Unpopular hydrogen trials to be expanded to thousands more homes
By Paul Homewood
Hydrogen could replace natural gas in thousands of homes under controversial plans to decarbonise entire towns in Britain’s push towards net zero.
Ministers have asked the UK’s main gas network operators to nominate the most suitable towns to be moved from methane to pure hydrogen as part of the pilot over the next decade.
It comes as the Government prepares to publish its long-awaited “Hydrogen Roadmap”, which will set out how the UK can build a network of hydrogen production factories, and convert homes, businesses, and transport networks to the green fuel.
In a recent letter from the Government, operators were told that policymakers want to “support the development of plans for a pilot hydrogen town which could potentially be implemented before the end of this decade”.
They were asked to supply the names of towns they deemed “most suitable for conversion to enable hydrogen heating at scale”.
Subsequent suggestions for potential hydrogen towns include Aberdeen, Scunthorpe, and areas close to Humberside and Merseyside.
Two towns in Wales and another in the West Country have also been proposed, although only one or two of the nominated towns will be chosen.
The plan will no doubt prove controversial.
The Government has already been forced to abandon plans for a smaller “hydrogen village” in Whitby after local protests.
However, moving the UK away from natural gas is essential to achieve net zero targets and Ministers are seeking new ways to press ahead.
Decarbonising heating has become a bit of a Pushmi-Pullyu!
One minute the government is advised to concentrate on heat pumps, because rolling out a hydrogen network is far too complex, costly and problematic.
The next minute hydrogen is back in favour because of the drawbacks of heat pumps!
I’m not really sure what any of these trials will achieve, other than cost taxpayers a lot of money. We already know that it is possible to pipe hydrogen into homes, and we know that you can burn it in a gas boiler with suitable modifications. If the government is really concerned about the safety aspects, it should not be using the good folk of Aberdeen as guinea pigs!
The real issue is how you produce it in the first place, how you store enough of it for winter, and how you move it around the country.
The plan of course is to use electrolysis, powered by renewable energy. But for the next decade and more, there will be no spare wind or solar power, as it will be maxed out on the grid. At most there may be a small amount of surplus wind power available at times, but far too little to be of any real use.
Electrolysis using expensive offshore wind power is also horribly inefficient and costly.
That then leaves steam reforming natural gas, which emits carbon dioxide, is also costly and uses more gas than you would if you burnt gas in the first place. None of which make it a sensible option.
I suspect this is just more nonsense dreamt up by the government’s green advisors in the DESNZ, desperate to be seen to be doing something!
This comment days it all:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
That should go with a Bang!
This is probably the crown jewels of stupidity by politicians, who frankly are acting well above their pay grade. Hydrogen takes an enormous amount of energy to produce and its ERoI is only approx. 30%. It is also very leaky, so the current gas distribution network will not handle it without significant losses (who wants an explosive gas leaking out everywhere??), further degrading the already awful ERoI. Moreover, who is going to pay for the conversion of every gas appliance? Oh, silly me, the user of course. It always is us mugs to pay for these politicians’ idiotic follies.
“politicians, who frankly are acting well above their pay grade. ”
I fear that you are considering only their official pay grade, forgetting the additional little perks and bonuses that they so much enjoy.
I was referring to their IQ and complete lack of rational thinkability.
ERoI? What is that when it as at home?
http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
Energy Returned on Investment, i.e. Ratio of energy out (from burning) to energy in (producing it).
Ray, Euan’s excellent graphic was created before the exploitation of hydrogen gathered pace.
That’s why the X-axis has no negative number!
ilma630: Not to mention the costs of changing all the metering and charging systems. Hard to imagine the companies could operate two parallel billing programs. But, aside, I don’t share the concern about safety. Hydrogen is a very light gas and disperses instantly (except in closed rooms of course) and is not remotely as dangerous as installations using LPG – the most dangerous of all gas installations.
Gas companies Billing??? Like British Gas?? They’ve just switched their billing computer to a new one. Oh dear!!!! If the Change Manager and the Software Manager keep their jobs I’d be amazed (I used to help run a Problem and Change Management system for a multinational with multi-million pound customers). So far they have failed to fully transfer our account – and many, many others – to the new computer and although I have submitted my reading as requested I am now two weeks without a bill. They can make it years for all I care. They are a rubbish org.
Vernon, you do seem to have some very odd views. Do you really believe propane or butane are more dangerous than hydrogen?
Have you ever had to handle either?
“Hydrogen is a very light gas and disperses instantly (except in closed rooms of course) and is not remotely as dangerous as installations using LPG – the most dangerous of all gas installations.”
Eh?
I’m not sure what you trying say about LPG but I suspect your point is about gases that are heavier or lighter than air.
The relevant safety comparison is between natural gas and hydrogen and using the existing gas distribution infrastructure.
