Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

“Colors” of hydrogen: Definitions and carbon intensity

Jimena Incer-Valverde *, Amira Korayem, George Tsatsaronis, Tatiana Morosuk
Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Marchstr. 18, 10587 Berlin, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hydrogen is expected to contribute towards the decarbonization of the global economy. The high energy content,
Colors of hydrogen flexibility, and abundance of this chemical element are reasons why many sectors can benefit from it in the so-
Carbon intensity called hydrogen economy. However, almost all hydrogen produced today comes from fossil fuels (mostly from
Low-carbon hydrogen
natural gas via steam methane reforming) and has a high associated carbon footprint. Hydrogen production from
Hydrogen economy
more environmentally friendly sources has been an area of intensive research for the last years. A necessity to
categorize the hydrogen production paths became inevitable. It began by assigning green and gray “colors” to
hydrogen to distinguish between a “nonpolluting” hydrogen production and one with associated carbon dioxide
emissions. The definition of green hydrogen is now widely understood as hydrogen produced from water elec­
trolysis powered by renewable energy sources. However, other energy sources could power electrolysis and
produce hydrogen with no carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., nuclear energy. In the need to differentiate between
the source of hydrogen and the production process, many different colors to refer to each path started to appear
in the literature. There is no universal agreement upon a color code for hydrogen. This paper gives an overview
of the commonly assigned colors. It also compares their environmental impact, production cost, and other pa­
rameters. Finally, the authors propose a color code with the most common colors gathered from the literature
that could be useful in a large-scale hydrogen economy. Green hydrogen is expected to become the most popular
production method and economically competitive with natural gas prices by 2050.

1. Introduction
The consequences of climate change have been experienced in one
way or another in every region of the Earth. The rapid increase in carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere contributes to the planet’s
temperature rise [1], and solutions to prevent trespassing a global
temperature increase of 2 ◦ C, compared to preindustrial levels, are
intensively studied now more than ever. More than 130 countries have
pledged net-zero targets [1,2].
To achieve the net-zero targets, several technologies are expected to
help reduce CO2 emissions without compromising the energy security of
future generations. Some of these solutions are Carbon Capture, Utili­
zation, and Storage (CCUS) technologies, Cryogenic Air Energy Storage
[3], advanced batteries [4], and transitioning to a hydrogen economy
[5]. The latter has the most political support as a large-scale energy
storage solution to maximize the deployment of renewable energy
sources (RES) and decarbonize energy-intensive industries. Hydrogen-
related technologies are mature and have been studied since the 19th
century [6], but the rise of very inexpensive and easier-to-handle fossil
fuel-based technologies always outmatched them. Hydrogen (H2) gained
visibility and support in the past four years as the most promising way to
phase out fossil fuels. Hydrogen can be used to store renewable energy.
It can be produced in parts of the world where renewable energy sources
are abundant and further transported to regions with a higher industrial-
scale hydrogen demand. This element is supposed to be a new com­
modity in the hydrogen economy, similar to the current fossil-fuel-based
economy.
However, despite the numerous Hydrogen National Plans/Strate­
gies/Roadmaps and announced investments of the past years [7], the
buildup of the hydrogen economy has seen a slow start. In 2021, only
0.04% of the 94 Mt of hydrogen produced came from water electrolysis
powered by renewable energy sources, well-known as green hydrogen.
Most of the hydrogen (83%) still comes from fossil fuels, mainly from
steam methane reforming (SMR) without CCUS technologies, referred to
as gray hydrogen [8].
Four years ago, the terms green and gray hydrogen gained visibility
and acceptance among scientists, industry, and politicians. The terms

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jimena.incervalverde@tu-berlin.de (J. Incer-Valverde), a.korayem@campus.tu-berlin.de (A. Korayem), georgios.tsatsaronis@tu-berlin.de
(G. Tsatsaronis), tetyana.morozyuk@tu-berlin.de (T. Morosuk).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117294
Received 6 January 2023; Received in revised form 16 May 2023; Accepted 10 June 2023
Available online 1 July 2023
0196-8904/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Incer-Valverde et al.
Nomenclature
ALK Alkaline
CCUS Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage
HC Hydrogen Council
HE Hydrogen Europe
FC&HJU Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
IEA International Energy Agency
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
PEM Polymer Electrolyte Membrane
PV Photovoltaic
RES Renewable Energy Sources
SMR Steam Methane Reforming
SOEC Solid Oxide Electrolyzer Cell
TRL Technology Readiness Level
WEC World Energy Council
green, clean, or environmentally friendly hydrogen have been used inter­
changeably. Green hydrogen is widely referred to as the hydrogen
produced without CO2 emissions, and gray hydrogen is the one coming
from natural gas. However, the introduction of CCUS technologies made
possible the production of hydrogen with little or almost no CO2 emis­
sions, even if it is produced from fossil fuels. The term “blue hydrogen”
appeared a couple of years ago to refer to hydrogen produced from fossil
fuels and CCUS [9]. The idea to blend green hydrogen with natural gas
also gained visibility recently as a way to transition to a 100% hydrogen
economy, similar to the thought behind blue hydrogen [10].
This new third option opened the box to many other alternatives that
were being left out of the research. Other options to produce hydrogen
became relevant in a context where decarbonization is the goal.
Hydrogen can be produced by different methods, e.g., electrolysis, steam
methane reforming, gasification, thermochemical, photochemical,
biochemical, and biological processes. At the same time, many different
energy sources can be used to produce electrical energy (input to the
electrolysis process) with no involvement of fossil fuels, and conse­
quently no CO2-associated emissions, such as RES, and nuclear energy,
Different sources of hydrogen can be used, such as water, biomass,
natural gas, and different types of coal. Therefore, it became inevitable
to assign different colors to refer to hydrogen depending on both the
source of hydrogen molecules, and the process used for its extraction
and for providing the energy required for that. This is lately referred to
as the “hydrogen rainbow” [11]. Of course the hydrogen itself continues
to be colorless. Still, the assigned color should provide an easier and
clear indication of the alternative for providing hydrogen that is being
considered without the need to enter into process details.
This paper discusses the state-of-the-art methods of hydrogen pro­
duction concerning the associated colors found in the literature. Until
today, there is no universal agreement on a hydrogen color code.
Therefore, this paper becomes relevant in that it conducts a survey of
other papers, reports, press releases, national strategies, and articles that
unravel the numerous colors assigned to hydrogen. Finally, the authors
propose a hydrogen color code. This paper is not meant to be a review of
all the different hydrogen production technologies, it is a review of the
“colors” that have been or can be used to facilitate communication and
understanding.
2. State of the art
In the past years, many renowned energy agencies started to release
reports dedicated exclusively to hydrogen, e.g., International Energy
Agency (IEA), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), World
Energy Council (WEC), and new organizations dedicated exclusively to
hydrogen were founded and contributed with regular reports, such as
2
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294
the Hydrogen Council (HC), Hydrogen Europe (HE), and Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FC&HJU). Information about the cost of
each hydrogen technology and projections for the future years under
different scenarios are quite relevant for policy-making, investments,
industry, and the academic field. The number of reports peaked in 2021
with 24 reports, followed by 2022 with 14, as shown in Fig. 1. This does
not necessarily mean that the topic became less relevant than it was in
2021, but many factors could have influenced the decline in the number
of reports:
• The unstable energy sector and fossil fuel prices.
• Most countries planning a Hydrogen National Plan have launched it
already and set their goals for the following years based on previous
reports.
• Considering an analogy with a process integration system, the
technologies related to the extensive deployment of a hydrogen
economy are no longer in the research and development or concep­
tual design part, but in the engineering detailed scalation, where the
investments are typically announced.
• Many partnerships between importing and exporting countries have
been established, and detailed pilot plants are already being dis­
cussed or constructed.
• The challenges associated with the establishment of a hydrogen
economy are also directly related to the challenges associated with
the expansion of units generating electricity, mainly from renewable
energy sources [12].
2.1. Definition of colors
Until now there has been no universal name specification for the
hydrogen colors. The many definitions mentioned in this paper differ
between literature, reports, and national plans. This can become very
confusing, mainly when the colors are used interchangeably to indicate
the same process to produce hydrogen. Therefore, the colors that have
not been considered in this review will be stated in italics (e.g., purple
hydrogen), while the ten colors included are written in normal font (e.g.,
green hydrogen).
From the surveyed reports, papers, press releases, and national plans,
the most common colors reported are gray, green, and blue hydrogen
under the following definitions [13,14]; many others also include tur­
quoise [7,15,16]:
• Gray: hydrogen produced from steam methane reforming without
the use of CCUS.
• Green: hydrogen produced from water electrolysis powered by RES.
• Blue: hydrogen produced from steam methane reforming, including
CCUS.
• Turquoise: hydrogen produced from pyrolysis of methane and solid
CO2 storage.
Currently, there is a debate about which color should define
hydrogen produced from nuclear energy. Some authors assign purple
[17], pink [18], or red [19] to general nuclear-energy-powered pro­
cesses to produce hydrogen. In this study, purple hydrogen is not
included, and red and pink have been divided according to the process
employed to produce hydrogen: thermolysis/thermochemical and
electrolysis, respectively. White hydrogen is also subject to confusion. In
this research, white is assigned to naturally occurring hydrogen [11,20]
found, for instance, in caverns; therefore, the diagram does not include
it. Other sources consider white hydrogen a resultant byproduct of
chemical processes [15], which is also not very relevant in a hydrogen
economy future scalation since it depends on the need for the main
product of the chemical process. However, the hydrogen produced as a
byproduct of chemical processes represented 18% of the global pro­
duction in 2021 [8]. Some authors have also mentioned gold hydrogen as
J. Incer-Valverde et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294

