No Green Beyond the Ink
No Green Beyond the Ink
Based on a LinkedIn Article Published March 23, 2023
In my readings of articles and opinions there is a lot of climate despair. Everybody wants action now but not many want to take the time to understand the mechanics of the problem as seen from a wide range of perspectives.
It is virtually impossible to stimulate a public conversation about some issues. In private (via LinkedIn) I get support for my views but those people don't want to do that publicly. I understand it. Being on the wrong side of the conversation by accident can be a risk worse than climate change.
But not to me.
This open letter was sent to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson in 2021, ahead of COP 26 in Glasgow. This correspondence was the combined effort of a group of people who have all since disclosed themselves (by actions rather than admission) as being fundamentally anti-hydrogen.
Some people think these arguments are valid, so I decided to take the time to reproduce the letter in its entirety, with my comments interjected between paragraphs.
Dear Prime Minister Boris Johnson
Cc:
The Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP
The Rt Hon Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP
15 September, 2021
Re: A green hydrogen industry is vital – but only for things we can’t electrify
As independent and international experts in our respective fields, we are writing to share our thoughts on your government’s hydrogen strategy published on Tuesday 17th August.
Open Letter to Boris Johnson, David Cebon et al.
Before sweeping past the salutations and getting into the technical aspects, I want to take the opportunity to say that, ‘independent’ is not the same as ‘objective’. This is worth remembering when it is offered as a credential.
What they are saying is that they have no vested interests, the subtext is (it seems to me), that because they are such heavyweights, they are obliged to point out they are not hired guns. I am happy to assume nobody would pay them to write this, besides, self-interest need not be financial.
So the letter begins, like a benevolent pastoral blessing and, through an odd combination of flattery, condescension and misdirection, sets out to undermine hydrogen.
It’s worth restating our full support for the UK’s world-leading net-zero legislation and your presidency of the upcoming COP26 summit. It is abundantly clear this government understands that, done well, decarbonisation can create jobs, future proof British industries, improve air quality and cut consumer bills.
Ibid.
Let's set aside why the government's understanding of anything was not 'abundantly clear' to me in 2021 and move on, suffice to say that Boris Johnson and Kwasi Kwarteng, have since justified by misgivings.
The International Energy Agency has shown that to reach the global goal of net-zero emissions the priority needs to be shifting away from fossil fuels towards efficient electricity-based heating and transport systems, while stimulating the use of green hydrogen for hard to electrify sectors such as steel, chemicals and possibly shipping.
Ibid.
Using green hydrogen for high temperature industries cannot be a good initial use of renewable power. To scale renewables it is necessary to put as much to the grid as possible to ensure maximum ROI. I have long since come to the conclusion that ideally, renewables should not be tied into PPAs for baseload while capacity is being scaled up, because it draws electricity away from sales to the grid. To me that does not make much sense until there is sufficient capacity to consistently generate excess electricity at peak demand; that is where the journey to Utility Scale Storage (USS) and green hydrogen begins.
This is why for at least the last three years, the annual 'energy outlooks' from the main energy operator companies, have nearly all said that blue hydrogen will dominate until at least 2040 with green hydrogen coming into its own around that time. This is never addressed by those who oppose hydrogen because it is either inconvenient or are they not familiar with industry literature.
Even if we concede we must roll-out green hydrogen production to scale the technology, why would you use it for high temperature industries before renewables are able to buffer their own electrical output? Non-dispatchability is like a dirty secret that is covered up by using natural gas or coal with all its carbon intact. Are we not meant to talk about this?
However, we are concerned that the UK government is considering widespread use of hydrogen in home heating, despite the availability of electric heat pumps that are more efficient and can already deploy at scale today, supporting thousands of jobs.
Ibid.
Wherein lies this concern about hydrogen? I like heat pumps and we have one at home, but that does not mean I want to deny other people alternatives and besides, creating the demand for hydrogen is key to scaling the supply for other possible applications. The transition must be demand-led, so more choice will cover more preferences and also, encourage competitive pricing.
Because truly zero emission hydrogen is essential, but it does not yet exist at scale, we cannot expect hydrogen to have an impact on emissions or jobs within the next decade. Developing a hydrogen economy is a long and uncertain path forward, yet climate science shows us we need to act today to reach our net-zero goals.
Ibid.
So let's act. What might we decarbonise? My preference would be to start on the hydrocarbons that give us 80% of the energy and 75% of the emissions? I mean the clue really is in the name ‘hydrocarbons’.
