Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Most UK households use natural gas for home heating, largely because green policy inflated electricity costs are so high. But the Carbon Worriers in the British Government have a plan to fix this.
Does the Committee on Climate Change want to blow us all up? by CHRISTOPHER BOOKER.
Some publicity has alighted on the latest brilliant idea from the “greenies” as to how we can comply with the Climate Change Act by “decarbonising” our economy. Ofgem paid £300,000 for a study suggesting that, instead of cooking with CO2-emitting natural gas, we should switch to carbon-free hydrogen. A £2 billion pilot project for Leeds would show how natural gas, or methane, could be converted to hydrogen by piping away all its nasty CO2 to be buried in holes under the North Sea.
This scheme has already been smiled on in principle by the green zealots of the Committee on Climate Change, run by Lord Deben (aka John Gummer), their only real reservation being that it would be rather expensive. But there are one or two other practical problems that would have to be taken into account. One is that the technology to bury the CO2 under the North Sea has not yet been invented, and probably never will be. Another is that, extrapolating from the £2 billion needed to convert 320,000 homes in Leeds by requiring them all to buy new cookers, the cost of extending the scheme across Britain could be a staggering £162 billion.
More details on the plan;
Meeting the Challenge of the Climate Change Act
A practical answer for decarbonising heat presented to date.
Minimal Impact on Customers (85% use gas)
Maximising the use of existing infrastructure.
Understanding lessons of the past and investments of today to influence options of the future
Read more: http://www.praseg.org.uk
Christopher Booker has a point about the risks. Pure Hydrogen is dangerous. In my opinion, Hydrogen is not something you would want to pipe into a normal home. The slightest leak could present a lethal risk of explosion.
Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704’s highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because its elemental form of H2 hydrogen gas risks autoignition when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; hydrogen gas and normal air can ignite at as low as 4% air due to the oxygen in the air and the simplicity and chemical properties of the reaction. However, hydrogen has no rating for innate hazard for reactivity or toxicity. The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation. Liquid hydrogen poses additional challenges due to its increased density and the extremely low temperatures needed to keep it in liquid form.
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety
When I was a kid, I went to a party, where someone had filled some balloons with hydrogen – cheap floating balloons. Just popping the balloons, without any flame, was usually enough to trigger an explosion.
Lord Deben, and the other people pushing this plan, must surely be aware of the potential risks.
Why be so negative?
Surely there must be some positive outcome given this wonderful news.
Perhaps we could encourage the Greenpeace advocates to use airships filled with Hydrogen Gas to transport them to the next international conference to save the planet.
Think about the reduction in their carbon footprint.
Lord Deben of BSE fame would surely volunteer to show the way to the more cautious citizens
This is just more carbon stupidity and madness. The pea here is the plan to use CCS, a technology steeped in carbon stupidity and madness, which would be horribly expensive, very possibly dangerous, in addition to accomplishes exactly zero, which doesn’t even exist escept in the fevered brains of Greenie schemers.
Watch the pea.
It is misleading to compare hydrogen with town gas, just because the latter had some hydrogen in it (along with a lot of other stuff).
Even Northern Gas Networks, who are pushing this scheme, admit:
A key advantage would be that gas distribution pipe network infrastructure would need minimal modification, because old metal pipes are already being replaced with plastic ones which are suitable for carrying hydrogen.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/uk-homes-could-be-heated-by-hydrogen/
In other words, the pipework that carried town gas is not suitable for hydrogen.
Paul Homewood April 24, 2016 at 4:56 am
It is misleading to compare hydrogen with town gas, just because the latter had some hydrogen in it (along with a lot of other stuff).
It is not misleading, town gas had a lot more than ‘some hydrogen’, it was ~50% hydrogen!
Even Northern Gas Networks, who are pushing this scheme, admit:
A key advantage would be that gas distribution pipe network infrastructure would need minimal modification, because old metal pipes are already being replaced with plastic ones which are suitable for carrying hydrogen.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/uk-homes-could-be-heated-by-hydrogen/
In other words, the pipework that carried town gas is not suitable for hydrogen.
No, the old pipework that was suitable for hydrogen (town gas) was unsuitable for natural gas and when the reason for the outbreak of explosions, which occurred when natural gas was used, was realized, a nationwide crash program of pipe replacement was undertaken. The pipelines that were installed in the 70s will require replacement in the next 20 years regardless of which gas is being used.
No Phil.
The “old” (rusting and leaking) coal gas lines were marginally adequate ONLY at very, very low pressures and low flow rates (rates limited by the very low differential pressures possible). Thus, natural gas could NOT be used in those lines because the natural gas was going to be distributed at a reasonable pressure, reasonable flow rate (requiring far safer, far smaller, leak-proof lines for the methane) rather than the pre-Model T-era coal gas lines you – for some reason – repeated use to justify hydrogen.
They were as inadequate as a two-rut dirt trail is for a modern bus or lorrey/semi-trailer. On a dry day at 2 km per hour, sure you can drive on the dirt ruts. But only under those conditions.
You have continually compared the old, low pressure coal gas pipe network that diffused hydrogen through mile of its length to today’s modern welded steel natural gas pipelines that send tens of millions more BTU’s per hour at far safer volumes. Does that mean you can compare those two dirt ruts to Birmingham’s, Portmouth’s, or Newcastle’s highway networks?
RACook
Many communities in New South Wales are still serviced with the distribution conduits originally installed for town gas. For instance, Moss Vale, Berrima, Bowral, Mittagong. These now distribute natural gas. The distribution system in the City of Launceston is to a large extent the original distribution system from the days of coal gas.
RACookPE1978 April 24, 2016 at 6:28 pm
No Phil.
The “old” (rusting and leaking) coal gas lines were marginally adequate ONLY at very, very low pressures and low flow rates (rates limited by the very low differential pressures possible). Thus, natural gas could NOT be used in those lines because the natural gas was going to be distributed at a reasonable pressure, reasonable flow rate (requiring far safer, far smaller, leak-proof lines for the methane) rather than the pre-Model T-era coal gas lines you – for some reason – repeated use to justify hydrogen.
Not true, when the UK converted to natural gas from town gas (~50% hydrogen) they used exactly the same pipes. It was only after a spate of methane explosions in houses (something unknown in the town gas era) that a change program was instituted, typically the old pipes were lined not replaced.
You have continually compared the old, low pressure coal gas pipe network that diffused hydrogen through mile of its length to today’s modern welded steel natural gas pipelines that send tens of millions more BTU’s per hour at far safer volumes.
No I have not, I have compared the performance of town gas delivered through the pre 1960’s pipe network to the performance of natural gas delivered through the identical network in the 1970s.
I have read most of the comments on here.
You are all being very reasonable and your comments a thoughtful.
But, it seems to me that the point being missed. Is, follow the money!
Copied from the above article:
Has anyone ever calculated the total cost of “converting” from the burning of fuel oil ….. to the burning of natural gas or electric ….. for the purpose of “home & water heating” in the hundreds-of-thousands of homes and businesses in the US?
The UK did it in the late 60’s-early 70s to switch over to natural gas. Interestingly the last major city to be converted was Leeds (the records of the gas network had been lost in the war).
Once again the climate imperialists are showing themselves as anti-science, ignorant of basic engineering, and apparently only after the grant money. The decision making process that led to the grant being approved and funded should be audited by an aggressive and thorough investigation. There is no way that this grant was honestly chosen.
Wonder if they considered that a combustion product of hydrogen is water vapor.
Eric Worrell,
You wrote: “Pure Hydrogen is dangerous. In my opinion, Hydrogen is not something you would want to pipe into a normal home. The slightest leak could present a lethal risk of explosion.”
