The UK hydrogen strategy outlined the government's support for a 'twin track' approach which supports both 'green' (from renewable electricity) and 'blue' (from fossil gas) hydrogen. This has caused a bit of stir, so what are the issues? (thread).
So firstly, why blue? Well it appears to be linked to a corporate strategy, and it appears to have stuck!
So what is it? Well 'blue' hydrogen is produced from fossil gas in a process in which the resulting carbon is captured and stored (i.e. it's Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS). The stored carbon is not expected to reach the atmosphere so has no climate impact.
All the 'blue' hydrogen currently produced, uses the steam methane reformation (SMR) process. Notably in these existing projects, the resulting CO₂ stream is used for enhanced oil recovery, i.e. using pressure to get more oil and gas out of the ground. iea.org/reports/hydrog…
The other method of 'blue' hydrogen production, 'auto thermal reforming' (ATR) is not currently running anywhere according to that database but could in theory have a higher CO₂ capture rate. Which leads to the first major concern:
Blue hydrogen is not zero greenhouse gas emission. Fugitive emissions of methane during fossil gas production as well as CO₂ leaks mean that 'blue' will always have a carbon footprint. Estimates vary greatly but
There were disagreements over the assumptions in that paper for both rates of leakage and the 'global warming potential' of methane on twitter last week but the authors argued they used best available data for leakage
As for the discussion around global warming potentials, you can try and decipher if you want to (🤯) but, take away message, methane is significantly more potent a greenhouse gas than CO₂ and methane emissions a big issue
So the main takeaway point here is that 'blue' hydrogen is a long way from zero carbon.
Issue number two is that 'blue' hydrogen requires more fossil gas feedstock than using the fossil gas directly because of losses in the process.
Now this isn't necessarily an issue everywhere (subject to fugitive emissions) but for the UK, it absolutely is. Gas imports are currently 55%, are increasing and are expected to reduce to nothing by 2050, without (ahem) shale gas. via @NationalGridESOnationalgrideso.com/document/20285…
So when did 'blue' hydrogen enter UK heating discussions? Well as far as I can remember, the first major inclusion was in the @NatInfraCom 2018 work on heat where it was seen to be a potentially cheaper option than electrification, nic.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
But, in my view the report slightly unfairly compared costs even though the emission reduction potentials were different and back then we knew even under the 2050 target at the time, 75 to 80% reductions would not be enough nic.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
The 2019 introduction of the net zero law meant that those sorts of emissions from heat were pretty much infeasible in 2050 and since then, it's always appeared (to me at least) that blue hydrogen was a bit dead for heat.
Our 2020 @UKERCHQ policy paper outlined state of the art analysis which pointed clearly towards heat pumps and district heating (alongside energy efficiency) as the most economic heat decarb. pathway ukerc.ac.uk/publications/n…
And very pleasingly (for us authors), the @theCCCuk's sixth carbon budget work suggested something quite similar in their balanced pathway with hydrogen, if used for heat, directed at hybrid systems and in areas near H₂ production theccc.org.uk/publication/si…
Worth noting the the @theCCCuk's 'headwind' pathway does see a greater role of hydrogen for heat but, is extremely reliant on carbon capture and storage to produce all of the hydrogen and needs high CO₂ capture rates to be viable theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
The feasibility of these capture rates, and the associated costs? That is all yet to be seen. Which brings us back to today's news: theguardian.com/environment/20…
There is of course an argument that 'blue' can be useful on the path to 'green' hydrogen as green costs fall. This from the BEIS report on potential costs: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
And a final really important strategic point: I'm not aware of any analysis which shows green hydrogen for heat being any where near as cost-effective as electrification and that's pretty much backed up by fundamental physics associated with conversion csrf.ac.uk/2020/09/hydrog…
So finally what might the role be for blue H₂? Well if it were me, as I said on the radio earlier in the week, I'd go for green and focus on industry. The @ITMPowerPlc investment in Sheffield is a fantastic thing alongside the mega offshore wind target
But, if blue is supported, emission regulation needs to be extremely tight, it should be fairly competing with green on a carbon/cost basis and it should be used in demands which aren't cost effectively electrifiable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Heating: what does the hydrogen strategy say? In short, it's all about trials for the next decade but delaying action on heat pumps and heat networks 'could prevent us from meeting near term carbon budgets' (thread).
First up, some confusion about how many homes will actually be heated by hydrogen by 2030. The press release says 3 million by 2030, the actual document says something very different: (very odd).
In terms of volumes, by 2030 growth in domestic use is limited to the trial places so quite small. Note huge uncertainty over 2035 range. Basically this is 'we don't know'.
The absolutely criminal thing about heat decarbonisation/heat transition politics is the total ignorance by policy makers of the value it will bring to the UK. Ignoring the carbon reductions, it will save money and pay for itself through the reductions in gas imports (thread).
Currently GB is very reliant on fossil gas, more than almost all countries apart from the Netherlands. This is because we went big for gas in the 60s and 70s after finding North Sea gas. But that time is over. We now import over 50% of gas and that's expected to increase.
So, we import over half of our gas. In 2019 that equated to 518 terawatt hours.
I think I've now managed to digest all the Times pieces today (I was featured in one of them) and thought I should set out my stall in a short thread. So, last week The Times featured an 'opinion piece' suggesting No 10 were very interested in hydrogen:
I was interviewed following the submission of a letter to the editor, not from me, but from another academic. csrf.ac.uk/2020/09/letter…. A shortened version of this letter featured today.
Focusing on the issue of incumbency, we investigate the emergence of a low carbon gas coalition in the UK. We investigate what the coalition has been doing and the messages it has been promoting primarily through political lobbying and policy engagement.
Converting the gas grid to low carbon gas is presented as *the* option for heat decarbonisation in areas with a gas grid at the expense of other options such as heat networks and heat pumps.
Don't know about you, but I've spent the morning creating UK emission trajectories for heat. That shaded bit is the cumulative emissions of not acting. The lower line is an emissions trajectory based on heat pump deployment (1/4).
Basically the point is, morally we need to act now, it's not just about net zero but the time taken on the journey to get there. Hence, rapidly deploy energy efficiency, heat pumps and heat networks at scale. Not enough time to wait to see what hydrogen might be able to do (2/4)
We can always change course back to H2 later (if we wanted and after we learn more) but there isn't time for delay for potential options and known technologies reduce emissions now (3/4).
There's a real humdinger of a statement in the report behind this claim which assumes that hydrogen is *the* technology for existing homes (1/5). You ready?
'However, electric technologies such as heat pumps are
unlikely to be able to meet the elevated heat demand requirements of the existing housing stock. We have therefore assumed hydrogen will be used to
decarbonise this existing housing stock.' (2/5).
Further in: 'However, we have assumed electrification is not
suitable for older housing stock based on Element Energy and E4Tech’s Cost Analysis of Future Heat Infrastructure report which states: (3/5)