Homes may have gas cut off if they refuse to take part in hydrogen trial

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW

Paul Homewood

OCTOBER 3, 2021

Homeowners who refuse to take part in a hydrogen energy trial will be forcibly cut off by gas network operators, under Government plans to test green heating alternatives.

Residents in one village will begin the pilot scheme by 2025 to help the Government assess whether hydrogen gas can be used as a low-carbon alternative for heating homes across the country.

Ministers insisted the powers to enter people’s homes and switch off their gas would only be used as a “last resort” if the homeowners had refused to engage with any other options.

A consultation, which ended this week, suggests the Government will seek powers to allow gas distribution networks to enter homes if their owners do not wish to take part in the trial, in order to safely switch them off from the gas grid.

Current powers enable network operators to enter premises for a variety of purposes, including for suspected gas leaks or inspecting pipes and fittings.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/02/village-homeowners-may-have-gas-forcibly-cut-refuse-take-part/

.

This report highlights a very real problem. When whole towns are switched over to hydrogen, it will obviously be very dangerous if some houses are not converted. Hence the draconian powers needed.

But the article includes one noteworthy comment:

It will cost around £22 billion to make the gas distribution network hydrogen-ready, according to 2018 analysis by the business department, and the costs of hydrogen are expected to be around three times that of natural gas.

As I have often pointed out, hydrogen costs an awful lot more than gas. The three times comment is probably based on mainly steam reforming, which itself emits almost as much carbon dioxide as burning natural gas in the first place.

And “three times” will mean heating bills rising by about £1000 a year.

As usual, the commenters are virtually all critical. But why do these issues always get reported by the dopey Emma Gatten, who has Environmental Editor should be writing about trees and rivers, not energy matters.

If they were covered by the Political Staff, they might a more critical coverage.

4.4 18 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
221 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 4, 2021 10:05 am

Going to something much more dangerous and expensive does seem the epitome of green policy.

Duane
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 4, 2021 10:16 am

Hydrogen is not much more dangerous than natural gas. Both gases are flammable and explosive at varying concentrations in air. Both gases are lighter than air so will not collect inside a space but will naturally vent and disperse in the atmosphere.

Mason
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:38 am

Not worked much with either, I would say! They do accumulate and then explode.

Duane
Reply to  Mason
October 4, 2021 12:12 pm

What is it about being much ligher than air that you don’t get?

It’s called “science”.

No neither gas accumulates in living spaces due to density

Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 1:15 pm

What part of houses are enclosures with as little air exchange with the outside as possible, particularly when it is cold outside, do you not understand? Any gas leaking inside will collect, and hydrogen is many times as likely to leak as natural gas.

I’ve personally witnessed the aftermath of a house that exploded due to a natural gas leak.

Natural gas companies put Mercaptan in their natural gas to make it smell like rotten eggs and take out public service announcements warning people who smell it to A) get outside IMMEDIATELY and B) once outside call 911. They do these things because the chance of a gas leak causing an explosion is so high.

So reality trumps your excuse for science.

Last edited 13 days ago by davidmhoffer
DHR
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 4, 2021 2:17 pm

Hydrogen will do the same. The recent nuclear meltdown in Japan illustrates. Hydrogen, created by the reaction between very hot zirconium and water was released to the containment building and detonated, blowing the building apart. It was shown on many news networks at the time.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  DHR
October 4, 2021 2:48 pm

I was going to mention this, but you already did. One of the cooling ponds in one of the towers exploded because hydrogen collected.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  DHR
October 5, 2021 2:01 am

I understood that the super-heated steam started to dissociate & separate into its component parts, oxygen, & hydrogen, creating the perfect environment for an explosion!!! Some people still believe (the anti-nuclear mob) that Fukushima was a nuclear explosion, which it was not!!!

accordionsrule
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 5, 2021 1:35 pm

Can they put mercaptan in hydrogen?

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  accordionsrule
October 5, 2021 4:02 pm

Yes, but you need to be right above the leak to smell it. At least until the H2 concentration is a room is dangerously high.

Ruleo
Reply to  accordionsrule
October 7, 2021 12:48 pm

No, but there’s some patents out for hydrogen odorants

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1828355.html

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:25 pm

Errrr….No. It’s not science, it’s politics.

Why, otherwise, would anyone replace a readily available gas and accept the CO2 emissions, with a gas which produces more CO2 in it’s production than it saves, and costs three times as much.

Sorry, a bit of science in there for you as well.

You get nuthin for nuthin.

That’s science baby……

PCman999
Reply to  HotScot
October 4, 2021 9:01 pm

It doesn’t make any sense at all, the green mob going after natural gas. It is the most efficient, cleanest and relatively cheapest fuel we have, so the hardest for any so-called renewable energy generated fuel to replace. Considering how complicated and extremely expensive it will be to replace and use H2 instead of CH4, it is obvious that no CO2 will be saved. Rube Goldberg would be proud of the complicated setups being planned to replace something as clean and simple as natural gas.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  PCman999
October 5, 2021 4:47 am

Thus showing that what they really want is for everyone except them to have less energy that costs more. Their hatred and fear of nuclear power is also a good example.

Sal Minella
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:08 pm

Then, I guess that CO2 accumulates at ground level and doesn’t form that thin greenhouse shell at the TOA as it is heavier than air.

Reply to  Sal Minella
October 4, 2021 5:15 pm

LOL

ATheoK
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 11:55 pm

What an odd assertion!?

The atmosphere is primarily:

  • 78.1% Nitrogen, N₂, Atomic Mass – 28.0134
  • 20.9 % Oxygen, O₂, Atomic Mass – 31.9988
  • Subtotal 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen.
  • 0.9% Argon, Ar, Atomic Mass – 39.948
  • 0.0415% Carbon Dioxide, CO₂, Atomic Mass – 44.0095
  • Trace, Methane, CH₄, Atomic Mass – 16.0423

Methane is just over half the weight of N₂.
By your logic, all of the CO₂ should sink through the atmosphere and pool on the Earth.

If CO₂ is considered to mix well in the atmosphere, the same goes for methane. Not because methane is a little lighter than N₂ and O₂.

Last edited 12 days ago by ATheoK
Alan the Brit
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 1:57 am

Clearly, you have NEVER heard of an affect called Stratification! It is where a lighter gas can become trapped under a heavier gas through perfectly natural processes, something I learnt many years back when working on a construction site adjacent to a disused landfill site, emitting methane & CO2 among others!!! A no-smoking order was imposed on the site, & strict safety protocols were put in place!!! Three elements are needed for a fire or worse, an explosion to occur, a fuel source, an ignition source, & oxygen (omni present), & there are always two of the three present. Get an education before commenting on this site, I’d hate for your stupidity & ignorance to becoming public knowledge, just trying to help!!! 😉 AtB.

Jim G.
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 5:08 pm

Duane, the term you need to look up is miscibility.
That is the ability of two fluids to intermix with each other to create a homogenous mixture.

Gases are considered to be miscible.
As one person explained, immiscibility (resistance to dissolving) is due to surface tension. Gases don’t have surfaces and are thus miscible.
Gases won’t stratify like you are suggesting. Especially when you have any air movement.

Duane
Reply to  Mason
October 4, 2021 12:34 pm

Worked with those gases a lot more and a lot longer than you have, obviously.

Harold Gott
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 12:55 pm

I work in a chemical plant. Gases accumulate in poorly ventilated areas. If what you say is correct then there would never be a gas explosion. The Hindenberg was filed with hydrogen. we have gas explosion once or twice a year.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:41 pm

You may have worked with those gases a lot but I’ll so bet you had strict safety procedures to follow to make sure explosions did not occur. I can assure you that natural gas will accumulate in enclosed spaces in houses. My neighbors house was demolished by a natural gas explosion. Luckily one resident wasn’t home and the other (the wife) was blown clear out the house but somehow only had minor burns, a concussion, and some loss of hearing. Just last week I read an article about a gas explosion in an apartment building, I just don’t remember where.

What is stupid is replacing a cheap resource with one that is three times as expensive and provides no CO2 savings.

You also realize that many connections in both residential and commercial building probably do not have secure connections like you probably are familiar with nor the venting systems to prevent accumulation.

This is another political decision with little if any testimony from engineers familiar with residential and commercial construction. Mark my words, there will be fires and explosions. And when the bills start coming thru, house explosions will be the smaller ones compared to what politicians will suffer at the voting booths.

