Germany’s dream of building a fleet of hydrogen-fired power plants is faltering
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
When green fantasies hit the brick wall of cold reality!
By 2035, Germany wants to produce 100% of its power in a climate-neutral way. To back up wind turbines and solar panels, whose production is expected to dominate in the coming years, the government initially envisioned a fleet of hydrogen-fired power plants.
But these plans are now faltering amid a prolonged government budgetary crisis, said Sigfried Russwurm, the president of Germany’s powerful industry association BDI.
In early August 2023, the German government triumphantly announced that the European Commission had essentially greenlit its plan for subsidised backup power plants.
That meant 8.8 GW of dedicated hydrogen power plants, alongside 15 GW of natural gas-powered ones that ought to switch to hydrogen by 2035 at the latest, in total representing about one-third of the German peak power demand of 2023. Climate-friendly power at the press of a button.
Because these plants would likely only produce power in periods of sustained low wind and low sun – known as “kalte Dunkelflaute” – they are unlikely to make a profit without state support.
And critically, the annual €7 billion earmarked for this purpose “evaporated” following a ruling from Germany’s top court, which restricted the government’s use of credit lines approved during the COVID-19 crisis.
With no hydrogen plants available as backup, coal power will likely be needed to fill the gap, the BDI chief warned.
“As long as the prospect of new backup power plants based on hydrogen does not get off the ground […] the solution in Germany will be the continued operation of coal-fired power plants,” Russwurm told the press on Tuesday (16 January).
Given budgetary constraints, the two industry associations are urgning the government to cut corners and ditch plans for hydrogen-fired power plants.
Industry groups are now urging the government to take action. “The Federal Government must now get its act together: We need a power plant strategy with clear framework conditions,” said energy industry association BDEW on 11 January.
“At least 15 gigawatts (GW) of new secure generation capacity will be needed in Germany by 2030,” the association added.
Given budgetary constraints, the two industry associations are urging the government to cut corners and ditch plans for hydrogen-fired power plants.
“To significantly reduce complexity and costs,” BDEW stresses the need to “reevaluate” the role afforded to hydrogen peak and hybrid power plants, due to their expensive components and limited impacts on supply security.
Russwurm is of a similar mind. Outlining the BDI’s priorities for the year, he used metaphors to explain what a hydrogen-fired power plant would look like.
Existing power plants can’t run on “pure” hydrogen because the “burners would simply melt”, he explained. Addressing this would require retrofitting the plants with ceramics, which would make them look like the nose of a spaceship folded inwards – a process that can be done but is costly, the BDI chief said.
“If these turbines are only supposed to run when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, then they will be extremely expensive,” he added.
“I’m not even talking about the cost of hydrogen, which we don’t have, but only the investment costs of these new gas turbines and their new peripherals.”
Ultimately, this means Germany’s plan to entirely phase out coal power by 2030 looks unlikely to materialise. Instead, Germany will have to continue relying on gas-fired power plants to match growing demand for electricity.
As the guy from BDI notes, 7 billion euros a year is just the cost of subsidising these hydrogen back up power plants. On top of that comes the cost of actually producing the hydrogen and the question of where the electricity will come from to do it.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Germany again discovers that Ayn Rand was correct ….
Errr – colour me confused.
Where is this hydrogen going to come from? Is this from excess wind generation, when the wind does actually blow?
Firstly, I did not think Germany had an excess of wind and solar at present, as they just switch off coal and gas when renewable conditions are good.
Secondly, if the hydrogen is to be generated by renewables, why no mention of the enormous costs of: electrolisers, demin water plants, deep cavern excavation, brine separation, high pressure pumps, massive heat exchangers etc:
The costs of hydrogen production and storage, are far greater than the costs of the power stations. And the full cycle of a hydrogen ‘battery’ is only 30% efficient at best – it is hardly worth doing…!
R
Canada has signed an agreement with Germany to provide hydrogen using turbines. In Newfoundland Canada, Everwind is planning on building 100s of turbines to process the hydrogen. Presently, there is a lot of backlash from residents where the turbines are to be built.
With hydrogen leakage or cooling running at 1% or 1.5% a day, there will not be much left, by the time the ship reaches Germany….
R
Seems to be a pointless endeavor, then 😦
Ralf,
coal power plants cannot be switched off and on at the whim of the wind, they need to be kept at operating temperature. The time lapse between shut down and cooling off and start up warming is measured in days. If there is a chance they may be required then they must just tick over which is wasteful of fuel and personnel, i.e. added cost.
The same applies to closed cycle gas turbines as they have steam turbines as well which need the go through the shut down warm up cycle if they are shut down.
“coal power plants cannot be switched off and on at the whim of the wind … The time lapse between shut down and cooling off and start up warming is measured in days.”
I can confirm the above statements are complete nonsense.
The industry refers to “two shifting” for generating plant which comes on for peaks in the day, and switches off between the peaks. Coal fired generators and CCGT generators have a long history of two-shifting operation. It’s nothing new or unusual.
It is true to say there are additional costs and maintenance for two-shifting operation (compared to inflexible base load operation). But two-shifting is a consequence of demand patterns which don’t conveniently give generating plant a peaceful existence. Covering these costs is just a question of power pricing to incentivise and reward beneficial modes of operation. So guess what the power price does.
‘The industry refers to “two shifting” for generating plant which comes on for peaks in the day, and switches off between the peaks.’
You can’t switch a coal-fired boiler off. If it is being used intermittently, you keep the fire on to keep the steam up. If you aren’t drawing steam off to run a generator, it will take less fuel to keep it up.
Gamecock: “You can’t switch a coal-fired boiler off. If it is being used intermittently, you keep the fire on to keep the steam up.”
Incorrect.
(Jordan).
If you leave a coal plant steamed up, you are simply wasting fuel.
Greeneys will say renewables are cheaper. Well if you stop fossil fuel plants from running every other hour, what do you expect? How much would a car cost, if by government decree the car-plant had to randomly close down for 12 hours every day?
Greeneys will say that fossil fuel plants put out loads of CO2. Well what do you expect if you keep a coal plant idling for hours or days on end, not producing any power. Greeney policies are designed to INCREASE CO2 emissions. (See also the Drax plant.)
R
ralfellis
When we were running coal plants the UK, we didn’t keep them “steamed up” and wasting fuel (if I correctly understand what you are trying to say).
Could you please have a look at my comment below to somebody else, click on the Elexon BM Reports link and follow the instructions, and see what the units at Ratcliffe power station are doing right now.
Ratcliffe on Soar is an ancient coal fired power station, managing with really old plant. And yet it can STILL provide the response you can see right now on the BM Reports website.
In just a few short weeks, these flexibility services will be finally snuffed out in the UK, and we are supposed to replace it using nuclear generators and Power CCUS plant – let’s just see how that works out.
Regarding the cost of flexible operation, it is well established that electricity supply follows a rising marginal cost curve. The most flexible units are higher marginal cost units, and the cleared price fluctuates with higher prices in periods of higher demand when these extra costs are passed into the clearing price (cos if the price doesn’t cover the costs, we don’t get the supply).
This pattern is as old as the days of the CEGB merit order and their Bulk Supply Tariff. So there is nothing new here and it goes back decades.
A final comment to try to drive a final nail into this coffin. If a coal fired boiler was operating when the turbine is stationary, it would be producing large quantities of steam only to be dumped to atmosphere. UK coal fired power stations never sat for long periods (many hours or even days) with steam pissing out of the boiler relief valves.
It does the site no good whatsoever to let these mistakes go unanswered.
Jordan,
boilers need to be cooled slowly and turbines need to be turning while cooling, similarly from cold boilers are warmed slowly as are turbines. The figures you quote are clearly not allowing the plant to cool and are kept in a state enabling them to go online within hours.
Yes, it is wasteful of fuel and plant utilisation but that is a necessary evil with our currenr power policy.
