Will 2023 be hydrogen’s year?

GUEST COLUMN

Scott Nyquist debates both sides of the hydrogen argument in this week’s ECHTX Voices of Energy guest column. Photo courtesy of Aramco.

Yes and no.

Yes, because there is real money, and action, behind it.

Globally, there are 600 projects on the books to build electrolyzers, which separate the oxygen and hydrogen in water, and are critical to creating low-emissions “green hydrogen.” That investment could drive down the cost of low-emissions hydrogen, making it cost competitive with conventional fuels—a major obstacle to its development so far.

In addition, oil companies are interested, too. The industry already uses hydrogen for refining; many see hydrogen as supplemental to their existing operations and perhaps, eventually, supplanting them. In the meantime, it helps them to decarbonize their refining and petrochemical operations, which most of the majors have committed to doing.

Indeed, hydrocarbon-based companies and economies could have a big opportunity in “blue hydrogen,” which uses fossil fuels for production, but then captures and stores emissions. (“Green hydrogen” uses renewables; because it is expensive to produce, it is more distant than blue. “Gray hydrogen” uses fossil fuels, without carbon capture; this accounts for most current production and use.) Oil and gas companies have a head start on related infrastructure, such as pipelines and carbon capture, and also see new business opportunities, such as low-carbon ammonia.

Houston, for example, which likes to call itself the "energy capital of the world,” is going big on hydrogen. The region is well suited to this. It has an extensive pipeline infrastructure, an excellent port system, a pro-business culture, and experience. The Greater Houston Partnership and McKinsey—both of whom I am associated with—estimate that demand for hydrogen will grow 6 to 8 percent a year from 2030 to 2050. No wonder Houston wants a piece of that action.

There are promising, near-term applications for hydrogen, such as ammonia, cement, and steel production, shipping, long-term energy storage, long-haul trucking, and aviation. These bits and pieces add up: steel alone accounts for about 8 percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions. Late last year, Airbus announced it is developing a hydrogen-powered fuel cell engine as part of its effort to build zero-emission aircraft. And Cummins, a US-based engine company, is investing serious money in hydrogen for trains and commercial and industrial vehicles, where batteries are less effective; it already has more than 500 electrolyzers at work.

Then there is recent US legislation. The Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 allocated $9.5 billion funding for hydrogen. Much more important, though, was last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, which contains generous tax credits to promote hydrogen production. The idea is to narrow the price gap between clean hydrogen and other, more emissions-intensive technologies; in effect, the law seeks to fundamentally change the economics of hydrogen and could be a true game-changer.

This is not without controversy: some Europeans think this money constitutes subsidies that are not allowed under trade rules. For its part, Europe has the hydrogen bug, too. Its REPowerEU plan is based on the idea of “hydrogen-ready infrastructure,” so that natural gas projects can be converted to hydrogen when the technology and economics make sense.

So there is a lot of momentum behind hydrogen, bolstered by the ambitious goals agreed to at the most recent climate conference in Egypt. McKinsey estimates that hydrogen demand could reach 660 million tons by 2050, which could abate 20 percent of total emissions. Total planned production for lower-emission green and blue hydrogen through 2030 has reached more than 26 million metric tons annually—quadruple that of 2020.

No, because major issues have not been figured out.

The plans in the works, while ambitious, are murky. A European official, asked about the REPowerEU strategy, admitted that “it’s not clear how it will work.” The same can be said of the United States. The hydrogen value chain, particularly for green hydrogen, requires a lot of electricity, and that calls for flexible grids and much greater capacity. For the United States to reach its climate goals, the grid needs to grow an estimated 60 percent by 2030.That is not easy: just try siting new transmission lines and watch the NIMBY monsters emerge.

Permitting can be a nightmare, often requiring separate approvals from local, state, interstate, and federal authorities, and from different authorities for each (air, land, water, endangered species, and on and on); money does not solve this. Even a state like Texas, which isn’t allergic to fossil fuels and has a relatively light regulatory touch, can get stuck in permitting limbo. Bill Gates recently noted that “over 1,000 gigawatts worth of potential clean energy projects [in the United States] are waiting for approval—about the current size of the entire U.S. grid—and the primary reason for the bottleneck is the lack of transmission.”

