Hydrogen fuel needs fossil fuels to survive, says Mahle chair
October 1, 2024Arnd Franz has stated that without blue H2 made using natural gas, clean H2 won’t take off
Arnd Franz, chairperson at Mahle has joined in an increasingly vocal opinion group by announcing that he feels the hydrogen fuel infrastructure simply doesn’t have the chance to take off without including blue H2 made using natural gas, which is a fossil fuel.
Mahle is an engineering company known for high-performance piston designs
Mahle’s expertise is not restricted to one category, and it’s important to note that while Franz did say that blue H2 will be required for hydrogen fuel to take off, he is also highly optimistic about the potential for H2 for clean energy.
“We can’t achieve any CO2 emission reductions if you use natural gas or any other fossil sources to produce hydrogen,” said Franz. “Today, the overwhelming portion of hydrogen production worldwide is around 90 million tons. That number is going to go up to 130 million tons until 2030. Currently, we have a flourishing and growing portion of that being more sustainable. By more sustainable, I mean blue and, eventually, green hydrogen. In our opinion, [blue hydrogen production is needed] to get the infrastructure going in order to get the ecosystem.”
Differing opinions on the hydrogen fuel interpretation
The media has been lighting up with interpretations of precisely what Franz meant by this statement, particularly as Mahle has been highly enthusiastic about the potential for the use of H2 for decarbonization.
The statement is broadly understood to say that there are extensive benefits to using H2 because its use does not produce carbon emissions. That said, much of the infrastructure is already in place to produce H2 using natural gas and fossil fuels, and the vast majority of the total currently produced is indeed currently powered by those polluting fuel sources.
That said, the majority of the current production leads to gray hydrogen, which is made using natural gas or other fossil fuels while leaving the greenhouse gas emissions unabated. If that were to be changed to blue H2, it would mean that carbon capture and storage technology would be used to greatly reduce the emissions from H2 production.
Franz predicts that the path will be gradual
“We will fail [with hydrogen technology] if we don’t use blue hydrogen,” said Franz. “Right now, hydrogen is produced from fossil sources with carbon capture, meaning we don’t let the carbon reach the atmosphere. Eventually, we need to get to wind and solar as the sources of energy to make hydrogen, and we believe the US has a really impressive program [thanks to] subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act.”
With over 15 years of reporting hydrogen news, we are your premier source for the latest updates and insights in hydrogen and renewable energy.
Yes Use Blue H2 instead of Green..
The Math Check…
Getting to Zero in the Power Sector in the US.
First step: Put Coal in Time Out to be used as Backup or Not at All while it is being changed into Blue Coal with CCS like Petra Nova. Why keep Coal? Because it is the Cheapest way to make Power.. Replace Coal Power with Combined Cycle Nat Gas and Offset 1096 Million Metric Tons of CO2.
Step 2: Using the same NG Turbines, Replace CCNG with CCNG/H2 50/50 for 278 Million Metric Tons gone. I suggest we use Blue because it is Half the price of Green H2. But eventually NG will run out so we will have to start using Green anyway. And by using NG to make the H2, we make it run out faster.
Step 3: Using the same Turbines and Flip the Switch and go all the way to H2 Power. CA, NY, and IL can use Green H2 and the rest of the Country can use Blue H2…
Extract H2 any way you can to start with. Then make zero emission the most economical.
Let’s get this show on the road.
I did some calculations regarding DOE’s projected cost of $1.00 per kilogram of liquefied hydrogen using nuclear power. My calculations use a 50 mw SMR nuclear power plant (30 yr lifespan). My estimate is $2.01 per kilogram of liquefied hydrogen delivered to a service station. These calculations include $50 million for the SMR (15 years amortization at 6%), $1.0 million/yr for nuclear fuel, $50 million for PLUG electrolyzers/cryo equipment (15 years amortization at 6%), $0.5 million/yr for radioactive waste disposal (2 yr refueling cycle), and $1.0 million/yr for long range transportation, maintenance, and operating personnel.