Caerphilly County Borough Council has backed a motion calling for hydrogen to be considered as a renewable energy source to power trains and buses.
The motion was proposed by cllr Phil Bevan, Plaid Cymru, at a full council meeting on Tuesday, July 17.
Cllr Bevan asked colleagues to consider the research of Simon Thomas, Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales, who has published a paper exploring the economic potential of hydrogen in the decarbonisation of transport in Wales.
The motion was carried and supported by members of all parties.
Germany, Austria, China and Canada are some of the countries developing hydrogen-powered trains and buses, while there is also a fleet of hydrogen-powered buses currently in operation in Aberdeen.
Cllr Bevan asked fellow elected members to consider the findings of the report in a motion supported by cllr Colin Mann, leader of the council’s Plaid Cymru group.
Cllr Bevan said: “The potential of hydrogen to help solve some of the biggest problems facing Wales now and in the future needs to be fully explored.
“Due to its versatility, abundance and practical benefits, hydrogen offers one of the main pathways to decarbonisation.
“There has been very little research conducted on the use of hydrogen for these purposes in Wales to date and there needs to discussion on how to develop a hydrogen strategy and drive forward expertise and interest in the technology.”
Councillor Mann agreed that hydrogen power could have “huge potential” if implemented in Wales.
He said: “Maybe we can actually get to the forefront of some technologies. We’ve been scuppered on the [Swansea Bay] tidal lagoon by the UK Government and there’s now an opportunity to get in front of the game.”
The major limitations to hydrogen-powered vehicles include its cost, the infancy of technology and its competition in the market place with electric-powered vehicles.
Labour councillor David Poole, leader of the council, offered his support but urged caution about the high costs of using hydrogen for energy.
Yes the UK Government did support the tidal lagoon at Swansea – but it seems thats where their support stopped.
I think this council has enough of its own hot air to power public transport.
The council needs to make its mind up what renewable energy it wants to fund. First electirc now this. Here is an idea why not wait and see what energy is best instead of jumping in feet first and wasting money.
You are right Edward and I did reply in some detail about how hydrogen is manufactured and the environmental implications. However, my reply fell foul of either somebody or some monitoring machine and was taken down.
Isnt it funny how the far left (snowflakes) promote free speech unless you disagree with them or go against their views. They then instantly close you down and refuse to hear your views. Its ironic that the ones who believe in free speech are the ones stopping it.
I think I fell foul of a machine this time, something triggers them. Mind you, I do agree, sometimes comment triggers people too. ‘Safe space’ is a concept alien to me, I want to hear all sorts of views, I have the same curiosity as when I was a teenager and am bemused when those of the establishment point of view try to suppress free speech.
It wouldn’t be the first time this Authority has jumped in feet first and later regretted it.
They need to take the advice of experts – and I mean “experts” – not these people who offer them an opportunity which in reality makes money for the advisors/ experts but rarely seems to deliver what the authority really needs !
I have put my earlier reply to Edward on, below, as I copy anything I send.
Yes it does Edward and it also needs to do some reading before coming out with ideas. Hydrogen is usually manufactured in three ways,
1) Natural gas reforming where gas is subjected to steam, this strips the carbon atoms C from methane CH4 which gives you hydrogen H2 and carbon dioxide CO2. That should get the climate change people up in arms!
2) Electrolysis of water, which uses vast quantities of electricity to cause a chemical reaction in water H2O to provide oxygen O2 and hydrogen H2. This sounds promising but is massively expensive, about 4 times the cost of natural gas, and that is without taking into account the electricity used or how that electricity is produced in the first place.
3) Another way is to cut down trees, turn them into charcoal and heat in a reaction vessel at about 1500 degrees C. This produces a gas which can be separated into hydrogen H2 and carbon monoxide CO. Not a great idea cutting down lots of trees to make a poisonous gas along with your fuel.
Our elected representatives don’t seem to be aware of this GCSE standard chemistry and come out with wacky ideas to get headlines in newspapers. The council can do something to improve air quality, I think putting a stop to building housing estates on green fields far away from where people can work would be a good start. Trouble is this does not make headlines.
Making headlines……now that’s one thing the council is really good at…..the only trouble is that they make headlines for all the wrong reasons !
