London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Trader 87, I'm with you I fully bought into the green credentials of Hydrogen & you are right that there is no cleaner fuel. The problem is the manufacture of Hydrogen is so expensive & inefficient.
I am quoting Cebon here so take this with a pinch of salt
"A green hydrogen solution would consume six times more electricity to heat a house than an electric heat pump. A blue hydrogen solution would dramatically increase natural gas imports and prevent net zero being reached because of fugitive CO2 emissions from the carbon sequestration process."
The only thing missing from last nights Parliamentary discussion was the comparison of hydrogen heating vs straight old tech electrical storage heating. If green or blue hydrogen for that matter, cannot fiscally undercut electrical storage heaters then I struggle to see a viable market for hydrogen in the domestic heating market. Happy to be corrected...believe me.
Hydrogen production will get cheaper. “They” said exactly the same about wind power. Green energy goes to waste at times of low demand. These occasions will increase as more green projects come on stream. Hydrogen produced from these ‘occasions’ can be put straight in to the grid. Ignore transport and all the other potential uses , this grid opportunity is a massive step to aid carbon reduction. The focus on efficiency is of course relevant but it some ways it is over complicating things when in theory wind and solar power sources are inexhaustable. Delay green H2 adoption and the result is a delay in the demise of FF’s. I presume the Prof didn’t factor in any climate catastrophe costs? Dangerous man/fool/Tesla payee.
This is just one witness of 5 witnesses to that session (there are more) to that select committee on the role of hydrogen yesterday morning. Prof Cebon is a heat pump enthusiast much quoted by the ground source heat pump association (I do not know if he is a paid consultant to them), and has long been a critic of hydrogen (there are exceedingly few critics to call upon). The clerk will have chosen him as a witness for the purpose of balance, or he may have written to the clerk suggesting he give evidence (I know that people do that; also you can write to the clerk and suggest a good witness for a current selcom enquiry, with a few notes as to why). If you look at the notes to the budget yesterday you've got good hydrogen plans for two of the freeports, Felixstowe and "East Midlands" (which is well inland at Ratcliffe, and not a port at all !). The only reason to try and import some significance to the one witness who is anti-hydrogen and pro-heat pump is if you want to buy some more ITM shares, and need them down.
Professor Sebon thinks we can do everything in terms of decarbonising home heating and personal transport with EVs and heat pumps, but the size of the street cable and final transformer is 1.5 kW per home (maximum demand after diversity rating). The average home draws 10 kWh per day of electricity on average. The average EV outside of covid used as a real working person's car needs 10 kWh to charge per day PER EV (most homes will end up with more than one), and a heat pump when it replaces a 35 kWh a day gas boiler average, draws 10 kWh a day, and rather more in winter. The cost of upgrading all those last mile DNO assets is £80b, and the last DNO price control ending 2023 didn't fund any DNO last-mile-assets upgrades. Yes, hydrogen is going to have a role, as it is for storage of surplus electricity from unreliably-intermittent wind and solar. Prof Cebon entirely omits all the electricity network-related limitations on just electrifying everything.
https://committees.parliament.uk/event/3882/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/ - the video is painstaking to view but the transcript should go up in a day.
Seaangler thank-you, good debate & I want to get a good grounding on the issues under debat from last night so that we can all move on, so more than happy to be corrected. The issue on using off demand green energy was rebuked by Cebon last night as insufficient as you apparently need a 135miles by 135 miles sea of wind turbines just to drive the nations long distance trucks. So to heat the homes that electric heat pumps cant reach will require massive wind power investment ( & that's the right thing to do) but the outstanding question is can the grid heat homes by direct electrification using low tech storage heaters cheaper than generating green or blue hydrogen & pumping this into the domestic supply. BTW I like the Tesla payee .....I though exactly the same.
I suspect his calculations are suspect SKC. Vestas are launching a 15MW turbine as I write. I wonder how that would affect his calculations? Each one is able to power 20,000 homes from memory which is pretty staggering. I reckon that 135m x 135m area could get shrunk a fair bit.
