Green Hydrogen Stories at COP28
COP28 finished last week after a fortnight of intense negotiations – in which hydrogen had its fair share of spotlight moments. Daniel Lubin and Sabrina Khan-Dighe look back on the conference’s key hydrogen takeaways.
Image credit: Fotografía oficial de la Presidencia de Colombia
1. The Declaration of Intent: well-intentioned but lacking clarity
On 5th December, 39 countries agreed on a Declaration of Intent to establish a universal certification for hydrogen standards. While setting a common standard is an important endeavour, rather than providing clarity the agreement only further sows confusion.
The declaration fails to distinguish between green and unclean hydrogen fuels and includes standards to aid the scale up blue hydrogen that is produced using methane.
The ISO methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from production, that forms the foundation of the certification, has been criticised for failing to set a threshold of emissions that would no longer qualify hydrogen products as “clean”. Marta Lovisolo, senior policy advisor at NGO Bellona, described the standard "at best an emissions calculator — at worst a greenwashing tool for dirty hydrogen.”
Muddying the waters about what hydrogen should be considered green will only hinder decarbonisation. The market for all hydrogen (green or not) will be encouraged to expand on the faulty premise that any hydrogen is a step in the right direction. Only green hydrogen produced from electrolysis with renewable energy will aid decarbonisation, and the only effective hydrogen strategy is one that is honest about what “green” means.
2. Responsible Deployment Declaration: hitting the mark
Where the Declaration of Intent fell short, the subsequent Joint-Agreement on the Responsible Deployment of Renewables-Based Hydrogen met the mark. This NGO-led initiative pledged to prioritise green hydrogen over other fossil fuel-based varieties, and uses a robust monitoring scheme to guarantee that green hydrogen is in fact green.
Perhaps most importantly, the agreement specifies green hydrogen is best used as an alternative to fossil fuels for hard-to-abate sectors, not for heating homes or power where there are other viable green alternatives.
While the Declaration of Intent was mainly state-led, the Responsible Deployment agreement was largely driven by NGOs with less than a third of the 59 endorsements constituting private companies, and only two governments: Scotland and Panama. The Green Hydrogen Organisation, a flagship partner of the agreement whose updated Green Hydrogen Standard 2.0 released at COP28 was also warmly welcomed by industry leaders, commented that the document’s principles help “to streamline the emerging production and use of clean hydrogen while raising the standards of conduct by which firms, governments, and communities pursue it.”
The Responsible Deployment agreement hits the right notes, recognising not just the value of green hydrogen and accurately distinguishing between green and non-green variants, but also the importance of putting it in the right sectors. Green hydrogen usage must be expanded selectively and efficiently, not indiscriminately.
3. Inspiring collaboration to decarbonise shipping
In a joint call-to-action, a coalition of 22 companies from shipowners to green hydrogen producers committed themselves to getting 5%, if not 10%, of all shipping fuels to be derivatives of green hydrogen such as ammonia or methanol by 2030, and 70-80% emissions reduction by 2040. The statement is an inspiring example of intra-sectoral collaboration, with different actors taking on well-defined, differentiated roles. Shipowners commit to investing in vessels primed to incorporate zero emission fuels, ports to invest in green hydrogen infrastructure, and green hydrogen producers to scale-up supply.
Besides just sending strong demand signals to spur investment, these ambitious targets are achievable with the right policy behind them, as the call to action makes clear. Signatories make bold demands for support from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) including a GHG emissions standard and levies on conventional fuels. From governments they ask for supply-side incentives such as subsidies to ensure stable prices for producers while implementing the transition to sustainable hydrogen-based fuels.
This call-to-action exemplifies the kind of holistic thinking needed to transition shipping to zero emission, green hydrogen-based fuels. The industry has shown its dedication. The ball’s in the policymaker’s court now.
4. More hydrogen collaboration
In another inspiring cross-sectoral collaboration, a Public-Private Action Statement on hydrogen trade corridors was signed between the International Hydrogen Trade Forum (IHTF), a new body founded earlier this year to facilitate hydrogen trade, and the Hydrogen Council representing 150 industry leaders. The Action Statement aims to unify the public and private sectors to advance the development of international hydrogen value chains to help achieve net zero emissions in line with the Paris agreement. Highlights include:
Active monitoring by periodically reviewing priorities for collective action between the public and private sectors.
IHTF and the Hydrogen Council will engage in knowledge sharing and the development of best practices. They will also identify opportunities to unlock socio-economic value of global trade for emerging markets and developing countries.
Annual Ministerial CEO roundtables will ensure the private and public sectors are aligned, and assist in developing cross-border value chains.
If you were looking for another example of crucial cross-sectoral collaboration, this is it. While the agreement fails to specify what kind of hydrogen is being dealt with – and anything other than green hydrogen will not aid the agreement’s stated net zero emissions goals – hopefully the Action Statement will pave the way for others like it…
5. Global Stocktake – Hydrogen's in the mix, but what kind?
The final COP28 agreement has been praised for mentioning fossil fuels for the first time – although also criticised for its tentative language “transitioning away from” rather than “phasing out” fossil fuels. But hydrogen also enjoys a mention. The stocktake emphasises the use of new technologies including “low-carbon hydrogen” fuels and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). While great that the Global Stocktake turns an eye to the integral role of emerging technologies, it’s important to be clear about what that role is.
“Low-carbon hydrogen” is vague enough to encompass a range of hydrogen variants. Blue hydrogen, for example, is often considered a useful “transition fuel”, but it is produced using methane and often considered even more polluting than conventional fossil fuels. We need to be clear, only green hydrogen will drive us towards a zero-emissions future.
The value of carbon capture technology is also controversial and often comes in tandem with discussions of hydrogen production. On the face of it, what could be better than capturing carbon? For fossil fuel producers it seems like the golden ticket to offset emissions and achieve net zero emission output while still burning. Such idealism must not blind us to the reality that CCUS is a nascent, unscalable and expensive technology which at best will capture 10% of carbon emissions.
That’s why Direct Air Capture (DAC) is a better option. Yes, it is also expensive, but it isn’t coupled with releasing more emissions since it captures existing carbon in the atmosphere. The US government is already investing a lot in DAC – hopefully making DAC more affordable universally. The carbon captured from DAC can then be mixed with green hydrogen to make the synthetic fuels of the future.
6. Post-COP28: Biden boosting the IRA
COP28’s hydrogen story is a rocky one. As ever, attention is being turned towards hydrogen but there is a dire lack of clarity – no one kind of hydrogen is the same as another. However, in positive news following the conference, the Biden administration is expected to release guidance for Green Hydrogen producers for how to access subsidies released via last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. The subsidies are expected to jumpstart the green hydrogen industry at $3 per kg. The regulations to qualify for the green hydrogen subsidies could be quite strict: US green hydrogen projects will have to source their power from clean energy assets on the same regional grid. While these rules would ensure the hydrogen really is green, industry representatives say it could hinder the development of the hydrogen industry. It’s important that the right balance is struck between environmental protection and competitiveness, but if green hydrogen projects are sourcing their power from fossil fuel-fired power plants, you can’t really call them green hydrogen can you?
In the EU, green hydrogen can be as expensive as around $9 per kg. Both the UK and EU have responded with their own strategies, but more decisive action needs to be taken to ensure long-term certainty and competitive advantage. In this regard, they could take a leaf out of the Biden playbook.
Hydrogen had its moments at COP28, but whether or not it’s going to be green and used in the right places is still uncertain. Read the SASHA Coalition’s report on the Green Hydrogen Gap here.