Fig. 1. Reports dedicated exclusively to hydrogen from IEA, IRENA, WEC, HC, HE, and FC&HJU.

the hydrogen produced by fermenting microbes [11]. Finally, there have transition plan that hydrogen production methods would qualify as
been different definitions also between orange and yellow hydrogen. green hydrogen, if the electrolyzers run in countries where more than
Some authors consider yellow the one produced from electrolysis 90% of their electricity comes from RES, or the emissions intensity of the
powered by the grid [17], while others ([21,22]) use the definition electricity is lower than a certain threshold [23]. In those cases, it will
considered in this work, i.e. orange hydrogen (Table 1). not be necessary to add extra renewable power capacity to the grid to
In some reports, the scientists are trying to standardize the definition comply with the emissions savings requirement. In such zones, renew­
and to reduce the number of terms used to avoid misunderstandings, but able electricity generation will already exceed demand during large
this results in further confusion in some cases. For instance, the IEA does spans of the year and hydrogen production can absorb excess renewable
not use colors to refer to hydrogen; instead of colors, the IEA names electricity which would otherwise be wasted. It remains important,
renewable hydrogen the one produced via electrolysis process powered by however, to ensure that hydrogen production does not take place in
renewable electricity (what many others call green hydrogen) or via hours when renewable electricity may remain scarce. The number of
biomass-based routes. Sometimes they use the terms low-emission or low- hours of hydrogen production is therefore limited in order to avoid
carbon hydrogen for the one produced via electrolysis, where the elec­ production during hours where renewable electricity is in short supply
tricity is generated from a low-emission source (renewables or nuclear), and expensive. [24]. In such cases, companies producing hydrogen from
biomass, or fossil fuels with CCUS [8]. In this case, green hydrogen can these electricity sources can apply for financial government incentives,
be renewable hydrogen, low-emission or low-carbon hydrogen, but renew­ according to the EU clean-energy-transition plan. The EU also clarified
able hydrogen, low-emission, or low-carbon hydrogen does not necessarily that the green hydrogen label will be excluded from hydrogen produced
refer to green hydrogen. The EU recently stated in its clean-energy- from nuclear-powered electrolysis [24]. The most recent IEA report
[25], suggests that the international discussions regarding the different
hydrogen production methods should be only about the emissions. The
Table 1
report argues that this will be the way to avoid using hydrogen colors,
Definitions of the hydrogen colors proposed in this work.
which can lead to confusion (see Table 2 and Table 3).
Color Source of Source of Production process CO2 Most of the hydrogen today is produced in China (more than 30%)
energy hydrogen emissions
[26]. Hydrogen is mentioned in their extensive 14th Five-Year Plan
Green Renewable Water Electrolysis No direct [27], and there is now a Medium and Long-Term Plan for the Devel­
energy CO2 opment of the Hydrogen Energy Industry (2021–2035) [28]. The ca­
emissions
Orange Mix of Depends on
pacity of renewable hydrogen production in the country is expected to
electricity the reach 200,000 tons per year. Even though green hydrogen will be a
grid electricity significant part, the country will explore the market demand for low-
mix carbon hydrogen, initially with demonstration projects before commit­
Pink Nuclear No direct
ting to large-scale commercialization [28]. This recent plan only men­
CO2
emissions tions green and low-carbon. Additionally, a threshold of 14.5 kgCO2/kH2
Red Thermolysis/ No direct was adopted for “low-carbon” hydrogen (corresponding to 50% reduc­
Thermochemical CO2 tion relative to the CO2 emissions of hydrogen produced from coal
process emissions gasification). The term “clean and renewable” hydrogen has also been
Yellow Solar No direct
CO2
defined when the emissions are lower than 4.9 kgCO2/kgH2 (corre­
emissions sponding to a 65% reduction relative to the “low-carbon” hydrogen
Gray Electricity Natural gas Steam Methane High threshold) [26].
Blue from non- Natural gas/ Reforming Low Other hydrogen production methods not mentioned here include
renewable Biomass
photocatalysis, hydrogen produced from biological sources, solar-driven
Turquoise energy Natural gas Pyrolysis No direct
CO2 hydrogen production but with biomass as a feedstock [29], converting
emissions plastic waste into clean hydrogen via gasification [30], municipal sludge
Brown Lignite coal/ Gasification High gasification-based hydrogen production via plasma gasifier [31], direct
Biomass hydrogen production from the air, namely, in situ capture of freshwater
Black Bituminous High
coal
from the atmosphere using hygroscopic electrolyte and electrolysis

3
J. Incer-Valverde et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294

Table 2
Hydrogen National Plans, Strategies, and Roadmaps released until the end of 2022.
Country Year Month Name Reference

