects that are not eligible today could become eligible in the future. “But the point is, you’ll only know that if you do your carbon accounting accurately across supply chains,” he said.

One problem with this solution is that hydrogen producers have access to another federal tax credit that doesn’t require any analysis of how clean the hydrogen is — up to $85 for every ton of carbon they capture and sequester underground. Indeed, at least one project developer has already said they will go after that subsidy instead of the one for clean hydrogen.

Ravikumar thinks those developers are facing a major risk. “At the end of the day, you’re going to buy hydrogen from these companies explicitly for its low-carbon attributes,” he said. “Right now we did this analysis, but very soon, you’re going to have satellites that are going to look at all these regions and be able to make emissions information publicly available. And once you’re able to do that, you can’t make up numbers on paper.”

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

Exxon Counterattacks

On China’s rare earths, Bill Gates’ nuclear dream, and Texas renewables

An Exxon sign.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Melissa exploded in intensity over the warm Caribbean waters and has now strengthened into a major storm, potentially slamming into Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica as a Category 5 in the coming days • The Northeast is bracing for a potential nor’easter, which will be followed by a plunge in temperatures of as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit lower than average • The northern Australian town of Julia Creek saw temperatures soar as high as 106 degrees.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Exxon sued California

Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit against California late Friday on the grounds that two landmark new climate laws violate the oil giant’s free speech rights, The New York Times reported. The two laws would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas pollution created by the use of their products, so-called Scope 3 emissions. “The statutes compel Exxon Mobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” Exxon complained through its lawyers. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said the statutes “have already been upheld in court and we continue to have confidence in them.” He condemned the lawsuit, calling it “truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
The Aftermath

How to Live in a Fire-Scarred World

The question isn’t whether the flames will come — it’s when, and what it will take to recover.

Wildfire aftermath.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the two decades following the turn of the millennium, wildfires came within three miles of an estimated 21.8 million Americans’ homes. That number — which has no doubt grown substantially in the five years since — represents about 6% of the nation’s population, including the survivors of some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in the country’s history. But it also includes millions of stories that never made headlines.

For every Paradise, California, and Lahaina, Hawaii, there were also dozens of uneventful evacuations, in which regular people attempted to navigate the confusing jargon of government notices and warnings. Others lost their homes in fires that were too insignificant to meet the thresholds for federal aid. And there are countless others who have decided, after too many close calls, to move somewhere else.

By any metric, costly, catastrophic, and increasingly urban wildfires are on the rise. Nearly a third of the U.S. population, however, lives in a county with a high or very high risk of wildfire, including over 60% of the counties in the West. But the shape of the recovery from those disasters in the weeks and months that follow is often that of a maze, featuring heart-rending decisions and forced hands. Understanding wildfire recovery is critical, though, for when the next disaster follows — which is why we’ve set out to explore the topic in depth.

Keep reading...Show less
The Aftermath

The Surprisingly Tricky Problem of Ordering People to Leave

Wildfire evacuation notices are notoriously confusing, and the stakes are life or death. But how to make them better is far from obvious.

Wildfire evacuation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

How many different ways are there to say “go”? In the emergency management world, it can seem at times like there are dozens.

Does a “level 2” alert during a wildfire, for example, mean it’s time to get out? How about a “level II” alert? Most people understand that an “evacuation order” means “you better leave now,” but how is an “evacuation warning” any different? And does a text warning that “these zones should EVACUATE NOW: SIS-5111, SIS-5108, SIS-5117…” even apply to you?

Keep reading...Show less