Hydrogen for heating our homes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Following on from video #59, which looked at energy storage in hydrogen, this week we discuss some of the feedback and comments that were expressed by you on the subject of hydrogen as part of the renewable energy project. We also focus on the potential of hydrogen for heating our homes - something that is being enthusiastically embraced by the UK government.
Research Sites
www.theccc.org...
ec.europa.eu/e...
www.theccc.org...
ec.europa.eu/e...
www.theccc.org...
www.boilerguid...
www.theenginee...
assets.publish...
www.economist....
www.bbc.co.uk/...
www.newscienti...
www.greenmatch...
www.glowgreenl...
matthey.com/in...
www.gasworld.c...
climatenewsnet...
www.theccc.org...
#hydrogenheating . #renewableenergy #climatecrisis
Great show!
One of the main problems for hydrogen in gas burning is piping or tubing that can be used. Hydrogen gas will eat through most standard steel pipe and tube, so Stainless Steel has to be used.
Hydrogen enters the microstructure of the steel, and reacts with the carbon present to form larger methane molecules.
There are plastic tubing systems that can take hydrogen pressures up to 700 bar and temperatures from -40 °C to +80 °C. new design will have to consider connection types and sealing systems to reduce possibilities of accidental leaks.
Hydrogen heating is more beneficial to our house than a heat pump
Hydrogen is a good option.
Always enjoy your informative videos
I'd like to point out that this efficiency is measured based on current understanding on dealing with hydrogen. We been burning gas for ages therefore we developed high efficiency and hydrogen has bright future yet to come. Hydrogen is everywhere and that's the freaking problem. They will lose the control as if it is everywhere theoretically everybody is able to capture it in his own home with the right equipment so that's a huge no no for control. We see it especially on Russia vs Ukraine war how control of gas can impact lives of people.
While hydrogen can be burned it is a much better idea to use that fuel for fuel cells at the point of use as they not only produce electricity but also produce a considerable level of heat that is waste energy. That's why some hydrogen fueled buses look like "Stanley Steamers". This combined with heat pumps mean a air source heat pump would provide heating well below-15C while providing air conditioning in the summer. This is doable now.
One cautionary note, hydrogen embrittlement is very real so iron lines and steel cylinders can get so hardened that they can actually fracture so retrofitting needs to be evaluated very carefully considering some installations used cast iron, a product already brittle. All to say that this is a real option.
This idea is nothing new. I've been aware of diesel generators being used as a home heating plant, same as a boiler, to produce heat and power. This is just a slight modification of the process and would also produce absolutely pure water as the byproduct.
A boiler that creates its own hydrogen at point of use, no storage nor distribution problems.
That is how it should be, but then you are no longer dependent. And they don't want that. You must and will pay.
A couple thoughts. I work for a large multinational power company (as an electrical engineer) and they are seriously considering the hydrogen market. There was 2 main bodies of discussion regarding the overall grid. 1) hydrogen can be blended with NG up to about 15-20% without ill effects like leakage or irregular burning 2) In areas of high renewables like California, the excessive production causes grid instability and the "Duck Curve" one idea was to build multiple Industrial scale electrolysis hydrogen plants using the ocean as a water source, storing the hydrogen in massive tanks and then using either electric turbines or Industrial sized fuel cells to provide power during peak load effectively allowing renewables to be dispatchable and reliable.
Hi Nathan. Thanks for your feedback and very interesting information. One way or another it seems to me that the powers that be are determined to get hydrogen into the energy mix in a big way as part of the carbon reduction plan. The UK government's plan for carbon zero by 2050 will only work if they go full-on with hydrogen for heating. We shall see...
@@JustHaveaThink BTW I wanted to say I really enjoy your show and thank you for the response. I feel like the next couple of years will almost be like 110 years ago when everyone had horse and buggy... then suddenly vehicles everywhere.
Heat pumps can manage in new heavily insulated homes. Not for most of our existing housing stock. We keep talking solar but not much sun in the winter which is when our homes require heating.
Thank you so much. A bit dissapointed not to see any mention of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems already used on a commercial basis. At the heart of such systems is a fuel cell to produce electricity and the heat generated in that process used to heat your water, building or house. Current installations use either Natural Gas or Hydrogen. Many hospitals, apparently use the technology already and I thought that Panasonic had developed a micro CHP boiler. Love your series; wish more of it appeared on mainstream TV etc instead of half the junk we get.
The fuel cell could ofcourse charge your car battery etc overnight. The heat could keep your outdoor pool heated and your jacusi hot. 👍👍
Hydrogen + Solar = Seasonal energy storage. A golden goose.
