THP-E51: Turquoise, Yellow, And Pink Hydrogen Need To Work Harder To Insert Themselves Into The Hydrogen Economy. And Watch Out, US Hydrogen Policy Is Starting To Get Politicized. Let’s Work Together To Find The Solution.

September 30, 2021 • Paul Rodden • Season: 2021 • Episode: 51

Welcome to The Hydrogen Podcast!

In episode 051, Turquoise hydrogen getting some headlines. The United States is getting passionate about hydrogen and yellow hydrogen finally feeling a little love all of this on today’s hydrogen podcast.

Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoy the podcast. Please feel free to email me at with any questions. Also, if you wouldn’t mind subscribing to my podcast using your preferred platform… I would greatly appreciate it.

Paul Rodden




Send us an email to:


Start Here: The 6 Main Colors of Hydrogen

Listen Now:

>Direct Link To The Hydrogen Podcast MP3<


Turquoise hydrogen getting some headlines. The United States is getting passionate about hydrogen and yellow hydrogen finally feeling a little love all of this on today’s hydrogen podcast.

So the big questions in the energy industry today are, how is hydrogen the primary driving force behind the evolution of energy? Where is capital being deployed for hydrogen projects globally? And where are the best investment opportunities for early adopters who recognize the importance of hydrogen? I will address the critical issues and give you the information you need to deploy capital. Those are the questions will unlock the potential of hydrogen, and this podcast will give you the answers. My name is Paul Rodden, and welcome to the Hydrogen Podcast.

In an article from, with the Baker Institute as a contributor, blue, green, and turquoise, carbon to value and sustainability in the hydrogen palette. Decarbonisation efforts and commitments from governments and industries are rising due to global climate and sustainability targets. And many are exploring and adapting innovative technologies and business models with the goal of zero carbon or low carbon energy and carbon utilization strategies. Hydrogen, which is a zero carbon energy carrier that can be stored prior to use has the potential to significantly transform the global energy landscape. It could be a cheaper energy option for freight transport, and heavy trucks and electrification, and could be used in industrial process, where electrification is difficult and costly. multiple pathways for hydrogen production are available. Each is often differentiated by the color spectrum, but the majority of them have not been commercialized at scale. For hydrogen to be low carbon, the negative co2 externality must be abated, which pushes the production technology options away from gray and brown, which represent the dominant production technology deployed today to other options.

Turquoise hydrogen represents an interesting opportunity because it introduces a carbon to value proposition that can improve the commercial viability of the technology. In particular, the solid carbon that is recovered during the hydrogen production via pyrolysis can be used in existing applications that involve carbon black, graphite, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes, graphene and other derivatives. Moreover, it can be applied in various applications ranging from new advanced carbon materials to soil amendments across different economic sectors, such as construction, transportation and agriculture. The resultant impacts for co2 emissions are potentially enormous because not only is energy use decarbonized other co2 intensive materials such as metals and concrete, are displaced. Hence, by utilizing a methane pyrolysis process to create hydrogen and solid carbon, turquoise hydrogen taps into existing hydrocarbon value chains without co2 emissions associated with the process, the management of solid carbon from pyrolysis is largely contingent on its regulatory classification. For example, classifying it in the waste category sets it on an alternative path for special handling, treatment and disposal.

Classification as a hazardous waste, non hazardous waste byproduct co product spent material, secondary material or non hazardous secondary material all determine regulatory obligations, as well as operational engineering and administrative controls, which include accumulation time, storage limits, training and reporting requirements, etc. Moreover, classification will determine how solid carbon will be handled, where it can be stored, how it be transported, and where it can be treated and disposed. None of this is settled, but classification is complicated by the fact that not all methane paralysis processes yield an identical carbon output. The quality morphology and chemical constituents of the resultant carbon material can differ depending on the type of methane pyrolysis technology employed, which could be thermal catalytic or plasma, as well as the operating parameters used in the process, which would be temperatures, pressure, natural gas feed, methane conversion, reactor space, and power. Although impurities can be processed and removed, the economics of stabilization and removal may be cost prohibitive.

