Another Day Another Bad Bought & Paid For Hydrogen Pipeline Report, This One From Arup

Join daily news updates from CleanTechnica on e-mail. Or follow us on Google News!

One a part of the bizarre obsession with hydrogen for power over the previous a number of years, particularly in Europe but in addition within the USA, are the variety of reviews analyzing how and the place the pipelines will go and what might be required in ports. It’s all a home of playing cards because it requires inexperienced hydrogen to be vastly cheaper than it’s going to ever be, however then reviews begin attempting to quantify transportation prices and must make all types of foolish assumptions that don’t stand as much as scrutiny.

Many in any other case credible organizations together with DNV, OISE (the best of a bad lot so far) and academic institutions have put their status at stake with dangerous reviews on the topic, and today’s credibility buster is from Arup. That agency is a UK-headquartered world agency offering engineering, design, planning, and consulting providers throughout the constructed atmosphere. The agency introduced that from April 2022, it could now not tackle new power commissions involving the extraction, refinement, or transportation of hydrocarbon-based fuels. As an alternative, Arup’s focus has shifted totally to low-carbon options, reminiscent of wind, photo voltaic, hydroelectric, and hydrogen initiatives. Naturally it’s the latter that’s the issue.

Arup took some cash from the UK Division for Vitality Safety and Web Zero (DESNZ) to evaluate potential methods to get hydrogen made within the UK throughout the Channel and North Sea to mainland.

What’s the DESNZ’s place on blue hydrogen, that’s not the stuff that Arup is dedicated to? Blue hydrogen, which is produced from pure fuel with carbon seize and storage (CCS) to mitigate CO2 emissions, is seen as a transitional know-how to assist scale up hydrogen manufacturing whereas inexperienced hydrogen (produced from renewable power sources) capability continues to be being developed. DESNZ’s technique consists of funding for each inexperienced and blue hydrogen initiatives.

The place does Arup’s report advocate beginning hydrogen pipelines? Within the Teesside and Humber areas within the coastal northeastern a part of England, 100 to 200 kilometers south of Scotland. What can we are saying about these areas? That they’re at present vital oil and fuel industrial areas within the UK. Additional, that they’re the middle of blue hydrogen initiatives within the UK, with BP’s H2Teesside venture, Kellas Midstream’s H2NorthEast venture and Equinor’s H2H Saltend all planning to take North Sea fuel and switch it into hydrogen.

It’s not all as dangerous as that. At the least the Dogger Financial institution and Sofia offshore wind farms are presupposed to terminate HVDC within the areas. After all, that electrical energy is meant to be getting used to decarbonize the UK’s electrical energy grid, not make hydrogen for Europe.

So Arup, which dedicated two years in the past to not doing fossil gas initiatives has performed a fossil hydrogen export route evaluation for the UK authorities, with out ever admitting that it’s a fossil hydrogen venture.

• “This scenario would likely connect electrolytic hydrogen production in the UK directly to demand in continental Europe”

That’s actually the one factor that the report has to say concerning the supply of the hydrogen, or certainly the price of the hydrogen. On web page 42 of the principle report, they’ve a map with the dimensions of proposed low-carbon hydrogen initiatives with out ever saying that almost all of them are fossil hydrogen. In the event that they had been clear and up entrance about this, as a substitute of being coy towards their public dedication, that might be one factor, however clearly the report authors had been attempting to cover the fact from informal eyes.

Anything incorrect with the trouble? Some other lacking data? Properly, what about various power transportation modes to creating hydrogen with offshore wind electrical energy within the UK and delivery it through pipeline or tanker to Europe, reminiscent of the identical HVDC cables which can be bringing it ashore.

Let’s assume that they do one thing actually silly like carry the offshore wind to the UK, then put it in one other HVDC cable to Europe. Why do I say that’s silly? As a result of each wind farms are so much nearer to Europe than to the UK, about 100 kilometers vs 130 kilometers for Dogger Financial institution and 100 kilometers vs 195 kilometers for Sofia. If Europe wants the power from these wind farms, why not construct HVDC to Europe as a substitute of to the UK, making hydrogen and placing molecules in boats or pipelines to Europe? It actually is not sensible, however that is what Arup and DESNZ are pretending that they’re speaking about.

However let’s play this out. Suppose the electrical energy comes ashore after which both will get despatched on its merry technique to Europe by HVDC with out mucking round with molecules, or it’s changed into hydrogen and shipped off to Europe. Is there by any probability a value variance for this transportation per unit of power? And in that case, is in favor of electrons or hydrogen?

Let’s take a look at the scenario the place Europe desires to show the hydrogen again into electrical energy as a result of electrical energy is admittedly helpful. With the losses from making the hydrogen, delivery it by pipeline after which operating it by means of electrical era items, transporting the hydrogen as a substitute of utilizing HVDC would price over twice as a lot per kWh, about €0.031 per kWh vs €0.013 per kWh. That’s utilizing information from the H2Med 450 kilometer, €2.1 billion to €3 billion — present finances lengthy earlier than development — hydrogen pipeline presumed to be transporting hydrogen between Spain, Portugal, France and Germany within the 2030s and adjusting for shorter distances between the UK and the mainland.

Comparable analyses discover that if each the electrical energy and the hydrogen are used for heating the place there’s no conversion loss from making hydrogen into electrical energy, the electrical energy continues to be cheaper. And keep in mind, that is within the silly electrical energy state of affairs the place we trouble to ship it to the UK within the first place. In the very best case state of affairs given 50% utilization and the electrolyzers getting the electrical energy on the windfarm’s public sale worth of £39.65, hydrogen delivered to Europe would price €5.45 per kilogram on the finish of the transmission line earlier than any continental distribution, and continental distribution goes to be costly too.

We’re now at properly over 50 unbiased reviews that clarify hydrogen has no place in area or water heating in comparison with warmth pumps. We’re now properly into fringe choices for very particular use instances for hydrogen for highway autos, with solely the longest haul vehicles nonetheless clinging to this faint hope and no gentle autos being rationally thought of. Hydrogen buses are dwindling within the rear view mirror of battery electrical buses. Hydrogen has narrowed all the way down to industrial feedstocks and faint hope warmth use instances.

On this context, there might be no hydrogen retail utility community in Europe for this costly hydrogen to plug into. That’s definitely the best way most individuals who aren’t deep into the hydrogen bubble are studying Hydrogen Europe’s decoupling of transmission from distribution infrastructure. Any UK to Europe pipeline may plug into the German hydrogen industrial pipeline system for ammonia and different feedstock functions, however that’s about it. The proposed H2Med pipeline is deeply unlikely to ever be constructed as rational actors put up their hand and ask why not simply ship electrical energy by HVDC as a substitute? Which means vehicles for the hydrogen, and that provides €8 to €11 to the delivered price. As at all times, the hydrogen delivered in Europe is the most cost effective it’s going to ever be, €6 to €8 for industrial customers receiving black or grey hydrogen by pipeline, €15 to €25 for retail purchasers at hydrogen refueling stations and much more for 150 kg metal cylinders with a kilogram of hydrogen compressed inside.

In the meantime distribution prices of electrical energy are filth low cost, the transmission and distribution community exist already, rising capability with digital line administration options like Heimdall’s Neuron can improve transmission capability by 30% with no infrastructure work besides set up of IOT units on line each kilometer or 5, reconductoring can double or triple line capability and filth low cost batteries can present buffering of power for supply of spiky energy hundreds in truck stops.

A face to face comparability with the apparent various, HVDC, of the most cost effective type of hydrogen transport, pipelines, finds that transporting inexperienced hydrogen made within the UK from North Seas offshore wind electrical energy makes completely no sense.

Does Arup point out that there are apparent options to bringing electrical energy ashore, turning it into hydrogen and delivery molecules again, multiplying the spherical journey distances considerably and including all types of conversion losses? No. Lifeless silent.

Does Arup as a substitute waste time and DESNZ on the properly understood to be rather more costly options to hydrogen pipelines which have been studied to demise for many years, like LOHCs? After all it does. What does it discover? That they’re much costlier than pipelines.

What’s the report truly saying whereas not saying it in any respect? That that is about making blue hydrogen produced from North Sea pure fuel in BP, Kellas and Equinor services and delivery it to Europe. That’s nonetheless not going to be cheaper for electrical energy, but it surely is likely to be cheaper per gigajoule for some high-temperature warmth functions in the long run, however clearly larger carbon.

This report isn’t a inexperienced hydrogen transportation report, it’s a blue hydrogen transportation report, a wolf in sheep’s clothes. If it was clear and clear about that, it could most likely violate Arup’s dedication. What are its precise phrases?

From 1 April 2022, Arup is not going to pursue any new power commissions involving the extraction, refinement, or transportation of hydrocarbon-based fuels.

Hydrogen produced from pure fuel is a hydrocarbon-based gas. I’ve been calling it the opposite fossil gas for years. It’s laborious to see it as the rest. If might be made truly low-carbon, there can be an argument for it, however each time anybody tries to make it adhere to emissions requirements for low-carbon hydrogen, they find yourself realizing that they’ll’t do it cheaply. Blue hydrogen may be low cost provided that most of carbon seize and sequestration is sponsored and necessities for carbon emissions from the method are extremely lax.

I labored for a world consulting agency. I understand how reviews like this are made, and it’s so much like sausages. A shopper with an agenda — DESNZ and blue hydrogen — comes with a pot of promised money to a consulting group that has individuals on the bench — Arup — they usually work out a quick that helps the agenda, suits the dimensions of the pot of money and that rigorously avoids ugly topics. I’m fairly certain that when Arup made the “no hydrocarbons” dedication, 75% of the hydrogen focussed group’s pipeline went up in smoke, as a result of the corporations with the massive cash had been principally fossil gas corporations. The Arup hydrogen staff has undoubtedly been looking for methods to take cash from the oil and fuel business for fossil hydrogen with out being seen to take cash since April of 2022. This report is the form of factor that outcomes, together with the front-page proviso:

This report takes into consideration the actual directions and necessities of our shopper. It isn’t supposed for and shouldn’t be relied upon by any third get together and no duty is undertaken to any third get together.

If I had been Arup’s leaders, I’d be taking a look at this carefully as a result of a bait and change fossil hydrogen research isn’t aligned with Arup’s dedication. If their dedication consists of fossil hydrogen, they need to make that express, in any other case they’ll find yourself taking numerous fossil gas business cash underneath the guise of inexperienced hydrogen for power and slide again into the pit they’ve climbed out of. Not an excellent look.