Hydrogen Map Reveals More Than Just Project Locations
With the current push toward clean energy, hydrogen has prevailed as a viable energy option. With its green capability, hydrogen is gaining great popularity, with a comparison being made between blue and green designations.
Serving the public, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, an international law firm, has devised a global map of hydrogen projects. In addition to listing locations of current projects, the firm’s hydrogen map communicates much more to the public, including trends and support.
Concentrating on green and blue projects, the Pillsbury map targets production facilities that comply or meet low carbon standards. This feat is accomplished by using carbon-free methods or sources like renewables, nuclear power utilization, or through carbon capture and storage processes.
As hydrogen projects grow in number, the data portrayed in the map is expected to expand as time and projects progress. Additionally, the map is capable of adding additional information.
Having begun her career as an engineer with the former Enron Corporation, Mona Dajani heads the legal firm’s Energy and Infrastructure Projects Renewable and Energy Team. Outfitted with the goal of bringing awareness and information directly to the public so it can formulate a true opinion on hydrogen energy, Dajani indicated that green hydrogen is the path of the future and is driven to make its capability known to all.
“Demand for energy is driving significant innovation in the hydrogen space,” said Dajani. “Green hydrogen projects, which combine renewable power sources with hydrogen production, are unlocking new possibilities for regions previously constrained by weak grid connections and transmission bottlenecks, and marking a crucial step in the development of the green hydrogen business case.”
Green and Blue Designation
Green hydrogen is a gas produced through renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy. This is the only type of hydrogen gas that meets the low carbon threshold, which contributes to reducing the carbon footprint.
While blue hydrogen is derived from non-renewable energy sources, it is widely considered to be “fairly clean.” It, too, meets the reduced carbon threshold. When blue hydrogen is generated, the carbon is captured and stored, which prevents carbon emission. Because the process captures approximately 90 percent of the carbon, zero-emission standards are not fully met. Instead, the process is considered to possess a moderate carbon intensity.
Pillsbury Analysis
Currently, there are 57 operational hydrogen projects. According to Dajani, an additional 58 will be in development by the end of the current year. Additionally, construction of another 92 is expected to begin in the next decade.
According to Dajani, green hydrogen projects are more prominent overseas and not in the United States. In fact, over 83% of the green hydrogen projects represented in the Pillsbury hydrogen map are being driven by markets in Western Europe and Asia Pacific.
“The United States is finally starting to see an increase in green hydrogen production projects,” said Dajani.
While green hydrogen projects dominate, with 52 projects being operational, Pillsbury data reveals the development of one blue hydrogen project. This particular project that will result in carbon emissions being captured, stored, or reused will take place at the Tabangao Refinery in Batangas, Philippines.
While blue oil hydrogen production serves as a more viable or simpler method for oil and gas companies to transition to clean energy without having to abandon fossil fuels, the Pillsbury Hydrogen Map indicates that in addition to the Tabangao Refinery, ten additional projects are slated to begin, but overseas, not in the United States.
“The large global oil and gas companies are accepting the push to renewable energy and understand the need to transition,” said Dajani.
Drawing similarities, green hydrogen data presented on the map supports the notion that the majority of those projects find roots outside the United States. Those numbers, while low compared to the total number of projects found overseas, are still higher than blue hydrogen projects.
This data representation indicates certain trends that can be inferred. Green hydrogen projects show substantial growth and acceptance, especially outside of the United States. Blue hydrogen projects are much smaller in overall quantity and reflect a slow movement towards clean energy by oil and gas companies. Still, the numbers show an increase which indicates growth.
Looking Ahead
With a growing global focus on clean energy, the oil and gas industry finds itself on the cusp of diversification. Drawing upon industry experience and data collected, Dajani predicts that oil and gas companies within the United States will have to succumb to the same fate as those across the globe.
No matter the size, the same strategy will need to be followed. Renewable energy will need to find its way into business portfolios.
“Small companies will still be held to the same standard as larger companies,” said Dajani. “The commitment to clean energy is not based on size. These companies will need to comply. Further diversification could also lead to an increase in mergers and acquisitions.”
See more here: shalemag.com
Header image: AdobeStock
PSI editor’s note: Principia Scientific Internationsl does not recognise the need for ‘renewable’ energy, reducing our ‘carbon footprint’, or any other ‘climate-change’ related activity.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
K Kaiser
| #
I very much doubt that ANY of the hydrogen enthusiasts have ever SEEN any hydrogen.
At best, they would have seen heavy-steel cylinders with high-pressure hydrogen in it.
Even at 700 BAR (10,000+ psi) pressure, a 50 L (volume) container would have only the energy equivalent of roughly 7 liters of gasoline or diesel.
Reply
Chris*
| #
Another scam to rip off the taxpayer.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Chris,
How can it be a scam, she stared her career at ENRON?
Herb
Reply
Barry
| #
You caught that too Herb. These people just seem to go from scam to scam. Until someone comes up with a better way of separating out hydrogen than using 4 kw of electricity to get 1 kw of hydrogen it will continue to be a scam. I’m 63 and have been hearing about the wonders of hydrogen since I was a teenager ,so far no real inroads in the industry.
Reply
Ken Irwin
| #
I used to think Hydrogen was the future fuel – alas I have over time come to a different conclusion……
A major problem exists for Hydrogen power – nowhere on Earth can you mine Hydrogen – so you have to synthesise it – first method is electrolysis – fairly efficient (75-80%) – but then you have to compress, cool, store, transport etc. etc. so you are better off going directly to electrically powered cars and skip out all those energy spendthrift transformations in-between the energy source and your car. (At present the only advantage to Hydrogen is that you can fill’er up – as opposed to a lengthy battery recharge.)