Japan 2017 December First country to establish a Hydrogen National Strategy [55]
France 2018 June Hydrogen Deployment Plan [56]
South Korea 2019 January Hydrogen Economy Roadmap [57]
New Zealand September A vision for hydrogen [58]
Australia November National Hydrogen Strategy [59]
The Netherlands 2020 April Government Strategy on Hydrogen [60]
Portugal May National Hydrogen Strategy [61]
Norway June Norwaý s Hydrogen Strategy [62]
Germany June National Hydrogen Strategy [63]
European Union July A Hydrogen Strategy for a climate-neutral Europe [64]
France September National Hydrogen Strategy [65]
Spain October Hydrogen Roadmap: a commitment to renewable hydrogen [66]
Russia October National Hydrogen Roadmap [67]
Finland October National Hydrogen Roadmap - Business [68]
Chile November National Hydrogen Strategy [69]
The United States November Hydrogen Program Plan [70]
Canada December Canadá s Hydrogen Strategy [71]
Scotland December Scottish Hydrogen Assessment [73]
Sweden 2021 January Hydrogen Strategy for fossil-free competitiveness-Business [74]
India February National Hydrogen Mission [75]
Hungary May National Hydrogen Strategy [76]
Paraguay June Towards the Green Hydrogen Roadmap in Paraguay [77]
Slovakia June National Hydrogen Strategy [78]
Czech Republic July Hydrogen Strategy [79]
United Kingdom August UK Hydrogen Strategy [80]
Morocco August National Hydrogen Strategy [81]
Colombia October National Hydrogen Roadmap [82]
Belgium October Federal Hydrogen Vision and Strategy [83]
South Africa November Hydrogen Society Roadmap [84]
Poland December Polish Hydrogen Strategy 2030 [85]
Denmark 2022 January The Governmentś Strategy for POWER-TO-X [86]
China Hydrogen industry development plan (2021–2035) [28]
Austria June Hydrogen Strategy for Austria [87]
Brazil June Hydrogen National Plan approved [88]
Uruguay July [89]
Costa Rica December National Green H2 Strategy [90]
Panama In Preparation First phase of the Hydrogen Roadmap in January 2022 [91]
Italy Italian Hydrogen Strategy: preliminary guidelines released in November 2020 [92]
Ukraine Draft Roadmap for production and use of hydrogen in Ukraine in March 2021 [93]

powered by solar or wind energy [32].
A description of each color is presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2. The
sources of energy and of the element hydrogen, the process for hydrogen
production, and the CO2 emissions for the ten colors considered in this
analysis: black, brown, gray, blue, turquoise, green, orange, pink, yel­
low, and red are presented there.
A set of pathways associated with hydrogen production and associ­
ated assigned colors were united as the hydrogen “rainbow” or hydrogen
“color wheel” [33]. However, a natural rainbow does not include all
colors, and a color wheel has no natural appearance. In their efforts to
find something colorful from nature (flora or fauna), the authors would
like to propose a peacock as a symbol to summarize the various
hydrogen origins and production methods and the ambitions for estab­
lishing a world hydrogen economy. The peacock is a colorful bird that
demonstrates its beauty by attracting attention with many dramatic and
sweeping gestures that are not always logical and organized.
were carefully selected and are summarized and shown in Fig. 5. In
addition, a comparison between the ten colors considered in this anal­
ysis is presented below. Only colors relevant for a medium to large-scale
scenario have been considered for this analysis. The main categories are
presented in the following subsections: environmental impact, current
distribution of the hydrogen production methods, cost of each pathway,
how far away from the consumer does the production of hydrogen takes
place and finally, the technology readiness level. The main advantage of
proposing a color code is the standardization of the hydrogen production
pathways. However, in many cases the colors do not seem logical or
related to the production process. The authors identified that the criteria
used to assign each color to a specific hydrogen production pathway is in
many cases a random decision and a matter of which color is still
available to be assigned to a pathway. Therefore, the analogy with a
rainbow or in this case, a peacock.

3.1. Environmental impact

2.2. Hydrogen National plans
More than thirty nations have launched their Hydrogen National
Plan, Strategy, or Roadmap, as presented in Fig. 3. The year with more
plans announced was 2020, followed closely by 2021. The hydrogen
colors in the strategies and plans of the different countries are summa­
rized in Fig. 4 [7].
3. Hydrogen color comparisons
The main criteria for evaluating the hydrogen production pathways
Many sources agree that the environmental impact of the produced
hydrogen should be the most important criterion for classification for
the different options to produce hydrogen because the driving force for
the current hydrogen boom is the need to decarbonize the global
economy [34,25]. Also, the environmental impact of the hydrogen
transportation method should be considered in future analyses; for
instance, if it is liquid hydrogen, more energy is required for its cryo­
genic storage [35,36]. A comparison of the carbon intensity of the
associated emissions of ammonia production, methanol, and liquid
hydrogen have been reported in [37]. There are many methodologies to

4
J. Incer-Valverde et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Hydrogen exclusive reports from International Energy Agency (IEA), Interna­ Year Number of reports Author Ref.
tional Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), World Energy Council (WEC),
Hydrogen Council (HC), Hydrogen Europe (HE), and Mckinsey & Company (HC Working Paper | Hydrogen on the WEC [123]
Horizon: Hydrogen Demand and Cost
& McKinsey Company), Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FC&HJU).
Dynamics
Year Number of reports Author Ref. Working Paper | Hydrogen on the WEC [7]
Horizon: National Hydrogen Strategies
2004 Hydrogen and Fuel Cells IEA [94]
Hydrogen Insights An updated HC & McKinsey [124]
2005 Prospects for hydrogen and Fuel Cells IEA [95]
perspective on hydrogen investment, Company
2006 Hydrogen Production and Storage IEA [96]
market development and momentum in
2015 Technology Roadmap - Hydrogen and IEA [97]
China
Fuel Cells
Policy Toolbox for Low Carbon and HC [125]
2017 Hydrogen scaling up: A sustainable HC & McKinsey [98]
Renewable Hydrogen
pathway for the global energy Company
Hydrogen decarbonization pathways HC [126]
transition
Hydrogen for Net-Zero A critical cost- HC & McKinsey [127]
2018 Hydrogen from renewable power: IRENA [5]
competitive energy vector Company
technology outlook for the energy
2022 Global hydrogen review, IEA IEA [8]
transition
Perspective Europe 2030 Technology DECHEMA [128]
2019 Hydrogen: a renewable energy IRENA [99]
options for CO2– emission reduction of
perspective
hydrogen feedstock in ammonia
The future of hydrogen IEA [51]
production
Hydrogen Roadmap Europe: a FC&HJU [100]
Hydrogen Supply IEA [53]
sustainable pathway for the European
Electrolysers IEA [129]
energy transition
Hydrogen IEA [130]
Innovation Insights Brief - New WEC [101]
Decarbonising End-use Sectors: Green IRENA [131]
Hydrogen Economy - Hype or Hope?
Hydrogen Certification
2020 Green hydrogen cost reduction: scaling IRENA [102]
Green Hydrogen for Industry: A guide IRENA [132]
up electrolysis to meet the 1.5 ◦ C
to Policy Making
climate goal
Geopolitics of the Energy Transition: IRENA [133]
The Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen Hydrogen and Fuel [103]
The Hydrogen Factor
and Fuel Cells - Industry-academia- Cell Strategy Council
Global hydrogen trade to meet the IRENA [9]
government action plan to realize a
1.5 ◦ C climate goal: Part III – Green
“Hydrogen Society”
hydrogen cost and potential
Clean Hydrogen monitor 2020 HE [104]
How to deliver on the EU Hydrogen HE [134]
Green hydrogen: A guide to policy IRENA [105]
accelerator
making
Global Hydrogen Flows: Hydrogen HC & McKinsey [135]
The dawn of green hydrogen: Strategy & PwC [14]
trade as a key enabler for efficient Company
Maintaining the GCC’s edge in a
decarbonization
decarbonized world
Hydrogen Insights 2022 An updated HC & McKinsey [1]
Hydrogen Economy Outlook: Key BloombergNEF [106]
perspective on hydrogen market Company
messages
development and actions required to
Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness: A HC [107]
unlock hydrogen at scale
Cost Perspective
STEEL FROM SOLAR ENERGY A HE [136]
2021 12 insights on hydrogen Agora [13]
Techno-Economic Assessment of Green
Global Hydrogen Review IEA [45]
Steel Manufacturing
Hydrogen decarbonization pathways: HC & McKinsey [108]
Working Paper: Regional insights into WEC [52]
A life-cycle assessment Company
low-carbon hydrogen scale up | World
Hydrogen insights: A perspective on HC & McKinsey [109]
Energy Insights
hydrogen investment, market Company
Clean Hydrogen monitor 2022 HE [137]
development and cost competitiveness
Strategic research and innovation Clean H2 Partnership [138]
Hydrogen in North-Western Europe: A IEA [110]
agenda 2021–2027
vision towards 2030
2023 Hydrogen patents for a clean energy IEA & European Patent [138]
Innovation outlook renewable IRENA [111]
future Office
methanol
Towards hydrogen definitions based on IEA [25]
Green hydrogen supply: A guide to IRENA [112]
their emissions intensity
policy making
Hydrogen- a carbon-free energy carrier HE [113]
and commodity
Hydrogen enabling a zero-emission HE [114] assess the impact of each hydrogen color from an environmental point of
society view. Additionally, the delimitation of the analyzed system might vary
Ammonia Technology Roadmap IEA [115] from study to study. Some papers only evaluate the production pathway,
Towards more sustainable nitrogen whereas others consider in a broader scope the entire performance
fertiliser production
Hydrogen in Latinamerica IEA [116]
cradle-to-grave and the lifetime of the process. Each study has different
A Pathway to Decarbonise the Shipping IRENA [117] assumptions that affect the results. However, they offer a basis to
Sector by 2050 compare the environmental impact of each pathway.
Decarbonising End-use Sectors: IRENA [118] The CO2 emissions of each production pathway are affected mostly
Practical insights on green hydrogen
by the sources of hydrogen and energy. For the pathways where water is
Making renewable hydrogen cost- Agora [119]
competitive. Policy instruments for the feedstock (green, orange, red, pink, and yellow), there are practi­
supporting green H₂ cally no associated CO2 emissions. For those where fossil fuels are the
No-regret hydrogen: Charting early Agora [120] feedstock, such as gray, black, and brown hydrogen, high CO2 emissions
steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe are inevitable unless CCUS is included. Biomass pathways are charac­
Innovation Insights Briefing: Hydrogen WEC [121]
on the Horizon: Ready, Almost Set, Go?
terized as zero (with the potential, if CCUS is included, to become
Working Paper | Hydrogen on the WEC [122] negative) carbon pathways since biomass is considered a renewable
Horizon: Inputs from Senior Leaders on source. There are associated CO2 emissions; however, the direct emis­
Hydrogen Developments sions from the production process are considered as reabsorbed in the
formation of the biomass [38].

5
J. Incer-Valverde et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294

Fig. 2. Summary of the sources of energy and hydrogen atoms, the process of production and emissions associated with the following proposed colors to refer to
hydrogen: green, orange, red, pink, blue, gray, turquoise, brown, black, and yellow.

Fig. 3. Hydrogen National Plans, Strategies, and Roadmaps released by the end of 2022. (For sources, refer to Table 1).

6
J. Incer-Valverde et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294

Fig. 4. Main colors considered in each countrý s Hydrogen National Plan, Strategy, or Roadmap.

Fig. 5. Comparison of hydrogen colors using differen criteria.

In terms of direct emissions from hydrogen production, green
hydrogen is considered a zero-carbon pathway. However, if the life cycle
emissions of RES are taken into account, hydro, wind, and solar PV have
an associated environmental impact [39]. Furthermore, to have an ac­
curate account of the environmental impact of green hydrogen, it is
necessary to consider the emissions of the supply chain. The CO2 emis­
sions vary from 0.7 to 2.8 kg CO2eq./kgH2 if the whole supply chain is
considered [40]; other reports do not consider the entire supply chain
and report it as low as 0 kg CO2eq./kgH2 [13]. Green hydrogen consumes
more water than gray hydrogen. Countries, such as those in the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA) region, with a low supply of fresh water
will have to resort to desalination technologies to acquire the required
quality of water. Brine disposal must also be considered in the envi­
ronmental impact analysis [41].
The environmental impact of orange hydrogen depends mainly on
the energy mix in the grid. In some countries with very clean energy
mixes, such as Costa Rica, Iceland, or Paraguay, emissions from orange
hydrogen might be very low. In contrast, for China, orange hydrogen
emissions would be comparable to that of fossil fuels. For the German
grid in 2020, for example, the CO2 emissions from orange hydrogen
would be 370 gCO2/kWh (LHV) [13].
Pink and red hydrogen have no direct carbon emissions, but they
have other critical environmental impacts from radiation, waste man­
agement, and risk of accidents.. Very low associated CO2 emissions have
been reported for pink and red hydrogen, such as 0.3–0.6 kgCO2eq./
kgH2 and 0.1 kgCO2eq./kgH2, respectively [40]. When comparing red
and yellow hydrogen, red hydrogen provides a more efficient cycle, and
the cost of hydrogen is much lower than yellow. This can be attributed to

