Hydrogen Supply Chains

Debate between Tom Collins and Jamie Stone

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on a very important subject. He mentioned the production of ammonia. The fact is that fertiliser is made from ammonia and right now our farmers are facing increasing prices for a number of world reasons. Does the hon. Member agree that one of the strategic purposes of creating hydrogen is to support hard-pressed farmers all over the UK?

[Tom Collins]

The hon. Member is entirely right. Ammonia is a very important part of the future energy mix. It is interchangeable bidirectionally with hydrogen and it is a very compact energy carrier. It is a liquid—it is relatively easily handled and stored—but it also, vitally, provides direct injection into the agricultural fertiliser chain. That makes it a vital asset in our future energy system, as agriculture currently plays a very large role in our total carbon emissions.

How we get to the future energy system is similar to how we got to this point: economics is overtaking technology as the driver for change. It is not about choosing technologies; it is about choosing these key energy vectors and then facilitating markets to grow around them. If we look more closely at that challenge and at the current UK energy system, we have seen electricity decarbonising, but if we look at electricity use in comparison with other vectors in the UK, it plays a relatively modest role. If we look at our energy use over the course of a year, our daily electricity consumption is pretty flat, but if we overlay on to that the amount of gas we use as a country—remember, gas is providing a vital part of our electricity production, and indeed the responsive part—and we see waves with peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. The peaks of those waves are three times higher than our day-to-day electricity use. Gas is doing the lion’s share of moving energy around the UK and supporting our electricity system, and oil, which is primarily used for transport and is our main vector for transport, sits at about the same level as electricity. That is the picture of how energy is split across the UK energy system.

What we can learn from that is that UK energy demand is peaky. It varies very rapidly, seasonally and throughout the day, especially for heat applications. As we move into a renewable world, we need to recognise that renewable production is also subject to these synchronous peaks and troughs. The UK is a small enough country that one weather system can influence the production of all our renewables. We are therefore subject to fluctuations both in the supply of renewable energy and in demand. We also know that global prices for energy will continue to fluctuate, and part of our Government’s strategy to make the UK rightly more energy independent is informed by our vulnerability to variations in international energy prices.

Whatever our vector mix, and however we cut up the pie of our future energy system, we absolutely will need storage to navigate these variations. The transition has rightly been described as a chicken-and-egg problem: how do we build a new energy system out of an existing one? We are led by economics, which means that we need a price for the new system. We need a price that breaks the cycle by providing producers with a way to sell their energy and by providing people decarbonising at the end-use point with the ability to buy the energy they need for decarbonisation and to make long-term investments. That price enabler is made stable by storage. The crux, therefore, of building this future energy system is to build transmission and storage of the key vectors that we want to use in the future. Therefore, it would be very valuable for the UK to develop a plan to commission and build out a strategic national clean energy reserve. That can be left to markets, but the Government need to drive it with an extremely strong and firm grip and with a clear vision. I urge the Minister to look at the ways that we can build on our current work in storage, while expanding it with a very clear and ambitious vision.

We can also start blending. Blending is sometimes misunderstood. There are currently investigations into blending hydrogen into our natural gas supply. That has a small benefit for decarbonisation, but it has a huge benefit for allowing us to build out production of hydrogen, because it gives producers a large and available sink for their hydrogen to be produced and sold and it allows them to build large-scale production with the certainty of a market. Blending is therefore a key enabler not of decarbonisation but of building production for a future energy system with hydrogen playing a major role.

It is also vital that we take action to fill the remaining gaps. Through my experience as an engineer working in research and development I have seen personally how powerful it is when the Government set goals and work in partnership with industry to try to meet those goals. Goal setting cuts through the noise of the usual business of research and development and the competition for investment, and it allows us to move forward. It has put the UK in an incredibly strong position.

