BP to develop UK’s largest hydrogen factory in Teesside


MARCH 20, 2021

By Paul Homewood

h/t Patsy Lacey

Starry eyed Rachel Millard forgets to ask how much this will cost the taxpayer:


BP is planning to build a vast hydrogen factory in Teesside to provide energy for local industry and homes.

Its H2Teesside could be producing hydrogen from natural gas – so-called ‘blue’ hydrogen – by 2027 or earlier with a target of generating 1GW of hydrogen by 2030.

The Government wants to develop 5GW of hydrogen production by 2030 as part of its effort to cut carbon emissions.

Hydrogen does not emit carbon when burned, although making it from natural gas as opposed to via electrolysis (dubbed ‘green’ hydrogen) does produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

How hydrogen output could expand in the coming decades, using carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS):



I can guarantee one thing – this investment will only go ahead on the back of massive subsidies, probably via a Contracts for Difference type scheme, similar to the way offshore wind farms are subsidised.

In short, BP will be paid a guaranteed price for all the hydrogen it produces, which will probably be triple the price of natural gas. The cost of this will be passed back to energy consumers.

Based on that BEIS document I wrote about yesterday, a 1 GW plant will cost in the region of £529 million, excluding any carbon capture plant:


The steam reforming process uses 1.355 times as much natural gas as it converts; ie the process wastes about a quarter of the energy input. When operating expenses are thrown in such a plant would lose BP in the region of £250 million a year, if its output was sold at the market price for natural gas, which is £14/MWh.

4.1 8 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 21, 2021 2:05 am

What the UN needs is to be dismantled. It’s a rogue organization. Bureaucracy out of control.


Al Miller
Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 21, 2021 8:55 am

Which of course is why Maurice Strong and others who sought to avoid the “madness” of the will of the people went to the UN in the first place with their phoney global warming scam.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 21, 2021 4:02 pm

During two addresses at the United Nations in New York USA President Trump admonished them for interfering in the affairs of member nations and hinted that unless the UN downsized and returned to their original purposes for establishment the US would stop funding them.

He even joked that maybe UN HQ could become a casino and return money to US taxpayers instead of taking money from them.

March 21, 2021 2:35 am

The author is very negative. My heart tells me this is a brilliant idea. Just as my heart tells me solar works brilliantly at night and that wind turbines don’t need wind to power them and that biomass is merely burning trees that had died of old age and fallen, so we merely got to them before the termites did.

Physics and common sense and economics might be telling me differently, but Hey! its the heart and emotions we need to listen to in these enlightened ‘woke’ times.


Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2021 3:22 am

biomass is also generating methane from food waste and brewing/distilling waste which would have gone to landfill.. there are times and places where solar meets peak demand during daylight hours… the wind blows at night.

Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 9:17 am

Griff, while most of your comments are risible, I do agree that we get wind at night.
Happens to me quite frequently.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Mr.
March 21, 2021 11:07 am


Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 10:38 am


I live in the UK as well and keep a daily weather diary. There has been no wind the last 5 days and very little sun over the last 4 and what there has been has been weak.

So the total amount of weather reliant renewable energy is, as usual, limited during the winter when it is most needed. I approve of burning the type of waste you describe but it is very limited compared to wood chippings which I don’t approve of..


Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 10:51 am

Yes, there are times and places, but alas, only so few

Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 12:04 pm

You mean like today, griff ?…. roflmao !!!

comment image


Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 3:11 pm

I’ve always been in favour of incinerating waste where possible rather than landfill. If energy can be generated by incineration that’s all to the good.

Reply to  griff
March 22, 2021 3:09 pm

I always feel Griff’s replies to renewables failing to meet demand 80% of the time is to point out renewables only fail to meet demand 76% of the time and some how in his mind the four percent difference somehow makes renewables viable.

Timo V
Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2021 3:39 am

Man! Some people are just lousy detecting sarcasm. I wish we could see the downwote count of your comment.

Reply to  Timo V
March 21, 2021 5:22 am

That’s why there is Poe’s Law.

Reply to  Timo V
March 21, 2021 5:38 am

Hydrogen does not emit carbon when burned

has to be the quote of the month !

