Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday November 22 2021, @07:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the Blue-Green-As-Long-As-It-Heats-the-Place dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 22 2021, @09:06PM (4 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 22 2021, @09:06PM (#1198682) Journal

    What we need to do it limit the amount of released carbon, with going negative being a strong preference. Blue hydrogen, at the MOST optomistic, is neutral. And it won't be, because there will be massive slipups. And carbon sequestration is fallible.

    So blue hydrogen is a bad idea. I'm not sure about green hydorgen, but I have my doubts. I suspect that nuclear is a better option than hydrogen, though I prefer using solar and wind to the extent feasible.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22 2021, @11:32PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22 2021, @11:32PM (#1198743)

    Green hydrogen's basic argument is rather like having a battery charging station at every solar/wind power station. You can use hydrogen as a store of energy, and you can transport it.

    It just happens to be a pain to store and transport.

  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday November 23 2021, @04:27PM

    by quietus (6328) on Tuesday November 23 2021, @04:27PM (#1198941) Journal

    You confuse energy source and energy carrier (or battery, if you like). The interesting part of the quote is that you can use the whole natural gas pipeline and storage system as storage for hydrogen (whether it be blue or green). Instead of having to sell your green electricity (generated by wind power) at ultra-cheap prices during the night, you can convert it into hydrogen, and reconvert it back to electricity during the day. This will increase the profitability of renewables even further, which will cause even more investment into renewable energy; before you know it, you end up with a virtuous circle.

    In other words: the so-called [economic] 'unpredictability' of renewables is a false argument, once you add hydrogen [conversion] to the equation.