Last edited 13 days ago by Jim Gorman
Doug
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 4, 2021 4:21 pm

First one is no walls and grating for floors to allow ventilation. H2 leaks are nasty because the friction from the leak can be enough for ignition.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Doug
October 4, 2021 6:42 pm

The minimum ignition energy (MIE) of a hydrogen–air mixture is only 0.019 mJ, whereas that of other flammable gases such as petrol, methane, ethane, propane, butane, and benzene is usually on the order of 0.1 mJ
When 1 mole of hydrogen combusts the result is a mole of H2O, when a mole of CH4 combusts it results in 3 moles of combustion products. Both expand on combustion by a factor of about 8 volumes due to their adiabatic flame temperature. So CO2 produces a lot bigger boom. Both have a lower explosive limit in air of about 4.5%. The operators of plants where both gases are flowing, in my experience, prefer working with methane because it is harder to ignite, and in the event of a fire, methane burns with a yellow flame, whereas an invisible blue hydrogen flame causes more serious flesh burns and is harder to extinguish.

Chakra
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 4, 2021 10:09 pm

Yes, hydrogen ignites too easily. It needs special quality valves in piping. Natural gas is more difficult to ignite.

And when a gas comes out of a hole or crack, it generally expands and gets cooled thereby thru Joule-Thompson effect. But hydrogen does not get cooled. Hence a small jet of hydrogen hitting the floor may get ignited with a bluish almost invisible flame.

Michael Hammer
Reply to  Chakra
October 5, 2021 1:22 pm

Having experimented with hydrogen air flames in AA spectrometers I can say from experience the flame is completely invisible. The other thing I have not heard mentioned here is how easily hydrogen leaks. I remember comments to the effect that the blue streak rocket talks had to be filled with liquid hydrogen just before launch because the hydrogen would leak through the (admittedly thin) stainless steel walls of the tank. Things we think of as secure containments for hydrocarbon gases are in fact porous to hydrogen allowing slow invisible leaks and a build up of gas levels.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 5, 2021 9:03 am

Oops, too late for edit button, should read “So CH4 produces a lot bigger boom.”

TonyG
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 5, 2021 9:44 am

“What is stupid is replacing a cheap resource with one that is three times as expensive and provides no CO2 savings.”

It’s classic activist first-order thinking: They only care about “we can’t use natural gas” so they change to hydrogen, with NO concern at all about where the hydrogen comes from. In their minds, they’ve won.

Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 11:46 pm

Then…you have the good ole dishwasher explosion from H2 gas accumulation while away for 2 weeks if your hot water heater is left running.

http://pcfl.net/build/fng/family/dishwasher.html

DonM
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 10:50 am

O.K. Duane,

I will respond to your stuff.

Private utlity separation of gas from other (water, electric, etc) is required for various reasons.

One reason water separation is required because pinhole leaks in waterlines can drill holes in the gas lines causing leaks.

Separation from electric is required because (in part) leaks in gas lines can migrate into the electric conduit and end up in the home, where the eventual concentration ignites/explodes. It has happened.

What they show in the movies is not commonplace, but it is based on reality. Your comment is not (based on reality).

(Do you have more than one person using your login? Your goofiness range is very wide.)

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 4:08 pm

Have you worked with Hydrogen?

Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:43 am

Wouldn’t happen with natural gas:

comment image

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 11:10 am

You could publish also pictures from Fukushima: The blow was caused by hydrogen. And another very important difference compared to natural gas: Hydrogen ist the most flammable substance, and causes corrosion (hydrogen-induced cracking) for example in the pipelines, tanks, etc. Mr. Boris Johnson should consult the fire brigade professionals.

It is also interesting to mention that in the German literature now it is written that hydrogen ist not more dangerous than natural gas or fossile fuels. Even the cause of the Zeppelin catastrophe in NY on 6. May 1937 is assigned to the outer painting of the Zeppelin. The wikipedia articles in Germand and English on hydrogen are different, especially the chapter on safety and precautions. The German version states for example that hydrogen is not more dangerous than gasoline: The usual manipulation of wikipedia articles for political reasons.

BobM
Reply to  Hari Seldon
October 4, 2021 11:44 am

Even the cause of the Zeppelin catastrophe at Lakehurst Naval Air Station in Lakehurst, New Jersey on 6, May 1937 is assigned to the outer painting of the Zeppelin.

Duane
Reply to  BobM
October 4, 2021 12:33 pm

Yup – scientific experiments proved that it was static electricity buildup in the doped skin of the gas envelope of the Hindenberg that provided the source of ignition. The air admitted into the envelope when it was ripped or puncture introduced just enough air to cause ignition that moved in a traveling wave through the gas envelop from aft to forward. The Hindenberg didn’t explode, it burned. Natural gas would have done exactly the same.

DHR
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:20 pm

But then, Hindenberg filled with natural gas would not have floated in the air.

John
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 5:47 pm

you can stop
if you have any qualifications then please publish
or shut up

Jon R
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 12:59 pm

I don’t care who you are that right there is funny.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  BobM
October 4, 2021 2:49 pm

The “dope” on the skin was a contributing factor but was not the cause.

Yooper
Reply to  Hari Seldon
October 4, 2021 12:16 pm

If I remember correctly the problem with the Hindenburg was that the material used for the gas bag was porous to hydrogen so they had to paint (dope) it so the hydrogen wouldn’t leak out. It takes special materials to contain hydrogen gas.

Duane
Reply to  Hari Seldon
October 4, 2021 12:18 pm

No – the Hindenberg accident was not caused by hydrogen. It was caused by a perforation in the gas envelope near the tail of the airship, in the bottom, and of course a source of ignition which is believed to have been caused by a buildup of static electricity on the gas envelope. Hydrogen was merely the fuel, and if the envelope had been filled with natural gas, natural gas would have burned the same.

Nobody has ever put natural gas in a lighter than air aircraft, because even though it is less dense than air, it is still much more dense than hydrogen gas, the lease dense molecule in the universe.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:28 pm

LOL

the Hindenberg accident was not caused by hydrogen.”

LOL

Must have been the wind turbines then……

LOL

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
October 4, 2021 2:51 pm

It was a contributing factor but not a cause.

LdB
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 4, 2021 4:56 pm

LOL … So if the Hindenberg was full of helium what happens … answer nothing. It caught fire so therefore it is part of the cause.

The ignition source is simply the trigger everything else that contributes to the result is the cause.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  LdB
October 4, 2021 6:08 pm

Well yes, we know that. Helium was banned for Germany to make, it was also very expensive. Let alone the thousands of cows that sacrificed their guts to make the gas bladders.

We know the ignition source was not hydrogen. We know hydrogen was one source of the fire, it burns with a distinctive flame colour, *AS WELL AS* the dope on the skin of the craft.

Last edited 13 days ago by Patrick MJD
Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  LdB
October 6, 2021 2:11 am

No, not true. The Hindenburg disaster would have happened even if the ship had used helium as its lifting gas. In fact, it was originally designed to use helium, but Germany couldn’t get it from the United States due to export restrictions. So it was redesigned (downsized) to use hydrogen.

The “dope” people refer to on the outer skin was a hydrocarbon lacquer loaded with finely divided aluminum flakes to reflect sunlight, and iron oxide to enhance infrared emissivity. Those two together form the generic “thermite”, a combination used for things such as underwater cutting and welding of steel ships. The substance was used to coat the cotton fabric covering of rigid airships for the purpose of controlling the temperature to which the gasbags (separate from the outer skin) were exposed. That was important in controlling the buoyancy of the ship. Thermite fires can’t be extinguished, and it was this that brought down the Hindenburg.

There was never an accidental hydrogen fire in a commercial rigid airship. Accidents with the ships did result in hydrogen fires, but hydrogen was not the cause.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:50 pm

In this case you are correct.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 8:56 pm

Hm, a gasoline leak leads usually NOT to the ignition of the leaked gasoline especially not due to static electricity. We should remain at the facts. The Hindenburg accident has only confirmed that hydrogen is the most flammable element.

“Hydrogen poses a number of hazards to human safety, from potential detonations and fires when mixed with air to being an asphyxiant in its pure, oxygen-free form.[150] In addition, liquid hydrogen is a cryogen and presents dangers (such as frostbite) associated with very cold liquids.[151] Hydrogen dissolves in many metals and in addition to leaking out, may have adverse effects on them, such as hydrogen embrittlement,[152] leading to cracks and explosions.[153] Hydrogen gas leaking into external air may spontaneously ignite. Moreover, hydrogen fire, while being extremely hot, is almost invisible, and thus can lead to accidental burns.[154]
Even interpreting the hydrogen data (including safety data) is confounded by a number of phenomena. Many physical and chemical properties of hydrogen depend on the parahydrogen/orthohydrogen ratio (it often takes days or weeks at a given temperature to reach the equilibrium ratio, for which the data is usually given). Hydrogen detonation parameters, such as critical detonation pressure and temperature, strongly depend on the container geometry.[150]

PCman999
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 9:37 pm

If the damn thing had been filled with helium instead of h2 then it would not have exploded. The fact that the skin was doped in a certain way that made ignition possible, was also due to it being filled with h2. If it had been filled with ch4, the skin wouldn’t have needed to be doped and there the static charge wouldn’t have built up, and again no ignition.

And it would have been infinity safer, as being filled with ch4 would have made it useless as a airship and none of those victims would have been on the ship.

