Having now worked for more than 3 years in the #hydrogen sector (after prior 10 years in Renewable Energies, #PV and #Wind), I would like to raise and discuss some key topics I regularly encounter in the broader context of decarbonization and the role of hydrogen.
“There is no NetZero without hydrogen”:
To get started: We need green #hydrogen and green derivatives such as #ammonia and #methanol to decarbonize. There is no alternative in sectors such as long-range aviation, long-range shipping, chemical feedstock (e.g. fertilizer), steel and other heat-reliant industry processes. To provide a striking example: there will never be a container ship from Shanghai to Hamburg that is powered by a battery.
And, yes! For use cases such as residential heat, cars and short-range aviation, (battery) electrification is a better option! Still, for roughly 20% of our energy consumption (heat and electricity), we will need green molecules such as green hydrogen.
“Costs are still high and too high”:
To decrease costs and run down the cost curve, we need to scale in order to increase efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale. This has not happened in the hydrogen sector, yet. We have been TALKING about hydrogen for decades, but up to now we have not built hydrogen projects at a meaningful scale.
Let’s have a look at what is possible: In PV in Germany, we had a LCOE of 80 Cents per kW/h in 2007. Now, we are at 5 Cents per kW/h, thanks to scaling and efficiency gains. That’s what is possible if we follow Nike’s claim and “JUST DO IT”, a decrease of 94% (!!!). Today, PV electricity is significantly cheaper than nuclear or coal- / oil-based electricity.
That is our blueprint and target for hydrogen! We need to deploy now, decrease costs and in 5 - 20 years we will benefit from significantly lower, competitive prices!
Coming back to costs and prices: What is the alternative? There is none! As I stated, we need hydrogen to decarbonize and reach NetZero by 2050! Today, costs for CO2 emissions and consequences of the climate crisis we have recently witnessed are externalized, paid by society. Instead of investing into decarbonization, we invest hundreds of billions to rebuild our cities and infrastructure, 60 billion US$ alone to compensate for the damages of the last US hurricane.
My view is: We do not have an alternative, we need to invest in decarbonization in order to reach the 1,5 degrees target by 2050 and we need to make sure that the planet remains a place where people can live and that we can hand over to following generations.
And one final question: “Isn’t the marginal benefit of investing into preserving the climate or accepting a higher cost on our energy bill much higher than investing into the next luxury gadget?”
The above is a wrap-up of my personal view and regular discussions. Let's discuss! The topic is too important to give up.
Since “hydrogen is teamwork”, I am highly motivated to join forces with like-minded people!
