Hydrogen boilers

[nod]

I’ve been reading an article on the above that that say the government is likely to tweak there decision to get rid of gas boilers by 2035 and introduce hydrogen boilers that run on a 80-20 mix 80 being natural gas 

 

A local company to us (Baci) is developing a full range of hydrogen boilers 

This has got me thinking 

Would it be possible in the future for these boilers to run 50-50 or even better

[SteamyTea]

14 hours ago, nod said:

Would it be possible in the future for these boilers to run 50-50 or even better

A gas boiler could be converted to run on just about any fuel.

 

Hydrogen has some specific challenges that need to be overcome first:

 

Production in a zero carbon and energy efficient manner.  This is not easy as there will be many calls on power being generated, and until some catalyst made from unobtanium comes along, it is more efficient to just store thermal energy in bricks and water, like 7 million homes already do.

 

Transmission.  Natural gas is a large molecule that is fairly inert, so is easy to pump, pipe and store.  Hydrogen, at 101.3 kPa has a 0.01188 MJ.l^-1, Natural Gas, at the same pressure, has 0.0364 MJ.litre^-1.  So you have to pump more litres as the existing gas system cannot be run at a greater pressure than it already is.

 

Hydrogen Embrittlement.  Because hydrogen is a tiny molecule/atom that is reactive, it wants to attach to other molecules/atoms.  This can significantly change a material's properties.  So reliability could be a problem (though I am told gas boilers are pretty unreliable anyway, usually the control systems).

 

Cost.  Even the cheapest hydrogen is expensive, and then the CO₂ has to be captured and processed and put into long term storage (some real prices in this show https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0010qb7 )

 

It sounds a great idea, couple of wires into a bucket of water, tap of the gas from one electrode and put it into the gas grid.

 

If it was that easy, we would have done it decades ago.  Not as if we have just discovered hydrogen, been about since the second second of the universe's creation, well the middle bit was, the outer bit took 370,000 more years to combine with it.

[JohnMo]

When we had gas meter installed (June this year) the Scottish Gas installer spoke about a transition to mixed gas and our medium pressure gas main, which is due replacement, would be lined to cope with the mixed gas.

 

So likely to have a transition period across the country.  Reading between the lines "gas" boilers may be banned, but a "mixed gas" may not.  To run on mixed gas may just be a burner change and some bits.

 

[nod]

15 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

When we had gas meter installed (June this year) the Scottish Gas installer spoke about a transition to mixed gas and our medium pressure gas main, which is due replacement, would be lined to cope with the mixed gas.

 

So likely to have a transition period across the country.  Reading between the lines "gas" boilers may be banned, but a "mixed gas" may not.  To run on mixed gas may just be a burner change and some bits.

 

That’s exactly what I’m reading into it 

In 2035 the government of the day saying yes we have banned gas boilers 

But not gas/Hydrogen boilers 

I wondered why BG are laying miles of new GAS mains ?

[IanR]

20% hydrogen can be run into standard boilers without any changes. Green hydrogen at 20% blended gives about a 7% reduction in CO2 due to the lower calorific value of Hydrogen.

 

The Gas industry is lobbying the government hard to get Hydrogen as an option for heating homes, without it the gas network asset they own has no value. Blended grey Hydrogen is being pushed as a stepping stone to, blended blue hydrogen (made from gas but with CCUS), and on to 100% green hydrogen (produced from electrolysis using renewables).

 

The lobbyists are pushing hard for a door to be left open for Hydrogen "ready" boilers. A recent unofficial press briefing is suggesting they've got their way. My view is this is a disaster for Net Zero by 2050 if they have.

 

Blue hydrogen is being mis-sold and over-promised by the gas industry. The process releases more climate change gasses than burning natural gas directly, when you include the fugitive methane released.

 

Heating your home with green Hydrogen would require 6 times more renewable energy than heating it with a HP. We will struggle to build the amount of renewables required to achieve Net Zero by 2050, without needing 6 times more of them for the heat in buildings part of the equation.

(Unless the Unobtainium catalyst is discovered mentioned by @SteamyTea)

 

Green Hydrogen is definitely needed, to replace the 70,000,000 tonnes of grey hydrogen current produced plus de-carbonising the industries that are hard to electrify. Unless there is a breakthrough in green hydrogen research that significantly reduces that amount of energy it takes to produce it, its going to struggle to replace the existing uses for hydrogen, let a lone find new uses.

 

If a door is left open for hydrogen ready boilers, in the hope of a research breakthrough, there's going to be a very low take up of ASHPs in the existing housing stock, and ASHPs are the only current clean technology that can get close to the the day-to-day running costs of a gas boiler.

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by IanR

[SteamyTea]

@IanR

I have to agree with you.

 

Not sure how we are going to get the message across, hopefully the economic argument will do it, though this nation has a bit of history of making itself poorer.

[Gone West]

Well glory be. There's obviously no problem for heating in the future, with HVO heating oil and hydrogen gas we won't have to change much at all and the world's problems will be sorted without the need for ASHPs. Thank goodness we've got Boris. Got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Got out of bed the wrong side this morning

Got out of mine in the wrong county, Buckinghamshire.

