 Salaam from the People's Dispatch studios here in New Delhi. I'm Siddhanthani and you're watching Daily Debrief on the show today based on India's announcement of a national green hydrogen mission. We examined the question of what exactly is green hydrogen, both from a science as well as a political economy perspective. And we look at protests in Somaliland and get a better understanding of what the ongoing dispute there is. First up, India's central government, in an announcement made with much fanfare by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has announced a national green hydrogen mission. Typical of these announcements in the recent past has been the attachment of a suitably enticing figure, in this case 20,000 crore rupees. That's approximately 2.5 billion US dollars. But to what exactly? We don't know yet. In absolute terms, India is the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. So obviously, the aim of the mission is to reduce emissions. But what is the science behind green hydrogen? Who will develop the technology? And of course who will pay for it? To understand both the science as well as these other aspects of the political economy of hydrogen and renewable energies, of course, we're joined in studio by Praveer Pukhaisar. Praveer, before we sat down to do the show, you were having a laugh at my understanding of the world of science. So just keeping it as simple as you can for my benefit and for those of our viewers who are also in the same boat. What does this color coding of hydrogen mean? Well, let's be very clear. This blue, gray, green hydrogen has nothing to do with the color of hydrogen. It's basically to say, if hydrogen is produced by certain methods, then how damaging it is to the environment, which means that how much carbon dioxide is emitted is a consequence. So the gray hydrogen is obviously the worst because you are converting hydrogen and letting carbon dioxide get into the atmosphere. That's the quote unquote gray hydrogen. This has been around for quite some time. In fact, refineries use a lot of hydrogen and they're obviously the way they produce it is using natural gas, burn, you know, effectively using that energy to convert a part of it into hydrogen. So that process liberates that part of the natural gas, which is carbon because after all CH3 or other hydrocarbons, there is a carbon component to it. So that sort of burnt off the hydrogen part remains in some form or the other. And that's the one which is then used in the refinery process where hydrogen actually is required for certain processes. So that is one part of it. So this used to be called well hydropower factories. But now it's been talked about gray hydrogen, not because of anything else, but because the oil companies want to market something called blue hydrogen, which is not going to be damaging to the environment. And their argument is we can take this carbon dioxide, which is being produced as getting hydrogen out of natural gas. And that we will sink in a carbon capture plant. That means it will capture, separate the carbon dioxide produced. And then after separation, store it underground, what's called carbon capture storage for how long and what we don't discuss in that. But it will be that will be done. And the result will be then the hydrogen that is there can be used for various purposes. There is a derivative of that process by which you can also produce ammonia. And therefore the green blue ammonia is also being discussed. Now all of them are to say that after that we don't have to worry about the fact there is carbon dioxide, except the question that arises. If that works, why aren't we doing it for all carbon burning processes, which could be coal, oil or natural gas. And the answer is very simple, because this carbon capture mechanism which started with coal actually has failed. And the reason for that failure is high capital cost, but that's only one. The other is also it needs a lot of energy, including the separation process that is being talked of how to separate from hydrogen say the carbon dioxide. In the other case, if you burn coal from nitrogen, carbon dioxide. So all of these processes also require energy. And what we have found apart from the high capital cost is the cost of that energy is also high. In fact, do you get a net positive out of that? The answer is probably no, we might have to spend more energy then you know not burning the coal at all. So instead of then getting a net positive, we are getting still a net negative with carbon capture, because we are then producing more carbon dioxide, then we are sinking into the so called carbon storage. So these are the reasons why carbon capture methods don't look very promising as of now. So if we look at this, the blue hydrogen is just another way of continuing to burn natural gas and oil for as long as they can do. And this branding exercise is basically public relations. This is what the tobacco companies did. If you remember, this is what the oil companies have been doing. First deny, nothing. It's not dangerous. Tobacco, not dangerous. Attack science, science denial. Then okay, we are doing something. What are we doing? We are giving you filters in your cigarettes. We are making less nicotine producing cigarettes, better cigarettes, healthier cigarettes, lighter cigarettes, all of that branding. So the same branding exercise, first deny science, Exxon has known for a long period that this is global climate change, global warming, etc. So deny science, when you no longer deny it, then claim that we are taking mitigation measures and therefore the gray blue hydrogen is being talked of. The reality is there is no way to burn natural gas and coal. And at the moment, provide a safe way of doing it. That's the reality. So we'll have to face them out. The question is how and when? And the oil companies answer is as long as they can postpone the inevitable. Well, they make profits, tens, 20, 30 billions of dollars of profits are involved. If you take all the oil company, you talk hundreds of billions of dollars. So how to protect that as long as they can? They will take the human society, human humanity. And we've also seen that governments are as complicit in this entire process of rebranding and PR as the companies themselves, obviously they are closely connected. With the peg of India's now national green hydrogen mission, what sense does it make for a country that it is a large producer of carbon dioxide, even though small per capita? Is this a direction that from an energy perspective or even from an environment perspective makes any sense to take at this point? Oh, yes. I think green hydrogen, if we want to have certain kinds of processes continue, say cars, buses. In fact, more buses and trucks than for cars. Then instead of the electric vehicle route, it makes sense to take the hydrogen route or if you want to use hydrogen, even it can be used in normal truck engine, which as you know, CNG engines, actual and internal combustion engines and therefore you can burn hydrogen in that. So the question is, when producing hydrogen, what's the difference between the color blue, green hydrogen as it is called or other thing called green and blue hydrogen. So the origin of green hydrogen is not oil, not coal. So there are natural gas. So it is really producing it through say surplus renewable energy, which means you have wind at night, but there is no, there may not be enough takers. So you have periods when renewable energy, there are no takers. So you have storage issue. So storage issue, one storage could be batteries, but they are for short-term storage. Long-term storage could be either hydrogen or what is called reversible hydro. We don't get into it today. But reversible hydro is something India can do because it has a lot of hydroelectric resources already reservoirs exist. So they pump water up. Similarly, you can also convert it to hydrogen by electrolyzing water. And if you do that, then you get oxygen and hydrogen. Of course, oxygen has limited use except for hospitals and so on industry, but hydrogen can be used directly as energy. So if you have surplus renewable energy instead of not using it at all, you can actually use it to produce quote unquote green hydrogen because this is not polluting. So you get at the end of it hydrogen and oxygen and if you get hydrogen, then burning it only produces water. So it can be done in two ways. You can directly use it in internal combustion engine, which is equivalent to burning it, or you can use it what is called a fuel cell and convert it directly to electricity and then use an electric motor like any electric vehicle and use it. It is very clear that hydrogen under compression and that's true for green ammonia as well because a similar process can be used for ammonia. They can be used because they're compressed. You can actually store a lot of it under pressure and you can use it for long distance trucks or buses. Now trucks and buses, the electric vehicles don't work because there is not enough storage in the batteries. I have already earlier in my various columns and writings I've talked about the renewable energy storage problem and this is the storage problem that you cannot, the EVs are not a route for solving this problem and 75% or 80% of the transport energy that is spent is really using diesel or commercial vehicles, even CNG in internal combustion engines. So therefore that 80% fuel that can be saved if green energy is used would then obviously avoid that much of emissions. Transport problem is not private cars, 80% of our transport problem is from trucks and buses. So public transport of course also reduces emissions anyway but more than that we have to find the solution. So either rail, electric vehicles, charging issue as we know battery is a problem and then the only long term solution therefore is to look at essentially either ammonia or green ammonia or green hydrogen for powering this sector which is really buses and trucks and long distance traffic. Of course people might argue since you should have really metros and long distance electric railways they are much better and I agree with that but you will always have some need for this. So whenever you have that to supplement then I think this green hydrogen does provide an alternative and therefore I think green hydrogen should be a part of a longer term solution to the climate change crisis. Your piece on news click today is headlined profit for the private players in this sector and hot air for the rest of us. From a policy perspective very broadly if you can just summarize the direction in which most major countries at least are taking in this regard. There is a technology part of it there is a political economy part of it technology part of it we have discussed that doesn't change the political economy part is who develops the technology who pays for it who profits when finally it is put into operation who profits from it who is getting the money from this say the twenty thousand crore two and a half billion dollars green energy program green hydrogen programs the government has taken a part of it is also the green ammonia program which essentially is for your fertilizer production which is very important for agricultural economy like India. So given that if you look at the major outline of that it is to fund private capital to put up various kinds of plants and that funding will be provided by the government how much it will it be grant will it be loaned it will be written off we don't know the details of that are not available but it's very clear there's a significant amount of support is going to be given to private capital to put up such green hydrogen facilities either for production of green hydrogen or for production and its use. So this is this is one part of it and that's why I've said that whether it's green ammonia or it is green hydrogen it's going to be subsidizing capital and even producing electrolyzers because you electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and oxygen therefore this hydrogen comes from electricity but you need electrolyzers on a large industrial scale and for that therefore the government has to they is providing the manufacturing facility subsidy. So to produce these electrolyzers but there's no the talk of developing technology for that out of the twenty thousand crores only about a minus kilo four hundred crores seems to be earmarked for this the point is in the future whoever makes electrolyzers whoever makes the fuel cells which utilizes hydrogen they are the ones which are going to hold the market as you have seen for chips it is not the chip manufacturer it is the ones who manufacture the equipment for chip manufacturer who actually command the economy. So that is where the technology issues arise otherwise you will be buying technology or you will be asking foreign capital to set up technology or the reliances of this world Tambani, Zadani, Birla's, Tata's they will set up big facilities but by technology from outside the very finalists today are set up. All right thank you very much for being for that. Our second and final story today at least 20 people have been killed in Somaliland in violence between anti-government protesters and security forces over several days this is according to multiple reports coming in from the region though it's an ongoing dispute Somaliland has been largely peaceful this current wave of violence signals some kind of turning point in the situation on the ground as a country with oil reserves and because of its geographic location in the Horn of Africa stability in Somalia is crucial not just for the country itself but the region as a whole as always of course there are direct imperialist interests that do not always benefit from a stable peaceful and united Somalia to give us a fuller picture of the situation on the ground as well as the powers at play Prashant now joins us. Prashant welcome back to daily debrief the Somaliland dispute has been on since the early 90s but not received too much