Now carbon black and carbon based nanomaterials are a manufactured product with well controlled properties that differs from black carbon, which is an incomplete combustion byproduct of hydrocarbons, which will be discussed further in an interview I have coming up. Commingling terms can lead to erroneous analysis of safety risks and prevent solid carbon from paralysis from being applied for beneficial use. Use in remediation or soil amendment pathways. It could also drive consumer misperceptions that impede solid carbon from gaining traction as a value proposition that has the potential to displace or supplement energy intensive materials. Hence to avoid unwarranted negative public perceptions, classification and clear definition is critical.

Any negative public perception whether or not it is rooted in science can present a significant barrier to scale. Hence, it is important to maintain transparency in lifecycle data, as well as public communication on any environmental and public health concerns of solid carbon materials. This article cast a beautiful landscape over the turquoise technology. And while Monolith Materials may right now have the lead in turquoise hydrogen and deservedly so I would expect more operators to come onto the scene with this technology also, it’s very clean, uses existing infrastructure and is cost advantageous. So while blue and green get most of the press, keep an eye out turquoise could be headed our way. Next, in an article from Hydrogen threatens to drive a wedge between Democrats and climate activists. Very interesting.

After US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm met with grassroots organizers in Brooklyn, in June, the leader of Latino community organization UPROSE was optimistic about the Biden administration’s outreach to citizens on climate policy. However, the community leader expressed concerns over the administration’s energy policy priorities harnessing the potential of hydrogen coupled with carbon capture and sequestration, hydrogen derived from hydrocarbons and the supporting technology, are false situations quote, unquote, in the view of approaches executive director, Elizabeth Yeampierre, the efforts would benefit big corporations at the expense of communities of color like hers in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, they haven’t been able to show that these innovations work yeah, Yeampierre said in an interview after the meeting, but we do know for certain is that they don’t produce the benefit that is necessary for climate change, and they harm our communities. Yeampierre comments reflected a rift that has emerged between climate activists and the democratic controled White House in Congress over how to use hydrogen to decarbonize the economy.

Well, the administration’s plans to fund multiple pathways for hydrogen production, including using natural gas and nuclear power, many environmental groups adamantly oppose using anything besides zero carbon renewable electricity. The split threatens to complicate the Biden administration’s pledge to fight climate change, even as it gives environmental justice groups a bigger role in Policymaking. Under a federal government definition, environmental justice communities are low income or minority populations that have historically been vulnerable to industrial development. Congressional Democrats have signaled that they will take a technology neutral approach to low carbon hydrogen deployment. The US Department of Energy has also embraced various forms of hydrogen in an effort called hydrogen shot from the production of renewable power electrolysis known as green hydrogen to the production of natural gas reforming with carbon capture, known as blue hydrogen. We’re really trying to get away from the color this according to the director of the Department of Energy’s hydrogen and fuel cell Technologies Office Sunita Satyapal. It’s difficult to have a one size fits all the point is really the clean hydrogen and the carbon intensity.

But climate groups have built support around a single pathway green hydrogen production using zero carbon renewable electric power. These groups argue that the nation should only produce green hydrogen for a handful of hard to decarbonize sectors, including industries that currently rely on carbon intensive hydrogen, such as petroleum refining, metals treatment, fertilizer, production, aviation, long haul road and sea transport, and high heat industrial processes like steelmaking. So why has blue hydrogen become a wedge issue? A scientific paper finding that the combustion of blue hydrogen for heat is worse for the climate than burning natural gas has helped environmentalists press their case to policymakers. But the paper is attracted scrutiny from some researchers. And the senate bipartisan infrastructure bill includes substantial support for blue hydrogen and other production pathways opposed by environmentalists.