Use excess summer solar (currently wasted), to convert water to H2 throughout the summer. Store it. Then in winter, run the H2 through a fuel cell to create electricity for the heat pump. Effectively a hydrogen battery. Power grid eliminated.
HVAC is 80% of household energy consumption here in Canada. Huge issue to solve.
You know what is a "silver bullet" solution? New nuclear. New nuclear energy generation is safe, clean and has the potential to scale with demand, especially utilising new technology to roll-out a network of smaller reactors. Imagine, every neighbourhood having its own nuclear power station in the hundred megawatt hour range. It could be a glowing focal point for the neighbourhood, a shining beacon of radiant hope for generations to come! maybe.
......hythane fuelled vehicles have been around in Australia. Hythane is hydrogen/methane blend at 1:4 ratio . the tanks need only be twice the gauge thickness of LPG tanks . It works cos the hydrogen can remain dissolved in the liquefied methane, otherwise hydrogen storage is a problem . . For storing pure hydrogen ,the best strategy I've heard of is use of graphitic nitride to contain it as intercalated hydride .
Here a little example from Switzerland. Over 12'000 trains have to role every day in order to enable the public railway service. The trains transporting goods are not included here. If you calculate the total moved distance and weight of all these trains and divide the total amount through 8 million people living in Switzerland, then you have the following staggering figure: It is, as if every single person, including the new born babies, had to move for one kilometer 400 Tonnes of weigh by themselves -- every day!! That's the energy amount we "need" everyday just for our public mobility comfort.
If we add here all the cars, airplanes, buses, trams and ships, we will easily understand that we are totally of the chart -- and nuts! There is no technical solution to our craziness.
Note about Hydrogen Boilers: WorcesterBosch have a duel hybrid boiler with Natural Gas and Hydrogen ready and running, awaiting for mass produced Hydrogen.
It is discouraging that people only think government bureau is the answer to all of our problems. I have found that government is an answer looking for a problem. Let the free market work and figure out things. It seems that people always get angry when bright minds through hard work and sacrifice create something and profit from it.
Insulation is also REALLY important!
not too much, bec. that stuff you put on your houses cant breathe, will cause mouldy walls , plus after 30 years that insulation-plastics is special waste ,that is expensive to get rid off. Building with wood , even for high rise houses seems the only sustainable option
@@freydenker6335 That's what vapour barriers are for. Modern houses will have vapour barriers built into warm side of the external walls of the house. They prevent water vapour inside the house migrating through the building fabric to cold condensing surfaces within the building fabric.
Modern timber framed houses are well insulated and typically last for many decades. My own house is 26 years old, timber frames and insulated. I've not seen any problems with mould or rot, and believe me when I say I've inspected the floor voids, roof spaces and opened up some of the external walls. They're healthy.
However insulating old houses is a big challenge. The problem isn't so much moist air inside the house that condenses on the way out, it's more a problem of having rain penetration from the outside getting in. That's your major cause of failure - especially if you have wall ties getting rusty in a cavity wall space. Breathability helps in that case, but it's far better to prevent the rain getting into the cavity space in the first place by installing external insulation instead of cavity wall insulaiton.
But in my own house, I'm adopting an "insulate first" strategy. A heating system will typically be replaced every 12-20years (especially with modern heat exchangers). Good insulation on the other hand will last the whole life of the building.
@@anthonydyer3939
There is such thing as the zero energy house. They do not need heating or cooling systems. They cost no more to build than any other house. Look up Passiv Haus. Of course the heating/cooling business would be against them.
Approx' half the energy use of the UK is in heating buildings.
@@johnburns4017 I'm fully aware of Passiv Haus constructions. However these concepts are only cost effective with new homes.
For my house, a 1993 built Bungalow, there's only so much I can do in terms of insulating the walls and the floor before things get really expensive and disruptive. For instance, a passiv haus has 300mm of insulation built into the walls using double stud construction to avoid cold bridging. My house has 80mm deep exterior stud framing. If I'm going to upgrade to a passiv haus. I'm looking at a full rebuild of the interior stud wall framing as well as the exterior rendered concrete blockwork in order to accommodate 300mm of wall insulation. It's simply not possible to retrofit my house to that standard without writing off most of that investment. Indeed it's probably cheaper to demolish my house completely and start again.
That's going to be the situation for most existing buildings. Cost effective retrofit Passiv Haus in most instances means a complete scrap and rebuild of the property. You can go so far with insulation in the existing building fabric, but you still need a heating system to make up the shortfall.
The major problem you have is with the housing market. A well insulated house simply doesn't fetch enough of a price premium to pay for the investment that you make into passiv haus grade insulation. I've seen plenty of properties on the market the same size and price, but with wildly different EPC ratings. People just don't seem to care about building performance.
