UK govt study: Hydrogen ‘twice as powerful a greenhouse gas as thought’
A study released on Friday by the UK government’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has found that hydrogen is twice as powerful a ‘greenhouse gas’ as previously thought.
The 75-page report, Atmospheric Implications of Increased Hydrogen Use, explains that H2 is an indirect ‘greenhouse gas’, which reacts with other ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere to increase their global warming potential (GWP).
“While hydrogen-induced changes in methane and ozone in the troposphere [the lowest layer of the atmosphere] have been considered previously, we have also considered, for the first time, previously ignored changes in stratospheric [that is, in the second-lowest layer of the atmosphere] water vapour and stratospheric ozone in our calculations of hydrogen’s GWP,” explain the authors, scientists from the National Centre for Atmospheric Sciences and the universities of Cambridge and Reading.
“We estimate the hydrogen GWP(100) [that is, over a 100-year period] to be 11 ± 5; a value more than 100 percent larger than previously published calculations.”
In other words, the study says the GWP figure is somewhere between six and 16, with 11 being the average — whereas the GWP of CO2 is one. A previous study from 2001, which has been frequently cited ever since, put the GWP of hydrogen at 5.8.
The report, which was commissioned by BEIS, continues: “The majority of uncertainty in the GWP arises from uncertainty with regard to the natural budget of atmospheric hydrogen, where the magnitude of the soil sink for hydrogen is the most uncertain factor. Future work is required to resolve these atmospheric uncertainties.”
This all means that leaks from hydrogen pipes and equipment must kept to a minimum.
“Any leakage of H2 will result in an indirect ‘global warming’, offsetting ‘greenhouse gas’ emission reductions made as a result of a switch from fossil fuel to H2,” the study points out.
Hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane, so it would much more easily leak from existing natural-gas pipelines if they were used to carry H2, particularly around joints and if they are made from iron, rather than polyethylene or copper.
“Leakage of hydrogen into the atmosphere during production, storage, distribution and use will partially offset some of the benefits of a hydrogen-based economy,” the study explains.
“Minimisation of leaks needs to be a priority if hydrogen is adopted as a major energy source.”
The report does not take into account the GWP of producing hydrogen, only the impact of H2 released into the atmosphere.
A second study, also released on Friday by BEIS, sets out expected hydrogen leakage from the production, transport, storage and end uses of H2.
The report, Fugitive Hydrogen Emissions in a Future Hydrogen Economy, states that with 99 percent confidence, electrolysis production of H2 would result in 9.2 percent of the hydrogen produced making its way into the atmosphere through “venting and purging”, but this would fall to 0.52 percent “with full recombination of hydrogen from purging and crossover venting”.
The study, commissioned by BEIS and written by Frazer-Nash Consultancy, says that the worst offender for H2 leakage would be tanker transport of liquid hydrogen, with 13.2 percent of its cargo leaking into the air, followed by above-ground compressed-gas storage (6.52 percent), fuel cells (2.64 percent) and refuelling stations (0.89 percent). All other production, transportation, storage and uses of hydrogen would see leakages of less than 0.53 percent).
The full reports are available here and here.
Bold emphasis added
Header image: 3D Perspectives
This is just another junk science scare story. Notice the authors refer repeatedly to computer models, calculations and estimates not observations. Notice also the use of the term ‘global warming potential’. Potential as in hypothetical.
If hydrogen is a ‘greenhouse gas’, maybe we should ban it. But hang on, hydrogen makes up two thirds of water, so should we ban water too?
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.
Squidly
| #
Oh puleez … there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Sorry, my comment there was meant as a reply to you.
Practically every greenhouse ever is clear evidence of attempted terrorism, considering the amount of explosions they’ve caused with CO2 and hydrogen levels WAY beyond what’s suggested to be a problem.
Areas like the Amazon or the Congo are clear examples of such lunacy, that’s why they need to be stopped.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Exactly, no gas at any concentration can warm Earth’s surface.
How can that be?
Because the surface is always warmer than the air above, particularly in the upper tropical troposphere where “climate science” claims there is a hotspot that warms the surface. [NASA has looked for years, 30+, and never found a hotspot, but theydid find that that area of the atmosphere is cooling gently.] The “hotspot is -17 deg C” and the surface is 15 deg C. A cold object cannot warm a hotter object, as the IR from the troposphere going downward would find that their equivalent energy levels in the surface are already full and be reflected back upward. No warming here.
Because their “climate science” does not work, the alarmists ignore it entirely and simply shout about greenhouse gases and pretend it’s the atmosphere itself that is warming the planet. However, the same state, as described above, holds for the rest of the atmosphere and, for sure, all the climate models. All climate models do not have night-time but do have solar input 24/7, in which case the surface is always hotter than the air. But, ingenuously they claim that the surface is hot from the air and not from the 24/7 solar input. Yeah, rriigghhtt!
