Yesterday’s COP26 Transport Day called for a shift to zero emissions in transport. Twenty-four countries and the world’s leading car manufacturers agreed to halt production of fossil-fuel driven vehicles by 2040. The public has also indicated that it likes the idea of more sustainable and comfortable public transport.
Leaders of the so-called ‘West’ such as Joe Biden promise that that the new green economy associated with the these and other changes will create millions of new jobs. But will it really? What will be the real economic cost, and who will bear it?
The price of energy – including electricity – and of manufacturing will go up. So some might argue that that the West’s interest in renewable is less about “let’s save the planet” than about a pragmatic desire to be autonomous, in the sense of not having to rely on faraway places with different political systems, such as Iran and Russia. Which brings me to the person whose absence from COP26 nevertheless hangs over it like a shadow, Vladimir Putin.
Whatever the motives of Biden etc., the current plan for achieving zero emissions, especially in transport, rely on the use of hydrogen. And neither Western Europe nor Asia can currently produce a lot of it.
So, to achieve net zero within the transport industry by 2040, Europe would yet again have to rely heavily on Russia, as only she has the capacity to produce enough hydrogen to enable the “green revolution”.
The hydrogen-fuel cell vehicle market was only valued at USD 1.17 billion in 2020. But Market Research Future forecasts an increase to roughly 47 billion dollars by 2028. And that is just cars. The hydrogen aircraft market – which is currently responsible for about 2.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions – is expected to grow from USD 143 million in 2020 to USD 7.4 billion by 2030.
Some of us might agree that “transport should be guilt free”, as UK transport secretary Mr. Shapps pointed out, but even with hydrogen, will that ever be possible?
Over 95% of hydrogen is produced using the steam methane reforming process (SMR) through which the hydrogen is extracted from natural gas – which is a fossil fuel! And a side-effect of SMR is the production of carbon dioxide. Yes that’s right Hydrogen production creates carbon emissions.
The only alternative to SMR’s ‘blue hydrogen’ is the ‘green hydrogen’ produced through electrolysis, which requires enormous amounts of energy and costs considerably more – unless, it’s produced in such huge quantities that yiu need to use nuclear power stations.
So when it comes to hydrogen Russia will have leverage over the European Union and the UK as it has both advanced nuclear technology and vast reserves of natural gas. In fact Russia aims to control up to 20% of the global hydrogen market by 2030, and to export seven million tons of the gas a year by 2035.
The Russian state-owned Rosatom is already involved in global large-scale production of blue hydrogen; and recently announced its intention to increase the load factor of its nuclear generation assets in order to become a big player in the field of green hydrogen as well.
Meanwhile in Europe, countries such as Germany, the UK, Sweden and Finland face increased opposition to nuclear power plants from green pressure groups such as Extinction Rebellion, leaving France as the only country capable of producing blue hydrogen. But without the gas necessary to feed the SMR necessary to create enough hydrogen for the whole of Europe, the continent will yet again find itself at a strategic disadvantage.
So as they pack up from COP26 today, although he will not be joining them, the absent Putin cannot be ignored as the West moves forward on the rocky road towards green transport.