If you want to introduce Passiv Haus as a viable retrofit concept, I think it's not enough to think about energy cost savings along. You most likely need to introduce taxation - probably along the lines of a Council Tax surcharge for inefficient buildings, and a discount for efficient buildings. Also a subsidy would need to be introduced so that poor households can upgrade their property without being penalised.
@@anthonydyer3939
The UK has the oldest and least insulated buildings in western Europe. There is scope to improve on the poor carbon footprint by demolition and rebuilding.
As you highlighted there is scope to improve, but a cut off point of no return. You can insulate, and stop air leaks, as much as possible, which will make a difference in heating bills, meaning a cut down heating system.
You are right. A tax on inefficient buildings is the answer. That will spark some of it off.
But why do we have these old buildings still hanging around? Relaxed planning laws and a full Land Value Tax, no taxation on the buildings, only the _values_ of the land - that will shift matters quickly.
Most all European boiler manufacturers have diversified into heat pumps and district heating, at their own expense. I think that says all we need to know about the viability of Hydrogen boilers. In fairness though, I think maybe the primary goal of putting hydrogen into home heating is to provide a large, but most likely temporary market use, for growing the production infrastructure for hydrogen. Once hydrogen production and distribution gets more established it will be far more useful to use it in more difficult to decarbonise applications like long distance road freight and backup generation for renewables on the power grid.
Since burning hydrogen creates water vapor, it's a built in humidifier for your home :)
good information
Interesting as always
Nuclear power is truly clean energy. New safty minded reactor designs are available. Nuclear power will be a viable option as we seek a permanent clean energy paradym. It buys us time.
only if you build it , what is the lead time to build ?
One advantage of H2 is does not need a heat exchanger or flue gas. No CO cabon monoxide production. Just burn it to make heat and water vapor.
Ultraviolet and infrared sensors were developed and miniaturized a long time ago. I deal with burners every day in my 40 year career. The only reason we don’t use hydrogen in our everyday life is that it takes too much energy to produce sufficient amounts and to much time to generate the amount needed
I don't understand, why use dirty energy to make less energy that is clean. Renewable energy is the only one that does what the planet needs.
In most situations storage in batteries will be dominant, but for weight sensitive applications the inefficiency of the H2 cycle would be an acceptable trade off. For airlines it might be the only solution, but the inefficiencies might make high speed trains more attractive than airlines.
Hybrid configurations for residential (Solar, Flow Battery, and fuel cell) will be the future. Fuel cells will either be Solid Oxide (use 1/5th of the gas of combustible engines), using propane or natural gas, OR will be hydrogen based using a Natural Gas Reformer OR hydrogen with solar hydrogen panels. The cheapest power will always be the grid and solar but as EVs are added to the grid, you might just be presented with daily caps or higher rates as the old grid can't deliver your car's daily recharge. Decentralized generation will drive the need for this hybrid configuration. Also, solar panels are being developed to produce hydrogen gas and this might make the use of a hydrogen fuel cell less costly as part of a residential hybrid. Scale always brings prices down, so, they will probably be part of a subscription service to make them affordable to home owners.
Proton Exchange Membrane electrolysis and hydrogen fuel cells can make a possible "battery" that is less efficient than lithium ion but it is built from more affordable materials and can cost less than the battery for energy storage.
I think hydrogen should be used for long term energy storage at grid level. Meaning that excess wind and solar energy is converted into hydrogen, stored in salt caverns or other large structures and converted back to electricity when needed. This could stabilise the grid between summer and winter even and really allow much more wind and solar power to be used. For stabilising the grid between noon and evening (flow) batteries can be used. Then no hydrogen household inftastructure is needed.
Hi Rene. Sounds like you are agreeing with my previous video then?
Yes, very much so! My compliments to your video's. Hope this is noticed by as many people as possible. I still hear many people talk about hydrogen as if it is an energy source, instead of a way to store energy.
I think the manufacture of gas hobs and ovens should be gradually phased out. Induction electric hobs are more efficient and heat up items placed on them quicker than does gas. It is more of a problem for gas boilers and home heating. I've often wondered whether such boilers could use a catalyst for producing heat, rather like the old SuperSer heater option of the 70s and whether such a catalyst would work for hydrogen.
One word: "explosive."
All of this deviously ignores the biggest CO2 polluter: JET AIRCRAFT. We are being made to subsidise military and civil jets, because we need to avoid hypothermia.
Pinhole leak + a couple hours for gas to expand + slightest spark = residential neighborhood gone......