Do notice that they mention calculations several times but avoid mentioning the model from which the calculations were drawn. No experimentation here, move on.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
If you mean by “warmer” the surface the Earth radiates more kinetic energy you are correct but if you believe that the molecules on the Earth’s surface always have more energy than the molecules in the atmosphere you are wrong. If you do a search for my article “How Cold Heats Hot” here at PSI you will find an explanation and diagram of how this occurs in the troposphere where collisions between molecules obey the conservation of momentum. The laws of thermodynamics should be called the laws of energy dynamics because objects do not transfer mass but only energy and temperature (thermal) is a function of both energy and mass.
I would be interested to hear your refutal to my reasoning.
Herb
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Oh come on, don’t you remember when you exceed 300 CO2s vs 999700 irrelevances (which of course have no thermal potential) in a greenhouse it grows legs, runs away and explodes?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
This article is another attempt to use the phony GHGT as an excuse to promote their own agenda. The argument against using hydrogen as a fuel are self evident. It takes 22 times the energy to produce the gas than you ever get from it. It is to extremely difficult to store because of the needed pressure/temperature to reduce its volume for practice use. It is destructive to metals and it is an explosion looking for a spark to set it off.
To use the GHGT to fight the use of hydrogen involves changing the definition of a greenhouse gas to (there is no such thing) fit the objective. This is commonly done since there is no science in the theory. Is a “greenhouse gas” a gas that inhibits the flow of heat (infrared radiation) from the Earth into space or a gas that radiates heat when it converts from an unstable molecule to a more stable one?
Since gases do not reflect electromagnetic waves the only way a gas can alter the flow of energy is by absorbing energy and re-radiating it in all directions. It is the length of the chemical bonds that determine what wavelengths of energy ate absorbed with all other wavelengths being transmitted. CO2 has a carbon to oxygen bond that absorbs infrared radiation at the -80 degree temperature. (This is the closed absorbed radiation for temperatures that occur on Earth.) Oxygen and nitrogen with their shorter bond lengths do not absorb either visible or infrared light but shorter ultraviolet light. The hydrogen molecule with a bond length of about 60% of the O2 molecule will absorb in the very short uv wavelength or x-ray spectrum. There is no way that it is altering the flow of infrared radiation.
Gas molecules will produce heat when they convert from a molecule with unstable bonds to molecules with a stable structure, radiating the freed energy. 2 O3 convert to 3 O2 plus energy. CH4 and 2O2 converts to CO2 and 2H2O plus energy. 2 N2O degrades to 2N2 and an O2 plus heat. 2H2 and an O2 convert to 2 H20 plus heat. This is energy being produced by chemical reactions, not the altering the flow of energy.
Since CO2 and H20 are stable molecules they do not produce heat but alter the flow by absorbing and re-radiating. (H20 does not exist as a gas in the atmosphere but as micro droplets and it is an anti greenhouse molecule. It absorbs heat at the Earth’s surface and carries that energy to the top of the Troposphere where it is released during condensation and radiated into space.)
H2 is a stable bond but has a varying electric field as the electrons move from one atom to the other. This stability of the bond is why you can store H2 and O2 together until there is an electric spark or source of energy that breaks the hydrogen-hydrogen bond creating an explosion and H2O.
Those who are trying to justify a position by using the GHGT to sound scientificish are being fools because there is no science involved with the GHGT.
Reply
Squidly
| #
While I agree with much of what you said Herb, hydrogen is no more “volatile” than gasoline. To claim that hydrogen “is an explosion waiting to happen” discredits your story. I would contend that a hydrogen fire would be preferable to a gasoline fire as hydrogen would not spread like gasoline can. Does hydrogen make sense to use as vehicle fuel? .. maybe, or perhaps not. I personally prefer gasoline as it is still one of the easiest and most economical fuels to use for automobiles, airplanes, snowmobiles, and the like.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
“Does hydrogen make sense to use as vehicle fuel?”
I think it does. Methanol reformers for instance, and it’s not like processes can’t be improved. Herb has an incredibly “static” view. But again, I will mention, try maximize the usage of oxygen relative to other elements, due to abundance. Carbon isn’t all that abundant.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
That is, 3 things that should be mostly be left for living organisms would phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Squidly,
I believe :volatile” has to do with a liquid converting to a gas and then igniting. Since hydrogen would always be a gas, when it leaked it would mix with oxygen and any spark (Hindenburg’s) would cause it to explode. The flame of hydrogen is invisible (the flames in the Hindenburg fire were a result of the paint (a mixture of resin and metal powder (rocket fuel)) burning. The hydrogen would rise burning.
