Menu

disruptive technology

gold hydrogen

, , ,

Natural deposits are turning up all over the world – but how useful is it in our move away from fossil fuels?


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Hydrogen will play a role in weaning us off fossil fuels. It can be used to power trains, planes and HGVs, as well as being a low-carbon alternative to coke in steelmaking and a way to warm our homes.

But where will we get it? The latest geological research suggests that cheap and plentiful supplies of naturally occurring hydrogen could be found right under our feet – although there’s a long way to go before we can say for sure how useful these stores of “gold” hydrogen will be.

The many ways to obtain hydrogen have an informal, colour-based naming scheme. At present, most of our supplies are “grey” hydrogen, which is made from natural gas. Grey hydrogen does nothing to reduce the climate impact of fossil fuels, because carbon dioxide is produced as a waste product and dumped into the atmosphere.

However, when this waste is captured and buried, what’s then known as “blue” hydrogen is a big improvement. It will allow rapid and relatively climate-friendly growth in hydrogen production in the short term.

In the future, we’ll use excess electricity from solar and wind farms to perform electrolysis – the electrical breaking up of water into the hydrogen and oxygen it’s made from. This “green” hydrogen is currently more expensive than blue hydrogen and is not yet widely exploited. But that is changing rapidly as governments around the world find ways to encourage it. There’s also “pink” hydrogen, made using nuclear energy.

Now a new hydrogen hue has appeared: gold (also sometimes known as white). Gold hydrogen is naturally occurring gas trapped in pockets under the ground – in much the same way as oil and natural gas. The question is: will any of these deposits (which are being found all over the world) be large enough to justify the cost of the drills, pipelines and so on that are needed to extract them?

Nature’s hydrogen

Geologists have long known that hydrogen is produced underground by the chemical reaction of iron-rich rocks with water, or when water breaks up by exposure to radioactive minerals.

But, because hydrogen molecules are small and light, they easily percolate through rock and escape into the atmosphere. Hydrogen also serves as a food source for many microorganisms. Consequently, natural underground deposits of the gas were assumed to be small and rare – and so, with the exception of some work done decades ago in the Soviet bloc, few attempts have been made to look for it. And if you don’t look, you don’t find.

Now, however, geologists are starting to look and large amounts of natural hydrogen are turning up all over the place. In October 2023, researchers at the French National Centre of Scientific Research discovered a particularly large reservoir of natural hydrogen in north-eastern France’s Lorraine coal basin. The reservoir may contain 250 million tonnes of naturally occurring hydrogen – enough to provide almost as much energy as the UK’s largest oil field (the Claire field, west of Shetland).

Smaller hydrogen reservoirs have been found in Spain and across Europe, as well as in Mali, Namibia, Brazil, the US and many other countries. So far there’s nothing in the UK, but geologists are starting to think about where to look.

Global distribution of suspected natural hydrogen deposits

A world map showing the distribution of natural hydrogen deposits.
Natural hydrogen deposits have been found in many parts of the world. David Waltham


Pros and cons

There’s much to learn before we’ll know if gold hydrogen could have a significant impact on the transition away from fossil fuels. Geologists need to understand better how and where hydrogen gas forms, how it migrates to the places it becomes trapped, and how long it stays there before leaking out or being consumed by microorganisms.

But there are clear benefits to exploiting this low-cost, low-impact energy source. The science and technology needed is similar to that already used by oil and gas firms so jobs, resources and knowledge could be redeployed.

That would help launch the “hydrogen economy” we need as part of a strategy to halt anthropogenic climate change. This will be true even if the deposits turn out to be very limited and, hence, merely a stopgap while we develop enough renewable electricity capacity to make green hydrogen viable.

There are downsides too. Exploiting natural hydrogen deposits could be used as an excuse to foot-drag on the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions immediately. We’ve seen this already with carbon capture and storage. Will gold hydrogen suffer the same fate of being unfairly pilloried because of over-hype by actors with a hidden agenda (namely some politicians and lobbyists)?

Another problem is that hydrogen exploration may accidentally lead to new discoveries of fossil fuel. For example, many of the known deposits of gold hydrogen also contain methane, which may need to be separated from the hydrogen and then reburied.

It’s also very hard to tell whether a possible subsurface “trap” contains oil, natural gas, hydrogen or just salt water. The ultimate test is to drill and see what’s there. But if a possible hydrogen field turns out to contain crude oil, how do we ensure it’s left in the ground?

The big question, though, is how seriously to take gold hydrogen. Will it turn out to be an over-hyped distraction of very limited utility? Or will it provide a pain-free path into a low-carbon future? The truth probably lies between these extremes, but only time (and further research) will tell us.

The differences in resources used to grow meat versus cellular agriculture

, , , , , , , ,

Reposted from Coalition Footprint:

In a historic first for the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has certified that Upside Foods chicken made from cell cultures is safe to eat.

Nearly two years after Singapore approved the Good Meat company’s cellular chicken for sale at select restaurants in the Asian foodtech hub, and Supermeat opened a restaurant in Israel serving cultured chicken on its menu, U.S. buyers will soon get the chance to taste a potential future of food for themselves.

California-based Upside Foods is the first company to receive a pre-market safety clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While the pending facility for Upside Foods will need to meet U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and FDA requirements, the agency said it has “no further questions at this time” about the meat’s safety.

Issued on November 16, the approval could open the door for other cultured meat in the U.S. including the FootPrint Coalition-backed salmon biotechnology company WildType.

Cultured meat is made from cell samples taken from animals. It’s different from plant-based meat, like that of popular brands Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat and FPC brands MyForest Foods and Motif FoodWorks.

Using muscle samples, stem cells from animals, and fats animal tissue is “cultivated” from tiny samples into large portions of meat. In Upside’s case, the startup uses chicken’s primary cells of a fertilized egg to create “The fried chicken chicken’s dream about.

Different from plant-based, companies like Upside and Wild Type offer diners the option of real meat without the requirement of animal death or the meat industry’s environmental consequences and contributions to the climate crisis. The meats also have lower risk of contamination from bacteria because they’re not slaughtered. It is still animal meat, which means the target audience isn’t the vegetarians and vegans of the world, but their carnivorous counterparts.

The United Nations estimates the meat industry accounts for nearly a fifth of our total greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most polluting industries in the world, especially in the US, one of the planet’s most meat-consuming countries.

According to a study published at the University of Oxford, cultivated meat could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 96% compared to conventionally produced meat.

Additionally, switching to cultured meat can cut our water consumption between 82 and 96%, depending on the animal. It can also reduce the quantity of land dedicated to the meat industry, which is the main driver of tropical deforestation and land degradation.

Keep reading:

Carbon budget gross emission by sector New Zealand

, , , , , , , , ,

In 2019, Aotearoa’s net greenhouse gas emissions were 54.9 mt (megatonnes) of CO2-e (that means all greenhouse gases added together).

The single biggest emitter was agriculture: 48% or 39.6 mt (Figure ES 4.2).

The term LULUCF is used in the national greenhouse gas inventory that covers the combined emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry due to human activities. Currently, the NZ guide (click on the image to download) has assessed this sector as a 'net sink', i.e, primarily because of forestry drawing down more carbon that the total LULUCF sector emits, the emissions are regarded as negative emissions (-33%) (see the full breakdown of the LULUCF at the bottom of this post). The calculations do not include the other impacts on land use change where it involves agriculture. The term IPPU refers to industrial processes and product use.
The term LULUCF is used in the national greenhouse gas inventory that covers the combined emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry due to human activities. Currently, the NZ guide (click on the image to download) has assessed this sector as a ‘net sink’, i.e, primarily because of forestry drawing down more carbon that the total LULUCF sector emits, the emissions are regarded as negative emissions (-33%) (see the full breakdown of the LULUCF at the bottom of this post). The calculations do not include the other impacts on land use change where it involves agriculture. The term IPPU refers to industrial processes and product use.

From a climate warming perspective, all of that 54.9 mt of carbon was added to the excessive carbon debt—the highest in several million years—already in the atmosphere. But economists and policymakers are writing off this carbon debt because the goal is not to stop feeding the climate beast with more greenhouse gases. Nope. The goal is to keep adding more so that we can meet our obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep global temperatures under 1.5°C.

Yes, I know it’s irrational to be fixated on a 9-year old agreement that only one tiny country, Gambia, is anywhere close to meeting, using a budget to 2035 that’s going to be broken before then, given that the World Meteorological Organisation estimates we could reach 1.5°C sometime in 2026 [update 2024: we reached that in 2023]. But since irrational economics is driving our plan, let’s use their figures, and with a bit of simple arithmetic, calculate what our agricultural emissions will cost as we head into 2026, the first year that the agricultural sector in Aotearoa has to start paying for any of its emissions.

You may need a primer in the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) for this next bit to make sense, but simply put, it’s a polluter-pays scheme that places a $ value on CO2-e. Each 1-tonne of CO2-e is called a New Zealand Unit or NZU. They’re tradable commodities, so the rules of supply and demand mean prices fluctuate. In March 2021, one NZU cost $36. By September, it was $65, because by then, a lot of people had already done the calculations set out below, and realised how valuable these NZUs are going to become.

But let’s be really conservative and say an NZU is going to stay at $65.00 for the next three years. All we need to do is multiply $65 by the net amount of e-carbon emitted during that period. We’ll base the emissions on the Climate Commission proposed emissions budgets (Fig. 5.2 below). Again, these budgets are likely optimistic, but let’s be optimistic.

Years 2022-2025 net emissions = 208.5 mt total. As a megaton (mt) = 1,000,000 tonnes, that’s  2,085,000,000 tonnes x $65 = total $135,525,000,000 over three years.

Remember, the agricultural sector is exempt until 2026, so they don’t have to pay a cent of this.

Year 2026: By now, because they’ve had no incentives to change, the agricultural sector is assumed to be contributing 58% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The price of an NZU is expected to increase to $73.60. It’s probably going to be waaay higher, but let’s stick with that very conservative price estimate, to work out how much the agricultural sector should pay, using the emissions budget in Fig. 5.2 below, of 59.7 gt net emissions. That’s x 58% x 59,700,000 x $73.60 = $2,548,473,600.

If the number of zeros is confounding, that’s $2.55 billion worth of emissions. In one year. Just from agriculture.

But under New Zealand’s ETS, in 2026, agriculture is given a 95% discount. So they’re up for just $127,423,680 ($127.5 million). In fact, the agricultural sector is barely expected to reduce emissions by 11% by 2050 (see the graph at the top of this page).

Yes, I also know that the $ value under the ETS is not designed to put an actual value on emissions. It’s just an economic mechanism to incentivise industries to reduce emissions so that we can meet an outdated target to keep us under 1.5°C. But it’s the only mechanism we have. In the real world, all those greenhouse gases will be going into the atmosphere, feeding the climate beast, generating record-breaking floods and droughts that will bring serious costs to agriculture, because plans and policies based on economics can’t trump the laws of physics and chemistry and nature doesn’t do bailouts.

Maybe now is a good time to invest in food that’s grown like beer.

Emission budget 2019-2035 New Zealand
Table showing Greenhouse gas sequestration for native versus plantation forests
Fonterra investing in cellular agriclture versus dairy farming

, , ,

Back in 2019, Fonterra invested in US-based Motif FoodWorks. (See the Newsroom article: Fonterra dips hoof in alternative animal products by Eloise Gibson).
 
Motif FoodWorks makes milk using cultured proteins, that is, via a lab, not via dairy cows. And this is where the future of dairy—and meat—gets interesting. While Fonterra won’t disclose how much they invested, and are reluctant to talk about why they’re investing in a product that could potentially put dairy farmers out of business, the alternative proteins industry is becoming a serious competitor. And not just for dairy:
 

The whole of the cow milk industry, for example, will begin to collapse once PF [precision fermentation] technologies replace the proteins in a bottle of milk–just 3.3% of its content. Product after product that we extract from animals will be replaced by superior, cheaper, cleaner, and tastier alternatives, triggering a death spiral of increasing prices, decreasing demand, and reversing economies of scale for the livestock and seafood industries.             – RethinkX

One of the key recommendations from IPCC to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is to change our diets, particularly away from animal protein, primarily meat and dairy. This because growing animal protein produces a staggering volume of greenhouse gasses—48% of New Zealand’s emissions come from this sector.

