|
|
|
|
|
|
by CorrectHorseBat
1378 days ago
|
|
|
>H2 may well be a more potent GHG when compared to CO2, but it's tendency to remain in the atmosphere for a long time is a factor than shouldn't be ignored and doesn't seem to be mentioned by your first citation. I.e. H2 may be 16x more potent than CO2 but if it reacts away within hours/days/[<16th of the time that CO2 stays around] then its overall contribution to warming will be less than CO2. (I don't know what this figure is, but I believe Hydrogen is pretty reactive so doesn't tend to stick around that long) Usually these numbers take that in consideration and the two are compared over a certain number of years, i.e. 100 years. A quick Google seems to confirm this, H2 is ~10 more potent than CO2 over 100 years. |
|
|
Still.. we're talking about unintentional leaks here. With the alternatives, CO2-emissions is an unavoidable by-product (in theory it can be managed with CCS, but not for transportation)
We should use batteries whenever we can, but seems to me like hydrogen is an essential component of a green, fully carbon neutral economy.
Though I agree with the comment above that it's a bit... misleading.. to call hydrogen the ultimate clean energy. Green hydrogen (do differentiate from hydrogen made from natural gas) is a very good clean energy carrier. That'd be more precise to say.