Is Hydrogen The Answer?
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Sky News has a layman’s guide to hydrogen. I think most of us are familiar with the topic, but I wanted to highlight a few segments:
The article makes the very sensible point that although it is technically possible to use hydrogen for transport, heating and so on, that does not mean that you should use it:
The cheapest way to make hydrogen in bulk is steam reforming gas, known as grey hydrogen. But this process emits a lot of carbon dioxide, and is also much more expensive than just using gas in the first place.
Which leads us on to green hydrogen, made by electrolysis using some sort of low carbon electricity. But as Sky point out, it is phenomenally expensive, and very energy inefficient.
Sky reckon that green hydrogen is five times as costly as grey hydrogen, before gas prices spiked. (And grey hydrogen itself is maybe three times as expensive as natural gas).
Gas prices are now about five times as high as they have traditionally been, so the gap is closing with green hydrogen. But a green hydrogen future would tie us into permanently high energy prices.
And that is before we consider the cost of upgrading the country’s gas infrastructure to handle hydrogen, which Sky describe as “an incredibly expensive exercise”.
Sadly the article goes on to argue that the government should start to commit to hydrogen in a big way, which would mean spending tens of billions in the next few years. The author, Ed Conway, apparently is not aware that the government does not have any money to spare to throw at these silly ideas.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Michael Liebreich hammers hydrogen for home heating:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-many-grifters-does-take-sell-hydrogen-boiler-michael-liebreich
Whilst pushing ‘decarbonisation’ and heat pumps unfortunately. Useful for background on hydrogen, thanks.
As a general rule, if the government should do it that means that it’s a bad idea. Good ideas don’t need government backing.
What was the question?
There is, however, “natural” hydrogen…
https://www.renewablematter.eu/articles/article/natural-hydrogen-a-geological-curiosity-or-the-primary-energy-source-for-a-low-carbon-future
https://geoscientist.online/sections/unearthed/natural-hydrogen-the-new-frontier/
https://h2au.co/news
Here’s a thing Catweazle, following your introducing this issue (Natural Hydrogen) last week, I discussed the subject with some of the “green persuasion”. The option of potentially unlimited quantities of self generating cheap hydrogen being discovered and commercially available horrified them! Cleary this is all about politics and nothing about the environment.
Another possibility in this direction to upset the “green persuasion” Ray is methane hydrate which exists in prodigious quantities on the ocean floor and in permafrost and is being investigated by a number of states, in particular Japan.
What is particularly intriguing about this substance is that one of the techniques for extraction involves replacing the methane in the hydrate with CO2, thus making the use of it as fuel effectively carbon neutral.
https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-hydrates/
Catweez . i see a problem straight away in that they say they use liquid CO2. CO2 is only liquid at very high pressure so immediately there is the high cost and energy required to compress the CO2. Unlikely to be any more cost effective than the other sources of hydrogen.
“CO2 is only liquid at very high pressure”
Around 45 bar IIRC, approximately the pressure at 1,500 ft under water, so if that is where the hydrates are, not a problem.
Perhaps not a coincidence that Ed Conway was one of the few who strayed perilously [for a MSM journo] close to telling the truth when reporting on Covid also.
I prefer the Dandelion and Burdock alternative.
In energy rather than financial terms Green or even grey hydrogen produces a Net NEGATIVE Return on investment for the community. The Thermodynamic Laws ensure that. Individuals however can make money with it providing they, have the resources and know how to get politicians, financiers and lawyers to suitably manipulate the system.
Overall it is Dead Duck and extremely expensive. I doubt whether the market would continue with low interest rates should the U.K. put this Hydrogen Concept into its policies.
Like you, Paul, I’m a bit surprised at Ed’s idea that governments should be pursuing hydrogen.
As a general rule hydrogen does not, as far as I know, exist (reliably in any event) in natural usable form which means it needs to be extracted by methods which may or may not prove cost-effective. And nobody seems to be taking on board the extent to which it happily rots metal and finds its way through the tiniest of faults. How many gas explosions a year are we going to be expected to put up with?
As Catweazle666 has highlighted recently and on this thread, there is the possibility of Natural Hydrogen being discovered in commercial quantities. An interesting prospect to follow.
“…Natural Hydrogen…”
There is plenty in the Sun. I wonder how many M.P.s might fall for a suggestion that we go there and mine it?
Meanwhile, 2022 is going to end as a year with low cyclone activity in ALL six basins. This despite the existence of La Nina conditions for a third year. The Science is so settled.
From my experience in explosive atmospheres, hydrogen possesses another quality in addition to causing embrittlement of steel. It has the highest explosion pressure of any gas. It is used in explosion proof enclosures to provide the peak pressure for a 1.5x water pressure test. So a domestic hydrogen gas explosion will be far worse than a methane one, but I doubt any Moron of Parliament would know this. I have also used hydrogen to leak test welded joints given it is the smallest gas molecule.