On the disperses & closed rooms point most pre WW2 buildings will have gas meter inside e.g in my victorian house its under the stairs with a metal (probably iron/ steel but some are lead as well) supply pipe under suspended floor boards from the street and hydrogen embrittles iron/steel (not sure about lead and hydrogen) so we would have to audit every pipe and I suspect it would be cheaper and easier to run new plastics pipes instead of reusing the existing gas distribution infrastructure for hydrogen.
As there are accident/explosion in the coal gas days (also remember coal gas was distributed at a lower pressure to natural gas) which I suspect only happened due its hydrogen content (which has a wide Explosive Limit) and getting trapped in voids under suspended floorboards but wouldn’t have happened with
natural gas especially as we would have had more time to notice the issue & its odourant and its harder to ignite accidentally.
https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-flames
Then on a safety and practical ground (please see links above) it doesn’t make sense to convert natural gas appliances to use hydrogen (like with coal gas) due to the nearly invisible UV emitting (sun burn ?) hotter burning (higher NOx) flame (think of a trying to use gas cooker hob) when it would make more sense to use it in fuel cell to produce electricity (which would also be the most energy efficient way to use it and fuel cell are poisoned by sulphur based odourant it makes more sense (if we must use hydrogen – I personally think district heating and nuclear fission from a tested existing design like the CANDU makes mores sense) use to distribute hydrogen to neighbourhood fuel cell station at strategically useful points on electricity distribution network.
We also need to think about the risks we creating for our firefighters just taking the lithium battery situation which under normal circumstance would have being banned by now if they were some how approved in the 1st place. This climate change/ net zero mania is making everyday life more dangerous (the safest fuel is probably diesel fuel) and I fear nothing will be done until the inevitable fire in an underground car park or tunnel.
Ray: Yes Ray I spent my professional life working in the oil and gas business.
I don’t recall any serious incidents involving hydrogen (other than Hindenberg) but there are numerous incidents involving LPGs. For example, the City of Chicago in the 1920s when it got into the city drainage and met a spark.
There are other instances when it travelled inside electric cables and caused fires. In the 1970s the city of Doha was nearly wiped out when a Shell owned tank containing propane leaked and exploded. These heavier-than-air gases have nbeen responsible for numerous domestic ecxplosions, especially caravans. And so on.
Vernon you are massively exaggerating a tiny number of incidents in the global industry in LPG with the miniscule (almost non existent) industry of hydrogen distribution and combustion. Very weird indeed.
The Hindenburg airship….you gotta love those crazy Germans.
I’m not so sure it’s that easy to use. I know a ferry operator trying to move to hydrogen but finding it extremely difficult to keep it from leaking. Making fuel tanks leak-proof is proving very expensive.
To add to your point, what truly baffles me is the way people who should know a lot better are going along with all of this nonsense. There is a damn good reason why free hydrogen is virtually non existent on earth and every one with a modicum of scientific knowledge knows why. Why is plain stupidity taking over?
Rather ironic that one of the Telegraph author’s name is ‘Leake’ 😂😂😂😂😂😂
They have to be seen to so something, anything to detract from the cold, dark, poor future they are planning for most of us. No cars, power and heat restricted, travel constrained by carbon passports , spending constrained by CBDCs. Digital everything so everything you do is instantly recorded.
Meanwhile they plan for a long war with Russia who are busily making sure their citizens in coldest Siberia are warmed by piped gas.
Makes you wonder…….
You should live in a town like Carnoustie in Scotland.
We are getting on for a year of all our streets being ripped up to replace metal pipes and valves by plastic (the pipes anyway!). Plastic made from that demonic petroleum.
When I asked the gas man in charge when we could anticipate the arrival of hydrogen he said ‘hopefully not in my lifetime’
Of course none of the neighbours I spoke to had any idea what all the disruption was about. The globalwarmist fully inoculated poor sheeple have no idea what our ‘betters’ have up their sleeves.
The irony also is of course, that plastic is essential now not for just for gas pipes, but also the electrical cables that will carry the power generated by the unreliable wind wheels and sunbeam platters being deployed in order to forcibly stop the supply of the raw material that makes the plastic. You just can’t make this utterly stupid stuff up!
All you need to know is tha politicians are involved. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t viable or practical or affordable or that it’s dangerous.
This will only work if we have lots of surplus electricity which will otherwise go to waste. Since you have to spend £15 worth of electricity to get £5 worth of Hydrogen. Totally impractical.
Yes, but constraint payments already run into the millions so some ‘saving’, if it can be called that, is theoretically possible there.
The electricity is surplus to immediate requirement and so is essentially free. It makes sense to use it for something useful, instead of paying suppliers for not producing.
But burning electrolytic hydrogen in gas boilers is just daft. That hydrogen will be of more use making synthetic fuel for aircraft, or used in EVs via fuel cells.
