From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
The Net Zero disaster lurches from one crisis to another:
The Energy Secretary has scrapped plans for a pilot “hydrogen town” after a wave of protests against earlier trials.
Claire Coutinho has shelved proposals to force thousands of homes and businesses to replace their natural gas supplies with hydrogen by 2030 to test the fuel’s viability.
Aberdeen, Scunthorpe, and two Welsh towns were among those being considered for wholesale conversion to hydrogen for heating.
It was meant to be a trial run to test the use of low-carbon hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas, which was being considered as part of the UK’s drive to reach net zero by 2050.
However, ministers have been forced into a rethink following a wave of protests in two smaller communities – Redcar in Yorkshire and Whitby, near Ellesmere Port – that had been earmarked as testbed “hydrogen villages”. Both proposed trials were ultimately abandoned.
Energy efficiency minister Lord Martin Callanan said on Thursday: “We have decided not to progress work on a hydrogen town pilot until after 2026 decisions on the role of hydrogen for heating.
“Heat pumps and heat networks will be the main route to cutting household emissions for the foreseeable future.”
The decision undermines the Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, which was launched by then-prime minister Boris Johnson in 2020, and its 2021 UK Hydrogen Strategy, published by then-energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng.
Those plans envisaged a neighbourhood-level hydrogen heating scheme by 2023, a village scale trial by 2025, with an entire town being converted to hydrogen by the late 2020s. None of this will now happen.
Several studies have criticised the plans, saying hydrogen will only have a small role to play in heating homes and other buildings in the future.
Last year, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) recommended the Government should not support the rollout of hydrogen heating.
It said the hydrogen would have to be made with natural gas – a process that generates emissions – and would cost more than heat pumps, the main alternative.
I love this comment from Colin Belshaw:
Very sensible decision.
And this statement is sheer bloody nonsense: “Hydrogen’s value lies in having a high energy density, so it can power anything from homes to heavy vehicles,” because . . . it actually goes like this:
To produce 1 tonne of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water requires 52.5MWh of electricity (including compression) and, the burning of 1 tonne of hydrogen will generate 15MWh. Therefore . . . ENERGY INVESTED is 3.5x GREATER than ENERGY RETURNED, which is . . . really bloody brilliant.
And for this to have any twisted credibility in our idiotic virtue-signalling world, the electrical supply for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen would obviously have to come from “green” wind and solar generating facilities.
But over the last 12 months, wind and solar combined generation provided 10.86GW, this from a wind and solar combined installed capacity of 45.7GW . . . which was 23.8% of installed capacity – the “load factor.”
So, if you want to deliver 1GW of electricity from wind and solar generating facilities, with a load factor of 23.8%, those facilities will have to have an installed capacity of 4.20GW – an “overbuild factor” of 4.20.
In summary:
To make hydrogen by electrolysis requires 3.5x the energy that will be gained from using that hydrogen, and to generate the electricity needed for that electrolysis, the installed capacity of wind and solar generating facilities will have to be 4.20x greater than the electricity actually needed.
You get the picture, I trust – to generate electrical energy through wind and solar, and using that energy to make hydrogen, would be an exercise in nothing less than . . . profligate stupidity.
More incompetence by government. They don’t have go looking for a neighborhood, village or city for their experiment, they can mandate all government functions be done with hydrogen. The only caveat is that they can’t spend any more on hydrogen than they currently spend on fossil fuel or nuclear. No subsidies, you have four months to convert then the fossil fuel and nuclear are turned off for any government property or function.
Let’s test this on all Parliamentarians’ homes along with those of the senior bureaucrats advising them. They must live entirely within the original cost of the original amount of energy it would have needed sans subsidies and only using wind and solar when it is available. Nothing when it is not. Let the b*stards freeze in winter.
This is what comes of having “bright”ideas with no conceivable level of understanding of how things work . Let’s get some electrical engineers into policy making. Climate scientists need to have their subsidies cut and live – as an experiment – only within what they too recommend for others. I am tired of being used as an experiment by overeducated idiots. Time for the pitchforks I think.
Pitchforks? Nope: ARs, AKs and piano wire on lampposts. It is time to water the Tree of Liberty. /sarc.
I live less than 5 miles from Whitby, Ellesmere Port and everyone knows that hydrogen is useless and dangerous as a practical energy source.
The stupidity of our leaders and so called ‘experts’ is beyond comprehension.
