Bartnik R (2024) Could Hydrogen and Ammonia Become Fuels in Future Power and CHP Plants? JSM Environ Sci Ecol 12(4): 1105.

Entrepreneurs motivated solely by the desire for their own profits and the politicians lobbying on their behalf, as well as, horror of horrors, some people in the engineering and technical sciences and, strangely enough, in the social sciences (strangely enough because e.g. political scientists have zero knowledge of thermodynamic processes, but this does not stop them from talking about them with great self-confidence; for example, they predicate the absolute rightness and necessity of producing methane from carbon dioxide using hydrogen as in reaction (12)) point to hydrogen and ammonia, not nuclear, power generation as the technologies that ought to have the leading roles in the general energy supply structure, not only in Europe. These people should be called pseudo-scientists and propagandists (to use a euphemism) who propagate absurd nonsense and poison the minds not only of students, but also of ordinary people on the street. In fact, these people should be called exceptional vermin of science. This is because the view that hydrogen and ammonia power generation should play a leading role is downright bizarre (sic!) as hydrogen and ammonia first have to be produced. Yes, hydrogen and ammonia have to be produced (sic!) because they are not found in a free state in nature! Thus, the question to be answered is, whether hydrogen and ammonia power generation makes sense? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to look at the stoichiometry of hydrogen and ammonia production. It is this necessity of production, but not only (sic!), that makes one wonder about the sense of hydrogen and ammonia power generation. In advance of the results of the analysis below, which is brief but entirely sufficient because it goes to the heart of the matter, it should be expressly stated that widespread hydrogen and ammonia power generation is a thermodynamic, technical, economic and environmental absurdity and, fortunately, it is impossible.

Hydrogen can be produced by reforming natural gas with steam (reaction (1)) or with carbon dioxide (reaction (6)) or by coal gasification (reaction (9)). In the reforming process, it is produced from fuels containing methane or other hydrocarbons. For instance, in the case of methane, production follows an endothermic reaction (the high-temperature heat energy required for this reaction at a normal temperature of 25°C is 206,280 kJ per kilomole of CH4; the enthalpy of devaluation of 1 kilomole of methane CH4 at a normal temperature of 25°C is 802,870 kJ; for water vapour H2O it is zero; for carbon monoxide CO it is 283,150 kJ/kmol; and for 1 kilomole of hydrogen H2 it is 242,000 kJ):

CH4 + H2O + 206280 kJ→CO + 3H2.                                      (1)

By adding steam and heating the substrates to a sufficiently high temperature, around 900-1400 K (the higher the temperature of the substrates, the more state of chemical equilibrium shifts in favour of the endothermic reaction products), a change in the chemical composition of the substrates being heated is achieved and the chemical energy of the reaction products is increased by the heat supplied in accordance with the principle of conservation of energy, which of course applies not only to physical, but also to chemical transformations,.

This raises the question of what to do with the poisonous carbon monoxide CO produced as a result of the reforming reaction (1). Steam conversion must be applied to it as well. According to the exothermic reaction (as 41,150 kJ of heat is given off during this reaction from each kilomole of CO; this amount corresponds to a normal temperature of 25°C; the enthalpy of devaluation of 1 kilomole of carbon dioxide CO2 is zero) CO2 and H2 are obtained:

CO+H2O → CO2+ H2+41 150 kJ”.                                       (2)

Consequently, from both of the above reactions: CH4+H2O+206280 kJ→CO+3H2,            (3)

CO+H2O → CO2+H2+41 150 kJ,                                              (4)

the same amount of CO2 is produced as when “C” “H” _”4” is burnt directly, e.g. in a gas turbine:

CH4+2O2 → CO2+2H2O+802 870 kJ.                                      (5)

And what is the reaction for reforming methane with carbon dioxide? According to the reaction:

CH4+CO2+247 430 kJ→2CO+2H2,                                         (6)

it makes absolutely no sense as up to 2 kilomoles of carbon monoxide are then added to the resulting 2 kilomoles of carbon monoxide for its conversion to hydrogen in the reaction:

2CO + 2H2O → 2CO2+ 2H2 + 82 300 kJ.                                (7)

In addition to the source of CO2 needed for the reaction

(6) to take place, a source of steam would have to be available, which would make the cost of the reforming system considerably higher. The carbon monoxide produced would therefore have to be burnt:

2CO + O → 2CO + 2 ? 283 150 kJ.                                        (8)

as a result of which, like in reaction (7), twice as much carbon dioxide would be produced. Thus, instead of reducing the amount of CO2, methane reforming with carbon dioxide would produce twice as much CO2.

