If you want a symbol of how energy is a global industry as fundamental as the trades in metals or government bonds, one image has held sway for decades: The monumental black-and-red hull of a crude-oil supertanker.
It is only natural, then, that a world transitioning to cleaner sources of energy should seek out a comparable emblem for the net zero era. A prime candidate to replace petroleum is another substance that can be moved around in tankers: green hydrogen (so-called because it is produced by using renewable energy to split apart water molecules, ignoring some current processes that emit more greenhouse gases or are unlikely to be cost-competitive).
About 400 million tonnes of hydrogen a year (not necessarily green) will be moved over long distances by 2050, according to the Hydrogen Council, which represents the nascent industry. Countries rich in cheap renewables, such as Australia, Brazil and Chile, hope to become hydrogen hubs every bit as pivotal to the global economy as the Persian Gulf is in our current hydrocarbon era. Even Saudi Arabia is working on an US$8.5 billion green hydrogen plant.
Will a worldwide trade in hydrogen grow to take on the same role that the oil industry has right now? It is not likely. To see why, it is worth looking at how green hydrogen will be made, transported and used — and considering the parallels with existing flows of commodities.
One binding constraint on commerce since the dawn of history has been the cost of transport. Only higher-value items are worth moving over long distances. Ancient China and Rome traded silk and glassware, but not wheat and rice. It is not so different these days. You will typically pay between US$10 and US$50 a tonne to ship a non-containerized product like oil, wheat or coal across an ocean. As a result, materials like cement and sulfur — abundant and relatively cheap — are mostly consumed close to where they are produced. It is simply not worthwhile putting them on a ship.
For most commodities, trade rises with increasing prices. The exceptions to that rule are telling. High-quality reserves of iron ore and crude oil are scarce globally, so consumers have no choice but to transport them from further afield. Technological innovation will never make Japan a major petroleum producer or South Korea a powerhouse of iron ore. Geology is destiny, giving those commodities a special cachet.
Green hydrogen is different. No major economy faces a permanent shortage of hydrogen’s raw materials: water and renewable energy. In that sense, it more closely resembles products like gypsum and ammonia, which can be manufactured almost anywhere.
The prices of renewable energy do differ from country to country, to be sure — but not by enough to overcome the transport issue. Hydrogen is hard to move in its raw form, being highly reactive, far less dense than liquefied natural gas (LNG) and very, very cold. It only liquefies at minus-253°C, almost as far below the temperature of LNG as ice is from steam. The costs of chilling substances increase dramatically the colder they get.
Most plans to solve this issue involve putting the hydrogen through a reactor at either end of the journey to convert it into a more easily transportable form, with the prime candidates being ammonia, methanol and the toluene used in paint thinner, but the amount of energy used to drive those reactions pushes the costs up further. Because of that, even Brazil — with some of the cheapest renewables — will struggle to build an export trade that can compete with domestically produced green hydrogen.
You can shave these costs somewhat if you burn ammonia directly as fuel rather than attempting to convert it back to hydrogen, but the challenges involved have thwarted engineers since World War II and chemists are still getting to grips with the processes involved. Burning ammonia is also a potent source of particulates from nitrogen oxides, one of a suite of major pollutants responsible for about 6.7 million deaths a year. It even generates nitrous oxide, a chemical that warms the atmosphere about 273 times as much as carbon dioxide that is rarely produced by current industrial activities.
Green hydrogen might yet remake the world of energy. In many parts of the world, it will be well within range of the US$7 million to US$10 per million British thermal units cost of natural gas by the end of this decade, according to BloombergNEF. That should enable it to displace fossil fuels in a swath of applications requiring high-temperature heat, large-scale energy storage or molecules for chemical compounds.
However, what it will not do is generate fleets of tankers connecting the globe. Like sulfur and ammonia — and the existing hydrogen trade that consumes nearly 100 million tonnes a year — it is going to be used close to the place it was produced. Many countries might aspire to become the Saudi Arabia of the green hydrogen era, but none will achieve that dream.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS