CHARLES BANNERMAN: Energy solutions have potential but might not be as simple as they seem

Any significant increase in electricity demand will hence, for the foreseeable, still rely on traditional fossil fuels.

Global preoccupation with reducing emissions has led to the frantic promotion of energy sources which allegedly don’t produce carbon dioxide.

But in their sudden quest for quick bucks, the companies behind this profit bandwagon have become adept at concealing the severe shortcomings and difficulties involved in their magic bullets.

Gushing, virtue signalling sales pitches for wind, waves, solar, batteries, nuclear, electric cars and even ammonia seldom utter a word about their down sides.

It’s as if there’s some magic energy fountain out there, just waiting for simple, clean, efficient and infinite exploitation. Wouldn’t it be great if reality was half as simple?

They all struggle under critical examination, but with a number of hydrogen hubs under investigation across the Highlands, let’s concentrate on that. Its backers tell us it burns only to form harmless water vapour, but much remains unsaid.

For a start, hydrogen isn’t what’s called a primary fuel. There’s none in the atmosphere so it has to be made by chemical processes, requiring a great deal of energy from elsewhere. Hydrogen doesn’t therefore provide energy, it’s simply an energy store like a battery. That isn’t well understood, mainly due to its infrequent disclosure in promotional material.

There are two main ways of making hydrogen – passing electricity through water and steam reforming, a high temperature reaction of natural gas. The first involves a great deal of electricity, introducing that delusion of some miraculous, limitless source of the stuff. But in reality, renewables don’t even give enough electricity to meet current demand, never mind extra to make hydrogen and to power other alleged panaceas like electric cars. Any significant increase in electricity demand will hence, for the foreseeable, still rely on traditional fossil fuels. That electricity is also expensive.

Steam reforming also needs a lot of energy; not as much as electrolysis, but there’s a major additional problem. Reforming methane produces carbon dioxide as a by-product, in total quantities not hugely different from burning gas, petrol or diesel. The normal defence is the claim that the carbon dioxide can simply be stored underground. However, this technology is still very rudimentary, and is confining increasing amounts of gas underground for all time really a sustainable, long-term solution?

Storing hydrogen, at depots and in vehicles, is another issue kept low profile by its promoters. Hydrogen is the second most volatile substance in the universe after helium. Storing it is therefore very demanding, especially in containers small and light enough for personal transport. The current leader is in tanks at up to 700 times atmospheric pressure, and even then the energy yield per unit volume is quite low. People are therefore driving around, sitting on top of one of the most explosive substances on earth under huge pressure.

Oh, and burning hydrogen, as opposed to fuel cell use, doesn’t just produce water. The presence of air also gives the same poisonous nitrogen oxides for which diesel vehicles are roundly condemned. Are catalytic converters up to removing these totally?

Hydrogen and many other suggested energy solutions also have potential. But this insight into just one alleged panacea perhaps illustrates that alternative energy sources are by no means as straightforward as their slick, profit-orientated marketing makes them appear and need evaluated critically.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.