The UK is already the leader in hydrogen standards, and with the publicly available specifications 4444 series, it is leading the way in establishing technical standards. We have an opportunity to build those out up to the norms of the British Standards Institution and the International Organisation for Standardisation. The UK has led and is leading that. The UK has led on technology with a series of first-in-the-world projects in hydrogen over recent years, and we have an opportunity to lead through our geography with a well-established oil and gas industry ready to transition with fantastic geology for salt cavern storage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on a very timely debate indeed; he knows his subject, and that is to the benefit of us all. Touching on the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), if we had mentioned hydrogen aviation prior to about 1940 it would have had people screaming in fear, because that was the era of the Hindenburg and the R101. The hon. Member for Worcester is absolutely correct that the potential for air transport is massive; the fact that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined we get water means that it is the cleanest of all forms of energy.

I made mention in my intervention of the production of ammonia. If my chemistry lessons have stuck, I think it is NH₄, which can then be turned into fertiliser. Our farmers are very worried by the increase in fertiliser prices, and it looks as if they are going up again this year. That can play merry hell with their farm accounts as they try to forward guess what their profitability will be. We know that EU tariffs on Russian fertiliser mean an increased price for EU countries. My point is a simple one: the more we can promote the manufacture of fertiliser out of ammonia from hydrogen produced in the UK, then the better that will be for this country. We have a great export opportunity.

I give great credit to the previous and present Governments—my constituents are very grateful to them—for having had the courage to go for Cromarty Firth and Inverness green freeport. The idea producing hydrogen was part and parcel of formulating that bid to the previous Government, and of the way we talk to the present Government. The experts in the field have been telling me that the potential for bulk hydrogen to be sailed across the North sea from the north of Scotland to very keen markets in Europe is huge, and that there is real money to be made here. When the bids were put together, the production of green hydrogen was part of that bid.

The Minister, whom I, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) am very glad to see in his place, knows full well that the issue of the grid we are proposing—where the pylons and lines go, whether they are sub-sea or above the ground, the batteries and all that—is a controversial and hot topic. However, I give him his due; in his previous incarnation he was as helpful as he could possibly be.

When the grid improvements were initially proposed, and yes we of course have to do that if we are serious about getting to net zero, I wrote to the then Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland to ask whether the proposals matched the production of green hydrogen that we are keen to do in the north of Scotland. I may or may not have got the formula for ammonia right but, if I remember my physics correctly, the longer the distance one has to send electricity down a wire or a cable, the more energy is lost. Is it I²R? It is something like that; I have probably got it wrong, and the Minister probably knows it better than I do, but the point is that the longer the cable, the more resistance, and energy is lost because heat is produced and radiates off it.

I earnestly say to the present Government, looking at the production of green hydrogen in the north of Scotland, “Would it not make sense to produce an awful lot of that as near as possible to where the energy is actually being created?” We have a plethora of wind farms in the north of Scotland. We have the Beatrice wind farm off the coast of my constituency and there are many others up and running or projected for Scotland. It seems to me that the manufacture of hydrogen as near as possible to that source of energy would make enormous sense.

[Tom Collins]

The hon. Member is entirely right. One of the key questions often asked about green hydrogen is cost. There are many projections showing cost coming down dramatically in future, and part of that comes from the fact that hydrogen production is able to utilise renewable electricity that would otherwise be constrained or not used. He is entirely right that geographical and time constraints on when energy is produced are vital, but create a low-cost source of energy for the production of hydrogen, which brings the cost of hydrogen down, so I thank him for his point.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention.

I want to conclude with two points. First, I am optimistic that this is a subject that will enjoy cross-party support—I cannot see anyone rocking the boat on this one; it would be madness to do that—and sometimes, when things have cross-party support, they really can happen. There is a great opportunity in this country.

Secondly, to make an unashamed, blatant advertisement for my constituency, as Dounreay decommissions, we have sites and skills particularly near to where the energy is being created. If the His Majesty’s Government would look at the creation of hydrogen in my patch, I would be most awfully grateful. With that blatant touting for business, I conclude my contribution.