Thread by @SiOldridge

The new UK #hydrogen strategy looks like an exercise in providing ongoing revenue to North Sea operators under the pretence of climate action. It'll impose a huge cost on UK taxpayers and lock us into a high emissions pathway.
Here's why. A short 🧵...

To meet the new Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard, GHG emissions intensity must be within 20gCO2/MJ of hydrogen produced (LHV). BUT:

1/ Expert NGO @Regen_insight say 20g is not consistent with @theCCCuk's net zero pathway. 7g should be the max.
regen.co.uk/wp-content/upl…

2/ Methane is be treated as if its short powerful warming effect is spread evenly over 100 years, using a factor of 28 (GWP100) - p16.
But methane is 83X more potent than CO2 over 20 years (GWP20), the critical period for crossing deadly tipping points.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

3/ Life cycle emission calcs ignore construction and decommissioning of infrastructure incl leased upstream assets & the hydrogen production plant itself (p15)..!

One of many issues that'll skew the comparison to other sources - e.g. hydrogen heating vs heat pumps.

4/ Fugitive emissions of hydrogen will be ignored both at plant and downstream. Yet hydrogen is an indirect warming gas, 33 times more potent than CO2. Producers are just 'expected' to minimise fugitive emissions.
A bit like water companies and sewage...

rechargenews.com/energy-transit…

5/ Fugitive emissions of methane to be included in the life cycle calcs, but I see no guidance.
A new study shows N Sea fugitive emissions are 5X higher than thought at 0.72%. Gov should mandate use of this figure, but reckon that would kill projects.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/….

6/ 0.72% leaked methane sounds small, but at 82.5X the warming impact of CO2, I make that the equivalent of burning around 25% more methane, taking into account that burning 1t produces around 2.3t of CO2 in a gas power stn.
Is that right chemistry experts?
(0.72% x 82.5 / 2.3).

7/ 3rd party geological storage of CO2 is outside the system boundary for the life cycle emissions calc (p24). So Gov is pretending there's no chance of the CO2 leaking... in this unproven new process.
Precautionary principle?
Seems they're working to the answer they want.

8/ Blue H2 producers are allowed to lay claim to renewable electricity capacity to lower their emissions calc.
V dodgy. Appraisals like this should be on a marginal basis. The marginal power needed will come from a gas power station. Renewable power is already spoken for.

9/ Recent study shows blue hydrogen is actually worse for climate than burning coal!
It does use a high upstream fugitive emissions rate of 3.5% based on USA. But even without any CH4, note the CO2 is far higher than the 20g limit for the new H2 standard. Yet on we go regardless.

10/ Blue hydrogen is made from methane in a huge industrial process. It will obviously cost MUCH more than natural gas. But Gov is promising to cover some or all of the difference for producers - at the expense of the UK taxpayer. For 15 years!
gov.uk/government/pub…

12/ Existing grey hydrogen production has huge emissions. It's important to reduce them whilst we build green H2 capacity. But blue H2 lobbyists are pushing for much more than just replacing grey. And once they get their plants built, it'll be so difficult to turn them off.

13/ In conclusion, the UK H2 strategy is full of smoke and mirrors. It looks designed to support the UK fossil industry, giving the illusion of addressing climate, when in fact it will lock us in to a high emissions, high cost pathway for which we taxpayers will foot the bill.

I should add that a strong consensus is emerging that a 100% renewables-based energy system is feasible. So we don't even need hydrogen for things like heating or cars, where electric options are far more efficient.
brookes.ac.uk/about-brookes/…

https://twitter.com/janrosenow/status/1630863501764751362

@janrosenow