Time to get serious about hydrogen’s methane problem

Today, together with leading green hydrogen companies like ACCIONA & Nordex Green Hydrogen, Adani, CWP Global, Fortescue and ReNew as well as civil society organisations like Bellona and the Environmental Defense Fund, we at the Green Hydrogen Organisation sent a letter to the COP29 Presidency calling for rigour and transparency when measuring the emissions associated with fossil-based hydrogen. Methane emissions need to be reported with accuracy, granularity and transparency. Carbon capture and sequestration must be permanent, demonstrable and verified.

This wrap is dedicated to one of the key points we make in the letter: the importance of preventing methane leakage when hydrogen is made from natural gas. I wish we at the Green Hydrogen Organisation didn’t have to involve ourselves in debates about methane leakage. But as it undermines renewable green hydrogen, we don’t have a choice.

Around the world, policy and standard-setting for hydrogen have yet to reach the necessary levels of rigor and transparency for methane leakage. EU and US policymakers are currently grappling with this challenge as they finalize rules on low-carbon hydrogen definitions and tax credit eligibility. At a global level, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee (ISO/TC 197/SC 1 Hydrogen at scale and horizontal energy systems)is meeting this week, and will also be addressing methane leakage.

1. COP 29  

The Global Methane Pledge agreed at COP26 (see below) needs to be followed through with actions, including site-specific tracking and public disclosure of methane leakage. The Presidency has proposed the COP29 Hydrogen Declaration, with ambitious language about being united in efforts to keeping 1.5 degrees alive and promote the use of “clean/zero-emission and low-carbon hydrogen”. We write in the letter we sent to the COP Presidency today: “Full transparency around hydrogen’s climate impact will be critical to enabling a harmonized, well-functioning market that delivers the intended climate benefits.”

While the Hydrogen Declaration has a general reference to methane, it should acknowledge that methane leakage is a key obstacle to making most blue hydrogen genuinely low emissions. It should propose actions on how methane leakage can be addressed, and a good place to start is transparent disclosure e.g., by requiring level 4 and ideally level 5 reporting under the Oil & Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 framework.

2. The EU’s definition of “low-carbon hydrogen”

The EU should “Require site-specific emission factors for upstream and midstream methane reporting”, which is what the Green Hydrogen Organisation wrote in a submission on 25 October, as the Commission’s consultation closed on draft delegated act on Methodology to determine the greenhouse gas (GHG)emission savings of low-carbon fuels.

The EU already has a strict definition of green or renewable hydrogen – so called renewable liquid and gaseous fuels of non-biological origin (“RFNBOs”). The EU now also needs to establish serious standards for what it considers low-carbon fuels, mainly when they are fossil-fuel based. What it has proposed in the draft methodology is not robust and risks allowing for blue hydrogen poorly done to outcompete renewable green and genuinely low emissions hydrogen.

3. ISO Standards as a basis for mutual recognition of national systems?

The ISO 19870 series of standards should also require site-specific methane disclosure. If this is done as standard industry practice in countries like Norway, there is no reason why measuring and reporting of leakage of one of the world’s most harmful gases should not be required elsewhere.

We write in the letter published today:

“This international standard is being positioned to cascade into national and state standards around the world – as a way to facilitate international trade – and could determine the industry’s long-term success and the achievement of national climate goals. Thus, this effort should set the best example as a gold-class standard, built on the most robust climate science and accurate data.”

Why Methane Matters

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas contributor to climate change following carbon dioxide…On a 100-year timescale, methane has 28 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide and is 84 times more potent on a 20-year timescale.

EU Methane Emissions - European Commission

Methane makes up 16 % of all greenhouse gas emissions

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Most of the 100 million tonnes of hydrogen produced each year is made from methane. Some of this methane leaks during extraction, processing, transportation and hydrogen production. This is a major problem because methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas (see above). So called “blue hydrogen” uses carbon capture and storage to reduce CO2 emissions. But if even if CCUS can achieve high CO2 capture rates – and that’s a very big if! – many blue hydrogen projects still have a significant methane problem.

The solutions are well known and often pay for themselves. The International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) notes that reducing emissions from the oil and gas industry is the most cost-effective and immediate lever available to slow climate change.

The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) is the leading global collaborative effort on reporting and mitigation of methane leakage, convened by the United Nations Environment Programme. Over 140 companies with operations in more than 70 countries have joined OGMP 2.0, but the overwhelming majority are not yet meeting the highest “level 5” gold standard. A case study in the IMEO 2023 Report highlights the problem:

One of OGMP 2.0’s U.S. member companies compared Level 3 and Level 4 reporting for its2022 methane emissions. Level 3 emissions were estimated based on generic emission factors (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Subpart W), and Level 4 emissions were quantified according to asset-specific methods (measurements, simulation tools and detailed engineering calculations).

The operator found that Level 4 reported emissions were 2.3 times higher than Level 3 estimates and yielded substantially different source attributions for the emissions. This confirms that empirical measurements lead to a materially improved assessment of emissions, with further improvements expected at Level 5. Research from Stanford University confirms that for U.S. assets, nearly a factor two increase in the emission inventory can be expected in this process

(Rutherford et al. 2021).

Despite this well documented problem, many hydrogen standards allow hydrogen producers to use generic national level emission factors, therefore underestimating hydrogen’s true climate impact.    

At COP 28 in Dubai last year, the number of countries to have signed the Global Methane Pledge reached 155, committing to reduce methane leakage in 2030 by 30% compared to 2020. At the same time, Al Gore, who has long campaigned for urgent action on limiting methane leakage, was critical of the lack of action, of underreporting and of how methane leakage over the last year had actually increased, by nearly two percent.

If governments and companies are serious about 1.5 degrees, about the energy transition, they should commit to and require robust site-specific reporting of any methane leakage. And there should be clear thresholds about what levels of leakage are acceptable.

The “Breakthrough Report 2024” co-authored by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions has examined the polices required to support stronger international collaboration to drive faster reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. While the report does not define a specific carbon intensity limit for low-carbon and renewable hydrogen, it states: “…both of these production routes will need to achieve verifiable low-carbon intensities that trend towards near zero by 2030. This implies that fossil-based hydrogen production must operate with high carbon capture rates applied to all streams containing carbon dioxide, and that the captured carbon is permanently stored underground to prevent its release into the atmosphere. Additionally, it is critical that methane leakage is minimised to near zero, if not completely avoided. Rigorous measurement, reporting and verification of emissions will be necessary” (p. 56).

Alignment with these requirements should be a minimum.

Renewable green hydrogen is indispensable for the energy transition. Lending credibility to blue hydrogen done badly, with significant methane leakage would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

Jonas Moberg

CEO, Green Hydrogen Organisation