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Vuk
March 21, 2021 7:43 am

It creates water vapour, the most deadly of all greenhouse gasses.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
March 21, 2021 2:04 pm

Very strange, how this crucial molecule, H2O, tends to get sidelined as *not* being a control valve for warming, in the “conventional greenhouse gas” theory! They treat H2O as a positive feedback effect, which must in turn be a limited thing, balanced by convective cooling presumably, or the positive feedback would cook the earth (in the model, I mean) every time!

The thing is, I *do* follow your logic here. How do they know that puffing out extra water vapour, with some time delay before that can rain out, doesn’t cause *some* extra greenhouse effect *directly*? One possible answer is that there is already so much H2O in the atmosphere that the extra amount that humans produce won’t matter, i.e., there is just a lot of the H2O greenhouse “goliath” molecule out there naturally. In addition, they sideline H2O in favour of looking at the “non-condensing” gases (CO2 especially) just because H2O can precipitate out under common every day conditions, and therefore can’t be a “direct” valve for the earth’s “greenhouse”?

The thing is, a lot of things in and on the earth tend to act to keep H2O in the atmosphere, and those things would presumably continue to act even if someone could magically remove the CO2 content from the atmosphere (just for a test run, say). For instance, volcanoes tend to put a significant amount of H2O directly into the air, along with any CO2 they produce. Also, just think about the atmospheric turbulence whipping away at the ocean surface and other bodies of water, I mean, the tornadoes, storms, hurricanes, derechos, etc. Does anyone really think that it would all stop in principle, if there were no CO2 ?

All of these things happen, weather, and turbulence, and climate, with water undoubtedly being the most significant substance mediating heat transfers of all kinds (at least on *this* planet, anyway). But our own small, ineffectual contributions are something to fret about, our cows burps to frown upon, our existence to bemoan! Someone, fetch me my jousting pike, I have a windmill to tilt thereupon, Sirrah..

Timo V
Reply to  Timo V
March 21, 2021 8:38 am

And now i get downvotes, great. I wish we could see up/downvotes separately, so we could see how many were dumb enough to think Tonyb was serious. See, i was here when Tonyb’s comment was fresh and it already had 4 upvotes, i left for a couple of minutes, and votes were down to 1.

Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2021 7:24 am

Spoke the woke bespoke broke bloke on coke.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2021 7:46 am

If I may make one correction to you comment, wind turbines don’t need wind to make money, expecially in the UK.

Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2021 9:35 am

Its H2Teesside could be producing hydrogen from natural gas – so-called ‘blue’ hydrogen – by 2027

What an insane waste of CLEAN pure energy resources.
Burn one gas to make another. This has to be a contender with CCS for the most stupid thing to do with valuable resources.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Greg
March 21, 2021 10:29 am

With 10% excess air natural gas in a High Velocity Burner originally made by Thermal Research & Engineering, a company I worked for in the 60s it produced a BLUE FLAME. It was used by Airlines in test chambers for aircraft part suitability. I think the Selas Company may have acquired the patents and still manufactures.

Steve Case
March 21, 2021 2:41 am

Hydrogen does not emit carbon when burned, although making it from natural gas as opposed to via electrolysis (dubbed ‘green’ hydrogen) does produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

So why not use the natural gas in the first place?

Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 3:13 am

Why call it green hydrogen, when they would probably be burning coal/oil/gas to generate the electricity for the electrolysis

Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 3:39 am

Because that would be too easy and would not cost half as much.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 3:40 am

Because Hydrogen is the new, cool, energy source. Never mind that it comes with a whole host of its own problems and is almost impossible to contain safely. Never mind that it really isn’t a source of energy, it is GREEN! Let’s spend lots more money to make something less useful out of something very useful. It works with bio fuels, after all. I am convinced that all these clowns were dropped on their heads at birth!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 4:05 am


Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 6:38 am

Natural gas (methane) is mostly hydrogen

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
March 21, 2021 10:34 am

Since when Hatter. 1-C atom is 14 mol.wt., 3H is atoms is total 3 mol. wt. Go take a basic chemistry course.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
March 21, 2021 7:00 pm

I had a chat with someone once that said to me methane had “…four carbons…”

Another Joe
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
March 21, 2021 11:08 pm

Methane = CH4

Is that Bigmouth as well?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 6:42 am

It’s the same mentality that makes people ignore the source of the electricity that charges their “green” car.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 9:43 am

Reforming natural gas produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. CO can be used to make a variety of organic molecules.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2021 6:27 pm

They tell you a kilogram of H² is the energy equiv of a gallon of gasoline, but don’t tell you that the kilogram of liquid hydrogen is about 3.4 gallons in volume!!

