In Whitby, we appreciate the collective need to achieve net zero. Our resistance to the proposed hydrogen village was not a knee-jerk reaction, nor are we opposed to hydrogen in general; it’s not about NIMBYism (not in my backyard) or ignorance.

Instead, we are deeply unhappy with the way in which the project has been handled, and what it is actually offering as an alternative for a domestic energy source.

At first, I, and many others, were enthusiastic. We believed what we were told – that hydrogen was a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. We wanted to decarbonise our homes and this seemed like the perfect ‘green’ solution.

But, after doing our own research and speaking to experts, it became increasingly obvious that hydrogen will never be the greenest, most economical, or commonsensical solution to domestic heating.

The problem with hydrogen
Hydrogen for domestic use just doesn’t stack up – 37 independent studies have dismissed it as a serious solution.

Currently, just 1% of the hydrogen produced globally is green. The creation of all other types requires fossil fuels. Research shows that the use of all non-green hydrogen, including blue (made with carbon capture, use and storage; CCUS), creates more emissions than fossil fuels.

So why should we use hydrogen for domestic heating when other more efficient and environmentally friendly options are available?

District heating (or heat networks) use waste heat released from sources such as industry for consumers in homes, businesses and public buildings. Heat pumps can also heat buildings using electricity at a highly efficient rate.

Meanwhile, emissions-heavy industries such as steel, cement and petrochemical manufacturing do not have low-carbon alternatives. The 1% of green hydrogen produced should be used for sectors that don’t have any other options.

But, after doing our own research and speaking to experts, it became increasingly obvious that hydrogen will never be the greenest, most economical, or commonsensical solution to domestic heating.

It is now clear to me, and many others in the community, that even if hydrogen could be as safe as methane gas, it’s never going to be as cheap – despite volatile prices. It’s certainly not going to be as cheap as options such as district heating or heat pumps. And costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

We estimate that the average cost per house for this project is about £100,000 – a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money, which could be better invested in truly green options.

So why is this project being forced on us?

The actors involved have a vested interest in employing hydrogen for heating and have lobbied the government hard for the implementation of the trials. The fossil fuel industry and the companies dependent upon existing infrastructure such as Cadent and Northern Gas Networks want to protect their business model. They have invested billions in the natural gas pipelines and are loath to see them become stranded assets.

Whenever we mentioned heat pumps as an alternative to hydrogen, we were told the infrastructure isn’t there and the ‘grid can’t take it’. But the infrastructure for hydrogen isn’t there either! The Whitby project has already spent some £4mn (of taxpayers’ money) constructing new pipelines and updating old ones.

Fossil fuel companies want to convince the government and the public that repurposing pipe networks for hydrogen is the best solution. It seems they’ve already persuaded the government to ignore the scientific consensus– but the public is not so easily hoodwinked.

And any chance they might have had in convincing Whitby residents to agree to their plan was snuffed out by their shockingly poor handling of the project.

Human guineapigs
Both the government and the companies running the project tried to force the entire community onto their timeline. The local council just saw investment and jobs, and didn’t think to question it or consult independent experts before they offered up our private homes as a test site.

The whole project has been engineered to how Cadent and British Gas wanted it to go, so naturally residents only received half the picture, meaning that we had to seek our own information from independent experts. This was not well received by Cadent, which dismissed our experts as having ‘vested interests’ in heat pumps. Ironic, as Cadent have the biggest vested interest out of everyone.

If they were truly interested in empowering residents and decarbonising our heating, they would have provided full information on other options, encouraged open discussions, and asked us for our input from the outset.

It has backfired because the project leaders didn’t expect people to do their own research. They didn’t think experts from across the world would join the discussion and explain the truth about the future of domestic heating.

Ultimately, this project was a huge, missed opportunity. We want to help the UK achieve its net zero target; but the community needs to be involved, the right technology needs to be used, and project leaders must be transparent.

It’s gone too far now for the government and industry to admit their mistakes. But we believe the project should have been government-led, based on advice by independent environmental and energy experts, with more due diligence and controls in place to protect the public and ensure that the information being given to residents is factually correct.

Click here to read more about Cadent's plans for the Whitby hydrogen village plan.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author only and are not necessarily given or endorsed by or on behalf of the Energy Institute.