7
J. Incer-Valverde et al.
the advancement of nuclear technology. The environmental impact of
yellow hydrogen is associated with the supply chain for the construction
of the solar farm, in addition to the water required for the process. The
types of cycle used will have different environmental impacts. It has
been reported in the literature that the Cu-CI cycle has an environmental
impact of less than 1.7 kg CO2eq./kgH2 [42].
The direct carbon emissions from gray hydrogen vary from 7.5 to 13
kgCO2eq./kgH2 [8]. The carbon intensity of gray hydrogen will increase
if upstream methane emissions are taken into account, and this depends
on the percentage of fugitive methane assumed in the study. The in­
clusion of these effects also affects the carbon intensity of blue and might
affect the orange hydrogen if fossil fuels are part of the energy mix.
Biomass can be used as feedstock to produce hydrogen via biomass
gasification by pyrolysis, steam gasification, or volatile steam reforming.
Many challenges arise from its conversion, such as low-carbon conver­
sion rate, acidification potential, and tar formation, which blocks
pipelines, and affects energy efficiency [43]. Negative CO2 emissions
refer to biomass coupled with CCUS [44]. However, the ecosystem
impact of land use and water consumption needs to be addressed and
added to studies for more conclusive results.
Blue hydrogen can have different carbon intensity values depending
on the technology and the percentage of CCUS applied. For 95% CCUS,
carbon intensity varies from 0.8 to 4.8 kgCO2 eq./kgH2 [8]. For instance,
for 5,000 km transport distance and 90% CCUS, 1–3.9 kgCO2 eq./kgH2 is
reported, while for 1,700 km and 98% CCUS, it can be as low as 0.2–0.4
kgCO2 eq./kgH2 [13]. It is important to mention that there are no well-
established commercial large-scale CCUS systems yet. There are a few
units available to decarbonize hydrogen production in refining in Can­
ada, France and USA [45]. In many projects, the captured carbon is not
to be stored but used in oil refining processes or for urea production, and
eventually released back into the atmosphere [45]. This leads to the
question of whether blue hydrogen helps mitigate CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, the long-term effects of indefinite CO2 storage have also
not been extensively studied. A perfect case scenario is almost always
assumed.
The quantity of water needed for the water production pathways, its
availability, and the level of purity required is a challenge when access
to fresh water is limited, or water is not available near the hydrogen
production site [46]. Most nations where blue hydrogen is expected to
be deployed rely on seawater desalination. The cost of a kg of desali­
nated water is very low, 0.001 $US, but this water has an associated
carbon footprint 44 times higher than normal freshwater [47]. For the
Fig. 6. Carbon intensity of the hydrogen colors analyzed in this review.
8
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294
green hydrogen, around 9 kg of water is needed to produce 1 kg of
hydrogen (theoretically from stoichiometry. This also applies to orange,
green, and pink hydrogen), while gray hydrogen, using SMR, needs only
7 kg of water. However, a more realistic assessment of water con­
sumption can be conducted with a gate-to-grave study. The value of
water required for SMR is 11.7 kgH2O/kgH2, while for green hydrogen,
around 30 kgH2O/kgH2 [48].
Methane pyrolysis in turquoise hydrogen is currently one of the most
discussed technologies, apart from green and gray hydrogen, and is
receiving a lot of investment. This is due to the solid carbon byproduct
that eliminates CCUS. An impact of 1.9–4.8 kgCO2eq./kgH2 has been
reported [40] for this technology.
The estimated carbon dioxide emissions for black and brown
hydrogen are between 18 and 25 kgCO2eq./kgH2, and both colors have
the highest CO2 emissions of all colors [40].
Fig. 6 summarizes the carbon intensity of the pathways compared in
this review.
3.2. Contribution to the global production of hydrogen
In 2021, only 0.04% of the 94 Mt of hydrogen produced was green
hydrogen. Almost all the hydrogen still comes from fossil fuels (83%).
Mostly from gray hydrogen (62%), followed by 19% from a combination
of brown and black hydrogen and 0.7% from blue hydrogen. The rest
was produced as a byproduct in the chemical industry [8].
Currently, some traditional gray hydrogen production plants are
being retrofitted with CCUS technologies, like the plant in Rotterdam,
the Netherlands part of the H-Vision project [49], or are planned for
conversion soon. At the same time, more research is being conducted on
CCUS, and new blue hydrogen plants are being constructed [50].
3.3. Cost of production
The most stable and the least expensive hydrogen production path­
ways today are the ones related to the conventional methods to produce
it: gray, black, and brown hydrogen. Their price depends on the fossil
fuel source they use, and it is expected to increase soon and be affected
by CO2 taxes or the energy crisis. Currently, gray hydrogen is the least
expensive, and its price ranges from 0.7 to 2.3 US $ /kgH2 [40,8,51],
followed by black and brown hydrogen 1.3–2.5 US $ /kgH2 [40 8]. As
CO2 taxes increase, their cost will increase and help make blue, tur­
quoise, and green hydrogen more competitive. The cost of blue
J. Incer-Valverde et al.
hydrogen ranges over a broader range than the conventional methods,
1.4–3.2 US $ /kgH2 [40 52 8] since the addition of CCUS increases the
cost of production. The cost of turquoise hydrogen is reported to be
slightly higher than that of blue hydrogen, 1.6–3.4 US $ /kgH2 [40],
since the technology readiness level is lower than that of blue hydrogen.
The cost of green hydrogen varies the most among all the colors,
from 1.9 to 8.2 US $ /kgH2 [8 51 40]. This is mainly due to the different
RES technologies used to power the electrolyzers. Countries such as
Chile, and some North African countries can produce green hydrogen
using solar PV at the lower ends of the range, while northern European
countries will be at the high end of the range [25]. In the case of green
wind energy, the cost depends on whether it is onshore or offshore and
whether it is centralized or decentralized production. The cost of elec­
tricity depends on the capital cost of RES as the demand for green
hydrogen increases, and policies provide incentives for the construction
of more green hydrogen plants; green hydrogen is expected to become
cost competitive by 2030 [14]. The low technology readiness level (TRL)
of yellow hydrogen affects its high price from 7.9 to 8.4 US $ /kgH2 [40].
Also, the price is associated with the solar reactors and thermal and
chemical storage.
Pink hydrogen could be an economically viable, stable and cost-
effective technology, 3.8–7 US $ /kgH2 [8 40]. The cost depends
mainly on the capital cost of the nuclear power plant. However, nuclear
power plants are expensive and it takes a long time to build a new plant.
In some countries where nuclear energy is already available, such as
France, Canada, the United States, and China, pink hydrogen could be
less expensive than green hydrogen. Red hydrogen would also be cost-
competitive in these countries, with reported values from 2.2 to 2.6
US $ kgH2 [40].
Finally, orange hydrogen depends strongly on the energy mix of the
country and the price of the electricity used to power the electrolyzers.
Therefore, each scenario can be different, and it is recommended to
include the cost of the electricity along with the cost of hydrogen pro­
duction, e.g., 3.35–3.6 US $ /kgH2 at 6.7 cent US $ /kWh (the average
industrial rate in the USA) [17].
3.4. Distance of hydrogen production to consumer
This category depends on the country and its availability of renew­
able and fossil fuel resources. It also depends on the complexity, size,
and safety of the hydrogen production process related to each color. On
the one hand, the hydrogen production site involving electrolyzers can
be anywhere, even in the place where the hydrogen is needed, for green
and orange hydrogen (however, it is expected that many main hydrogen
consumer countries will produce themselves part of its green hydrogen
and another part will be transported over long distances). On the other