Furthermore, it should be expressly stated that reaction (1) of methane reforming with steam only makes sense if high- temperature waste heat is available (because of the chemical equilibrium state of the reaction products, this should ideally be a temperature of about 1200-1400 K). This could be e.g. high-temperature waste gases from industrial plants. In this way, chemical regeneration of waste heat would take place, which means that the use of this heat would lead to saving the chemical energy of fuels. In its absence, in order for the endothermic reaction (1) to take place, fossil fuels would have to be burnt (which would generate further quantities of carbon dioxide) in order to supply heat to it at a rate of 206,280 kJ per kilomole of CH4. There is also the idea that this heat would come from purpose-built nuclear High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGRs) with helium as the reactor coolant and that this helium, at a temperature of about 1,300 K, would then be fed into the reforming system. This idea is so absurd that it is hard to even comment on it! It should be borne in mind that the energy loss in two reactions is, of course, always greater than in one. This is because extension of the chain of thermodynamic transformations always increases the loss. Thus, according to the principle of conservation of energy, the final effect for one reaction, i.e. the direct combustion of fossil fuels, is greater than for three reactions, i.e. two reforming reactions and a third reaction of combustion of the hydrogen produced in the former two in power generation plants. Equally importantly, if not more importantly, the economic efficiency of generating electricity by means of one reaction is, of course, incomparably higher than by means of three. This is because each reaction requires capital expenditure on the necessary facilities, which increases the annual capital and operating costs.

And what is the situation regarding hydrogen production from coal gasification? Analysing its stoichiometry (the enthalpy of devaluation at a normal temperature of 25°C of 1 kilomole of coal C is 393,780 kJ and that of oxygen O2 is zero):

3C + O2 + H2O → 3CO + H2+ 89 890 kJ,                                (9)

and using steam reforming for the 3 kilomoles of poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) produced in this reaction, 3 kilomoles of carbon dioxide (CO2) are obtained:

3CO + 3H2O → 3CO2 + 3H2 + 123 450 kJ.                          (10)

Thus, it turns out that the amount of carbon dioxide produced by coal gasification is identical to that produced by direct combustion in e.g. a boiler at a power station, which is obvious:

3C + 3O2 → 3CO2 + 3 ? 393780 kJ.                                      (11)

Thus, both the gasification of coal and the use of the hydrogen produced, as in the case of natural gas reforming, require three reactions. Consequently, the brief thermodynamic and economic analysis performed a few lines above and regarding electricity generation from hydrogen obtained from natural gas reforming is also valid for generation from hydrogen obtained from coal gasification [1-3].

The above reactions prove that hydrogen power generation is, to put it as gently as possible, utterly absurd! After all, its purpose is supposed to be to reduce CO2 emissions in order to prevent the greenhouse effect while in actual fact it will be even grossly exacerbated (for interesting articles on climate change caused by the so-called greenhouse effect, see [4-9]. In fact, as reactions (1)-(11) show, hydrogen power generation not only generates an identical (sic!) amount of carbon dioxide as conventional power generation where fossil fuels are burnt directly, but additionally, water vapour is produced in the combustion of hydrogen, which is a much more powerful, about six times more, greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (sic!). Therefore, it must be stated very emphatically once again that hydrogen power generation will contribute many times more to the greenhouse effect because it will be caused not only by the carbon dioxide produced in the production of hydrogen, but also, additionally, by water vapour. Nothing is wasted in nature, and just as the principle of the conservation of energy remains valid for these reactions, the number of elements involved in these reactions also remains constant, and no amount of ‘hydrogen trickery’ will ever change that!

