Reply to comment on “How Green is Blue Hydrogen?”

Abstract

Abstract In their comment on our 2021 paper “How Green is Blue Hydrogen,” Romano et al. purport to provide “a more balanced perspective on blue hydrogen, which is in line with current best available practices.” We strongly disagree. First, we categorically dismiss their presentation on methane emissions. Methane dominates the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen in our analysis, and our estimates were based on very recent, peer‐reviewed science. Romano et al., in sharp contrast, use only three sources: (1) a 2015 non‐peer‐reviewed report (which gave reasonable values, although at the low end, since based on older science, but nonetheless compatible with our paper); (2) a 2018 report from the International Energy Agency (which also gave values consistent with ours, but has been updated by the Agency in a 2022 report to give much higher values that are very consistent with ours); and (3) a value from a cartoon on a web site from an oil and gas industry trade group (i.e., not supported by any data or references and is simply wrong based on peer‐reviewed science). We cannot stress enough that the Romano et al. criticism of our methane emission rates is based totally on this industry web‐site cartoon. Beyond the methane issue, our analysis used actual data for capture of carbon dioxide from real‐world operations. Romano et al. dismiss the use of real‐world data, and instead rely on presentations from theoretical studies. We find this fanciful. But even if one accepts their theoretical values for carbon capture, the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen remains unacceptably high because of methane. We unequivocally stand by our analyses and conclusions: There is no room for blue hydrogen in a decarbonized energy future. The Romano et al. result derives from a cartoon and hypothetical guesses, not scientific data.

Keywords

• hydrogen
• life cycle analysis