'EU can restrict harmful "forever chemicals" in a way that does not damage the green hydrogen sector'

Industry must be allowed to find alternatives to the harmful chemicals used in all PEM electrolysers and fuel cells, says coalition of European research organisations

 

 

The expected EU ban on harmful PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) — also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment — would be justified, but care must be taken not to harm important industries that rely upon them, such as green hydrogen, say a coalition of European research and technology organisations (RTOs).

PFAS are used in membranes for all proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysers and fuel cells, but the fluoropolymers are also used by the hydrogen industry in balance-of-plant equipment, such as gaskets, auxiliary systems, storage tanks, pipes and welding.

The joint statement on PFAS from the RTOs (listed below) points out that while the chemicals are damaging to human health — they can cause cancer and abnormal foetal development (see panel below) — and should therefore be restricted, “we emphasise the need for a nuanced risk assessment that also takes into consideration that in some industrial production processes [such as PEM equipment] suitable substitutes do not exist”.

It continues: “We recommend strategic investments into substitutes, closed-loop methodologies [ie, recycling] and a systematic assessment of the feasibility of interventions.

“We support a balanced approach that integrates the responsibility of the industry, regulatory support and the urgent need for independent research to obtain sustainable alternatives, thus ensuring both, the twin transition and the considerate phase-out of PFAS to protect society in the short and the long term.”

 

In January 2023, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden submitted a proposal for restrictions on the production, use, sale and import of PFAS. The proposal is now being evaluated by the two European Chemicals Agency committees, which will submit their opinions to the European Commission.

The Commission will then formulate and present a proposal to member states, with a final decision likely to be reached in 2025 — with restrictions following 18 months later.

But the RTOs argue that “well-considered restrictions will stimulate research and development on alternatives and, if well implemented, can thereby provide EU-based companies with competitive edge”.

“Indiscriminate restrictions of PFAS compounds without mitigating measures and available substitutes threaten to disrupt a green transition, European industrial competitiveness and European technological sovereignty.”

Trade association Hydrogen Europe made similar statements last year, warning that a blanket PFAS ban could result in “dire consequences” for the clean H2 sector.

The RTO statement continued: “Innovation must be facilitated and accelerated through consistent policies, appropriate regulation and other (financial) mechanisms that provide incentives for the fast development of suitable alternatives.”

However, it does not advocate for unregulated use of PFAS in industries where there are no alternatives.

“In cases where viable alternatives do not yet exist, the industry must provide evidence prior to any regulatory exception that no risks are associated with the production, use and recycling of PFAS materials.”

The RTOs explain that while some alternative types of PEM membranes are being developed, they are “at an early research stage and it is hard to know for sure when the alternative materials will be commercially viable”.

One of the signatories, TNO in the Netherlands, has already been investigating PFAS alternatives, and is “already testing promising solutions with a few innovative frontrunners”.

“We are mapping out what new technology and materials are needed to make fluorine-free electrolysers and fuel cells and scaling it up as quickly as possible," says TNO expert Lennart van der Burg. "A lot of emphasis will be placed on research into new materials that can form an alternative to current fluorine compounds.

“This is a complex puzzle, because the alternative material must be of at least as good quality, easy to produce on a large scale, and the business case must be conclusive for all parties involved.”

The other signatories are Germany’s Fraunhofer, RISE (Research Institutes of Sweden), the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, and Tecnalia in Spain. 

 

'EU can restrict harmful "forever chemicals" in a way that does not damage the green hydrogen sector' | Hydrogen Insight

'EU can restrict harmful "forever chemicals" in a way that does not damage the green hydrogen sector' | Hydrogen Insight