Canada needs to rethink its hydrogen strategy

Hydrogen is the smallest and simplest atom in existence — this is true too, of its molecular form.  For such a small molecule, it sure packs a punch in the climate debate. While just about everybody agrees that hydrogen will play a role in reducing our carbon emissions to zero, how big a role is a subject of heated debate in Canada. 

Some think we should be using it in a multitude of ways: in industry, in our homes, and while moving around our cities and the world. 

We disagree. 

While hydrogen is vital to decarbonization, its role should be much narrower and restricted to a few uses, mostly in hard-to-decarbonize industrial sectors. For many other applications — especially home heating and personal vehicles — there are options that are cheaper, safer and more efficient. Electrification is almost always a much better solution — using electricity directly without unnecessary losses through hydrogen storage.

There is also controversy over the form of hydrogen to use. Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas. “Green” hydrogen, while currently more expensive, is preferred from a climate perspective because it has no carbon emissions when produced; it uses renewable electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen can then be used for energy or to replace fossil-based hydrogen to make fertilizer, steel and concrete, emitting water and no carbon dioxide.   

We held an expert workshop at McGill University in April 2024 to get to the bottom of the controversies over this tiny atom.  “Green” hydrogen, despite its climate advantage, faces huge barriers in reaching its full promise, including high costs, low efficiency and lack of enabling infrastructure. Currently, green hydrogen is not expected to be cost competitive with fossil fuel alternatives by 2030. 

An additional challenge is that this small molecule can easily escape from infrastructure systems, slashing efficiency and sparking environmental concerns given that hydrogen has secondary global-warming impacts.  Even if green hydrogen can overcome these hurdles, it is tricky to transport and there is very little distribution infrastructure.

The safety of using hydrogen in our energy systems is an ongoing societal concern, and resolving that concern is key to social buy-in. This is compounded by the lack of data to support claims about new hydrogen facilities, and an uncertain policy and regulatory environment.  Transparent data is essential to developing robust policy and getting the concerned public behind new projects.

Despite these barriers, Canada is already making a name for itself in green hydrogen with projects across the country. In B.C., for example, Ballard Power Systems has invested more than $1.5 billion in cutting-edge fuel-cell technology in the past 40 years. 

HTEC is piloting heavy-duty hydrogen fuel cell trucks and developing hydrogen production facilities. 

In the East, TES Canada of Montreal plans to produce 70,000 tonnes a year of hydrogen from renewable power in Quebec.  

In Newfoundland, World Energy GH2 plans to produce hydrogen from 300 newly-built wind turbines in addition to a hydrogen-ammonia plant. But projects are already facing harsh criticisms due to potential pitfalls.

And Canada is only one of the 38 countries that mention hydrogen in their submitted Paris Agreement pledge. Globally, a steady growth in final investment decisions is expected to result in five times the green hydrogen production in 2030 compared to 2024. 

So, is green hydrogen a bad idea? For solving the climate challenge, no solution is a panacea.  But, a hydrogen project may be either essential or just a dangerous distraction from demonstrated climate solutions. Canada needs a well-thought-out plan to ensure that only hydrogen projects that work for our environment, our economy and our people are developed. 

That means a shift from all-of-the-above thinking of the current Canadian hydrogen strategy, to an approach that focuses on applications with no alternatives, or where the alternative is more costly economically or environmentally.  This strategy can be enabled with a clear regulatory framework. And to overcome high costs, policies must drive deployment and lower costs.  Such policies, including tax incentives, are already being implemented federally and provincially. 

Clearly, there is a long road ahead to demonstrate the role hydrogen can play in our climate action. This road requires not only education, but also a better understanding of the consequences of hydrogen to our climate, including both the benefits of this carbon-free energy carrier and its pitfalls.  

Nobel Laureate Nelson Mandela once said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”  This is true for the success of green hydrogen. Transparent information that evidences safety, as well as climate and economic benefits, is paramount to garnering public support and ensuring green hydrogen is used only when promised benefits are fully realized.

Sarah Jordaan is an associate professor of Industrial Ecology & Life Cycle Assessment at the Department of Civil Engineering and Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design, McGill University. 

Jeffrey Bergthorson is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and a William Dawson Scholar at McGill University, where he leads the Alternative Fuels Laboratory.