In a recent New York Post opinion piece, Jonathan Lesser shared insights on the Biden administration’s enthusiasm for “green” hydrogen, questioning its economic feasibility. Green hydrogen, a key pillar of the administration’s energy agenda, has been showered with tax breaks and subsidies, but Lesser argued there are two major flaws in the plan. Here’s the full story.
The Illusion of Creating Energy Out of Thin Air
Lesser began by delving into the fundamental principle that humans could not create energy out of thin air. Instead, energy was derived from the extraction and transformation of natural resources such as coal, oil, and gas.
The Issue With Hydrogen
The conversion process was key, as it consumed less energy than the resources themselves. However, the issue with green hydrogen, a product that needed to be manufactured, lay in the fact that no manufacturing process was 100% efficient, leading to inevitable energy losses.
Inherent Inefficiencies of Green Hydrogen Production
The second critical flaw identified by Lesser was the inefficiency of the hydrogen production process. Even with the application of electrolysis, a method involving passing an electric current through water to split hydrogen and oxygen molecules, the energy required to manufacture hydrogen was at least twice that of the gas itself. Lesser shared that this thermodynamic reality remained unaltered by substantial subsidies.
The Unattainable Earthshot Program
The Biden administration’s “Earthshot” program, designed to reduce the cost of producing green hydrogen through electrolysis by 80% by 2030, was dissected by Lesser.
While the goal was ambitious, he highlighted the impracticality and expense of operating manufacturing factories solely during periods of surplus solar and wind power, given the intermittent nature of these renewable sources. The costs associated with necessary storage, even with halved battery costs, could outweigh the cost of the manufacturing facilities.
Unrealistic Targets and Environmental Impact
The analysis extended to the administration’s aim to produce green hydrogen for no more than $1/kg. Lesser argued that this goal was unachievable regardless of the method employed. Even if the cost of electrolysis plants were to decrease by 80%, the cumulative costs of building and maintaining them, producing and transporting power, and compressing and storing hydrogen would far exceed the $1/kg target.
The Environmental Impact
Moreover, he questioned the environmental impact, claiming that the administration’s target of producing 10 million metric tons of green hydrogen per year by 2030 would have a negligible effect on global warming.
A Call for Strategic Prioritization
Lesser concluded his critique by proposing an alternative approach for the administration and future governments. He advocated for prioritizing the streamlining of licensing processes for new nuclear plants, particularly small modular ones.
The Allocation of Funds
Additionally, he suggested allocating funds to research and development aimed at reducing the costs associated with nuclear plants. Lesser said that such an approach would be more pragmatic than investing taxpayer funds in what he deemed “yet another energy hoax.”
Share Your Thoughts
So what do you think? Are there more effective and economically viable alternatives that should be explored to achieve the desired environmental goals?