“It makes sense to use it for something useful, instead of paying suppliers for not producing.”
That does not actually follow. The electrolysers have significant operating cost whether in use or not plus ROI. The cost of intermittently using plant has to be considered and could easily be higher than simply throwing away the surplus regardless of whether or not its “fuel” is free.
They envisage there will be huge wind capacity in the future, perhaps 200GW. When this is running at near full capacity there will be a lot of excess energy available.
Hydrogen will be needed to make synthetic jet fuel, at the very least. Otherwise how are 70,000 people going to get to the COPs in the future ?
The concept of overbuilding something that is not fit for purpose at massive costs and then calling the over capaicity when available “free” is sheer stupidity. Turning Electricity into Hydrogen and then in to something else with the losses involved is also sheer stupidity.
Which sums up Net Zero very nicely.
Perhaps “over-capacity” is a misnomer. In this context it means capacity over the instantaneous average demand, and it is needed to recharge storage media.
Let the fun begin.
1. Hydrogen has only 30% of the volumetric calorific value of Natural Gas.
So at a stroke, 70% of the *energy* storage capacity of natural gas is lost.
That loss applies to all natural gas (volumetric) infrastructure such as controls and volumetric metering (the latter being ~99% of the number of devices affected)
NB Hydrogen’s energy *flow-rate* capacity per unit volume along pipelines and pipework (at an unchanged pressure) is 80% that of Nat Gas. (Its much lower volumetric energy density is partially offset by a higher volumetric flow rate.)
2. It will be challenging to displace natural gas with hydogen in our existing natural gas fired electricity generating turbines. Yet that is one of the main reasons touted for producing hydrogen in the first place/
Looking at the recent comments to the DT article, there is a Paul Nancarrow jumping in to defend H. But the original article was 9th Dec and long rolled off the news feed. This site would appear to have the honour of being surveilled.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/10/raf-intelligence-officers-joined-in-spying-on-covid-lockdown-critics/
(no jokes about military intelligence, now, they know who you are.)
Best way to transport and use hydrogen is to combine four hydrogen atoms with one carbon atom.
Fortunately nature has already done that for us…
I was reading a “scholarly” article the other day concerning one step production of DiMethyl Ether (CH3OCH3) as a “second generation biofuel” and all I could think was WTF would you bother!
This table provides a useful summary of the salient relative physical properties of Hydrogen vs Natural Gas (and gasoline for where it’s a candidate for transport decarbonisation)
Note H2’s wider ‘Explosive Limits’ and the lower amount of energy needed to (accidentally) ignite it.
Don’t forget the problem we have of potential explosions if air gets into the natural gas distribution system due to low gas pressure what the hell would it be like with hydrogen in a cold spell if there was a shortage.
This linked article highlights what nearly happened in New England in 1989 (when the use natural gas for electricity generation was largely prohibited in the United States – God know what would happen now they would probably have to curtail the gas to electricity generation and enact rolling blackouts)
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/02/texas-dodged-a-bullet-would-you-like-explosions-with-your-blackouts/
“Don’t forget the problem we have of potential explosions if air gets into the natural gas distribution system due to low gas pressure ….”
Gas is distributed at above atmospheric pressure, so that goes a long way to preventing air entrainment.
Even if/when air is entrained, to be even a potential danger, the mix needs to be between Nat Gas’s upper & lower explosive limits AND simultaneously there needs to be a source of ignition present.
There are a lot of consecutive ‘if’s’ in JN’s piece.
That table is wrong. The lower explosive limit for hydrogen is 4% not 18.3%.
The limits in the table may refer to the supersonic explosion limits, supersonic explosions being more damaging. However a non-supersonic explosion is still an explosion.
It is hydrogen’s lower *combustion* limit which is 4%; its lower *explosion* limit is 18%.
“Hydrogen Logistics: Safety and Risks Issues
Hanane Dagdougui, … Ahmed Ouammi, in Hydrogen Infrastructure for Energy Applications, 2018
2.2.5 Explosion of Hydrogen
Hydrogen explosion represents a considerable hazard. Hydrogen gas forms combustible or explosive mixtures with the atmospheric oxygen over a wide range of concentrations in the range 4.0%–75% and 18%–59%, respectively.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-explosion#:~:text=The%20flammability%20limits%20of%20hydrogen,for%20a%20pure%20oxygen%20atmosphere.
But that “combustion” IS an explosion. It is definitely something to be avoided much above the scale of a test tube experiment. I’ve seen many texts which say the lower explosion limit is 4%. In fact most of them say this.
The table gives correctly gives BOTH flammability AND explosion limits (in air).
kzbkzb
“But that “combustion” IS an explosion.”
Not so. Try a dictionary or WikiP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion#Velocity
That’s why two separate envelopes are detailed.
Look at this for example:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html
Between 4 and 18.3% it is not a detonation, because it is subsonic. But it is still a dangerous explosion. It’s 4% that is the practical limit, not 18.3%.