Guess what ? Commercially manufactured Hydrogen is produced by reacting Methane and Steam vis :- CH4 + 2H2O = 8H + CO2 well I’ll be hornswoggled – A Hydrogen powered car produces CO2 (in its fuel supply chain – at least) bet you didn’t see that in the brochure. There’s inconvenient truths everywhere.
What should be obvious is that you would be far better off burning the methane directly in an internal combustion engine – thereby eliminating all the energy spendthrift transformations. The alarmists would argue that burning methane still produces CO2 – but from the above it is equally obvious that using Hydrogen will (for the same amount of deliverable energy from methane) actually manufacture more CO2.
So since you can “fil’er up” with methane – that negates the only advantage of using Hydrogen.
Even the “fil’er up” is problematic – taking 5-7 minutes – not really a problem – but the pump requires about 20 more minutes to develop the pressure to fill the next car – so a queue of cars require 25-27 minutes per car to refuel – not acceptable. You might also pull up next to a pump that has just been used – only to hook up and find you have a 27 minute wait.
Third problem – Does the word Hindenburg mean anything to you ?
(The Hindenburg did not blow up it burned – rapidly – the Hydrogen did not get the opportunity to mix with air {other than at the flame front} and thus remained unable to explode.)
We have not yet had a major Hydrogen disaster but given that it is explosive in almost any concentration (4% to 74%), it’s going to happen.
Leeds in the UK is laying down hydrogen supply infrastructure in a test area of the city – I predict a future disaster – we have all seen the damage done by natural gas explosions from leaking infrastructure – hydrogen will be worse and much more likely because of its propensity to leak and its wide explosive limits. It’s only a matter of time.
Sorry it just happened 13 June 2019 :-
https://climatechangedispatch.com/hydrogen-fuel-station-explodes/
I predict a lot more and a lot worse will follow.
Roger Harrabin on BBC on using electricity to produce Hydrogen :- “The process is wasteful because it involves turning electricity into a gas, then back into electricity – a two-step shuffle dismissed by Tesla car chief Elon Musk as ‘staggeringly dumb’. ‘Fool cells’, he calls them.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/14/german-energy-expert-agrees-fission-fusion-plus-hydrocarbs-only-realistic-energy-transition-next-50-years/
See above link…
Extract from link :-
“At 200 bars, a 40-ton truck delivers about 3.2 tons of methane, but only 320 kg of hydrogen, because of low density of hydrogen and because of weight of pressure vessels and safety armatures. About 4.6 times more energy is required to move hydrogen through a pipeline than is needed for the same natural gas energy transport.”
It once was my belief that Hydrogen was the fuel of the future but the technological problems piled up against Hydrogen keep piling up with no solutions in sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
For me the final nail in the coffin of Hydrogen is the problem of leakage – something engineers have been unable to solve. It is a very small molecule and leaks through most seal materials, some metals and microporosity in welds etc.
The problem: if we start to use Hydrogen as a world wide portable fuel (to replace petrol, diesel & LPG) will be that the loss of Hydrogen through leakage will be appreciable.
Also “unburned” hydrogen on misfires or “rich” running will also be “leakage” to the atmosphere.
Cryogenically stored liquid hydrogen – typically stored in thermos flask type vessels is initially cooled and then kept cold by evaporation – another major source of “leakage”.
Losses to leakage, cryogenic evaporative cooling, coupling & uncoupling etc. can be from 1% to 10% most knowledgeable sources say the 10% end is more realistic.
Hydrogen manufactured by electrolysis is nascent Hydrogen H+ not H2. This is such a small atom (a single proton and an electron – anything smaller is subatomic) it dissolves into steel (causing hydrogen embrittlement) forming a solid solution – it literally can go through metal walls. It eventually stabilises to H2. But is problematical in production and leakage is unavoidable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
Leakage Hydrogen will rise rapidly through the atmosphere, through the stratosphere and eventually meet the Ozone layer – there it will react with the Ozone to produce water vapour. (6H+O3 = 3H2O)
Even an extremely optimistic 1% loss, if Hydrogen is adopted as a large scale portable fuel replacement, will release sufficient free hydrogen to be extremely damaging.
This will be bad for two reasons :-
Firstly the damage to the Ozone layer – by depleting it will bring about greater UV exposure.
Secondly this water vapour above (and within) the Stratosphere will produce (previously rare) noctilucent clouds which will drastically increase the Earth’s albedo (reflectiveness) thereby causing a significant Global Cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
See the following article which gives an overview of why Hydrogen is never going to be of much use – it lists considerably more risks and logistic problems than I have mentioned here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/24/the-pure-evil-of-hydrogen-hyping/
Link to academic paper mentioned in the above (pdf).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232983331_The_Future_of_the_Hydrogen_Economy_Bright_or_Bleak
The problems that beset Hydrogen are based on non-negotiable laws of physics and chemistry – so there is little hope of improvement or significant gains over time.
So my current position is that Hydrogen will not solve our energy problems principally because it is dangerous, grossly inefficient (overall) and a pollutant with real and serious consequences for global climate.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
I propose a public debate on the matter. A public debate where those advocating a new hydrogen infrastructure/use can only be allowed to speak after they have inhaled a lung full of gas.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
The “Green Energy” advocates want whatever is the most expensive and inefficient. Before Nuclear power came on line they were all for it. Once it became feasable then they were against it. Hydrogen would be perfect for the elites behind all of the climate change fraud because it will run out all competitors and give their buddies like the one’s profiled in this article total control of energy while further damaging the economy thereby limiting opportunity for everyone but those at the top. The hydrogen scam will fit in perfectly with the windmills and solar junk.
Reply