Man, that’s a lot of half-baked information. Hydrogen from natural gas generates considerable fewer GHGs than diesel buses, or CNG buses. While not ideal, it’s better for the environment.
Electrolytic hydrogen is not 4 times more expensive than natural gas reformation. If made from excess wind and solar, it’s actually quite cheap during certain parts of the day and allows for more renewable energy to be utilized, also good for the environment.
Your #3 is not done anywhere. However, trees are used in electric plants to power your electricity. So you shouldn’t use electricity either, which also uses natural gas and coal…
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Buses can be a full replacement for diesel buses in range, refueling time and duty cycle, and when using renewable hydrogen, it’s a win win for the environment and reducing local air pollution. People like you are doing the city and country a very bad service by spouting these untruths. Please stop, and please educate yourself on the technology.
Please read my comment again before passing your own views along. I did not argue that hydrogen from natural gas produces less green houses gas than diesel buses. There is no question that localised pollution is decreased by hydrogen powered internal combustion engines. My contention is that the production of CO2 is removed to another place, something we should be cognisant of.
I also did not argue that electrolytic production of hydrogen is four times more expensive than natural gas reformation. I said that it is four times more expensive than simply burning the natural gas as fuel, which it is. There is no such thing as ‘excess’ wind and solar in the UK. As we close fossil fuel plants those forms of electricity make up a bigger part of our base load – on those times when these sources of energy are available at all.
Finally, “people like me” have been concerned about the environment for a very long time. In my case since I was a child. For this reason I walk everywhere practicable, have not traveled by air in ten years, have my milk delivered in reusable bottles, and set my home thermostat to 14 degrees Celsius all year, wearing extra clothing when necessary.
As for my education I was educated in the old Polytechnic of Wales in electrical engineering and part of my management role was looking after a 10Mw CHP power station. For the record my own view is that we should stop messing around and harness the tidal power of the Severn estuary. By electrolysis of water from the energy provided we can power vast numbers of hydrogen fuelled buses. Now that would be a good thing!
“Due to its versatility, abundance and practical benefits, hydrogen offers one of the main pathways to decarbonisation…” I’d love to see that statement thoroughly explained!
As a solution to reduced city-centre emissions sure, but Wales could first do with a few more roads and tracks…
“Hydrogen offers one of the main pathways to decarbonisation. I’d love to see that statement thoroughly explained!”
So would I, so would I. It’s a bit like the argument that nuclear power is “clean energy.” Only if you focus on carbon dioxide it is, as soon as you explore the other fission by-products that doubt creeps in…
Well, hydrogen isn’t nuclear energy, so let’s not compare apples and radioactive oranges. Versatility: Hydrogen can be made from different feedstocks, biogas, methane, electricity, and can be made locally, reducing dependence on foreign fuels. Abundance because hydrogen is virtually limitless, it’s the most abundant element in the universe, and can be made from water. Practical benefits: it can be used for transportation of cars, buses, ships, rockets and with processing, can be used to make synthetic fuels for airplanes. It can be used for power generation, back-up power, energy storage in vast quantities to provide long duration and seasonal storage for when wind and solar are not available, etc. etc.
Hydrogen can decarbonize the transportation sector by using renewable electricity to replace diesel and other combustion fuels. Even when using natural gas as the feedstock for hydrogen, you reduce GHG emissions by 2/3s. When using renewable electricity or biogas, your GHG emissions are practically zero. So to remove carbon from transportation, while replacing buses in long distance, short refueling time, heavy duty cycle, fuel cell electric buses are one of the very few options that can do the job.
How we produce hydrogen is the thing that counts. I have no quibble with vehicles being powered by hydrogen whatsoever. My doubts lie with the way we currently do it.
I don’t get it though. Hydrogen vastly improves the GHG impact from transportation, even if it is from natural gas. It’s ideal when made from RE, but no matter what the source is, its better than gasoline or diesel…
In my view the advantage, globally rather than locally, only applies if you manufacture hydrogen by electrolysis using renewables The only way Britain can realistically do this is by utilising a form of energy that is plentiful and always available.
For these reasons you can forget wind, solar and even hydro electric – we are in a drought situation along with much of Europe now. The only sources currently meeting the criteria are tidal and wave power. This should be done now, it is within our capability, but politicians think in terms of 5 years, not centuries.