The “poker tell” is their mixing of weight and volume to hide this inconvenient fact. You would have to tow a trailer with the extra volume of hydrogen to match the driving range of a 10gallon tank of gasoline. I’ve thought the CEO of BP revealed himself to be a bit of a nut following the Gulf of M drilling platform accident. He’s confirmed it. I’d be looking to find myself out of Teeside before they “fire” this plant up!

Patrick healy
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 22, 2021 12:42 am

Ah but Gary we had a relatively sane boss of BP in those days. We now have a green zelot from County Kerry in charge named Mr Looney. He is a pal of that other great “conservative” Boris Johnson-Corbyn apparently.

Paul C
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 22, 2021 3:29 pm

Rest assured, Teesside knows very well how to handle industrial production of explosive chemicals. The (formerly ICI) petrochemical works at Wilton is now split between half a dozen multinational operators. That site was started around 1946, and the Billingham fertiliser plant operated from the 1920’s, later producing nitrates for WWII explosives.
The best use for hydrogen is to combine it with carbon to form more useful gaseous or liquid fuels, or chemical feedstocks. Strange that nature has already done that for us.

March 21, 2021 3:11 am

Definition of DUMB

Natural gas along with its friends coal and oil are the very best hydrogen storage methods – stable, transportable and energy is available on demand. What more could you want.

Maybe we could take CH4 and turn it into SiH4 and then burn it and the only pollutant would be SiO2/sarc

There must be a way to get the crazy out of our society. I do my best but it seems to be an ever increasingly steep hill.

Reply to  Enthalpy
March 21, 2021 6:06 am

Of quartz, that’s it, brilliant.

Eric Vieira
March 21, 2021 3:18 am

The process then produces much more CO2 per KJ than using NG directly. So to say it bluntly: this is “powered by subsidies” at the taxpayer’s and consumer’s expense. The UK Government could just as well burn paper money directly from the mint and call it
“biomass recycling”.

Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 1:08 pm

Poor Scotland,

The dumping ground for everything the Poms don’t want in their backyard !!

And that means EVEN LESS wind electricity for the UK grid.

And when the wind doesn’t blow, they will use GAS instead.

But at least its being used for a worthwhile cause, hey griff.

“The Glenmorangie Company said the hub could potentially produce fuel to replace the gas it uses at its distillery in Tain.”

Last edited 20 days ago by fred250
Ron Long
March 21, 2021 3:31 am

If I was in the BP meeting where “Fatal Flaws and Critical Paths” was analyzed and discussed, I would point out the sentence in the report above that says “…does produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide”. When this is coupled with the lead time to anticipated production, to 2027 is six years, the Critical Path is littered (infested? compromised? sowed with land mines?) with a high risk of developing a Fatal Flaw. This project is not advised for a publicaly-held stock company. Governments hell-bent on virtue signaling? Perfect!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ron Long
March 21, 2021 6:44 am

The final outcome, whether it becomes operational or not, is of no concern to those who will profit greatly during the “development” stage.

March 21, 2021 3:36 am

I take it the distribution system will be carts with tanks (not steel of course) on them pulled by unicorns which will go round the streets with the driver ringing a hand bell and calling out ” Hi Hi Hydrogen, bring out your buckets to get your safe green gas “. I must get a breeding pair of unicorns.
Or maybe not.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Oldseadog
March 21, 2021 3:46 am

That’s the ticket, breeding unicorns! It can’t be any harder than breeding cows, horses, or cats, and I am very experienced with those animals. And Unicorns being mythical, don’t require pastures full of forage to keep them fat and healthy, they can get along just fine on imaginary foodstuffs like wishes and dreams…. Yep, gonna get me a few lady unicorns and a strapping stud unicorn and go into business in the back garden.

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 21, 2021 6:01 am

And you can sell the rainbow coloured farts as a sideline.

Reply to  Oldseadog
March 21, 2021 5:54 pm

griff will buy them ALL !!

comment image

Timo V
March 21, 2021 3:47 am

There must be a special supply of spineless and corrupted engineers for these kind of projects. I would never participate in this lunacy.