Why dangerous?
Hindenburg Disaster
LINK
Hydrogen is very prone to leaking and has very wide flammability limits (4% -75% in air). Retrofitting homes and businesses with plumbing required to distribute hydrogen to various appliances would require a high level of skill, competence and quality control. Buildings supplied with natural gas on rare occasion blow up due to gas leaks. A conversion to hydrogen would certainly involve a “learning curve” which would very likely involve at least a few catastrophic failures.
Wasn’t town gas a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide ?
Yes, produced by the gasification of coal. Still used in Hong Kong
Yes, but very little hydrogen and lots of CO. In fact if you heat wood or low grade coal in an air starved fire box and filter the exhaust you can run an internal combustion engine on the CO. CO also has quite wide flammability limits -12.5% to 75% – but it’s a bigger molecule and easier to contain. It also does not embrittle ordinary steel piping.
It is also extremely toxic, binding with your red blood cells so they can’t absorb oxygen and transport it to the cells in your body.
Not true, typical composition 50% H2, 35% methane, 10% CO.
But prior to the introduction of natural gas the distribution of hydrogen containing gas to houses didn’t have such problem, after the conversion to natural gases explosions due to leaks started to occur.
Fill a party balloon with hydrogen.
Fill another with helium.
Put on a wool sweater.
Rub both your arm for a minute or so.
See what happens.
(I’d suggest you start with the helium balloon first. Otherwise, what would you learn?)
It easily explodes when air is available and burns with an invisible flame in the infrared
And yet when supplied to houses in the UK for about a century this didn’t happen. Hydrogen diffuses so fast that it doesn’t maintain an explosive mixture, methane on the other hand does maintain explosive mixtures and was a problem after natural gas was supplied to houses, a nationwide program of pipeline replacement was carried out as a result.
And with Stanlow just next door you have to ask why? Drove past on Tuesday last and none of the windmills were turning either. (I live near Ellesmere, not the Port)
Clean Air Act Section 111 Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Generating Units (epa.gov)
Comment: Highly abbreviated key phases only (see especially 96% hydrogen by 2038)
NSPS – STATIONARY COMBUSTION TURBINES
Proposing to update and establish more protective NSPS for GHG emissions from new and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbine EGUs that are based on highly efficient generating practices in addition to CCS or co-firing low-GHG hydrogen.
EPA is proposing a distinct “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) and standard of performance based on its evaluation of the feasibility, emissions reductions, and cost reasonableness of available controls.
NSPS – STATIONARY COMBUSTION TURBINES
Base load combustion turbines: Several components to be implemented in several phases: • 1st component of BSER for all sources: Highly efficient generation • 2nd component of BSER for sources on the CCS pathway: 90% carbon capture and storage (CCS) by 2035.
2nd and 3rd components of BSER for sources on the low-GHG hydrogen pathway: co-firing 30% (by volume) low GHG hydrogen by 2032 and 96% by 2038.
The key to these regulations (not laws) is they are required to be “available” at the time the regulation goes into effect. Supplies of “low-GHG hydrogen” are not currently available and assuming they will be there in sufficient quantities in the 2030’s to run a reliable grid is insane. Hope is not a strategy.
26 states have filed lawsuits against the proposed regs being implemented. The obvious intent of the regs is to destroy combined cycle gas turbine provided electricity removing that alternative to wind and solar.
The spectre of Hindenburg takes its revenge.
I’ve read similar “overbuild factor” estimates without understanding the usefulness, you can overbuild to billy-o but obviously it won’t help on a windless night particularly in a relatively limited geographical area like the UK.
And the impact from starting and stopping electrolyzers due to an irregular power supply has not been taken into account. Each stop and start reduces efficiency and increases maintenance.
At least the hydrogen would be stored in tanks, so on powerless days, the tanks get depleted.
Are thick hydrogen tanks and compression equipment/process cheaper, more reliable and safer than huge arrays of batteries?😳
Rube Goldberg is spinning in his grave with jealousy because he could never have thought of such convoluted and overly complex ways of wasting money and plunging people into poverty.
These were the tanks that used to be used.
In other news from Fantasy Island:
The sale of new petrol-fuelled motorcycles is set to be banned from 2040, under plans due to be announced by ministers as part of the Government’s net zero crackdown.
The move would affect all vehicles classed as “L3” and upwards, including scooters and light, medium and higher-powered motorcycles. There are around 1.3 million motorcycles registered in the UK.