I am familiar with the talking points so let me try to anticipate some of them and offer some responses. Perhaps you can use them too.
‘That is just playing into big oil’s agenda by keeping us dependent on fossil fuels’
We are already dependent on them. To transition we need to keep as much of the energy as possible whilst removing the carbon. Hydrogen gives a transitional route out to a green version of itself - which incidentally is identical.
‘Because of the energy losses we will have to produce even more fossil fuels’
Does that matter if it is decarbonised? Remember it is a means to enter the feedstock transition.
‘The energy losses will make it more costly’
Is it your concern that it will be too expensive for energy companies to make ends meet?
Please stay with me and don't click on it yet, but the typical demand-side economic arguments are dispelled here:
Besides, all hydrocarbon products are processed and many of those processes are energy intensive. None of us have ever filled up a vehicle with crude. The fractional distillation has an energy cost but it seems that energy companies have a good handle on how to make processing work commercially.
What about all the single use plastics whose impact on the environment is getting out of control? Do we need to be worrying about the energy cost of decarbonising hydrocarbons when hydrocarbon products are routinely launched into the oceans as waste? Incidentally those may also be made into clean energy feedstock via gasification.
At a time when countries around the world are developing their hydrogen strategies, and ahead of COP26, the world’s eyes are on the UK to lead by example.
Ibid.
So while they acknowledge that other countries have hydrogen strategies, the bizarre recommendation is that the UK could ‘lead by example’, by not having a workable one.
Our central recommendations at this critical time are to:
Scale up green hydrogen production for use in steel, chemicals, possibly shipping, and where grey hydrogen is currently being used such as for fertiliser production;
Ibid.
Recommendations central to what aim? This makes no sense to me unless you want green hydrogen to commit suicide. Why would you divert green hydrogen to displacing grey hydrogen instead of decarbonising the latter to blue?
The absurdity of this becomes apparent as you read on.
Prioritise the deployment of more efficient electric technologies for home heating and lorries, just as you are successfully doing with electric vehicles in passenger transport;
Ibid.
What successful initiative were they giving the government the credit for in 2021? The City of London, Manchester and others all had schemes but they were not really part of any coherent central government strategy.
Take a cautious approach to blue hydrogen, avoiding lock-in to unsustainable fossil fuel infrastructure that could push net-zero out of reach
Ibid.
Any system or anything that delivers any kind of engineering function or service has to be inspected, maintained, repaired and sometimes, components must be replaced. Why would fossil fuel infrastructure be more unsustainable than others? Why would repurposing infrastructure for hydrogen 'push net-zero out of reach'?
I understand all the words they use but they are not in an order that makes sense to me.
Please see below in Annex A for a justification for each of these recommendations.
In conclusion, a successful climate action plan is no longer just about the rapid build out of wind turbines and the phasing out of coal plants (essential as they are). It is also about deploying all the solutions we have within the right sectors, ensuring that we tap into all expertise available to guide these decisions. A well thought-through strategy on hydrogen is a key part of that plan.
Ibid.
What plan? What solutions? What sectors? What expertise do they have in mind for decision-making guidance? Theirs presumably. Of course they don't particularly want to talk about phasing out coal plants because they are taking up the slack when all the rapidly built renewable generation is standing idle. To mention that would be to make hydrogen look interesting again so that is avoided by not speaking about it. Something I wrote somewhere else becomes relevant.
Further back in time, natural gas displaced coal globally and it was seemingly decisive, but interestingly, when natural gas is in short supply, it is coal that reemerges to plug the gap. Renewables have been unable to respond quickly enough and for that reason the demand for natural gas has not been significantly dented by renewables.
S2. E3/4: False Equivalences, LinkedIn, Michael Vigne
So the strategy on offer is reducible to not using hydrogen at all, except for some green hydrogen shackled to the task of trying to displace grey hydrogen, in high temperature applications. Why would they do that rather than storing energy for electrical generation?
It may be surprising to read, but renewables are not currently displacing existing fossil-based electrical generation, but this does need some clarification. Renewable generation is in the energy mix and increasing in capacity, but the contribution it is making is towards growing energy demand, i.e. not the displacement of existing demand. This is a difference to be understood because it explains why we are not decarbonising anything quickly enough.
Herein lies a problem that I alluded to at the beginning. Some people won’t look at blue products and carbon capture because they don't want to be seen as collaborators with 'big oil'. Well here is the reality; we can’t execute the energy transition without transitioning the energy industry and its access to the supply chain, engineering and investment.