Also he is assuming the requirement is for us to be self-sufficient in all the electricity/energy we need. We are lucky to have such a large potential for offshore wind, but he should consider cases for countries that cannot be self-sufficient in electricity. How then would he suggest they heat homes and drive around? Yes, many can expand grid connections and import electricity over wires, but you're so dependent on the good will of your neighbouring countries for that solution. One of the reasons Japan is still progressing with hydrogen for vehicles is that they determined they can't generate enough domestic electricity since they abandoned their nuclear journey. The proposal to import hydrogen as fuel from Australia (and others) seems like a good solution to me, but I'm sure Prof Cebon would still disagree. I'd like to know what his solution is for Japan.
A few more of these:
https://fuelcellsworks.com/subscribers/france-hydrogen-station-in-cherbourg-en-cotentin-open/
in the right places and you have a useful network for freight and buses. Cars will follow eventually, or sooner if enough sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/561614
Seaangler thank-you good points. Ref Vestas....any idea why their share price has plumeted in the recent weeks ?
I'm also writing an irritated email to Prof' Cebon.
I’m a devotee of hydrogen and an architectural technologist by education.
Before the parliament website crashed I watched with interest at your seeming counter argument to the conversion of large amounts of electricity to H2.
You cited the inefficiency of the green H2 process (around 30%) and I do not dispute this.
Hinkley nuclear power station is projected to cost £22bn and took a decade to commission. Then there is the legacy issue of such tech’, management of toxic waste and decommissioning costs (again multiple billions). So until fusion becomes viable the cost per MWh for nuclear is prohibitively expensive at around $125. Yet it is seen as an essential part of the energy mix because of it’s high-power at short notice capabilities.
In March 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that "Renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation. It is now cheaper to build a new solar or wind farm to meet rising electricity demand or replace a retiring generator, than it is to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant. ..
If this is the case what happens when there is a lull in energy need (at night etc’)? The turbines keep turning and there is currently no energy storage solution for all that 100% wasted energy. So what to do? Do we put it into Tesla batteries that have rare earth element associated political and toxic issues; yet with greater energy density. However, from what I can tell, batteries have increased weight, limited charge cycling and will need to be replaced more often.
Given, the lessons learnt from nuclear meltdowns and BP oil spills we should think more long-term about the environmental legacies left after we are gone. Not just the pound for pound efficiency ratios. The notion that H2 creates a little N2O, water and O2 when it explodes is surely a much better legacy than lithium ions or cobalt leaking into the rivers.
The EU have released their advice about H2 suitable pipes and a particular kind of FRP plastic has been chosen. Storage is not an issue in a gas network. My street’s pipes have already been upgraded in the last few months.
The proper long term solution is for that green wasted energy is to be turned into H2. The multiple x cheaper cost of installing turbines instead of nuclear more than makes up for the loss in H2 storage efficiency; nuclear MWh for Fuel Cell MWh. You said 70% is energy lost, yet cost of wind is around $70 per MW and nuclear is $125 MWh.
As turbines only sell part of their actual generation to the grid (when it is needed) that is not really a true representation of their potential output and eventual per MW cost. Once an energy storage solution is provided then that cost would slide still further.
Infrastructure costs are minimal as you say because of the capability to transport H2 around the gas grid at will.
A 10 MW turbine is blown round for 50% of the year (43
(cont')
A 10 MW turbine is blown round for 50% of the year (4380hrs) producing 10*60*60*4380= 157,680,000 MW.
For 8 hrs a day it is used for peak energy demand and the majority of the rest is wasted.
.24-8= 16 hrs, but let’s be kind say 12 hrs is wasted energy potential.
157,680,000 MW / 2 = 78,840,000 MW unutilised potential energy
10 * 60 * 60 = 36,000 MW produced in an hour = 10MWh. Wind cost $70 per MWh so $700.
78,840,000 MW / 36,000 MW = 2190 * 10MWh or 21,900 MWh.
