Green hydrogen and e-fuels: Carbon dioxide as a scarce commodity

Against the backdrop of the increasing announcements of exits from combustion technology by international car manufacturers and individual countries, hopes for so-called e-fuels are also fading. These are intended, according to some providers and the German Association of the Automotive Industry, to ensure that combustion engines can continue to be used, virtually emission-free, if, for example, the hydrogen for the production of synthetic fuels is produced using green electricity. The German government recently boosted these hopes by making e-fuels at least doubly creditable towards the environmental balance of gas station operators or fuel manufacturers in the Renewable Energies Directive II, in addition to the triple crediting of green electricity at gas stations. The National Hydrogen Strategy, adopted last year, is also intended to push the topic forward.

Unresolved Question: Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Come From?

However, less attention has been paid, as a well-founded article in Spiegel now points out, to the fact that the production of green hydrogen requires a second ingredient: carbon dioxide, of all things, is indispensable for this. The unclear part is where the harmful climate gas should come from.

"It is astonishing that politicians and environmental groups have almost completely ignored the question of possible CO2 sources for synthetic fuels," notes Oliver Geden, an expert in climate protection at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

The obvious solution to generate CO2 from nearby fossil fuel power plants only represents a shift in emissions, and fossil fuel power plants are also set to be gradually shut down. If these were to be used as a source for "green hydrogen," this could possibly extend their runtime, fears Daniel Münter from the Ifeu Institute in Heidelberg. CO2 from biogas plants or biomass power plants would be better, but their capacity is currently limited, and they would eventually raise the well-known "food vs. fuel" issue, as the article further explains.

Technological Dream: Reversing Emissions

Therefore, great hope is placed on the so-called direct-air-capture technology, which can capture CO2 directly from the air. A pioneer in this field is the Swiss company Climeworks, which operates pilot plants in Zurich and Iceland, proving that the technology works in principle, albeit requiring a high amount of energy that would then again have to come from renewable sources to make the climate balance work. However, this process is only truly climate-friendly if the captured CO2 is stored and not further processed into e-fuels.

According to the plan, it would be possible to reverse some of the greenhouse gas emissions. Climate researchers at the IPCC believe that this would be essential, given the current advanced stage of climate change, to somehow still achieve climate goals. Using it for e-fuels would counteract this, creating a conflict of objectives, as Oliver Geden warns in Spiegel. The production of hydrogen is also energy-intensive.

"If we were to replace all fossil fuels in road traffic with e-fuels in this country, it would require at least 2.5 times as much electricity as we currently consume in Germany overall," warns Münter.

For experts, as well as for Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD), it is clear that e-fuels should only be used in areas where there is no other option. Currently, this applies to aviation and shipping. For the latter, for example, two percent of kerosene is to be replaced by 2030. For road traffic, Münter also recommends electrification - through direct electricity use.

What Does This Mean?

It seems like a new prank by the citizens of Schilda: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for the production of supposedly "green" hydrogen, which was previously emitted at a fossil fuel power plant, only to continue the fossil nonsense with pseudo-eco fuel by other means. If we have come so far that we can only get a grip on the climate crisis, as the IPCC unfortunately confirms, by negative emissions, i.e., by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because we have unfortunately missed or consciously delayed addressing it since the early warnings in the 1970s, not least in terms of making our mobility CO2-free, then this extracted CO2 must stay extracted, as well and as long as possible. Using it for the production of e-fuels is hardly surpassable in absurdity.

It's clear: We need to get off the fossil drug as quickly and as far as possible.

Every combustion engine that comes onto the market in 2021 is one too many, considering that long-lasting products like automobiles remain in the world for ten to fifteen years and emit exhaust gases. Then we're already on the timeline of the mid-2030s, when many manufacturers and countries no longer want to allow new combustion engines. Scientists from the Global Carbon Project and East Anglia and Stanford Universities recently stated: We would need CO2 reductions of the magnitude of the 2020 Corona dip (minus seven percent) permanently to somehow still contain climate change.

"Emissions were lower in 2020 because the fossil infrastructure was not used, not because it was shut down," explained a co-author of a study on the extremely poor implementation status of the Paris Agreement five years later.

He clearly sees the risk of a rebound effect of emissions, as observed in climate science but also by sociologists in society. This is also known as the "yo-yo effect" after a diet. Only here, it is not about catching up on food intake but fuel consumption. This was also devastatingly evident after the 2009 financial crisis.

No matter how great the longing for the "old normal" may be, it would be better if we never returned to a world full of pointless business trips, absurdly cheap cruises, and uninspired long-distance flights.

As the EU Commission and especially Vice-President and Climate Protection Commissioner Frans Timmermans have previously stated, overcoming the Corona crisis should be used to set the course for emission-free technologies or modes of mobility, preferably with the levers and instruments of the market economy, such as a CO2 price that honestly reflects the external costs.

By the way, this has nothing to do with a planned economy, just because you have a plan and want to fulfill a climate protection plan, no, must.

Researchers consider the moment favorable to redesign cities to be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, to promote e-mobility and regional tourism - and they also see an opportunity in the now thoroughly practiced digital communication forms.

And the "champagne" among fuels, "green hydrogen," should be reserved for cases where there really is no other solution.

In other words: Stop the nonsense and the illusion that a combustion engine can be made green, and we simply switch from gasoline to methane and hydrogen. This works within limits, for example, if biomethane from residual materials is used for propulsion, and still holds untapped potential. Five million vehicles could be operated for a year with biomethane from straw residues alone, calculated a biomethane manufacturer. And that is possible now without complicated CO2 capture and H2 production.

The first step in climate protection is always: Avoid! The second: Reduce. And then maybe, and only if there's no other way, repair.

The most elaborate step by far, which itself requires a lot of energy. Thus, to use an animal metaphor, the cat bites its own tail. Because energy, no matter how green it is, has to be produced. Only technology believers can assume that the climate calculation will work out. The Earth does not send an invoice, but it does eventually give a receipt.