If only there would be somebody who makes hydrogen power cells for homes
Interesting, and I suspect that the storage value of hydrogen is under-valued. It means that hydrogen production can make use of cheap electricity, when renewables are generating a surplus. Thus, the low physical efficiency is partially compensated at times of high economic efficiency.
The report is out of date, Lithium Battery storage is cheaper as massively more efficient than Hydrogen creation and storage.
The transportation issue could be solved by local smaller size production centres, then the cost of transportation will go to minimum levels almost uneffecting the overall efficiency. You could also have the production of hydrogen on demand in small quantities and the boilers could be installed in a stateless steal compartment so if there is an explosion, no harm will be done. Also technology to improve prevention and early detection of any leaks etc could be improved and AI could be used too.
Can you imagine, if the whole of Almeria Spain replaced their plastic green houses and put up millions of Solar panels and put in thousands of Wind turbines, it wouldn't matter if producing Hydrogen is only 60% efficient, as the electricity would be free, only the cost of replacing the green houses and building costs would be a one off event. Then start looking at the coasts of Africa etc etc. Hydrogen could be produced on a large enough scale to be practical.
There is a problem with hydrogen containment. Being very reactive gas can corrode metal that LPG will not touch. The other issue is seals because it to much smaller molecule, seals have to have stricter tolerances
possible ways to make H2 more efficient and practical:
(1) onsite production, such as from solar cells or even direct photolysis, avoiding transport losses
(2) recover energy of compression with turbines (easier at fixed points of use)
(3) store in underground caverns, at or near 1 bar (to avoid compression losses)
(4) use in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) (possibly in fixed installations, or very large vehicles such as ships)
Note that some combinations are mutually exclusive.
All in all, I still think it's a stretch. There are no doubt some niches, but I don't see space heating being one of them. I have a much easier time seeing a ground source heat pump in Finland running from solar energy carried through an HVDC smart grid from, say, Egypt. We're good at grids, and getting better.
Precisely Ronald! No running cost when you use sunlight to make hydrogen from water.
@@Energy-Americas So that makes it free, right? Come on, I think you totally missed the point. Hydrogen is not an efficient option at all.
Hi, I have just watched a SkillBuilder video on TH-cam where "hydrogen ready boilers are available and on test in Newcastle. Please take a look-real down to earth stuff!
The costs per mile of the ionide battery or hydrogen fuel cells are exclusive of fuel duty which is very high in the uk and one day will need to be transferred from diesel and petrol to other fuel sources.
I don't hate natural gas; it's fairly clean, cheap, plentiful, and flexible, and we have a whole infrastructure already built. It might be reasonable to reform hydrogen out of natural gas (using solar and wind) and return that natural gas to the ground but add the hydrogen to DIFFERENT natural gas in the delivery pipeline, creating a higher-energy, cleaner-burning fuel for homes and factories that wouldn't require retrofitting burners. Perhaps the "dirtier" natural gas could even be used in shipping, supplanting some of the awful #6 fuel oil. Eventually, it's clean renewables and batteries all the way, but this could reduce carbon emissions until we get there.
Seriously, a hydrogen boiler (incl. production of H2, transport and storage) would probably have around 50% of the efficiency of electrical heating. It would be much more efficient to store hydrogen at large power plants and use it when necessary and then distribute the electricity. Hydrogen for small homes is almost as inefficient as fossil fuels, which we want to get rid of.
In 1967 a union gas rep came into talk to our science class and said how hydrogen was our future and every house would soon be powered by a fuel cell and that would stop the nitrous oxide and Co2 from driving us into another Ice age! What happened?
They need to allow us to place 60/ 70 ft wind turbines in the garden for winter and solar for summer.
My main concern with hydrogen is the quality of the gas network. Given how much more explosive hydrogen is over natural gas it would present a significantly increased risk both where network issues occur but also in the home where appliance failures or even carelessness occurs. I would personally keep hydrogen in the industrial sector only where it is far easier to regulate and manage.
That may indeed be how it ultimately transpires. We shall see.
Natural gas is going up in price all the time where as hydrogen will start to come down
This is what people need to know when they choose there investment the coming years. And there is a lot of near time decisions to be made when it comes to transports and heating. The part that will solve this is cheap batteries in a smart grid. Like V2G.
The match was on when hydrogen met oxygen on the field. The final score was 2 to 1, when the game was called off from rain.🌞💧
None of the options are silver bullets. Electrification is a major issue as the network is so old. I took a call recently where cables were breaking down. The engineer informed me that supply cables had been installed in the 1950s and this was common. Electric boilers are extremely expensive to run. Electricity is 5 times higher per kw. Hydrogen would use electrolysis of water. Water availability worldwide is an issue. Gas mix is the idea to start with. Hydrogen causes metal to become brittle. An issue with leaks. No one has suggested reducing travel. None of us want to drive to work. So time to stop. Lots of issues with all.
