This week on Cleaning Up my guest was Dr Eva Schmid, Director of Hydrogen and Synthetic Fuels at the German Energy Agency dena. We explored whether the German Hydrogen Strategy needed a reset. TLDR...
One statement that Eva made a few times that was weird was when she said “the will to pay” for the green hydrogen in the market. As if the market (people) was going to pay a premium price for hydrogen just because it’s hydrogen. Also, I suspect she was trying to base the argument on being “neutral” when she said “let the market decide”. But, with all the numbers you put on the table, there is nothing to think: Direct electrification is the way forward for Germany if the country wants to be a competitive economy in the future.
On the other hand, it is an irony that Germany which can be also considered the cradle of electrification for the many electric infrastructure projects developed since over a century and with its huge corporation such as Siemens, has not realised that electrification is at its DNA and that they have the means to lead this transition with pure electrification .
Finally, regarding the supposedly direction established by the strategy, it looks more like an imposition of the incumbents (O&G) than a real strategy developed by knowledgable people. Just think how many billions if not trillions of USD are at risk (stranded assets) if the pipelines, tanks, ships, pumps, sensors,etc are replaced by electrification? Many of these manufacturers are German companies that don’t want to lose their business.
I've got a question -- and this is a basic one -- what good is being pragmatic , being calm , and willing to engage -- when the bases for the position being held -- is not valid?
I an an industrial chemist. Unfortunately the Germans continue to ignore the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics, a field they once pioneered back in the day. In fact all "renewables" ignores the same. Subsidies provide the smokescreen.
The problem is that it takes more energy to produce and store and maintain 1 kg of hydrogen than the energy it contains.
Perhaps if they electrolyzed water to get hydrogen using nuclear energy, it could have some value.
Alas, Dieter shut down all his nuclear plants is back to burning coal and wood pellets.
Great point about the need to separate energy policy from industrial policy. There’s a lot of discussion in New Zealand at the moment about gas price and it’s effect on the viability of industrial gas users. One idea is that an LNG import facility is established while methanol manufactured from locally sourced gas continues to be exported.
“…The annual cost of the health impacts of fossil fuel-generated electricity in the United States is estimated to be up to $886.5 billion…”
If this figure is correct, decarbonising the USA electricity grid with Gen III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs) would save the USA ~$500 billion per year - that's $3,800 per household per year.
About 1/3rd of the NPPs, combined with PEM electrolysers, would be able to operate at 100% availability and load follow demand diurnally in milliseconds. Operators of such combined plants might qualify for up to 4 revenue streams meaning the greener-than-green, nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) would sell into the existing [grey] hydrogen markets.
It's reasonable to suppose the $500 billion per year 'benefit' to household budgets could fully support the build out of a NEH-economy to decarbonise all other sectors of energy use, with money to spare. It's:
Win: Save at least $500 billion/year ad infinitum
Win: Dramatically reduce energy bills to benefit the poor
Win: Save millions of premature deaths/vile illnesses every year
Win: Healthier/wealthier/longer-lived citizens
Win: Boost manufacturing with ‘home-made’ technologies
Win: Minimal use of precious materials and resources
Win: Minimal environmental footprint
Win: Minimal ecosystem destruction
Win: Minimal biodiversity loss
Win: The safest of all industrial waste control & storage
Hi Michael,
Great interview.
One statement that Eva made a few times that was weird was when she said “the will to pay” for the green hydrogen in the market. As if the market (people) was going to pay a premium price for hydrogen just because it’s hydrogen. Also, I suspect she was trying to base the argument on being “neutral” when she said “let the market decide”. But, with all the numbers you put on the table, there is nothing to think: Direct electrification is the way forward for Germany if the country wants to be a competitive economy in the future.
On the other hand, it is an irony that Germany which can be also considered the cradle of electrification for the many electric infrastructure projects developed since over a century and with its huge corporation such as Siemens, has not realised that electrification is at its DNA and that they have the means to lead this transition with pure electrification .
Finally, regarding the supposedly direction established by the strategy, it looks more like an imposition of the incumbents (O&G) than a real strategy developed by knowledgable people. Just think how many billions if not trillions of USD are at risk (stranded assets) if the pipelines, tanks, ships, pumps, sensors,etc are replaced by electrification? Many of these manufacturers are German companies that don’t want to lose their business.
Gabriel
I've got a question -- and this is a basic one -- what good is being pragmatic , being calm , and willing to engage -- when the bases for the position being held -- is not valid?
Interesting.
I an an industrial chemist. Unfortunately the Germans continue to ignore the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics, a field they once pioneered back in the day. In fact all "renewables" ignores the same. Subsidies provide the smokescreen.
The problem is that it takes more energy to produce and store and maintain 1 kg of hydrogen than the energy it contains.
Perhaps if they electrolyzed water to get hydrogen using nuclear energy, it could have some value.
Alas, Dieter shut down all his nuclear plants is back to burning coal and wood pellets.
Great point about the need to separate energy policy from industrial policy. There’s a lot of discussion in New Zealand at the moment about gas price and it’s effect on the viability of industrial gas users. One idea is that an LNG import facility is established while methanol manufactured from locally sourced gas continues to be exported.
It was also a well written and informative article
“…The annual cost of the health impacts of fossil fuel-generated electricity in the United States is estimated to be up to $886.5 billion…”
If this figure is correct, decarbonising the USA electricity grid with Gen III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs) would save the USA ~$500 billion per year - that's $3,800 per household per year.
About 1/3rd of the NPPs, combined with PEM electrolysers, would be able to operate at 100% availability and load follow demand diurnally in milliseconds. Operators of such combined plants might qualify for up to 4 revenue streams meaning the greener-than-green, nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) would sell into the existing [grey] hydrogen markets.
It's reasonable to suppose the $500 billion per year 'benefit' to household budgets could fully support the build out of a NEH-economy to decarbonise all other sectors of energy use, with money to spare. It's:
Win: Save at least $500 billion/year ad infinitum
Win: Dramatically reduce energy bills to benefit the poor
Win: Save millions of premature deaths/vile illnesses every year
Win: Healthier/wealthier/longer-lived citizens
Win: Boost manufacturing with ‘home-made’ technologies
Win: Minimal use of precious materials and resources
Win: Minimal environmental footprint
Win: Minimal ecosystem destruction
Win: Minimal biodiversity loss
Win: The safest of all industrial waste control & storage
https://substack.com/@colinmegson/p-146111400