Yes, and the same is true for methane. So what is your point?
The real problem is the cost of retrofitting not just appliances but the entire gas distribution system. Plus the cost of the unproven carbon capture and sequestration.
As I understant is, hydrogen can leak through both plastic and metal pipes, because the molecules are so small. And collect in voids under the buildings. And hydrogen is so reactive, it can spontaneously combust much more easily than methane. So it is more dangerous.
R
Well you completely misunderstand it, because hydrogen is such a small molecule it doesn’t collect anywhere but diffuses away rapidly. Its molecular speed exceeds the earth’s escape velocity. Methane is much more subject to the effects you mention which is why the explosion hazard increased dramatically when the conversion from town gas to natural gas was made.
Phil. April 24, 2016 at 7:21 am – “diffuses away rapidly. Its molecular speed exceeds” Interesting.
During the Hindenburg burn-meltdown and before the airship crashed onto the ground, would it be reasonable to believe that the H2 had escaped in some-most part? The pictures show the skin- muslin(?)-dope burning following a normal fire physics event until it crashed causing a rapid skin ignition due to fuel arrangement. Not negating some part of the H2 burning.
Frederick
The Hindenburg gas tanks were made of sausage skins (pig gut). And much of the visible burning was the aluminium paint on the doped outer skin. The hydrogen flame is near invisible.
As to hydrogen gas collection in voids, I hardly think that diffusion through bricks and mortar would be that rapid, that a collection of gas could not occur under a building.
R
ralfellis,
You can not pipe H2 through just anything. But you can build pipelines for H2 if you use appropriate materials. The cost of replacing existing infrastructure with H2 compatible infrastructure would be enormous.
As Donald L. Klipstein points out below, the lower explosive limits for H2 and methane are just about the same. A mixture of H2 in air is a bit easier to ignite than methane in air, but a pilot light will do nicely for either.
FredericE April 24, 2016 at 9:11 am
Phil. April 24, 2016 at 7:21 am – “diffuses away rapidly. Its molecular speed exceeds” Interesting.
During the Hindenburg burn-meltdown and before the airship crashed onto the ground, would it be reasonable to believe that the H2 had escaped in some-most part? The pictures show the skin- muslin(?)-dope burning following a normal fire physics event until it crashed causing a rapid skin ignition due to fuel arrangement. Not negating some part of the H2 burning.
Everything I have read and seen regarding the Hindenberg says that the fire started on the outside skin you’d then expect hydrogen diffusion flame to start, which is what it looked like. Hydrogen flames like this tend to cause less damage than a gasoline fire as the buoyant hydrogen tends to release its combustion heat upwards and are therefore more survivable than gasoline fires. After all two thirds of the occupants of the Hindenberg survived the accident.
Yes, hydrogen readily leaks through steel and stainless steel pipe walls and pipe wells at even moderate pressures.
Phil.
But hydrogen DOES COLLECT in buildings and near roofs and in garages and in trapped areas in basements and sewers! Why?
Because the hydrogen diffusing through pipe walls of solid steel is under pressure!
10, 40, 80 or 100 psig “pushes” the hydrogen through the pipe walls and into the welds of every fitting and every pipe joint. Once leaking, THAT PRESSURE GOES AWAY. The hydrogen then is at ZERO PRESSURE and begins collecting high in every room wafting literally with the room breezes caused by people walking and doors opening. It was a flammable potentially explosive hydrogen bubble that caused problems inside the top of the Three Mile Island and Japanese containment vessels!
Sure, hydrogen gas molecules have a high speed. So does every gas molecule. The hydrogen RISES sublimely and surely to become trapped by wood, tin, linoleum and plaster into combustible and explosive concentrations BECAUSE it no longer has that pipeline pressure. If every house were perfectly vented to the outdoors, and every sewer and gas pipeline run underground were perfectly vented and continuously drawn through and replaced with dry, safe air, hydrogen would still find ways to kill innocents.