It is expected to be revealed soon, according to industry sources, although it is not clear whether Downing Street has signed off on the policy yet.
The change would also be accompanied by a plan to ban sales of new petrol-fuelled mopeds earlier, from 2030.
That reflects the already-high numbers of electric mopeds being sold. They accounted for roughly half of UK moped registrations last year.
By contrast, the market for electric motorcycles is far less developed and represented less than 2pc of total sales in 2023.
They also suffer from some of the same “range anxiety” issues as electric cars, with many e-motorcycles currently limited to ranges of less than 100 miles while not all are compatible by default with electric car charging stations.
Source: Telegraph.
As in the hydrogen case, the activists insist on policies ‘because climate’ which are both impractical and will have no effect on either climate or emissions. The amount of CO2 emitted by motorcycles must be too small to measure. And a fully electric motorbike will be a very different beast both in terms of range and power from today’s bikes.
What this will do is dramatically reduce motorcycle sales and use. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, motorbikes are very dangerous, especially in the hands of impulsive young men, because the power to weight ratio is so high. But if we are trying to close down the 250cc+ motor bike sector for public health reasons, we should do it honestly and not pretend that it will have any effect on climate.
Kawasaki introduced an electric Ninja (E-1) not too long ago. It was generally considered to be a joke among the motorcycle community.
UK and most of Europe had just had a week of no wind – or below 2 gigawatts generated against 33GW demand in UK. At one point a world record of 0.43 gigawatts. A week
Windmills are a ridiculous dead end.
Windmills cannot power modern society.
When will politicians figure this out?
Only when the 💩hits the fan!
Do you mean GWh ?
Politicians playing at engineering. It doesn’t work. .
and ‘climate scientists’ playing at engineering – it doesn’t work.
Activists playing at being scientists definitely doesn’t work.
No Midwich cuckoos, here.
So what happens, when we eventually run out of natural gas? I don’t know what global reserves are like, but at the current rate of usage, and is projected to increase, it will eventually become a problem. OK, maybe not in our lifetimes (certainly not mine).
Suggestions folks?
The future is nuclear power generation and space-based solar.
Nuclear, definitely, but I’m far from convinced on space based solar. As for nuclear, I think it should be thorium molten salt based.
China intends to put a demonstration solar power satellite (SPS) in orbit by 2030.
They won’t be supplying electricity to Earth from this SPS, but it’s a first step.
The United States should be the ones taking this first step.
NASA should put Elon Musk in charge of constructing our first SPS. Then, it might get done. Maybe even before the Chicoms get one.
I wonder if it will end up as a technological dead end? The solar panels would have to be incredibly immense, which I think would interfere with other satellite systems. And if they did build such a network, would you really like standing under a microwave beam? 😊
With such power, I suspect it would interfere with other microwave transmissions, such as WiFi, Bluetooth etc.
Would the SPS be sat in a geostationary orbit?
The Chicom SPS will be a small one in low-Earth orbit.
The general idea is to put an industrial SPS in a geostationary orbit.
One idea I like was to use flexible solar panels attached to the outside of a balloon that was one mile in diameter. This particular design could be launched on the Space Shuttle or similar launch vehicle and once in orbit could be inflated using about 40 pounds of Helium gas.
A lot of studies were done on these concepts in the 1970’s and 1980’s by Space Studies Institute.
These studies claim the micowave beam from the SPS to the Earth would be spread over an area and would not be detrimental to those on the ground. I don’t know how the microwave beam would affect WiFi or other signals as these studies were done before they was widely available and were not addressed.
There will certainly be a need for electric power in orbit as humans start moving into the solar system. An SPS could be used to power orbital transfer vehicles by various means. I like the “Flying Tea Kettle” concept, where water is heated to steam using beamed power from an SPS, and the release of steam drives the vehicle.
Salute!
The worst aspect of abandoning nuclear is that when demand is low, the plants can generate hydrogen to be stored! Hell, they can generate hydrogen even under normal load requirements.
Years ago, the Duke company created two lakes to use a nuclear plant for power and pump water up a few hundred feet from the main lake to a smaller, higher one. Then, when peak demands required, the upper lake fed good, old-fashioned generators.
Gums sends…
The nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd in N Wales used a pumped storage at Tanygrisiau to meet peak demands. The system was set up in the 1960s, I went on a school trip to both in the late 60s.
