Hydrogen the Groningen way. Nr.7

 💦⚡️💚 Green hydrogen is ‘booming’. As the missing link in the energy transition and in the transition to sustainable industry. But how do we make hydrogen ‘big’ and make sure that everyone benefits? Read my voyage of discovery here👇 💚🌍

⚡️💦🙅🏼‍♀️ At a crossroads: are we prepared to share? 🌍

Up to last summer I was looking for innovative terms and conditions for a fair green hydrogen production. Then it fell silent. My quest ran into a dead end. Dozens of phone calls and countless emails provided me with enormous amounts of information, but it was not the Holy Grail. I largely found existing standard agreements for mining. However, recently I addressed a major international digital event about the role of hydrogen in the energy transition and that rekindled my inspiration. So, I’m continuing my mission. 

Fair distribution

The meeting I addressed was intended to exchange information about the role of hydrogen as the ‘missing link’ in a sustainable European energy system. However, the discussion quickly moved beyond Europe. Green hydrogen has the benefit that it can be transported over long distances. Like oil and natural gas, it can be transported across continents without significant losses. That is a major advantage over electricity, where friction with the cable produces energy losses. In other words: with pipelines, or even vessels, it is straightforward to transport energy and more to the point, the pipelines already exist across the globe. It’s natural for people who work in the fossil-energy sector to move quickly to an international level. After all, we already have a properly operating international energy system. But do we? In terms of transport and use, perhaps we do. But the profits or benefits of the fossil-energy economy are not distributed evenly. At the meeting I realised that we consider transport and use in the same way wherever we are, but when it comes to distributing the benefits we start imposing different conditions outside Europe. We're at a crossroads in relation to hydrogen: we can reach agreements now about a new, fair distribution of prosperity. 

More acute problems

Let's start with the places where we extracted large amounts of fossil energy over the past decades. In my region, gas extraction led to earthquakes but we benefited from a prosperous Netherlands nevertheless. Fossil energy was extracted in many other parts of the world, but without any benefits for the local population. They did not benefit from a prosperous country, or the profits. Enormous amounts of profit were achieved in the trade in fossil fuels, and sustainable energy is no different. In many African countries, the trade in oil led to civil war, consider Angola, whilst other sectors, such as agriculture or nature, were pushed aside as in the Congo. Many of those countries now also find themselves at a crossroads: how do they deal with sustainable energy? Often there is significant solar power, whilst wind currents provide opportunities for wind parks. Plenty of possibilities, but developing countries are still looking for their role in the new sustainable-energy system. Many of these countries signed the Paris Agreement, but often have different and more acute problems, such as deforestation, drought or no energy of any kind. Furthermore, they often lack the finance to invest themselves. 

 

Share in the profit

In the Netherland we signed a National Climate Agreement in 2019 in line with the Paris Agreement. Part of this Climate Agreement is that we strive for 50% participation by the local area in sustainable energy projects. You can deal with that in various ways, but let’s say a 50% share in the profits for convenience sake. If that is our demand for solar parks in the Netherlands, why not afford others the same? It would mean that large solar parks will soon spring up all around the world, with Europe importing the energy and the local area with a pot of money at its disposal. That money could be used for the more acute problems. For example, in sub-Saharan countries more than 600 million people do not have electricity at all. Electricity would provide them with more economic opportunities, and it is better for your health than constantly living with a kerosene lamp. Alternatively, the money could be used for planting forests, building schools, or drilling water wells, etc. It would be a genuine contribution to SDGs.

Funds

These days there are many international reforestation projects, but they continue to be expensive and ultimately it works best when local farmers become actively involved. I called Justdiggit.org to find out whether they believe that funds from profits from large solar parks could contribute to their objectives. I also spoke with the people of Rural Spark. They work for people who live in areas that are completely off-grid or have extremely limited access to energy. They are focused on the African market. I asked them too whether these types of funds could contribute to their mission. 

Local needs

It continues to preoccupy me: if we do not want to produce sustainable energy here, but aim to import it, then surely we need to facilitate the same terms and conditions over there? Several (international) people I spoke to pointed out to me that we should not make decisions on behalf of other people. It is perfectly possible that the needs and requirements of the local area are completely different from our own. By making funds available to the local area, we leave it up to them. Either way, now is the time to start reaching those types of agreements. 

Responses

If you're interested in the response from some stakeholders, please read my next blog! But first: What do you think?