The use of hydrogen as a fuel would be used in a fuel cell where it would produce electricity and water.The reaction rate would change with slowing temperature. Its use as a fuel is a pipe dream. It is almost as stupid as Biden’s plan to convert corn into alcohol when there is a food shortage in order to lower the cost of gasoline (and ruin everybody’s care engines so they have to buy electric).
Herb
Reply
Boris Badenov
| #
Two things, do you remember the Hindenburg? I use to make my own hydrogen, don’t ask, for balloons then set them off at hight and explode them.. Back before it was considered a ‘terrorist act’. Using it as a fuel is just about as stupid as using alcohol.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
What a bunch of crap. As if some pipe leaks are causing global warming. Remember when the Emir of Kuwait had hundreds of gas well heads blown off by the Iraqis and they were blowing oil and gas out in the atmosphere for months. Even though it was predicted that the world would be ruined, I don’t know of any long term issues or changes in the troposphere. And I doubt if the Emir and his 89 wives ever got too rattled about it either. Now I remember reading on PSI that CO2 actually cools the atmosphere rather than heating as the environmental crowd claims. Someone needs to clarify this issue. As far as this particular article released by the U.K. Gov. I think they must have consulted with Boris for the leaky pipe information. That is when he was not down with the fake virus or caught partying.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mark, Perfect comment.
Our atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen with a bit of other tiny gases added to the mix.
Adding CO2 or any other gas, or lead bricks to the atmosphere which have a Molar Specific Heat greater than Nitrogen will have a cooling effect. This is because the molecule with higher Specific Heat requires more energy to bring to the same temperature as its surroundings.
CO2 is in fact a coolant.
Volcanic dust is a coolant.
Lead bricks in the atmosphere would be coolants.
The entire ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ is complete nonsense, as it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Lead bricks are some of the worst particulates known to science.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Most humorous, Sir…
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Kevin:
And thanks for explaining that the transfer of energy required to bring these gases to temperature has a cooling effect on the atmosphere. I don’t know much about science (or anything else) but I knew this BBC article was just more “Club of Rome” propaganda and I knew better than to line up for the graphene oxide injection for simps shot.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mark,
When I was I engineering school, studying aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer, this was basic stuff.
This stuff was all realized, documented, and re-produced in actual laboratories between 1800 – 1950.
‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ was the imaginary Doctoral Thesis of the guy who headed NASA’s Eco-Division, based in New York City at Columbia University. His name is James Hansen. Al Gore bought into all of his nonsense.
Trust fund kids, who have never accomplished anything on their own need ’causes for salvation’, much like Don Quixote.
‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’, although completely absurd, satiates the mind of those in need of a ’cause’.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mark,
The other really annoying fact, which is disregarded by ‘Environmental Scientists’, is all substances, solid, liquid, or gaseous radiate energy. My French baguette radiates between itself and my cup of coffee.
The air, being composed of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapour radiates energy in all directions.
These ‘Environmental Scientists’ have no comprehension of basic Thermodynamics.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Another completely idiotic belief by the fake scientists is that because N2, O2, and argon do not absorb visible or infrared radiation they are not absorbing any radiated energy. All objects absorb radiated energy and all objects with energy radiate energy. The nitrogen and oxygen are absorbing 95% of the uv energy coming to the Earth from the sun and converts it to kinetic energy. They know the 5% reaching the surface will burn their skin off but the 95% absorbed in the atmosphere just disappears.
Herb
Mervyn
| #
All I will say about that study is bollocks!!!!
Now that hydrogen is the latest thing for investors, how convenient that a study like this pops up. It’s crap.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Mervyn, the thing is, established industry is obviously monolithic, stagnant and are averse to improvement or progress.
For instance, if you’ve got a bunch of oil rigs related to the rape of earth, and that’s nice and “homogenized”, you probably wouldn’t to change much of that? It might make you look bad, right?
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Kevin:
If it was just some wealthy layabouts trying to get attention it would be of no concern. That unfortunately is not what we are dealing with. The fake climate change (formerly global warming) is part of the long term plan by the global elite parasites to damage the western economies so that by using the bogus CO2 fraud (as with the fake virus medical control plan) they will be able to transition the plantation livestock into the long planned U.N. Agenda 2030-21 world of austerity and permanent poverty.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HVoiQbL5i4I3/
https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/the-full-scary-story-of-agenda-21-and-your-future_uNYnvBdc3eBQfiQ.html
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
This is the IPCC sponsored UK government’s, attempt at sucking in the COVID sheeple into believing another big lie. Carbon emissions aka CO2 doesn’t resonate as it used to, they are going after the big atmospheric fish, hydrogen.
The Australian wild fire season is at hand and this hydrogen lie is “kindling” for inciting the sheeple into heightened global warming rhetoric.
Reply