hand, if nuclear power is involved in the process, the distance is likely to
be significant from producer to the consumer due to safety issues (pink
and red hydrogen). Yellow hydrogen requires a big area for the solar
farm, therefore, most likely it will be far away from the consumers. The
conventional methods, such as gray, brown, and black are probably far
away, even in another country, due to the availability of resources. The
same is true with turquoise and blue hydrogen. The situation changes if
the country has coal.
3.5. Technology readiness level
Green and orange hydrogen rely mostly on Alkaline (ALK) and
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) electrolyzers. Both electrolyzers
are commercially available with a technology readiness level (TRL) of 9
[53]. The ALK electrolyzer has been on the market longer than PEM, but
in recent years PEM scalation has received significant incentives that
have led to a reduction in the price of the electrolyzers. The Solid Oxide
Electrolyzer Cell (SOEC) electrolyzer is the least developed of the three
most common electrolyzers in the market. The high-temperature steam
electrolysis can receive both heat and electricity from RES or just
9
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294
electricity from RES and heat from waste heat from industry, nuclear
energy, solar thermal, or geothermal energy. Both red and yellow
hydrogen, while not new technologies, are in the early stages of devel­
opment with a reported TRL of 3 [53]. Water thermolysis is another
method of splitting water molecules by decomposing the molecules at
high temperatures reaching above 2000 ◦ C. An improvement of these
methods is thermochemical water splitting, in which reagents and
catalyst are introduced for considerably reducing the temperature and
operating time [54]. Both processes are in the early stages of develop­
ment and can be powered by solar thermal or nuclear energy.
The three conventional fossil fuel-based hydrogen production
methods, gray, brow, and black hydrogen have a TRL of 9, and the
introduction of CCUS decreases the TRL for blue hydrogen to 8 [53].
Finally, for turquoise hydrogen a lower TRL of 6 is reported [53].
4. Conclusions
This review summarizes the main pathways associated with
hydrogen production and the colors assigned to each route, known as
the “hydrogen rainbow”. The hydrogen feedstock, production process,
and CO2 emissions of the following colors are explained in detail: green,
blue, gray, black, brown, yellow, pink, red, and orange hydrogen.
Regardless of the color assigned, the produced hydrogen will be color­
less. The most recognized colors to refer to hydrogen are green, gray,
and blue. The colors with the most confusion and different definitions
according to the source of information are yellow, pink, orange, purple,
and red. The main criteria to evaluate each color are selected, and ten
selected colors for possible large-scale hydrogen production are
compared.
Up to now there has been no standardized classification for the so-
called “hydrogen rainbow”, and the need to identify between the
different pathways is growing. Especially the comparison of the carbon
intensity of each process becomes very relevant in the current context,
where decarbonization is the goal, and many options to achieve it with
the aid of a hydrogen economy are being proposed.
The challenges of the hydrogen economy lie in bringing down the
costs, the current lack of production infrastructure to meet the expected
future demand for green hydrogen, and the transportation of hydrogen.
These challenges should be considered when selecting the adequate
hydrogen color(s) for a country. The main interest for the next decade
lies in green hydrogen; however, many countries support blue or tur­
quoise hydrogen for the transition period, especially the top exporter
countries of fossil fuels. The cost of electricity and the capital cost of the
electrolyzers are the main parameters that affect the price of orange and
green hydrogen. Quick scalation of the electrolyzers production will
drive down the cost of green, orange, and pink hydrogen.
This unprecedented political support to develop a hydrogen econ­
omy must continue if the planned projects are to be realized. However,
the “hydrogen rainbow” might be confusing and can even distract from
the goal. The color classification (peacock) can be helpful only if a
standardized, broadly accepted color code is widely utilized. Otherwise,
it might only complicate the communication and the policy-making
process rather than help select the adequate pathway for each consumer.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
J. Incer-Valverde et al.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] Hydrogen Insights 2022 An updated perspective on hydrogen market
development and actions required to unlock hydrogen at scale, Hydrogen Council
and McKinsey & Company, 2022.
[2] IPCC, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. In Press, 2021.
[3] Incer-Valverde J, Hamdy S, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Improvement perspectives
of cryogenics-based energy storage. Renew Energy 2021;169:629–40.
[4] IEA, Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy, Paris, 2021.
[5] IRENA, Hydrogen from renewable power: Technology outlook for the energy
transition, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2018.
[6] Scott DS. Hydrogen in the evolving energy system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1993;
18(3):197–204.
[7] WEC, Working Paper | Hydrogen on the Horizon: National Hydrogen Strategies,
World Energy Council, London, 2021.
[8] IEA, Global Hydrogen Review, IEA, Paris, 2022.
[9] IRENA. Global hydrogen trade to meet the 1.5◦ C climate goal: Part III – Green
hydrogen cost and potential. Int Renew Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi 2022.
[10] Olaniyi O, Incer-Valverde J, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Exergetic and Economic
Evaluation of Natural Gas/Hydrogen Blends for Power Generation. J Energy Res
Technol 2023;145(6):1–16.
[11] Willige A. Hydrogen rainbow: the colors of decarbonization,“ Mitsubishi Heavy
Industry Group, 28 07 2022. [Online]. Available: https://spectra.mhi.com/h
ydrogen-rainbow-the-colors-of-decarbonization. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[12] Papadis E, Tsatsaronis G. Challenges in the Decarbonization of the Energy Sector.
Energy 2020;2015:118025.
[13] A. Energiewende, Making renewable hydrogen cost-competitive: Policy
instruments for supporting green H₂. Conclusions drawn, Agora Energiewende,
Berlin; 2021.
[14] Hage R, Kombargi R, Elborai S, Anouti Y. The dawn of green hydrogen:
Maintaining the GCC’s edge in a decarbonized world. Strategy & PwC; 2020.
[15] Schneider P. “The colours of hydrogen,” Ewe, [Online]. Available: https://www.
ewe.com/en/shaping-the-future/hydrogen/the-colours-of-hydrogen. [Accessed
09 11 2022].
[16] Van de Riet S, Bais N. A hydrogen rainbow is emerging, but which colors lead to
the pot of gold?,“ Deloitte, [Online]. Available: https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/
nl/pages/energy-resources-industrials/articles/hydrogen-rainbow.html.
[Accessed 09 11 2022].
[17] S. Chandra, “What is the HYDROGEN RAINBOW?,” 17 05 2021. [Online].
Available: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-hydrogen-rainbow-sandeep-ch
andra/. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[18] “WHAT IS THE HYDROGEN RAINBOW?,” Cummins Inc., Global Power
Technology Leader, 16 11 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.cummins.co
m/news/2021/11/16/what-hydrogen-rainbow. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[19] Callens J. “The Renaissance of Nuclear Power to Accommodate Net-Zero by 2050:
New Energy Outlook 2021,” BloombergNEF, 04 11 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://about.bnef.com/blog/the-renaissance-of-nuclear-power-to-accommo
date-net-zero-by-2050-new-energy-outlook-2021/. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[20] Pinkerton L. “The Hydrogen Rainbow Is So 2021—It’s Time to Get Over It,”
Power, 02 03 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.powermag.com/blog/th
e-hydrogen-rainbow-is-so-2021-its-time-to-get-over-it/. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[21] Williams B. “What is yellow hydrogen?,” Hydrogen Fuel News, 06 08 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/what-is-yellow-hydro
