... continued from page 11 [blue hydrogen].
Many experts believe that some end uses—long-haul heavy-duty trucking, high-temperature industrial processes like steelmaking, and long-duration energy storage of renewable energy—may not be readily electrified or decarbonized through other less polluting technology. So, blue hydrogen may offer a way to temporarily decarbonize such uses. But experts also recommend that the technology should be deployed only when it serves the most efficient pathway to a decarbonized economy, complementing proven and readily available alternatives.
There is also speculation that shale gas corporations are pushing blue hydrogen as a way to ensure a market for gas investments still in the ground. To protect against losing these investments, and to make the blue hydrogen industry attractive from a business perspective, sizeable subsidies of public dollars will no doubt be required. The argument can be made that these tax dollars would be better spent on lower-emission and no-emission renewable technologies.
Is blue hydrogen good for public health?
Setting aside serious technology and business uncertainties, the production of blue hydrogen raises the risk of public health impacts and the related healthcare costs in several critical ways.
First, blue hydrogen production requires the extraction of fossil fuels—typically shale gas—as feeder stock, demanding many more hydraulically fractured shale gas wells in areas already overburdened by this heavy industry. Increased well production means greater emissions of a variety of toxic chemicals, such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), glycol, and radium into local communities. Studies have found that these emissions may raise the risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, heart disease and heart attacks, birth defects and pre-term deliveries, mental health issues, and cancer.
Continued on pg. 26 ...