Areas that need more fresh water can use reverse osmosis to load-level the nuclear power plant.
Nuclear fission works now, no reason to suspect it will not work in the future. Spaced based solar will always be the the future in the same sense as nuclear fusion has been the future since 1960s.
The Chicoms don’t think so, as they are planning on putting a space-based solar power satellite (SPS) in orbit by 2030, which will be used for demonstation purposes and won’t be supplying electricity to Earth, but there is going to be a growing demand for power in orbit and SPS will be supplying the power.
Might not run out soon – usual 40-50-90 year estimates are usually based on ignoring any estimates of future discoveries.
And….
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-largest-source-abiotic-methane-gas.html
👍🏻
my emoji vanished.
Nuclear and methane hydrate. Remember, nobody is proposing to stop R & D.
Methane hydrate, is that where they mine it from the ocean floor?
Coal.
They all say coal is dirty. Aye, when mining it, we’ve all seen many a mucky miner. 😊
“They” are obviously ignorant regarding modern clean coal plants and mining methods.
And the fact that the chimney stacks ‘scrub’ smoke.
The Three Laws of Thermodynamics strike again!!!!!
hmmmm… isn’t it immoral if not illegal to experiment on humans?
“Last year, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) recommended the Government should not support the rollout of hydrogen heating. It said the hydrogen would have to be made with natural gas – a process that generates emissions – and would cost more than heat pumps, the main alternative.” As expected from government geniuses. Does anyone bother with a cost-benefit analysis anymore?
This conveniently will leave decision making to the next government, which will almost certainly be ‘led’ by Starmer, with Miliband back in charge of Energy. Don’t expect decision making under that duo to display any more signs of intelligence than under the current shower.
Even if you explained in words of one syllable that it takes more energy to create hydrogen than that hydrogen then contains and this is an immutable fact, I’m not sure Miliband would understand it.
The best way to understand “science” scams are by the solutions.
1) promoted by politicians
2) research promoting it is funded by Government. Note that all funded gov’t research on the subject always favors the gov’t point of view. If not the research authors/groups will never see additional funding no matter how well the proposal is written because they are the wrong type of people.
3) the “science” excludes the possibility of being wrong
or any argument that refutes the “science” is met with scorn or contempt that includes name
calling such as anti-_________. Just fill in the blank (examples:vax, climate, choice,science, etc)
4) The solutions are never subjected to the laws of thermodynamics or efficiency. The use of any heat cycle such as the Carnot Cycle is forbidden.
5) Government public service announcements, PSAs or powerful foundations Ex: Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation and many others.
6) Any industry that used alternative technologies become “evil.”
7) If it sounds too good to be true, …….
I am sure some out there can add to this list.
I am not surprised. There is no cost benefit at this time, due to the relative abundance of methane, and the use of hydrogen would require costly retrofitting.
That’s a well-deserve black eye for the politicians and the fawning ‘news’ media who have trumpeted for twenty years that green power will be better and cheaper than evil fossil energy. They led the stampede, now let them pay for it.
And half a black eye for the scientists who didn’t make that imbalance clear. Though perhaps that extra half a black eye should rightly go back to the loudmouth knowitalls in politics and the media who refused to listen, or actually censored any cautions from those with practical knowledge.
I’m certain that Homer’s nose grows an inch or two longer just as his face is about covered up.
There is a pretty large granite dome on the westside of the Sierra Nevada call “Homer’s Nose”.
A small city scale of test is actually required. This would show the fire and explosion hazard of hydrogen for home heating is significant….unfortunately for the guinea pig residents.
Nobody seems to believe how easily this stuff leaks, how easily it ignites, how it burns with near invisible flame until pipes, valves, and equipment near the flame catastrophically fail, how big the blast radius is if a houseful reaches its Lower Explosive Limit….Maintenance men in hydrogen plants used to walk around holding a sheet of cardboard in front of them so they had indication of any burning jets of hydrogen that had developed overnight, instead of being badly burned.
People live in cold temperatures like Anchorage Alaska at around 20F(-7C) in January to Dubai at around 97F(36C) in July.
People know how to live in different temperatures. When I come indoors from outside It is usually about ten degrees warmer, 1.5C is nothing.
Outside of the Tropics people probably spend about 95 percent of their time protected from the weather in heated transportation, heated buildings, or wearing coats and jackets.