Last edited 20 days ago by Timo V
Patrick MJD
Reply to  Timo V
March 21, 2021 5:04 am

Depends. I am in, lets say, my last 10-15 years of “real worth work”. At this stage, I don’t care, I turn up, do stuff, and get paid. Recently, I am asked to do “stupid stuff” to which I object to, with grounds, raise my concerns, which are “vigorously ignored”. I then do “stupid stuff” and I get paid.

Beer on Fridays!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 21, 2021 7:45 am

Good point. Most of the engineers I know are skeptics of the idea that bad stuff will happen from the energy our society needs, including nuclear and that which releases CO2. They understand how things get built and operate, how our infrastructure works, and consequently how the benefits to modern life far outweigh the negatives. Except for one, who now works in a state Department of Environmental Protection… calls us deniers.

Reply to  BobM
March 21, 2021 11:32 am

It’s a bit of a generational divide, with exceptions of course.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 21, 2021 8:29 am

Engineers can and have been held responsible for disasters.

Your duty is to accurately identify and state difficulties, dangers and costs; including estimated costs for potential disasters.

Yes, your bosses may note your ‘less than fully cooperative’ mindset.
Unemotionally state legal responsibilities for engineers and project managers and the penalties meted against transgressions.

At which point, you are likely to get “sit here and do not interrupt or obstruct” job instructions. Which will give you ample opportunity to look into solutions independently.

Ideally, your independent work will someday solve the companies problems. Less than ideally, your independent work will help prosecutors investigating failed corporate responsibilities.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  ATheoK
March 21, 2021 11:04 am

Disaster is one thing.
Participating in a money losing venture is just government as usual

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ATheoK
March 21, 2021 7:10 pm

I have been around long enough to know what CYA means.

March 21, 2021 3:55 am

Somewhat OT but interesting paper about Texas cold snap:

How unprecedented was the February 2021 Texas cold snap?

Winter storm Uri brought severe cold to the southern United States in February 2021, causing a cascading failure of interdependent systems in Texas where infrastructure was not adequately prepared for such cold. In particular, the failure of interconnected energy systems reduced electricity supply just as heating demands spiked, leaving millions of Texans without heat or electricity, many for several days.This motivates the question: was the cold that contributed to this infrastructure failure a “black swan” that could not have been anticipated, or did historical storms provide a precedent? We compute the population weighted temperature excursion below 68°F as a proxy for heating demand and use this metric to answer the question “what would the aggregate demand for heating have been had historic cold snaps occurred today?”. We find that local temperatures and the inferred demand for heating across the Texas Interconnect during a storm in December 1989 were more intense than those recorded during February 2021, and that several other storms in the modern era were comparable. Given anticipated population growth, future storms may lead to even greater infrastructure failures if adaptive investments are not made. Further,electricity system managers should anticipate that upward trends in electrification of heating may cause peak annual loads on the Texas Interconnect to occur during winter storms.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 21, 2021 5:58 am

The paper is interesting, but it failed to mention some key aspects of the ‘cold snap’. I live in one of the hardest hit parts of it. There really were two storms, and the separation between them was very short. The paper studied, at most, durations up to four days, for us the total was over 8 days, with single digit temperatures almost every night, and below freezing highs almost every day. Both storms started with freezing rain below the snow. The paper failed to even mention snow. We had around 8 inches total from the two storms. This brought down power lines for many customers. The total accumulation of snow in our area in a century and a half of data was 24 inches. We had a third of that in just a couple of days.

For our city, New Braunfels, the snow was a serious issue. There was no snow removal equipment for the roads. This left deep snow and ice ruts in the roads. Trucks could not make deliveries, and most stores ran out of gasoline and fresh produce. There were half mile lines at some of the grocery stores waiting for the “covid limits” in the store to exit. Stores hit with the rolling blackouts that didn’t have enough running backup generators, had to close sales of all items still in their occasionally blacked out coolers.

There was a lot more to the storm than inconvenient rolling electricity shutdowns.

Reply to  Tom
March 21, 2021 6:53 am

You are right that there was a lot more to it than blackouts. The point seems to be that the storms was not truly unprecedented–this has happened before.

I live in Kansas–we had our share of problems from the polar vortex although not as bad as yours. But the last thing I would call the temperatures and related storms is unprecedented. What was truly unprecedented was the amount of wind energy that was being depended on.

