Blending hydrogen for buildings is bad for climate and health warns report

The US Physicians for Social Responsibility has come out against hydrogen blending, attributing six failings.

As the drive for hydrogen as a replacement for gas in the energy system grows, utilities and other companies in various parts of the world have started trialling hydrogen blending with methane in the gas networks.

Reasons include gaining experience with the handling and use of hydrogen and building up its production with a corresponding reduction in methane use with the emission reduction benefits that ensue.

However, there also is a move against blending with a group of scientists under the name the Hydrogen Science Coalition first stating that it does not make sense due to its limited emissions savings impact, estimated at around 7% for a 20% blend.

Have you read?
Scientists launch coalition on hydrogen in the energy transition
Transporting hydrogen: when to pipe, ship, liquify or blend?

Now Physicians for Social Responsibility, the US affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, have entered the fray with a report Hydrogen pipe dreams: Why burning hydrogen in buildings is bad for climate and health.

Specifically, the group details six failings of hydrogen blending – that it increases greenhouse gases, it maintains dependence on unhealthy methane gas, it uses renewable energy inefficiently with little climate benefit, it increases costs, it raises safety risks and it perpetuates health inequities.

“Fossil fuel companies are advocating blending hydrogen with ‘natural’ gas (methane) for cooking and space and water heating. They claim this will generate heat while lowering the carbon footprint of the methane gas system, In fact, it will not,” states the report, which is based on the published literature and apparently without any new research findings.

The report continues that as most hydrogen gas is derived from methane or coal, both of which are major sources of greenhouse gases, utilising hydrogen will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, while using hydrogen to blend with methane increases the demand for and prolongs dependence on methane.

“Meanwhile, it distracts from the uptake of renewable energy sources and cost-effective, efficient electric technologies proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With the window closing to address the climate crisis, we cannot afford this false solution.”

As its response the group puts forward a set of policy recommendations, including promoting and expanding the direct use of renewably generated electricity to heat buildings and requiring environmental and health impact assessments as part of the permitting process.

Other requirements should include accounting of the full lifecycle emissions of producing hydrogen and the certification of green hydrogen and state regulators and legislators should not allow gas utility rate increases for purchasing hydrogen for blending.

Few if any would query the concerns around current methods of hydrogen production, with green hydrogen production yet to ramp up meaningfully. But clearly the issue of hydrogen blending as a near term interim solution is open to discussion and will continue to be so, with advocates and critics on both sides of the debate.

There are still unknowns, such as the impact of blended hydrogen on safety and on appliances. But ultimately it is up to all players in the system, from regulators to utilities to producers to address the cost, safety, environmental and other factors with responsibility to their customers and wider society.