Michael Hammer
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 1:26 pm

Ahh so if the Hindenburg had been filled with helium instead of hydrogen the perforation in the gas envelope plus of course the ignition source from static electricity would still have caused an explosion?

Duane
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 12:15 pm

Yes it would if there was a concentration in air between the UEL and the LEL (which I am quite sure you don’t know WTF I am talking about) of natural gas within the envelope.

Pure Hydrogen, just like pure natural gas cannot burn – it requires oxygen. The Hindenberg accident was not an explosion, it was a traveling wave of burning hydrogen that resulted from a rip or hole in the aft end of the hydrogen envelope that allowed air in, and being a gas envelope, it did not allow the hydrogen to disperse as it would do with a ruptured gas line, progressively moving forward from the tail.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:49 pm

That’ll be the official line then. Established from the charred wreckage of an aircraft believed to be as indestructible as the Titanic, with 70 year old forensic technology, which can’t possibly be wrong.

A craft designed by the finest engineers of the time, built by craftsmen skilled in their trade, and our 21st century solution is high school dropouts and apprentices installing hydrogen lines.

Not to mention that the existing gas lines must be replaced, from source to destination, as the existing ones will simply rot. Indeed, the modern hydrogen lines will probably rot at an unprecedented rate as well.

And then there’s the environmental cost of all this, as mentioned in Paul’s article. Basically, burn fossil fuels with the associated losses to produce a fuel three times more expensive.

This all makes complete sense to eco loons like you though.

PCman999
Reply to  HotScot
October 4, 2021 9:44 pm

Actually it’s worse – they don’t want to use the h2 made from ch4 (which would be 3x more expensive per BTU than ch4) but go full Rube Goldberg, and build huge farms of delicate and fussy wind turbines and solar panels and use them to create the electricity needed to electrolyze water into O2 and H2. After building huge electrolyzers first.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:50 pm

Here is an image. Google or DDG for residential gas explosions. They are not uncommon. And the installed lines are safer with gas than with hydrogen.
comment image

Scissor
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 5:32 pm

Please do tell us the size of the range between UEL and LEL for hydrogen vs. methane.

Robert Cherba
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 6:06 pm

Seems to me an explosion is just a very fast burn, so there was a hydrogen explosion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:50 am

If I remember from my chemistry days, hydrogen has an air-to-gas ratio explosive range greater than any other gas. So, your analysis all depends on your undefined “not much more dangerous.” Your remarks remind me of the description of Earth in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: “Mostly Harmless!”

Duane
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 12:24 pm

Natural gas explosions occur all the time, there have literally been hundreds of thousands if not millions of them. My aunt was killed by a natural gas explosion.

Hydrogen is much less dense than natural gas, and thus disperses much more quickly into the atmosphere than natural gas.

And by the way, the LEL for hydrogen gas is nearly identical to that of natural gas – 4% vs. 5% of air concentration. The UEL for hydrogen is much higher than methane, but for practical purposes, it is the LEL that controls whether an explosion takes place, not the UEL.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 1:38 pm

4% vs 5% is not nearly identical … its 20% more flammable …

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:54 pm

“My aunt was killed by a natural gas explosion.”

Of course she was.

In 65 years of life, no one I know, or knew, has been killed by a gas explosion.

“Hydrogen is much less dense than natural gas”

And you are much more dense than natural gas.

Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:54 am

Duane, hydrogen is far more dangerous than natural gas. Not only has it very wide explosion borders (4.1% to 74.8%) vs. natural gas (4.4% to 16%), it is a “creeping gas” which literally creeps through everything, even metals at elevated temperatures. Thus the possibility of leaks in houses with old pipes and especially old joints is very high.

In open air, the danger is rather low due to its low weight, but in a confined space it is literally called “popgas” in Dutch… For (not so) good reasons.

Further, a flame of hydrogen is much hotter than for natural gas and near invisible in daylight. Good for lots of accidents in households…

Duane
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 4, 2021 12:28 pm

Nope – you’re completely wrong.

The UEL is irrelevant, because any explosion is going to occur at or very close to the UEL, not the LEL, in any practical scenario involving people, buildings or vehices. It is physically impossible to get to the UEL of 75% for hydrogen unless it is a situation like the Hindenberg, a gas filled envelope that had 100% hydrogen gas inside, but was punctured or ripped at one end allowing enough air in to drop below the UEL. That is not what will ever happen in a building or a vehicle. And just as you said, the LELs are almost identical for the two gases.

And because hydrogen is far less dense than natural gas, at atmospheric pressures the explosive energy content in air of a natural gas-air mixture is going to be several times that of hydrogen.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 12:49 pm

You missed the point that Ferdinand made that, if a leak is in a confined area, it can accumulate until someone comes along and turns on the lights in the room. The UEL is relevant because there always has to be an ignition source.

The tone of your defense sounds to me like you are less than objective.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 1:41 pm

But just that happens with natural gas too.

Phil.
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 4, 2021 1:09 pm

Except when 50% Hydrogen gas was distributed to homes in the UK explosions were not a hazard. Hydrogen diffuses so fast that a combustible mixture is not sustained. When it was replaced in houses by natural gas that was when explosions started to be a problem and a national program was instituted to prevent leaks. Hydrogen/air flame temperature is similar to methane/air.

Reply to  Phil.
October 4, 2021 2:29 pm

Phil., that many natural gas leak explosions started in the early period had a complete different reason:
most old joints were tightened with hemp fiber and lead or grease. For town gas at low pressure that was no problem, as it was highly hydrated. The distribution of relative dry natural gas at higher pressure did dry out the hemp fiber and it started to leak even already after a few months. After realizing that problem, they started to wet natural gas too.

The difference in burning temperature is real: 1880 C for natural gas vs. 2045 C for hydrogen. That makes that there also more NOx is produced when burning hydrogen.
The main problem in my opinion for domestic appliances is that its flame is near invisible in daylight.

Here a nice overview of the problems for the transition:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/domestic-hydrogen-appliances/
The transition itself would be similar to the transition from town gas to natural gas. The difference is that the latter transition paid for itself as natural gas was much cheaper than town gas, while hydrogen is much more expensive…

Remains the point where they will find all that energy to produce both the current plus future electrical appliances and the heating appliances…

Except if the UK is planning for some 100 new nuclear reactors of each 1.5 GW?

Last edited 13 days ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Phil.
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 5, 2021 5:54 am

I’m well aware of what caused the leaks of natural gas when it was introduced in the UK, Ferdinand. According to you “hydrogen is far more dangerous than natural gas. Not only has it very wide explosion borders (4.1% to 74.8%) vs. natural gas (4.4% to 16%), it is a “creeping gas” which literally creeps through everything, even metals at elevated temperatures. Thus the possibility of leaks in houses with old pipes and especially old joints is very high”.
Yet in the UK there were no explosion problems until that “creeping gas” was replaced with natural gas. The solution was not as simple as to “wet the natural gas”, the existing piping of the type you describe was replaced.

HotScot
Reply to  Phil.
October 4, 2021 3:00 pm

Household ventilation wasn’t an issue when victorian (and earlier) houses had chimneys and leaky windows and doors to cause a through draught.

Today we’re looking at housed buttoned up with almost zero natural ventilation.

Phil.
Reply to  HotScot
October 5, 2021 6:05 am

Yet in those old houses explosions occurred when town gas (50% hydrogen) was replaced with natural gas.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 4, 2021 3:55 pm

No wonder they are wanting to move to hydrogen then. Leaks will be undetected and cause higher and higher bills. So instead of three times the cost, it will be closer to 6 times. I’m sure most folks will be told to just turn down the thermostat so you don’t burn so much.

PCman999
Reply to  Phil.
October 4, 2021 9:55 pm

I’m not in favour of switching to h2, but thank you for injectingting some very relevant info in to this discussion, that has turned into a useless argument about the Hindenburg’s demise.

Rick C
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 11:05 am

Duane: Natural gas is flammable at 5 to 17% concentration in air. Hydrogen is flammable at concentrations from 5 to 74%. Being light means mainly that a leak of unburned case in and enclosed space will disperse more quickly than heavier gases. Fuel gas leaks result in total explosive destruction o houses and buildings on a regular basis. Hydrogen would be no safer, and would be more hazardous in bases where an ignition source is introduced after sufficient accumulation of natural gas puts the concentration over the upper 17% flammability limit. Hydrogen, on the other hand would just produce increasingly powerful explosions all they way up to 74%.

Note: While it is tempting to site the Hindenburg when discussing hydrogen explosions, that was a case of hydrogen ignition that involved sudden release of pure hydrogen and a conflagration (not explosion) which is slow due to the time required for hydrogen and air (oxygen) to mix. In an indoor gas leak situation, gas diffuses into air so that the gas and oxygen are already mixed at the time of ignition. This results in a detonation (explosion) rather than a conflagration. Far more dangerous and deadly. Hydrogens broad flammability limits make it a more dangerous gas than natural or propane fuel gas.