You have a point about ramping and cycling large steam plant Iain. But you are way off when it comes to quantification.
Hot plant can cycle daily and have been doing so for decades. The claims that it takes days is incorrect.
And so are the claims that fuel continues to be consumed when the turbine is not producing.
The issues that have been raised about cycling raising costs are also true, but the commercial question is pricing of a cycling plant in a market (covering cost and risk) and nothing more than that. It’s why cleared prices vary.
Did you look at the reference to BM Reports I provided below. It’s genuine market data for you to see what I am saying, coming from one of the last coal fired units in GB.
I have provided real examples to back up what I am saying. Some folks here think that makes me a Dick. Sad people indeed.
A fleet of hydrogen-powered plants, without a prototype first? How un-German.
Maybe they are back to the good old days when a guy at the very top got what they wanted because it looked awesome even if it actually wasn’t really going to do the job required?
Well the Germans did attempt to use wind to make hydrogen in the 1930s so prototypes probably exist.
https://www.encounterbooks.com/features/nazis-embraced-environmentalism/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nazis-started-forced-renewable-energy-transition-expert-says-4795271
http://en.friends-against-wind.org/realities/how-renewables-and-the-global-warming-industry-are-literally-hitler
As usual with the AGW believers it’s shoot -> ready -> aim.
Existing power plants can’t run on “pure” hydrogen because the “burners would simply melt”, he explained.
I had assumed this was true RE: UK plan to stuff caves with hydrogen, that you’ve got to also create facilities that can actually use hydrogen to generate electricity.
It’s all part of the “Let them eat cake” mentality of the climate maniacs. Addressing the problems with their dream with solutions that are vaguely technically feasible, but can withstand no scrutiny. Usually, they are simply not scalable.
Renewables are intermittent. Storage!
Transport without fossil fuels. EVs!
Home heating without gas. Heat pumps!
Steel without carbon. Electric-arc furnace!
“Transport without fossil fuels.”
They now have the phrase, “active transport”. It means walking and cycling!
Storm Inateacup was yet another sign of winter.
Reading through some of the government proposals for CFDs to support hydrogen manufacture and use and CCS one thing is glaringly absent: how the payments are to be funded gains not a single mention. Contrast with CFDs and Capacity Mechanism payments for electricity generation for which the mechanism for charging consumers is quite clear, and established at the outset.
“At least 15 gigawatts (GW) of new secure generation capacity will be needed in Germany by 2030,” the association added.
At least some sign of reality, I don’t hear the same in the U.K..
They talk about storage as being the answer which is an impossible dream in my view?
Iain just a point to note from a previous comment you made. CCGT stands for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine. A Closed Cycle system is a completely different concept and should not be confused.
Thanks Ray, my mistake, i’m not sure wher the closed came from?
At the risk of being stupid. There is plenty of hydrogen but it is all in the form of hydrogen compounds. Elemental hydrogen can only be obtained by use of large amounts of energy, I fail to see how the output can exceed the input and conclude that hydrogen on other small scale cannot be viable. It is 70 years since I studied physics – what am I missing?
David,
I don’t think you have missed anything, it is the advocates for hydrogen from wind genertaion that are missing realism and economics.
“Germany will have to continue to rely on gas fired power plants…..” . Not so. There is always the Ireland Alternative Fuel Obligation to provide the facilities for CCGTs to run on distillate fuels.
Vernon – dual fuelling is not a good choice for CCGT generators. We’ve been here before
Sure, Ireland has an Alternative Fuel Obligation, imposing dual fuel capability by regulation. The UK has no comparable regulation and CCGT investors do not choose dual fuel capability. The comparison should be a hint at whether investors and owners in CCGT plant agree with you.
Bear in mind how private investors are in the business primarily to make money. If you want to impose additional costs and risks, they will need a way to be compensated. What is your preferred method of rewarding CCGT owners to get what you want. If you put enough money on the table, and a way to guarantee it, maybe you can win them over.