$700 * 2190 = $1,533,000 lost revenues per annum because there is no way to store it!
Even at 30% overall efficiency $1,533,000 / 100 * 30 = $459, 900
Including the 50% lost due to H2 conversion back into electricity by fuel cell that is $459, 900 per annum saved per turbine. Considering ITM’s projection costings of roughly £500k per MW capacity by 2023 means £5,000,000 per turbine.
Today’s £- $US valuation = £ 1 – 1.39
Lifetime of a turbine of up to 30 yrs
$459,900 / 1.39 = £330, 863 * 30 = £9, 925, 899 product created over the lifetime of the turbine, - £5,000,000 = £4,925,899 extra revenues over the lifetime (exc’ inflation and any interest) per turbine.
Currently possess 24.1 GW of turbines in the UK (10,930 turbines) with only half their energy utilised. That number will expand to 50 GW by 2030
1GW = 1000MW
10MWh @ 30% efficiency = £4,925,899 over turbine life
100 * £4,925,899 = £492, 589, 900 saved per GW over 30 years.
£492,589, 900 * 50GW = £24,629,495,000 revenues over 30yrs.
This figure includes the installation of the electrolysers, not inflation, not loan interest and as far as I’m aware not the required storage capacity for the gas. Though the inflation, H2 storage + CO2 storage and loan interest will be factors for CCS anyway.
Furthermore, the staggered nature of the roll out, increased efficiency of turbines electrolysers and homes etc over the next 30 years has not been taken into account.
For now that’ll do.
Later I wish to discuss a chicken and egg scenario.
The UK has millions of 2 up 2 down Victorian terraces that make up the bulk of homes. They are generally very cramped and only possess room enough in a cellar or roof space for a heat pump.
Thanks for all your patience,
From memory I think they are doing pretty well but recent results were down on margins. More importantly they’ve been tarred with the green brush. All this talk about bubbles etc. I used to hold Vestas (made me a lot of money in truth) and they would probably be a good investment now following the dip but I tend to stick to this country.
Well done McBF. Inclined to check your maths or maybe it’s just tea time....... Let’s see if he responds?
Hi Sea',
By all means check it over, I've made mistakes before. I've gone over it twice and can't seem to find much wrong with it. Maybe the turbine blowing around for half the year was too generous? If anyone with appropriate electrical energy and power over time experience could kick me in the goolies and let me know that would be great.
Hi Boaty, yes I think your numbers work out ok in the end. For your future calculations I wouldn't bother with multiplying by seconds, all that does is turn it into Joules only to turn it back again later. e.g. 10*60*60*4380= 157,680,000 Joules, not MW. Instead stick with 10*4380=43800MWh. Then later 43800 * (12/24) = 21900MWh wasted. Same answer, fewer big numbers in the way. Also remember MW is Power, MWh is Energy and Joules is Energy. You were mixing up Joules and MW a few times.
The observant amongst you will have spotted that I meant megajoules (MJ) as we were talking about megawatts in the multiplication below.
Haha, thanks Toneman. I can't wait for Cebon's reply, "basically you got everything except..." There's one other thing. the $700 per MWh is a cost not revenue. it was used as an indicator for the money saved if the costs remained the same. Man this is hard..Can't wait to send the revised calculations to Greg Clark!
I don't think you'll be able to persuade Cebon though with these sorts of numbers. They're too close to the numbers he already uses and he's already made his interpretation based on them. Effectively all you're trying to do is convince him that it's worth converting the curtailment into hydrogen because the operators can still make money from it. He may well agree to that but only on the understanding that the green hydrogen goes to industrial hydrogen uses and not heat, electricity generation, or transport, because it still doesn't change the fundamentals that, due to efficiency, electricity beats green hydrogen.
Instead he would need to be persuaded that efficiency is irrelevant.
Efficiency is irrelevant to people for whom electricity is not an acceptable solution. e.g. not enough solar or enough wind (e.g Japan), vehicles that can't be charged conveniently from home, vehicles that need to travel long distances with only short refuelling intervals, or even sending energy over 10's of thousands of miles.