No.
‘Hydrogen could be a vital bridge in the transition to renewables’
A better metaphor:
“Hydrogen could be the high dive into the empty pool of renewables.”
‘but investment, vision and commitment are lacking at a government level’
After decades of experimentation, the market place has found no use for hydrogen as an energy transfer medium. Suggesting government get involved now is, like that Einstein fellow said, expecting different results.
Oh dear…couldn’t resist this….slightly O/T but considering how XR are against everything based on Carbon, this is a wonderful reaction to one who glued himself to a TV studio table:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20259668/climate-activist-glues-himself-table-security-tip-floor/
Gamecock would just leave them where they glued themselves. Turn out the lights. “Good night, everybody!” See how they are doing the next morning.
Then the next.
And CO2 doesn’t drive the weather or decide temperature at 2100.
I think that the cheapest of hydrogen is that made from brown coal. Mention that if you want to stop a Green enthusiast in his tracks.
Electrolysis has a maximum THEORETICAL efficiency of 67% although the low pressure intermittent process from renewables that they fantasise about is about 38%. Add in the compounding losses in compressing it, storage and distributing it, and the cost goes from too expensive to prohibitive.
Here’s another potential cheap source:
https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/low-cost-clean-hydrogen-from-underground-oil-fires-could-kill-off-green-h2-sector/2-1-752473
Note also that in situ coal gasification also produces – amongst other things – Syngas ie carbon monoxide and hydrogen, a very useful feedstock.
Yes, saves the cost of mining the coal first. This was used in the old Town Gas plants starting in 1878. Also by the Germans (as the Fischer Tropf process) to make all sorts of useful products (including diesel fuel).
Nothing new about this process as it has been tried several times. Recently here in South Australia when the local government shut down the Leigh Creek coal field (sub-bitumenous). I think that there is a problem if there is too much air getting into the heat zone and having an underground fire spreading. Certainly the Greens would use that as an excuse.
Hydrogen as a product of combustion? The Greens are SO ingenious ..
Perhaps it would help your understanding if you read the article, George!
Air or oxygen is pumped into the underground oil or gas reservoir, or coal bed, and ignited to set fire to the hydrocarbons.
When the fire reaches temperatures above 500°C, injected steam or existing water vapour reacts with the hydrocarbons to produce syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Adding extra water to the syngas creates a reaction that produces CO2 and more hydrogen. But the carbon dioxide and other impurities would remain underground as patented palladium-alloy membranes allow only the hydrogen to diffuse through the metal lattice.
The town gas production cycled between hot coal beds. First oxygen feed to raise the temperature (releasing CO2) then a switch to water, which generated hydrogen, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and dropped the temperature.
The problem I see is controlling the oxygen heating (combustion) and hydrogen generation (cooling).
And I don’t see any problem if the unwanted CO2 did get into the atmosphere – the “worst” effect would be Greenies expiring from an attack of the vapours.
All sounds very inefficient. Why not just extract the coal, gas, oil and use as fuel rather than the waste of burning it to produce a little hydrogen.
Oh sorry that would be sensible, and what we want is green, not sensible.
Hydrogen isn’t a fuel. There isn’t any hydrogen. In order to make hydrogen we have to use some other fuel. Hydrogen is therefore never going to be an answer to anything.
A net user of energy, like pumped hydro and batteries.
Read here:
https://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/
. . . about the locations of this substance. Given current environmental regulations and anti-agendas it is unlikely for development to be allowed except as research. Pressing oil from bugs grown in skyscrapers is more likely.
Another BBC article missing vital facts that alter the whole premise of the article – cheap electricity.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63402811
The scheme itself seems fairly useful for a remote isolated community, it seems fairly dependable – the backup diesel generators not required much.
Of course now they are starting to connect small industrial users and more homes, it’s more likely water supply will outstrip demand in the future.
The scheme currently needs upgrading and therefore requires another large expenditure, the main charity trust is again appealing.
This was last done in 1999 at a cost of £10ks per subscriber, but it was paid for by a mixture of Scottish gov., EU, and charity money. There was also an upfront community buyout cost of the original scheme which is not specified.
If someone else pays for the upfront costs, of course you can have ‘cheap’ electricity.
From the BBC article:
”
That too may change. Knoydart Renewables plans to extend its network after having completed a £2.7m upgrade, part funded by a £2.4m Scottish government grant along with financial assistance from the Knoydart Foundation and Perth-based energy giant, SSE.
“
Yep, not cheap at all – the end users are just being massively subsidised.
Sky missed this optimistic report:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/end-road-hydrogen-fuel-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
It appears the UK is, once again, missing out. Just three things to sort out:
“Speaking to Telegraph Cars, Paul Hollick, chair of the AFP, said: “For hydrogen to take off among UK van fleets, you’d need to see three substantial developments.
“First is a massively expanded refuelling infrastructure.