Duane
Reply to  Rick C
October 4, 2021 12:30 pm

Again, the UEL is irrelevant for any practical scenario. Indeed the only scenario in which UEL could ever be relevant is in a gas filled envelope as with the Hindenberg.

Only the LEL matters, because it is physically impossible to get above the UEL of methane in any real life scenario such as a building or a vehicle.

Rick C
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:02 pm

No. A mixture above the upper flammability limit will not ignite. That’s why it’s called a flammability limit.

Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 2:43 pm

Duane, I certainly would exclude a vehicle in this case. With a hydrogen fuel tank of let’s say 30 liters at 300 bar, if ruptured in a car accident, you do fill the whole car (and more) within seconds into the explosion range…

I have worked with hydrogen (as byproduct of the chlorine electrolysis) and no thanks, not in my car…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 8:57 pm

a gas filled envelope as with the Hindenberg [sic].

Except the Hindenburg was NOT “a gas filled envelope”. It was a ridged aluminum space frame covered by canvas “doped” with thermite saturated lacquer. The gas was held in specially constructed bags made from thousands of animal entrails (topped up by pressurized cylinders). If the gas was leaking into the crew or passenger areas, few would have lasted the trip. Passengers actually smoked in their areas.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 5, 2021 2:24 pm

The thermite hypothesis was interesting, but, alas, incorrect. Thermite is comprised of a mix of finely powdered aluminium and rust. Once the reaction is started, the rust acts as an oxidiser and gives up some of its oxygen to the aluminium to form an oxide in a strongly exothermic reaction. The aluminium powder in the skin coating already had an oxide coating (aluminium oxidises rathe readily), and wasn’t mixed with an oxidiser.

One of the many Hindenburg documentaries, surprisingly, conducted experiments to test various hypotheses. The skin did burn strongly, largely due to the fuel value of the canvas and resin, but way below the energy level of a thermite. That, apparently, provided the visible flames and smoke.

Reply to  Rick C
October 4, 2021 1:44 pm

Hydrogen gas in German is called “Knallgas” – detonating gas, a very unique name for it.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 5, 2021 11:48 am

The same in Dutch…

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 1:17 pm

Hawaii Gas provides “synthetic natural gas” (bit of an oxymoron) by reforming naptha and containing up to 15% hydrogen. See this slick promo: Synthetic Natural Gas | Hawaii Gas It is not clear what hydrogen content is planned in Britain, but up to 15% has a proven track record.

Reply to  Paul Johnson
October 4, 2021 2:57 pm

In principle you can mix up to 10% hydrogen into natural gas without problems for any appliances.
15% is much, but depends of the other constituents, which in this case is the extra butane they add to give the proper combustion…

Catcracking
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:19 pm

Obviously you do not have a clue about Hydrogen. The molecule is so small it can leak much easier than other gases 16 vs 2 . It also combusts over a greater range of oxygen ratios than methane. I assume in most cases the plans are to mix with Nat Gas not to use pure hydrogen.
I Have worked on numerous H2 plants and seen the results of an explosion from one.
It’s not pretty.
Manufacturing hydrogen is not cheap the economics must be horrible, but the end justifies the means.

Phil.
Reply to  Catcracking
October 6, 2021 8:18 am

The molecule is so small it can leak much easier than other gases 16 vs 2 .”
It’s an inverse square law dependence so less than a factor of 3.

John
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 5:44 pm

a stupid ill informed comment
You need to look at the science hydrogen is highly dangerous
it has an explosive limit from 5% to 75% in air whereas natural gas is only 15% to 30%
It burns clear
It creates NOX in the environment where it is burned so worse than carbon monoxide

PCman999
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 8:52 pm

Hydrogen leaks right through the metal pipelines and house pipes, so much more dangerous than CH4.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 3:59 pm

I have conducted hydrogen safety training sessions and you do not know what you are taking about.

A gram mole of H2 is 2 g. A gram mole of methane is 16 g. H2 has 1/8 the density of CH4. It rises much more quickly than does CH4.

Electrical components made for methane are Class 1, Div 1, Group D. The components made for H2 are Class 1 Div 1 Group B.

The flammable range for Methane in air is 5 to 17%, whereas hydrogen has a flammable range of 4 to 75%.

The ignition energy for methane is 0.28 mJ. The ignition energy for hydrogen is 0.017 mJ.

  1. Hydrogen is much more likely to leak than is methane.
  2. When hydrogen leaks, it quickly accumulates in the high point of the room.
  3. Electrical components are available, but not every component has a Group B rated option.
  4. The hydrogen flammable range is is almost 6 times wider than the flammable range of methane.
  5. The ignition energy for hydrogen is 1/16 of the energy required to ignite methane.
  6. When H2 burns, the flame produces essentially no infrared radiation, This is very different than most flames that people are familiar with. Most radiant light from a hydrogen flame is in the far blue and ultraviolet range. Heat is carried away by convection rather than radiation. If you think that this does not matter, consider that a flame without radiant heat will not be felt until you are in the flame.

There is no way the safety of these two gases is in any way comparable.

Last edited 12 days ago by Brooks Hurd
Phil.
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
October 6, 2021 8:31 am

“When hydrogen leaks, it quickly accumulates in the high point of the room.”

No it very rapidly diffuses throughout the room.

Sara
Reply to  Duane
October 6, 2021 11:27 am

So, Duane, you’ve never had a hydrogen-filled balloon as opposed to a helium-filled balloon? Hydrogen is a smaller molecule than helium, and can sneak through just about anything unless it’s combined with another molecule – let’s say “oxygen”, which grabs it and stabilizes it into a useful and non-explosive thing like WATER.

If you really think hydrogen is so wonderful, find the film of the Hindenburg exploding because a spark somewhere started the fire. Then tell me you still think this is a good idea.

Oh, and natural gas, while flammable, is a hydrocarbon – a multi-element molecule, unlike simple hydrogen – and is somewhat more stable than hydrogen by itself, but still explosive as it consists of several molecules such as methane, propane and butane, etc.

And this governmental experiment – forcing people into a corner – means that the lives of the people who agree to this idiocy are less important than the experiment.

The real problem with hydrogen as a fuel is that you can’t smell it if there is a gas leak. Natural gas has a skunky nasty smell (*see below – mercaptan) included in it for just that reason.

Last edited 11 days ago by Sara
Ron Long
October 4, 2021 10:12 am

Forcibly cut off gas? Sounds like Britain could use one of those Tea Party deals.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ron Long
October 4, 2021 11:10 am

Or a Second Amendment.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  Ron Long
October 4, 2021 11:35 am

It’s utterly authoritarian. Britain is becoming a dictatorship. Hydrogen? Three times more expensive? Sheer stupidity Boris. Trouble is, he can get away with it because there is no credible opposition.

Duane
Reply to  Martin Pinder
October 4, 2021 12:40 pm

Actually, hydrogen gas is very cheap on a $ per KG basis and especially on a $ per BTU per KG basis because it contains about 2.5 times the chemical energy per KG than does methane gas. Much cheaper than either natural gas or gasoline.

Typical costs for hydrogen fuel for a HCV at the pump works out to around $1/GGE, or $1 per the equivalent volume of gasoline. Which is at or less than 1/3 the cost of gasoline.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:03 pm

On an emissions scale for production, not so cheap though, is it?

Which is rather the whole point of the exercise, isn’t it?

DHR
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 5:35 pm

Over 20 hydrogen tank trucks containing hydrogen at 3000 psi would be required to deliver as much energy to your local gas station as one single gasoline tanker. Considering the inefficiencies of producing, compressing and shipping hydrogen around our country, it is clearly a looser as an energy commodity.

andic
Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 9:41 am

Disingenuous or revealing complete ignorance. Doesn’t matter I suppose.

When dealing with gasses moles and volumes matter. 1kg of H2 is around 20 times the number of molecules compared to natural gas and at the same temperature and pressure it takes up 20 times the storage. So while what you say may be true it’s irrelevant or misleading.

But you have no credibility anyway

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Ron Long
October 4, 2021 5:07 pm

It requires a different orifice/ nipple for different gasses for correct burning. I used to supply lab equipment. LPG bunsen burners were different to other bunsens.
In Australia, people in the countryside that use LPG need to purchase LPG compatible ovens and cooktops. You can’t use standard gas ovens that run on natural/town gas.

peter schell
October 4, 2021 10:13 am

What scares me is that Hydrogen is, as far as I know, way more slippery than natural gas. Fitting and pipes designed to be natural gas tight might leak like crazy when filled with slightly pressurized hydrogen.

I’ve seen way too many video’s of houses that have exploded due to NG leaks when taking courses in Heavy Equipment to be comfortable with a gas even more prone to leakage, and with a history of catastrophic explosions.

