From left to right: Alf Young, Graeme Sweeney, Karen Turner and David Joffe
On Tuesday 27 November 2018 the Centre for Energy Policy held "How feasilble and desirable is a transition to a hydrogen future?", part of the Energy Conversation series of events. Read the Centre for Energy Policy team's reflections on this popular event below.
 |
Dr Oluwafisayo Alabi Research Associate, Centre for Energy Policy oluwafisayo.alabi@strath.ac.uk |
Hydrogen presents significant economic and low carbon opportunities for the UK. However, an inevitable fact is that time is running out in deciding on the exact pathway(s) to a hydrogen future. A realistic and executable plan is of utmost importance. A plan that clearly captures aspects such as who will use hydrogen, who pays for it, and how it will be distributed.
These key points raised during the conversation reemphasise the underpinning argument in the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell (H2FC) Supergen White Paper on the need to ultimately set out the role for hydrogen where it will be most valuable. As discussed in other CEP papers, if hydrogen (and/or other low carbon energy solutions) is to play its unique and intended role, clear narratives should be developed.
In addition, policy should be framed in terms of planning for the development of energy supply chains that are low carbon at the same time deliver strong domestic returns (e.g. jobs and GDP) across the wider economy.
 |
Dr Christian Calvillo Research Associate, Centre for Energy Policy christian.calvillo@strath.ac.uk |
Just like in the supermarket, a ‘paradox of choice’ appears in the energy world. We have very versatile fuels such as hydrogen, and we have so many feasible options to heat our homes and power our transport that we don’t really know what to do.
Certainly, I don’t have the answer of the magic technology/energy mix (no one does), but what I do know is that we are running out of time to decarbonise our energy system, and changes need to start now.
In the case of hydrogen, maybe we could start in those applications with less viable options, such as fuel for heavy good vehicles or to produce high-temperature heat for industrial applications. With a hydrogen production infrastructure in place, I believe it will create a domino effect to other applications.
 |
Dr Antonios Katris Research Associate, Centre for Energy Policy antonios.katris@strath.ac.uk |
A recurring point in the Energy Conversations, especially the ones focusing on new technologies, is who will ultimately pay for the proposed changes. In the case of hydrogen, where large scale investments will be necessary to develop and install the infrastructure that will enable the use of hydrogen in any future fuel mix, there is significant scepticism over the cost of those investments, and how covering this cost might affect the income of households and/or social policies.
It was highlighted during the conversation that the investment in hydrogen should not be examined in isolation. The investments in hydrogen will simultaneously deliver savings, for example, to the healthcare system due to the improvement of urban air quality, potentially fully offsetting the investment costs. In that sense, relevant narratives may be a useful tool in increasing public acceptance and support of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
However, said narratives are not necessarily relatable to everyone, as rural communities do not experience air quality issues. We need to be cautious then on how this and similar policies/solutions are presented to the wider public. The direct benefits may be a favourable approach to increase approval of a certain technology but it is also important to communicate that sometimes it is necessary to take actions even if they do not deliver a directly observable benefit, simply because there is a wider, yet unobservable, social benefit.
 |
Ragne Low Principal KE Fellow, Centre for Energy Policy ragne.low@strath.ac.uk |
Although billed as focused on the potential future role of hydrogen, this well-attended Energy Conversation ranged very widely across a number of energy systems issues.
There was clear agreement with the argument put forward in the UK Committee on Climate Change’s recent report on hydrogen that near-term actions are needed on heat decarbonisation and that we cannot wait until the mid-2020s before deciding what actions to prioritise. As one participant put it “We need to get the easy stuff done now.” The role of regulation and policy clarity was emphasised, with a concurrent need to be clear what the options are and which ones will be promoted, how and when.
There was some debate about whether Government should be stimulating demand for hydrogen (with carbon capture and storage) through deciding on sectors that will be ‘hydrogen takers’ or should focus on developing the supply side. No matter where the emphasis, there was agreement that a clear and executable strategy is needed to rapidly up-scale the hydrogen economy.
Participants agreed there is a need to break the vicious cycle of bespoke H2 projects each delivering value (and requiring investment) in different ways to different actors. There was agreement that public investment of one sort or another will be required to drive up the scale of deployment, and that the wider economic impacts of that investment promise to be considerable – and need to be well communicated.
Tags: Energy