Whitby Hydrogen Village and the Weaponisation of Fear
Previously published on LinkedIn, December 13, 2022 (minor edit)
The article reproduced below (with minor edits) was previously published on LinkedIn. It was in response to an organised campaign to disrupt the domestic hydrogen pilot schemes in the UK. That the residents had concerns about replacing natural gas with hydrogen was understandable, but these fears were exploited by external antagonists, passing themselves off as independent experts.
I return to the theme of domestic hydrogen in other articles and article-series, from various angles; examining the misrepresentation of published reports, contentious independent studies and misinformation orchestrated by certain publications.
This has far broader implications on the energy-transition than just hydrogen because it concerns the mobilisation of self-interest.
The energy transition is really a collection of many transitions, including those of technology, feedstocks and direct electrification. To be successful a toolbox of options is needed.
Consequently, my deep dives into anti-hydrogen rhetoric and misinformation, are characteristic of a much bigger trend. My approach is to deconstruct what is claimed and allow you to make your own mind up. Article follows.
The concerns of residents in the catchment of the domestic hydrogen pilots in Redcar, Fife and Whitby, are entirely understandable, as are the many questions about safety, efficiency and running costs. I will focus on Whitby but only as an exemplar of future residential gas transitions. Safety, efficiency and cost will be covered in other articles and when published. For now I want to discuss the context of these proposals and the counter-narrative that is exacerbating fears.Â
The Climate Context
The majority of domestic heat is either derived from electricity or fossil fuels, the latter of which, usually emits carbon at the point of use. The use of domestic natural gas is therefore incompatible with the elimination of emissions and this cannot be fixed unless gas providers are able to transition their businesses to cleaner technologies and feedstocks. That might include district heating with carbon capture but more likely it will be hydrogen with the alternative being heat pumps.
Some of the Whitby residents have started a petition on change.org to halt the 'Hydrogen Village' initiative. Early in the petition there is the following statement:
We do not have a freedom of choice to opt in or out of the proposal in its entirety. Our choices are, a) move to blue hydrogen OR b) move to an alternative method (heat pump or electric)
In both scenarios, we will be cut off from the natural gas supply.
Residents against Whitby Village Hydrogen Proposal
This is inevitable for anyone who agrees that moving away from combusting hydrocarbons in the home is necessary. Of course, not everybody does and these initiatives are bellwethers for two things, that will become increasingly common.
Many incremental transitions in industry and communities
Organised resistance to some of those transitions
It is therefore essential that concerns and objections are properly ventilated, questions are answered and information provided. The problem is the information is often lost in the noise.
Conflicted Aims
The residents who are opposed to these pilots have unwittingly made some dubious bedfellows of those with an entirely different agendas. It would be wrong to assume that the anti-hydrogen lobby are interested in preserving Whitby's access to natural gas in the future, consequently, any convenient argument that this is about the right to choose, is entirely bogus.
When these activists gatecrash public meetings or spam webinars, moderators should take the opportunity to ask them if their alternative to natural gas is indeed, no gas. Let me illustrate this point by replicating the comment of one of the petition signatories.
The aim of the trial is to forcefully lock-in a fossil fuel dependent infrastructure when there is a much lower carbon, cheaper (running cost in the long-term) and more energy efficient alternative - heat-pumps. I don't live in Whitby Village but this must be nipped in the bud before it's forced on more of us. And of course the whole world will suffer from the lock-in of fossil infrastructure.
Dr Henry Adams, Kendal, ENG, United KingdomÂ
This is not advocating choice, but by employing 'forcefully' in an entirely different context, he has cleverly, or perhaps unconsciously, tapped into the petitioners' sentiment that they are being made into unwilling test subjects. More importantly, he is certainly opposed to their aspirations to preserve their access to natural gas and by stating his preference for heat pumps, trespasses upon another objection set out in the petition. Effectively he is signing for zero choice.
Without actually agreeing myself, it is a reasonable position to suggest that all home heating should be electrified, provided it is also admitted that the intention is to eliminate any type of domestic gas. This is not what is happening because residents are being scared out of recognising the reality of the hydrogen transition and encouraged to think instead, that they can use natural gas indefinitely by stopping this pilot.
Choice over Dogma
Given the necessity for displacing certain energy fluids with alternatives, we cannot allow the conversation to be dominated by those who would weaponise fear to deny people the options. Behind the kindly and reassuring face of academic activism, there can often be a nasty conceit, where it is thought acceptable to manipulate people 'for their own good'. In this case, it makes it possible for them to pretend they are campaigning for residents' right to choose, when fully realising that rejection of hydrogen will ultimately mean their only choice will be electrical heating.
One of the concerns that recurs in the comment section of the petition is that residents will be forced to accept hydrogen. This is false. It is more accurate to say that hydrogen will be the alternative to no gas, viz.
Under current plans, homes and businesses will be given a choice between replacing their existing natural gas appliances with either hydrogen-capable appliances or using an alternative energy supply such as electricity.
FAQ hydrogenvillage.com
However such fears about forced conversions are being amplified, for instance, in a story by the online publication Hydrogen Insight, the implication is that a new law is being pushed through to force individuals to have hydrogen installed.