So what purpose is hydrogen power generation supposed to serve? There are more questions, even of a fundamental nature, that must be asked here, such as, what is happening to science and to scientific integrity? Why has it become so detached from the truth? Why do some people of science support hydrogen energy generation despite the truth? The truth that science should after all be seeking and serving with all its might, without any compromise. It should not instead serve the interests of entrepreneurs who are solely motivated by the desire for constant profit and who are only able to achieve this by supplying the market with technical novelties, and the interests of politicians who lobby on their behalf. After all, the essence of science is to ask questions about the truths of the world around us and to answer them, not to replicate propaganda that, being propaganda, has nothing to do with the truth. Why has science departed so far from common sense (to put it mildly)? There is another dimension to hydrogen power generation, a very dangerous one. It is the desire for economic and political domination of some countries by countries with large deposits of natural gas as well as by gas-trading countries. It would therefore be advisable for not only scientists, but some politicians as well, to have recourse to knowledge and, with its help, seek the truth rather than circularise deliberate, damaging lies and absurdities about hydrogen power generation. What is more, the capital expenditure on hydrogen power generation is many times greater compared with conventional power generation. So the cost of generating electricity from hydrogen will also be many times greater. Who will then be able to afford it?

The reality and the logic unequivocally show that the idea of energy decarbonisation, i.e. the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and consequently hydrogen power generation, originated in the minds of politicians and were introduced in Europe with their help. Decarbonisation, the EU ETS and hydrogen energy generation only serve their interests. The same is true of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) where electricity production is negligible and at the same time very expensive [10,11], many times more expensive than generation in conventional power plants. Once again, it should be expressly stated that the forced decarbonisation of the energy industry, the EU ETS, RES and hydrogen energy generation have actually been designed to serve the interests of the business and politicians. Therefore, it is necessary to return to coal in the energy industry as soon as possible and at the same time to develop nuclear power (sic!) [1-3].

An even greater, almost over-the-top absurdity is the production of hydrogen by water electrolysis. The fundamental disadvantage of producing hydrogen in very expensive electrolysers (capital expenditure on electrolysers per unit of electric power amount to at least 8.5 PLNm/MW and are therefore significantly higher even than the high unit capital expenditure of approx. 6.5 PLNm/MW on supercritical steam power plants) is that from a quantity of about 180 MJ of electricity, the noblest form of energy in every sense of the word, only a kilogram of hydrogen is obtained (the calorific value of hydrogen is Wd = 121 MJ ⁄(kgH2 from which only about 60 MJ of electricity can be obtained in return, i.e. only 33% of the electricity used in its production (60 MJ = 0.33 ? 180 MJ). The remaining 67% of energy is therefore irretrievably lost (sic!). Thus, such production is ‘thermodynamic barbarism’, an absurdity of absurdities! After all, we put in 180 MJ of electricity only to get a mere 60 MJ of electricity out of it for a great deal of money. Furthermore, in order to produce electricity from this hydrogen, considerable funds would have to be invested additionally in power plants burning it. At present, hydrogen is mainly obtained by steam reforming of natural gas according to the endothermic reaction (1) (in Poland, about 1 million tonnes of hydrogen are produced this way annually). The energy needs for heat (in contrast to electricity, heat is characterised by low quality, i.e. low exergy) for this reaction, as already mentioned above, are about 206 MJ/kmol CH4. They are therefore more than 5 times less per kilogram of hydrogen obtained than the energy needs in the process of water electrolysis, in which they are, moreover, met not by heat but by electricity. This is energy that is identical to exergy, i.e. of the highest thermodynamic quality, and therefore expensive, while heat is of low quality, i.e. low exergy, and therefore relatively cheap. Furthermore, the capital expenditure on reforming systems is low compared with that on electrolysers and electricity sources. Hence, the unit cost of hydrogen obtained in this way is significantly lower. According to estimates, it does not exceed 13-15 PLN⁄(kg H2. An even cheaper source of hydrogen production should be coke oven gas (work on this is in progress) and gas from demethanation of coal mines (the price of these types of gas is about PLN 200 per 1,000 m 3; when converted to energy units, it is about 8 PLN/GJ; these gases are therefore 4 times cheaper than Russian natural gas; these relations have been greatly disturbed recently by the war started by Russia). The total annual quantity of these gases in Poland, available for reforming is approx. 2.5b mn3 of which approx. 1.5b is coke oven gas. This is the gas that coking plants sell to external customers after meeting their own needs in connection with coke production.

