Connect with us

Published

on

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

This week

Loss-and-damage fund agreement

LOSS AND DAMAGE: Global climate negotiators have agreed a draft framework for the loss-and-damage fund, Bloomberg reported, but the breakthrough was “marred by sparring over exactly how the programme would be funded”. Delegates agreed at a meeting in Abu Dhabi that the World Bank will host the fund on an interim basis for four years, along with the basic guideposts for funding.

COMPROMISE: The Times of India noted that the framework includes a compromise that the “fund will be based on ‘voluntary’ instead of ‘mandatory’ contribution from the rich nations as part of their historical responsibility”. However, the US objected to the wording within the final text, with the state department noting it does not reflect consensus concerning, the Financial Times reported. Carbon Brief covered the final draft in a detailed Q&A, including the questions around consensus.

‘FRAGILE AGREEMENT’: The “fragile agreement” came after hours of “acrimonious haggling”, Politico stated. It quoted Lien Vandamme, senior campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law, who said: “That the US finally could not even agree with the massively watered down text after cornering developing countries into accepting it, is a testimony to its lack of good faith effort to actually deliver an effective fund.”

Petrostates plan carbon budget-busting projects

CARBON BUDGETS: According to a new UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report, fossil fuel-producing nations are planning expansions of coal, oil and gas that would “blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over”, reported the Guardian. Existing plans would lead to 460% more coal production, 83% more gas and 29% more oil in 2030 than it is possible to burn if global temperature rises are to be kept at 1.5C.

NET-ZERO PLEDGES: The report analysed more than 20 major fossil fuel producers, finding they plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with 1.5C, and 69% more than would be consistent with 2C, reported Reuters. Of these, 17 of the countries have pledged to reach net-zero.

‘INSANITY’: Experts called the plans “insanity” that will “throw humanity’s future into question”, the Guardian article noted. It quoted Inger Andersen, the executive director of UNEP, who said “the addiction to fossil fuels still has its claws deep in many nations”.

Around the world

  • CHINESE METHANE: China has unveiled a “long-awaited” plan to tackle methane emissions, as it reached the end of a four-day meeting with the US, Reuters reported. However, the plan includes no firm targets for cutting those emissions, “only goals for re-using them as fuel”, the article noted.
  • KING’S SPEECH: The UK government has used the king’s speech before the next election to set out plans that would mandate the North Sea Transition Authority to run annual oil-and-gas licensing rounds, BusinessGreen reported.
  • DEFORESTATION DROPS: Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research has announced that deforestation has fallen to a five-year low within the nation’s Amazon rainforest, reports the New York Times. This is a “sign” that Brazil is making progress on its pledge to halt all deforestation by the end of the decade, it noted.
  • CANADIAN EMISSIONS: Canada is set to miss its 2030 target to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 2005 levels, according to a new government audit, the Globe and Mail reported. The country has never met an emissions-reduction goal despite devising more than 10 separate plans to do so since 1990, it said.
  • WARMEST ON RECORD: It is “virtually certain” that 2023 will be the warmest year on record, after global average air temperatures last month were 0.4C warmer than the previous October high in 2019, BBC News reported. This is according to new data released by the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, which confirms what Carbon Brief first revealed last month.

85%

Wind and solar generated enough electricity in 2022 to power about 85% of all households in the EU, according to the International Energy Agency.


Latest climate research

  • A new meta-analysis of 400 studies published in Nature Ecology & Evolution found native species are more vulnerable to extreme weather events than non-native species.
  • “Artisanal” gold mining in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest has a “major environmental impact”, according to new research published in Nature Sustainability that looked at energy consumption and the release of mercury.
  • Reducing carbon emissions so atmospheric levels of CO2 remain constant – rather than reaching net-zero, where atmospheric CO2 would fall – could see major tipping points crossed in the Earth system, research published in Earth’s Future has warned.

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

The UK's North Sea gas production is set to drop 97% by 2050 – and even with new licensing rounds it would fall by 95%. Chart shows annual has production in terawatt hours. As of 2022, UK gas production had already fallen by two-thirds since 2000. From today, production is expected to fall by another 97% by 2050 – or by 95% if new licenses are issued.

