Comment on “Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions” by Ocko and Hamburg (2022)
- 1Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA
- 2Orca Sciences LLC, Kirkland, Washington, USA
- 3Breakthrough Energy LLC, Kirkland, Washington, USA
- 1Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA
- 2Orca Sciences LLC, Kirkland, Washington, USA
- 3Breakthrough Energy LLC, Kirkland, Washington, USA
Abstract. In this commentary, we provide additional context for Ocko and Hamburg (2022) related to the climate consequences of replacing fossil fuels with clean hydrogen alternatives. To develop a better understanding of the climate impact from atmospheric hydrogen additions, we first provide a step-by-step tutorial for the derivations of underlying differential equations that describe radiative forcing of hydrogen emissions, which differ slightly from equations relied on by previous studies. Ocko and Hamburg (2022) used a time-integrated metric on radiative forcing and considered a continuous emission scenario, while we present both the time-evolving radiative forcing and global mean temperature response results under a unit pulse and continuous emissions scenarios. Our analysis covers timescales of 500 years and results on short-term timescales (e.g., 20 years) are qualitatively consistent with previous studies. Some qualitative results are clear: radiative forcing from hydrogen emission is smaller compared to the same quantity of methane emission, both of which decay with time and show less long-term influence than carbon dioxide. On the time scale of a few decades, the radiative forcing from a continuous emission of hydrogen or methane is proportional to emission rates, whereas the radiative forcing from a continuous emission of carbon dioxide is closely related to cumulative emissions. After a cessation of clean hydrogen consumption, the earth cools rapidly, whereas after a cessation of carbon dioxide emissions, the earth continues to warm somewhat and remains warm for many centuries. These longer-term differences may be important to consider in a policy context. Hydrogen leakage has the potential to reduce near-term climate benefits of hydrogen use, but methane is likely to play a more substantial role. In our analysis, consideration of methane emission associated with fossil fuel combustion is a critical factor for determining the relative short-term climate benefits of clean hydrogen alternatives. In the main cases, consideration of methane leakage substantially increases the climate impacts of fossil fuels and could result in net climate benefits for blue hydrogen even in the near-term. Regardless, our results support the conclusion of Ocko and Hamburg (2022) that, if methane were a feedstock for hydrogen production, any possible near-term consequences will depend critically on the issue of methane leakage.
- Preprint
(1036 KB) - Corresponding article
-
Supplement
(2880 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Lei Duan and Ken Caldeira
Status: open (until 22 Feb 2023)
-
AC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-810', Lei Duan, 27 Dec 2022
reply
We have noticed that for Figures S6 and S7 in SI, the "Avoided CO2" and "Green H2" lines are mislabelled. We have now corrected this in the updated SI.
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-810', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jan 2023
reply
This is a useful systematic discussion of different ways of assessing the climate impacts of hydrogen emissions. I have no objection to it being published following modification and clarification, although overall many of the qualitative results could have been anticipated from discussions of the climate impacts of short-lived forcers, compared to CO2, already in the literature
However, I struggled with the motivation. It is tied closely (in the title) to the Ocko and Hamburg (OH) paper, and the prime reason for doing this appears to be an objection to OH’s use of a GWP assuming constant emissions. This objection (which I have sympathy with, although I find OH to be an otherwise very useful paper) only really comes out in the Discussion and Conclusions. It is only tangentially referred to in the Abstract, and not in a negative sense. I think the direct connection (in the title) to OH could be removed, without affecting the content, making this a more general discussion of how the perception of hydrogen climate impacts varies depending on the adopted framework.
Comments
Lines 19-26: I agree with all written here, but it is presented as if it is new. I believe these points are clear and well established from the previous extensive literature on comparing climate impacts of emissions of short and long-lived forcers. The wording should be changed to indicate this and more reference to this previous literature would be appropriate in the paper as a whole. This way, the reader can separate out what is new in this paper and what is already known.
Lines 111 and 113: This discussion (coupled with lines 330-342 – see later) is confused and unhelpful for what (line 13) purports to be “a step-by-step tutorial”. Instantaneous radiative forcing (line 111) has a specific definition relating to the absence of any physical adjustment (with stratospheric temperature adjustment or full (ERF) adjustment) and so is inappropriate here. The adjustments referred to on line 113 are long-established chemical adjustments (ozone and stratospheric water vapor – including stratospheric temperature adjustment as I understand it) but for some reason this is not made clear to the reader.
