The UK
government,
and others,
are promoting
hydrogen as
an energy carrier
for sectors
of the economy
such as heavy
transport and
peak winter heating
-- both extremely
difficult to
"decarbonize".
An accelerated timetable,
required by the arbitrary
CO2 targets, makes it
necessary to manufacture
hydrogen via two
expensive and energy
inefficient commodity
production processes:
(1)
The electrolysis of water
(2)
The "steam reforming"
of natural gas.
The production of hydrogen
is a complex, expensive
and highly inefficient
process, extremely
wasteful of energy.
Electrolysis is
extremely expensive,
and incapable of producing
the quantities of hydrogen
required to replace oil and gas.
Steam reforming of methane
gas emits carbon dioxide,
requiring Carbon Capture
and Sequestration,
expensive and unproven
at the required scale.
Both processes
require high levels
of fresh water
consumption.
Water consumption
at local hydrogen
production centers
would cause significant
stress on regional
water supplies,
especially in
low-rainfall areas.
Steam reforming
involves natural gas,
using steam
to produce a mixture
of hydrogen, carbon
monoxide and some
carbon dioxide.
The production
of steam is a waste
of energy, and the
resulting carbon
dioxide still needs
to be somehow
captured and stored.
Steam reforming
of natural gas
is a waste of time.
For every tonne
of hydrogen,
you make
14 tonnes of CO2.
Energy density
of hydrogen is low.
It makes more sense
to burn the natural gas
in your existing boilers.
The whole process
is extremely expensive,
especially the cost
of building all of the
new production plants
that would be needed.
There would also be
the massive cost
of converting household
appliances and distribution
networks to handle hydrogen.
Hydrogen is intrinsically
hazardous too.
It has a low ignition energy,
a wide flammability range,
and a strong tendency
to proceed from a simple fire
to an explosion.
Hydrogen is not
a commercially
viable product
without government
intervention.
It’s a technology
looking for large
taxpayer subsidies.
The start of another
taxpayer subsidized
renewable boondoggle?
NOTES:
(A)
Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz recently ended it's 30+ year research program to develop passenger cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. The dream was a zero-emissions car that has a long driving range, three-minute fill-ups, and emitted only water vapor. The company conceded a hydrogen car would be about double the expense of an equivalent battery-electric vehicle and had significant safety issues.
(B)
The current proposals are for a national high-pressure gas network, delivering pure hydrogen. A 50% hydrogen blend was used since the early 19th century, through the 1970s, as an ingredient in a fuel sometimes called "town gas", used for outdoor gas lamps. They were local low-pressure systems that were very expensive, and later replaced by natural gas.