Ahead of the king’s speech, the UK government announced that the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) is to invite applications for new production licences on an annual basis, to “support the UK’s transition to net-zero in a pragmatic, proportionate and realistic way”. Analysis of NSTA figures by Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans found that the UK’s North Sea gas production is set to drop 97% by 2050 and, even with new licensing rounds, this will still fall by 95%.

Spotlight

Q&A: Did a 1910 kidnap change the history of solar energy?

This week, Carbon Brief takes a look at Dr Sugandha Srivastav’s thought experiment, which asks how far solar energy could have come had it not been for the kidnapping of George Cove.

Who was George Cove?

Cove was a Canadian inventor, who moved to the US in the early 1900s and filed numerous patents, including for a technology that harnessed solar power around which he created his company Sun Electric.

He had purportedly created a new semiconductor and a battery energy storage solution, which were gaining significant attention.

George Cove (1910)
Image: Cove next to the third iteration of his solar technology during a demonstration in New York. Source: Generating electricity by the sun’s rays (1910), Popular Electricity, Volume 2.

However, in October 1909, Cove was kidnapped by two men. According to the New York Herald at the time, the kidnappers asked Cove to give up the rights to his solar patent and close down his business.

There have been various theories around who the kidnappers were, including questions as to whether companies with vested interests – such as Standard Oil or Edison Electric – played a part.

A smear campaign was launched against Cove, with claims that – despite its patent – the solar technology did not work, or simply drew electricity from the grid.

His kidnap and the repeated attack on Sun Electric meant Cove’s technology was not able to develop – and Sun Electric failed.

Dr Sugandha Srivastav, British Academy postdoctoral fellow and lecturer in Environmental Economics at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, who has been researching Cove, told Carbon Brief:

“I really think that we would have had a very interesting tranche of early solar innovation, but instead what we had was entrepreneurs and investors getting spooked because here’s a man who was kidnapped on the grounds of his solar innovation.”

How might solar have developed in the 20th century?

Following Cove’s kidnapping, it was more than 40 years until the invention of the silicon solar cell.

Dr Srivastav conducted an experiment to explore the impact of Cove’s kidnapping, using Wright’s Law, to model what solar development could have looked like had it been developed in 1910.

She used data on cost and cumulative installed capacity – which found that for every doubling of solar PV capacity there is a 20% decline in cost – to “hindcast” costs within two scenarios: one that assumed Cove’s solar had a capacity of 1,000 kilowatt hours (kWh); and one that assumed 5,000kWh.

The analysis assumes solar PV growth is slow to begin with during the experimental phase, then picks up pace, before tapering as the market saturates.

When could solar PV have become cheaper than coal?

While there are limitations and uncertainties inherent in any hindcasting exercise, this experiment provides a view of what the development of solar PV could have looked like in the 20th century.

Depending on the scenario, solar PV would have become cheaper than coal in 2007 or even 2002. In reality, solar PV only became cheaper than coal in 2016, according to Our World in Data.

In the Cove counterfactual, the 2016 cost of electricity from solar PV is US$24-40 per megawatt hours, which is between two and four times cheaper than the actual costs that year.

Following the recent publication of Srivastav’s report on Cove’s kidnapping, she said:

“An earlier transition to renewables would have spared the world huge amounts of carbon emissions, and far fewer deaths from air pollution and other climate related disasters. We cannot say for certain how solar PV’s trajectory would have panned out if George Cove was not kidnapped. But we can say with greater clarity that in 1909 a vision of a solar-powered world was lost, and it is only being revived now, over 100 years later.”

Watch, read, listen

MONSTERS OF THE ROAD: SUVs “have higher emissions, hog roadspace and are more dangerous for other road users, yet are more popular than ever”, said an article in the Guardian, which explores what can be done in the UK about the surge in SUVs.

CHINA’S CARBON PRICING: Chen Ji, executive director at the China International Capital Corporation Global Institute, and Yan Qin, lead carbon analyst at Refinitiv, discuss the topics of finance and carbon- pricing on the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies’ China Programme podcast.

MOMENT OF TRUTH: The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations runs through what to expect from the upcoming COP28 summit, looking at the global stocktake, energy transition, global goal on Adaptation and more.

