Hydrogen blending | 'Raising energy bills during a cost of living crisis is the wrong way to develop industrial demand for H2'
Coalition of energy companies, think-tanks and charities points to hidden costs, misleading claims and greenwash in recent report from UK’s ‘hydrogen champion’
Hydrogen: hype, hope and the hard truths around its role in the energy transition
“Blending must be available by 2025 to unlock investment in hydrogen production.”
“Raising energy bills during a cost of living crisis is the wrong way to develop industrial demand for hydrogen.”
It also points out that due to hydrogen's lower energy density by volume than natural gas, “consumers will have to burn 16% more of the blended mix to create the same heat energy”.
“This means that fuel prices will rise by at least 16% [if hydrogen costs the same as natural gas] and that the savings in greenhouse gas emissions will be nowhere near 20% — but closer to 7%.”
Clean hydrogen is actually more expensive to produce than natural gas without subsidies, so could be considerably more costly to consumers.
The letter continues: “Blending could create greenwash as the public are told that ‘gas has gone green’, when in fact ‘hydrogen-ready boilers’ will continue to burn fossil fuels for decades to come. This could delay investment into genuinely zero carbon heating technologies.”
And it adds: “Blending will not encourage strategic deployment of demand-side technologies in sectors like power generation, industrial processes, and aviation, where hydrogen could play a more cost-effective role in meeting net zero. Without a strategic long-term vision for the hydrogen economy, blending could risk locking-in hydrogen for domestic heating at the expense of other sectors.”
The recommendation in Toogood’s report for all new gas boilers to be hydrogen-ready “will enable ‘greenwashing’ for fossil-fuel boilers and prolong the impacts of heating on carbon emissions and air quality”, the letter says.
Misleading claims
The coalition says that some of Toogood’s claims regarding heat pumps are misleading.
“There is a suggestion that heat pumps are not a viable solution for all properties “such as hard-to-insulate properties”, but this claim has been disproven by the government-funded Electrification of Heat project, which found that there is no property type or architectural era that is unsuitable for a heat pump.”
Toogood’s report also claimed that “some whole system studies indicate that hydrogen heat pathways could be cheaper [than heat pumps] in certain circumstances”.
But the authors of the letter point out she does not cite any such study “and in fact the majority of independent reports suggest the opposite”.
“Recent published whole system studies from Imperial College and Carbon Trust have found that hydrogen imposes significantly higher costs at a system and consumer level than electrification.
“The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee has concluded hydrogen will have at most a limited role in heating homes.”
Toogood’s recommendations on hydrogen blending were previously described as “idiotic” by influential independent analyst Michael Liebreich.
The open letter was signed by:
E3G
Sustainability First
Green Alliance
Greenpeace
Friends of the Earth
WWF-UK
MCS Foundation
Nesta
Fuel Poverty Action
Global Witness
Fair Energy Campaign
Positive Money
UK Green Building Council
Residents Against Whitby Hydrogen Village Trial
Hydrogen Sussex (signed by chair Abigail Dombey)
Octopus Energy
Ambue
EP Group
Kensa Group
Ground Source Heat Pump Association
Heat Pump Federation
ICAX
Rendesco