camelot-forum.co.uk

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysi ... -1-1682437

Tests on valves and flanges found that “assets that are gas-tight with natural gas remain gas-tight with hydrogen”.

However, the report adds: “In broad terms, for minor leaks, there is a negligible to small difference in the rate of leakage between natural gas and hydrogen”.

Okay...I can't resist.
Natural gas is a pretendy word for (90 > 95%) methane.

One article here says they observed several thousand f-tons of leaking gas from a Uk site from a satellite mounted detector. I'm sure it was the first one they every had that was coincidentally reported by a third party.

One from the states says 9% of production in a surveyed area.

The problem is most leaks go unreported because if you are a producer of that leak you're obliged to report it and pay a fine to...Captain Planet Gaia the overlords of righteousness and retribution.
Or an independant needs a camera that costs $80 000 to report the atrocity.

Now H₂ is the universe's most abundant molecule so it's a lot better for the environment than methane in the atmosphere. Apart from Hydrogen igniting at 4% to air and methane 10%.

What does "rate of leakage mean"? That at the same pressure and volume they have equal flow rates? And basically if you plumb gas underground across a country you'll never seal all the leaks. So just redefine the issue as A-ok!?

If we factor leaking methane into our calculations on harmful emissions coal is a cleaner fuel.
That's before we attempt to frack it, liquify it and sail it across the Atlantic using bitumen heavy fuel "oil".

Did anyone stop to think why does the article contradict iself in the first two headlines?
It's ok. But it leaks. So now that we've set the bar low enough to trip over then the next shytshow will be as good if not.. as mediocre.

The main problem with the H2 idea is that you need ~6x as much electricity to produce the same amount of final heat from H2 v's a heatpump. To put it in terms of off-shore wind capacity, it's roughly 26GW v's 150GW.


Edit - Just to clarify for anyone interested but unsure about those numbers. The assumption is that green H2 and heatpumps will both be powered by green leccy. So 1kWh of green leccy after passing through elctrolysers,compressors etc, and then burnt in a home, will provide about 0.5kWh(t) of heat. Whereas 1kWh of leccy can provide about 3kWh(t) via a heatpump. This leads to estimates of green energy generation/consumption for H2 space heating at between 5.5 and 6 times that of heatpumps.

Mart,
Spot on

Hmm - is this the test that was done on just 0.5km of gas pipes which were in ideal conditions?

Not only was it a small test, but the test duration was tiny, if they did the test 24/7/365 and had run at 1% Hydrogen enrichment that's only 10.9 days per incremental increase in Hydrogen concentration. That might be ok for assessing conventional leakage but not for anything relating to Hydrogen interstitial leaks, nor would it allow any meaningful assessment of material properties impacts like embrittlement.

Even if they ran at 5% increments that's still only 54.75 days per test again assumes no weekends holidays or down time, still arguably a very small test period for something so safety critical.

Leakage wise I was flabbergasted by their statement that its now worse than Natural gas ? WTF!

last year we used 63 billion cubic meters, or there abouts, of natural gas, leakage is between 1.98% and 10.8% depending on who you believe but lets be "pro" Centrica and National Gas for a minute and say we only have 1% leakage, thats 0.01 x 63,000,000,000 = 6,300,000 cubic meters of Hydrogen leaking in to the atmosphere or worse accumulating in parts of buildings.

Thats a lot of gas and lets just throw in the fact that you only need 0.02mJ to ignite Hydrogen whilst you require 0.29mJ to ignite Natural Gas and it starts to become obvious that the same leakage rate doesn't mean the same risk rate.

At best its a biased report at worst you might be able to argue that is wilfully misleading.

Hydrogen has a future as part of the solution but in my opinion not as a fuel for the masses its just too darn dangerous.

Moxi

Found some nice articles, and very similar from Nesta and the H2 Science Coalition, both pointing to the uses for H2 in industry etc, but not for space heating.

Opinion: why hydrogen is not the solution to decarbonising our homes

Hydrogen for heating? A comparison with heat pumps (Part 1)

Both have similar diagrams comparing energy needs, with very similar numbers.

I think when it is all mashed out the truth of the matter is that for the next 50 years or so the likelihood of having sufficient surplus electrical power to produce excess Hydrogen for anything other than high value production purposes is unlikely, which is where Ken was coming from I believe.

I don't think I had truly appreciated the value of Hydrogen before discussing it here. Its a shame there's no scope for a cottage industry Hydrogen production £67 for 1.48 cubic meters, however, the cost of the components to produce, purify, compress store and otherwise handle it is indicative of its energetic nature and reassuringly expensive as a result.

Moxi

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/e ... f584&ei=11

Good article and very hard to argue against in broad terms, makes you wonder what MacQuerie and billionaire Li Ka-shing (ha ha so close to Ka-Ching and a billionaire to boot, you just couldn't make it up!!!) know that the rest of us don't?

Moxi