Last edited 13 days ago by peter schell
Duane
Reply to  peter schell
October 4, 2021 12:43 pm

Any gas system has to have components designed to handle that particular gas. It is not more difficult or more expensive to deal with hydrogen gas storage and transport, but you can’t use a natural gas component on hydrogen and vice versa. It is all controlled by engineering and construction codes. Just as water pipes, valves, and seals don’t work with gasoline or diesel fuel, and vice versa. And just as pipes, valves, and seals designed only for gasoline don’t work with ethanol-gas mixtures.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:08 pm

Lets see. We replace natural gas, with hydrogen which is more ‘environmentally destructive’ to produce being that the emission of atmospheric CO2 is higher to produce than what it saves.

Then, the entire country is forced to pay to upgrade the entire gas infrastructure with pipes that will resist hydrogen rot.

So we not only don’t save any CO2 emissions by converting to gas, we actually increase them by ripping out natural gas infrastructure and replacing it.

Do you enviro loons ever listen to yourselves?

buggs
Reply to  HotScot
October 5, 2021 10:34 am

Assume they’d have to upgrade the appliances as well? I honestly don’t know the situation in the UK and if the current appliances could be converted or already are able to use hydrogen? I’m doubting it. So in addition to the cost of changing over an entire distribution system of piping, the homeowner would get to buy a new stove as well.

Just thinking about our situation where I am in Canada, they’d have to rip up the bloody streets to install the new infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen. We have a very well established system for distribution of natural gas, as it’s the primary source for our furnaces to heat our houses. Appliances may be electric or natural gas, that’s a homeowner preference.

Phil.
Reply to  peter schell
October 4, 2021 1:20 pm

As I said above when hydrogen was distributed to houses in the UK explosions were not an issue but when replaced by natural gas it became one.

Duane
October 4, 2021 10:13 am

Actually it is NOT true that natural gas has a higher energy content than hydrogen – in fact it is just the opposite. One pound of hydrogen contains 2.5 times the chemical energy content of one pound of natural gas.

It is only if you misleadingly try to compare the energy from a given volume of hydrogen vs. the same given volume of natural gas. Hydrogen is of course the lightest/least dense molecular substance in the univrese.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:25 am

And since the entire gas network is volumetrically constrained, are you intending to replumb the entire country, to the point of use, to get more volume of hydrogen?

But the entire country’s existing network of gas lines will leak, badly, with hydrogen*, so I guess a total replumb will be necessary anyway.

*As pointed out by Peter Schell above. He is correct. And as my former employer was developing cryogenic tanks for hydrogen, we learned a lot about the properties of materials that might be used to contain hydrogen. It is, indeed, very slippery.

Yooper
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 10:31 am

Hmm, which one has the bigger molecule H, or CH4? Seems to me that anything that is tight for CH4 might not seal H.

beng135
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 10:38 am

REJ, your explanation went right over Duaweeb’s head as soon as you said “volumetrically constrained”.

Duane
Reply to  beng135
October 4, 2021 12:52 pm

I’m an engineer too – civil and nuclear engineering, with over 40 years professional experience, and still working, not retired. Your infantile name calling appears to represent your intelligence level in the third grade.

Kawabta Hiro
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 1:07 pm
HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:15 pm

WOW!

I don’t have a qualification to my name but I am acutely aware that the production of hydrogen releases more atmospheric CO2 than it saves when burned.

It’s a simple perpetual motion equation. One simply cannot, at the present moment, produce more of something than the energy one inputs to produce it.

You will doubtless, nevertheless continue to promote the implementation of hydrogen gas over natural gas despite overwhelming engineering principles.

Please let us all know what projects you have and are working on so we can avoid contact with them.

Duane
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 12:51 pm

No, the energy network most certainly is NOT volume constrained at all. Hydrogen is transmitted at much higher pressures than is natural gas. But because it contains vastly higher energy content it is clearly worth the increase in component design pressures.

That’s why you have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles operating at very high pressures – typically 5,000 to 10,000 psi. All that means is that the gas tank for a fuel cell vehicle is much stronger than the steel or aluminum walled gasoline or diesel fuel tanks that operate at ambient pressure. Yes, that adds to the vehicle weight, though composites have greatly reduced the weight of such high pressure tanks. But it also means that for an equivalent energy content, you need one helluva lot less weight of fuel.

While in order to get 300-400 miles of range on a typical gasoline ICV requires upwards of 16-18 gal of gas at 6.5 pounds per gallon – or 104 pounds of fuel give or take, the same range in a late model FCV is achieved with only about 1.5 kg, or 5 pounds of hydrogen fuel. That’s a 21:1 advantage in energy density for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Duane
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 12:59 pm

And for commercial pipelines, typical natural gas pipelines operate at somewhere around 1,400 to 2,000 psig. A hydrogen pipeline would operate at much higher pressures, but would also pass a great deal more energy content per unit weight than natural gas – about 2.5 times the energy content.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 4:07 pm

And I’m sure the pipelines and pumps were designed for much higher pressures too. Do you not realize that you are promoting not only the use of hydrogen as a fuel but also replacing all current existing distribution lines to handle the higher pressures and “slipperyness” of hydrogen and then on to new appliances to burn it. Where the he!! do you think all this money is going to come from?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:26 am

Additionally, Duane, please stop listening to Climate Scientists and start listening to engineers who actually develop, design and build things that work.

Tony Sullivan
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 11:16 am

Well stated, Jim. Heck, for that matter, every single human on this planet who believes in the green movement would do themselves a wonderful service by listening to actual engineering experts versus dogmatic climate scientists.

Duane
Reply to  Tony Sullivan
October 4, 2021 12:55 pm

You and he could not be more wrong. I am the opposite of green, but unlike you I am not retired as an engineer and I still listen to the science and the engineering, not ignorant internet twaddle.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:18 pm

You know sod all about the laws of physics though. Energy in to produce hydrogen Vs. energy out from hydrogen cannot be equal.

Physically impossible no matter how efficient hydrogen is.

beng135
Reply to  Duane
October 6, 2021 10:54 am

not ignorant internet twaddle.

Thanks for the advice — we’ll stop listening to you.

Duane
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 12:54 pm

I’m not listening to climate scientists – I have advanced degrees and registration in engineering and over 40 years professional experience in nuclear and civil engineering. I don’t need a lecture from an ignoramus telling me who to listen to. I listen to the science and engineering. I don’t repeat ignorant twaddle from True Believers like you who are today’s version of the Luddites.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 3:22 pm

Enlighten us all as to the first time man has ever produced more energy than he has expended.

With your advanced engineering degrees and 40 years of experience, that should be a simple task, compared to someone without a scientific qualification to his name.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 4:38 pm

Do you also have experience with residential and commercial plumbing for natural gas that use both steel and plastic pipe? You sound like a person that has no experience whatsoever with hands on experience with this type of construction. I am sure you have designed numerous projects to meet the requirements of commercial production facilities dealing with hydrogen from pipe fittings to ventilation systems. I assure you houses especially do not meet these requirements.

My house is going on 37 years old. I have had the gas company out twice to raise the meter and once to fix a broken pipe from the meter settling. I suspect stressed and corroded connections are all over the place.

PCman999
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:32 pm

Duane please chill, you’re making us engineers look like raving idiots. Looks like you really like the idea of using h2, but except for specific use cases it is not going to be worth billions to switch over from natural gas to h2. There might be a remote location, far from natural gas sources or pipelines, where it might make sense to run an electrolyzer off a wind turbine and solar panel. But it doesn’t make sense to most consumers. You assume replacing the whole pipeline network, appliances and vehicles are free, judging from the way you haven’t mentioned the cost or any justification for it.

And I am still shaking my head at your comment about discussing the energy content on a volume basis as being something deceptive or misleading. Almost every fuel you can buy is sold on a volume basis. Are you still using coal maybe? Even though that is sold by the tonne, I bet your delivered price depends more on how room it takes up in a ship, railcar or truck than the actual weight.

Anyways, good luck with your h2 energy economy.

Duane
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 1:01 pm

You apparently don’t realize that hydrogen, along with ammonia, are the most heavily used industrial gases in the world, and have been for over a century.

It ain’t nuthin’ new or strange or weird. We are just identifying additional uses for the gas.

You apparently also don’t realize that all oil and gas refining depends heavily upon piped in hydrogen. Without hydrogen, there would be no oil and gas refinig.

Scissor
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 5:41 pm

Please explain the use of hydrogen in gas refining. On the contrary, most hydrogen is produced from steam reforming of natural gas.

PCman999
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 10:40 pm

Will you please shut up! We’re not talking about specialized cases that justify huge expenditures just so some Green™ idiot can feel good about cooking his sausage with a clear flame instead of a blue one! Hydrogen is fine where it is necessary – but your talk of its current uses is irrelevant to the discussion of using it everywhere natural gas is currently used.

