zondag 23 augustus 2020

Down the rabbit hole: how QAnon conspiracies thrive on Facebook

e



Down the rabbit hole: how QAnon conspiracies thrive on Facebook

Guardian investigation finds more than 3m aggregate followers and members support QAnon on Facebook, and their numbers are growing


QAnon is a movement of people who interpret as a kind of gospel the online messages of the anonymous figure, ‘Q’. QAnon is a movement of people who interpret as a kind of gospel the online messages of the anonymous figure, ‘Q’. Illustration: Eric Pratt/The Guardian


Julia Carrie Wong

I

n early May, QAnon braced for a purge. Facebook had removed a small subset – five pages, six groups and 20 profiles – of the community on the social network, and as word of the bans spread, followers of Q began preparing for a broader sweep.

Some groups changed their names, substituting “17” for “Q” (the 17th letter of the alphabet); others shared links to back-up accounts on alternative social media platforms with looser rules.

More than just another internet conspiracy theory, QAnon is a movement of people who interpret as a kind of gospel the online messages of an anonymous figure – “Q” – who claims knowledge of a secret cabal of powerful pedophiles and sex traffickers. Within the constructed reality of QAnon, Donald Trump is secretly waging a patriotic crusade against these “deep state” child abusers, and a “Great Awakening” that will reveal the truth is on the horizon.

QAnon evolved out of the baseless Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which posited that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a Washington DC pizza restaurant, and has come to incorporate numerous strands of rightwing conspiracy mongering. Dedicated followers interpret Q’s cryptic messages in a kind of digital scavenger hunt. Despite the fact that Q’s prognostications have reliably failed to come true, followers rationalize the inaccuracies as part of a larger plan.

Q’s initial commentary on the Facebook bans was concise: “Information Warfare,” Q posted on the website 8kun. Two days later, in a post that included a collage of dozens of news headlines about the takedowns, Q went further, speculating that there had been a “coordinated media roll-out designed to instill ‘fear’” in believers and dissuade them from discussing QAnon on social media. “When do you expend ammunition?” Q wrote. “For what purpose?”

The anticipated purge never came. Instead, QAnon groups on Facebook have continued to grow at a considerable pace in the weeks following the takedown, with several adding more than 10,000 members over 30 days.

A Guardian investigation has documented:

  • More than 100 Facebook pages, profiles, groups, and Instagram accounts with at least 1,000 followers or members each dedicated to QAnon.

  • The largest of these have more than 150,000 followers or members.

  • In total, the documented pages, groups and accounts count more than 3m aggregate followers and members, though there is likely significant overlap among these groups and accounts.

These groups and pages play a critical role in disseminating Q’s messages to a broader audience and in recruiting more believers to the cult-like belief system, researchers say.

“Facebook is a unique platform for recruitment and amplification,” said Brian Friedberg, a senior researcher at the Harvard Shorenstein Center’s Technology and Social Change Project who has been studying QAnon for years. “I really do not think that QAnon as we know it today would have been able to happen without the affordances of Facebook.”

More than 100 Facebook pages, profiles, groups, and Instagram accounts with at least 1,000 followers or members each dedicated to QAnon.
Suggested QAnon groups on Facebook. Composite: Eric Pratt/The Guardian

Moreover, Facebook is not merely providing a platform to QAnon groups. Its powerful algorithms are actively recommending them to users who may not otherwise have been exposed to them.

The Guardian did not initially go looking for QAnon content on Facebook. Instead, Facebook’s algorithms recommended a QAnon group to a Guardian reporter’s account after it had joined pro-Trump, anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown Facebook groups. The list of more than 100 QAnon groups and accounts was then generated by following Facebook’s recommendation algorithms and using simple keyword searches. The Instagram accounts were discovered by searching for “QAnon” in the app’s discovery page and then following Instagram’s algorithmic recommendations.

Receiving QAnon recommendations from Facebook does not appear to be that uncommon. “Once I started liking those pages and joining those groups, Facebook just started recommending more and more and more and more, to the point where I was afraid to like them all in case Facebook would flag me as a bot,” said Friedberg. 

