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:
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...
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.
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/…
This article from the Gov’s ‘Net Zero’ Secretary @ClaireCoutinho is insidious fossil fuel propaganda and needs challenging:
1️⃣ No. The Gov’s own expert adviser says “expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero” theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
2️⃣Yes, Coutinho actually argues that you need new oil & gas to pay for the green transition. What Orwellian nonsense!
We just need to tax *existing* fossil fuels properly instead of giving them huge backhanders & boosting their already enormous profits.
3️⃣BTW, Norway actually levied 10 times as much tax per barrel of oil extracted from its territory in 2019.
The UK practically gives away our reserves to the international oil companies, coincidentally major funders of the Conservative Party🧐.
I urge everyone to read this comprehensive warning from leading climate scientists about the grave dangers we face by failing to tackle climate change.
A thread quoting key points: 🧵 academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/arti…
1️⃣"Scientists suspect the last several years have been warmer than any point in more than 125,000 years. Yet demand for oil climbed to over 100 million barrels per day in 2023, the highest in history."
and emissions keep rising...
2️⃣"Despite decades of global investment in clean energy, fossil fuels still provide over 80% of global energy use, a figure that has not changed for decades." spglobal.com/commodityinsig…
How can #bbclaurak do a special on #netzero without bothering to research the basics and then totally failing to call out disinformation? A quick 🧵rebutting some of the worst of it.... bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
1️⃣Preposterous science denier @LukeJohnsonRCP says #netzero will make ordinary people poorer & colder. Yet study after study shows renewables can supply all our energy needs and deliver huge savings, with a rapid payback #bbclaurak
2️⃣Net zero secretary @ClaireCoutinho, linked to shady oil-funded Policy Exchange lobby group, says people don't want 'costs heaped on them'.
Classic misdirection.
Transition to renewables is necessary for national security, and the alternative is a MUCH higher cost to the nation.
It's totally obvious that the state should therefore pay to protect our nation, just as it does for guns and missiles at times of war.
This is really basic stuff. Why doesn't @bbclaurak hold them to account on it?
UK Gov is pledging £billions of public money to the fossil fuel industry for unproven industrial CO₂ removal. But here's how nature can do the job, with an array of co-benefits, at far lower cost. A short🧵 1/ zerohour.uk/reports/
2️⃣ Restoring nature will:
✅ protect against extreme heat, flooding, drought ✅ absorb CO₂ at far lower cost than tech
✅ create lots of jobs
✅ mean putting ££ into local communities instead of giving it to the polluters
3️⃣Why does our Gov ignore nature?
🟢Nature doesn’t have well-funded lobbyists like the polluters
🟢Unleashing nature's potential means tackling our inefficient livestock-heavy use of land, encouraging a more pant-rich diet - blocked by vested interests.
@ProVeg_UK @Plant_Treaty
This is @ClaireCoutinho, the UK's Net Zero minister. Her twitter feed reads like it was written by an oil company.
Here's a quick flavour: 🧵 opendemocracy.net/en/policy-exch…
1️⃣🚨Misleading🚨
Once you account for all the manufacturing we've offshored, plus✈️&🚢emissions ignored, our total footprint has fallen by just 23% since 1990. <1% a year.
And that ignores large emissions from industrial fishing, military, and bioenergy.
2️⃣It's so dishonest to call this investment a ‘cost’.
Experts agree that decarbonising will deliver huge savings - in addition to being necessary to avert the worst of climate change. Labour’s plans are far too weak, but still a big improvement. ox.ac.uk/new/2022-09-14…
The Conservative Gov killed off a major program to insulate the UK's appallingly inefficient homes, and despite the Ukraine crisis, has done almost nothing to save wasted energy—the cheapest, fastest way to cut emissions.
UK homes lose heat 3X faster than German homes.
🧵1/4
2/ The Conservatives cancelled the Code for Sustainable Homes which would've required all new homes to be zero carbon (and super-cheap to heat) by 2016. They did this in response to lobbying from Persimmon Homes, a major donor to their party. businessgreen.com/news/3072448/p…
3/ Gov has failed to take any action to curb sales of SUVs, which are incredibly wasteful of materials and fuel - extraordinarily negligent given the worsening climate and energy crisis.