Coming up

Pick of the jobs

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org

The post DeBriefed 10 November: Loss-and-damage fund; UNEP warns of petrostate plans; Solar’s forgotten kidnapping appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 10 November: Loss-and-damage fund; UNEP warns of petrostate plans; Solar’s forgotten kidnapping

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Hardline Conservative Wins Republican Primary for Texas Oil and Gas Regulator

Published

on

Bo French prevailed over incumbent Jim Wright after a primary campaign focused more on Islamophobia and deportations than oil and gas regulation.

Bo French has won the Republican nomination to help run a little-known but influential regulatory office in Texas that oversees the state’s oil and gas industry.

Hardline Conservative Wins Republican Primary for Texas Oil and Gas Regulator

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Q&A: Can China turn hydrogen into its next clean-energy industry?

Published

on

China has said that hydrogen is a key “future industry”, important to both its energy transition and its industrial policy.

Hydrogen frequently goes through hype cycles, most recently driven by rising oil and gas prices due to the conflict in the Middle East.

Yet, even in China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of the fuel, hydrogen remains expensive and inefficient to produce.

This is especially the case for “green” hydrogen derived from renewables.

Moreover, there is limited supporting infrastructure and there is little incentive to use hydrogen over other energy sources.

As a result, uptake in China of hydrogen as an alternative fuel remains low.

Nevertheless, these challenges echo the early circumstances of another key clean-energy technology – electric vehicles (EVs).

In China, EVs benefited from a policy environment that included consistent signals of support, financial aid and the development of supporting infrastructure.

Many similar policies are now being deployed – and in some cases improved upon – to support the development of China’s hydrogen industry.

This article examines China’s approach to developing hydrogen and how its evolving industrial policy could make the fuel viable.

How is China using hydrogen and where does it come from?

Electrification and rising installations of solar and wind power have been the biggest drivers of China’s decarbonisation story so far. However, how China will address the more energy-intensive, hard-to-electrify segments of its economy remains an open question.

Hydrogen is seen by some in China as a potential solution for reducing emissions in a range of “hard-to-abate” industries, from steel and chemicals to aviation and shipping.

The country is the world’s foremost producer and consumer of hydrogen. It produced 36.5m tonnes of the gas in 2024, with maximum production capacity standing at 50m tonnes that year.

It also consumed nearly a third of the world’s hydrogen in 2024, as shown below.

Share of global hydrogen consumption in select regions in 2024
Share of global hydrogen consumption in select regions in 2024, %. Source: IEA.

Most of China’s production capacity is in regions with potential for high demand, such as Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Ningxia, Shanxi and other provinces with significant heavy industry.

In 2024, the vast majority of China’s hydrogen – around 78% – was produced using fossil fuels, predominantly coal and gas, as shown in the figure below.

Another 21% was produced as an industrial by-product, while only 1% – just 320,000 tonnes – was derived from renewable-powered electrolysis of water.

Production of hydrogen in China by energy source in 2024
Production of hydrogen in China by energy source in 2024, %. Source: National Energy Administration.

One study found that, for every kilogram of hydrogen produced, 38.6kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted if the hydrogen is produced using coal-fired power. Hydrogen made through coal gasification results in 28.5kg of CO2 for every kilogram of hydrogen, while gas-based hydrogen creates 13kg of emissions.

By contrast, one kilogram of renewables-based hydrogen results in 0.5kg of CO2.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates that hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels could help China avoid close to 16bn tonnes of CO2 cumulatively by 2060 – but only if it comes from low-carbon sources.

The biggest reductions, it adds, would come from heavy industry, particularly chemicals and steel, with the maritime and shipping sectors also seeing some benefit.

Currently, around half of the hydrogen produced in China is used in synthetic ammonia and methanol production.

Ammonia is primarily used to manufacture fertiliser and is seen as a possible fuel technology for shipping. Methanol is used as a fuel for the transport industry, as well as for heating.

Another quarter of China’s current hydrogen usage is consumed by the oil refining and coal-to-chemical sectors. The remaining amount is used in other industries, including transport, heating and metallurgy.

What are the barriers to scaling up hydrogen?

Although China is the largest producer and consumer of hydrogen globally, the industry faces several barriers to becoming a viable clean-energy technology.