The problem with relying solely on electricity to do everything is that it always misses 10-20% of the time. For those cases something else needs to step in...like hydrogen. And if you've had to resort to hydrogen for some use cases like transportation then, for simplicity and overall convenience, you'd be better building your transportation infrastructure around hydrogen instead then you only need one set of infrastructure not two like we're heading for. It's not the most efficient, sure, but it establishes more convenience across the board and makes a simpler global solution. After all the internal combustion engine is way less efficient but it's been a simple global solution for decades.
None of his areas of interest relate to hydrogen: http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/profiles/dc29
Revised numbers.
Using equivalent cost and wholesale production @ £50 per MWh.
So for now let me present you with a numeric tale about a single 10MW wind turbine….
(Hrs in a year are: 24*365 = 8760 / 2 = 4380hrs.)
A 10 MW turbine is blown round for 50% of the year (4380hrs) producing 10MW*60seconds*60minutes*4380hrs= 157,680,000 MW per ½ annum.
For 8 hrs a day it is used for peak energy demand and for the rest of the day the stopped turbine is basically wasted potential energy.
24-8= 16 hrs, but let’s be kind; say 12 hrs a day is wasted potential.
157,680,000 MW / 2 = 78,840,000 MW unutilised potential energy. Thus, at 30% overall efficiency Green H2 transformation = 23,652,000MW created and saved for a cold yet still day.
10 * 60 * 60 = 36,000 MW produced in an hour = 10MWh. Wind cost as a mean figure given as $70 per MWh so $700 to produce. This price will vary because of site related variables etc’ but it is nowhere near nuclear’s cost per MWh of around $125 MWh.
78,840,000 MW / 36,000 MW = 2190 * 10MWh or 21,900 MWh.
The projection becomes a little tenuous from here on in because I’m using an out-of-date price per MWh (£35 https://www.businesselectricityprices.org.uk/retail-versus-wholesale-prices/). So let’s say £50 per MWh which is currently a tiny bit less than $70. Today’s £- $US valuation = £ 1 – 1.39
Naturally in future with electrolysers that cost falls quite dramatically because of the extra electricity sold to market.
£500* 2190 = £1,095,000 lost potential per turbine/ annum because there is no way to store it!
Even at 30% overall efficiency £1,095,000 / 100 * 30 = £328,500 per annum ( Remember: This scenario is as if the wholesale price never deviates from £50 while the cost per MWh production inevitably drops)
Includes the 50% lost due to H2 conversion back into electricity by fuel cell. Considering ITM’s projected costings of roughly £500k per MW capacity by 2023 means £5,000,000 per turbine. This projection doesn’t include future benefits of price reductions caused by increased PEM efficiency, other R&D and manufacturing LEAN production at scale.
Lifetime of a turbine: up to 30 yrs
£328, 500 * 30 = £9, 855, 000 unutilised electricity at wholesale prices created over the lifetime of the turbine: - £5,000,000 electrolyser costs = £4,855,000 extra revenues over the lifetime (exc’ inflation and any interest) per turbine.
Currently possess 24.1 GW of turbines in the UK (10,930 turbines) with roughly half their energy utilised. That number will expand to 50 GW by 2030
1GW = 1000MW
10MWh @ 30% Green H2 overall efficiency = £4,855,000 accrued over turbine life
100 * £4,855,000 = £485,500,00 accrued per GW of now utilised turbine energy over 30 years.
£485,500, 000* 50GW = extra £24,275,000,000 revenues over 30yrs.
This figure includes the installation costs of the electrolysers (£5,000,000 per 10MW) , excludes inflation, loan interest and, as far as I’m aware; ex
(cont')
capacity cost for the gas. Nonetheless the revenue savings/ profits for this utilisation will probably be in the tens of billions.
