In the evolving landscape of sustainable energy, the debate between utilizing hydrogen pipelines and High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission to transport energy has garnered considerable attention.
The latest entrant into this discourse is the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, attempting to dissect this complex matter. However, as we delve into their findings, it becomes evident that, like previous studies, certain critical aspects are overlooked, leading to a skewed perspective.
The fundamental premise of these studies involves comparing the efficiency and economic viability of two approaches: generating hydrogen in one location and transporting it through pipelines versus transmitting electrons using HVDC technology. The objective is to ascertain which method offers a more sustainable and cost-effective solution for energy transport.
A recurring flaw in prior analyses, noted by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, is the assumption of a centralized source for green hydrogen molecules. This assumption is unrealistic unless hydrogen is produced from natural gas at a specific location. Overlooking this fact leads to miscalculations, particularly in estimating the cost of hydrogen production.
Earlier studies often projected unrealistically low manufacturing costs for hydrogen, assuming extremely cheap electricity prices. However, the actual costs involved in harnessing renewable energy for electrolysis, storage, and transmission infrastructure bring the price of green hydrogen closer to reality, significantly higher than initially estimated.
One commendable aspect of the Oxford Institute’s analysis is their recognition of the balance of plant in hydrogen production. Unlike some previous studies, they acknowledge the intricate components involved in electrolysis, desalination, and compression. Yet, there is still room for improvement in capturing the full complexity of the process, such as the role of hydrogen dehumidifiers in removing water vapor before transmission.
The core finding of the Oxford Institute’s study highlights a critical disparity in energy delivery. HVDC transmission consistently outperforms hydrogen pipelines, delivering substantially more energy at the end of the journey. This is a crucial metric, indicating that, under equivalent conditions, hydrogen pathways only deliver 40% of the energy compared to electron pathways. Such revelations question the overall economic feasibility of hydrogen pipelines for energy transport.
Despite shedding light on certain aspects, the report falters in assessing the comprehensive costs associated with deploying offshore electrolysis facilities. The need for additional wind farms and power cables to supply sufficient electricity to these facilities is acknowledged but not factored into the equation. This oversight contributes to an unrealistic portrayal of hydrogen production as an isolated process, disregarding the broader infrastructure requirements.
The persistent neglect of the exergy factor in hydrogen studies remains a glaring omission. Failing to account for the inherent inefficiencies in converting hydrogen back into electricity, especially when compared to direct electrical use or battery storage, skews the overall assessment. The report inadequately addresses the less efficient nature of hydrogen in various applications, such as heat production, where electric alternatives often outperform.
The report acknowledges the current lack of a significant market for hydrogen in energy applications, yet it employs energy units for hydrogen extensively. While citing potential demand for hydrogen, it does not critically question the feasibility of widespread hydrogen adoption as an energy carrier. The disparity in the number of existing HVDC transmission lines versus hydrogen pipelines is noted, but the assumption of widespread hydrogen pipeline construction remains unquestioned.