Don't be fooled by individual numbers. A 75% efficient all electric vehicle still has to get its electricity from the grid mainly which is still only 50-55% overall efficient when the renewables mix is taken into account. 75% of 55% is ~41% which is still around the overall efficiency of an ICE!
Claiming that people would use solar PV to charge their car means they can't use that amount of solar energy to power their homes and STILL doesn't cater for the heating element. We have a VERY long way to go!
Hi I have a ASHP ditched gas boiler best thing I ever done have solar panels as well. What you fail to highlight that we don't need hydrogen boilers for new homes. We need ASHP installed the difference being that new homes need to be super well insulated to a passive standard. We could be talking about hydrogen boiler like we do with hydrogen cars la la land comes to mind. The problem we have in the UK as the tories are in the back pocket to the oil and companies and housing companies. Passive home can be easily achieved but the willingness is not there
How about the in-line reforming of methane, propane or butane (i.e. natural gas or camping gas) in a fuel cell system, which would allow existing infrastructure to be used and make for far more fficient use of hydrocarbon fuels than combustion? It wouldn't really be feasible for polymer fuel cell stacks, but is viable for SOFCs.
once again we are looking at energy production and not energy conservation ie insulating houses. I can remember we never had central heating in our house just one coal fire providing heat and hot water and I would argue we are more healthier for it
Healthier maybe, except for the respiratory problems caused by coal smoke.
A trial is needed to look at the issues of using the current gas infrastructure for hydrogen to the home. My preference is hydrogen. Whatever I end up with, I will not have a noisy fan outside my house. Nor do I want to hear my neighbours air source heat pump. Price all that matters long term to me, the greenification will happen, not likely net zero by 2050, but well on the way.
Good video, I particularly like the inclusion of the slide at 10:10. There are lots of videos that discus converting to a 100% hydrogen network but I have yet to fine a single one, except this one, that mentioned the challenges in utilization that will/would have to resolved. Flame speed and limits of flammability are two issues that I remember from the town gas days, and the problem of flame liftoff on the early natural gas conversion designs. I have raised this issue in various comments on other presentations but none have been answered, I wonder how many actually understand the problems. The 3rd and probably most important for the UK at least is the capacity of the distribution networks and domestic internal pipework. Hydrogen has a calorific value by volume of around a third of that of natural gas meaning the pipework would need to have the ability to pass 3 times the volume than it does for natural gas which I simply don't see as feasible without huge disruption and cost let alone the time and manpower to carry it out. Significant pressure increases to offset this I would suggest are out of the question. I accept that various technologies and large scale insulation of buildings would help reduce demand but I cannot see any simple way of squaring this circle.
Ok, this is crazy! It takes energy (some stored and some wasted) to make H2. To heat a house you need dirty energy = heat. The best way is to use the energy of the sun directly. If there is little sun, then use the visible light to make PV electricity and heat the house with a thermal resistor. Not waste time/money(energy) to make H2
A VERY IMPORTANT POINT-- It is my understanding that by far the worst green house gas is Water Vapour ( please research and confirm this). If that is so, it makes no sense to burn hydrogen in lieu of Methane does it. Burning hydrogen actually makes heating of the world more worst than burning just Methane?
Electricity is the way to go, maybe hydrogen can be used as grid scale storage.
For day/night balancing are LiFePo4 batteries far superior. Just ordered 280 Ah celss for only US$ 75 each. Summer / winter balancing is nothing for decentral.
Here is a big power to methane system, huge underground gas storage and CCPP the solution. Heating with hydrogen, what a waste.
Heat with heat pumps where the power comes from sun, wind or stored energy from last summer by power to methane, huge underground storage and CCPP
Gosh. So many hurdles to get hydrogen to work. If there can be some way to manufacture hydrogen locally and in a carbon neutral manner, it indeed could be part of the solution. However, if it needs to be transported, the inefficiencies pike up too quickly.
Only a small portion of the CO2 from the CO4 used in steam methane reforming can be captured. The CO2 from the CH4 used to create the steam is not economically captured.
Use nuclear ( using heat or electrolysis) and solar and wind ( electrolysis) to make hydrogen while electric demand is low. Use that hydrogen to power electric stations to top up peak demand rather than carbon emitting natural gas.
Its all about money.... the government its in control and start to fill like a dictator not democratic ....
Another informative video. The stat that 50% of total UK energy use is for heating is a real eye-opener. It highlights the massive importance of upgrading the insulation of existing buildings.