Greenhouse gasses by sector. LULUFC is the acronym for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. (Image: Ministry for the Environment)
Greenhouse gasses by sector. LULUFC is the acronym for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. (Image: Ministry for the Environment)

Not everyone is prepared to give up meat and dairy of course, something of which the food industry is well aware. This has led to a rapid growth (no pun intended) in the cellular versus animal agriculture industry. Motif is one of dozens of these fast-growing disruptive technologies that aim to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable intensively farmed land to be returned to natural ecosystems, which also means cleaner waterways. At its simplest level, this is how it works:

The differences in resources used to grow meat versus cellular agriculture
The advantages of cellular versus animal agriculture. Click on the image to be taken to the website to find out more: WhatIsCultivatedMeat.com (image: “How Cultivated Meat Is Made” reused under the CC BY 4.0 license).
The advantages of cellular versus animal agriculture. Click on the image to be taken to the website to find out more: WhatIsCultivatedMeat.com (image: “How Cultivated Meat Is Made” reused under the CC BY 4.0 license).

There’s a more in-depth discussion of cellular and acellular processes on the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor website: cellular agriculture.

RethinkX‘s paper, ‘Rethinking Climate Change’ examines the speed of disruptive technologies in the energy, food, and transport sectors (from page 30):

The food disruption will be driven by the economics of precision fermentation (PF) and cellular agriculture (CA), which will compete with animal products of all kinds. Our previous research found that PF will make protein production 5 times cheaper by 2030 and 10 times cheaper by 2035 than existing animal proteins. The precision with which proteins and other complex organic molecules will be produced also means that foods made with them will be higher quality, safer, more consistent, and available in a far wider variety than the animal derived products they replace. The impact of this disruption on industrial animal farming will be profound.

The economic competitiveness of foods made with PF technology will be overwhelming. As the most inefficient and economically vulnerable part of the industrial food system, cow products will be the first to feel the full force of the food disruption. New PF foods will be up to 100 times more land efficient, 10-25 times more feedstock efficient, 20 times more time efficient, and 10 times more water efficient. They will also produce far less waste. By 2030, the number of cows in the United States will have fallen by 50% and the cattle farming industry will be all but bankrupt. All other commercial livestock industries worldwide will quickly follow the same fate, as will commercial fisheries and aquaculture.

This staggering transformation will present an entirely unprecedented opportunity for conservation, rewilding, and reforestation.

If you think people won’t buy much less eat meat, milk, cheese, yoghurt or any other protein products grown in a vat, remember that beer is made the same way.
 
China is getting on board with the technology and their consumers are keen to give it a go. This has huge implications for our export market. And globally, millions of dollars are being invested in the technology. Even Fonterra seems to think investing in it is a good idea.
 
We’ve seen how disruptive technologies have rapidly changed our lifestyles in the past. The Industrial Revolution, mass production, and the Internet are just a few examples that have completely upended every aspect of society. A revolution in food production would do the same. RethinkX have included this helpful reminder of how disruptive technologies evolve (Box 4). Below the image is also a short video on the topic.
 
"We already see indications that incumbent industries in the energy, transportation, and food sector have entered their disruption death spirals because they have begun to lose their social license. For example, many governments have now committed to phasing out fossil fuel use in the energy and transportation sectors, and shareholders are demanding change as the value of firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell has begun to erode." - RethinkX
“We already see indications that incumbent industries in the energy, transportation, and food sector have entered their disruption death spirals because they have begun to lose their social license. For example, many governments have now committed to phasing out fossil fuel use in the energy and transportation sectors, and shareholders are demanding change as the value of firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell has begun to erode.” – RethinkX

More information