Line 149: Apologies if I miss the obvious, but I cannot derive Equation (12d). It seems to imply that Equation (7b) with H replaced by t is (H-t) times Equation (6b), which it isn’t.
Lines 161-162: “better reflect the underlying conceptual model”. I cannot make sense of this. As I understand it, this paper adopts a different conceptual model (pulse emission from time zero) compared to Fuglestvedt et al. (2010 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.044). They adopted a 1-year emission, rather than an instantaneous pulse, with a stated aim of reducing time of year dependence for short-lived species. Of course, that conceptual model is open to question, but their equations (noting the interesting comment at Lines 31-32 in Text S1) reflect their conceptual model. I agree that the differences reflect the different underlying conceptual models, but the “better” seems too far of a reach.
Line 194: You need to state the units of the quantities in these equations. Nowhere prior to this are we told that t is in years.
Lines, 194, 207 etc: I wondered why the asterisks suddenly appear in these equations.
Line 195-201: Since these equations are only used in the SI, I suggest they are moved there so as not to burden the main text.
Lines 206 and 209: “emissions” is used on one line and “leakage” on another. Be consistent. I think “leakage” is better in both. Are the leakage rates assumed independent of time?
Line 235: “very beginning” is not correct for the temperature response
Lines 239-241: I did not understand this. If methane (M=16) is affected, then H2 (M=2) should be more affected. Section 8.SM.11.3 of the Supplementary Material to Myhre et al. (2013) outlines the methodology for ppb to kg conversions. Using this, I couldn’t reconcile the numbers in Figure S2. Again, apologies if I miss the obvious.
Lines 254-257, 293-295, 368-369 and elsewhere: These statements are all consistent with the Allen et al. (2009) cumulative emission framework and I wonder why this prior understanding is never acknowledged.
Lines 330: “More important uncertainties”. There are others not referred to here, including the impact of fossil-fuel co-emissions (such as ozone and aerosol precursors) and possible role of where emissions occur, known to be important for some short-lived forcers. In addition, the possible role of oxidant-related aerosol forcing needs alluding to (e.g., O’Connor et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS002991)
Lines 330-344: This seems confused. On line 330, the fast adjustments referred to are the fast chemical (ozone, strat water vapor) adjustments. The adjustments on line 332 are the physical adjustments that act beyond (or in concert with) these adjustments and are functionally strongly related to the efficacy implied in lines 340-342.
Lines 369-370: “not captured”? Why is it not captured by the GTP? Figure 1 seems to capture it very well.
Line 379: Several of the points here are not new and have been well represented in the literature discussing the climate impacts of short-lived forcers compared to CO2. e.g., Lines 384-387, 393-396 (e.g., Fuglestvedt et al. 2010; Allen et al. 2016 and references therein). Some change of wording is needed to make this clear.
Figure 2 and 3: The font on the y axes of these is too small. I am not sure all this text is needed as long as it is clear in captions and legend.
Tables S1, S2 and S3: The units of AGWP and AGTP need attending to.
Other comments
- The references to both Ocko & Hamburg (which only points to ACPD rather than the ACP version) and Warwick et al. are incomplete in both the main text and Supporting Information.
- The front page of the AR5 Chapter 8 makes it clear that it should be cited as Myhre et al. (2013) not Myhre et al. (2014).
- This is not meant to be a hostile comment. The authors claim no competing interests, but the second author lists a commercial “net zero” company as a second affiliation. As I understand ACP’s competing interests policy, this should be declared. Or perhaps it is already enough that it is declared in the affiliations? This is for the Editors.
- I wondered why the authors adopted AR5 rather than AR6 methodologies (e.g., on the indirect chemical forcing for methane). Consistency with OH?
Lei Duan and Ken Caldeira
Lei Duan and Ken Caldeira
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
473 | 105 | 9 | 587 | 22 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 473
- PDF: 105
- XML: 9
- Total: 587
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1