1887
Volume 44, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

Full-scale green hydrogen production (GHP) and geological carbon sequestration (GCS) implementation projects are currently receiving massive public funding. Simultaneously, a ballooning volume of publications has evolved, routinely overstating the technological readiness of these climate mitigation remedies. We combine a Scopus-based bibliographic analysis of publication trends with a brief techno-economic appraisal, stressing the importance of separating research momentum from demonstrated deployment readiness. While the research momentum is undeniably real, as is the climate crisis, our assessment concludes that the economic viability of GHP remains a distant hope. Separately, the technical readiness of GCS in depleted oil and gas fields and saline aquifers of the North Sea also remains largely unproven. We assert that the serious techno-economic challenges associated with both GHP and GCS cannot demonstrably be assumed solvable anytime soon. In truth, no commercial party would presently participate in any of these speculative and excessively costly GHP and GCS ventures without public funds comprehensively price-flooring these initiatives. Predictably, with technical and economic foundations falling short, many of the projects will falter quietly, without delivering the promised benefits.

EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2026025
2026-04-01
2026-04-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2026025
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afagwu, C.Weijermars, R. [2025]. Sensitivity Analysis of CO2-Mi-gration Paths in Geological Carbon-Dioxide Sequestration: Case Study of the Gorgon GCS Project. SSRN, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4985775.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Borup, M.Brown, N.Konrad, K.Van Lente, H. [2006]. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology analysis & strategic management, 18(3–4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brosch, T. [2021]. Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Capros, P.Zazias, G.Evangelopoulou, S.Kannavou, M.Fotiou, T.Siskos, P.De Vita, A.Sakellaris, K. [2019]. Energy-system modelling of the EU strategy towards climate-neutrality. Energy Policy, 134, 110960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110960
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cheng, W.Dan, L.Deng, X. et al. [2022]. Global monthly gridded atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations under the historical and future scenarios. Scientific Data, 9, article number: 83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01196-7
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Christy, J.Curry, J.Koonin, S.McKitrick, R.Spencer, R. [2025]. A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate. Washington DC: Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Curcio, E. [2025]. Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production: Costs, policies, and scalability in the transition to net-zero. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 128, 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.04.013
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dessler, A.Kopp, A.E. [2025]. Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report. ESS Open Archive. https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.175745244.41950365/v1
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Eyring, V.Bony, S.Meehl, G.A.Senior, C.A.Stevens, B.Stouffer, R.J.Taylor, K.E. [2016]. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geoscientific Model Development, 9(5), 1937–1958. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gartner. [2024]. Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies press release. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-08-21-gartner-2024-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-highlights-devel-oper-productivity-total-experience-ai-and-security.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hauber, G. [2023]. Norway’s Sleipner and Snøhvit CCS: Industry models or cautionary tales. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. https://ieefa.org/resources/norways-sleipner-and-snohvit-ccs-industry-models-or-cautionary-tales
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hausfather, Z.Peters, G. P. [2022]. Evaluating the accuracy of past climate model projections. Scientific Reports, 12, 16264. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16264-6
     [Google Scholar]
  13. IEA. [2021]. Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector Net Zero by 2050. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
     [Google Scholar]
  14. IPCC. [2021]. Climate Change. 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kotz, M., Levermann, A. and Wenz, L. [2024]. The economic commitment of climate change. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0
     [Google Scholar]
  16. NOAA. [2025]. Site accessed 16 February 2025. https://gml.noaa.gov/about/aboutgml.html
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Penev, M.Saur, G.Hunter, C.Zuboy, J. [2018]. H2A Hydrogen Production Model: Version 3.2018 User Guide. NREL. www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_production.html
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Sweet, et al. [2022]. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Taylor, K.E.Stouffer, R.J.Meehl, G. A. [2012]. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(4), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Trenberth, K.E.L. Smith, [2005]. The mass of the atmosphere: A constraint on global analyses. J. Clim., 18, 864–875. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-3299.1
     [Google Scholar]
  21. USDA. [2020]. Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Lente, H.Spitters, C.Peine, A. [2013]. Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory. Technological forecasting and social change, 80(8), 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.004
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Varney, R.M.Wieder, W.R.Schädel, C. et al. [2023]. Simulated responses of soil carbon to climate change in CMIP6 Earth system models. Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3791. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, Y.Zhang, Y.Li, J.Sun, W. [2024]. Contributions of greenhouse gases and solar activity to global climate change from CMIP6 model simulations. Climate Dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05468
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Weijermars, R. [2024a]. Concurrent Challenges in Practical Operations and Modeling of Geological Carbon-dioxide Sequestration: Review of the Gorgon Project and FluidFlower Benchmark Study. Energy Strategy Reviews, 56, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101586
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Weijermars, R. [2024b]. CO2 Storage capacity classification and compliance. First Break, 42(11), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2024100
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Weijermars, R. [2025]. Utility of the Geological Carbon Sequestration (GCS) Business: Potential Perils and Scenarios till 2150 and Beyond. First Break, 43(4), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2025030
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2026025
Loading
Price-Flooring Green Hydrogen Production and Geological Carbon Sequestration
First Break 44, 53 (2026); https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2026025
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2026025
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2026025
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error