Then there is the matter of moving hydrogen from production site to market. Pipeline networks are not yet in place and shifting natural gas pipelines to hydrogen is a long way off. Liquifying hydrogen and transporting is expensive. In general, because hydrogen is still a new industry, it faces “chicken or egg” problems that are typical of the difficulties big innovations face, such as connecting hydrogen buyers to hydrogen producers and connecting carbon emitters to places to store the carbon dioxide. These challenges add to the complexity of getting projects financed.

Finally, there is money. McKinsey estimates that getting on track to that 600 million tons would require investment of $950 billion by 2030; so far, $240 billion has been announced.

Where I stand: in the middle.

I believe in hydrogen’s potential. More than 3 years ago, I wrote about hydrogen, arguing that while there had been real progress, “many things need to happen, in terms of policy, finance, and infrastructure, before it becomes even a medium-sized deal.” Now, some of those things are happening.

So, I guess I land somewhere in the middle. I think 2023 will see real progress, in decarbonizing refining and petrochemicals operations and producing ammonia, specifically. I am also optimistic that a number of low-emissions electrolysis projects will move ahead. And while such advances might seem less than transformative, they are critical: hydrogen, whether blue or green, needs to prove itself, and 2023 could be the year it does.

Because I take hydrogen’s potential seriously, though, I also see the barriers. If it is to become the big deal its supporters believe it could be, that requires big money, strong engineering and construction project management, sustained commitment, and community support. It’s easy to proclaim the wonders of the hydrogen economy; it’s much more difficult to devise sensible business models, standardized contracts, consistent incentives, and a regulatory system that doesn’t drive producers crazy. But all this matters—a lot.

My conclusion: there will be significant steps forward in 2023—but take-off is still years away.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

DOE report warns of widespread power blackouts by 2030 amid grid challenges

grid report

Scheduled retirements of traditional power plants, dependence on energy sources like wind and solar, and the growth of energy-gobbling data centers put the U.S. — including Texas — at much greater risk of massive power outages just five years from now, a new U.S. Department of Energy report suggests.

The report says the U.S. power grid won’t be able to sustain the combined impact of plant closures, heavy reliance on renewable energy, and the boom in data center construction. As a result, the risk of power blackouts will be 100 times greater in 2030, according to the report.

“The status quo of more [plant] retirements and less dependable replacement generation is neither consistent with winning the AI race and ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, nor with continued grid reliability … . Absent intervention, it is impossible for the nation’s bulk power system to meet the AI growth requirements while maintaining a reliable power grid and keeping energy costs low for our citizens,” the report says.

Avoiding planned shutdowns of traditional energy plants, such as those fueled by coal and oil, would improve grid reliability, but a shortfall would still persist in the territory served by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), particularly during the winter, the report says. ERCOT operates the power grid for the bulk of Texas.

According to the report, 104 gigawatts of U.S. power capacity from traditional plants is set to be phased out by 2030. “This capacity is not being replaced on a one-to-one basis,” says the report, “and losing this generation could lead to significant outages when weather conditions do not accommodate wind and solar generation.”

To meet reliability targets, ERCOT would need 10,500 megawatts of additional “perfect” capacity by 2030, the report says. Perfect capacity refers to maximum power output under ideal conditions.

“ERCOT continues to undergo rapid change, and supply additions will have a difficult time keeping up with demand growth,” Brent Nelson, managing director of markets and strategy at Ascend Analytics, a provider of data and analytics for the energy sector, said in a release earlier this summer. “With scarcity conditions ongoing and weather-dependent, expect a volatile market with boom years and bust years.”

Syzygy partners with fellow Houston co. on sustainable aviation fuel facility

SAF production

Houston-based Syzygy Plasmonics has announced a partnership with Velocys, another Houston company, on its first-of-its-kind sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production project in Uruguay.

Velocys was selected to provide Fischer-Tropsch technology for the project. Fischer-Tropsch technology converts synthesis gas into liquid hydrocarbons, which is key for producing synthetic fuels like SAF.

Syzygy estimates that the project, known as NovaSAF 1, will produce over 350,000 gallons of SAF annually. It is backed by Uruguay’s largest dairy and agri-energy operations, Estancias del Lago, with permitting and equipment sourcing ongoing. Syzygy hopes to start operations by 2027.