[Ferdinand]

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

A gas boiler could be converted to run on just about any fuel.

Hydrogen has some specific challenges that need to be overcome first:

 

Production in a zero carbon and energy efficient manner.  This is not easy as there will be many calls on power being generated, and until some catalyst made from unobtanium comes along, it is more efficient to just store thermal energy in bricks and water, like 7 million homes already do.

 

Transmission.  Natural gas is a large molecule that is fairly inert, so is easy to pump, pipe and store.  Hydrogen, at 101.3 kPa has a 0.01188 MJ.l^-1, Natural Gas, at the same pressure, has 0.0364 MJ.litre^-1.  So you have to pump more litres as the existing gas system cannot be run at a greater pressure than it already is.

 

Hydrogen Embrittlement.  Because hydrogen is a tiny molecule/atom that is reactive, it wants to attach to other molecules/atoms.  This can significantly change a materials properties.  So reliability could be a problem (though I am told gas boilers are pretty unreliable anyway, usually the control systems).

 

Cost.  Even the cheapest hydrogen is expensive, and then the CO₂ has to be captured and processed and put into long term storage (some real prices in this show https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0010qb7 )

 

It sounds a great idea, couple of wires into a bucket of water, tap of the gas from one electrode and put it into the gas grid.

If it was that easy, we would have done it decades ago.  Not as if we have just discovered hydrogen, been about since the second second of the universes creation, well the middle bit was, the outer bit took 370,000 more years to combine with it.

 

The only thing I can find wrong with that is the missing apostrophe.

 

I guess the smart answer is more local distribution and ultimately some sort of fuel call :-). We need King Wenceslas, to gather our winter fooo-ooo-ools.

 

There's certainly been a propaganda campaign - with some Ozzie billionaire all over the media, not being asked any hard or penetrating questions.

 

How many solar panels do I need to make some?

 

@IanR a 7% reduction is neither here nor there, is it? 

 

Not sure what a comparator is in terms of say insulated houses.

F

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

missing apostrophe

If I could go back to the second second of the universe's creation, I would edit it.

But we are only given half an hour.

 

Richard Feynman was asked to explain his Nobel award winning research in 2 minutes.  He rightly pointed out that if he could do that it would not have been worth a Nobel.

[Ferdinand]

7 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

If I could go back to the second second of the universe's creation, I would edit it.

But we are only given half an hour.

 

Richard Feynman was asked to explain his Nobel award winning research in 2 minutes.  He rightly pointed out that if he could do that it would not have been worth a Nobel.

 

Indeed preserving missing apostrophes in the universe is one of the material's properties.

 

As is missing the other one by both of us ?.

[SteamyTea]

11 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

apostrophes in the universe is one of the material's properties

Unless you believe in the multiverse, then there will be ~26x⁵⁰⁰ of them, in any combination, including not having any.

[ProDave]

12 hours ago, IanR said:

The lobbyists are pushing hard for a door to be left open for Hydrogen "ready" boilers. A recent unofficial press briefing is suggesting they've got their way. My view is this is a disaster for Net Zero by 2050 if they have.

 

Blue hydrogen is being mis-sold and over-promised by the gas industry. The process releases more climate change gasses than burning natural gas directly, when you include the fugitive methane released.

 

Heating your home with green Hydrogen would require 6 times more renewable energy than heating it with a HP. We will struggle to build the amount of renewables required to achieve Net Zero by 2050, without needing 6 times more of them for the heat in buildings part of the equation.

(Unless the Unobtainium catalyst is discovered mentioned by @SteamyTea)

So standby for a load of greenwash and miss selling about "green" gas boilers.  Very much like the daft situation we have with Drax burning wood and claiming to be green.

[SteamyTea]

It don't help having to listen to Tony Blair on Broadcasting House this morning.

He may well be right, but I hate listening to him.

[Ferdinand]

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Unless you believe in the multiverse, then there will be ~26x⁵⁰⁰ of them, in any combination, including not having any.

 

It's easier not to.

 

[IanR]

37 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

@IanR a 7% reduction is neither here nor there, is it? 

 

Not if it were the stepping stone that created a secure hydrogen demand for investment into green hydrogen production, that brought about the Unobtanium discovery.

 

But, if we get to 2040, and Unobtanium has still not been discovered, meaning that a home heating system powered by 100% green hydrogen is still requires 6 times more renewable energy than one powered by a heat pump, then we'll have to do in 10 years, what we currently have 28 years to do, or more likely, we'll miss our 2050 commitments.

[Ferdinand]

1 minute ago, IanR said:

 

Not if it were the stepping stone that created a secure hydrogen demand for investment into green hydrogen production, that brought about the Unobtanium discovery.

 

But, if we get to 2040, and Unobtanium has still not been discovered, meaning that a home heating system powered by 100% green hydrogen is still requires 6 times more renewable energy than one powered by a heat pump, then we'll have to do in 10 years, what we currently have 28 years to do, or more likely, we'll miss our 2050 commitments.

 

Do we have a number for how much energy it currently takes to produce 1kWh's worth of hydrogen?

