SoylentNews

quietus writes:

Most of the readers here are probably aware that the European Union is betting heavily on hydrogen as a clean energy carrier. Related to that, Martin Sandbu wrote an interesting article in the Financial Times, titled The Gordian Knot of Europe's gas dependence.

In essence, his thesis in the article was that the best way forward for the EU, from an energy perspective, is to keep investing into its gas fields, combined with conversion of that gas into so-called blue hydrogen, combined with carbon capture. The problem was though, he argued, that all of these three things need to happen together: if there's no market for either, the whole system will be caught in a catch-22 situation.

Gas producers will not invest in new fields if there are no takers to convert the gas into hydrogen, and mass market realisation of hydrogen technologies will not take off if there is no ample supply. Carbon capture, of course, is needed so the conversion of gas into hydrogen does not cause further climate change, and the EU can reach its carbon emission targets.

What is interesting, though, is a reader's letter in reaction to that article. The writer of that letter is the Chief Executive of Snam, Europe's largest gas network operator. When you read the following quotes, keep in mind that many commercial boilers can already take a 20 percent hydrogen blend, and that RWE (the 2nd largest offshore wind power generator in the world) and Shell have already teamed up to produce green hydrogen, on a gigawatt scale:

One little-known but crucial fact is that the grade of steel usually used for natural gas pipelines in Europe is compatible with hydrogen, at blends up to 100 per cent.

That our grids are already "hydrogen ready" means two things for Sandbu's conundrum. First, any investment required by the transport network to keep gas flowing and competitive over the next couple of decades needn't result in stranded assets when the time comes to switch to hydrogen.

Second, the pipelines themselves can provide an instant home for hydrogen -- decoupling production and consumption.

Early-stage hydrogen producers could simply blend their green fuel into the gas network, scaling up facilities and reducing costs. As the "green premium" narrows, consumers would be encouraged to jump in larger numbers, and the infrastructure could then be switched to carry pure hydrogen. Blending is neither an endgame nor a market. It is a way to give green hydrogen a leg-up.

What to make of Sandbu's preferred solution, which is to encourage the development of blue hydrogen, where the carbon from natural gas is captured? My take is that green is likely to be competitive relative early on, especially if we can scale it up.

(Letter to the Financial Times, Thu Nov 18, "Let markets determine if hydrogen is blue or green", from Marco Alvèra, Chief Executive, Snam, Milan, Italy.)

Could green hydrogen be heating your home in the coming decade?

Original Submission