Hydrogen in transportation thrives on the chicken-and-egg paradox. Companies are not investing in the production of this gas for use in automobiles because there is not enough demand. At the same time, car manufacturers aren’t investing as much money in fuel cells because people don’t know where to find hydrogen. It seems that the American government wants to put an end to this by providing the necessary supplies through public investments. More specifically, we are talking about $7 billion that will create seven new hydrogen centers across the country.
The Department of Energy released more information about it, ensuring that it was “part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, a key pillar of Bidenomics.” In several countries, this communication would be prohibited by election and election laws for one simple reason: the Department of Energy is a foreign ministry, not something owned by a politician or party. While there is debate about whether Joe Biden – who is 80 years old – is not too old to run for re-election, he has already said he will run for it as the Democratic nominee. If a candidate portrays any of his government acts as personal, it would be tantamount to using the state as an electoral instrument. Apparently this is perfectly fine in the US.
Setting aside the controversial nature of these measures, those who have been anxious to see the hydrogen chicken-and-egg dilemma resolved in the U.S. can rejoice. If all goes according to plan, they’ll be able to buy a Toyota Mirai or a Hyundai NEXO in many more states than just California. Other automakers could also choose to offer similar products, not to mention fuel cell electric trucks (FCETs) like the Nikola Tre FCEV, which could benefit from this broader hydrogen offering.
A major issue with fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) is the affordability of both hydrogen and fuel cells. A first-generation fuel cell car recently had to be replaced in Germany. Till Westberg was shocked to discover that it would cost him €103,764.17 ($109,041 at current exchange rates) to get his 2016 Hyundai ix35 FCEV running again. He only used it for 84,000 kilometers (52,195 miles) and seven years. Even though the ix35 FCEV was manufactured on a very small scale, this is still scary.
Photo: Hyundai
As for hydrogen, Alexander Vlaskamp said in June that it was “far too expensive, almost four to five times as expensive as it would be interesting for our customers to use it.” The MAN boss is relying more on battery-electric trucks (BETs) , which corresponds to Volkswagen’s vision of the future. They simply never mentioned what happens when trucks with nine or more battery packs, similar to those used in cars, need to be replaced. In Tesla’s case, they cost $20,000 per person.
It appears that the American government is aware of at least one of these concerns. The Department of Energy promises that these hydrogen hubs – officially called H2Hubs – will “produce low-cost, clean hydrogen – a valuable energy product that can be produced with no or virtually no carbon emissions.”
Here’s the catch: Of the seven new H2Hubs, at least three will use natural gas, which is the same method used for most of the hydrogen currently used worldwide. We’re talking about the Appalachian (ARCH2), Gulf Coast (HyVelocity), and Midwest (MachH2) hydrogen centers. This essentially creates what is known as gray hydrogen – obtained through steam methane reforming (SMR) or gasification without carbon capture. Given what the Department of Energy has announced, only the first two will be about carbon capture.
Photo: Ministry of Energy
The other four H2Hubs are California (ARCHES), Heartland, Mid-Atlantic (MACH2) and Pacific Northwest (PNW H2). To produce green hydrogen, they will rely on renewable energy and nuclear power. MACH2 will repurpose “historic oil infrastructure” to transport hydrogen through pipelines. Each of these projects will receive around $1 billion, but they won’t create the same amount of jobs, which is quite a mystery.
While the ARCHES H2Hub will create 220,000 direct jobs – 130,000 in construction and the other 90,000 in permanent positions – the Heartland Hydrogen Hub will only create 3,880 direct jobs, divided precisely into 3,067 construction positions and 703 permanent positions. Despite the similar investments and goals, the discrepancy in job creation between these projects can only be clarified by looking more closely at all the details.
Now we have to wait for these H2Hubs to be completed and operational to see if they can make a difference in decarbonizing transport. Knowing that cars and trucks are only a small part of the problem, the Energy Department said the hubs would help “cut emissions from hard-to-decarbonize industrial sectors, which account for 30 percent of total U.S. carbon emissions.” Goals include port operations, “production of fertilizers,” “electricity generation,” and “space heating in cold climates.” As long as the H2Hubs can deliver truly blue or green hydrogen at sensible prices, the $7 billion the US plans to invest could prove to be a worthwhile investment.