That figure is somewhat skewed by Britain's industrial collapse. A lot of the energy consumption attributable to the people of the UK now takes place in Asia, where so much of the energy intensive manufacture for UK consumers now occurs. This has increased the percentage of energy consumed within the UK for space heating faster than improving insulation standards for buildings have made it fall.
@Marc Jackson The actual charging of a lithium ion battery at modest charge rates is about 99% efficient, up to the point where it is nearly full. If you want to charge really fast, the efficiency drops, due to ohmic losses in the internal resistance of the battery. Much of the loss you see in real world applications is actually in the charging control circuitry. There are choices there. For low power chargers people usually choose cheap and not very efficient. For high power ones people can get the losses quite low, but it makes the hardware more expensive.
@Marc Jackson Where do you find a "science figure" that says the battery itself achieves only 90% charging efficiency as modest charge rates? Most batteries charge at 90% efficiency overall, with the charge electronics dissipating most of the heat. If you spend more on the controller you can reduces those losses. I've developed charge control for some simple lithium ion battery setups, and the losses in the cells themselves are impressively small.
@Marc Jackson Now you are changing the topic. Charge discharge efficiency is not 99%. That has two losses chained together. The charge efficiency is not 99% all the way to full, either. I did specifically say charge efficiency was 99% up to nearly full. The exact definition of "nearly" varies from cell type to cell type. 99% charge efficiency, which you can measure using a calorimeter and an electrical energy meter (because all the input energy either ends up stored or as heat), is what you get at modest charge rates (i.e. low enough to keep the ohmic losses to a small fraction of a percent), over a large central section of the charge curve.
But it cannot be done
Just a matter of time before we have home device for pumping hydrogen into your car. Hope I live long enough for this . Keep thinking ; "outside the box "!
hydrogen should at current technology efficiencies be used for storing the excess production from sustainable sources that currently is lost due to insufficient battery storage or usage at time of production. other than that seems like the sun and the wind have a lot of potential to give us still before we need other solutions for sure, hydro especially if able to compete productivity wise without damaging environments as it currently does all too often (blocking fish migrations etc)
Considering the 'one off' cost of insulating properties to be far more efficient would surely be a profoundly better option regardless of the fuel source for heating. Drastically reducing demand drastically reduces the o going costs.
Thinking along the lines of passive house standards. Cost of the house would raise but heating is way down.
What about the Australian group saying they can now solidify hydrogen
Heat Pumps successful ONLY in the summer, I hear
I think Texas shows the electric boiler is a bad backup system.
If the climate alarmists are right we won't need to heat our homes.
Recent weather in Texas? It's a climate emergency, not a comfortable change.
Being able to heat homes or other spaces in a highly environmentally safe way is critical, not just to the environment, but to national stability and defense.
You're full of shit @Simon Canfer! There are no climate alarmists, just realists. If anything, there is more evidence that the scientists have been downplaying the severity of climate change in order to placate occult levels of anti-science, extreme inequality/classism worship.
Clearly, they failed.
I thought we'd all be driving hydrogen cars 10 years ago.
@@otto-xl2xz yeah, it was mostly hype. a lack of political will killed those investments. hydrogen for stationary power is much more viable.
So after all this time... you STILL don't understand what climate change means... That would have to be wilful ignorance then.
The more I research hydrogen the more I am lead to centralised water located electrical generation fed by hydrogen created by off-peak renewables and maximised load nuclear. I love the idea of electrified HGV not unlike the old trams. Home heating via renewable fed electricity to air source heat pumps with renewable electric on peak top up.Finally the big one, cars. This serviced by compressed hydrogen carried not unlike propane tanks. The physics of this is two 48" x 18" compressed hydrogen tanks would give a converted engine a usable distance if 650 mile's between tank changes. Note I said tank changes instead of fills as this would be far safer.
we dont need greedy people controlling our energy resources, people are dying in there homes in winter and all they can think of is making a buck.
If we produced Hydrogen in a large number of places we could get to a place where it would be viable and
inexpensive and above all clean. To make hydrogen we would just need sunlight and saltwater and the
equipment. Hydrogen production could be sited near where it is used. Advances in graphene embedded
with hydrogen and more efficient perovskite solar cells would aid in having a generalized placement of
production facilities. Lithium-ion batteries will need to be replaced with solid state or and sodium batteries because lithium is rare. We can overcome inefficiencies the same way it is done today. Today power plants lose about 2%
of what they generate to transmission. Power grids cover large areas partly because people don't want
to live near one. Hydrogen production facilities would be clean so they could be sited nearer to where
they are used. Honey, I am going to pop out in the EV to get a couple of cans of "H" I'll be back soon.