Reply to  starzmom
March 21, 2021 9:41 am

I agree completely that the disruption was mostly caused by failure of the wind turbines. I don’t believe, though that the paper showed that the storm was unprecedented. Had they looked at the total duration of 8 days, they may have shown that the cold was indeed unprecedented in a century and a half of data. Unprecedented cold would certainly belie attempts to declare that the cause was global warming.

Reply to  Tom
March 21, 2021 11:49 am

Definitely not global warming–agree there!! As I said, we had our share or problems, and the length of the cold snap was among them. Our power pool was really depending on wind when it didn’t come through–that was the big mistake.

I do think the planners, driven by public policy, have minimized the probabilities of adverse winter weather, and maximized the predictions of wind performance. When I listen to utility planners, which I do occasionally, they are careful to toe the party line. I hope the public does not suffer too much for these kinds of decisions.

robin townsend
March 21, 2021 4:00 am

This is totally beyond me.If the argument is burn all the stuff in one place to treat the exhausts since its impractical to treat every car etc, then fine. But why not do that in a gas burning power station? how can a company be competitive if it produces less power per tonne of energy since it udergoes a costly unnecessary conversion process? madness.
The second half of the following article all about the buying and selling shinanigans of PPL and National Grid is craxzy, i dont understand a word of it, but it looks bent as hell;


Bloke down the pub
March 21, 2021 4:24 am

I had a promoted tweet turn up in my timeline from some outfit pushing hydrogen as the energy of the future, so I replied that hydrogen is not a fuel source but an energy storage system, and a very inefficient one at that. I also sent them a link to Paul’s post but haven’t heard back from them, strangely enough.

Charles Fairbairn
March 21, 2021 4:27 am

I really do worry for the next generation having to deal with the consequences of this type of investment, if you can call it that. Having to keep pigs flying is not an attractive proposition.

Peta of Newark
March 21, 2021 4:44 am

Meet your enemy. I give you Chris Stark

I got to know him – Peta treads where angels fear
He did a Renewable Energy presentation for Alumni, thats me 😀 of My Old School = Leeds University.

This was the meeting where one of the two roving microphones was revealed to have a flat battery (could you make it up)
Also where a tiny timorous mouse-like female, name of ‘Julia somebody’ from Leeds (she’s authored junk that’s been mentioned here on occasion) announced she rides a push-bike ## to get around Leeds and received a spontaneous round of applause for revealing that nugget of virtue.
I felt queasy to put it mildly
No matter, angels have no fear so I hung around for more…

To say that Stark was/is fixated on Hydrogen is an epic understatement. Just epic.
And so relentlessly cheerful & full of himself

Thus we realise that the glasses he wears are not to help him see, they’re a first line of defence to try stop an endless queue of people from mashing his face to a pulp.

He Really Is That Annoying
You find yourself agreeing with him in the hope that he’ll just stfu and Go Away
And that is the guy pushing Hydrogen
Clearly, another Good Friend of Princess Nut-Nuts

And You Lot elected Biden!
Whatever’s coming, we pair of us deserve it

Do I need to say that I DID NOT buy a T-shirt on this occasion?
Especially when I found that the ‘University’ Car Park was holding my vehicle to a £30 ransom release fee

## Julia is of a Particular Race/Tribe – a tribe notoriously careful with money. The push-bike makes perfect sense even before the grotesque Virtue Signalling.
Nobody accumulates gold by giving it away to electronic bandits operating inside multi-storey carparks

Last edited 20 days ago by Peta of Newark
March 21, 2021 4:52 am

Just wait until the public learns about those efficiency calculations!!

Patrick MJD
March 21, 2021 4:55 am

Hydrogen; How to make less “energy” from using more fossil fuels. Just like fusion.

Bill Rocks
March 21, 2021 5:37 am

This is another admission that BP knows that it has failed at its primary and historical business of discovering, developing and marketing naturally-occurring hydrocarbon resources.

It is a shell of a company now grovelling for government subsidies. Unfortunately, it destroyed other companies along the way. Amoco and Arco come to mind.

March 21, 2021 5:38 am

I thought H2 will rise pretty quickly into the upper atmosphere, get hit by UV light to form radicals, then react with the O3 up there much like the CFC’s do. If you want to stop this, start a campaign saying it will exacerbate the ozone hole and this insanity will be the end of us all. Fight fire with fire, so to speak.