At present, hydrogen is produced exclusively for the chemical, petrochemical and metallurgical industries (and e.g. for spacecraft propulsion), and that should remain so. This production is mainly by steam reforming of natural gas according to the endothermic reaction (1). Moreover, in order to produce enough hydrogen to meet energy needs of the world, it would run out of power plants all together if it were to be produced by water electrolysis. Even if the entire globe were to be additionally covered with wind turbine units and photovoltaic panels, the production of hydrogen using the electricity produced in them would still be negligible compared with the world’s energy needs. In addition, and this is extremely important, it must be remembered that the rolling costs of energy consumption, i.e. the total energy consumption from the extraction of the raw materials needed to produce and install the RES, especially PV panels, is greater than the amount of energy that these are able to generate during their operation [8]. And then there is the energy required to dispose of them. Just as importantly, neither land-based nor offshore facilities make any ecological sense, either. They just litter and damage the environment to a very large extent, and also litter the landscape. For instance, used wind turbine blades, once buried in the ground, will never decompose and will litter the environment eternally. More to the point, hydrogen produced using RES electricity is the most expensive! It is significantly more expensive than hydrogen produced using electricity from conventional power plants [3]. This is due to the fact that electricity generated from RES is significantly more expensive.

There are also, it must be expressly pointed out, absurd ideas to use hydrogen to produce methane according to the exothermic reaction:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O + 165 130 kJ                             (12)

(The very large amount of heat released during the reaction is equal to the difference between the calorific values of hydrogen and methane; the calorific value of 1 kilomole of hydrogen ????????????=242 MJkmolH2⁄; 1 kmolH2=2 kgH2, the calorific value of methane is ????????????=802,87 MJkmolCH4⁄, ????????=50,15 MJkgCH4⁄; 1 kmolCH4=16 kgCH4. There are, unfortunately, some ‘wise men’ who claim that such production is a boon because it binds thecarbon dioxide produced during the burning of coal in power plants in the process of generating electricity, so that problem with it disappears automatically. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the reactions and thermodynamic phenomena taking place. As a matter of fact, for the purpose of getting rid of CO2, electricity is ‘destroyed’ from a level of 1440 MJ =4 kmolH2?2 kgH2/kmolH2?180 MJkgH2 to a level of approx. 400 MJ, i.e. by almost 75% (from 1 kilomole of methane, approx. 400 MJ of electricity can be obtained). Actually, it would almost come to the same thing if it were not produced at all. Moreover, it would not be necessary to spend a lot of money on building power plants. More to the point, in order to ‘eliminate’ CO2, it is necessary to build plants that destroy the electricity generated, i.e. hydrogen and methane generation plants, which are much more expensive in terms of capital expenditure per unit of installed capacity. ‘Brilliant’ idea, you generate electricity for a lot of money only to then be able to ‘destroy’ it for even more money. An absurdity of absurdities, an oddity of oddities! This absurdity is further compounded by the fact that the combustion (see reaction (5)) of the methane obtained in reaction (12) produces an identical amount of carbon dioxide to that which took part in it. Consequently, you are back to square one because 1 kilomole of CO2 (reaction 12) ends up again as 1 kilomole of CO2 (reaction 5)! And, after all, the idea with hydrogen generation was to prevent CO2 formation. Meanwhile, exactly the same amount of hydrogen is produced, and at an enormous cost at that, and at the expense of losing an enormous amount of electricity, the most precious form of energy, the obtaining of which is after all strived for by all means. Electricity is the ultimate goal because the modern world cannot exist without it! Once again, therefore, it must be most emphatically stated that the production of methane in accordance with reaction (12) is a downright thermodynamic, economic and ecological absurdity! What is even worse, grants are awarded for research in this field! Who permitted this, who allowed it to happen?! O tempora! O mores!