Jordan: Of course, I don’t agree with you. Gas turbines are totally flexible about the fuel used (except crude oil because of the danger of vanadium) and I found some excellent articles about successful conversions on line. Light diesel seems to be preferred but, of, course, the optimum would be kerosene which is what they were developed on for aviation use. There are consisiderations of capital investment (delivery, storage etc) and location but these are surmountable when push comes to shove.
Vernon. Gas turbines can be designed for dual fuelling, but you don’t understand the economics and consequences.
There are many CCGTs in the UK, and they all have very similar marginal costs. It is a very “shallow” supply curve among these, where a couple of £/MWh rise in marginal cost can put an individual unit well down in terms of profitable running.
A gas turbine degrades immediately and very quickly due to distillate firing. It raises the marginal cost and blows the economics out the water.
Plus it requires additional outages to clean the combustion system after firing, and it results in additional hot gas path repair costs. Plant managers spend a lot of time planning their operation and resources for maintenance periods, and a period of firing on fuel oil can throw the lot up in the air, as maintenance intervals are brought forward.
Vernon – you don’t understand any of this. The power industry does. It is better to stop arguing when there is so much evidence at your fingertips from the UK experience, as I have explained to you above.
Joprdan,
I suspect that we are talking about two different things. Perhaps my choice of switching is less than ideal, although I thought it was clear when I said ticking over.
What I should have said was shut down, any thermal plant of significant size needs a cooling down time and a corresponding warming up time. Steam turbines cannot be stopped and started like a gas turbine. If you intend to stop or start a steam turbine it must be done with the turbine rotating as steam is slowly introduced to warm it up or corresponnding kept turning during the cooling period when it is intended to be stopped. I’m not talking hours but days from stop to start.
I have seen it often enough to know that is the way it’s done.
I really don’t think Jordan has genuine practical knowledge of what he regularly claims great authority. Two shifting is not “switching off” nor is it particularly desirable as it greatly increases “wear and tear” and reduces efficiency.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/shift-operation#:~:text=Two%20shifting%20is%20in%20an,roughly%2014%20hours%20in%20practice).
Ian – maybe we were at cross purposes. When you claimed a large coal unit cannot be cycled flexibly, I called it nonsense. The site doesn’t need misinformation.
Large generating unit operating status can be cold, hot or warm (coal and CCGT units) and you are correct that this is related to the steam cycle. Large generating units cycle in a hot state, and “two shifting” involves daily stops and starts – see below
Ray – I’m not gonna compare dick sizes with you. I’ll share some things I know and hope others will find useful. But after that, it’s up to you.
Two shifting does increase costs and risks, and the academic article you cited will see that as a problem. The commercial world sees it as a pricing issue, so this means cycling plant have higher offered prices, and the clearing price varies over the day. Hope that’s clear enough for you.
Ratcliffe 1 coal unit is offering the following dynamic data at the time of writing: Minimum Non Zero Time 480 minutes, and Notice To Deviate From Zero 84 minutes. It can desynch and synch in 8 hours, and I hope we can all agree this is a lot shorter than “measured in days”.
Even better, you can see it for yourself at the following link and if you follow the instructions
Search by BM Unit | BMRS (bmreports.com)
Select 29-Jan-2024 as the Settlement Day
Select T_RATS-2 as the BM Unit ID
Click on the “Physical” button and wait a few seconds for the chart to apper.
You’ll see coal-fired Ratcliffe Unit 2 performing a 2-shift just yesterday.
It’s worth selecting other days in January and other Ratcliffe Units (T_RATS-1 and T_RATS-3). See how flexible our last remaining coal units have been over January.
We’re going to miss them. But not to worry, we might have some huge lumbering EPRs in a couple of decades.
Sounds like Jordan is a Dick.
R
Very good ralf. There is a place for you. Somewhere.
Did you look at the factual evidence of RATS-2 carrying out two shifting operations through the link I provided to back up what I am saying? Or are you more interested in a future as a stand up comedian?