In the hydrogen debate, detractors decry hydrogen’s huge inefficiencies and practical challenges, while supporters see it as nothing short of vital for achieving ‘net zero’. The E3G report seeks to cut through those binary positions to identify realistic use cases while warning against pursuing dead-end options being pushed by vested interests.
The pro-hydrogen narrative is heavily influenced by the natural gas industry. Pipeline owners and regulated gas network operators are keen to maintain utilisation rates and avoid writing down the value of their assets. Regulators almost certainly won’t let them jack up per-unit rates to compensate for fewer volumes flowing through their assets if net zero squeezed demand — so hydrogen ‘blending’ is a great way to shield gas industry incumbents from the economic threat posed by decarbonisation.
Similarly, the blue-versus-green debate is becoming a flashpoint in the fossil-versus-renewables cold war. Upstream operators need to convince capital markets that their prized 2P resources will not be stranded by the net zero push, and subsidised blue hydrogen provides the perfect cover.
North Sea oil and gas lobbyists want to convince government that ‘blue is cheaper than green’ in a bid to secure subsidies for steam methane reformation (SMR) with carbon capture, to convert CH4 into ‘low carbon’ H2. That phrase has caught on, with the UK government conflating blue and green under the misleading umbrella of ‘clean’ hydrogen.
Read more in today's edition of Energy Flux: www.energyflux.news