gen/8552843/. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[22] Dodgshun J. “Hydrogen: Clearing Up the Colours,” Enapter, 30 09 2020.
[Online]. Available: https://www.enapter.com/newsroom/hydrogen-clearing-up
-the-colours. [Accessed 09 11 2022].
[23] Commission sets out rules for renewable hydrogen,“ European Comission, 13 02
2023. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/
en/ip_23_594. [Accessed 14 05 2023].
[24] Dalton M. Europe Sets Rules for Producing Green Hydrogen,“ Spectra, 31 03
2023. [Online]. Available: https://spectra.mhi.com/partner-europe-sets-rule
s-for-producing-green-hydrogen?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email
&utm_campaign=spectra. [Accessed 20 04 2023].
[25] IEA. Towards hydrogen definitions based on their emissions intensity,“
International Energy Agency, Paris; 2023.
[26] IEA. Opportunities for Hydrogen Production with CCUS in China. International
Energy Agency, Paris; 2022.
[27] “The 14th Five-Year Plan of the People’s Republic of China —Fostering High-
Quality Development,” Asian Development Bank, 06 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.adb.org/publications/14th-five-year-plan-high-quality-develo
pment-prc. [Accessed 07 10 2021].
[28] Yuki. “China’s National Hydrogen Development Plan,” Energy Iceberg, 06 04
2022. [Online]. Available: https://energyiceberg.com/national-hydrogen-deve
lopment-plan/. [Accessed 26 04 2023].
[29] Takeda S, Nam HCA. Low-carbon energy transition with the sun and forest: Solar-
driven hydrogen production from biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47(58):
24651–68.
10
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294
[30] Midilli A, Kucuk H, Haciosmanoglu M, Akbulut U, Dincer I. A review on
converting plastic wastes into clean hydrogen via gasification for better
sustainability. Int J Energy Res 2022;46(4):4001–32.
[31] Qi H, Cui P, Liu Z, Xu Z, Yao D, Wang Y, et al. Conceptual design and
comprehensive analysis for novel municipal sludge gasification-based hydrogen
production via plasma gasifier. Energ Conver Manage 2021;245:114635.
[32] Guo J, Zhang Y, Zavabeti A. Hydrogen production from the air. Nat Commun
2022;13:5046.
[33] Willige A. The colors of hydrogen: Expanding ways of decarbonization,“
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Group, 28 07 2022. [Online]. Available: https://spec
tra.mhi.com/the-colors-of-hydrogen-expanding-ways-of-decarbonization.
[Accessed 08 11 2022].
[34] Ajanovic A, Sayer M, Haas R. The economics and the environmental benignity of
different colors of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47(57):24136–54.
[35] Incer-Valverde J, Mörsdorf J, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Power-to-liquid
hydrogen: Exergy-based evaluation of a large-scale system. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2023;48(31):11612–27.
[36] Incer-Valverde J, Lugo-Mayor C, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Evaluation of the
large-scale hydrogen supply chain and perspectives on LH2 regasification
cogeneration systems. Gas Sci Eng 2023;115:205005.
[37] Incer-Valverde J, Patiño-Arévalo LJ, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Hydrogen-driven
Power-to-X: State of the art and multicriteria evaluation of a study case. Energ
Conver Manage 2022;266:115814.
[38] Binder M, Kraussler M, Kuba M, Luisser M. Hydrogen from biomass gasification.
IEA Bioenergy; 2018.
[39] Amponsah N, Troldborg M, Kington B, Aalders I, Hough RL. Greenhouse gas
emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:461–75.
[40] UNECE. Technology Brief Hydrogen. United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe Task Force on Hydrogen, Geneva; 2021.
[41] Woods P, Bustamante H, Aguey-Zinsou K. The hydrogen economy - Where is the
water? Energy Nexus 2022;7:100123.
[42] Acar A, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from
renewable and non-renewable sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(1):1–12.
[43] Song H, Yang G, Xue P, Li Y, Zou J, Wang S, et al. Recent development of biomass
gasification for H2 rich gas production. Appl Energy Combust Sci 2022;10:
100059.
[44] Lepage T, Kammoun MSQ, Richel A. Biomass-to-hydrogen: A review of main
routes production, processes evaluation and techno-economical assessment.
Biomass Bioenergy 2021;144:105920.
[45] IEA. Global Hydrogen Review. International Energy Agency, Paris; 2021.
[46] Mehmeti A, Angelis-Dimakis A, Arampatzis G, McPhail S, Ulgiati S. Life Cycle
Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From
Conventional to Emerging Technologies. Environments, vol. 5, no. 24, 2018.
[47] Crane K, Altgelt F, Micheli M. Water consumption for the production of green
hydrogen. Berlin: Global Alliance Powerfuels Brief and dena; 2021.
[48] Altgelt F, Micheli M, Sailer K, Crone K. Water Consumption of Powerfuels. Berlin:
Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena); 2021.
[49] IEA. “CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions,” International Energy Agency, Paris;
2020.
[50] Page B, Al-Khowaiter A, Bohlen S, Heitkamp H, Kaufmann K, Dreyfus M, et al.
“Blue Hydrogen,” Global CCS Insitute; 2021.
[51] IEA. “The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing today’s opportunities,” International
Energy Agency; 2019.
[52] WEC. “Working Paper: Regional insights into low-carbon hydrogen scale up |
World Energy Insights,” World Energy Council, 2022; 2022.
[53] IEA. “Hydrogen Supply,” International Energy Agency, Paris; 2022.
[54] “Hydrogen Production: Thermochemical Water Splitting,” Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Technologies Office US, [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/eere/f
uelcells/hydrogen-production-thermochemical-water-splitting. [Accessed 03 05
2023].
[55] Ministerial Council on Renewable Energy Hydrogen, “Basic Hydrogen Strategy,”
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan; 2017.
[56] The Hydrogen Deployment Plan for Energy Transition,“ Minister for the
Ecological and Inclusive Transition, Paris; 2018.
[57] “Hydrogen Economy Roadmap of Korea,” Government of Korea; 2019.
[58] “A vision for Hydrogen in New Zealand,” Ministry of Business, Innovation &
Employment, Wellington; 2019.
[59] “Australiá s National Hydrogen Strategy,” COAG Energy Council Hydrogen
Working Group, Australia; 2019.
[60] “Government Strategy on Hydrogen,” Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate
Policy, The Netherlands; 2020.
[61] “Portugal National Hydrogen Strategy,” República Portuguesa; 2020.
[62] “The Norwegian Government’s hydrogen strategy,” Norwegian Ministry of
Petroleum and Energy Strategy and Ministry of Climate and Environment; 2020.
[63] BMWi. “Die Nationale Wasserstoffstrategie,” Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft
und Energie , München; 2020.
[64] “A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe,” European Commission,
Brussels; 2020.
[65] National strategy for the development of decarbonised and renewable hydrogen
in France,“ French Government, Paris;, 2020.
[66] “Hydrogen Roadmap,” Ministry for ecological transition and the demographic
challenge, Spain; 2020.
[67] “The Government of the Russian Federation approved an action plan for the
development of hydrogen energy,” Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation,
J. Incer-Valverde et al.
22 10 2020. [Online]. Available: https://minenergo.gov.ru/node/19194.
[Accessed 11 10 2021].
[68] Laurikko J, Ihonen J, Kiviaho J, Himanen O, Weiss R, Saarinen V, et al. National
Hydrogen Roadmap for Finland. Finland: Business Finland; 2020.
[69] National Green Hydrogen Strategy,“ Ministry of Energy, Government of Chile,
Santiago; 2020.
[70] “Hydrogen Program Plan,” U.S. Department of Energy; 2020.
[71] “Hydrogen Strategy for Canada,” Government of Canada; 2020.
[73] “Hydrogen strategy for fossil free competitiveness,” Fossil Free Sweden, Sweden;
2021.
[74] Jacob S. National Hydrogen Mission: All you need to know about India’s plans
and potential. Money Control, 10 02 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mo
neycontrol.com/news/business/economy/national-hydrogen-mission-all-you-nee
d-to-know-about-indias-plans-and-potential-6486731.html. [Accessed 07 10
2021].
[75] “Hungarý s National Hydrogen Strategy,” The Hungary Government; 2021.