An even greater absurdity would be power generation with ammonia (NH3) as the fuel. Pseudo-scientists call this ‘fuel’ ammonia ‘green’ (they also call hydrogen green); because it is supposedly eco-friendly, which is arrant nonsense (sic!). At the same time, it is a fraud that deliberately misleads people. Not only that, it is also propaganda serving the interests of entrepreneurs seeking to profit financially from its production. The quantities of ammonia for electricity generation would be in the range of billions of tonnes per year. If green is to be used, it should only be applied to pseudo-scientists and sociologists, political scientists and lawyers as they are pretty green themselves and have no clue about the thermodynamic phenomena and processes involved in the production of hydrogen and ammonia. Lawyers, meanwhile, write sundry texts of legal regulations concerning the utilisation of hydrogen. These texts should only belong in entertainment shows. If ‘colours’ are to be applied to ammonia, then it certainly should be talked about as an extremely ‘black’ fuel, incomparably ‘blacker’ than hydrogen because its production and combustion would pollute and devastate the environment to an even greater extent. As well as water vapour, burning ammonia would produce very harmful nitrogen oxides.

The production of ammonia requires not only industrial plants producing hydrogen, but two extra plants as well. (1) A plant for the production of nitrogen, which is costly in terms of capital expenditure, and (2) an even more expensive plant for combining nitrogen and hydrogen. Moreover, the requirement for propulsion energy for ammonia production is enormous. This should be supplemented with the energy and cost involved in transporting it to where it would be burnt, i.e. power and CHP plants. In total, therefore, the cost of producing Ammonia (NH3) would be many times higher than the cost of producing hydrogen [3]. Consequently, the cost of producing electricity from it would be sky high, many times higher than the cost of producing it from hydrogen. The following question must be asked at this point: what other silly things, to put it mildly, will the pseudo-scientists come up with? And the possibilities are endless. There are thousands of silly things, and the entrepreneurs’ lust for profit is overwhelming!

What purpose is hydrogen and ammonia power generation supposed to serve? They serve the brazen lie about alleged global warming due to CO2 emissions [4-9] and the consequent alleged necessity to build RES (once again, it must be emphatically pointed out that the water vapour produced in the combustion of hydrogen and ammonia is a greenhouse gas to a much greater extent than CO2). The RES are exclusively a source of massive renewable money inflows for their owners, year after year, amounting to hundreds of billions of euros (it should be written again here that RES produce only negligible amounts of electricity) while devastating, even destroying, the environment on a huge scale, which is done, worst of all, under the rule of law and allegedly for the good of mankind! This is because in order for RES electricity to exist on the electricity market, it requires a huge annual subsidy of several tens of billions from the State Treasury [11]. For example, in Germany a few years ago, these subsidies amounted to 30b euros (sic!) annually when the installed capacity of wind turbines was 36,000 MW with 38,000 MW of PV systems (subsidies for each megawatt hour of electricity produced in wind turbines was 160 euros and in PV systems it was 430 euros; currently in Germany, the capacity of turbine units is already 56 GW). In Poland, the subsidies amounted to PLN 76b between 2006 and 2020, and currently amount to more than PLN 10b annually. With this money already paid from the State Treasury, nuclear power plants with water reactors operating according to the Clausius-Rankine cycle with a capacity in the order of 5,000 MW could have been built in Poland.