Reply to  Duane
October 5, 2021 12:07 pm

Duane, hydrogen is used for desulfurizing oil fractions, which is required by law. Only used because it is obliged.

The bulk of hydrogen is used for fertilizer production via ammonia and derivatives in the chemical industry.

Maybe in the near future as reduction agent for iron ore and other industrial processes that currently still use coal/cokes but that still is in small scale experiments.

Bob boder
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 1:45 pm

Duane

You just proved that reading what you write is a total waist of time. Thanks I’ll know to skip your posts in the future.

DHR
Reply to  Duane
October 4, 2021 5:40 pm

Natural gas has many times as much energy per cubic foot (as it is sold and delivered for use) as hydrogen. Diverting attention by stating the energy density per pound is a diversion.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 4, 2021 10:27 am

This is not going to end well. Faced with the prospect of having to buy all new cooking and heating appliances designed to burn hydrogen, people will dig in their heels and refuse. Are there even such appliances being made for sale today? Where will all the hydrogen come from? How will it be delivered and stored.

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 4, 2021 11:06 am

Today, about 96% of all hydrogen is made from… natural gas, 4% is as byproduct from chlorine manufacturing via electrolysis.
In theory you can make hydrogen from the excess wind or solar energy when there is too much wind and solar, but then you need a lot of electrolysers, which “on demand” must switch on and off, thus a lot of installation costs for only part work followed by a gigantic storage under 700 bar pressure – or alternatively – as liquid hydrogen, which costs lots of energy…
While the wind and sun are free, all these steps to make and ultimately burn hydrogen make it far more expensive than burning natural gas…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 4, 2021 11:13 am

In theory you can make hydrogen from the excess wind or solar energy when there is too much wind and solar,”

No words…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 4, 2021 11:45 am

While the wind and sun are free, turning them into usable, reliable grid-scale electricity is far, far from it. Hiding that fact from the people is just another part of the Big Lie on the Climate Scam.

Eventually the people will come to realize the Lies being told to them. But the Left is banking on it being too late for them to be stopped by an angry People as the Socialist political controls of a national-run police state are already forming across many once-free nations.

Last edited 13 days ago by joelobryan
HotScot
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 4, 2021 3:30 pm

All the while wind energy is producing hydrogen, it’s not producing electricity for consumers.

I think every single calculation for wind production has been based on consumer and existing industrial use. No one ever mentions the huge amount of electricity that must be devoted to hydrogen production, for central heating, that should be provided by wind turbines even more cheaply than hydrogen.

So now even more wind turbines are required than anticipated because the energy required to produce the stuff isn’t used for heating.

Down the rabbit hole we all go.

These concepts are just insane and can only have been dreamed up by bureaucrats and the congenitally deranged.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  HotScot
October 4, 2021 5:54 pm

At some point the valuable land and ocean is going to be littered with windmills that have so many others ahead of it, there will be little wind left. Wonder what climate affect of removing wind energy from the surface will be.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 4, 2021 11:03 pm

That has been a question I’ve asked for years. I always draw a blank from the true believers. They truly believe that wind is free and in unlimited abundance. It never occurs to them that removing wind to generate electricity might be more catastrophic than CO2 emissions.

PCman999
Reply to  HotScot
October 4, 2021 10:47 pm

I think the only reason hydrogen has become such a hot topic is that the alarmists realized wind and solar are just too intermittent to be useful, so using green energy to make h2 well there’s an electricity surplus (like when the wind is blowing strong at night) seems like the solution, along with batteries. However it just adds even more expense and complexity to the energy system.

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 4, 2021 12:03 pm

The early adopters will be given subsidized purchases, paid for by everyone else. Sort of like welfare for the rich who are given taxpayer provided subsidies to buy very expensive EVs.

HotScot
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 3:31 pm

100%

Then comes the whitewashed science and economics.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 11:07 pm

It seems that every variation of “green” or “renewable” energy is subsidized by some sort of Ponzi scheme. After all the dust has settled it costs more than what it replaces and still fails to do the job. At the present conversion rate, the world can’t afford to be saved.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 4, 2021 1:27 pm

I think the new appliance brand is called Greta Griddles. They work for while and then blow up!

BARRY HOFFMAN
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 4, 2021 3:46 pm

“Where will all the hydrogen come from?”

Exactly! It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than you obtain in return using it as an energy source. Basic thermodynamics.

ResourceGuy
October 4, 2021 10:31 am

I think other countries are going to need to issue travel warnings about trips to the UK. “Oh the humanity” comes to mind from the Hindenburg.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 4, 2021 11:11 pm

Well, just think, there will also be all those lovely lithium batteries to burn too. ‘There’ll be a hot time in the olde town tonight‘, will have a new meaning.

MarkW2
October 4, 2021 10:31 am

The idea that people will have their energy cut-off for this reason is pretty nonsensical and never likely to happen. For all that’s been happening over the past year or so the UK isn’t a police state and if any authority tried to attempt such a move the public would go ballistic. OK, they wouldn’t revolt in the same way as, say, the French, but there’d be such an outcry that it would soon be stopped.

A pretty daft story, frankly.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW2
October 4, 2021 11:14 am

Since they don’t have the right to bear arms, they literally couldn’t go ballistic.

Reply to  MarkW2
October 4, 2021 11:25 am

The COVID diktats are now being run as behavioral psychology-informed, social conditioning exercises on the masses. There will always inevitably be a few non-conformists. The Left is trying to minimize the those numbers in the march to Big Brother.

Last edited 13 days ago by joelobryan
Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 10:38 am

Hey, Dr. Zhivago was able to endure worse! Where’s the old stiff upper lip attitude of brits? A few hydrogen explosions will be nothing compared to having V1 and V2 rockets bombarding neighborhoods nightly. /sarc

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 11:29 am

John Kerry logic: What’s few homes exploding compared to the Earth frying?

It all starts from the acceptance of the Big Lie of the Climate Scam. And the Big Lie is that “climate action” can adjust global temps like a rheostat.

PCman999
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 10:55 pm

Actually the big lie is that .14°C/decade of increasing temperatures, or even 2, or 3, or heck 10°C of warming over the next 100 years would be a bad thing for the biosphere. No scientists are claiming as much as 10°C warmer, and yet that was about the average temperature of the Jurassic or Cretaceous periods when the Earth was teeming with life. Today’s world is a cold dry rock compared to the jungle of the dinosaurs.

David Wells
October 4, 2021 10:42 am

If you burn 1 ton of methane directly you emit 2.5 tons of Co2. To get one ton of high purety hydrogen by steam reforming you need to burn 3.5 tons of methane which because of they steam reforming process emits 12.5 tons of Co2. Therefore if you are manic about Co2 then you must deploy CCS which means you need to burn another 1.5 tons of methane to power the capture sequestration compression transit and storage under pressure for eternity. So to get one ton of hydrogen 5 tons of methane if you want to save the planet.

The methane producers – oilcos – dont care because they sell more methane and more methane = more profit. Thing is proven reserves of methane are 60 years and methane like any other commodity is finite. If every country adopted this strategy 60 years becomes 12 years hardly enough to save the planet by 2030 let alone 2050.

Had to fill up with E10 today but if we have no methane there is no E10 because bio fuels need huge volumes of nitrogen and we get all of our nitrogen from methane. Boris Johnson is clueless stupid and idiotic.

Jean Meeus
Reply to  David Wells
October 4, 2021 10:53 am

CO2, not Co2.
There is no cobalt here.

David Wells
Reply to  Jean Meeus
October 4, 2021 11:14 am

You know what I mean!

Scissor
Reply to  David Wells
October 4, 2021 5:42 pm

I’d rather have a pound of cobalt than a pound of CO2.

solomon green
Reply to  David Wells
October 4, 2021 11:01 am

And if the Vegans get their way there will be no cows to replenish methane stocks.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  solomon green
October 4, 2021 11:21 pm

Oh that’s an easy fix … termites will fill the void and they’re edible too for the last remaining animal protein fanatics. (Trouble is they must feed the captive termites our forests in order to produce enough methane … so the forest won’t sequester as much CO2) … round and round like a merry-go-round. That damned 1st law.

Reply to  David Wells
October 4, 2021 11:38 am

increasing market scarcity (supply) would both increase prices for the consumers to unsustainable levels. It would also greatly expand the global economically recoverable reserves of natural gas at each higher price point. Those rich enough could continue to afford to buy the product. Everything changes, no one variable remains constant is the big picture.

The rich elites are banking on their always being able to buy the energy they want to continue to live the jet-set lifestyle they think they deserve. The masses be damned. That is what is underpinning much of the current climate scam. Billionaires intent on having it all for themselves through socialism that favors them by a elite political class they support.

On the surface this would seem to be a an argument in support of re-distributionists like Bernie Sanders. But on deeper consider it is exactly the opposite. Minimizing the power of the State and thus the ability of rich elites to control the masses via bougfht-paid pols is the key to a prosperous future for all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 12:57 pm

It wasn’t the common folks who were jumping out of windows with the stock market crash that ushered in the Great Depression.

