Why the UK Government may be encouraging greenwash in its announcement about 'hydrogen ready' boilers

The Government's announcement that from 2025 gas boilers will have to be 'hydrogen ready' could presage the start of one of the greatest pieces of greenwash that have been committed in the UK. It seems likely to result in carbon emissions being substantially increased compared to the present use of natural gas in boilers to heat homes.

The oil and gas industry is promoting so-called 'blue hydrogen', that is hydrogen produced by 'reforming' natural gas, and capturing the carbon dioxide that is produced. Yet currently most hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas and not capturing carbon dioxide, a process that will dramatically increase carbon dioxide emissions if hydrogen is used to heat homes. The efficiency of the gas reformation process is only around 65 per cent meaning that much more carbon dioxide is generated to produce the hydrogen as fuel compared to simply burning the natural gas. Any claims that the process will be done using carbon capture and storage, beyond that is a few demonstration projects supported by public grants, should be taken with a wagon load of salt.

But the sad thing is that even if 'green' hydrogen for heating homes was to be generated by renewable energy (through electrolysis of water) it would still be a grossly inefficient way of using that renewable energy. Renewable energy is normally distributed through the electricity system where it can power heat pumps in homes (either individually or through district heating systems) to much much greater effect. The heat pumps use electricity much more efficiently compared to any hydrogen boilers, no matter how the hydrogen is produced. Indeed a heat pump may increase the efficiency of the use of renewable energy by approaching fourfold compared to using 'green hydrogen' in a boiler.

Not only does the heat pump multiply the heat from the electircity by around threefold (by using heat in the surrounding environemnt) but it avoids losing energy through electrolysis,

So, in terms of reducing carbon emissions we will need FOUR times the amout of renewable energy to produce the same heating effect in buildings if we turn it into hydrogen  - compared to using the renewable energy delivered through the electricity system and used in heat pumps.

So the Government should be looking at ways to ensure heat pumps are used as a rule in new buildings and giving incentives to have existing buildings retrofitted with heat pumps. This is as opposed to being hijacked by the oil and gas lobby to pass off business as usual under a greenwashed cover story.


 https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/7/5/hydrogen-made-by-the-electrolysis-of-water-is-now-cost-competitive-and-gives-us-another-building-block-for-the-low-carbon-economy




https://help.leonardo-energy.org/hc/en-us/articles/203047881-How-efficient-is-a-heat-pump-

Small modular reactors - a Fantasy policy?

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business/business-news/newcastle-company-forefront-technology-small-10869984

Rolls Toyce https://www.ft.com/content/ba08f298-8b6e-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340

https://www.namrc.co.uk/intelligence/smr/

 Smaller reactors are still at an early stage of development and their benefits remain speculative. It is estimated that the end-to-end deployment process will take 12-14 years for the first small modular reactor, page 41, https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/CCS001_CCS0618917350-001_NIC-NIA_Accessible.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/study-residential-prosumers-energy-union_en.pdf

http://www.greenbuildingpress.co.uk/article.php?article_id=1930

The secret massive losses EDF is suffering in building Hinkley C

EDF faces massive financial losses as they continue to fund the building of Hinkley C. This is because they are paying for the power station from their balance sheet rather than use much cheaper UK Treasury loans that were originally agreed with the UK Government. In short, paying for the construction costs out of shareholders' dividends is very costly, something that depresses share prices and in effect loses tremendous amounts of money for the main shareholder, the French Government.

Originally when the contract to build Hinkley C was signed off by the UK Government and then approved by the EU Commission (required under 'state aid' rules), the plan was that the bulk of Hinkley C construction costs would be paid for by loans from the Treasury, which would be lent at relatively low rates of interest. But the Government insisted on a proviso for this to happen.This condition said that the successful commercial operation of the same nuclear technology (the European Pressurised Reactor or EPR) being built in France at Flamanville had to be demonstrated by the end of 2020 (1).

However EDF has never taken up the offer of loans from the UK Treasury, and the obvious reason for this is simply that the completion date for the Flamanville EPR has been pushed back and back - so much so that the earliest it can even begin its test cycles will be 2022. EDF cannot possibly meet the conditions enabling it to take up the loan guarantees. EDF has made a 'virtue' out of this necessity and declared it will not take up the Treasury loans.

Hence, in order to complete Hinkley C EDF can only do so by issuing its own bonds, and thus accumulating debt that rests on its balance sheets. Such mounting debt reduces the possibility for issuing dividends to shareholders and thus depresses share prices.

EDF's notional profits from the Hinkley C deal (attacked at the time for being too high) have only recently been hit by the announcement that there will be up to around £3 billion costs overruns on the projects (I'm sure there will be more such announcements to come), but really these costs overruns are relatively small compared to the losses that EDF is taking by financing the project on its own balance sheet.