To truly be world-leading on hydrogen as your strategy aims for, the UK needs to give clear market signals on the right type of hydrogen to pursue, and where it should and shouldn’t be used.
Open Letter to Boris Johnson, David Cebon et al.
I was incredulous reading this and could feel the expression of disbelief rushing to the unoccupied areas of my face. What are the government strategic aims spoken about here? Energy policy needs to be aligned internationally and not skewed by the aims of an anti-hydrogen lobbying group, whose strategy is to torpedo hydrogen, and not in a way that can be generously described as accidental friendly fire.
This should start with prioritising heat pumps and energy efficiency in the forthcoming Heat and Buildings Strategy, and securing investment in green hydrogen for steel, chemicals, and possibly shipping.
Yours sincerely,
David Cebon, Tom Baxter, David Toke, Paul Martin, Bernard van Dijk, Neil Hewitt, Jochen Bard.
Ibid.
So the objective here is to exclude hydrogen from domestic heating amongst other things. Note that none of the arguments about safety concerns were raised in this 2021 letter. That only came later when an opportunity to weaponize fear against a community that were confused by the prospect of a domestic hydrogen pilot.
Which brings us to:
Annex A
We believe the key elements of the UK’s hydrogen approach which need to be reassessed are:
Prioritising electrification, energy efficiency and a focus on green hydrogen for heavy industries such as steel will bring jobs to the UK.
Ibid.
How? Bring jobs to the UK from where? I am in favour of green steel but blue would be far more competitive until green hydrogen capacity is scaled.
The UK has abundant renewable energy resources thanks to its investment in offshore wind, putting it in a good position to lead the development of green hydrogen.
Ibid.
That might be true if there was a lot of excess renewable electricity but that is not the case yet. If and when that changes in the future, that would be the time to scale green hydrogen, because it would be in demand to buffer intermittency.
Vast new industries can be built around the manufacture and installation of heat pumps, electric cars, lorries and buses and vehicle charging infrastructure. Electrifying the economy will create efficiencies and significant productivity benefits.
Ibid.
Despite the list of electrification opportunities, the subtext is really that UK-wide manufacturing rejuvenation can only happen if hydrogen is excluded from the mix. Can somebody please make this make sense?
So what industry might emerge phoenix-like to take on China for example?
Can it compete on EV batteries which amounts to about 1 tonne of the vehicle?
Can it mine the materials or process them?
Can it build wind turbines or solar panels?
Is there any sign any of that is happening?
The default position is to get China to produce all of the above by using coal power. That is what is happening instead at the moment.
Of course it is possible to import green electricity from say Morocco. This makes sense because Morocco and its two partners, Saudi Arabia and China are non-annex I. This means they have no legally binding emissions reduction targets. It is a win-win because instead of using their solar power to help their population they can sell it and develop their offshore natural gas resources. I don't begrudge Morocco their opportunity but that is not decarbonisation for the UK by any stretch and we are deluding ourselves to believe it.
Equally, last month the world saw the first production of fossil free steel in Sweden, made from hydrogen and fossil free electricity.
Ibid.
I think this is great but remember this was, and still is, in pilot stage and not in full production. As I understand it, that facility will not be migrated to full production and the programme will come to an end in 2026. Remember as I continue that this was argued by people who thought blue hydrogen was technically unqualified with unacceptable technical risk.
The UK is well positioned to create thousands of jobs in developing a more competitive and sustainable steel sector, and should not delay in prioritising scaling this up as soon as possible.
Ibid.
How do they propose that the UK scales up unqualified steel making technology that it doesn't even own? This is the equivalent of setting something up to fail or giving an unachievable task to someone you don’t like.
The UK needs to replace ‘grey’ hydrogen with ‘green’ hydrogen before considering other end use sectors or blending.
Ibid.
That is completely backwards. To insert it into the energy transport mix it is necessary to put it where it can compete so it can get a foothold in the market.
Grey hydrogen has been produced from natural gas for decades, but unlike blue hydrogen, the CO₂ emissions aren’t captured. The grey hydrogen currently used for chemical feedstocks globally accounts for about 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – not dissimilar to the amount generated by aviation.
Ibid.
Then why not make that the case for capturing the carbon from grey hydrogen to create blue? Even better derive it directly from the natural gas. Remember that the hydrogen is not grey because it came from natural gas; it’s grey because the CO₂ has not been captured.