Like every CAGW proposal, the hydrogen “solution” kills more people, costs more money, and makes life worse for every citizen. Except CAGW proponent politicians and their so-called “scientists” sucking on the government dole.
RACookPE1978 April 24, 2016 at 6:40 pm
But hydrogen DOES COLLECT in buildings and near roofs and in garages and in trapped areas in basements and sewers! Why?
Hydrogen does not ‘collect near roofs’!
A release of hydrogen will rise until is reaches a ceiling, mixing and diffusing as it goes. Once it reaches the ceiling the remaining bubble of hydrogen will rapidly diffuse until the composition in the room is uniform, in the case of hydrogen this is a very rapid process.
10, 40, 80 or 100 psig “pushes” the hydrogen through the pipe walls and into the welds of every fitting and every pipe joint. Once leaking, THAT PRESSURE GOES AWAY. The hydrogen then is at ZERO PRESSURE and begins collecting high in every room wafting literally with the room breezes caused by people walking and doors opening. It was a flammable potentially explosive hydrogen bubble that caused problems inside the top of the Three Mile Island and Japanese containment vessels!
A hydrogen bubble requires oxygen in sufficient quantities to be ‘potentially explosive’, the hydrogen bubble in the TMI reactor vessel had no oxygen so wasn’t an explosion risk.
At Fukushima the ‘hydrogen bubble’ in the reactor was not an explosion risk because of the lack of oxygen however as the pressure built up the level of coolant dropped exposing more of the fuel rods. In order to raise the level of coolant the hydrogen was released into the reactor building. This hydrogen mixed with the air and created an explosive mixture (not a bubble) which subsequently ignited. This blew out the roof so future build up wouldn’t occur after subsequent releases.
Both statements, and the conclusions and sequence of events you derive from them, are false.
RACookPE1978 April 25, 2016 at 6:53 am
Both statements, and the conclusions and sequence of events you derive from them, are false.
They certainly are not, how do you propose hydrogen to ignite without oxygen present?
How do you propose that diffusion of hydrogen gas does not occur when released into air/
As with the other issues in this thread your ideas about TMI and Fukushima are clearly wrong and you really don’t understand much about this subject.
The same is not true for methane:
http://www.explosionsolutions.co.uk/110411028.pdf
True, methane is more dangerous when used in domestic applications.
I was responding to Mike M who said:
You wrote: “Pure Hydrogen is dangerous. In my opinion, Hydrogen is not something you would want to pipe into a normal home. The slightest leak could present a lethal risk of explosion.”
Yes, and the same is true for methane. So what is your point?
The link reveals that ‘Hydrogen has an extremely low minimum ignition energy of 0.019 mJ’ , that of methane is at least an order of magnitude greater, so the lethal risk of explosion is greater for hydrogen, unless you have other information?
If I remember my chemistry correctly, the burning of hydrogen in oxygen proceeds at a rate tending towards infinity depending on the mixing ratio. There is an upper and lower explosion limit. If one chooses to work close to the limits the chance of an explosion is high. If one chooses the relatively safe region between the two limits, the hydrogen can burn in a stable manner. Unfortunately, the problem then becomes how to stop the oxidation reaction. Whichever gas is shut down it is impossible to prevent the gas ratio from passing through one of the explosion limits.
Regarding: “Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704’s highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because its elemental form of H2 hydrogen gas risks autoignition when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; hydrogen gas and normal air can ignite at as low as 4% air”
All common flammable gases have an NFPA rating of 4. So do all flammable liquids with a flash point below 73 degrees F, including gasoline. And hydrogen is not the most violently explosive of common flammable gases – acetylene is.
As for the lower flammability limit (lower explosive limit) of hydrogen in air being 4%: This figure is even lower for most other fuel gases. For example 2.5% for acetylene, 3% for ethane, 2.1% for propane, 1.8% for butane, 1.2% for gasoline vapor. (These are by volume.) Methane’s lower flammability limit is 5%. Natural gas ranks the same as hydrogen, 4%.