The rich are deluding themselves if they think that their money will isolate them from the undesirable effects of a collapse of society.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  David Wells
October 4, 2021 11:44 am

Boris certainly is. He’s gone completely narcissistic & thinks that he’s on a mission to save mankind. Waste of time Boris. Why not let these new technologies come in when they are ready & marketable & then let them compete with the old. Your haste is totally unnecessary. .

Joao Martins
October 4, 2021 10:44 am

Homes may have gas cut off if they refuse to take part in hydrogen trial
Criminals in the government!

Reply to  Joao Martins
October 4, 2021 12:12 pm

Crime is defined by the State. So they legalize their takings against the People, then it’s not illegal nor a crime.

In early US, the very intelligent and “experienced in despotic rule” Constitutional framers realized this. They and the States insisted on a Bill of Rights be adopted to limit governments intrusion on the People and lower levels of government most responsive to local governance.
It is the Bill of Rights’ 10 amendments to the US Constitution which makes the US remarkable, and politically different from the English system from which it evolved. Which of course is why the US Left hates the Bill of Rights in their entirety.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 5, 2021 4:10 am

Thank you for the very clear and nicely short explanation.

That framework of ideas is not easy to find among Europeans. Our constitutional regimes are upside-down: in Europe, people must be very grateful to the upper classes and the state for having “given” them some rights, liberties and guarantees; in the USA, it was the people which allowed the state (the federal governement and the states) the freedom to rule in some very well characterized matters (and all the other not mentioned belong to the people). The Constitution of the USA starts by stating “We the people”; in Europe, generally the constitutions seem to have no author, appeared out of thin air, and only somewhere inside state that the people is soverain.

Enough to say how I admire the constitutional framework of the USA.

Don Perry
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 5, 2021 7:34 am

The very basis of the US system is the last of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights and it has been eroded, perhaps fatally, by Supreme Court rulings. The increasing power of the federal government makes us, now, little different from everyone else. American exceptionalism is, if not dead, on its deathbed. Benjamin Franklin was prophetic when asked what kind of government we had and relied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

MICHAEL D ZORN
October 4, 2021 10:45 am

It’s perfectly OK – if a hydrogen powered house blows up, it produces a lot of water, which will put out the fire.
Another plus: hydrogen isn’t poisonous, like gas.
I wonder if anybody thought of how simple it is to make and distribute hydrogen.

Reply to  MICHAEL D ZORN
October 4, 2021 10:51 am

Try to breathe in an hydrogen “atmosphere.”

Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 11:59 am

Hydrogen will not sustain a burn above about 90%. Hydrogen gas at high purity is a very useful coolant used in sealed synchronous condensers.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 1:52 pm

Cooling isn’t breathe 😀

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 12:58 pm

Mickey Mouse does it whenever he runs short on helium.

HotScot
Reply to  MICHAEL D ZORN
October 4, 2021 3:37 pm

I don’t believe someone actually posted that!

LMAOROTF……No more fire brigade, just blow stuff up with hydrogen! Yippee.

Joao Martins
Reply to  MICHAEL D ZORN
October 5, 2021 1:30 pm

I wonder if anybody thought of how simple it is to make and distribute hydrogen.

Perhaps in a virtual engineering course of a Climate Justice department of some social sciences university…

Elle W
October 4, 2021 10:45 am

Sounds quite…Soviet. Both in poor planning style, and execution of that plan, with so-called leaders too cowed by threats of retaliation by brownshirts to speak up.

To sum up, in the interests of decreasing CO2, the UK govt is prepared to break into citizens’ homes to turn off their access to heat IF those citizens refuse to pay (or cannot pay) tens of thousands of pounds to replace piping, stoves, boilers, etc. And, of course, all those dining new piping/stoves/etc will need to be manufactured — leading to more CO2 emissions in the process. Am I guessing the UK intends to outsource this heavy manufacturing to China so it doesn’t count against UK emissions targets?

Dave
October 4, 2021 10:54 am

So either “participate” in the experiment or be cut off altogether. The Nazi or Soviet method of obtaining “volunteers.”

October 4, 2021 11:03 am

It’s not about H2…or CH4….it’s about CO2…the CO2 non problem must be resolved before all these bad ideas are enacted….huge mistakes being made.

Reply to  Anti_griff
October 4, 2021 11:56 am

The “huge mistakes” are not being made on ignorance. They are being made by informed intent. The key is realizing Climate Change policies being pushed have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with political change.

Nick Schroeder
October 4, 2021 11:11 am

Hydrogen embrittles steel and sneaks out past tiny leaks.
Altogether really dumb idea.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 4, 2021 11:53 am

Nature figured that out billions of years ago and secures it to carrier molecules, like two or more carbons, then delivers its oxidize-able energy payload. Nature even figured out a convenient method to recycle that carrier atom as fertilizer for energetic photo-reactions.

The only way for humanity to move forward and not backwards is to move on to nuclear-derived energy sources. The Left’s committed resistance to nuclear power informs the critical thinker what the Climate Scam is really about.

Last edited 13 days ago by joelobryan
JohnC
October 4, 2021 11:14 am

Prior to conversion to natural gas in the 1960’s, the U.K. used town gas which was made up of hydrogen (up to 50% IIRC) alongside carbon monoxide, methane and ethylene.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  JohnC
October 4, 2021 11:46 am

Yes, I’ve often thought about that. Why did we ever change?

Reply to  Martin Pinder
October 4, 2021 12:06 pm

carbon monoxide even at low consentrations kills pretty effectively. Natural gas (methane is very hydrophobic) doesn’t and can (and is) easily odorizable with smelly sulfur-bearing mercpatens

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 12:15 pm

concentrations

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 1:01 pm

You are so pedantic! 🙂

JohnC
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 1:57 pm

IIRC town gas was a byproduct of converting coal into coke Town gas also had a smell and the gas works were horribly smelly places. One advantage was that towns and cities produced their own gas, there was no national gas grid, which meant that the current situation with wholesale gas prices couldn’t happen. Some less than reputable people used town gas as a kind of anaesthetic, unfortunately it was a crude guess which had fatal consequences, due to the carbon monoxide.

Scissor
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 5:47 pm

That makes me wonder, will an odorant be used in the hydrogen “trial”?

Phil.
Reply to  Scissor
October 5, 2021 5:04 am

Yes, that’s what they did when they replaced town gas with natural gas.

Philip
Reply to  Martin Pinder
October 6, 2021 5:46 pm

Mostly because of North Sea natural gas. Much cheaper and less messy to produce.

October 4, 2021 11:17 am

They should consider chemically attaching the hydrogen to a carrier molecule. Like…. hmmmm…I dunna know… maybe a carbon atom or two or three.

Makes transport of the hydrogen so much more efficient minimized from losses to prevention of hydride enbrittlement of steels.

Last edited 13 days ago by joelobryan
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 4:33 pm

That’s exactly how transportation fuels would be produced if humanity ever got it’s hands on a Krell-like source of energy. Low weight hydrogen (liquified) makes sense if you want to go to the moon, low volume liquid hydrocarbons make sense if you want to drive or fly to Cleveland.

Brad - DXT
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 5, 2021 2:34 pm

Sorry, that only happens on a Forbidden Planet. 😉
We aren’t there yet but, the commies are trying.

Robert of Texas
October 4, 2021 11:23 am

I wonder if they are testing a natural gas/hydrogen blend or really going to try pure hydrogen.

Even if it works for a year, hydrogen has a way of getting into micro-fractures and making metals brittle – so the fireworks might take years to achieve.

I can’t believe the U.K. is going to allow government workers to just barge into a house and turn off their gas. It seems more like something China, Russia, or Cuba would do. Can’t they shut off the gas outside the home as we would for non-payment? A home owner here (U.S.) can still just add a buried tank into their backyard and run natural gas out of it, at least in older neighborhoods.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 4, 2021 11:48 am

We in the UK have no credible opposition, so the government can do what it likes. What has Steve Baker got to say about this?

Phil.
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 4, 2021 3:45 pm

That’s what they did when converting to natural gas in the UK in the late 60’s.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 4, 2021 5:59 pm

It’s called a “statutory right of entry to your home”. When natural gas came online over town gas, workers just entered your home, removed incompatible gas appliances. They were piled up on the street.

Old Retired Guy
October 4, 2021 11:23 am

Is the £22 billion for just the village? I don’t have a subscription and don’t want to sign up. As the Comments note this will be a very expensive experiment with significant risk.

Eric Vieira
October 4, 2021 11:45 am

Hydrogen gas also results in losses and even steel will begin to become brittle with time, due to diffusion of dihydrogen which is a very small molecule.
Probably the piping used for natural gas distribution is not adequate for this purpose. You would need much thicker stuff for hydrogen.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 4, 2021 12:20 pm

In the US, huge efforts are underway to replace existing steel gas lines with thick walled polyethylene pipes. This is smart, even without considering hydrogen being there maybe someday. The steel will eventually corrode, leak and is causing problems since lots of steel gas lines have been in the ground approaching 100 years now.