The UK alone produces around 700,000 tonnes of grey hydrogen a year used to make fertiliser and to remove sulphur from oil. For every kilogram of grey hydrogen produced the resulting CO₂ emissions are around nine kilograms, meaning grey hydrogen produces around six million tonnes of CO₂ annually in the UK.
Ibid.
Decarbonise natural gas via ATR or SMR with CCS would be a rational objective when considering what was proposed in the letter. 700,000 tonnes of green hydrogen would require 57.5 TWh of electricity at an efficiency of 75% which is generous. In 2021 this was approaching double the UK total wind energy at 30.3 TWh, or nearly five times the solar generation at 12.138 TWh. Total renewable electricity generated in the UK in 2021 was 125.5 TWh so this proposal would allocate 45.8% of all renewable electricity to displacing grey hydrogen.
Remember when I said producing green hydrogen would harm renewable scalability? This is what I was talking about. Should we suppose that the markets and investors are going to take the hit on this? How would fertiliser costs impact food prices as policy deliberately forces hydrogen into an unplayable position? In the meantime an even larger proportion of electricity would come from fossil fuels.
The case is sometimes made that we need to inject hydrogen into the domestic gas grid to stimulate demand, but this is false:
Ibid.
To deny hydrogen its access to the demand-side, in sectors where it could thrive, is an attempt to kill it off.
there is already ample opportunity to deploy green hydrogen into facilities currently using grey hydrogen.
Ibid.
Certainly, if you over-commit renewable generating capacity, which is what is proposed here and in addition, you are willing to ditch any semblance of economic governance, which is what this also requires.
Before considering markets that have existing electrification alternatives, or blending hydrogen into the natural gas grid, grey hydrogen needs to be urgently replaced with zero-emission green hydrogen made from wind and solar energy.
Ibid.
Since by this masterplan, a large proportion of renewable electricity would be diverted to the production of green hydrogen, the buffering of the electricity would have to be performed by hydrocarbons - ipso facto, the hydrogen production is no longer green. Sorry for the repetition but this comes up again later. Lest we forget, the objective should be, to remove carbon from the energy mix.
Hydrogen use in buildings and for road transport is not efficient and does not make economic sense.
Ibid.
That would mostly apply to green hydrogen which isn’t a displacer of carbon because the electricity used to produce it must be already green. This is where blue hydrogen can help. After all, if renewables are not denting hydrocarbon demand, how would green hydrogen do it? However there is still a case for green hydrogen as a carbon displacer long-term and I make it here:
Hydrogen is a not an efficient energy source, which is a fundamental flaw when comparing it with other electrification alternatives.
Ibid.
Interestingly, since then, one of the authors was recently complaining about the inability to scale heat pumps cost effectively.
I responded to that here in the wider context of the tendency for denial.
Heating buildings with boilers using green hydrogen takes about six times more electricity than using electric heat pumps. That means six times the number of wind turbines or solar panels and a significantly higher cost for consumers.
Ibid.
This may be the case is the dice is loaded by insisting upon green hydrogen as being the only colour to be considered. If it is to be a displacer for natural gas then decarbonise the natural gas. Natural gas is something we need to decarbonise in order to provide it with a transitional exit. Otherwise we will end up with lots and renewables alongside all the hydrocarbons they failed to displace. It is necessary to deal with the carbon content of feedstock.
Similarly, it takes about 2.6 times more electricity to power a hydrogen fuel cell bus compared to the electricity used for an electric version of the same vehicle, and 3.3 times more electricity to power a hydrogen fuel cell lorry than one running on an Electric Road System.
Ibid.
A hydrogen fuel cell bus is real. An electric road system is a fantastic idea and I say that without any sarcasm. Yet it is not qualified so the claims are not validated and besides, there would be considerable energy requirements to build the infrastructure. My point is not that it is a poor scheme, quite the opposite, but it is wrong to compare qualified technology with immature technology.
Focusing on the wrong sectors of demand, heating and transport, would be an expensive mistake that can be avoided with other cheaper alternatives.
Ibid.
But they are happy send green hydrogen into battle with grey hydrogen, which it can't possibly compete with, using it as cannon fodder to soak up the viability of all hydrogen.
The UK must assess whether the lifecycle emissions of blue hydrogen is aligned with climate science – but not at the expense of delaying electrification.
Ibid.