media attention not too well understood around the world so for the sake of our viewers and all of us could you paint the scenario as it is at the moment? Right so of course we talk about in the context of recent protests that have been taking place in Somaliland so Somaliland is a de facto state it's internationally most many countries recognize it as part of Somalia of course now like you said this is an issue within the pre-90s before the 90s it was not really an issue it is only 1991 I believe that the declaration took place now the important thing is that there are very close ties of course between Somalia and what is called Somaliland and the protests right now that are happening also are largely based on that because there is at least in certain states a very strong sentiment of wanting to integrate further with Somalia now in Somalia itself largely there is a lot of a lot of the politics is based on clans and their networks and what we do know also is that Somaliland especially there are quite a few influential clans but it is one clan primarily which you know has been at the forefront of demanding a separate country now on the other hand over the past few decades you have also seen any especially among the youth and increasing tendency or increasing spirit of belief in further integration and this seems to be what is spurring those protests now some of the protests took place in the last week of December there was violence I believe about 20 people were killed they have been protest reported also on the 12th of January I believe now significance of this is a larger question of the sovereignty of integrity of Somalia itself now we do know that Somalia has long been a playground for various foreign powers at some point the United States actually intervened in Somalia we also know that there's been a lot of violence also Islam's violence for instance and all of this has led to a very weakened federal government in the country and which has not really been able to exert its authority there's the absence of a very strong unified army for instance and all of this has made Somalia the perception of it being some kind of a failed state and now it's this is significant when you consider Somalia's position in the globe in the Horo Africa its vital position near the Suez Canal in the Red Sea for instance and also it has oil reserves very equally very important now all of these aspects put together it the picture dynamically changes if there is a Somalia which is united integrated and under a strong federal government because it makes it a much more sovereign country right and this is what many forces I think would not specifically like because it allows them to actually dictate the interests in various smaller regions as opposed to a federal government which might have more powerful power in control so that's really I think the heart of the issue here the question of an integrated unified Somalia versus a more federated broken down structure where local leaders clan leaders for instance can then dictate the terms of what is happening now this is all the more important when we consider the fact that oil is also a factor here for instance a company called Genel which is listed in the London stock market has claimed the right to exploit some of these oil reserves in Somaliland and the federal government to Somalia has objected to this issue and you know this has raised a lot of controversy around the same time we also know that for instance Joe Byte administration with recent document referred to Somaliland itself and it was considered a divergence from its usual one Somalia policy so all of these are interesting geopolitical issues that are playing out but ultimately the larger question is regarding the integrity and sovereignty of countries in the Horn of Africa itself they also reports coming in of for example you mentioned the the US's military intervention in in Somalia there are recent reports coming in of US troops once again training in Somaliland in fact what role or what part does US imperialism play in this region and what is sort of the US agenda here right so the Horn of Africa like we said like we talked about before is a very crucial region and there are processes taking place in the Horn of Africa which are not specific are not particularly the liking of the United States administration for instance we know that Ethiopia is a key country in this process Ethiopia was under the control of the TPLF for the longest time now under Abbey Ahmad it has taken a different path TPLF then states this whole revolt it is seems to have entered at least on paper as of now so even there it was a very similar question the question of whether Ethiopia would be an independent sovereign country which would have its own interests it should pursue its own path as opposed to it being more of a client state of the western fractured state right and we know that Ethiopia Eritrea and Somalia for instance they have been attempts to sort of have more discussions between these countries so the integrity of Somalia is also very relevant in this context because what it would mean is you know a strong integrated unified Somalia would mean the possibility of a different path for countries as a as a whole in that region also important to remember that in this context Somalia does not have a one person one vote system and this is something that progressive forces have been demanding for a long time because the fact that this would mean that the influence of the clan leaders influence of local interests would be broken by a democratic process right and this is something that you know very sections of Somali Somali Somali in political establishment have strong long opposed because for this reason because it gives takes away their power right right similarly the same thing with Abbe Ahmed as well who has been trying to sort of bring a bring about a larger Ethiopian nationalistic perspective as opposed to various clan and regional perspectives which are dominant for the longest time so the I think the larger question is of the future of the Honour Africa itself are we going to see a group of countries which have of course certain common interests in certain common contexts because their location and which work closely together or are we likely to see more sectional and divided regions many of which could be under the umbrella of the United States or its allies and I think this is one very crucial battle which will go on for quite a few decades as well all right thanks very much for that update Prashant and with that also we wrap up this episode of daily debrief from myself and the entire team here at People's Dispatch thank you very much for watching as always we invite you to head to our website peoplesdispatch.org for more details on these stories and all of the other work we do also don't forget to follow us on the social media platform of your choice if you haven't done so already we'll be back on Monday with another episode of the Daily Debrief until then stay safe goodbye