“Second is a taxation regime for vehicles that encourages adoption among organisations running light commercial vehicles. Favourable tax conditions have played a major part in the rapid take-up of EVs by fleets in recent years and the same would be needed for hydrogen.
“Third is for both the vehicles and the hydrogen itself to be priced in such a way that they are economically viable for businesses to operate. “
Simples!
“For hydrogen to take off”
Who else thought, “Hindenburg?”
Yes indeed!
Last week was European Hydrogen week apparently, though I missed it – what a shame. But I can offer you this:
https://energypost.eu/green-hydrogen-is-ready-to-scale-this-decade/
“Can green hydrogen play a major role in global emissions reductions by 2030? Yes say Tessa Weiss , Cato Koole and Nick Pesta at RMI, who lay out their case. The EU’s green hydrogen targets for 2030 have quadrupled, equivalent to roughly 100 GW of electrolyser capacity. Crucially, rapid scale-up does not depend on yet-to-be-seen new innovations, but on available and commercially mature technologies. ”
Not sure if the 100GW is electrical input or value of the gas produced, but either way I doubt it makes a huge dent in the European demand for fuel. The average UK electrical demand alone is about 30GW, and the demand for gas and other fuels way more than that.
While I’m here, I came across this study re Longyearbyen which touches on hydrogen as well as renewables:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261919317660
Who would have believed solar could achieve over 7% there, when the sun doesn’t show up in winter? Or that tracking panels are not worth it when the sun whizzes around through 360 degrees in mid summer? Completely gung-ho for renewables, they still conclude hydrogen to be 4 times the price of fossil power, and a fully renewables based system 10 times the price.
Stuart, I started reading the Longyearbyen report but had to give up in despair.
I really do not understand why anyone can get paid (or grants) to produce this level of abject tosh! I can only think it was written by low grade interns with no real world experience just to satisfy using up somebody’s spare budget.
The issue of tracking supposedly not being beneficial is truly weapons grade bullshit. Have a play with this calculator (sadly doesn’t cover Svalbard) to demonstrate how significant tracking is in high altitude summer.
https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html
Sky : “So this is where hydrogen comes in. When the wind is blowing hard, we send that power to electrolysis cells where it creates lots and lots of hydrogen, which then acts as a mammoth national battery: when we need backup power we burn it in power stations or run it through fuel cells.”
Using the BEIS figure for wind turbine capacity factor of 30% (BEIS Energy Brief 2022), the efficiencies of both electrolysis and generating electricity at 60% and include the hydrogen compression storage efficiency of 87%, I calculate we would need 7.5 times the installed wind turbine capacity for any given amount of dispatchable power.
I don’t think this is economically viable, and neither does BEIS and the NGESO which is why the Head of UK Strategy National Grid told a HoL Committee last year that Net Zero is not possible without smart meters to enable “volatile pricing”. And, of course if there is insufficient energy, rationing or rolling blackouts, which is euphemistically called “demand management”.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, even places in Germany are realising that Hydrogen is simply way more expensive than the alternatives in some of the touted use cases – in this instance, railways replacing diesel trains:
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/will-no-longer-be-considered-hydrogen-trains-up-to-80-more-expensive-than-electric-options-german-state-finds/2-1-1338438
We simply don’t have enough fossil fuels to endure the next glaciation. That is a hard reality that needs faced by future humanity. Green will not do it so that means they need a better option.
In fact we have vastly more fossil fuels than is commonly believed.
We have barely scratched the surface of the worldwide shale deposits, steerable drill technology opens up the exploitation of many trillions of tons of otherwise inaccessible coal seams both for access to coal bed methane and in situ gasification.
Then there are the almost inestimable quantities of methane hydrate in both permafrost and the deep ocean floor deposits which – intriguingly – apparently can be accessed by replacement of the methane in the hydrate with CO2.
So all in all, nothing to get concerned about.
Then there are the unconventional energy sources, from geothermal through to the 1950s science fiction schemes to use orbiting solar panels beaming down the energy via microwave beams which are being piloted right now.
And someone somewhere is going to crack fusion sooner or later!
So “no worries”, as our Antipodean cousins would say.
The greenies love hydrogen and also energy efficiency, but as (AFAIK) hydrogen’s EROI is only ~30% (do correct me if necessary), they are diametrically opposed. They can’t have their cake and eat it.
Hi Paul The Scottish Government has issued a Draft Energy and Transition document for discussion. Among its proposals is an Action Plan for Hydrogen with a target to have ‘5GW of hydrogen’ by 2030 and ’25GW of Hydrogen’ by 2045.
I have written to them asking them to explain what a GW of hydrogen actually means.
Who are these Civil Servants who write this drivel on behalf of the Scottish Government. These are british Civil Servants and I really now do believe that thye are writing all this to embarrass
Nick Dekker
1, Nairn Way
Cumbernauld. G68 OHX