Agora Energiewende, a thinktank focused on the energy sector, says that, in order to make hydrogen a practical clean-energy solution, China would need to expand the scale and range of its application, as well as improving the conversion efficiency of production and use.

Both BloombergNEF and the IEA highlight the importance of China creating demand for hydrogen, such as through quotas for industrial usage.

Hydrogen “suffers from a relatively large efficiency loss during various conversion processes”, adds Agora. For example, it notes that only around 22% of the energy put into hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) is converted into motion, compared to 73% for battery electric vehicles. Producing hydrogen with renewable energy is also less efficient than coal-to-hydrogen processes.

Cui Chuansheng, technical director at East China Engineering Science and Technology, tells state news agency Xinhua that the variability of wind and solar power often leads to low utilisation of electrolysers, resulting in “efficiency losses”.

Meanwhile, the cost of producing hydrogen – particularly green hydrogen – remains high.

One study placed the cost of hydrogen produced through alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), the most common method for producing green hydrogen in China, at $4-6 per kilogram, compared with $1.20-2.50/kg for steam methane reforming and $1.30-2 for coal gasification.

In some specific cases, such as blending hydrogen with gas, researchers find that hydrogen prices would need to fall to one-third of gas prices to incentivise uptake.

These constraints are all “interdependent”, Kevin Tu, managing director of Agora Energy China, tells Carbon Brief, with the need to ensure “bankable demand” while also reducing costs and developing infrastructure. He adds:

“Without credible offtake in the right sectors, costs will not fall; without lower costs and better logistics, downstream users will not commit.”

The IEA says that green hydrogen “could become cost-competitive by the end of this decade due to low technology costs and cost of capital”.

For now, however, the China Hydrogen Bulletin Substack reports that China’s four listed hydrogen equipment manufacturers all reported significant losses in 2025.

Meanwhile, a senior executive at a Chinese hydrogen company told economic news outlet Jiemian that he expected 40% of companies in the sector to have closed down by the end of 2026, with surviving companies only turning a profit in 2029 at the earliest.

The industry also lacks refueling and pipeline infrastructure. China’s development of a pipeline network for hydrogen remains in its early stages, with around 400km of pipelines currently in operation. By contrast, its long-distance gas network stands at 128,000km. Similarly, storage remains expensive and inefficient, creating a further obstacle to wider uptake.

How is China supporting hydrogen development?

China began considering the use of hydrogen as an energy source in earnest in the early 2000s, to address concerns around pollution and dependence on imported oil for the transport sector.

A clearer signal of its importance came in 2015, when the State Council included the technology in a 10-year national industrial strategy known as the “Made in China” initiative. This pitched hydrogen as a way to contribute to electrification of China’s road-transport system through the development of FCEVs.

Yuki Yu, founder of research firm Energy Iceberg, tells Carbon Brief that, from 2018-2021, hydrogen was treated as a “FCEV and manufacturing technology challenge”.

This has since evolved, she says, given that battery electric vehicles have emerged as the more popular technology.

Shen Xinyi, senior advisor at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), agrees, telling Carbon Brief that recent policy documents suggest the aim is now for hydrogen to be targeted at areas where direct electrification is harder, such as hydrogen-based chemicals, hydrogen metallurgy and some heavy-duty transport applications.

This is in line with the “hydrogen ladder”, an analysis of how likely different possibilities for applying hydrogen as a clean alternative are to become significant. The ladder sees significant future use of hydrogen in these hard-to-electrify areas as much more likely than for light vehicles.

Notable policy moves are being made in “three layers”, says Agora’s Tu, which are combining to improve the technology’s chances of scaling up. These are: the “legal and institutional” layer; “application-oriented” policies; and targeted measures to address “practical bottlenecks” at the local level.

One of the documents underpinning this pivot was the “medium- and long-term plan for the development of the hydrogen energy industry (2021-2035)”, issued in March 2022.

According to a report by the National Energy Administration (NEA), the plan is an attempt to develop an “industrial ecosystem” for hydrogen that features “diverse stakeholders, coordinated innovation and clustered development”.

The plan was the first government document to “lay out a long-term vision for China’s hydrogen economy”, unifying a previously disparate policy push into one document, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, a UK-based thinktank.