[76] Towards the Green Hydrogen Roadmap in Paraguay. Viceministry of Mines and
Energy, Paraguay; 2021.
[77] National Hydrogen Strategy “Prepared for the future”, Ministry of Economy,
Slovakia; 2021.
[78] The Czech Republićs Hydrogen Strategy. Ministry of Industry and Trade, Prague;
2021.
[79] Kwarteng K. UK Hydrogen Strategy. HM Government, London; 2021.
[80] “National Green Hydrogen Strategy,” Ministry of Energy Transition and
Sustainable Development, Morocco; 2021.
[81] Mandel E. Colombia publishes hydrogen roadmap,“ H2 Bulletin, 02 10 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://www.h2bulletin.com/colombia-publishes-hydrogen
-roadmap/. [Accessed 07 10 2021].
[82] “The Belgian federal hydrogen vision and strategy,” Allen & Overy LLP, 05 11
2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/glob
al/news-and-insights/publications/the-belgian-federal-h
ydrogen-vision-and-strategy#:~:text=The%20Belgian%20federal%20hydrogen
%20strategy,possible%20and%20well%20before%202050. [Accessed 01 03
2022].
[83] “Hydrogen Society Roadmap for South Africa,” Department of Science and
Innovation Republic of South Africa, South Africa; 2021.
[84] “Polish Hydrogen Strategy,” IEA, 30 04 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.
iea.org/policies/12730-polish-hydrogen-strategy. [Accessed 07 10 2021].
[85] The Governmentś Strategy for POWER-TO-X,“ Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy
and Utilities, Denmark; 2022.
[86] “Wasserstoffstrategie für Österreich,” Federal Ministry Republic of Austria, Wien;
2022.
[87] “Programa Nacional do Hidrogenio,” Ministério de Minas e Energia; 2021.
[88] MIEM. Green Hydrogen Roadmap in Uruguay. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y
Minería; 2022.
[89] MINAE. Estrategia Nacional de hidrógeno verde,“ Ministerio de Ambiente y
Energía de Costa Rica, San José; 2022.
[90] Hub Transformacional de Hidrógeno Verde de Panamá. Ministry of Presidency,
Panama; 2022.
[91] Strategia Nazionale Idrogeno Linee Guida Preliminari. Ministero dello sviluppo
economico, Italy; 2020.
[92] Draft Roadmap for production and use of hydrogen in Ukraine. UNECE, 16 03
2021. [Online]. Available: https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/03/reports
/draft-roadmap-production-and-use-hydrogen-ukraine-report. [Accessed 07 10
2021].
[93] IEA. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. International Energy Agency, Paris; 2004.
[94] IEA. Prospects for hydrogen and Fuel Cells. Paris: International Energy Agency;
2005.
[95] IEA. Hydrogen Production and Storage. International Energy Agency, Paris; 2006.
[96] IEA. Technology Roadmap - Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. Paris: International Energy
Agency; 2015.
[97] Hydrogen Council. Hydrogen scaling up: A sustainable pathway for the global
energy transition. Hydrogen Council and McKinsey & Company; 2017.
[98] IRENA. Hydrogen: A Renewable Energy Perspective. International Renewable
Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2019.
[99] Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking. Hydrogen Roadmap Europe: a
sustainable pathway for the European energy transition. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg; 2019.
[100] WEC. Innovation Insights Brief - New Hydrogen Economy - Hype or Hope?
World Energy Council, London; 2019.
[101] IRENA. Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling up Electrolysers to Meet the
1.5⁰C Climate Goal. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2020.
11
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117294
[102] Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Strategy Council. The Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen
and Fuel Cells - Industry-academia-government action plan to realize a
“Hydrogen Society” -,“ Japan; 2019.
[103] Pawelec, G.M. Muron, J. Bracht, B. Bonnet-Cantalloube, A.B.N. Floristean, Clean
Hydrogen Monitor 2020. Hydrogen Europe Intelligence Department; 2020.
[104] IRENA. Green hydrogen: A guide to policy making. International Renewable
Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2020.
[105] BloombergNEF. Hydrogen Economy Outlook: Key messages. BloombergNEF,
Singapore; 2020.
[106] Hydrogen Council. Path to hydrogen competitiveness: A cost perspective.
Hydrogen Council, EU; 2020.
[107] Hydrogen Council. Hydrogen decarbonization pathways: A life-cycle assessment.
Hydrogen Council and McKinsey & Company; 2021.
[108] Hydrogen Council. Hydrogen Insights A perspective on hydrogen investment,
market development and cost competitiveness. McKinsey & Company; 2021.
[109] IEA. Hydrogen in North-Western Europe: A vision towards 2030. International
Energy Agency, Paris; 2021.
[110] IRENA and METHANOL INSTITUTE. Innovation Outlook : Renewable Methanol.
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2021.
[111] IRENA. Green hydrogen supply: A guide to policy making. International
Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2021.
[112] Hydrogen Europe. Hydrogen- a carbon-free energy carrier and commodity. Ad
van Wijk in partnership with Hydrogen Europe; 2021.
[113] Hydrogen Europe. Hydrogen enabling a zero-emission society. Hydrogen Europe;
2021.
[114] IEA. Ammonia Technology Roadmap. International Energy Agency, Paris; 2021.
[115] IEA. Hydrogen in Latinamerica. International Energy Agency, Paris; 2021.
[116] IRENA. A Pathway to Decarbonise the Shipping Sector by 2050. International
Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2021.
[117] IRENA. Decarbonising End-use Sectors: Practical insights on green hydrogen.
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2021.
[118] Making renewable hydrogen cost-competitive. Policy instruments for supporting
green H₂. Agora Energiewende and Guidehouse, Berlin; 2021.
[119] No-regret hydrogen: Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe. Agora
Energiewende and AFRY Management Consulting, Berlin; 2021.
[120] WEC. Innovation Insights Briefing: Hydrogen on the Horizon: Ready, Almost Set,
Go?, World Energy Council, 2021; 2021.
[121] WEC. Working Paper | Hydrogen on the Horizon: Inputs from Senior Leaders on
Hydrogen Developments. World Energy Council, London; 2021.
[122] WEC. Working Paper | Hydrogen on the Horizon: Hydrogen Demand and Cost
Dynamics. World Energy Council, London; 2021.
[123] H. Council. Hydrogen Insights An updated perspective on hydrogen investment,
market development and momentum in China. Hydrogen Council and McKinsey
& Company; 2021.
[124] H. Council. Policy Toolbox for Low Carbon and Renewable Hydrogen. Hydrogen
Council; 2021.
[125] H. Council. Hydrogen decarbonization pathways. Hydrogen Council; 2021.
[126] H. Council. Hydrogen for Net-Zero A critical cost-competitive energy vector.
Hydrogen Council and McKinsey & Company; 2021.
[127] Ausfelder F, Herrmann E, López-González L. Perspective Europe 2030 Technology
options for CO2- emission reduction of hydrogen feedstock in ammonia
production. DECHEMA Gesellschaft für Chemische Technik und Biotechnologie e.
V, Frankfurt am Main; 2022.
[128] IEA. “Electrolysers,” International Energy Agency, Paris; 2022.
[129] IEA. Hydrogen,“ International Energy Agency, Paris; 2022.
[130] IRENA. Decarbonising End-use Sectors: Green Hydrogen Certification.
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2022.
[131] IRENA. Green Hydrogen for Industry: A guide to Policy Making. International
Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2022.
[132] IRENA. Geopolitics of the Energy Transition: The Hydrogen Factor. International
Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi; 2022.
[133] van Wijk A, Westphal K, Braun J. How to deliver on the EU Hydrogen accelerator.
Hydrogen Europe, Brussels; 2022.
[134] “Global Hydrogen Flows: Hydrogen trade as a key enabler for efficient
decarbonization,” Hydrogen Council and McKinsey & Company; 2022.
[135] Hydrogen Europe; The smarter E Europe;, “STEEL FROM SOLAR ENERGY A
Techno-Economic Assessment of Green Steel Manufacturing, Hydrogen Europe;
2022.
[136] Clean Hydrogen monitor 2022. Hydrogen Europe; 2022.
[137] CLEAN HYDROGEN JOINT UNDERTAKING. Strategic research and innovation
agenda 2021-2027. Clean Hydrogen Partnership with European Union; 2022.
[138] IEA. Hydrogen patents for a clean energy future: A global trend analysis of
innovation along hydrogen value chains. Int Energy Agency 2023.