Indeed, the inflation, H2 storage + extra CO2 storage costs and loan interest will be factors for CCS. CCS also has the 50% efficiency issue when it comes to converting blue H2 back into electricity via fuel cell technology.
Normal Peak demand projection; at 8 hrs a day per turbine/ annum: that is 2/3 the amount of MWh produced by 12hr projection. So 78,840,000MW / 3*2 = 52,560,000MW @ 100% utilisation/ 36000 = 14,600 MWh @ £50 = £730,000 per annum
21,900 MWh utilised @ 30% = 6570MWh
If 14,600 MWh = full yearly productivity and 100% of the £50 per MWh price tag.
How much does 6750MWh represent in equivalent percentage terms and denoted in cost reduction per Mwh?
14600/ 100 = 146 = 1%, so 6750 / 146 = 46.233% price reduction per MWh.
£50/ 100 * 46.233 = £23.11
50 – 23.11 =
Eventual Projected Wind: £26.89 per Mwh if every turbine had an electrolyser.
Hi Toneman,
I your point take he is unlikely to change his view regarding the necessary purity for industry compared to domestic, but I'm fine with that outcome. Every turbine still should get an electrolyser to save multiple billions over the lifetime of the turbine and the planet. 50GW is really the definitive base from which to build from. Renewable energy will become cheaper and cheaper per MWh and there's nothing wrong with splitting turbine production to both gas and electric. The question is what proportion? Indeed H2 pipes are much cheaper to manufacture that copper cables and that extra cost in turn should be weighed against the flexibility the dual option offers.
I must say I like your maths and writing style. Something is alarming to me though. Wtf is the government doing taking advice from an expert with no experience on the field of hydrogen? This makes me a bit concerned bc usually the gov will take advice from experts but will choose experts that will give them the answers they wanted. This is just a theory but using this scientist would make me think theybalreadybhave their minds made up? I don't know why. I keep coming back to them saying they want to have zero emissions and I can't see any other way than H2.
I really belive in ITM. Long term their backlog and future pipeline tender make for a really bright future. I think a lot of this drop has been down to a lot of Flakey investors taking a quick buck. But like when I invested in tesla...when Elon musk smoked a spliff on the Internet I got a 15% discount on tesla. So swings and round abouts.
Doesn't stop the dips hurting the pocket though
Trader87 Only hurts if you sell at a loss.
Professor Cebon was kind enough to send me a reply this morning.
He agrees that excess turbine energy should not be wasted but that it should be stored as other media. Compressed liquid air liquid storage is his favourite and it has a much higher efficiency ratio. What he doesn't comment on is transport or industrial clusters. I obviously have to believe his analysis because I haven't done my own levelled storage cost analysis . I would dispute that LAES is ready to manufacture at scale and also the idea that large scale H2 storage is untested. Indeed, large tanks and caverns would be required for both technologies so his point about geography being a limiting factor for h2 is moot. The idea for LAEC is to blow the stored air into a turbine at the end and this improves upon H2 - FC conversion by 34%. But again this air tech does not bode well for transport. Finally, the resistance of all the copper cables, other wires and transformers is not mentioned in this blog post. If one converts to H2 direct on the turbine itself and then pumps the gas ship to shore you immediately eliminate those electricity losses via heat transfer and plastic is cheaper to manufacture than massive 30 mile long copper cables.
I’ll tell you something else. Looking at his description he states that pumping the air through a turbine generates the electricity needed. Good, great, but has he looked into lower pressure utilisation? Back in the days of steam you would have your high pressure cylinder/ turbine and then a lower pressure cylinder to get every Joule of energy out of the steam. So applying that to compressed air seems obvious but what happens if you place a turbine in front of the compressed, stored h2 and then shove that lower pressure gas into a fuel cell eh? Massive spike in H2 efficiency is what happens!
http://www.csrf.ac.uk/2020/11/electricity-storage/
Boaty, thanks for taking te time to do that, really good stuff, will take some time thinking about it all.
Can I throw Nano Coated Salt into the mix ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgUTL_FkErI