Dave Borlace delivers a scathing, data-driven takedown of a policy that has quietly become a cornerstone of national climate strategies: the push for "blue hydrogen." While governments and energy giants frame this as a bridge to a net-zero future, Borlace argues it is actually a sophisticated mechanism for extending the fossil fuel era under a green veneer. The piece's most startling claim is not just that blue hydrogen is flawed, but that, when accounting for short-term methane leakage, its total greenhouse gas footprint is worse than simply burning coal or natural gas directly for heat.
The Color of Deception
Borlace begins by dissecting the industry's marketing taxonomy, where the color of hydrogen dictates its environmental credibility. He notes that while "green hydrogen" comes from splitting water with renewable energy, the industry has pivoted heavily toward "blue hydrogen." This variant is essentially gray hydrogen—produced by steam methane reforming of natural gas—but with a promise to capture the resulting carbon dioxide. Borlace writes, "It's exactly the same as grey hydrogen except the production facility operators promise to capture all the carbon dioxide and do something jolly grown up and responsible with it." This framing effectively strips away the moral high ground the industry seeks, reducing a complex policy to a simple accounting trick.
The core of Borlace's argument rests on a peer-reviewed study published in August 2021, which challenges the standard metrics used by governments. Most industry reports calculate the impact of methane over a 100-year period, a timeframe that conveniently minimizes methane's potency. Borlace explains that methane has a short atmospheric half-life of about 12 years, but during that time, it is incredibly destructive. He writes, "Methane doesn't stick around for anything like as long as carbon dioxide... but during that period mass for mass it's a hundred times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide." By shifting the lens to a 20-year window, which aligns with the immediate urgency of the climate crisis, the math changes dramatically.
"The trouble is though that our climate emergency is playing out right now in front of our very eyes and not in 80 or 100 years from now."
This methodological shift is not merely academic; it is a matter of survival. Borlace points out that the United Nations Environment Programme has called for a 40 to 45 percent reduction in methane by 2030 to stay within safe warming limits. Critics might argue that the 100-year metric is standard for long-term climate modeling, but Borlace counters that relying on it ignores the acute warming spike caused by current emissions. The evidence he presents suggests that the industry's preferred timeline is a deliberate obfuscation designed to make the numbers look acceptable on a spreadsheet.
The Math Doesn't Add Up
When the 20-year global warming potential is applied to the 3.5 percent fugitive methane emission rate found in gas fields, the results are damning. Borlace reveals that under these realistic parameters, blue hydrogen is only 9 to 12 percent cleaner than gray hydrogen. Even more shocking is the comparison to direct combustion. He states, "It turns out that based on the author's parameters the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 greater than simply burning natural gas or coal for heat." This finding upends the entire economic logic of the transition, suggesting that building expensive carbon capture infrastructure actually increases emissions compared to the status quo.
The piece also highlights a critical flaw in the carbon capture assumption: the energy required to run the capture process. Borlace notes that most plants use natural gas to power the carbon capture units, which necessitates burning more gas and creating more fugitive emissions. Furthermore, he questions the viability of the storage solution itself, observing that "most carbon dioxide that's currently captured is used for enhanced oil recovery which we've talked about a couple of times on this channel." This process, he points out, liberates ancient carbon and spews it back into the atmosphere, often incentivized by tax breaks like the 45Q credit in the United States.
"A cynical person might suggest that blue hydrogen looks set to become yet another piece of governmental obfuscation by clever accountants with sharp pencils and a wealth of experience in making excel spreadsheets look acceptable rather than a genuine step towards real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions."
The political stakes are high. Borlace contrasts the UK government's strategy, which plans for 900 megawatts of blue hydrogen capacity against less than 200 megawatts of green hydrogen, with the views of experts like Chris Jackson. Jackson, who resigned from the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association in protest, is quoted as saying, "I believe passionately that I would be betraying future generations by remaining silent on the fact that blue hydrogen is at best an expensive distraction and at worst a lock-in for continued fossil fuel use." This resignation underscores the deep rift between industry lobbyists and scientific reality.
The Energy Efficiency Trap
Beyond the emissions profile, Borlace tackles the fundamental inefficiency of using hydrogen for home heating. Even if one assumes a perfect green hydrogen scenario, the energy loss in the conversion process is staggering. He argues, "If you're installing all that renewable power to run electrolysis why not just use it to run electric ovens hobs and heat pumps for our domestic homes and cut out a very energy-hungry middleman." This is a pragmatic argument that cuts through the hype: why convert electricity to gas and back to heat when direct electrification is far more efficient?
The fossil fuel industry's enthusiasm for blue hydrogen is transparent in its motivation. Borlace writes, "From the industry's perspective switching from natural gas to blue hydrogen it's a fantastic option not only do they get to keep their gas fields and pipelines open but they actually see an increase in gas demand." The policy is less about decarbonization and more about asset preservation. The administration and government bodies, eager to show progress, have embraced this narrative despite the scientific red flags.
"Blue hydrogen has been aggressively pushed upon our policy makers by fossil fuel lobbyists whose goals are clearly profit driven rather than climate driven."
Bottom Line
Dave Borlace's commentary succeeds by refusing to accept the industry's framing, forcing a re-evaluation of blue hydrogen through the lens of immediate climate impact rather than long-term abstractions. The strongest part of the argument is the rigorous application of 20-year methane metrics, which reveals that blue hydrogen may be worse than doing nothing at all. However, the piece's biggest vulnerability lies in the political reality that governments are already heavily invested in this path, making a pivot away from it politically difficult despite the scientific evidence. The reader must now watch to see if policy will catch up to the data or if the "scam" will become the entrenched reality of the energy transition.