Here is an important difference of emphasis. I am talking about decarbonisation but the authors of this letter are only interested in electrification. What about the lifecycle emissions of electrification? What about the mining energy costs? What about the vast environmental damage resulting from huge open cast mines in South America? What about all the resources that are currently coveted that lay beneath precious ecosystems. How do they align that with the warnings that the climate science is giving us?
The only truly zero emission hydrogen is that made by renewable energy, called green hydrogen.
Ibid.
Not true, if you gasify landfill waste that would normally undergo methanogenesis and give up emissions, you can produce hydrogen that is net-negative. Green hydrogen is only zero emissions to the extent that the electricity used is already green. As I will show later, the consequence of this proposed approach, is that it may not be.
However, by choosing to support blue hydrogen made from natural gas and CCS, the UK must have stringent measures to assess the greenhouse gas emissions from the blue hydrogen manufacturing process and supply chain.
Ibid.
Yes. Of course. I would argue that we need to do the same for the provenance of renewable hardware. This point comes up again.
Recent research from the US has highlighted the lack of understanding of the climate impacts of blue hydrogen, suggesting that these emissions can be as bad or even worse than simply burning natural gas.
Ibid.
Yes I read that article: 'Blue Hydrogen May be Worse than Coal or Gas'
And also the paper it refers to: How green is blue hydrogen?
Authored by Robert Howarth, the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, together with Mark Z. Jacobson, Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering.
Let me give you a little excerpt from the article:
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, Howarth said. It is more than 100 times stronger as an atmospheric warming agent than carbon dioxide when first emitted. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released on August 9 shows that cumulatively to date over the past century, methane has contributed about two-thirds as much to global warming as carbon dioxide has, he said.
Touted as clean, ‘blue’ hydrogen may be worse than gas or coal, Cornell Chronical, Blaine Friedlander
The second line from the quoted passage, accurately paraphrases the report, but the substance of that line is incorrect. CH4 has a GWP of 34 according to the IPCC. Not for the first time has this claimed and I have been looking into the source of that for a couple of weeks on and off.
In the paper the insinuation that blue hydrogen could be worse is based on the assumption that if you are using natural gas as a feedstock there will be fugitive methane from fuel going into the SMR process. Well why not do that with hydrogen too? Would that be worse than natural gas, or an even bigger stretch, coal? If we don't decarbonise and create demand for blue hydrogen those fuels will be demanded in their familiar forms.
While further assessments are needed for blue hydrogen, we caution that this should be done in conjunction with deploying existing electrification solutions in sectors that can be electrified.
Open Letter to Boris Johnson, David Cebon et al.
So, please follow this if you can, because I am aware this is getting convoluted. Accordingly, we need further assessments for proven technology but, apparently it is unnecessary in the case of Swedish pilots for green steel and electric roads. Pilots which the authors of this letter apparently wanted to scale without knowing if they would eventually be qualified. It looks very much like someone had gotten hold of a Swedish engineering periodical that week and that inspired them to write to heads of government.
Assessing the lifecycle emissions of blue hydrogen is a complex issue that will involve auditing and possibly certifying hydrogen production plants, CCS facilities and most of the natural gas supply chain.
Ibid.
Yes and as previously stated in response to a similar point, we need to do the same to determine the environmental provenance of all technology, unless we are content to gaslight ourselves. It just so happens that the limitation of the authors' concern stops with hydrogen.
Green hydrogen isn’t a displacer of carbon because the electricity was already green (conventionally at least) so this is where blue hydrogen can help. After all, if renewables are not denting hydrocarbon demand, how can it possibly displace current and future demand?
This could take many years, when electric solutions like heat pumps and EVs are ready to deploy today.
Ibid.
But again how would those displace natural gas generation? Here we end up in a familiar loop so brace yourselves. How would the non-dispatchability of renewables be managed when 40% of renewable generating power is to be assigned to displacing grey hydrogen? What would happen to the natural gas has been displaced from producing grey hydrogen? If it were to be used to buffer renewable power, any hydrogen made from it would no longer be green.
Some of these authors are now part of the Hydrogen Science Coalition (HSC) who, inter alia, have actively campaigned against domestic hydrogen pilot schemes. Reading the residents' online petition against the pilot and the news coverage, some residents seem to think the HSC are campaigning for them to keep their natural gas. I have said on a few occasions, that in the future the alternative to hydrogen gas will be no gas, but this is not something that HSC followers want to discuss - amongst a list of other awkward topics.
The thing they are clear about is that they want no blue hydrogen, you know, the kind that could really make the biggest difference.