Erin Gallagher, a researcher who studies social media extremism, said she was also encouraged to join a QAnon group by Facebook, soon after joining an anti-lockdown group.

Facebook’s own internal research in 2016 found that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools”, the Wall Street Journal reported, primarily through the same “Groups you should join” and “Discover” algorithms that promoted QAnon content to the Guardian. “Our recommendation systems grow the problem,” the internal research said.

Facebook did not directly respond to questions from the Guardian about its policy considerations around QAnon content. “Last month, we took down accounts, Groups, and Pages tied to this conspiracy theorist movement for violating our policies,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. “We also remove Groups and Pages that violate other policies from recommendations and demote in search results. We’re closely monitoring this activity and how our policies apply.”

The company also claimed that “all of the Pages” and “the vast majority of Groups” documented by the Guardian had been removed from recommendation algorithms prior to the Guardian’s query. The company did not provide evidence for this claim, which is contradicted by screenshots of pages and groups appearing in recommendations that were taken in May. The Guardian also continued to receive recommendations to join additional QAnon groups after its initial query to Facebook.

Asked about this discrepancy, Facebook said that the pages and groups in question had been marked as “non-recommendable” as of 8 April 2020 for violations of policies against clickbait, viral misinformation and hate speech, but that a page or group can be restored to eligibility for recommendations if its behavior improves for several months.

Over the course of reporting this article – about one month – the aggregate membership of the documented groups and pages grew from 2.75m to more than 3m, or approximately 8.5%. Groups and pages that the Guardian had documented to have been promoted through Facebook’s recommendation algorithms grew 19.9%. One page that appeared in recommendations – “We are ‘Q’” – saw its following grow nearly 60%, from about 24,000 to about 38,000 over the month – despite the page not having posted any new content since February.

To Friedberg, the window for Facebook to act on QAnon may have already passed. “I’m starting to wonder if we’re just waiting for the next shoe to drop – another act of violence,” he said. “That seems to be what the platforms wait for, and that in and of itself is terrifying.”

A ban that stuck

While QAnon thrives on Facebook, another social media site took timely and decisive action against it. Nearly two years ago, Reddit, the link-sharing network of interest-based message boards, carried out a site-wide purge of QAnon – and made it stick.

Reddit had been central to the development of the QAnon movement, which began in October 2017 with the emergence of “Q” on 4chan, the anarchic image board that has served as a launching pad for memes and internet culture but also racist extremism and harassment campaigns. Q, whose cryptic messages and predictions claimed to be based on a high-level government security clearance, quickly decamped from 4chan to the even more extreme 8chan, where believers could read Q’s latest “crumbs” directly from the source.

Q went briefly silent in 2019 when 8chan was forced offline in the wake of the El Paso massacre, but re-emerged on the new site founded by 8chan’s owners, 8kun.

Anonymous internet posters claiming to be high-level government officials are not entirely uncommon; in recent years, other so-called “anons” have emerged with claims that they were revealing secrets from inside the FBI or CIA. But Q is the first such figure to have achieved such a broad audience and real-world political influence. This is largely due to the activism of three dedicated conspiracy theorists who latched on to Q’s posts in the early days, according to an investigation by NBC News. These activists worked to develop a mythology and culture around QAnon and cultivated an audience for it on mainstream social media platforms.

David Reinert holds up a ‘Q’ while waiting to see Donald Trump at a rally on 2 August 2018 in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania.
David Reinert holds up a ‘Q’ while waiting to see Donald Trump at a rally on 2 August 2018 in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Rick Loomis/Getty Images

Reddit was significantly easier to use for the kind of crowd-sourced research and interpretation that forms the core of participation in QAnon, and the site was host to a large pool of potential recruits, such as the 1.2m members of the subreddit r/conspiracy. It had also long enjoyed and at times even earned a reputation as one of the danker cesspools of the social web, for years tolerating communities known as “subreddits” dedicated to sharing non-consensual sexualized images of women or advocating rape.

