Hydrogen is currently being widely promoted as the conveniently portable and green alternative to fossil fuels. It is also attractive as an alternative to natural gas (methane) in cookers and boilers, since transition from one form of gas to another would be simpler than converting to electric. Whether it is truly green depends on how it is produced. The greenest method (electrolysis, as illustrated in the very simplified image here) passes an electric current through water (H2O) to separate hydrogen (H2) from oxygen (O2). In the existing method ‘grey’ hydrogen is made by reacting methane (CH4) with water, with the by-product CO2 being simply allowed to escape. The idea of capturing this and storing it to produce so-called ‘blue’ hydrogen is what the government is currently promoting. However this has not yet been achieved at an industrial scale.
There is a case for some green hydrogen production for industry and some energy storage but no strong case has been made for blue hydrogen, since the necessary carbon capture and storage should not be used to prop up a polluting industry. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions on lobbying and misleading politicians and the public and, having been found out, are now promoting a very expensive solution to be paid for by future taxpayers. Pushing fossil fuel based hydrogen as a climate solution is clearly a strategy used by the oil and gas industry to delay the implementation of true climate solutions. It is based on the widespread continued use of methane and existing gas infrastructure instead of spending money to transition to the electrification of the UK via renewables.
It’s not clear that our political leaders have had the wool pulled over their eyes or if they are deliberately supporting the fossil fuel industry, who have misled the public about climate chaos for decades. If our MPs support the use of taxpayers’ money on the blue hydrogen economy, then they need to explain why they have chosen an expensive option rather than using the money to help us to insulate our houses and provide cleaner and better public transport for all.
Admittedly Friends of the Earth has argued for well over a decade that we need carbon capture to decarbonise industry. But there's also a danger that this apparently justifiable investment is used as a Trojan horse to allow the continued use of fossil fuels, or even increase their use. We need to move away from using fossil fuels, because even if we could capture all the carbon dioxide at the point of use, which we can’t, fossil fuel extraction alone still releases lots of greenhouse gases.
There’s a lot of hype around hydrogen at the moment, particularly amongst those who love the idea of technological fixes. It can be used instead of fossil fuels in some industries, and will have a use in long-distance transport where batteries aren't suitable. It can also be used to store the excess renewable energy produced in the summer, when the sun shines and the wind can still blow, for use on darker windless winter days. Hydrogen can be made using renewable energy and water, but the fossil fuel companies are pushing to produce it from natural gas, a much dirtier process that taxpayers are having to pay for.
Image: Hydrogen as a future fuel. By Nanopedia, Copyrighted free use, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6442085