Imagine a technology that promises to drastically reduce carbon emissions and help countries accelerate their energy transition. On paper, it seems perfect: it doesn’t release polluting gases during use, can be applied across a variety of industries, and even sounds futuristic enough to attract investment. But there’s a curious detail, or rather, a paradox. This same solution can be celebrated as “green” in one country and, at the same time, criticized as “dirty” in another. The reason lies neither in the laboratory that develops it nor in the plant that produces it. The secret lies, in fact, in what’s behind the electrical outlet.
The clean dream with a hidden price
For decades, scientists and governments have sought a real alternative to fossil fuels. Oil, coal, and natural gas have sustained industrial growth, but they’ve also brought us the heavy price of the climate crisis. In this context, a technology emerges that seemed to have all the credentials to be the protagonist of a new energy era. And here’s the intriguing point: it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide when used.
For this solution to exist, we first need to manufacture it, and it’s at this point that the environmental impact varies depending on the country where it’s produced. And why can the same technology be eco-friendly or polluting? It’s quite simple, actually, because the degree of “cleanliness” of this technology depends not only on the technology itself, but also on the quality of the country’s electricity grid. If the electricity comes from renewable sources, the result is nearly impeccable. If not, emissions accumulate significantly.
Yellow hydrogen, but at what cost?
We’re talking about yellow hydrogen. It’s produced through water electrolysis, a process that separates hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. So far, so good. The trick is knowing the source of this electricity.
- Norway: With a nearly 100% renewable energy matrix, the yellow hydrogen produced there is virtually emissions-neutral.
- Spain: In 2021, only 46% of its electricity came from renewable sources. The result? This same yellow hydrogen generates a significant carbon footprint.
Another factor that weighs heavily on this equation is the technology’s efficiency. Currently, the electrolysis process operates at between 70% and 80% efficiency, and it is hoped to reach 85% by 2030. This means that producing 1 kg of hydrogen requires 49.2 to 56.3 kWh of electricity. It’s no wonder other countries are investing in other energy sources, such as India, which has implemented a device that extracts energy from the air. And the cost follows suit:
- 2019 (cheap energy) → €5.5 to €6.2 per kg.
- 2021 (expensive energy) → €12.5 to €14.2 per kg.
The hydrogen race: which color will power the future?
The future of yellow hydrogen is still shrouded in question. It could be a powerful ally in the decarbonization of heavy industrial sectors, but it poses challenges that cannot be ignored:
- High cost — in many countries, the price is still prohibitive.
- Dependence on the electricity grid — green in Oslo, gray in Madrid.
- Technological competition — other forms of hydrogen (green, blue, turquoise) compete for the role of energy “savior.”
Other types of hydrogen are in the running, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. So-called green hydrogen, for example, also uses electrolysis but relies exclusively on dedicated renewable energy. Blue hydrogen captures CO₂ during its production from natural gas, while turquoise hydrogen involves thermal processes still in the experimental phase.
Each color represents not only a technological path, but also a political and economic decision. After all, investing in one solution or another means redesigning entire supply chains, from power plants to transportation infrastructure. America, for example, has already made a decision; it’s no wonder a Hydrogen Empire is emerging in one of its states.
