The world continues to search for an energy source that many have called “miraculous” (and we are not referring to the grave mistake of nuclear power, nor to Iceland’s geothermal energy). In the midst of this race, the United States has “invented” a new color of hydrogen, although it does not seem to have been a good idea. The reason is simple: it could cause a catastrophe, and experts are already warning.
New hydrogen color in U.S.: why it´s not a good idea as it seems
Red hydrogen, otherwise called pink or purple hydrogen, means hydrogen that is made using nuclear power. The idea has been the topic of discussion in the recent years as a potentially clean energy method. The thought of using nuclear reactors to make hydrogen was initially suggested in the 1970s.
Although, the practical attempts to create red hydrogen technology only began in the last decade. The issue has been of great importance in the recent years, with the United States, Japan, France, and other countries initiating major projects to deal with it.
Hydrogen which is made of red is considered as a method to use nuclear energy for clean hydrogen production. Nowadays, the majority of hydrogen is obtained from steam reforming of natural gas which has definitely a big carbon footprint.
Currently, electrolysis using renewable electricity is developing but the scale of the industry is still small. Red hydrogen will allow for hydrogen production on the large scale without any greenhouse gas emissions. Possible uses for red hydrogen can be found in the proposed projects for clean hydrogen that have been discussed.
Red, green, blue… don’t get lost among the colors of hydrogen, like the U.S.
Red hydrogen is made via a process of electrolysis at a very high temperature and it is powered by nuclear energy. This is in sharp contrast with how most of the hydrogen is now made. Currently, the most usual technique employs methane reformation, where natural gas is bifurcated into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
Hence, the production of this type of hydrogen causes carbon emissions, so it is called grey hydrogen, but there are other colors you may know:
- Green hydrogen is the hydrogen obtained by electrolysis which is fueled by renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
- Blue hydrogen also uses natural gas as the feedstock, though it seeks to capture the carbon emissions. They increase the cost and the logistic challenges.
- Red hydrogen could be more efficient because it is based on very high temperature nuclear reactors, which can get to 750-1000°C. At such high temperatures, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen.
Could red hydrogen be efficieny? Not this way, and it´s a huge mistake
Hydrogen produced by red hydrogen has significantly higher efficiency compared to other hydrogen forms like green or blue hydrogen. This is owing to the fact that red hydrogen is supported by high temperature gas reactors that are capable of using heat and gas efficiently to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.
Some of the red hydrogen could have efficiency rates of more than 50%, whereas the green hydrogen from the electrolysis is now reaching the efficiency rates of 30-40%. Moreover, the blue hydrogen production from natural gas reforming can be from 60-85% efficient, however, it does have carbon emissions.
The red hydrogen is more efficient than the regular one which means that it needs less energy input per unit of hydrogen output. Thus, the lifecycle emissions of red hydrogen are less when it comes to producing red hydrogen than other alternatives.
The truth is that red hydrogen will never be a sustainable option, as it relies exclusively on controversial nuclear energy. Do you understand why we say it is a danger? It is the same thing they are trying to do in countries like France or Germany, among others in the European Union. We, meanwhile, are producing it at the same time as green and blue, which is not convincing.