“Between 4 and 18.3% …. it is still a dangerous explosion. It’s 4% that is the practical limit, not 18.3%.”
Not according to CalTech’s Explosion Dynamics Laboratory.
There are Flammability Limits *and* Explosion Limits.
That’s why they’re different terms.
https://shepherd.caltech.edu/EDL/PublicResources/flammability.html
Trusting you’ll never put candles on a birthday cake. Their combustion has Flammability but not Explosion Limits.
Well I hope you are never in charge of anything using hydrogen.
Why?
I know its flammability limits and its explosion limits; and, recognise that they’re different. So wouldn’t get paranoid when it’s outside those respective limits.
It is incorrect to claim “Between 4 and 18.3% it is not a detonation, because it is subsonic. But it is still a dangerous explosion.”
Well stated….I enjoy the pedantry of these discussions.
Hiuh , what’s there to add to these comments ? ( I’m not a theoretical Chemist to know, but do understand all these formulae, etc and the common sense.) But where’s all the Hydrogen coming from – when there’s no “Spare Wind” – after all the wind, when it blows is to make ELECTRICTY for the Grid ( and cars). And the ElfenDanger Rats at the Gas Companies should know all that ( they do(?) ) and are happy to progress the work. Aye, munn, after COvid ” you will do nothing the same as before” ….
There IS spare wind. We actually pay suppliers not to supply it, because the grid connections are not capable of getting it to customers.
Granted there is not much of it currently. But the vision seems to be that, as huge extra capacity is added in the future, there will be a lot of spare electricity when the wind is blowing at the right speed. It will need storing somehow so we can get through low-wind periods, and hydrogen is one option.
That is just a variation in terminology, perhaps they should have used the term “Detonation” to be more accurate but the point is generally understood.
Kzbkzb : What vision of the future with “lots of lots of spare electricity when the wind is blowing at the right speed”?
The 2035 NGESO FES energy flow diagrams for 2035 or even 2050 do not show any “spare electricity” or any grid-scale storage because it is simply too expensive.
You may like to read the Royal Society report “Large Scale Electricity Storage” which costs for wind + hydrogen :
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/large-scale-electricity-storage/
The Royal Society estimate the need for 100 TWhrs of hydrogen storage (thermal). Bear in mind when reading this report that the Royal Society have taken the cost of offshore wind energy as £35/MWhr when it is now over £100/MWhr for fixed offshore wind and £242/MWhr for floating offshore wind at 2023 prices (AR6).
Or, if you email me at jbxcagwnz@gmail.com, I can send you my rough estimates for some of the capital costs (pre inflation) for decarbonising our electricity by 2030 as proposed by the Labour Party, using wind+hydrogen based upon the demand, wind and solar data for 2022 downloaded from the Gridwatch website.
Well I guess the 2035 NGESO FES must be wrong, certainly for 2050. Because a power system based on mostly wind and solar must have a very significant storage capacity. It also must have a very significant over-capacity at times of plenty, in order to replenish the stores, which is what I was saying.
The Royal Society publication agrees with this.
“.. there is not much of it currently. But the vision seems to be ..” … Should maybe take a leaf out of this strange book https://www.agrarwelt.com/energie/cdu-afd-und-fdp-blockieren-windkraftausbau-in-thueringer-waeldern.html = In the Thuringian state parliament, the opposition has the majority and is using it: According to the will of the CDU, AfD and FDP, the hurdles for the expansion of wind power in the forest there are set so high that it amounts to a stop. and so on.
I am only telling you what the net zero side envisage. It didn’t come from me originally.
Och no worries, munn, no worries. Changed your view then ? ( that’s the object of positive discussion )
My mission is to educate both sides of the debate !
No worries! Mine is to stay alive, be healthy and support the family ( & local economy – pity it’s not always reciprocal). As for Education … ? Well, we’ve been there, fallen out with fellow students, some staff, and later fellow Teaching staff & Customers ( who think they should always be right, according to many ) Tough at the top? Jings come down where the Shoes of the Fisherman fit.
saighdear, your link to agrarwelt came up as seriously dangerous on my laptop (phishing threat and would not let me pass go). Do you have any other references to this?
No worries, Ray, I’ve clicked from my laptop ( Win 11 on Opera) and was OK, but “.Im Thüringer Landtag hat die Opposition die Mehrheit und nutzt sie auch: Nach dem Willen von cdu, AfD und fdp werden die Hürden für den Windkraftausbau im Wald dort so hoch gesetzt, dass es auf einen Stopp hinausläuft.”
Using Opera I can R Click & use translate Add-in –> ganzen Artikel lesen ▸ ….https://www.topagrar.com/energie/news/cdu-afd-und-fdp-blockieren-windkraftausbau-in-thueringer-waeldern-13549222.html
and if you cannot get past registration, etc, scroll down and read / translate the various comments.
This ought to be the final Net Zero-Green Loon stupidity. Or perhaps it’s a Baldrick style cunning plan to prove there really is no alternative to those wonderful heat pumps?
Who is going to let the politicians in on the “secrets”. Hydrogen leaks really easily. Free hydrogen in the atmosphere is an indirect greenhouse gas so bad that the IPCC have just revised its GWP (Global Warming Potential ) to 11.6 which is almost 12 times worse than CO2.
Forget all the abject twaddle that is being promoted about hydrogen, which brain dead nutters come up with the notion of thinking CO2 is bad in the atmosphere (it isn’t) so instead let’s risk pumping something even worse (it actually is) up there?
Town gas was mostly hydrogen.
With a little added carbon monoxide to make it even more interesting.
How did we ever survive ?
Because it was town gas at very low pressure barely above atmospheric. The modern day gas transmission grid is nearly 100Bar.
And also there were a lot of gas explosions back in those days
Ray: Again, check your facts please. Large steel transmission pipelines operate at up to 1000 psig but distribution systems much lower – some up to 200 psig. Smaller service lines to consumers operate well under 10 psig..
Interesting comments. In the upper mid-west of the U.S. nat gas is distributed to residences at 6 in/H2O, or about 0.25 PSIG. Would H flow at such low pressures? I have no idea. What I do know is, if the distribution pressures change, every gas-fired appliance in several states will need to be fitted with new regulators, valves, and spuds in the burners. Anyone still remember when the U.S. “unified” its national electric grid? ISOs switched the regional grids from a mix of 50 and 60 to all 60 hertz? It was pandemonium, and required establishing local motor re-winding shops in the effected Western states. But having a national grid was deemed worth the effort and cost. The interconnect between NA and Mezzo America requires huge rotating machines that change 50 to 60 Hz.
Well worth a read :
Energy & The Hydrogen Economy :
Click to access hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf
BTW, doesn’t burning hydrogen efficiently (stoichiometrically?) in air produce NOxs because of its high burning temperature?
But I suppose now its CO2 bad, NOx good.
The whole natural gas infrastructure will need replacement as the bulk steel pipes are corroded by hydrogen and upgraded throughout to eliminate leakage – which cannot be detected as there is no odourant which matches hydrogen’s tiny molecular size. In addition the pipe pressure will need to be 3 times higher to retain the same rate of energy flow, increasing the chance of leakages.
It would be cheaper to produce green methane and keep all the same distribution network and appliances.
Burning hydrogen is, in reality, extremely complex and every credible scientist knows that full well. Here is just one article referencing your very real NOx concerns.
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question/
Does anyone really believe that even if we could manufacture enough, store enough, and transport enough that we could risk literally hundreds of millions of burners (boilers, fires, individual hobs, ovens ) burning the stuff in a completely unregulated manner? Total (expletive) madness.
Are these politicians abject idiots with everything they touch, or just energy?
(Asking for a friend.)
The answer is to sit down and try to think of something politicians have done that actually works and benefits the population.
Yes
Well in the UK at least we definitely have a history of bizarre decision making just taking telecommunications:
Reintroducing the 405 line TV standard after WW2 when there were few tvs and extending it outside of London when it was already outdated & abroad would clearly be supersede by improved systems e.g. 525 line NTSC with FM sound and negative video modulation & a 625 line systems was being talked about. Then by the time our 2nd TV network ITV launched in 1955 it was beyond obvious that 405 line would have left the UK technically inferior as we would have had to have 625 line video backhaul due to links with Europe & videotape eventually so you would think we would have used 625 line on VHF band III as we would be stuck with UHF if we want to change to a new TV standard which based on the America experience at the time with UHF would take substantially more transmitters to get the same level of population coverage as VHF with about 41 main station (thats with the BBC & ITV each having there own transmitters with UHF they shared them so could have being even less if there was better planning) and about 60 relays – we have over 1100 UHF TV relay and about 80 high powered stations.
In the 1980s BT had found a way to make fibre optic to the home cheaper than traditional telephone lines and in 1990 was about to have a mass rollout but was stopped by the Thatcher government who wanted cable companies to install phone infrastructure to compete with BT.
Ironically a mass fibre optic rollout could have being designed to eliminate the barrier to entry of the last mile problem for a new telecommunications provider similar to how local loop unbundling did with broadband so it would have created competition.
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
Then also in the 1990s we had the British governments bizarre franchising plan to launch a national digital terrestrial television service via subscription TV service designed to compete with analogue satellite TV. How none of the politicians involved consider the possibility a rival digital satellite television service would launch and be preferred due to better coverage, more choice and cheaper equipment is a mystery.
as usual the cart before the horse, the supply should first be in place before it is available to the consumer.
These trials are relatively easy to accomplish so I believe that it is simply window dressing to show ‘the government is acting against climate change’ without accomplishing anything except demonstrate how easy it is to spend taxpayers money.
When is all this nonsense going to end?
Cart before the horse…. How often have I heard that, but the electorate have “voted” ‘Just answer the Question’ we are repeatedly told.
and when will it end ? HAVE to take back control, but there are now too many “in the wrong camp” …. is all I can say. SWAMP is what I see EVERYWHERE. I have diggers, but can I trust the Drivers? – that’s the sad truth … they may just wreck the project. This appetite for COmpliance springs to mind, and it’s no use asking the Herons of the world – they KNOW! ( fish are long since gone )
That’s what I was thinking, Iain. A little research turned this up from energy.gov (US):
‘Several projects have either been proposed or are in early stages of development globally’
Proving to me that it is not reality.
Perhaps the trials are to prove it actually could be done, so that someone will invest in it. They are fishing for suckers.
Make hydrogen using lots of energy. Burn hydrogen getting little energy back and a lot of water vapour, another greenhouse gas. Only our useless politicos could think this is a good idea.
And hydrogen is a potent (indirect) greenhouse gas if it escapes – which it will.
I am generally an advocate of nuclear power but some of this madness even seems to be affecting their thinking. We have EDF suggesting partnering Sizewell C with the “Direct Air Capture” of CO2 industry
https://www.sizewellc.com/environment/szc-energy-hub/dac/
And Rolls Royce (who have not even got authority passed to build a SMR) are hawking their design around as an electrolysis unit for High Temperature (but not particularly so) electrolysis.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Partners-to-study-hydrogen-production-using-Rolls
It seems everybody has taken their eyes off the ball. Whatever happened to “keep it sweet and simple”?
….and cheap.
It’s possible to produce hydrogen from water directly, using reactor heat and a catalytic cycle. No need to go through the inefficient generation of electricity first. Over 30% efficiency was claimed for this process so it seems a pity it does not get more attention.
Until the climate change act (2008) is repealed, it is a legal requirement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050. All the mad schemes are driven by this, cost and practicality are not even considered. In fact government throws money at all the most unlikely projects, Lithium mining in Cornwall and Weardale (injecting water into bore holes and hoping it comes up with some Lithium). Hydrogen is another white elephant, it will never be economic or practical, but lets spend loads of money to find out. I guess heat pumps are out of favour now, which reminds me I never managed to obtain the final report of the trial in Newcastle when they gave around 300 to volunteers (people who had a clapped out boiler) nearly 3 years ago.
I am not sure it is as certain as that given an article that looked at the consequences of failing to achieve Net Zero by 2050. It looks to be more of an aspiration and that should 2050 arrive without Net Zero – as we all know it will – they can shrug and say ‘We tried but couldn’t do it’. There is a long way to go before 2050 and the first real test is Kneeler and Labour’s plan to deliver carbon free generation in just SIX years. We know that can’t be achieve as it is not possible to produce, install and connect enough windmills to do so. Nor is there the money to pay for it all. Rachel Plagiarism Reeves has had to row back of her plan to spend £28bn on green crap to a position of doing it a few years down the line when the economic boom provides the money. Yes – exactly. An economic boom under Labour??
Best place for the proposed experiment Westminster
Hydrogen + Oxygen = water.
Using hydrogen will produce increased water vapour which produces 50% of our cosy global warming, unlike the contribution of Manmade CO2 which isn’t measurable.
So replace CO2 which has tiny effect with H20 which has big effect. This is at least consistent with what passes for logic, reason and ‘science’ in the climate change clown-parade.
The concentration of H2O in the atmosphere is controlled by its phase diagram. Any excess precipitates out.
Humans attempting to add a tiny extra amount won’t affect things at all.
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not controlled by precipitation at Earth surface temperatures. On the poles of Mars, it can be cold enough to freeze CO2 out as a solid, but not here on Earth.
” Any excess precipitates out.” Over what time period….that entirely depends where in the atmosphere it is doesn’t it?
I believe it can persist for some time if it is injected into the stratosphere. But that is not what we are discussing. Are you really saying that the small amount of water vapour that we put into the lower atmosphere has any kind of long term effect on the water vapour concentration in the atmosphere ?
Where might fugitive hydrogen form water vapour? It can rise very rapidly.
Click to access Hydrogen_atmospheric_impact_report.pdf
The question was about water vapour itself not hydrogen. Why can’t you tell us your assessment of releasing water vapour at low altitudes ?
Start point “Hydrogen + Oxygen = water.”
Fugitive hydrogen is known to create stratospheric water vapour on combination with, guess what, …hydrogen.
So quite why you are hell bent on distracting this thread, I am really not interested in.
It’s you that is distracting from the point.
The point being addressed was about releases of water vapour -not hydrogen- into the near-surface atmosphere.
Please tell us your evaluation of the effect of that precise point.
Hydrogen should be limited to chemistry teacher lab experiments that end with a “pop.” No one seriously considers using H for residential distribution, as the gas attacks steel and makes its use impossible in existing systems. H may comprise the bulk of the matter in the know universe, but it has no place in residential home heating. H is but another grift foisted upon a credulous, scientifically illiterate public.
bd007: Facts please. Hydrogen was 50% of town gas for decades. The “leakage” issue is overstated – hydrogen is transmitted through steel pipes around the world. Shuaiba (Kuwait) was the world’s first “all hydrogen” oil refinery. The arguments against should be based on adverse thermodynamics and the insane costs.
Vernon “Hydrogen was 50% of town gas” …so what? Completely irrelevant junk knowledge. What pressure was town gas stored and distributed at? Over what distances (the clue is in the name) was it distributed? How unsafe was it? Town gas manufacture and distribution is a complete red herring.
But I thought all the excess electricity was going to be used to charge the batteries that could power 18 million homes!
Hydrogen is being fed into natural gas for household use in Adelaide, but only just increased from 5% to 10%, and only for one suburb close to the hydrogen generator plant (suburb is fairly new and the pipes apparently don’t contain cast iron).
This has been considered such as success that our politicians have decided to spend millions trialing it use elsewhere in industry e.g. steel making (don’t ask me how that occurred to them, I am not a psychiatrist).
Coincidentally Gold Hydrogen Co. has announced a hydrogen flow from an abandoned gas exploration well, only 200 km or 380 km from the possible user (depending whether you choice a direct line – including under the sea or by the land route). No details about the flow rate, and whether other wells also supply hydrogen, nor whether the Company has any money to expand but local politicians (Labor but possibly slightly more realistic than the other hopeless lot) are enthusiastic about future prospects.
And rumour has it that the electricity for electrolysis at the hydrogen pilot plant has been provided (since South Australia is “the most renewables State”) is supplied by the diesel generators at the disused desalination plant – another past political enthusiasm.
Hybrit in Sweden has produced 100 tonnes of steel using hydrogen and is in the process of ramping up production to 1m tonnes. Meanwhile in the real world in 2021 the total world production of steel was 1.95bn tonnes. The hydrogen route is also at least 30% more expensive though that might change with developments
Graeme: It has long been considered that our gas network and the associated combustion devices can tolerate up to about 10% hydrogen without modifications. Maybe this could be an escape route for our politicians who are committed to hydrogen but I have my doubts about the methodology of mixing it safely at grid scale.
Is there a formal, independent risk assessment to confirm that hydrogen doesn’t create additional risks in domestic properties compared to natural gas?
The leakage rate of hydrogen in domestic properties could be considerable…
See consulting engineer ARUP’s “Safety Assessment Conclusions Report”
Exec summary, page 10
“The key findings from the risk assessment are as follows:
It is understood from historic data that a significant cause of current fires and explosions (about 40% of all of those occurring downstream of ECV) is due to the absence of flame failure devices (FFDs), particularly on hobs. All hydrogen appliances will have FFDs, therefore, reducing the likelihood that appliances can be, unwittingly, left on whilst unlit.
From the dispersion analysis undertaken, small leaks (97% of reported leaks are from holes no larger than two millimetres) do not create sufficiently large flammable clouds to produce injuries and all can be readily smelled.
Medium sized leaks (from holes between three and seven millimetres in size) can produce flammable gas clouds in small rooms, notably those with the door closed and / or rooms with poor ventilation. From data collected for Hy4Heat, it is understood that these leaks are most often caused by third party damage and so generally the appropriate steps are readily taken to stop the development of the leak i.e. opening windows, closing the ECV and alerting the gas company. Leaks such as these rarely occur spontaneously.
Large leaks (from holes greater than seven millimetres) are the size conventionally expected to produce high gas concentrations in large areas of a house. From historic data and data collected by First Call Operatives (FCOs), a significant percentage of these leaks arise from third party damage, including malicious intent. The introduction of two excess flow valves (EFVs) will significantly reduce the likelihood of leaks of this size developing into a hazardous scenario (i.e. the flow of gas will be stopped before a flammable atmosphere can develop).”
Click to access conclusions+inc+QRA.pdf
Thanks Joe Public, does this mean that step one is a formal risk assessment of each property to confirm suitability for a hydrogen gas supply?
Micky R
As for all dwellings with heating and humans, ventilation is a key requirement.
From page 99:
“Tests performed at the ‘HyStreet’ houses, at DNV GL Spadeadam [47], indicated that a vent area of 10,000 mm2 located at ceiling height was effective at reducing hydrogen concentrations for medium- sized leaks8.
It is recommended that rooms with gas appliances installed (e.g. boilers, hobs) or containing extensive pipe work should have vents with equivalent area of 10,000 mm2, located as close to the ceiling level as possible and no more than 500 mm below ceiling level.
To give confidence that this vent area is not unreasonable from a practical perspective, it is noted that the minimum equivalent area of background ventilators for single-storey dwellings required by the 2021 legislative draft of English and Welsh Building Regulations Approved Document F [58] is 10,000 mm2.Scottish Regulations require slightly larger areas. However, it should be noted that these regulations were not introduced with the intention of controlling the build-up of flammable gas.” My bold.
Does that mean a formal risk assessment of each property to confirm suitability for a hydrogen gas supply?
Premises / appliances will be surveyed to ensure they comply with relevant standards.
As was done at the conversion of the entire country for the switch from manufactured (Towns) gas, to natural gas.
Worth remembering that hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame, almost invisibly in strong daylight – easier to miss. Current ionisation FFDs for boilers require a power supply to operate which is okay but gas fires, hobs, ovens usually have thermoelectric sensors that are too slow to safely operate (approx 30 seconds) for hydrogen. This leaves electrically powered IR or UV sensors as the likely option. These do not yet exist (particularly for hobs) so it could well be even hobs will not work in a power cut absent back up local supply. Getting more and more and more complicated.
Thanks Joe. A word of sense at last in this debate.
The effect of hydrogen leaks on vehicles,
The government has no mandate for this; it hasn’t been discussed with us — THE PUBLIC — and it hasn’t been thought through and costed. Shameful.
Come on Bob, when has any government bothered about having a mandate to screw us?
Point taken. Thank you.
One more pointless expensive desperate lunge for a life belt with which to “save ourselves” when we jump into both freezing and shark infested sea from a perfectly functioning ship!
Pure hydrogen! They must not do this. Could the RSC not outline the risks to the politicians?
Leaving aside the increased risk of explosion and fire, is there a technical reason why pure hydrogen can’t be used in CCGT and OCGT power stations?
It’s not just technical, but also economic. Hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally, but must be made, using energy, but the energy returned (ERoI) is only ~30% of the energy you use to make it. Also, many proponents say we’ll use the ‘spare’ or ‘excess’ renewable energy, but there isn’t any, is inherently unreliable, and itself costs a fortune.
Thanks ilma630,
Leaving aside the increased risk of explosion and fire, is there a technical reason why pure hydrogen can’t be used in CCGT and OCGT power stations?
Unfortunately, the believers are more than capable of “hand-waving away” cost issues.
Cross-posted from the Pylons thread:
It appears that hydrogen does occur naturally. From a BBC article:
“Earlier this year Professor Jacques Pironon was searching for methane in the Lorraine Basin, northeast France, when his team made an unexpected discovery.
Around 3,000m underground they found a very large deposit of hydrogen.
The French discovery is not the first time that naturally-occurring hydrogen has been found – there’s already a small well in Bourakébougou, western Mali, and there are also believed to be large deposits in the US, Australia, Russia and a number of European countries.
…However, the discovery in France is believed to represent the largest naturally-occurring deposit of the gas ever found. Prof Pironon estimates there could be 250 million tonnes of hydrogen, enough to meet current global demand for more than two years.
There could be many more hydrogen deposits lying undiscovered around the world – the US Geological Survey (USGS), estimates thousands or perhaps billions of megatonnes.”
Maybe nobody really looked for it before……
Always keen to learn, but they’re going to need a darn sight more than 2-year’s worth of supply to make drilling 3,000 ft economically viable. Even if the drilling & extraction process were free (it’s not of course), there has to be a viable market in which to sell the gas.
ilma360: quite agree – I was just flagging up the news (to me at least) that there may be large deposits of natural hydrogen scattered around the world.
Extraction might be a challenge but I would expect the oil & gas companies to be up to that. (That French discovery was at 3000 metres, btw).
Depending on the location of the field, it should be perfectly practical to pipeline the gas to wherever it’s needed. Parts of Europe and the US have had hydrogen pipelines for a long time.
” there may be large deposits of natural hydrogen scattered around the world. ”
In reality, no-one knows the full extent of the worldwide deposits of hydrocarbon fuel
NO they’re not … in REDCAR …. just heard on news this now …. Gov backdown, Blow to Companies hoping to promote the scham ! yes the scam scheme.
Herons nowhere to be seen. Great hunger today again despite the Oh-so-warm december today: Gridwatch 45GW consumed, Fish ( er em i mean wind) only 22 % – a paltry 9 fish, Solar fish not even 2 but regular coal fish is the same ONE – but ppl don’t like coalfish.
and Germany has increased their Diesel prices 3-5ppl AND the poor farmers … no longer rebated diesel.https://www.agrarzeitung.de/nachrichten/politik/haushaltseinsparungen-regierung-plant-das-aus-fuer-agrardiesel-subvention-110194