Last edited 20 days ago by rbabcock
Reply to  rbabcock
March 21, 2021 9:32 am

Yes, and accompanied by colorized, re-mastered film clips of the Hindenberg “landing” in the USA.

Reply to  rbabcock
March 22, 2021 6:04 am

Yes, destroy the ozone layer and build a layer of water in the stratosphere which will now be a non-condensing green house gas (as is ozone, so I’m not sure how energy adsorption will sort itself out with changing stratosphere composition). Stratospheric physics will change with respect to H2 in the air, and I don’t think we’ve fully thought this through.

Reminds me of the time when greenies went on an oxygenated fuel binge and required additives such as ethanol or MBTE in winter gasoline to reduce air pollution. There were problems with MBTE leaking into groundwater, trading air pollution for a much more serious water pollution. Oops! Consequently, MBTE was quietly disposed and is no longer used to oxygenate gasoline.

Using hydrogen as a fuel may cause unintended problems in the stratosphere and eventually be scrapped as an embarrassing mistake.

Paul C
Reply to  rbabcock
March 22, 2021 5:27 pm

Reacting with ozone is probably a best case scenario. The ozone “layer” is far more robust than the false CFC scare implied as ozone forms from O2 whenever there is insufficient ozone to block the UV from reaching the O2. If H2 does not react with ozone, even more hydrogen will escape the atmosphere. I recall some speculation that a hydrogen fuel economy would inevitably leak free hydrogen, dramatically increasing the rate of escape from earth’s atmosphere. While it is not a problem on human lifetime timescales, it does mean that hydrogen fuel is a non-renewable resource, so is ruled out as an alternative for eco-nuts.

Rich Lambert
March 21, 2021 5:49 am

About the only positive I can see from this might be the production of more fertilizer with surplus hydrogen.

March 21, 2021 6:23 am

Hydrogen economy will destroy the Ozone Layer and replace it with ice.

Hydrogen is the lightest of gases and leaks easily from containment. Produced and consumed in the quantities needed to power the economy means billions of valves and connections that will all unavoidably leak.  Compared to present volumes, this will result in an enormous increase in ambient levels of hydrogen. Because it is so much lighter than air, the gas will rise through the atmosphere until it reaches the stratosphere where it will encounter the ozone layer.  Ozone is highly reactive and will combine with the hydrogen to form water molecules, destroying the ozone layer and substituting a layer of ice crystal, altering the earth’s albedo. I do not pretend to know what losing the ozone layer will do to life on earth, or what a stratospheric cloud of ice crystals will do to insolation and global temperature, but I bet the effects would be significant.

Eric Harpham
Reply to  TedL
March 21, 2021 10:37 am

Please would you give me permission to use this explanation in a letter to the Daily Telegraph. I would like to do that but do not want to be seen to steal your work.

Reply to  TedL
March 21, 2021 11:38 am

Excellent logic!

March 21, 2021 6:33 am

Hydrogen is a road to nowhere

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
March 21, 2021 9:00 am

It’s the journey that counts for the money changers.

March 21, 2021 6:41 am

The only thing that you can predict with 100% confidence to happen by 2030 is for the UK to default on its national debt.

Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2021 6:44 am

Yay! Go Big Green!
No really, just go. How about to Mars? Anywhere but here.

Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2021 7:10 am

And don’t forget, CCS is a big part of this fraudulent and scammy scheme, adding further to its costs. What a horrible, totally useless waste of money and effort, all in the name of “saving the planet”. When will the madness end?

Last edited 20 days ago by Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2021 7:17 am

The energy dreams of the third reich coming true.

March 21, 2021 7:40 am

When do the blimps arrive?

March 21, 2021 8:14 am

BP will be paid a guaranteed price for all the hydrogen it produces, which will probably be triple the price of natural gas. The cost of this will be passed back to energy consumers.”

A) Under normal accounting rules under IEA and EIA, cost of construction and costs of operation will be described as subsidies attributed against fossil fuels.

B) BP will be allowed to sell “carbon credits”.

C) BP’s record for drilling, pumping or refining fossil fuels is highly tarnished. As is their complicity in human rights abuses.

  • Allowing BP to build a dangerous fuel refinery, coupled with pump station and hydrogen storage, anywhere near civilization or wildlife is irresponsible.


