Nature.com:Diversified hydrogen production methods can reduce C02 emissions and energy consumption across Chinese cities

[Caribbeans]

Fig. 1: Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions from different hydrogen production methods across Chinese cities.

Diversified hydrogen production methods can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption across Chinese cities

Nature.com | 17 June 2025

Abstract

It is still unclear about the emission reduction potential of different hydrogen production methods under different scenarios in China. Therefore, this study quantifies and predicts the life cycle emission reduction potential of hydrogen energy across Chinese cities. Here we quantify the life cycle carbon dioxide emissions of different hydrogen production methods in 5 selected pilot cities. Additionally, we evaluate the respective contributions of blue hydrogen and green hydrogen to emission reductions under different scenarios. The results show that the implementation of diversified hydrogen production methods results in reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, ranging from 65% to 96%, when compared to the utilization of single coal gasification for hydrogen generation by the year 2060. Blue hydrogen has the potential to achieve a emission reduction of 3.4 million tons by 2055. By 2050, green hydrogen is projected to constitute over 50% of the hydrogen supply market.

Introduction

Hydrogen energy serves as a clean, efficient, and renewable energy vector. With the serious challenge of global climate change and the urgent need for sustainable development, developing hydrogen energy has become one of the key technological pathways to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality. Low-emission hydrogen has emerged as a critical decarbonization pathway, offering transformative potential for achieving net-zero emissions across diverse sectors, including energy, transportation, and industrial processes. According to the 2024 Global Hydrogen Review published by the International Energy Agency, global hydrogen demand reached 97 million metric tons in 2023, representing a year-on-year increase of 2.5%.

In alignment with its decarbonization goals, China is actively developing diversified hydrogen production methods. By the end of 2023, China’s annual hydrogen production capacity exceeded 49 million tons, with a corresponding production exceeding 35 million tons10. The primary sources of hydrogen supply in China continue to be derived from coal, natural gas, and industrial by-products. Concurrently, electrolyzed water-derived hydrogen is steadily advancing with a capacity of 450,000 tons per year and an output reaching around 300,000 tons12,13,14. According to the Medium- and Long-Term Plan for the Development of the Hydrogen Energy Industry (2021–2035), it is projected that China’s hydrogen production from renewable energy sources will reach a scale of 100,000 tons/year to 200,000 tons/year by 202513. However, economic feasibility remains a challenge for hydrogen, as cost reductions are required to make it competitive with conventional fuels15,16. While actively developing hydrogen energy, China also needs to prioritize cleanliness, low-carbon attributes, and cost-effectiveness17,18,19. By developing diversified hydrogen production methods, it is possible to better reduce reliance on a single energy source, enhance energy efficiency and decrease carbon dioxide emissions...more
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02452-5

IIRC "Nature.com" is HIGHLY Regarded by some here that bash hydrogen every time there's a H2 post so to those constantly attacking H2 posts: Complain to Nature.com. Running around with hair on fire complaining about the C02 levels and then attacking everything that tries to help is not productive at all and in fact is absurd and ridiculous. Sometimes hilarious and sad at the same time.

While 'Murikant's argue, China builds. They are now #1 in green. Who could have imagined that even 5 years ago.

美國人－你們不需要關稅，你們需要革命!

[NNadir]

1. Um, scientific journals are not oracles from the Gods, but the paper makes the point that in China, hydrogen IS...

...a filthy fuel.

The primary sources of hydrogen supply in China continue to be derived from coal, natural gas, and industrial by-products.

None of this reality prevents the fossil fuel industry from posting slick advertisements here showing filthy hydrogen buses and similar toys.

I'm an old man, with decades spent in the scientific literature, and now, as was the case 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, and 50 years ago, soothsaying about hydrogen someday becoming a clean fuel relies on tiresome rhetoric that was old at the turn of the century, and is 25 years older now. Hydrogen hype is always involved with not understanding the basic laws of science, in particular, the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm hardly a credulous creep confusing soothsaying with reality.

The reality is that hydrogen has never been, is not, and never will be a source of primary energy on this planet, and therefore, it is a scheme to waste energy, since the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not undermined by cheap slick marketing videos.

It follows from all of this, that anyone who is reporting on hydrogen devices now, as was the case 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, and 50 years ago, is selling fossil fuels, and thus working to accelerate the ongoing destruction of the planetary atmosphere.

Electrolysis is a thermodynamic, economic and environmental nightmare and pretending that "Nature.com" is endorsing something because it publishes a paper merely demonstrates extreme scientific illiteracy, which is unsurprising, as marketing people, including those attempting to rebrand fossil fuels, have no interest in science as science, but instead make tortured "appeal to authority" arguments.

It's fucking stupid. PNAS once published a paper by the asshole Mark Z. Jacobsen saying that so called "renewable energy" could power the whole world. It also published a refutation of his tortured argument, causing the asshole to sue the same journal that published the refutation.

So called "renewable energy" remains a trivial, expensive and useless form of energy irrespective of bullshit from Mark Z. Jacobsen, and it is mainly used here as a fig leaf to obscure just how filthy Chinese hydrogen is.

The word "capacity" is particularly abused with respect to energy discussions, since the value of capacity is tied to its availability. So called "renewable energy" excluding hydroelectricity which is obtained by destroying river systems, is notoriously unreliable and exhibits low capacity utilization meaning that for approximately 70% of the time, wind and solar represent stranded assets that produce nothing but complacency and wishful thinking.

The results of complacency and wishful thinking are in: The planet is burning up.

It's 2025, forty-nine years after the first issue of the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy published its first issue in 1976. Hydrogen was a dirty product obtained by exergy destruction of dangerous fossil fuels in 1976, in 1985, in 1995, in 2005, in 2015, and remains as much in 2025. I do understand why the fossil fuel industry funds hydrogen hype. It protects their product, and in fact, helps increase sales of their product, since the production of hydrogen wastes energy.

Subsidizing Grid-Based Electrolytic Hydrogen Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Coal Dominated Power Systems Liqun Peng, Yang Guo, Shangwei Liu, Gang He, and Denise L. Mauzerall Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (12), 5187-5195.

... Currently, nearly all hydrogen in China is either produced directly from fossil fuels (55% from coal gasification and 14% from steam methane reforming (SMR)) or as a byproduct of petroleum refining (28%), with only 1% coming from water electrolysis. (2) Producing 1 kg of coal- or SMR-based hydrogen emits roughly 19 and 10 kg of CO2, respectively. (3) In 2020, hydrogen production from fossil fuels in China emitted approximately 322Tg of CO2, equivalent to 25% of total CO2 emissions from industrial processes, a number expected to rise with increasing hydrogen demand. (4) Industrial processes include production of nonmetallic mineral products, chemical, and metal products, as well as production and consumption of halocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. (4)

.

The bold, italics and underlining is mine.

Bashing hydrogen under these conditions is a moral imperative, and frankly, as a scientist, I am proud to pile on this absurd filthy scam that is making things worse, not better.