Following on from the 2022 plan, the importance of hydrogen as a broad clean-energy solution has been emphasised in a number of policies. These include its classification being changed from a hazardous chemical to an energy carrier in China’s Energy Law, a 2024 action plan to “accelerate” the use of low-carbon hydrogen in industry and a new pilot scheme offering subsidies for projects that achieve specific targets.

The table below sets out the timeline and content of China’s hydrogen-related policies over the past 25 years.

Policy Year published Key features
10th five-year plan (2001–2005) 2001 Calls for “actively developing” low-emission vehicles, understood to include hydrogen vehicles
Made in China 2025 2015 Pledges to “continue to support” development of fuel cell vehicles and “master core technologies” for low-carbon vehicles
Notice on implementation of demonstration projects for fuel cell vehicles 2020 Creates a dedicated subsidy programme for finding breakthroughs in FCEV core technologies and industrial applications
14th five-year plan (2021-2025) 2021 Hydrogen listed as a future industry
Medium- and long-term plan for the development of the hydrogen energy industry (2021–2035) 2022 Aims to reach 100,000-200,000 tonnes of green hydrogen production [this target has been met]. Also aims to get 50,000 FCEVs on the road by 2025, leading to a “diversified” hydrogen industry by 2035
Opinions on accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development 2024 Promotes further development of hydrogen production, transport, storage and applications
Implementation plan for accelerating the application of clean and low-carbon hydrogen in the industrial sector 2025 Outlines tasks to promote use of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce emissions in heavy industries, such as steel and chemicals
Energy law 2025 Sees hydrogen included in national legislation for the first time, re-classifies it from a hazardous chemical to an energy carrier
15th five-year plan (2026-2030) 2026 Again lists as a future industry, and calls for the development of green fuels derived from green hydrogen
Notice on the implementation of pilot projects for the comprehensive application of hydrogen energy 2026 Provides subsidies to projects to reduce hydrogen costs to 15-25 yuan/kilogram ($2.20-3.67/kg) and help develop a fleet of 100,000 FCEVs

Key policies in the development of China’s hydrogen sector.

In addition, the NEA said in 2025 that local governments across China had issued more than 560 hydrogen-related energy policies by the end of 2024.

Tu notes that these local policies cover everything from permitting reforms and pipeline planning to exempting FCEVs from paying road toll.

Different provinces across China adopt distinct strategies for developing hydrogen industries, based on local conditions, says the US-based Center on Global Energy Policy, such as energy mix, availability of coal and industrial needs.

However, these local policies and targets are frequently more ambitious than the “conservative” national-level targets, it adds.

Could a new pilot programme boost hydrogen’s prospects?

A new pilot programme, announced in March 2026, aims to commercialise the country’s hydrogen industry by funding projects to reduce the cost of the fuel to 15-25 yuan/kilogram ($2.20-3.67/kg) by 2030, as well as other targets.

Unlike the 2020 subsidies, which focused on FCEVs, the new programme reaffirms China’s interest in a broader series of sectoral applications for hydrogen, including in clean heating, production of low-carbon iron and steel, and production of “green fuels” and other chemicals.

This new pilot is the “strongest financial instrument ever released for China’s green hydrogen application” in terms of creating a comprehensive hydrogen policy that covers a broad swathe of the economy, supporting it with financial backing and targeting application scenarios, Yu says.

However, she argues that strict grant caps – 240m yuan ($35m) per project and 1.6bn yuan ($235m) per selected region across only five regions – limited the overall funding scale available to the industry.

Energy Iceberg has calculated that only around 60-70 projects nationally could receive funding under the current rules, out of more than 670 active green hydrogen proposals in China.

Shen agrees that the pilot programme is significant and that it will expand the use of hydrogen in China’s climate strategy, particularly green hydrogen.

She notes a provision that “explicitly states that coal-based ammonia and methanol projects cannot be labelled as ‘green’ ammonia or methanol”, suggesting that policymakers are increasingly paying attention to the “integrity” of definitions for hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuel.

The “real value” of the pilot scheme, says Tu, is that it focuses on developing “integrated city-cluster ecosystems linking supply, transport, infrastructure and end-use demand”, rather than only supporting individual projects.

This “should help identify viable business models, accelerate cost discovery and concentrate support on applications with stronger scale potential”, as well as boost investor confidence, adds Tu.