  • BP’s Alaska pipeline breaks and leaks.
  • BP’s refinery oil spill into Lake Michigan.
  • BP’s Deepwater Horizon Spill.
  • BP’s complicity in China’s human rights abuses in Tibet…
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ATheoK
March 21, 2021 8:57 am

The production or hydrocarbons and subsequent conversion into useful fuels and products in a safe and efficient manner requires enormous resources and attention to detail. Any entity that truly believes that it is “beyond petroleum” should be proscribed from participating in such activities.

Reply to  ATheoK
March 22, 2021 6:15 am

You omitted memorable Texas City Refinery Explosion

Al Miller
March 21, 2021 8:53 am

…or we could use the 100% natural energy source that mother nature already provides by using it directly. Of course I refer to Mother natures own energy storage solution – hydrocarbons. Trying to find a better solution than Gaia has developed over many millions of years is pure folly, and of course virtue signalling.

Paul Johnson
March 21, 2021 9:01 am

This technology simply moves emissions from one location to another while using a lot of energy to do so. Advocates seek to have ill-informed bureaucrats virtue signal by “investing” taxpayer money, hoping to profit in the process.

John F Hultquist
March 21, 2021 9:03 am

Time to move to east of the Pennines.

Reply to  John F Hultquist
March 21, 2021 11:22 am

I think it might be safer to stay west of them. They might act as a blast deflector when the whole of Teesside goes up.

March 21, 2021 9:04 am
March 21, 2021 9:43 am

Making hydrogen takes more energy input than the finished product contains. It costs more to make than the finished product sells for.

Using fossil fuels to make hydrogen fuel makes less sense than using fossil fuels to make electricity to power electric cars as a means of getting off fossil fuels. Expensive virtue signaling that contradicts the stated purpose.

Robert of Texas
March 21, 2021 10:12 am

Turn Natural Gas into Hydrogen…Why? You are far better off just burning the natural gas.

How about something both practical and beneficial, like turning coal into electricity?

Coeur de Lion
March 21, 2021 10:18 am

What is the life insurance position of workers on this site versus other sites? Perhaps someone might ask BP who is carrying the insurance? My understanding is that a hindenburg is quite possible.

March 21, 2021 11:07 am

Essentially all of the Biden administration’s initiatives are insane or close to it — this would fit right in as well.

March 21, 2021 11:13 am

I just despair really ! This will increase CO2 emissions by 35.5% for the same amount of energy.
That is, unless there is a use for the massive amount of carbon monoxide, apart from burning it. There are indeed industrial uses, for example, It is used in the USA to keep old meat looking red (banned in EU). Not much is used

But I can’t see there are valid uses for the millions of tonnes of CO if this process takes off on a big scale.

Matthew Sykes
March 21, 2021 11:16 am

At least someone sees the future of cars. Hydrogen fuel cells.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
March 22, 2021 7:12 am

Yes I agree, but producing the hydrogen by the method this article is counter productive. It would actually be better to fuel cars directly with the methane, the CO2 production would be lower !

John M
March 21, 2021 1:02 pm

Why are they calling this a “factory?”

Sounds like a chemical plant to me.

March 21, 2021 1:21 pm

The Northern Hemisphere is going to get very cold soon. Masses of people in the first world who are lower income will literally die from hypothermia. Die, as a direct result of their own Governments deliberate policy. The Texas disaster (35-40 died of cold in a “Wealthy State”) is a tiny example of the wave to come.

March 21, 2021 3:09 pm

Hydrogen is a road to nowhere.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
March 22, 2021 7:09 am

No it’s not. Even if you are a climate skeptic, the fact remains that oil and gas are finite resources. Sooner or later we need to find a substitute, and lithium-ion batteries are not it. Nuclear produced hydrogen (likely being converted to synthetic hydrocarbons) is the only hope for jetliners.

March 21, 2021 3:55 pm

Different pig, same trough.

March 21, 2021 9:52 pm

“Starry eyed Rachel Millard forgets to ask how much this will cost the taxpayer” … Reporters never ask the important questions these days – most ‘news articles’ sound like press releases or propaganda from Pravda circa 1980.

March 22, 2021 3:20 pm

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is very difficult however water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas and can be removed easily by simply increasing rainfall. A worldwide cloud seeding effort would halt AGW thereby saving the planet. Where do I go to collect my Nobel Prize?
In my defense my idea is less insane than processing natural gas to produce a different flammable gas.

%d bloggers like this: