Hydrogen in context: comparative climate impact assessment across multiple decarbonization pathways

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a unified framework (TWP) and comparative dataset (57 pathways) for evaluating hydrogen versus alternatives across multiple end uses and timescales.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights that hydrogen investments should be targeted at feedstock uses (steel, fertilizer) and that direct electrification is far more efficient for heating and transport, helping avoid stranded assets.

🏛政策担当者:Quantifies conditions under which hydrogen yields net climate benefits; suggests policy should prioritize renewable hydrogen for specific applications and couple it with direct electrification where more effective.

Clean hydrogen is considered a key decarbonization strategy, but its climate effectiveness depends on several factors that are often underestimated or not jointly evaluated, including value-chain emissions, carbon capture and storage (CCS) efficiency, renewable capacity, and assessment timescale. Moreover, hydrogen’s climate effectiveness depends on how it performs relative to other available decarbonization options. Here, we conduct a more comprehensive climate assessment of 57 well-to-use decarbonization pathways—including hydrogen, hydrogen-derived fuels, direct electrification, and fossil fuels with CCS—across 11 end uses. Using Technology Warming Potential (TWP), we quantify near- and long-term climate impacts of continuous emissions and explicitly compare hydrogen pathways with other decarbonization alternatives. Results show that hydrogen delivers the greatest climate benefits when produced from renewable electricity and used as a feedstock (e.g., steel making, fertilizer production) achieving emissions reductions of up to ~375 gCO 2 e per unit of electricity (kWh) used to produce hydrogen under low hydrogen emission assumptions. In contrast, direct electrification reduces emissions per unit of renewable electricity 2–16 times more than hydrogen for home heating and road transport. Fossil fuel and CCS-based hydrogen can deliver substantial climate benefits under low hydrogen and methane emissions assumptions but can also cause near-term net warming in 8 of 11 use cases if emissions assumptions are high. Each 1% of hydrogen or methane loss reduces near-term benefits by ~3% and ~15%, respectively. Low CCS efficiency and non-additional renewable electricity further reduce or reverse climate benefits. By integrating these factors within a unified framework, this study provides a quantitative basis for evaluating hydrogen deployment and situates hydrogen within a broader decarbonization system context.

• crossref https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2026.1847109first seen 2026-07-17 06:11:00