Hydrogen pilot abandoned

[JohnD]

"The UK has abandoned plans for a trial to test hydrogen as a replacement fuel in gas-fired boilers, in the latest setback for its prospects of taking a larger role in domestic heating.

Ministers on Thursday said they would not proceed with a proposed pilot in Redcar, north-east England, which had been due to start in 2025, blaming a lack of supplies of low-carbon hydrogen.

The decision followed opposition to the project from residents raising concerns about cost and safety, while critics had argued hydrogen was unsuitable for home heating as it was less efficient than alternatives, such as heat pumps."

FT.com

 

[JohnD]

"It comes after ministers scrapped another trial in Whitby, near Liverpool, in July following opposition from residents. Ministers said they would now look at the results of a planned trial in Fife, Scotland, due to run next year, and pilot schemes elsewhere in Europe, ahead of making a decision on hydrogen’s role in home heating in 2026."

 

[reds42]

To be honest I've always thought the idea of burning hydrogen in boilers to heat peoples houses was a folly.

What could possibly go wrong piping a highly flammable, explosive, and odorless gas, which leaks out of everything and embrittles metals, into peoples houses...

On top of that there is the issue that if you want to burn truly green hydrogen from electrolysis using renewable electricity the production process is so hugely inefficient.

This was a video I found most interesting about the use of hydrogen, I found it a bit of an eye opener. Quite long, but if you have the time to watch its very informative.

 

[muggles]

Good. It was a stupid idea anyway.

 

[fixitflav]

What could possibly go wrong piping a highly flammable, explosive, and odorless gas

A minor point, but natural gas is naturally (!) odourless. It smells because mercaptan is added, for safety reasons.

On top of that there is the issue that if you want to burn truly green hydrogen from electrolysis using renewable electricity the production process is so hugely inefficient.

If and when nuclear fusion gets going, hydrogen might have a new lease of life

 

[reds42]

A minor point, but natural gas is naturally (!) odourless. It smells because mercaptan is added, for safety reasons.

Hydrogen will leak out of spaces too small for any added fragrance chemical to get through.

 

[flameport]

If and when nuclear fusion gets going,

That will never happen, but even if it did, it's still vastly more efficient to just use the electricity for heating.

Taking electricity, wasting 30% or more converting it to hydrogen, then using more electricity to compress that hydrogen for storage, then using even more electricity distributing the hydrogen all over the country though leaky pipes to end up burning it in some boiler that's at best 90% efficient is a total farce.

The only proponents of H2 for heating are the gas industry, who fully intend to make the H2 from methane to maximise use of their existing infrastructure and profits.
The reality is that the gas networks will become stranded assets, and gas distributors will be out of business much sooner than most people imagine.

 

[fixitflav]

That will never happen

I know fusion has been 50 years in the future for the past 50 years, but there does seem to have been some progress recently.

it's still vastly more efficient to just use the electricity for heating.

But that, along with most cars switching to battery electric, would necessitate beefing up the distribution system. And there's the question of the raw materials for the batteries. There might be a case for hydrogen, using the existing network, with compressor stations replacing garages for transport usage. There's the option of ICE for cars if fuel cells use too many exotics, less efficient but no worse than petrol. Then again the gas network would probably need improving, due to the low CV of hydrogen per m3.
I'm not convinced battery electric is the long-term solution.

 

[JohnD]

That will never happen, but even if it did, it's still vastly more efficient to just use the electricity for heating.

Taking electricity, wasting 30% or more

Well that depends.

Let's suppose you had a magic device that, once built, produced electricity at zero cost and needed no fuel.

Some of the time demand for this electricity was less than the supply available

Wouldn't you use the unsellable excess in some way, to make something you could store and sell?

Of course you would.

 

[BlueLoo]

Hydrogen in domestic installations is batshit mental.

Both for production and usage.

Another example of the great carbon scam

 

[flameport]

Wouldn't you use the unsellable excess in some way, to make something you could store and sell?

No doubt some will - but there is already a massive global market for hydrogen, 99% of which is currently made from fossil fuels.
Those are the industries which require hydrogen from non-fossil sources - where hydrogen is used because it's needed for it's chemical properties and there is no alternative.

There is absolutely no case to be made for inventing useless ways to use more hydrogen such as burning it in boilers to heat buildings, shoving it into vehicles for road transport, or anything else that can be done and is already being done using other energy sources.

 

[JohnD]

There is absolutely no case to be made for inventing useless ways to use more hydrogen such as burning it in boilers to heat buildings, shoving it into vehicles for road transport, or anything else that can be done and is already being done using other energy sources.

Unless, of course, it can be made at low cost, without using fossil fuel, and can be a clean and cheap, non-polluting fuel that does not cause climate change. Which would upset those wedded to "other energy sources" unless they can get in on the act. Which they can.

 

[Mike13]

Agreed, it is bonkers to have it as a fuel in peoples houses. It leaks out of steel containers, it burns very very hot, you would not want it leaking into your house, at least it is quick at finding its way to the ceiling.

Hydrogen has its place as a feedstock for some chemicals, but as a general purpose fuel, no thanks.

It takes a lot of pressure and very cold containers to make it liquid, if it is not liquid it needs seriously heavy thick steel cylinders to store it and the weight of hydrogen stored is very small compared to cylinder weight, that makes it useless for cars or trucks.

 

[fixitflav]

Agreed, it is bonkers to have it as a fuel in peoples houses. It leaks out of steel containers, it burns very very hot, you would not want it leaking into your house, at least it is quick at finding its way to the ceiling.

The trouble is, if NG is to be scrapped (whether or not you think that UK doing that will make a blind bit of difference to global warning) the other options have plenty of downsides.

Hydrogen has its place as a feedstock for some chemicals, but as a general purpose fuel, no thanks.

That's right, a great deal is used for ammonia synthesis. I believe it's mostly made from methane, with CO2 as a byproduct, so unless production goes green, it doesn't help the planet.

makes it useless for cars or trucks.

That's not quite right. The technology is there, and there are some hydrogen filling stations, though it hasn't caught on in a big way. I believe it takes a bit longer to fill than a petrol or diesel tank, but much quicker than electric.

 

[Mike13]

Look at the energy density of liquid hydrogen, and compressed hydrogen, try 1000PSI and 1000Bar, and compare those three numbers to petrol or diesel.
Then factor in the next level of loss being the weight of the container for the hydrogen and look at the net energy density. I cannot see how it makes any economic sense to even try.