Energy bills to rise in 2025 to pay for unproven hydrogen gas
By Paul Homewood
.
h/t Ian Magness
.
What’s the definition of insanity?
Household energy bills will rise in three years to fund the development of unproven hydrogen gas which may only be used in a fraction of homes, despite concerns it could worsen fuel poverty.
Hydrogen, which is made from natural gas and used in heavy industry, can be produced from green electricity or from natural gas or have its emissions captured to make it a cleaner fuel.
The Government wants to produce 10Gw of “low carbon” hydrogen by 2030 as part of its strategy to boost energy independence.
Neighbourhood trials of its use to replace natural gas in homes will start from next year, with households that refuse to take part facing having their gas forcibly turned off.
But experts warn that it is unlikely to be a large-scale solution to decarbonising heating because of the high costs of production and its demand for use in heavy industry.
Run into billions
A previous government strategy has suggested that it could be used to heat just 10 per cent of the country’s homes.
But the Government has said it wants to put the costs of developing hydrogen, which could run into billions, on to energy bills from 2025.
The scheme will be modelled on subsidies that were key to boosting the UK’s offshore wind industry over the past decade, which are levied on electricity bills.
This is despite concerns that it could worsen fuel poverty and may never be used widely in home heating.
The Government has said it will make a decision on hydrogen as a replacement for gas in boilers by 2026.
But energy minister Lord Martin Callanan has said that using hydrogen as a green alternative in boilers is “pretty much impossible” and it was more likely to be used by trains, HGVs and industry.
Need to replace meters
Homes using pure hydrogen will need to replace smart meters, hobs and other infrastructure, with an estimated cost of more than £1,000 per household.
It is unclear what the impact of the levy would be on energy bills. An initial £100 million of funding for green hydrogen production capacity in 2023 will come from general taxation, with the levy applied from 2025.
Energy expert Juliet Phillips, from think tank E3G, said funding hydrogen through a levy on energy bills would be a "serious misjudgment".
“In the middle of a gas crisis which has left millions of families with crippling energy bills, it seems to be totally misreading the mood of the room to consider adding new levies to cover the cost of shiny projects which don’t necessarily represent the most cost-effective way to achieve net zero goals,” she said.
“Hydrogen is expensive to produce and less efficient in most instances than other ways of cutting carbon emissions – for instance through direct electrification, or simple energy saving measures.”
Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said: "It beggars belief that the Government is trying to cook up new ways to increase energy bills at a time when people are already struggling.
"With even more price rises expected this winter, the Government should be looking at ways of cutting bills, not increasing them.
"And while hydrogen may appear a good idea on paper, we need to be careful. Some hydrogen production uses fossil gas in the process which could only prolong our reliance on volatile gas markets."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/12/energy-bills-rise-2025-pay-unproven-hydrogen-gas/
What is interesting here is that all these so-called experts are beginning to wake up to what I and many others have been saying for years – that hydrogen is hugely expensive to produce, will involve spending tens of billions to roll out, and cannot supplant natural gas in bulk.
In particular, the much touted green hydrogen will never be more than a niche operation. Maybe enough to fuel HGVs and industrial needs at best.
If the government really does want to develop hydrogen further, it should have the courage to put the cost onto general taxation, and tell the public which taxes it will raise, or which items of public spending it will cut, in order to fund it.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
You would have thought that the political class would have learned something from Brexit. Apparently not.
They did. Don’t let democracy break out and hold a referendum on anything again.
Doing the same stupid things over and over again expecting different results.
“Maybe enough to fuel HGVs”. A lot of if’s and but’s in this comment, Paul. Most will have seen HGV’s on fire on motorways. As hydrogen gas cannot sensibly be liquified, any use as a transport fuel would require pressurisation, probably to in excess of 700bar. At such pressures, hydrogen embrittles most steels, so the fuel tanks would at risk of leakage or even fracture. Imagine the carnage should such a problem result in fire/explosion on the cark park called the M25 in the rush hour!
Back in the early 1980’s, I got my driving license in a hydrogen fueled car. I remember the political and scientific discussions at the time and it all finally halted due to high costs and low safety. The physics involved today are the same as back then …
Who whould like to drive around with a potential car bomb? (I know some would …)
A recent UK report covers the risks of hydrogen leakage, the usual met office and Reading Uni cover up, but useful. The risk posed by hydrogen in the stratosphere is massive as the ozone layer is slow forming. Hydrogen reacts in a fast photochemical reaction with ozone even at low temperature, this removes the ozone layer and produces nano-particles of ice that will remain in the stratosphere: not good!
This risk has been known for many years and is either not recognised by the proponents of hydrogen or being side-lined while they enjoy the trough.
REF: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/atmospheric-implications-of-increased-hydrogen-use. 8th April 2022.
Softly softly catchee non-human simians. CNG, compressed natural gas, gets us halfway to the hydrogen economy without the dangers that hydrogen poses. No-one who has seen hydrogen detonated in the lab will be blasé about the appalling energy of a hydrogen explosion. Let’s approach the hydrogen economy in baby steps.
Buses, HGVs, trains and ships could all easily be converted to use CNG in their ICEs. Even larger cars would be able to use this readily available, low carbon dioxide, vanishingly low particulate and NOX wonder fuel. Extending the gas grid to allow (or enforce) the end of central heating oil would, again, sharply reduce CO2 emissions.
If only we had a readily available source of this life-saver.
JF
“No-one who has seen hydrogen detonated in the lab will be blasé about the appalling energy of a hydrogen explosion.”
Or seen the video(s) of H2 blowing the roofs off Fukushima Daiichi’s containment buildings ….
Back about 30 years ago there was enthusiasm for CNG for cars in Australia. It required installation of a large tank in the car boot and a way of switching between use of gas or the petrol (from the existing tank). Much was made of the better economy, lower emissions and less wear on the motor.
The government responded by increasing the tax on CNG to the point that it became uneconomic.
Still have a dual fuel jeep. Great idea. Much better than burning gas to make electricity, just put the gas in the car.
Why are we all still trying to de-carbonise ? Why is it still a topic ?
Because the country is still being run by ignorant morons that we can only replace with a different set of ignorant morons who can’t even figure out basic human biology let alone anything else. In addition to that, the public still turn out to vote in elections without understanding that they have no power and therefore no democracy.
Methane is already the smallest practical molecule. It is available in abundance worldwide. Objections to use range from silly to cult religiosity.
What many people miss is due to its molecular size it leaks from joints and valves. It’s also easy to ignite, there is lots on its hazards on the HSE website.
We would not go anywhere near it when I worked on a COMAH high hazard chemical site.
Just add some carbon atoms to the H2. Much better fuel. We could call it gas….
I am becoming more curious as to who the government advisors are and what are their credentials? And just how does a largely non technical government select which advisors to use, as in just about any complicated or technical subject there can be a variety of different opinions depending on who you listen to?