Blue Hydrogen vs. Green Hydrogen: A Techno-Economic and Environmental Showdown in Heavy Industry Decarbonization
ブルー水素 vs グリーン水素：重工業脱炭素化における技術経済・環境比較 (AI 翻訳)
Sami Hussun
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
鉄鋼・化学・精製などの脱炭素が困難な産業向けに、ブルー水素とグリーン水素の技術経済性・環境影響・コスト予測を比較。グリーン水素は2030年に2.00-3.50ドル/kgへ低下し長期的に優位、ブルー水素は短期的に1.50-2.50ドル/kgと安価だが、メタン漏洩により気候便益が損なわれる。グリーン水素優位シナリオはブルー比で1155億ドルの節約となる。
English
This study compares blue and green hydrogen for hard-to-abate industries, integrating techno-economic and life-cycle assessments. Green hydrogen costs are projected to fall to $2.00-3.50/kg by 2030, offering long-term economic advantages, while blue hydrogen is cheaper near-term ($1.50-2.50/kg) but its climate benefits are undermined by methane leakage (2.8-3.1%), leading to lifecycle emissions of 3.5-5.5 kg CO2e/kg H2. A green-dominant scenario saves $115.5 billion versus blue-dominant pathways.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本は水素基本戦略を改定し、供給・利用拡大を目指す。本比較は、国内の水素調達コストやCCS・再エネ導入判断に示唆を与え、産業界の脱炭素投資計画に有用。
In the global GX context
Globally, this study informs hydrogen procurement strategies and policy frameworks, highlighting the trade-offs between blue and green hydrogen. It underscores the importance of methane leakage regulation and CCS effectiveness, relevant for ISSB-aligned disclosure and transition finance.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a comprehensive comparative framework for hydrogen pathways, useful for further LCA and cost modeling.
🏢実務担当者:Helps corporate sustainability teams evaluate hydrogen sourcing options and their cost and emissions implications.
🏛政策担当者:Informs policy design for hydrogen subsidies and CCS regulation, emphasizing methane leakage and long-term cost trajectories.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The global imperative to decarbonize hard-to-abate (HTA) industrial sectors including steel, chemicals, and refining has positioned hydrogen as a cornerstone of the low-carbon transition. Two primary clean hydrogen pathways have emerged: green hydrogen, produced via renewable-powered electrolysis, and blue hydrogen, derived from natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). While both offer substantial emissions reductions compared to conventional fossil-based hydrogen, they entail fundamentally different techno-economic profiles, environmental footprints, and scalability trajectories. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of blue and green hydrogen pathways across key industrial applications, integrating techno-economic assessment (TEA), life-cycle environmental evaluation, and scenario-based cost projections. The findings reveal that green hydrogen exhibits superior long-term economic performance, with costs projected to reach $2.00-3.50/kg by 2030, driven by rapid electrolyzer cost reductions and declining renewable electricity prices. However, blue hydrogen maintains a near-term cost advantage at $1.50-2.50/kg, though this is contingent upon high CCS capture rates (93-97%) and low upstream methane leakage. Critically, the climate benefits of blue hydrogen are significantly undermined by methane leakage rates observed in major gas-producing basins (2.8-3.1%), resulting in lifecycle emissions of 3.5-5.5 kg CO₂e/kg H₂ on a 20-year GWP basis . The green hydrogen-dominant scenario demonstrates superior mitigation economics, saving $115.5 billion compared to blue-dominant pathways while achieving comparable decarbonization outcomes . These results underscore the need for nuanced, sector-specific policy frameworks that account for regional resource endowments, infrastructure readiness, and long-term cost trajectories.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/21892173first seen 2026-08-12 04:23:14 · last seen 2026-08-13 04:34:51
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。