In a statement from Senator Joe Manchin, this is an all of the above fuel, as he said about the Department of Energy’s hydrogen shot summit in 2021, which ran from August 31 to September 1. And a recent Department of Energy requests for information showed substantial interest among US stakeholders in developing blue hydrogen and Through the hydrogen shot, the Department of Energy will aim to cut the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1 per kilogram within a decade, a goal that could be easier to reach with blue hydrogen if us gas costs stay low and carbon capture technology improves. Now on the other hand, hydrogen from renewable energy today average is $5 a kilogram. This according to the Department of Energy, some policymakers believe blue hydrogen will be critical to scaling up demand, while green hydrogen costs fall.

Now what this shows is the unfortunate result of the politicization of hydrogen and a lack of awareness by those pushing one agenda over another when it concerns hydrogen. As Senator Joe Manchin said, this is all hands on deck. So in order to supplant natural gas, and other hydrocarbons as our nation’s primary fuel source, we do need to embrace all clean methods of hydrogen production that includes green, blue, turquoise, yellow, and as we’ve talked recently Clear, our energy demands a lot of hydrogen, and with so many available ways to make it that are co2 neutral or negative, we need to embrace every option. And speaking of yellow hydrogen, in an article from World nuclear news, nuclear needed for hydrogen production, according to a new study, In a report titled decarbonizing hydrogen and a net zero economy, which was commissioned by Urenco and has been supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, EDF and Lucid Catalyst.

It follows the UK government’s hydrogen strategy which was published last month. The hydrogen strategy stated that nuclear provides a number of options for producing clean hydrogen, but did not model the cost and competitiveness of nuclear’s contribution. The report states that the majority of studies for the future of hydrogen sector in Great Britain focus on electrolytic hydrogen from renewable energy sources and hydrocarbon based hydrogen with carbon capture and storage. The potential for nuclear to participate in the hydrogen economy is often not considered due to high costs of recent assets and lack of clear policy direction, leading to plan projects being put on hold. This study investigates how policy support for new nuclear technologies and business models to provide low carbon electrolytic hydrogen could reduce nuclear and system costs while reducing reliance on hydrocarbons when deployed alongside RES which is renewable energy sources on the path to net zero.

Aurora’s report utilizes the company’s integrated modeling suite to capture market interactions and impacts deploying RES and nuclear to achieve net zero, Aurora’s in house net zero scenario reflects our recent UK Government targets including the energy white papers 40 gigawatts of offshore wind and capture of 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide via CCS by 2030. Installed power capacity is seen increasing from 107 gigawatts in 2021 to 257 gigawatts in 2050. This driven by rapid growth of renewables and peaking capacity Nuclear Generating capacity increases from nine gigawatts to 21 gigawatts over the same period.

Power Generation grows from 312 terawatt hours in 2021 to 643 terawatt hours in 2050, with nuclear generation increasing from 59 terawatt hours to 159 terawatt hours. Meanwhile, hydrogen production capacity increases from five gigawatts to 69 gigawatts over that same period. For me nuclear generated hydrogen has not been given its fair shake in the hydrogen discussion. Nuclear energy as a whole is safe and reliable, but not very portable. And that’s where utilizing it as a hydrogen generation system makes so much sense. Especially if we’re talking about utilizing an electrolyzer at an existing nuclear facility.

The power is already available on demand without the need to worry about intermittent power problems that you get with renewable resources. And I think that if nuclear powers were smart, they would look more closely at investing in nuclear derived hydrogen or yellow or pink hydrogen as much or more as green hydrogen.

Alright, right. That’s it for me, everyone. If you have any questions, comments or concerns about today’s episode, come and visit me of, and let me know. I would really love to hear from you. And as always, take care. Stay safe. I’ll talk to you later.

Hey, this is Paul. I hope you liked this podcast. If you did want to hear more, I’d appreciate it if you would either subscribe to this channel on YouTube or connect with your favorite platform through my website at Thanks for listening. I very much appreciate it. Have a great day.