But the violent anger of adherents to QAnon crossed the line for Reddit in less than a year. On 12 September 2018, citing its ban on content that “incites violence, disseminates personal information, or harasses”, the company banned 18 QAnon subreddits, the largest of which had more than 70,000 members.

Social media bans are often difficult to maintain, but Reddit’s move was uncommonly effective. Today, QAnon remains unwelcome on Reddit, with the few subreddits that address it dedicated to either debunking the theory or providing support to people who have lost friends and family members to QAnon.

‘Taking the red pill’

QAnon did not disappear after Reddit pulled the plug, however. Instead, its believers moved on to other platforms, including YouTube, Twitter, Discord and – crucially – Facebook. At the time of the Reddit ban, one of the largest closed Facebook groups dedicated to QAnon, “Qanon Follow the White Rabbit” had 51,000 members, according to NBC News. Today that group has grown to more than 90,000 members.

And while YouTube and Twitter have played an important role in providing a broadcast platform for QAnon content, the specific structures provided by Facebook are uniquely suited to the participatory “work” of engaging with QAnon. Facebook also provides QAnon with an even larger pool of potential recruits than Reddit could, especially for the somewhat older, Evangelical crowd that has proven susceptible to QAnon’s messaging.

Will Partin, a research analyst with Data & Society, and Alice Marwick, a professor of communication at the University of North Carolina, describe QAnon as a “dark participatory culture”, which is to say that it is a community that takes advantage of the infrastructure of social networking sites to bring disparate people together and foster discussion, collaboration, research and community, but directs those energies toward anti-democratic, regressive and even violent ends.

“Everything about our research suggests that these people are not irrational; they’re hyper-literate, even if they’ve come to beliefs that are empirically inaccurate ,” Partin said. “That’s partly because they have a fundamentally different epistemology to judge what is true and false.”

A man in the crowd holds a QAnon sign as crowds gather to attend Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, 21 February 2020.
A man in the crowd holds a QAnon sign as crowds gather to attend Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, 21 February 2020. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/Reuters

The digital architecture of Facebook groups is also particularly well-suited to QAnon’s collaborative construction of an alternative body of knowledge, Friedberg said. The platform has created a ready-made digital pathway from public pages to public groups to private groups and finally secret groups that mirrors the process of “falling down the rabbit hole or taking the red pill”.

“You can mechanically take those steps,” he said. “Very few of the contemporary Q-following base actually need to engage with 8chan at all.”

To ban or not to ban

While Facebook has policies banning hate speech, incitement to violence and other types of content that it considers undesirable on a family- and advertiser-friendly platform, QAnon does not fit neatly into any single category.

Much of what is shared in QAnon groups on Facebook is a mix of pro-Trump political speech and pro-Trump political misinformation. Memes, videos and posts are often bigoted and disconnected from reality, but not all that different from the content that is shared in non-QAnon, pro-Trump Facebook groups.

The pages and groups that were removed in early May violated the company’s ban on “coordinated inauthentic behavior” – ie the kind of digital astroturf tactics that Russian operatives used to support Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. Those rules are aimed at operations in which actors make false representations about their identities in order to mislead people – a description that could encompass Q – but Facebook only applies its policy to deceptive behavior that occurs on its platform, not on 8kun.

To enact a blanket ban akin to Reddit’s under its current rubric of rules, Facebook would likely have to designate QAnon as a “dangerous organization” – the category it uses to ban both terrorist and hate groups and any content published in support or praise of them. QAnon is hardly an organization, though as a movement it has certainly caused harm and could be considered dangerous.

There are innate societal and individual harms to convincing people of a version of reality that is simply false, as QAnon does, said Data & Society research analyst Will Partin. “When a common sense of what is real and what is correct breaks apart, it becomes nearly impossible to reach a democratic consensus.”

And QAnon followers’ enthusiasm for misinformation is not confined to politics; as the coronavirus pandemic took hold, the groups became a hotbed for medical misinformation – something Facebook has claimed to be working hard to combat. Analyses by Gallagher, the social media researcher, and the New York Times demonstrated how QAnon groups fuelled the viral spread of “Plandemic”, a 26-minute video chock full of dangerously false information about Covid-19 and vaccines.

Facebook’s algorithms appear to have detected this synergy between the QAnon and anti-vaccine communities. Several QAnon groups are flagged with an automated warning label from Facebook that reads, “This group discusses vaccines” and encourages users to go to the website of the Centers for Disease Control for reliable information on health.

It appears that anti-vaccine propagandists are also taking notice, and attempting to capitalize. Larry Cook, the administrator of Stop Mandatory Vaccination, one of the largest anti-vaxx Facebook groups, has begun incorporating QAnon rhetoric into the medical misinformation he peddles, as well as making explicit invitations to QAnon believers to join his group.

Cook has begun referencing the “deep state” and stoking fear of forced vaccination and “FEMA camps”.

“I have discussed the concept many, many, many times that vaccines destroy our connection to God and that we are in a spiritual war with Principalities of Darkness that have a death wish for our children, and humanity at large,” he wrote in one QAnon-inflected post. (Cook also uses the site to aggressively promote his various products and a subscription-only platform for “medical freedom patriots”.)

A prominent anti-vaccine propagandist appeals to QAnon followers. WWG1WGA is a QAnon catchphrase.
A prominent anti-vaccine propagandist appeals to QAnon followers. WWG1WGA is a QAnon catchphrase. Photograph: Facebook

But the potential for damage from QAnon goes well beyond. For those individuals who truly believe in the QAnon narrative, the crimes of the “cabal” are so grievous as to make fighting them a moral imperative. “They’re talking about a group of people who are operating our government against our wishes and they’re molesting and torturing children and destroying our society,” said Joseph Uscinski, a professor of political science who studies conspiracy theories. “It’s an incitement to violence.”

Indeed, there have been numerous incidents of real-world violence linked to QAnon, and in May 2019, the FBI identified QAnon as a potential domestic terrorism threat in an intelligence bulletin. While anti-government conspiracy theories were not new, the bulletin stated, social media was allowing them to reach a larger audience, and the online narratives were determining the targets of harassment and violence for the small subset of individuals who crossed over into real-world action.

Despite this, Uscinski is sceptical of the idea that kicking QAnon off Facebook would help anyone. He regularly polls conspiracy theories and consistently finds that QAnon is “one of the least believed things” out there, well below belief in theories about Jeffrey Epstein’s death, anti-vaccine hoaxes, and Holocaust denialism. Uscinski also cautions against overly exoticizing the QAnon narrative, noting that “most of the component parts of QAnon have been around forever”, with parallels in the Satanic Panic of the 1980s or the plot of Oliver Stone’s JFK. And he’s concerned about the free speech implications of censorship by tech platforms.

“It’s a potentially dangerous belief; it’s very disconnected from reality; I don’t really think we want more people getting into it,” he said of QAnon. “Do the internet companies bear some responsibility? Yes. Would it be better if they took it down? Probably. Does that take care of it? No.”

Partin said that he generally favoured Facebook taking a “more aggressive approach to moderation”, including addressing the recommendation algorithms and trying to reduce the spread of misinformation out of dedicated conspiracy communities and into the mainstream.

“If Facebook flipped a switch and every Q post disappeared tomorrow, that probably would be harmful for QAnon,” he said. “But there is resiliency built in. Getting deplatformed is harmful, but the idea that it would somehow make this disappear is fanciful.”

Friedberg worried that it may already be too late. “Facebook should have taken action on this a long, long time ago, and the longer that they wait, the more deeply entrenched in mainstream politics this becomes,” he said. Facebook has been reluctant to appear in any way biased against Republicans, and if (or when) QAnon reaches Congress, it will be even more politically difficult for Facebook to take a stand.

In May, Republican voters in Oregon nominated a QAnon believer to run for the US Senate in November. Another QAnon supporter, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is likely to be elected to the House of Representatives after she came first in a Republican primary in a conservative Georgia district on 11 June.

“In some ways, the second that Trump officially acknowledges QAnon is the second it becomes a partisan political issue that Facebook may not be able to take action against,” said Friedberg. “We’re watching a normalization process of these conspiracies, and I think the beast that is Facebook was really the answer to this all along.”

Indeed, Trump himself has repeatedly retweeted QAnon accounts on Twitter, which believers take as confirmation of their alternate reality. And on 20 June, just before Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Trump’s adult son Eric posted a QAnon meme on his Instagram account. Eric Trump deleted the image relatively quickly, but not before screenshots spread across the Facebook Q-sphere.

“So Eric Trump posted a pic with a ‘Q’ in the imagery,” an administrator of one of the larger QAnon groups wrote. “The pic has been taken down but the message was received!”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/25/qanon-facebook-conspiracy-theories-algorithm

woensdag 19 augustus 2020

Is anyone safe from Covid-19? This is what we know so far about immunity

 



Is anyone safe from Covid-19? This is what we know so far about immunity

The good news is that our natural defences can eliminate the virus and scientists are making progress with antiviral therapies

Wed 19 Aug 2020 09.43 BST

A

bout nine months ago – as we now all know – a new coronavirus jumped to humans, causing a complex respiratory disease called Covid-19. The virus breezed through the planet with ease, hitching a ride on mostly unsuspecting carriers during the first months of infection.

Scientists quickly realised that they were dealing with a new pathogen, and they warned the World Health Organization. The clues: severe flu-like symptoms that resulted in higher than usual mortality, particularly in vulnerable groups.

The new coronavirus spreads via secretions from our mouth and nose, but it took us far too long to implement face coverings to reduce transmission. What did we know from the start? Coronavirus gains entry through our eyes, nose or mouth, and we can protect ourselves by washing our hands with soap and keeping our distance from people who may be contagious but without symptoms, or who subsequently develop symptoms.

The first thing that baffled us was the series of organs affected in Covid-19, beyond the lungs. Symptoms range from mild to severe, and their impact is seen from brain to toes.

The Covid Symptom Study app holds data from more than 4 million users in the US, the UK and Sweden, and suggests that there are six different types of Covid. We still cannot predict who will develop severe disease symptoms that lead to fatality, so even children, who were considered safe earlier this year, have now presented at random with rare but severe disease.

The question remains, for researchers and everyone else, is anyone safe?

To answer this, we need to look at how our immune system eliminates the virus. In itself, that reveals a hugely important positive concept: unlike some viruses that turn us into lifelong carriers (remember herpes, or HIV?), we can actually eliminate this coronavirus. For most of us it takes about two weeks. You have heard that immunology is complicated; here’s simply what we know so far.

Our bodies contain different types of defences, some evolved for speed, others for accuracy. Speedy defences deployed minutes after infection are part of the body’s innate immune system, and are powerful enough to control many pathogens. In researching Covid-19, scientists worried that if these were sufficient to control coronavirus, we would risk having no protection from reinfection. This is because rapid defences do not refine themselves to be more potent after the first infection, and they would be expected to mobilise in the same way when we become exposed to the same virus after recovery, suffering the same symptoms in the process.

Reinfection would fuel continuous transmission and extinguish hopes of herd immunity, which relies on the majority of the population becoming resistant to infection, to reduce the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups with poor defences. Thankfully, despite nearly 22 million recorded infections around the world, there is still no strong evidence of reinfection.

As months went by, some patients that cleared the virus started to report lingering symptoms. From brain fog to debilitating fatigue, heart damage to persistent muscle and joint pains, we recognise that some of us risk having “long Covid”, with a profound potential impact for our health and public health services. Protective immunity is critical to prevent disease.

The slower part of the immune system that has evolved for accuracy takes about seven days to kick off, and comprises B cells and T cells. These clever cells not only recognise that we’re suffering a virus infection, they are also able to pinpoint exactly which virus. How can they predict unknown threats? They can’t, so we have hordes of them patrolling our bodies with random recognition abilities for different parts of different germs.

If a lucky B cell recognises a virus, an activation cascade takes place that clones it into thousands of copies of itself and turns it into an antibody-producing workshop. This takes days, but antibodies and memory-type B cells persist after the virus is gone, so they can react rapidly if needed again.

Immunologists detected antibodies in the majority of people with confirmed Covid-19, but were unsure how long they would last for this virus. Studies showing that the early antibodies waned a few months after infection raised concerns for protective immunity. It is quite normal for early antibodies to dip a few months after infection. Remember, memory B cells are still left behind, ready to pounce if needed.

Other alarming research revealed a lack of antibodies in some patients who recovered. Some worried that this may mean lack of protection, or that vaccines were doomed to fail. Immunologists swiftly dispelled these myths, explaining that T-cell immunity can build independently of antibodies, and that vaccination can give rise to potent antibodies even if natural infection doesn’t.

Antibodies are Y-shaped molecules that use the two tips of the Y to stick to germs, but their other end is also important. The trunk of the antibody is recognised by immune cells that gobble up the antibody-germ complex, break it down into pieces and present it on their surface to activate T cells. They also release communication molecules to drive inflammation – and this can boost antiviral immunity, but may also cause collateral damage to tissues.

Patients with severe Covid-19 have higher antibody counts, and given the pro-inflammatory role of antibodies, there were concerns for antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease. We now appreciate that animals and humans given antibodies as therapy do not show disease enhancement. This is great news for antibody-based vaccination and therapeutic antibody treatments.

T cells drive antiviral responses and kill infected cells, and they also leave memory cells behind. They are more difficult to test than antibodies, but T cell tests are in development for broader use. T cells in coronavirus infections may persist longer than antibodies. Many of us also have pre-existing specific T cells, likely remnants from previous coronavirus infections that cause seasonal colds. This could explain why some get away with mild infection.

There is still much to learn about the new coronavirus, particularly how it causes severe disease and how we can prevent this. As the first data from global vaccine trials emerge, the hallmarks of protective immunity, both antibodies and T cells, are there. We now need to understand how our antibody and T cell measurements correlate with protection, are they of sufficient quality and how much is enough? As vaccine volunteers are exposed to the virus during the pandemic, we gather data to answer these critical questions.

The good news? Covid-19 may have surprised us with the wide range of disease symptoms and lingering effects on our bodies, but we have learned that our immune system is taking all the right steps for elimination. This coronavirus grows so easily in the lab that scientists are progressing fast to understand its biology and develop new antiviral therapies. In the meantime, we can all do our best to avoid getting infected and prevent transmission.

• Zania Stamataki is a senior lecturer in viral immunology at the Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/19/covid-19-immunity-natural-defences-eliminate-virus-data

maandag 10 augustus 2020

Kabinet mikt op waterstof, hoe realistisch is dat?

 

Kabinet mikt op waterstof, hoe realistisch is dat?

Groene energie Nederland, voormalig aardgasland, wil strategische positie in waterstofproductie en -transport. Maar voor de productie is heel veel groene stroom nodig.

Het blijft net buiten het zicht van de badgasten. Maar in de Noordzee is een bouwproject aan de gang dat al de komende jaren de Nederlandse stroomvoorziening ingrijpend verandert. Drie grote windparken zijn gepland of al in aanbouw. Eind juli wonnen Shell en Eneco samen de inschrijving voor het laatste windpark, Hollandse Kust Noord, ten westen van de kust van Noord-Holland.

De drie windparken op zee vormen samen het eerste deel van een campagne om de stroomvoorziening van Nederland in grijpend te vergroenen. Tot 2030 groeit het aantal windturbines en zonneparken nog verder, tot ze in dat jaar 70 procent van de huidige stroomvoorziening dekken.

Dat is althans de bedoeling van het vorig jaar gesloten klimaatakkoord. Alleen al de stroom van het windpark Hollandse Kust Noord is goed voor ruim 1 miljoen huishoudens, schreven Shell en Eneco twee weken geleden in een persbericht.

Maar die stroom is helemaal niet alleen voor huishoudens. Bij de bekendmaking van de gunning schreef het ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat dat er „in de toekomst duurzame waterstof [kan] worden gecreëerd uit de elektriciteit van windparken op zee”. En dat is precies de bedoeling van de bouwers.

Vanaf de oplevering van Hollandse Kust Noord in 2023 wil Shell een flinke portie van de stroom van de windmolens gebruiken voor een grote, duurzame waterstoffabriek in de Rotterdamse haven. Als die gebouwd wordt, een beslissing die Shell begin 2021 neemt, is het de grootste duurzame waterstoffabriek ter wereld.

Zulke fabrieken hebben stroomhonger. De ‘elektrolyser’ van 200 megawatt (MW) die Shell wil bouwen, trekt meer dan een kwart van de stroom die windpark Hollandse Kust Noord (750 MW) in 2023 zal produceren. Met andere woorden: die ene fabriek heeft bijna 1 procent van de huidige Nederlandse stroomproductie nodig. Het is ongeveer evenveel als het stroomverbruik van heel Nijmegen.

Kerosinevervangers

De waterstoffabriek van Shell is precies het type industrie dat dit kabinet het komend decennium wil laten groeien.

Waterstof, gemaakt uit water met elektriciteit (elektrolyse), is een schone brandstof. Groene waterstof is onmisbaar voor het wereldwijde afscheid van fossiele brandstof – er is bijna geen instituut dat daar anders over denkt. Het zou gebruikt kunnen worden als brandstof in de industrie, voor verwarming, zelfs om high-tech kerosinevervangers te maken. Maar dat duurt misschien nog een generatie. De benodigde elektrolysetechniek is onvoldoende ontwikkeld en heel duur.

Nederland, voormalig aardgasland, wil het komende decennium een strategische positie innemen in productie en transport van waterstofgas. Eind maart publiceerde het kabinet daarom zijn ‘Kabinetsvisie waterstof’. Nederland heeft voor schone waterstof een „unieke uitgangspositie”, schreef minister Eric Wiebes (Economische Zaken en Klimaat, VVD).

Er is nog nauwelijks over gesproken dat die visie ontzaglijk veel stroom vergt. Het ministerie schat dat groene waterstofproductie in 2030 32 terawattuur (TWh) elektriciteit vraagt. Dat is 28 procent meer dan het huidige, landelijke elektriciteitsgebruik van 113 TWh. Het blijkt uit een reeks antwoorden op Kamervragen over de Waterstofvisie die het ministerie in juni publiceerde.

Met een groeiende stroomvraag wordt namelijk geheel geen rekening gehouden: niet in de leidende Klimaat- en Energieverkenning van het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, en evenmin toen vorig jaar is bepaald hoeveel wind- en zonneparken er tot 2030 gebouwd moeten worden. Onderhandelaars voor het klimaatakkoord wisten dat zaken als datacentra, industriële boilers en elektrische auto’s meer stroom konden vergen, maar uiteindelijk bleef dat vraagstuk uit beeld. Elektrolysers werden al helemaal niet meegeteld.

Maar inmiddels is de Europese wedloop rond groene waterstof begonnen. Duitsland kondigde in juni aan dat het 7 miljard euro vrijmaakt om een koploper te worden als waterstofland.

Nederland schat dat er het komend decennium zeker 5 miljard euro subsidie nodig is om zijn waterstofambities te verwezenlijken. Het doel is om 3 à 4 gigawatt (GW, oftewel duizend megawatt) aan elektrolysers bouwen in 2030. Dat is nog altijd een innovatietraject om infrastructuur te bouwen en markt aan te zwengelen. De productie zal niet voldoende zijn om waterstof op serieuze schaal te gebruiken voor nieuwe toepassingen, zoals verwarming van huizen of industrie.

Maar het bedrijfsleven loopt zich warm. Begin 2018 kondigden AkzoNobel (nu Nouryon) en Gasunie een elektrolyser van 20 MW aan. De investeringsbeslissing is nog altijd niet genomen, maar er is al sprake van uitbreiding naar 60 MW. BP, Nouryon en het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam repten vorig jaar van een elektrolyser van 250 MW. Intussen komt Shell niet alleen met een beoogde elektrolyser van 200 MW, het bouwt ook het windpark dat de stroom zal leveren.

Shell is grootverbruiker van waterstof, als grondstof in zijn raffinaderij in de Botlek. Dat waterstof wordt nu gemaakt uit aardgas, waarbij CO2 vrijkomt. De elektrolyser zou vanaf 2023 „een fractie” van het waterstofgebruik kunnen vergroenen, zegt een woordvoerder.

Maar dat is niet het doel van het olie- en gasbedrijf: Shell wil liever vrachtwagens op de waterstof laten rijden. Over de vraag of dat een zinvolle toepassing is, is discussie. Het ministerie van EZK constateert al in de eerste alinea van zijn Waterstofvisie dat „voor de transportsector waterstof cruciaal [is] voor het bereiken van zero-emissie vervoer”. Maar een onderzoeksrapport in opdracht van het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam kwam er vorig jaar juist op uit dat elektrische vrachtwagens sneller concurrerend worden dan de waterstoftruck.

1 à 2 miljard

Hoe dan ook: de overheid heeft waarschijnlijk honderden miljoenen over voor het plan van Shell. Het ministerie „onderzoekt welke subsidiemogelijkheden er zijn” voor projecten als deze, aldus een woordvoerder. Een eerste schatting is dat voor de eerste 500 MW aan elektrolysers 1 à 2 miljard euro subsidie nodig is.

Veel ruimte op de Noordzee, miljarden euro’s overheidsgeld. Ineens wordt de lange weg naar de waterstofeconomie concreet, en daarmee ook de dilemma’s.

Laetitia Ouillet, energiespecialist bij de TU Eindhoven en directeur van wind- en zonnecoöperatie De Windvogel, vreest dat er te veel elektrolysers gebouwd worden. „Partijen buitelen over elkaar heen: ‘mijn elektrolyser is groter dan de jouwe’.”

Windstroom kan prima gebruikt worden voor elektrolyse, denkt ze, in de uren waarop het hard waait zodat er genoeg windstroom is. „Maar geen bedrijf bouwt een elektrolyser voor zo weinig uren.” Ze vreest dat alle geplande grote elektrolysers, om winstgevend te zijn, meer uren zullen draaien dan windmolens kunnen leveren. „Ik vrees dat er straks gascentrales aangezet worden om alle nieuwe waterstoffabrieken van stroom te voorzien, en dat de CO2-uitstoot zal toenemen.”

Elektrische auto’s

Ze ziet meer in direct gebruik van elektriciteit, dan voor omzetting in waterstof. Zoals in elektrische auto’s, waarbij het laden kan meebewegen met de weersafhankelijke beschikbaarheid van wind- en zonnestroom. Of, op dezelfde flexibele manier, in industriële processen. Dat zou de verduurzaming van energie veel sneller vergroenen dan de, in haar ogen, te grote focus op waterstofgas. „Nederland was een internationale leider op gas”, zegt Ouillet. „Ik snap dat je dan op de waterstofgolf wil meerijden, maar dat moet nu niet de energietransitie in de weg staan.”

Energiespecialist Martien Visser, lector bij de Hanzehogeschool en strateeg bij de Gasunie, ziet meer kansen voor waterstof. Hij wijst op een nieuw rapport van energie-analisten van Bloomberg, dat voorspelt dat groene waterstof in 2030 45 cent per kubieke meter kan kosten. „Bij die prijzen kan waterstof aantrekkelijk worden voor de verwarming van huizen.”

Hij twijfelt overigens of de snelle groei in de waterstofvisie van het kabinet werkelijkheid wordt. „Dit soort projecten heeft geweldig lange doorlooptijden, en we hebben niet veel bedrijven die ze kunnen uitvoeren.” Dat geldt volgens hem niet alleen voor elektrolysers, maar ook voor windparken op zee: alleen grote energiebedrijven bouwen ze. „Shell is nog half Nederlands. Maar verder zijn het veel buitenlandse bedrijven, waarvoor projecten in Nederland niet altijd urgentie hebben. Dat maakt het allemaal wat lastiger.”

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/08/09/kabinet-mikt-op-waterstof-hoe-realistisch-is-dat-a4008330