Wintershall dogmatic debate around green hydrogen, generated by renewable energy sources and ‘blue’ hydrogen, for which carbon emissions are captured and stored, or reused, threatens to delay the world’s transition to a sustainable energy future. The conflict between supporters of green hydrogen and those who advocate blue hydrogen is slowing investment in the hydrogen technologies required to rapidly reduce carbon emissions from industry and heavy transport. Urging greater realism on what can be achieved with green hydrogen, as opposed to blue hydrogen. Hydrogen is going to play a major role in achieving carbon free energy and as long as hydrogen is carbon free, we shouldn’t care whether it is so called green hydrogen, or blue hydrogen, or turquoise hydrogen.
Hydrogen produced solely from renewables requires massive investment, not only in money but also in land and wind and solar infrastructure. Blue hydrogen is the most cost effective option that we have. It is also the one option where we have sufficient capacity. So I think it would be a shame if we don’t make use of the infrastructure and the energy source we have. hydrogen mainly produced industrially from natural gas. The oil and gas industry has a responsibility to ensure the blue hydrogen option stays on the table by investing in technologies to decarbonise natural gas, including carbon capture, utilization and storage and by supporting the creation of a hydrogen market, both of which form major parts of Wintershall DEA’s energy transition strategy.