The Energy Security Bill, which is currently in the early stages of passage through the UK Parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, would extend existing powers of entry to allow gas companies to “ensure that consumers in the trial area can be safely connected to hydrogen instead of natural gas.
Hydrogen Insight, 'UK bill will allow gas companies to force entry into people's homes for hydrogen heating trials'
The emphasis here should be placed on safety. The supply of hydrogen will necessarily displace the availability of natural gas; there is no scenario where natural gas and hydrogen can be supplied side by side in a neighbourhood. From the same article we get:
Residents in the Whitby proposal fear that British Gas, the utility which is working with Cadent to carry out gas safety checks ahead of the trial, will ultimately use the new powers to forcibly cut off the gas supply for residents who are opting out of using hydrogen.
Hydrogen Insight, 'UK bill will allow gas companies to force entry into people's homes for hydrogen heating trials'
The displacement of natural gas means it will be unavailable, so as the changeover is rolled out, legacy appliances and metering must be replaced with hydrogen-ready equivalents. Non-participating households will have to be physically disconnected, from what then be, the hydrogen infrastructure.
The management of connection-safety is the responsibility of the asset owners but the gas infrastructure and meters are not owned by householders. Consequently, where the meter is sited within the property, it is reasonable that access be granted to those responsible for making redundant installations safe.
It is of course the prerogative of householders not have hydrogen in their home, but it would not be in keeping with net-zero objectives to compel suppliers to provide natural gas, nor logical to do so while simultaneously obliging them to pursue the energy transition.
The option to demand natural gas cannot possibly survive the supply-side transition, or put another way and risk the repetition, there can be no right to natural gas if it is not available. On the other hand It should be remembered that a similar transition happened in the past, because before natural gas, there was coal gas.
However, natural gas, which is predominantly methane, has very different burning properties from manufactured gas (mainly hydrogen and carbon dioxide). It was therefore necessary to adapt or replace every gas appliance in Britain, of which there were around 20 million, in a conversion process which started in 1967 and took ten years to complete.
National Gas Museum, UK
Natural gas was a big improvement on town gas, because despite its hydrogen content it also carried impurities such as sulphur compounds (including hydrogen sulfide) and carbon monoxide. After that transition, the alternative to natural gas was not town gas, but no gas.
Under the guise of objective journalism, ‘Hydrogen Insight’, actively campaigns against hydrogen. Even articles that appear to be favourable, are really a trojan horse for what is often, unrelated criticism. I don’t have a problem with that except for the subterfuge in name.
It would be more representative if that division of ‘Recharge’ was called something like, ‘Hydrogen Critique’ but it is obviously more impactful if you hide the slight inconvenience of having an agenda. They are almost gloating in their coverage of residents who are concerned and have questions whilst making no attempt to find objective answers.
Similarly, the Hydrogen Science Coalition (HSC), say they are not 'anti-hydrogen' yet everything I have read from that stable, has been an attack on it. Yes, every now and then, they will say something about replacing grey hydrogen with blue, or talk euphemistically about 'hard to abate' areas whilst trying not to mention hydrogen.
One prominent member has characterised opposing views as being 'insane', 'delusional', 'misinformed' and most recently, 'simpleminded', whilst another, not above making petulant comments, also has a hobby horse about how much time is given to debating hydrogen in Westminster. In the last case, the added irony is that such a view be taken by someone, whose predominant use of this platform is to discuss little else. History teaches us to be wary of polemicists who whip up angry support and actively campaign to frustrate debate.
It is not in the interests of transparency that these groups and others like them, hide their true intentions behind misleading organisational names, but that is the reality we have to deal with. It is analogous to a 'bait and switch', drawing people to what they think is objective information, only to have their worst fears validated and sold back to them. No money changes hands of course but it's still transactional and no less despicable.
Finally
I have no problem being characterised as 'pro-hydrogen' but it would be more accurate to classify me as pro-options and in that sense, pro-electrification too. An important part of that is to recognise and accept what options are actually available.
I was recently reminded of the importance of having a back up, when power was lost in my county (in the US) for nearly five days; during that time the highly efficient five-stage variable drive heat pump was idle as I didn't have a generator, but I could light the propane fireplace.
Outages for whatever reason can be mitigated by resilient networks, diversity of supply and locally held contingency back up. All of those are examples of having more options.
As regions go into gas-transition, it is for each individual resident to carefully consider the evidence for and against hydrogen adoption and whether weighed in that balance, the no gas option is truly preferable.Â
There is a populism that detests intellectuals and questions the very basis of science, but to a certain extent, this has been self-inflicted by the willingness of some to academics to hide their conflicts, such as political motivations, affiliations and even sponsorships. It is easy to see how betrayal of trust contributes to 'the post truth era' right at the time when the need for science and technology is more important than ever.
There is a fine line between public scepticism and cynicism and it's readily crossed. Although both states produce questions, one is open to hearing the answers and the other, closed off. The cynical are more vulnerable to having their fears exploited because what they believe most of all is the echo of their own voice coming back at them.
This means they can be tricked into acting against their own interests. Focusing on options that are becoming unavailable is a distraction from the opportunities that are there. By becoming informed we can protect our options, but if we don't, then who will?