Could start making it from the methane produced from landfilll and wastewater treatment etc. Then it could be used power hydrogen-fuelled garbage trucks :-).
www.energymagazine.com.au/hazer-water-corporation-sign-mou-for-hydrogen-production/
It cost to add characteristic odor in the gas for safety purpose. Hydrogen in ammonia form need no additive odor, it’s characteristic smell can wake up a fainted person and one who is sleeping.
As the North Sea gas continues to decline something is needed to take the place of natural gas heating during that week where the wind isn't blowing, there are only a few choices nuclear, biofuels or hydrogen.
Why not use "poor" efficiency at our advantage? CHP systems can essentially use part of energy twice. Hydrogen could be produced to stabilize the grid and store energy for winter. Then electricity produced by CHP could be used to supplement waste heat by using heatpump, computing, etc.
Combined with insulated, airtight houses, Passive heat gain in winter, air and water heat recovery systems, minimal surfice are with high delta t°, space efficient and functional indoor layout, thermal and house battery for flexible demand, smart, efficient appliances. With all that we get comfortable, low energy home.
PVT panels are an interesting technology :) Also it is important to make products open source, long lasting, low maintenance and easily serviceable, upgradable. Also we should also take in to account system complexity and cost
Some problems with hydrogen are: 1.a hot flame but low heat capacity. Anything with carbon has at least twelve times more energy. 2. open flame produces too much nitrous oxide which is bad for your health. 3. It is hard to contain because the molecule is so small almost everything is porous to it. Valves and pipes must be pricision made to contain it. Hydrogen can be converted to heat or to electricity and it can be stored in other different ways, like a heat release molecular sponge or something.
But California is banning natural gas connections in new construction. When it comes time to switch to Hydrogen, these home owners will be stuck having to pay huge remodel costs to add hydrogen service.
Surely, we shouldn't be using ANY volatile gas to heat our homes. The current system has resulted in a number of explosions. Use the hydrogen to generate electricity and heat homes with that electricity. After all, electricity is perfectly controllable and easy to transport anywhere. This appears, to me, to be perfectly logical.
Dave, today I learned elsewhere that burning hydrogen in air produces nitrous oxide as well as water. "Quite a lot" I was told. It's mentioned in your talk and in one of the comments here. How big a problem is it - how much NOX is produced per joule of heat produced? I hear that using hydrogen in a fuel cell does not produce NOX.
Hi Sue,
Yes, I think it's a product of hydrogen combustion rather than conversion to electricity in a fuel cell. I'm not sure about quantity but I do know that it's one of the arguments against hydrogen as an aviation fuel, because the NOx would be delivered directly into the high atmosphere. I must admit my enthusiasm for hydrogen has waned significantly since I made this video. Blue hydrogen is a disaster and even green hydrogen will be very expensive and incredibly energy inefficient to make using renewable energy. It will work only if we have a huge over supply of renewable energy that needs to be diverted into something useful rather than being curtailed.
Problem with lithium is cradle to grave. Hazardous material no disposal presently and we end up with situations like Venezuela (supply of lithium).
Have you even the tiniest idea of the explosive dangers with using hydrogen as a fuel ? It's MASSIVELY dangerous.
That's the elephant (or dirigible) in the room.
@@patrickleigh1523 Hydrogen safety is a serious issue. That's why its use is unlikely ever to be widespread in general applications. Because of the small molecule size, hydrogen escapes easily from most containment and pipelines and even damages materials. See hydrogen porosity and steel embrittlement.
The problem with hydrogen is hydrogen or the britallisation of metal and the extremely thin gas in a system that was developed for town gas and then natural gas. The Only answer I can see is thermal thorium fluoride with the high temperature one could manufacture a carbon based gas.
Isn't a fuel cell a better heating appliance to use rather then a hydrogen burner? Fuel cells are already developed for hydrogen use (i.e. no new technology to develop with tax money and incentives). Also maybe someone more knowledgeable about fuel cells than me can correct me but don't they also work with natural gas? So to solve the transition from natural gas to hydrogen people could switch space and domestic hot water heating to fuel cells and the other typical natural gas appliance (stoves) can be easily replaced with electric stoves.
Here in Canada we heat the air not boiling.