"This project proves that profitable SAF production doesn't have to wait on future infrastructure," Trevor Best, CEO of Syzygy Plasmonics, said in a news release. "With Velocys, we're bringing in a complete, modular solution that drives down overall production costs and is ready to scale. Uruguay is only the start."

The NovaSAF 1 facility will convert dairy waste and biogas into drop-in jet fuel using renewable electricity and waste gas via its light-driven GHG e-Reforming technology. The facility is expected to produce SAF with at least an 80 percent reduction in carbon intensity compared to Jet A fuel.

Syzygy will use Velocys’ microFTL technology to convert syngas into high-yield jet fuel. Velocys’ microFTL will help maximize fuel output, which will assist in driving down the cost required to produce synthetic fuel.

"We're proud to bring our FT technology into a project that's changing the game," Matthew Viergutz, CEO of Velocys, added in the release. "This is what innovation looks like—fast, flexible, and focused on making SAF production affordable."

How carbon capture works and the debate about whether it's a future climate solution

Energy Transition

Power plants and industrial facilities that emit carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global warming, are hopeful that Congress will keep tax credits for capturing the gas and storing it deep underground.

The process, called carbon capture and sequestration, is seen by many as an important way to reduce pollution during a transition to renewable energy.

But it faces criticism from some conservatives, who say it is expensive and unnecessary, and from environmentalists, who say it has consistently failed to capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a way for producers of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal to continue their use.

Here's a closer look.

How does the process work?

Carbon dioxide is a gas produced by burning of fossil fuels. It traps heat close to the ground when released to the atmosphere, where it persists for hundreds of years and raises global temperatures.

Industries and power plants can install equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before it leaves the smokestack. The carbon then is compressed and shipped — usually through a pipeline — to a location where it’s injected deep underground for long-term storage.

Carbon also can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant vacuums. Once captured, it is dissolved by chemicals or trapped by solid material.

Lauren Read, a senior vice president at BKV Corp., which built a carbon capture facility in Texas, said the company injects carbon at high pressure, forcing it almost two miles below the surface and into geological formations that can hold it for thousands of years.

The carbon can be stored in deep saline or basalt formations and unmineable coal seams. But about three-fourths of captured carbon dioxide is pumped back into oil fields to build up pressure that helps extract harder-to-reach reserves — meaning it's not stored permanently, according to the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

How much carbon dioxide is captured?

The most commonly used technology allows facilities to capture and store around 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything above that rate is much more difficult and expensive, according to the IEA.

Some companies have forecast carbon capture rates of 90% or more, “in practice, that has never happened,” said Alexandra Shaykevich, research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project’s Oil & Gas Watch.

That's because it's difficult to capture carbon dioxide from every point where it's emitted, said Grant Hauber, a strategic adviser on energy and financial markets at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Environmentalists also cite potential problems keeping it in the ground. For example, last year, agribusiness company Archer-Daniels-Midland discovered a leak about a mile underground at its Illinois carbon capture and storage site, prompting the state legislature this year to ban carbon sequestration above or below the Mahomet Aquifer, an important source of drinking water for about a million people.

Carbon capture can be used to help reduce emissions from hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel, but many environmentalists contend it's less helpful when it extends the use of coal, oil and gas.

A 2021 study also found the carbon capture process emits significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s shorter-lived than carbon dioxide but traps over 80 times more heat. That happens through leaks when the gas is brought to the surface and transported to plants.

About 45 carbon-capture facilities operated on a commercial scale last year, capturing a combined 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — a tiny fraction of the 37.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector alone, according to the IEA.

It's an even smaller share of all greenhouse gas emissions, which amounted to 53 gigatonnes for 2023, according to the latest report from the European Commission’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says one of the world's largest carbon capture utilization and storage projects, ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek facility in Wyoming, captures only about half its carbon dioxide, and most of that is sold to oil and gas companies to pump back into oil fields.

Future of US tax credits is unclear

Even so, carbon capture is an important tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, particularly in heavy industries, said Sangeet Nepal, a technology specialist at the Carbon Capture Coalition.

“It’s not a substitution for renewables ... it’s just a complementary technology,” Nepal said. “It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.”

Experts say many projects, including proposed ammonia and hydrogen plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast, likely won't be built without the tax credits, which Carbon Capture Coalition Executive Director Jessie Stolark says already have driven significant investment and are crucial U.S. global competitiveness.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME