Wow. According to the hydrogen industry lobbyist in my mentions I've gaslit you all by suggesting that heat pumps are great.
Which is weird. Cos heat pumps are an amazing technology. There's even moves to develop air/air heat pumps they use propane as the refrigerant, so DIY installers can easily install them. But what's truly amazing about heat pumps is how they can scale. In the city of London they've installed a big ground source heat pump to drive district heating. It's awesome.
@quixoticgeek we put a heat pump in one of our stores and it made a huge difference. for the first time, the temperature was consistent on every floor regardless of the season, and it saved us a fortune.
@maas@quixoticgeek my science teacher demonstrated this with a plastic milk bottle. on the assumption that town gas (coal gas; Ireland didn't have "natural gas" in the 80s) was a good approximation for hydrogen. filled it up with pure hydrogen, held the open neck to the bunsen flame … meh. added some oxygen, held it to the flame: BANG and all that's left in his hand is a shred of the bottle.
@quixoticgeek Having just read through a Hydrogen Safety data sheet, I'd be very worried about (1) the pipe work, are they replacing all the pipe work with Hydrogen tested pipe, Hydrogen dissolves in many metals and in addition to leaking out, may have adverse effects on them, such as hydrogen embrittlement (2) Hydrogen gas leaking into external air may spontaneously ignite. Hydrogen fire, while being extremely hot, is almost invisible, and thus can lead to accidental burns
@Porcia@quixoticgeek They used to be 50% hydrogen. That's because they weren't always pushing natural gas, but rather town gas. Which is rich in hydrogen.
So there never was a serious downside. With modern technology, it's easy to reach 100% hydrogen without concern.
@Porcia@quixoticgeek
Yes to all of the above. Long story short, the domestic gas network will never be safe for hydrogen - you’d need to replace all the lines, valves, regulators, monitors. Even then it would be uninsurable, no customer would take that risk.
Insurers will be busy offloading customers in all the new flood risk areas, they won’t want every other district blown to hell.
@BashStKid@Porcia@quixoticgeek Like I said to the other person, hydrogen is no problem. We've been piping in one way or another for over a century. It's most fearmongering to think that we can't do it for home heating.
In addition, H2 is a lot less dense than methane. So to achieve a volumetric density that's similar at the point of use H2 has to be pumped at about 3 x the rate of natural gas. Our existing pumping stations can't do that so their pumps would have to be replaced and upgraded to cope.
@mackaj@Porcia@quixoticgeek
That’s a good point. In addition, all the pumps would have to be replaced anyway simply because their seals could not handle hydrogen, and rotating machinery is the last place you want hydrogen embrittlement. And there are dozens of other things that make it impractical.
Rule of thumb, anything hydrogen has to be purpose-built and certified from scratch.
@mackaj@BashStKid@Porcia@quixoticgeek it's worse than that. Raw volume isn't what needs to be delivered, energy is. H2 is 9MJ/l Methane is 55MJ/l. So you need to transport SIX times as much to get the same energy to your destination.
@SkipHuffman@mackaj@Porcia@quixoticgeek
Sounds about right. I think even in a best comparative case, if the HP gas network is running at ~100 bar, there’s no way in hell it could operate at 600 bar to get a similar throughput energy density. Even less likely for the LP distribution network with poly pipe in it.
Anyway, back to where we came in: domestic hydrogen is a mirage. Let’s focus on grid decentralisation, insulation, and more efficient/robust heat pumps.
Same applies though, the combination of energy density/mass and gas compressibility means hydrogen has to be at 5-6 times methane pressure to deliver the same energy volume throughput. Few lines could safely take 6 x design operating pressure.
(Unless I messed up some numbers …)
For sure there will be an industrial hydrogen system for use (eg green steel) or storage (eg salt caverns).
Unlikely big H2 customers in same place as power gen (hydro, wind, wave, solar) so you either have a power network or a H2 distribution network.
Or a lot of H2 gets turned into ammonia for feedstock, shipping, power. Either way there’s a lot of green industrial H2.
@martinvermeer@BashStKid@mackaj@SkipHuffman@Porcia yeah. It's looking at about 3% loss on a 1GW cable over 1000km. That's impressively efficient. I'm expecting to see a lot more of them from renewable rich locations in the coming years.
@quixoticgeek@martinvermeer@mackaj@SkipHuffman@Porcia
Can’t come too soon. I think we’re already so far behind with grid upgrades in the UK it might be cheaper and quicker to build an offshore distribution network. Also there’s the Xlinks Morocco-UK project.
@BashStKid@martinvermeer@mackaj@SkipHuffman@Porcia Norway to NL is already up. Norway to UK likewise. Denmark to UK as you mentioned is online as of this week. There's talk of Iceland to UK. And there's talk of Morocco to UK as a 3Gw HVDC cable...
@BashStKid@mackaj@SkipHuffman@Porcia yes. but it's gonna be for hydrogen as a feed stock, not hydrogen as an energy source. You might get an electrolysis plant situated next to the ammonia plant... Or next to the steel plant... I don't think we're gonna see a lot of hydrogen being shipped from say, north Africa, to Europe to power stuff. You can run a 1000km HVDC cable with much fewer loses instead. More likely an ammonia plant next to solar farm in north Africa...
Natural gas is flammable between 5-15% gas in air. It is actually rather challenging to get uncontrolled concentrations to ignite, if you remember those episodes of Mybusters. It certainly can ignite but is fairly limited in practice.
Hydrogen has a flammable limit of 4-74%. You also can't scent it like you can natural gas because of that tiny molecule issue, so leaks are incredibly hazardous and difficult to detect.
Outside of industrial applications hydrogen is just too dangerous. The best I've heard of is mixing with natural gas, but that doesn't actually solve the problem.
Right now there is a huge split between gas only utilities and joint gas and electric companies. Gas only companies are hoping for a hail mary with hydrogen and funding scare tactics around keeping gas ranges, while joint utilities are exploring electric conversions.
Eventually electric utilities will need to buy out the gas ones and convert the customer be to full electric.
Nor is hydrogen really that dangerous. It disperses in air much faster than natural gas. In many ways it is safer. You can easily pipe it to a house and there would be minimal danger. The people opposed to this have their own agenda. It's practically its own form of science denial.
And why in the US this should be a non-starter - the utility has no obligation to check your house for leaks unless you call them. In other counties gas companies have a responsibility toward any gas deaths.
I do agree on this - detonations are rare for natural gas, but in a real world sense you are just as dead from defragration. How it happens is meaningless if you are in that kitchen. It is the collateral damage and the likelihood that changes. Not a reason to suppress, but yes people will take it out of context.
Catch the Mybusters episode Manhole Mayham, as they do testing between the two types of explosions.
The detonation in that study happened at 30%, past the point that natural gas can burn. The likelihood of an explosion is far higher for that reason alone, but I didn't need a study to tell me that. 5-15% vs 4-75% explosive range.
@Hypx@sewblue@Porcia@quixoticgeek The point being that methanethiol is a much larger molecule than h2, so hydrogen can escape through tiny cracks that block the added scent – especially when pressurized – giving an odorless and potentially explosive gas cloud.
@Hypx@sewblue@Porcia@quixoticgeek There’s no formula to be found in that abstract. Nor any discussion about molecular size.
You seem to know more. Why not share?
@Hypx@sewblue@Porcia@quixoticgeek Alright, that’s actually helpful. I made you a little table, so you can see the data for yourself. You’re welcome.
As expected, the odor molecules mentioned are way, way bigger than hydrogen molecules. Also, toxicity is generally worrisome.
This confirms the potential threat of hydrogen escaping while leaving scent marks behind.
@Hypx@sewblue@Porcia@quixoticgeek If you’re interested, methane (CH4) is a sphere with a radius of H-C-H (~2.174Å). H2, however, is more like a stick (better: a capsule). Its length is ~1.2Å, however, its width is closer to 0.53Å. Similarly, Methanethiol, CH3SH, is stick-like. Its width is the same as CH4 (H3C-H vs H3C-SH).
In fact, a crack of <1Å will release only H2, while a crack of >2.2Å will release both H2, CH4 and CH3SH).
If you do the math, it’s a factor of ~4.
Again, you’re welcome.
Anything is dangerous at the extremes of plausibility. But we don't ban just because of that. And there's no science suggest that this is anymore dangerous than some other heating idea. Not to mention that hydrogen vents very fast compared to methane.
At some point, this is just a rehash of Edison's fearmongering over AC power.
@hansbot@sewblue@Porcia@quixoticgeek Again, show me anything peer-reviewed evidence that there is any danger over existing natural gas systems. Otherwise, you are subject to Hitchen's razor.
This is why I call you guys a bunch of climate change deniers. You clearly don't believe in science, and probably only say you do in for some personal gain of some kind. The moment it no longer benefits you, I'm totally confident you'll give up on BEVs.
I in no way believe that hydrogen is the answer to energy demands, it's just a thing put up by the dying fossil fuels industry but we normally test for leaks with Helium. It's the smallest thing that's easy to detect for leaks. On paper, Hydrogen is smaller so could leak more but Hydrogen normally comes as H2 so the molecules are bigger than helium in its natural state.
And hydrogen embrittlement is definitely a thing. Hydrogen power is a scam
@mw1cgg@tony@Porcia@quixoticgeek It is basically the only that can really replace fossil fuels. If you don't like it, you will be forced to accept an even harder problem, which is making e-fuels a thing.
In reality, all of you guys have been gaslighted by some industry or another. Most likely the battery industry, although there's a huge cult of electrification of everything. Hydrogen is very close to mandatory when it comes to reaching zero emissions.
@Hypx@mw1cgg@tony@Porcia@quixoticgeek But pretending it will be good for everything fossil fuels now do is also misleading and gaslighting us. It has some uses for long term storage, and some forms of transport, but it's not just a straight swap for natural gas.
Another point to note: all sources of flame produce toxic nitrous oxides when air is heater to high temperatures. Hydrogen flame burns much hotter than methane and creates significantly higher levels of poisonous NOx fumes as a consequence.
@mw1cgg@tony@Porcia@quixoticgeek Isn't importing hydrogen from Africa in tankers currently the German government's strategy on how to get to 100% renewable?
@antonia@mw1cgg@tony@Porcia I thought their strategy was to close all the nukes and burn coal and then be confused as to why their emissions are so high...
@antonia@mw1cgg@tony@Porcia there was supposed to be a trial of it in the UK. And some lobbyist blew up my mentions evangelising it earlier this week. It's a stupid idea.
@quixoticgeek Beats me. I do wonder if it’s an English not-invented-here thing. Twenty-plus years ago I’d be impressed with district heating, ground-source heat pumps, early Vestas turbines, only to be met with confused stares back in the UK.
@quixoticgeek Please don't do revisionist history. You were clearly caught making a fundamental error. You did not know about thermally-driven heat pumps at that moment.
So you unknowingly passed off corporate propaganda as if it were fact. Someone showed you your mistake, at which point you threw a fit. A more reasonable response would be to admit that thermally driven heat pumps exist too, and that your past statements should be adjusted to reflect that knowledge.
@Hypx in fact. All I say is a heat pump is like a fridge run in reverse. You're griping that I didn't mention that fridges can be run on hydrogen. That's your gripe. I'm not misleading anyone. You're just embarrassing yourself here.
@quixoticgeek Except you clearly stated that hydrogen for heating was a "unviable". You outright called a distraction by fossil fuel companies for politicians. Then went on rant about how many times more efficient heat pumps. Completely unaware of thermally driven heat pumps.
This is all out in the open. It's not like you can deny what was posted online.
Add comment