Hydrogen has always been an option for clean energy because it produces no byproducts other than water. There are numerous avenues for obtaining hydrogen, but not all are created equal. Companies can capture it from business operations, and electrolyzers can generate them. Each method gets a color, which determines its source and environmental impact, so how does blue hydrogen come into the picture? Why isn’t it a viable option for the long term?
What Do Hydrogen Colors Signify?
Hydrogen has varied carbon footprints depending on the source and how it’s extracted or captured. The colors are:
- Green: Hydrogen from electrolysis and renewable energy produces water as the only byproduct because it splits hydrogen from oxygen with no emissions. That makes it 100% clean.
- Pink: Take green hydrogen but change the renewable energy source to nuclear energy.
- Purple: It splits hydrogen from oxygen with chemo thermo electrolysis from nuclear power.
- Blue: Hydrogen is sourced from fossil fuels, usually natural gas. Companies sequester carbon and store it for later use.
- Gray: Companies use steam methane reforming to capture hydrogen from other fossil fuels. The method releases carbon emissions, making it one of the worst options.
- Black or brown: Coal companies save hydrogen from the gasification process.
- White: This hydrogen exists naturally in the environment.
More colors could arise as experts discover new opportunities through emerging technologies. For example, yellow hydrogen is a recent term coined to describe hydrogen made from solar power electrolysis.
How Does Blue Hydrogen Compare to Other Energy?
Blue hydrogen can’t compare to green or even pink hydrogen regarding sustainability preferences, but it has interesting analytics compared to other familiar energy sources. For example, blue hydrogen doesn’t have the renewability or scalability of green alternatives.
Hydrogen fuel cell electrolyzers are still costly compared to their efficiency, but continued research and development will make it even more possible as a commonplace renewable energy. It could drop in price by over 50% by 2030, pushing it to be more budget-friendly for organizations.
New studies argue that blue hydrogen may even be worse than some fossil fuels, like coal. Fossil fuel companies know they’re on a clock, with many countries worldwide going net-zero in the next few decades.
However, they’re trying to maintain relevance by producing blue hydrogen to cover up their negative impact — it makes more methane and warms the atmosphere much faster than carbon. It has a 20% greater impact than natural gas alone. Hard-to-abate sectors like concrete need any positive press they can get, and they use blue hydrogen as a gap-filler between 100% clean energy and toxic fossil fuels.
Why Is Blue Hydrogen Bad When It Doesn’t Emit Carbon?
Analyzing blue hydrogen against other colors shows how it isn’t the worst because it doesn’t produce carbon emissions. However, this eliminates the nuance buried in perpetuating toxic environmentalist mentalities. Compared to blue hydrogen, there are many less environmentally damaging ways to produce and capture hydrogen for green energy.
Companies and governments investing in blue hydrogen production could be accused of greenwashing. They can advertise they produce no carbon emissions because they’re maximizing the byproducts of natural gas production.
Regardless, it advocates for continued abuse of the environment by extracting fossil fuels and endangering the planet and nearby communities with pollutants and habitat destruction. It’s such a pervasive problem that petitions and letters to governments call for change to hold companies accountable.
Green Hydrogen Needs to Replace Blue Hydrogen
Blue hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, making it impossible to maintain long-term environmental health. Though blue hydrogen encourages maximizing resource capturing, it perpetuates and normalizes continued natural gas reliance — this cannot continue for a sustainable future.
Instead, companies must invest in green hydrogen production as fossil fuels phase out of fashion. All blue hydrogen must shift to green or risk business-destroying press from environmental advocates unraveling the truths behind misleading hydrogen production methods.
About the author: Jane works as an environmental and energy writer. She is also the founder and editor-in-chief of Environment.co
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
Overall, the sentiments head in the right direction. But. “Hydrogen fuel cell electrolyzers are still costly compared to their efficiency” Eh? What does this mean?
A PEM is +/- circa 70% efficient. The 30% is heat at 60C, and given the temp, this is useful heat. For example one can easily recover this heat (we have contact with electrolyser mfus – recovery is not a problem) and one could then supply, locally 60C heat for space heating. Have an office? have a green house etc etc. Key point, you could charge for this heat at a price highly competitive (i.e. lower in price) than that from gas heating. Let’s say you recover 25% of the 30%. So the electrolyser now looks like 9% efficient – roughly equivalent to a Li-ion batt.
As for capex, this is dwarfed by opex, dominated by electricity costs. Sure, it will be nice when electrolyser costs come down. & they will. But it would also be nice to recognise that electrolysers produce much more than H2, heat @ 60C is one thing, also O2 – very useful in a wide range of applications.
Thanks Mike. I will let the author know.