The red circle. Hydrogen law in Argentina: energy future?

First the basics: What is and what is not Hydrogen. It is not a source of energy, it is an energy vector, as is electricity. In other words, it serves to store and transport energy, but produce hydrogen requires consuming energy.

When we talk about hydrogen we are talking about the H2 molecule, which occurs from the Water rupture (With a thermolitic, electrolytic or chemical process). We use energy to divide the water molecule into H2 and O2. At the same time, when we release the energy contained in hydrogen we will have water as “residue.” The idea then is to use the Water cycle Because it is a closed “clean” cycle. It looks like a great solution, right? In it Fine usel is a clean energy that does not emit greenhouse gases (attention I said in the final use).

Hydrogen as liquid form fuel began to be used in 1960 with the APOLO program of the NASA in the space race. Hydrogen is used in liquid state combined with liquid oxygen to boost cryogenic rocket engines. Some of the stages of the rocket that led man to the moon used hydrogen.

Already in the 70s, the chemist John Bricks Acuña the term “hydrogen economy” in a talk in the technical center of General Motors In the US. At that time there was already talk that fossil fuels were going to run out towards the 21st century, and that pollution and greenhouse were an environmental problem.

In 1975 the Bricks book “Energy, the hydrogen -solar alternative” appears where its proposal for use of solar and nuclear energy -based hydrogen systematizes. In the book there is an interesting cultural reference, Julio Verne In “The mysterious island” of 1874 it has a premonition about the use of water as fuel. One of his characters says: “Water is the charcoal of the future.”

But why would we need a vector or energy storage and transport? If we think of oil – which is an energy source – it can be transported with some ease and use it when required with little processing. But when we think of the renewable energies For example, solar and wind, we are talking about intermittent sources that need some type of storage to be able to transport them and use them when we want, and there appears the need for batteries for example those of lithium and also green hydrogen.

Now: Why are we talk about “colors”? Not because hydrogen has color, but because color serves to indicate how it occurs:

• Verdewhen the energy used comes from renewables.

• Griswhen obtained from natural gas, releasing a lot of co₂.

• Azulwhen the same is done as gray but with carbon capture technologies … that in practice they are experimental and very questioned.

In the final use it is a clean energy but precisely There is the trap. At present, 96% of world hydrogen se produce from fossil fuels – mainly gas -. That is, the supposed “clean energy” is actually another way of putting on emissions. And this was already warned by Bricks himself when he said that the environmental issue had not to be limited only to pollution.

Energy, even “renewable”, understood as commodity It produces new problems and greater pollution. In some societies especially from rich countries, what is known as “rebound effect” appears, the population thinks that it does not pollute using a certain product and therefore uses it more; In short, emissions increase instead of lowering.

And the problems do not end there. Hydrogen is difficult and expensive, it is highly flammable, it needs new infrastructure, and even in the case of “green”, it requires huge fresh water amounts “A more and more scarce,” and large extensions of territory to install wind and lots.

So what was discussed in the commissions of deputies? A bill to promote… not green hydrogen, but gray and blue. That is, with gas. And also, with a scheme tied to Rigi: Benefits for corporations, thinking for export and not for popular supply.

The project is not to replace hydrocarbons, nor to guarantee energy as a right. It is about opening a new business, without consultation in the territories, mortgaging water, land and future for private benefit.

The deputy of the Left Front, Christian Castillohe stated that what we should be discussing is the energy matrix and how we guarantee energy as a right for the entire population. Today, a third of the Argentine population has no gas, despite the records of fracking and all environmental and social impacts. To worse, the fracking advances endangering the drinking water of one million people in Neuquén as a complaint of the campaign to save the Mari Menuco.

But it is not just about rejecting this level of destruction but also thinking alternatives to face the climatic and ecological crisis. What would happen yes We nationalize the energy system And we discussed a planned transition from below, with control of workers and communities?

It would probably be questioned that the energy is for a handful of rich to fill their pockets while our territories are destroyed. With democratic planning we could discuss Another way to produce and use energy: Taking care of water and common goods, guaranteeing the supply to hospitals, schools, transport and homes.

Of course, this implies breaking with the regime deliver the Rigi and with the external debt trap.