[IanR]

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Do we have a number for how much energy it currently takes to produce 1kWh's worth of hydrogen?

 

I believe that current commercially viable green hydrogen production requires 2 - 2.5 kWh of renewable energy to create 1kWh of hydrogen. 

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Do we have a number for how much energy it currently takes to produce 1kWh's worth of hydrogen?

 

About 70%.

But that is just the conversion, it does not include the water treatment, or compression.

 

I kg of hydrogen takes around 55 kWh of electricity, 1 kg of hydrogen has about 40 kWh of energy.

 

A lot of thermal energy is given off in the process.

 

A fuel cell has ~50% efficiency.

 

A lot of thermal energy is given off in the process.

 

So before compression, storage and transportation, around 35 to 40% efficient.

 

A Tesla Model 3 has a mass of 1850 kg.

A Toyota Mirai has a mass of 1950 kg.

Similar cars, except one is slower, more expensive, can't be easily refuelled and handles worse.

Edited October 24, 2021 by SteamyTea

[MikeSharp01]

7 minutes ago, IanR said:

I believe that current commercially viable green hydrogen production requires 2 - 2.5 kWh of renewable energy to create 1kWh of hydrogen. 

So it is not a very efficient way of storing renewable energy but round trip pumped storage is only 70-80% efficient.

[SimonD]

13 hours ago, nod said:

That’s exactly what I’m reading into it 

In 2035 the government of the day saying yes we have banned gas boilers 

But not gas/Hydrogen boilers 

I wondered why BG are laying miles of new GAS mains ?

 

I think everyone, including the government are just a bit confused right now. But the one part of the potential future energy mix being ignored for the most part, probably because it's smelly and not as attractive as shiny new bling tech is biogas. Lots of murmurings in that area and Norway's parliament has just voted for it to be included as an equal to hygrogen and electricity. It's buried in the recent government strategy too.

[MikeSharp01]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So before compression, storage and transportation, around 35 to 40% efficient.

Worse than I thought then.

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Worse than I thought then.

Yes.

There is a reason they are called hydrogen fool sells.

11 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

I think everyone, including the government are just a bit confused right now. But the one part of the potential future energy mix being ignored for the most part, probably because it's smelly and not as attractive as shiny new bling tech is biogas. Lots of murmurings in that area and Norway's parliament has just voted for it to be included as an equal to hygrogen and electricity. It's buried in the recent government strategy too.

Another example of people not understanding the science.

 

The simple answer to to ban combustion technology.  That would solve the atmospheric emissions problem.

Edited October 24, 2021 by SteamyTea

[SimonD]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Another example of people not understanding the science.

 

What, the confusion? Yes, totally! But as a mix in the total energy supply system it makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make sense, despite whatever science might say, is looking at one or two global solutions whereas the sensible option would be decentralised and localised solutions that also reduce transport load. There are plenty of regional options available already based on concentrations of activity and resource.

 

10 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So before compression, storage and transportation, around 35 to 40% efficient.

 

Yet if you were sitting on the other side of the table, looking at your current rubbish grid efficiency figures, you'd probably take it as a starter. Those kind of figures are only taking us back to better than what, early 1990s grid efficiency (?) but with a "green" label attached to it. With some technological improvement and tweaks over the next few years you might just hedge ahead of the current picture by a percentage or two. Even better.

 

Given that policy decisions are rarely made on the basis of efficiency alone, I suspect it may not be the highest on the agenda ? ??

 

However, there's also a question of which definition of efficiency you take and use. Looking at conversion efficiency is simply looking at it from a perspective of physics, yet when the whole world has got to transform its reliance on such a fundamental and dominant source of energy such as fossil fuels, the scale of which most of us can't even fathom, it isn't just the physics definition of efficiency that applies, but also efficiency from the perpective of total resource use for instance. We're currently deficient of widely available information as to the difference in total resource allocation and use of many of the proposed solutions. Much of the discussion just looks at point of use or conversion which tends to take everyone down a blind alley. ?

 

What I find particularly interesting about this whole discussion is that it almost entirely centres on climate change as an engineering or technological problem, which is culturally quite typical for countries like the UK and US. Climate change is just as much if not more a social and cultural problem, which is what is and has been hindering progress for so long and will continue to do so for quite some time. Heat pumps, hygrogen, gas, electricity, aren't the solution, people are. ?

 

To speak such filth, I shall now go and duck behind a wall ??

[MikeSharp01]

56 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Climate change is just as much if not more a social and cultural problem, which is what is and has been hindering progress for so long and will continue to do so for quite some time. Heat pumps, hygrogen, gas, electricity, aren't the solution, people are.

True but the thing that caused the problem was yesterday's technology - coupled of course to the knock on effects it had in terms of standards of living, and hence the ability to acquire 'stuff'. So people, perhaps wrongly, look to technology for solutions but of course it won't on its own - unless there is some humungous breakthrough somewhere but that in itself is likely to come from a technology route. (PS My definition of Technology is science AND engineering working together - the one being the exploiter of the other. I suppose we could link in social aspects as well but most of that will be science already EG behavioral science, and if you don't think behavioral engineering is not already happening then you need to get off social networks!)