The rate of return on the project was estimated to be around 9 per cent in 2013 (less now given the announced cost overruns) and borrowing costs would be less than this if it was mainly financed by (relatively) cheap Treasury loans. Yet the borrowing costs of financing the project on its balance sheet are, according to accountancy conventions, more like 15 per cent. Hence EDF faces a big loss, in accountancy terms, even if the project is finished on time and even if it then sold the project onto someone else (probably unlikely).

In fact way back in 2016 EDF's Chief Finance Officer Thomas Piquemal resigned after the EDF CEO refused to postpone making a decision about whether to go ahead with building Hinkley C. There were increasing concerns about the length of delays in building the EPR at Flamanville  - and because of the loan conditions set by the UK Treasury for funding Hinkley C such delays had a direct financial implication for EDF's finances if it went ahead with Hinkley C. Piquemal thought that a hasty decision could jeopardise EDF's finances (2).

In fact 85 per cent of EDF's shares are owned by the French state. EDF share prices have been depressed in recent years- they are now worth less than  third of what they were ten years ago, for example, but the Macron Government has long signalled that it is prepared to put state money into defending the project (3). Some might see this as a bizarre outcome that the French taxpayer is in effect bailing out what would otherwise be a huge loss making project in order to build a power station in another country - the UK. Many said that the 35 year contract granted to EDF for the project for £92.50 per MWh (2012 prices) was too much. In fact this seems to be proving very cheap compared to what a fully private company could afford to take on.

Some with expert knowledge have wondered how on earth EDF can still go forward with a project that looks like financial insanity for its own accounts. But at the end of the day this seems to be all about the politics, and national identity, which the elite French administrators appear to see bound up in the EPR technology - no matter how much it costs.

Just how damaged this identity will be depends in part on just how disastrous a construction project Hinkley C proves to be. Given that it is scheduled to be built in no more than 6 years, and that no currently operating British nuclear reactor has been built in the less than 8 years, the cost overruns seem only likely to mount.

But, the French Government may have the last laugh (or t least the next laugh) in that the British Government is now poised to fund the next EPR (at Sizewell C) under an opaque mechanism called the 'Regulated Asset Base'. This is alleged to offer cheaper means of financing. It will be cheaper for EDF of course, but in fact it transfers the risk of the inevitable cost overruns onto the British Government and our taxpayers. A fake price will be used to cover what is a blank cheque to be offered to EDF to build the power plant.

EDF may be burning up French taxpayers money for the lossmaking Hinkley C, but it will be the British taxpayers who will be paying the massive price of the next EPR project at Sizewell C. There are, of course, much cheaper options to produce ow carbon power, but EDF and the British and French Governments are not rabidly keen to advertise such options.



(1) For further details of this, see my earlier blog at https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/02/new-funding-crisis-looms-for-for.html

(2) See report in the Financial Times 'EDF chief quits over decision to push on with Hinkley Point'
by Michael Stothard, March 7th 2016 https://www.ft.com/content/ef9d4de8-e3e9-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c

(3) See report in Guardian, 'France agrees bailout to pay for Hinkley C' by Terry Macalister, March 17th 2016, Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/17/french-government-edf-united-front-hinkley-point-money-nuclear-plant-union

How ammonia beats batteries to supply long term firm power from renewables

Not many people know this - yet - but ammonia is looking like being the best means by which wind and solar power can provide 'firm' power - that is ensure continuous supply of energy demand from renewable energy 100 per cent of the time. 

Ammonia, in this system, acts as an energy carrier for hydrogen produced from water which has been electrolysed - split into hydrogen and oxygen - by renewable electricity (mainly wind or solar). The hydrogen can be more or less simultaneously combined with nitrogen from the atmosphere to produce ammonia. The ammonia can be stored, and when needed, it can be burned in conventional-style turbines/engines or used in specially designed fuel cells to generate electricity when required. 

Currently much conventional wisdom has it that batteries are only the main means of storing renewable energy. Indeed batteries are very good for evening out balances in daily production and consumption of electricity - so peak demand can be reduced and the amount of firm power reduced. But we also need firm power for those days - under a 100 per cent renewable energy system - when there is little wind or sun. This is where ammonia comes in as a potentially better option for providing fim power. It is not a question of either batteries or ammonia, but simply that they can perform different functions providing short term and longer term storage respectively.

Ammonia (used as a hydrogen energy carrier) has a great advantage over hydrogen itself in that it can be stored much more easily than hydrogen. Ammonia is already stored for lengthy periods whereas long term storage of hydrogen requires development of the use of caverns or depleted gas fields.

In brief, there are various studies attesting to the likely practicality of this general type of system. A pilot project demonstrating the green ammonia to firm power concept was concluded last year at the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratories (1).

One student led project (at the University of Strathclyde), summed up the advantages of the system by pointing out 'The principle of having the storage tank connected to the National Grid would allow not only surplus wind energy to be stored as ammonia but all excess renewable resources from any power plant in the UK' (2). This project (2) concluded that ammonia would be a much better solution than batteries, owing partly to the fact that so much battery capacity would be required to do the same job, but also because of the value of the renewable energy that would also be wasted when there was excess production compared to electricity demand. 

Indeed supplying reserve power through ammonia (or some other storage vector, eg compressed air, biomethane etc) could be very cheap indeed since the storage solution would be generated using 'excess' renewable energy that was virtually, if not actually, zero cost.

One reason why ammonia is likely to emerge as a key part of progress to a 100 per cent renewable energy economy in countries like the UK is simply because ammonia is a very important industrial feedstock. The fertiliser industry, in particular, requires massive quantities of ammonia which are currently derived by a highly energy/carbon intensive process involving the 'reformation' of fossil fuels. The reformation (called the Haber process) releases hydrogen from the fossil fuel (usually natural gas or oil derived) which is then combined with nitrogen to produce the ammonia. 

A key point to remember is that the fertiliser industry is going to be under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint by deriving its ammonia from low carbon energy sources. Indeed there is increasing attention being given to the notion of 'green ammonia', and several research and demonstration projects into 'green ammonia' are being conducted around the world. Green ammonia will, in effect, be subsidised by the increasing quantities of otherwise zero cost renewable energy produced when renewabe energy is excess compared to demand (this phenomenon becoming more and more common as the proportion of renewable energy of total energy rises). As the fertiliser and other industries source their ammonia as green ammonia in larger quantitiesia then the availability of this will make the possibilities of it being used as a fuel increase.

It is certainly the case that the optimum processes involved in a green ammonia  system are yet to be determined. These include, if possible, improving the efficiency of the system. It also involving deciding which strategy is best to minimise nitrogen oxide production when burning the ammonia (this can be done by different techniques, or using the ammonia in adapted fuel cells). However, when compared with the complexities and problems of the rather-more-state-favoured nuclear or cabon capture and storage projects, the challenges facing using green ammonia as firm power seem simple to resolve. 

If it is the case that renewable energy can be effectively stored using ammonia to provide firm power (and I think it is the case) then not only can renewables provide firm power on days when there is little wind or sun but also ammonia could potentially be used to power aircraft. 

(1) Green Ammonia, Siemens, https://new.siemens.com/uk/en/company/topic-areas/sustainable-energy/green-ammonia.html

(2) Conclusion, Wind Energy Storage Project, University of Strathclyde, http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/17-18/windies/index.html

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-ammonia-fuel-cells.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-link-solar-hydrogen-ammonia.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118301788

https://www.solarpaces.org/missing-link-solar-hydrogen-ammonia/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXUOdXfF6ks&feature=youtu.be

https://www.fertilizerdaily.com/20190905-yara-and-nel-to-produce-green-ammonia/

Labour's 'nuclear is renewable' claim is an insult to dead uranium miners

In a 'boiler room' coup Labour seems to be secretly plotting to re-launch the new nuclear build programme by renaming nuclear power as 'renewable'. Their 'expert report' argues that the current level of nuclear generation needs to be maintained, which means building more nuclear power on top of Hinkley Point C. But they seriously expect nobody to notice this because they are calling the new nuclear renewable.

In fact even the report recognises that more nuclear power is not needed to meet Labour's decarbonisation targets. But what it does not stress enough is just how costly the new nuclear commitment will be, and swallows whole the nuclear industry's claim that the next nuclear power station will be cheap. In fact the report backs the Government's 'blank cheque' approach to nuclear funding in that the state will pay all the bills, whatever they are, and make it very difficult for anybody to do a comparison with renewable energy - because renewables would look much, much cheaper.

The biggest cheek of the report is to say 'For the purposes of this analysis, we have considered nuclear power as a contributing towards renewable and low-carbon energy supply' (Section 4.13) https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ThirtyBy2030report.pdf

Nuclear power cannot be considered renewable. These power plant will be fuelled by a non-renewable energy source, uranium. Apart from anything else uranium mining is associated with very high levels of lung cancer among its workers. That is according to research carried out by a section of the US Health Service dealing with occupational helath and safety . See
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html

In their studies, amongst the increased levels of death, around 400 out of around 4000 miners studied dies from lung cancer - whereas the normalised rate for the study should have been several times less than this - less than 100. Various other diseases were found to be at much higher than expected levels. Altogether the study found that amongst the miners 1595 had died compared to an expected number of 986 deaths.
It really is an insult to these people and their families that they are being airbrushed from reality through the fake argument that nuclear power is 'renewable.

And of course all the reactors planned for the UK are URANIUM reactors.

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/10/19/edfs-pr-is-as-bankrupt-as-its-reactors/

https://www.ft.com/content/c63ebe88-bcde-11e9-89e2-41e555e96722

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/07/edf-unions-call-for-hinkley-point-project-to-be-postponed

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-edf-restructuring-strike/edf-unions-plan-massive-strike-to-stop-proposed-restructuring-idUKKBN1W21BP