Don’t tell the Liberal-educated Greenies how either steel or polyethylene pipes are made though.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 4, 2021 12:40 pm

Today’s Boston Globe has an article about how the gas companies in Massachusetts have been working for years to replace gas lines since so many leak- costing a great deal of course. So, the climate nuts here are saying it would be better to just put the gas companies out of business than to allow them to continue fixing the pipes now that the state has a net zero by 2050 law on the books.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 4, 2021 12:52 pm

My gas supply is by polysomethingine in the street, going into brass for the last couple of feet befor ethe meter, then brass in the house. How do those stand up to hydrogen leakage?

AWG
October 4, 2021 11:55 am

Back in my misspent youth, I would occasionally tape together multiple industrial sized trashcan liners then fill with natural gas, attach long cannon fuse and send the dirigible off into the heavens. Depending on the wind and temperature, it would take a long and uncomfortable time to get to an altitude that didn’t become a great risk to trees and cedar shingle rooves. When the burning fuse met the gas, the whole thing would burn and tumble with globs of flaming plastic dropping down into the vacant lot. The burn took a little while and was fun to watch. Hanging sheets of aluminum foil from the balloon and sending it up I can only imagine what the airport RADAR saw.

One day I took to mixing pool acid with galvanized nails and capturing the resulting hydrogen gas. Other than the lift improvements which was the goal, when the cannon fuse got to the bag, the result was profoundly different. The natural gas experiment was just fun to watch, the hydrogen version brought the police out to investigate a reported explosion.

I haven’t played with H again.

Reply to  AWG
October 4, 2021 12:23 pm

Oxyacetylene from the end of an unlit cutting torch into plastic bags lofted then under a helium balloon makes an even bigger crowd pleaser.

Amos E. Stone
October 4, 2021 12:01 pm

Oh, for goodness sake people. This is a trial! Folks are going to be bribed to take part in an experiment to replace something they already have with something no better at a huge cost to all us other taxpayers. And an increase in CO2 as others here have pointed out.

There is only one set of pipes. If someone is stupid enough to insist on using their old gas cooker with H2 then, frankly, they need saving from themselves.

The result will be that it works technically, but is economically brainless and is worse than useless for ‘saving the planet tm ‘. So that will be full speed ahead then!

Richard Page
Reply to  Amos E. Stone
October 4, 2021 2:46 pm

One of the big problems with this, apart from the ever increasing costs, is that there is no choice in the matter – if I want to remain with natural gas when everyone else switches over it won’t happen – either I comply or I have no heating. So far there has been no dissent allowed – no discussion, no debate, no vote or poll taken, simply the will of BoJo made law; no doubt there will be no dissent allowed at any other point in this mad exercise either.

David s
October 4, 2021 12:02 pm

So they want to find out if it will work or not so they’re going to try it out in peoples homes. They will be piping a highly explosive gas into piping systems that weren’t designed for it. What could possibly go wrong? 🙂 Sounds like a really dumb idea or a hoax.

Patrick Hrushowy
October 4, 2021 12:09 pm

What’s with the Brits? Are they trying to emulate the heroic measures they undertook to survive and win WWII? In what kind of world does a country’s citizenry simply roll over passively accept this crap?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
October 4, 2021 3:22 pm

Decades of pinko lefty socialist politics and comfortable living. The rot started just after WW2 and is, you could say, personified in the Peter Sellers film “I’m alright Jack”.

fretslider
October 4, 2021 12:15 pm

For the rest of us a new eco tax on gas will be applied to push people into giving it up

Parliament is of one mind on this

Last edited 13 days ago by fretslider
Richard Page
Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 2:48 pm

I might have agreed with you except that it should have read; “Parliament is mindless to do this.”

Joel
October 4, 2021 12:19 pm

Well, at least burning hydrogen doesn’t produce any green house gases.
/sarc

2hotel9
October 4, 2021 12:37 pm

If they are being legally compelled to do this then the utility company doing it should pay all expenses for installation, equipment and indemnify all customers forced to participate. Thats only fair. The left is all about being fair, aren’t they?

Peter Fraser
October 4, 2021 12:39 pm

God all mighty or in this case renewables almighty. The U.K. can barely keep the lights on and at ridiculous cost. Now it is going to keep their cars running by 20……? whenever it is and now it’s going to heat their homes by some process that is going to be more energy inefficient. Magic stuff these renewables.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 4, 2021 5:36 pm

What’s the over/under on when these whole crazy schemes collapse under their own weight? Germany and the UK are already having to shut down manufacturing, and Winter isn’t here yet. And this is without adding EVs and heat pumps to the system. One day all of this just comes to a stop (Houston: we’ve got a problem).

A couple of times lately we’ve been told they came within a minute of grid collapse. When that finally happens, it will take months to “build it back”. Then the elites won’t have to wonder if the plebes have guns or not. All it will take is pitchforks and Molotov cocktails.

Admin
October 4, 2021 12:42 pm

No one recognized the models in the stock photo I chose for the headline image.

Admin
October 4, 2021 12:44 pm

Do those models in the stock photo I chose look familiar?

Highresmemebglowres.jpg
Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 6, 2021 12:04 pm

Funny, Charles.

Rich Lambert
October 4, 2021 12:53 pm

If the system is 100% hydrogen there are issues. Among them are hydrogen odorization so people can smell leaks is difficult, small leaks are hard to detect, and hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame. Additionally, hydrogen does not exist on earth as a free gas. This means it takes more energy to produce than it provides. Politicians are more than willing to waste other peoples’ money on projects in hopes of eliminating an non-existent problem.

Walter Sobchak
October 4, 2021 2:24 pm

“When whole towns are switched over to hydrogen, it will obviously be very dangerous if some houses are not converted.”

Really?

” Hence the draconian powers needed.”

Leftists always need draconian powers.

LdB
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 4, 2021 4:49 pm

That is a tyical eco loon lie it’s not dangerous it’s just there is only one set of pipes so if someone says no you have two choices 1)provide a new pipe to them or 2) Turn them off. The second option is cheaper so use draconian powers to force the issue and lie about the reason.

Patrick MJD
October 4, 2021 3:24 pm

I lived in the UK during the fuel shortages in the 1970’s. It’s not fun during winter without hot water, cooking and heating. Seems like BoJo is listening to his eco, Marxists, nutter wife again.

Sara
October 4, 2021 6:05 pm

Is this going to be referred to as the Hindenberg Experiment? /s

What? Too soon?

The people who should be required to engage in this testing first, ahead of the maundering crowds, are politicians and their supporters.

You can smell natural gas leaking, because it has a chemical added to it (at least it does over here in USA) that makes a leak noticeable. Hydrogen? Not so much.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Sara
October 4, 2021 8:28 pm

Not too soon

I think Hindenburg is the name of the first town where this will be tried.

Strange coincidence that

Sara
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 5, 2021 4:01 am

Now that is very strange. I was only thinking about the blimp named Hindenberg. Maybe there really are no coincidences.

Geoff Sherrington
October 5, 2021 2:41 am

In my late 20s, as a graduate chemist, I was asked to take a year to manage a new pilot plant for converting ilmenite to synthetic rutile. This happened in a fluidised bed reactor vessel with chlorine has at 1050 degrees C an a couple of atmospheres pressure was pumped through the mineral grains of ilmenite.
The pilot plant design called for 10 tonnes a day of chlorine, which we all know as a dangerous gas used in trench warfare (at levels similar to our rate of use). We were on a small hill nest to a small town of a few thousand people. Safety was forever in our minds. It was not an impossible scenario that the whole town (including my young family) could be killed if we (I) made a bad mistake.
When people mention widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel, knowing about its difficult containment and potential for explosion, my mind goes to the chlorine escape scenario. That was 50 years ago, but I still awake from time to time from troubled sleep in which that nightmare becomes real.
I feel pity for those who know so little about risk and chemistry and alternative fuels that they cheer for hydrogen. Cheer if you like, but be aware that you have made a choicd that can come back to haunt you evermore. Geoff S

Brooks Hurd
October 5, 2021 3:36 pm

Hydrogen is a very small molecule. It is also very light. When there is a small hole which would not leak methane, it could leak H2. Any H2 leaked into a house will rise to the highest point of the ceiling.

Will they be running new double contained H2 piping inside all these homes?

What about hydrogen embrittlement of the piping itself. How will this be handled?

Phil.
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
October 7, 2021 7:29 am

No it will rapidly diffuse throughout the house. Regarding the hydrogen embrittlement it will likely behave in the same way as when they distributed 50% H2 gas to every home in the country until the 1970s.

%d bloggers like this: