1 Billion Hydrogen Gas Grid in NE England

[dan_b]

Oh dear.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... st-england

[marshman]

Why "oh dear"?

[Tinbum]

'The project aims to repurpose, where possible, the existing gas grid, which is 20% cheaper than building from scratch.'

That doesn't seem much of a saving.

[Stinsy]

We really need to set a date for abandoning the gas grid!

[Moxi]

I wonder if they have factored in connecting off grid properties in the future ? surely its not possible to replace large LPG cylinders with Hydrogen equivalents - or more likely is it safer to assume the " they're rural and too far away and too few in numbers to make it worth our while to connect" principle used by BG in the 70's will reign supreme once again ??

Can't say I am a big fan of the idea of Hydrogen in the house ? A natural gas explosion is grim enough but imagine the 7x overpressure event of a hydrogen explosion ? Nope I think when that day comes I will go all electric ditch the LPG and retain the WBS's as the standby system for when the poles or wires to the cottage fall over / break - pretty frequent

Moxi

[Mr Gus]

Has anyone in primo govt, local govt, the fuel industry asked actual fire brigades their opinion, tackling house fires with Hydrogen tanks?

I think I know the response & it begins with a "eff that"

[dan_b]

99% of global hydrogen production is currently from cracking natural gas - so it's a fossil fuel product.
The fossil fuel industry would like us to move to so-called blue hydrogen, which would involve the use of CCS to try and capture some of the CO2. But that still allows them to pump gas.
So-called "green hydrogen" (which is what hydrogen lobbyists always project as the "ideal solution") requires simply colossal amounts of renewable energy generation to be diverted to splitting water. To make hydrogen. To pump and then burn in a gas grid. Which still produces particulate emissions.

Instead, use that renewable energy generation to power heat pumps and you get a much more efficient use of energy, with much lower risk of things going bang.

Why "oh dear"?

[Countrypaul]

99% of global hydrogen production is currently from cracking natural gas - so it's a fossil fuel product.
The fossil fuel industry would like us to move to so-called blue hydrogen, which would involve the use of CCS to try and capture some of the CO2. But that still allows them to pump gas.
So-called "green hydrogen" (which is what hydrogen lobbyists always project as the "ideal solution") requires simply colossal amounts of renewable energy generation to be diverted to splitting water. To make hydrogen. To pump and then burn in a gas grid. Which still produces particulate emissions.

Instead, use that renewable energy generation to power heat pumps and you get a much more efficient use of energy, with much lower risk of things going bang.

Why "oh dear"?

If you burn pure hydrogen you don't get particulates, but if its a mix of hydrogen and natural gas (or even biogas) then you can.

Using hydrogen as the storage medium for a battery (which is effectively what the purpose is) is definitely inefficient in my view. I suspect the round trip efficiency is way below "normal" batteries and quite likely below other storage options such as pumped hydro. Using the hydrogen in fuel cell might give a more efficient use than just burning it, but as has been said on here before it is just a way to support the fossil fuel companies.

Heat pumps plus induction hobs would also really help cut the number of gas explosions (nearly one a week in the UK).