As already noted above, RES are therefore exclusively a source of unjustified, tremendous annual financial benefits for their owners. In Poland, these are mainly German owners [10]. It should further be noted that RES are not capable of generating enough electricity to offset the effects of its ‘destruction’ in conventional power plants. In order to cover the losses caused by RES, in order to retrieve that 1040 MJ (= 1440 - 400) of electricity, you have to burn twice as much coal! Add to this the millions of tonnes of coal burnt during the recommissioning of hundreds of power blocks after they have been taken out of service as a result of RES ‘operations’. During the commissioning of the blocks, the electricity is not supplied to the grid. How, then, does all this relate to the allegedly necessary decarbonisation of the energy industry, allegedly for the good of humanity! What is more, carbon dioxide emissions of the power industry of European countries account for only about 5% of global emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. These global fuel emissions, in turn, represent only 3.3% of global CO2 emissions (5% of European energy emissions is therefore 0.16% = 0.05 ? 0.033 of global emissions, i.e. almost zero!). Where then is the rest? The oceans produce 41.4% of carbon dioxide and the biosphere 55.3% (e.g. humans exhale 1 kg of CO2 every day and even 4 kg of CO2 during exercise). Thus, even the total elimination by shutting down not only Polish but all the world’s fossil fuel power plants (excluding nuclear power stations, of course) will change as much as nothing. More than that, just as man needs oxygen to live, the biosphere needs carbon dioxide beside living beings to exist. Without it, the world as we know it and as we live in it will perish.

Finally, it should be expressly stated that a leading role in the world should be played by nuclear power generation, whether with PWRs, BWRs, SMRs (SMRs are supposed to be downsized PWRs or BWRs) or HTGRs [1-3]. This power generation is the most important power generation as it ensures a continuous, stable supply of ‘clean’ electricity all year round, without emitting dust, sulphur compounds, nitrogen or carbon dioxide. This is the sort of energy that the modern world cannot do without. Besides, it seems that nuclear power will not be replaced by fusion power. We have been hearing since the 1950s that it is just around the corner. And what? Still nothing! The question to be asked is:
is fusion power even possible? After all, is controlled human interference with the structure of the atomic nucleus possible? In the case of a nuclear reaction, there is only control over the number of nuclei being smashed, and this process takes place outside the atoms themselves by limiting the number of neutrons bombarding them through the use of control rods. The feasibility of controlled human intervention in the structure of the atomic nucleus would offer incredible, even unimaginable possibilities. Possibilities of creating a new reality, of creating a new world in both the physical and spiritual dimensions. What would be the consequences of this? Would not the mythical Midas touch of turning everything into gold then become the real curse and doom of mankind?

1. Bartnik R. Elektrownie i elektrociep?ownie j?drowe z reaktorami HTGR i SMR. Efektywno?? energetyczna i ekonomiczna. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 2024; 230.
2. Bartnik R: Elektrownie i elektrociep?ownie w hierarchicznej technologii gazowo-gazowej. Efektywno?? energetyczna i ekonomiczna, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 2022.
3. Bartnik R, Kowalczyk T. Hierarchical gas-gas systems. Thermal and Economic Effectiveness. Wydawnictwo Springer. 2021.
4. Jaworowski Z, Bober M. Ocieplenie klimatu – to k?amstwo wymierzone w nasz? cywilizacj?, Klub Inteligencji Polskiej. 2015.
5. Raport o stanie klimatu wskazuje, ?e nadci?ga nowa epoka lodowcowa. 2015.
6. Taylor J. Globalny kryzys klimatyczny nie istnieje. 2019.
7. Ch?ód, zamiast ocieplenia. Epoka lodowcowa nadejdzie w 2021? 2019.
8. Górny G. Czy zielona transformacja zniszczy ?rodowisko naturalne? 2023.
9. Nasz Wywiad, Franco Battaglia. Ten domniemany kryzys klimatyczny to domek z kart, który musi si? w ko?cu zawali?”. 2023.
10. Firmy z Niemiec zdominuj? inwestycje w polskim wietrze. 2019.
11. Bartnik R, P?czko D. Methodology for Analysing Electricity Generation Unit Costs in Renewable Energy Sources (RES). Energies. 2021; 14: 7241.