Those other gasses do NOT leak like hydrogen does. And, their leaks are much easier to detect, prevent, and correct.
You cannot compare the gasses as you imply.
Proof that Honda is deliberately sabotaging “hydrogen cars” – making them so ugly that no one will want to be seen in one:
http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Honda/Honda-Clarity-Fuel-Cell-2016-014-800.jpg
If Gummer is sniffing around you can bet he thinks there is money to be made by it , I think we can guess which companies will be involved in the ‘research’ for this idea , and with 2 billion on the table there is lot to be made .
Wait a min…
If the goal is to make the UK a carbon free zone then….hold on a minute while I laugh my butt off……..ok, ok, almost there…………still laughing…….wait, I got it now.
Ahem, if the point of this is to convert usable hydrogen from fossil fuels to create a……giggling again…..carbon free zone and pump the CO2 generated from this process into holes under the North Sea…….snort…..then how the hell is that making the UK green? Oh yes, lets take a reliable energy source, spend billions of people’s money to strip it of it’s “dirty” elements, hide those dirty elements under an ocean to make the world greener and proclaim ourselves to be a CARBON FREE ZONE.
Ok really laughing now…..and if anyone doesn’t get the joke, you don’t remember your basic biology so let me give you a clue……LIFE on EARTH IS CARBON BASED. A carbon free zone means NO LIFE.
IF the greenies want to get rid of dirty fossil fuels then invest in freaking nuclear/hydroelectric power and keep your hands off everyone else’s money. Or if nuclear power isn’t “green” enough for you–spend that money developing…..oh I dunno……FUSION.
You want to rule the energy world? Then grow a brain rather than another butt cheek and invent something BETTER, more reliable and cheaper.
There are serious safety problems with burning hydrogen in a home. Some have been addressed above. Here are a few based on my experience working with hydrogen. Unlike in the case of methane (natural gas) which burns with a pale blue flame, hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame. This raises the questions of how would you know that you have a hydrogen flame burning and how could you adjust it when you can’t see it? Another serious safety issue, is that a hydrogen flame gives off very little infrared energy. All of the heat goes up by convection. This means that you cannot feel a hydrogen flame as you approach it.
Hydrogen leaks accumulate at the high point in a building. The roof designs of industrial buildings which house hydrogen systems allow for hydrogen to vent from the highest point in the ceiling. This sort of venting cannot be easily added to an existing house.
The people who have proposed this idea clearly have no familiarity with hydrogen or its hazards. Furthermore, they could not have communicated with anyone who does have experience with hydrogen hazards.
When any common fuel gas is burning with a blue flame, very little infrared is emitted. Radiant heat that people feel from flames (as opposed to convected/conducted heat) tends to come from yellowish/orange flames with incandescent carbon particles (as opposed to traces of sodium compounds in otherwise blue flames, which cause a slightly different and characteristic orange/yellow glow in flames). Radiant heat from blue flames that people feel usually comes from objects that the flames heat.
When I was a kid, filling balloons with hydrogen was normal in my country. I never heard about anybody getting injured or causing a fire by a popping balloon.
Hydrogen has many issues but as an explosion hazard it is IMO safer than natural gas as it tends to escape upwards and away while natural gas stays near the ground. Main issues with hydrogen are its low energy density (m3 of liquid hydrogen gives out less energy than m3 of liquid natural gas) and the fact that its small molecules are harder to contain.
I don’t see a reason to switch from natural gas to hydrogen for household consumption. If anything, it can be easily replaced by electricity using already existing infrastructure and technology.
The UK is deep down the Global Warming rabbit hole.
This document outlines the Environmental and Climate Change Partnership (ECCP — not to be confused with the CCCP) plan to reduced Croydon’s (London’s most populous borough) carbon footprint by a whopping 34% by 2025.