Missing from the anti-hydroid rant is recognition that the building heating peak is a multiple of electricity system capacity. Even after allowing for better insulation and heat pumps and distributed generation, heating all buildings with electricity would require much more investment serving a low load factor hence much higher hydro rates. And as for the efficiency of cars - does this matter so much when the source of energy is abundant free sunshine and wind? Fuelling cost is not necessarily the only feature some drivers care about - filling time, range and cold weather performance are others. And as for heavy duty, long distance trucking and shipping and aviation ... well I trust I don't need to spell out the shortcomings of batteries. for those duties And as for scaling up production of batteries using critical minerals, that's not a slam dunk as Just Have a Think has discussed. And as for hydrogen being a Trojan Horse for the evil fossil fuel industry ... look, I don't like having been lied to for 40 years any more than any of you; but, as Churchill said referring to Stalin he would be quite happy for the devil to help defeat the Nazis (or something like that) - let's not lose sight of the objective which is to stop global warming, it's not to to take revenge on the fossil fuel industry, as satisfying as that might be. As much as they can help, let it be.
Sunlight has vast energy. One KW per square meter. 100 KW falls on a typical home on a sunny day. Use it to make hydrogen. Efficiency does not matter. What am I missing?
mildenhall alone deposits 50 million tonnes of CO2 over britain every year, from multi-engined jets and tankers. US tankers travel in pairs !
The big problem I see with the ban on gas heaters is no Mater what we do under the daft notion of going green is we will be paying a lot more for heating, electric may be 100 efficient, but the cost per unit is currently 5 times more expensive to run. Minimum,. hydrogen transport over distance could never be transmitted the same way as the gas grid due to its smaller Element size. So will have to be combined with other gas methods such as silage recovery, what no one is tell you though is the hydrogen boilers will use a lot more gas than conventional boilers - see the eu hydrogen boilers there estimated compared to gas boilers often uses double to 3 times more gas so your great a rated boiler will now be a d rated boiler equivalent raising more gas bills I estimate somewhere in the reason of another 3-400 pounds more per year . Make no mistake this is a bad idea that will safeguard private companies profits and create the demand to make Hinckley b profitable even with energy costs 3 times higher than alternative methods , this notion of 100 carbon Neutral when it’s already a low carbon system already will put more people in fuel poverty and do little to nothing globally, we would make more of a carbon difference growing and sourcing from the U.K. than importing from spain and Scandinavian countries not to mention safeguard U.K. jobs and innovation
Fracking is terrible poisons the water no no no.
The money men will always control the prices whatever the energy type
2020: UK goal to phase out greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
2050: UK goal to phase out greenhouse gas emissions by 2080
2080: UK runs out of gas and achieves its goal.
Just like fusion power, the horizon keeps receding.
The irony is that nuclear power could actually achieve the goal of clean power energy by 2040 but the only truly viable option is off the table by the party of science.
Clean energy is only made possible by the fossil fuel industry. As the price of gas increases, the price of building and producing clean energy will go up. By the time you cover the earth in enough windmills and solar panels to produce 50% of energy needs, 40% of it will have crumbled and need to be replaced. Try recycling huge windmills.
you are welcome
Vergeet niet dat je 40%energie verliest over de stroom kabels die door het land lopen
I Romberg when the uk switched from town gas to natural gas. Over a period of two years every home had to be inspected, decisions made on every installation to determine if each appliance could be modified and if so what material was required, or was it more economic to replace the unit. Then the kit was sent out to every household and a conversion date set. Then teams of engineers moved down the country switching every household and every installation. Conversion cost was funded by the government, so no one had to pay. The swap over went well, and every unit was successfully replace. So a major switchover is possible, and within a short time everyone had settled back and got on with it.
Of course it's being enthusiastically embraced by the UK government, it's one of the finest governments money can buy. The oil industry will continue to blag govt funds for hydrogen for a while but, ultimately, it can't compete economically.
Hi, I'm new to this channel and English english for that matter. What pray tell is blag ?
Bye the way, didn't we Americans do a great job in Texas. Collapsed energy grid !
@@cosmicrancher2169 Blag means scam, steal, cheat. It was a great job but hey, everything is big in Texas. loved the way the oil shill politicians immediately blamed renewables.
I was wondering when someone was going to get to it . Oil furnace replaced by hydrogen
I am already all the time thinking about all that waste energy we produce. Here I see how a heat pump is capable of using really low temperature heat and so why can't such a system be used to win energy back from all the waste energy??
As long as the heat pump uses an electric rod element for heating it is a worthless device.
It feels like there was an option missing here. If you are going to go to the trouble of transporting hydrogen around why not consider hydrogen fuel cells for heating homes? Use the heat generated by the cell, along with a heat pump powered by the cell to heat water or air for heating. Excess power goes into the general house supply, power wall or grid.
I feel that too. I know off one guy or company, he made his house off grid with only solar cells, battery for short term storage and hydrogen for long terms storage (through electrolizer and fuel cells). He recycled the heat from the fuel cells for heating and the electricity was running a heat pump. Check out Nilsson energy, nilssonenergy.com/