However, he continues that the broader effect it will have on boosting production of hydrogen will “depend on how quickly the selected clusters can translate the programme into real offtake and lower delivered hydrogen prices”.

How does this compare to China’s EV policy push?

The debate around the viability of hydrogen is reminiscent of critiques of EVs.

Until recently, EVs were seen as too expensive for consumers, inefficient and challenging to use without supporting infrastructure. As a result, many western automakers chose to temper their focus on EVs, while continuing to develop internal combustion engines.

However, China has managed to develop a competitive EV industry with products that top global sales.

Part of the playbook that spurred China’s success on EVs included consistent policy signalling in favour of the technology, including mentions in high-level documents and committing resources to building charging infrastructure.

“The defining features of China’s industrial-policy success are its persistence and adaptability,” says Kyle Chan, fellow at the Brookings Institution, adding that “long before the technology and economics of EVs and batteries were proven, China was making long-term investments and policy bets [in the sectors]”.

More tangible measures included direct and indirect subsidies and policy support in the shape of favourable loan rates and low-cost land. One estimate by US-based thinktank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) pegs the amount of support allocated to the EV industry between 2009-2023 at $230.9bn.

This coupled with the success of private Chinese manufacturers in creating innovative, nimble companies that “forc[ed] policymakers to adapt”, as well as growing links between the automotive and information technology industries, according to a separate CSIS report.

But this progress on EVs also reportedly came with significant fraud. In 2016, one investigation found that 33 companies were involved in subsidy fraud totalling 9.2bn yuan ($1.3bn).

(It should also be noted that profitability in the industry lags far behind the average for downstream industrial sectors, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, which says that “only a handful” of nearly 50 EV makers have reported profits.)

Being the subject of an industrial policy push alone does not guarantee success, states CSIS. It says the strength of the EV industry “was neither inevitable nor the result of a single master plan” and that China’s aims to develop globally-competitive industries in areas such as commercial aviation remain unaccomplished.

China’s approach to hydrogen has been markedly different.

Instead of offering blanket subsidies, the fuel cell demonstration programme it established in 2020 focused on performance-based rewards.

To avoid the subsidy issues seen in the solar and EV industries, the ministry of finance deliberately chose this indirect funding model, says Yu.

However, Yu argues, the programme did not work as well as hoped, due to the funding ceiling and the siloed attempts made by different regional governments to develop hydrogen ecosystems .

But Chinese policy thinking is becoming more selective and pragmatic for hydrogen compared with EVs, says Shen. She says:

“Electrification remains the primary decarbonisation pathway [for road transport], while hydrogen is increasingly positioned for applications where direct electrification is more difficult.”

Tu echoes this, adding that China is “clearly moving toward a more supportive policy environment for hydrogen”.

But its approach is “unlikely to replicate the EV story one-for-one”, he adds.

China’s concerted hydrogen push is also unlikely to echo the EV story at a global level, according to the IEA.

In terms of green hydrogen, around 60% of global electrolyser manufacturing capacity is currently in China, prompting concerns from the EU about a repeat of China’s global dominance in the solar and EV sectors.

However, the IEA says, electrolysers made in China “might not supply other markets at scale in the short term”, due to difficulties transporting the bulky technology globally, expectations that costs will only fall gradually, uncertainty around global demand and questions over how well Chinese electrolysers perform against global alternatives.

China’s industrial focus on hydrogen is centred more on domestic use, Shen argues. “It is less about near-term export competitiveness and more about building domestic industrial ecosystems,” she says.

The post Q&A: Can China turn hydrogen into its next clean-energy industry? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Q&A: Can China turn hydrogen into its next clean-energy industry?

Continue Reading

Climate Change

In Venezuela, Anxiety About Ramping Up Oil Production in the Heavily Polluted Lake Maracaibo Region

Published

on

Experts and local activists, wary of past exploitation, are hoping it will be different this time—but aren’t confident it will be.

There is a joke Mónica Godoy Molero likes to make with her family: if you swim in Venezuela’s Lake Maracaibo after an oil spill, you’ll sprout a third eye.

In Venezuela, Anxiety About Ramping Up Oil Production in the Heavily Polluted Lake Maracaibo Region

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com