Claiming that a rise in temps of 0.7°C globally had already caused droughts and floods locally, they cite IPCC estimates of a possible additional 7°C rise by 2070 to predict disaster, thus justifying their plans.
Interestingly, when they mentioned below average rainfall in 2006 followed by above average in 2007, it was interpreted as the results of Climate Change, but the below average temperatures and above average snow during the winters of 2009-2010 were interpreted as anomalous weather events that unfortunately “confused” the unsophisticated public into doubting the conspiracy theories.
https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/articles/downloads/ccmaplan.pdf
There is some debate about the flammability of hydrogen, but surely the real danger is explosion, esp when trapped in small spaces.
But the real thrust of Booker’s article is that:
1) It is obscenely expensive. The suggested cost of £2bn for Leeds works out at £6250 per household. This is just for the infrastructure. Conversion of appliances is only a small fraction of the cost.
2) To convert methane to hydrogen, as planned, is obviously more expensive than using the methane in the first place. Guess which mugs will have to pay for this.
3) The conversion process is also extremely energy intensive, and where will this energy come from? Fossil fuels.
4) The plan is to syphon off the CO2 into a disused North Sea gas field, but similar CCS plans for power stations have already had to be abandoned as commercially unviable.
The original Telegraph story about this was summarised here last week.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/uk-homes-could-be-heated-by-hydrogen/
What happens when Leeds explodes and 100,000+ people are killed? Who goes to jail? Who compensates the grieving families?
Since this didn’t happen during the first century of supplying hydrogen to houses in Leeds I don’t think there’s much risk of that!
So Phil you are saying there were no fatalities? Natural gas has a good safety record but there are fatalities.
Phil I want to see your hazard analysis showing the risk is one in a million.
Not due to the explosion of hydrogen leaks, plenty of fatalities due to the CO present in the town gas. The most common method of suicide for a time.
@ur momisugly ralfellis
“They could have done with your expertise at Fukushima. As you know, those almighty explosions that wrecked the entire plant were hydrogen explosions. All they needed to prevent this, was some hand-cranked windows at the top of the buildings.”
& @ur momisuglyTaz
“Wasn’t a hydrogen explosion also responsible for some of the Fukushima damage??”
First off, nuke plants are not designed for 1000 year events. Of course, since the 1000 year event happened, it is the new 200 year event. So even if there was no damage, the plants were never going to operate again because the cost of retrofits to old plants would not operate again. So the real question was the cost of the cleanup.
For all those poster who think they can predict where hydrogen will be so they can prevent a detonation. Think again! Lots of examples of hydrogen doing bad things where it was not predicted to be.
Hydrogen should not have been on the refueling floor at Fukushima. The refueling floor and above on a Mark I & II containment design is not part of secondary containment. It is one of the confusing aspects of a BWR that anti-nukes like to exploit when telling a carefully crafted lie. It is just an industrial building with blow panels.
There are some theories about the source of hydrogen. Ther refueling flow has blowout panels. I think it was to limit damage from tornado over pressure. So the picture posted was a dramatic example a hydrogen detonation, it did not result in structural damage to safety related structures. The spent fuel pool did not drain.
The problem with Fukushima was failure to consider that chance of a 1,000-year class earthquake occurring within 100 years is about 10%. Maybe probability of such an earthquake that close within 100 years may be less, closer to 1%. Such an earthquake happened. I think a nuclear power plant needs a higher level of reliability against all of the various 1,000 and even 10,000 year class natural disasters, so that over 100 years chances are less than 1% that any of the nuclear plants in a whole nation have a bad unsafe failure from any and all causes, including earthquakes.
Other than that, I favor nuclear power because it has a better safety record, smaller carbon footprint, and smaller overall environmental impact than any of the fossil fuels even including Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
And here in Australia the alarmist media keep claiming there was a meltdown at Fukushima.
