Mark Vender
A review of independent studies on the use of hydrogen for heating has delivered a damning verdict for the idea that we may one day replace our existing gas network with a hydrogen network.
The evidence review, undertaken by energy influencer Dr Jan Rosenow, looked at 32 independent studies. These were conducted at international, regional, national, state, and city level by universities, research institutes, intergovernmental organisations such as the IPCC and the International Energy Agency (IEA), and consulting firms. The review excluded reports carried out by or on behalf of a specific industry, because the results might reflect vested interests.
Dr Rosenow notes that the review was conducted against a backdrop of hydrogen hopefulness.
“Low-carbon and zero-carbon hydrogen has been promoted by gas and heating industry representatives as a key solution to replace especially fossil gas in the distribution grid,” he says. “It has received significant media attention over the last two to three years and featured in some of the many national hydrogen strategies launched recently.”
Indeed, hydrogen appears in both Australia’s Low Emissions Technology Statement 2021 and the Gas Substitution Roadmap released by the Victorian government earlier this year.
Dr Rosenow makes an important distinction between the different uses of green hydrogen. He notes that there are many legitimate current and potential uses: as a feedstock in industry, for high-temperature processes, in shipping, and for long-term energy storage for electricity production.
When it comes to heating in buildings, however, the review is unequivocal.
“The evidence assessment shows that the widespread use of hydrogen for heating is not supported by any of the 32 studies identified in this review,” says Rosenow.
“Instead, existing independent research so far suggests that, compared to other alternatives such as heat pumps, solar thermal, and district heating, hydrogen use for domestic heating is less economic, less efficient, more resource intensive, and associated with larger environmental impacts.”
The evidence review can be found at ScienceDirect.
Image by Rafael Classen at Pexels.
Leave a Reply