How can I say this nicely Donald? You are just plain wrong, on many levels. Donald has an irrational fear of radiation.
First when we are designing nuke plants, beyond design basis accidents are considered for things that are not expected to happen.
Second there has been exactly one earthquake in the US that reached the 200 year level in the history of US plants. So that is 1%, Don just made up 5%.
“I think a nuclear power plant needs a higher level of reliability…”
I think the house, schools, workplaces that Don and his family use should be built to withstand a direct hit from a any imaginable tornado, hurricane, flood, and earthquake.
Of course society does not require that becuase it is too expensive.
I think that these farging leisure class bankstards are just farging with people’s heads. They are the idle class, are they not? They have nothing better to do than to pull off jokes at other people’s expense, and they can spend tons of other people’s money doing so. I think that everything’s a game to these psychopathic, parasitic, icehole yiddiots, and after a few cocktails at Martha’ shindig, the idea of “floating a hydrogen balloon” over the populace’s heads seemed like a fun little adventure this month. Then they can watch the fireworks of people’s emotional reactions. What fun!
Any proposal to replace natural gas with hydrogen is either insane — or there are shenanigans going on.
I think it’s the latter. There is no credible reason to spend the immense piles of money necessary to convert a perfectly good system to a completely different system. Where is the cost/benefit analysis? There isn’t any. Where is the public’s comment? There isn’t any (at least, none that isn’t structured to get the answers desired).
It’s like California’s Gov Moonbeam’s “bullet train” — an obscenely expensive, pork-laden project that will never pay its cost through fares (despite their nonsense claims). Their 18th-Century ‘solution’ would compete with air travel, which easily gets passengers the same distance in less than one-quarter of the time, and much less expensively. It would also compete with very cheap bus travel, and super-convenient automobile travel.
But even though it’s a total waste of money, Big Government still wants it. That’s no diferent from wanting to tear up the existing infrastructure — which does a fine job — and replacing it with something that is more costly, dangerous, and disruptive.
So there’s got to be a reason.
Are they insane? I don’t think so. I think there are a lot of special interests that are salivating at the prospect of this insane-sounding idea. Because it’s only ridiculous to those who have to pay, not to the special interests. As always, ask yourself:
Cui bono?…
“Does the Committee on Climate Change want to blow us all up?”
Of course, silly. Haven’t you been paying attention?
“True, methane is more dangerous when used in domestic applications.”
Phil’s statement is really, really stupid. Many make such statements.
Everything is dangerous. The real issue is the cost of meeting safety standards.
I personally would not save a few dollars heating with methane instead of an electric heat pump. However, my motorhome has a 30 gallon propane tank. Propane is a practical energy source off grid.
Living in a motorhome and a sailboat is more dangerous than than a retirement community with shuffleboard and aqua aerobics but how long do you want to live?
Kit,
Exactamundo, compadre. There’s never any cost/benefit analysis done by the alarmist crowd… ever.
What is the cost to change over from NatGas to hydrogen? What are the benefits? Are they worth the cost?
And finally, as always: Cui bono?
I recall the change from town/coal gas to natural gas in the 1970’s. My family had a gas powered fridge…and an old style pantry. But this is crazy. Most of the gas delivery systems will not be able to contain the gas and a large volume will be wasted. All to save the planet…which cannot be saved!
“all to save the planet….which cannot be saved”
Correction: Which does NOT NEED to be saved from a life giving gas molecule.
methane is an excellent form of hydrogen storage and distribution
Somebody paid attention in chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid flow classes.
However, not if hydrogen is being used for energy which is not practical.
The hydrogen fool cells advocates thought stranded wind power could be used to make hydrogen and then sent via pipeline. However, 700 miles would take all the in the hydrogen.
Hydrogen is an important industrial gas with unique properties. This is why we deal with it. It is produced near the end use by electricity, or from ammonia or natural gas.