Hydrogen

[Anonymous]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 08/01/2023 16:51:13:

In the honourable rush to save the planet, I fear we may throw the baby out with the bathwater.

… at least that will reduce the population.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by hubertus fischer on 08/01/2023 19:37:01:

Due to the small size of the H2 molecule hydrogen diffuses through metals and also causes hydrogen embrittlement.

does this or did it cause leaks when mixed wih methane or carbonmonoxide (as in town gas) and also when its stored under pressure?

Hubertus

Yes, but it can be engineered safely enough by using metals not subject to embrittlement and by making the containers thicker.

An ordinary rubber balloon filled with Hydrogen leaks moderately quickly – a few hours. Despite being nearly as thin the gas bags used in WW1 Zeppelins leaked much less, but this was partly done by Aluminising a rubberised fabric creating a highly inflammable static hazard. It still nearly worked!

Thicker fireproof containers that don't have to be ultra-lightweight to lift an aircraft are much safer, and have been widely used by the Chemical Industry for over a century. Hydrogen may not be common in ordinary life, but it's storage and manipulation in bulk certainly isn't virgin territory.

Dave

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

On this topic members might be interested in looking up the continuing partnership between First Bus et al. in Aberdeen. A former coal depot/marshalling yard, houses the largest hydrogen refuelling facility in Europe.

Oh and an electricity sub-station, fit for a small town.

[JellyParticipant @jelly]

I used to live in sight of Sheffield's hydrogen fueling station built as a technology demonstrator for ITM power.

ITM have recently entered into a partnership with another company to build out Hydrogen refueling infrastructure in at least one, if not more than one country… So in turn they have now opened up a factory opposite Meadowhall by J34 of the M1, creating about 300-500 skilled jobs and apprenticeships.

From that perspective alone, Hydrogen has done a lot more for the economy round here than battery EV's (for now, we also have a battery manufacturing plant opening, and the UK's first home-grown battery recycling plant in final comissioning stages).

 

All of this is to say If people really care about UK engineering and the UK economy, they should be fully on-board with the Green Industrial Revolution, the UK is actually well placed to become a major force in a lot of these technologies for the future, if the investment in capacity building now is forthcoming in a timely manner.

Oh and there's nothing novel or untested about hydrogen, evidenced the aforementioned wind-powered fuel station which has been running for 15 years… It's just an idea which is taking a long time to mature due to the high levels of capital investment needed.

Edited By Jelly on 09/01/2023 00:23:06

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Until we have oodles of cheap green electricity it's all academic. Most of the hydrogen produced in the world comes from steam stripping methane, which has an unfortunate by product, carbon dioxide, just as much as burning the methane direct would have done, probably more by the time you've added in conversion inefficiency. I've read somewhere that Germany is researching converting hydrogen to methane so it can be pumped into the existing gas mains. Sounds daft, but it is a possible interim way of storing energy, make the hydrogen in the middle of the night when the wind is blowing and you can't use the electricity elsewhere.

There is work being done here researching the conversion of methane into hydrogen and soot (which can be stored away easily). Lets hope they get it working, and that politicians the world over et on with building wind turbines and nukes for when the wind isn't blowing

[Clive IndiaParticipant @cliveindia]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 08/01/2023 15:10:35:

Rhubarb

Electricity produced by Green methods is dirt cheap, the problem being it depends on the weather. So it has to be stored in some way.

Even more Rhubarb

Dave

I don't think so – the main methods currently proliferating do though.

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by hubertus fischer on 08/01/2023 19:37:01:

Due to the small size of the H2 molecule hydrogen diffuses through metals and also causes hydrogen embrittlement.

does this or did it cause leaks when mixed wih methane or carbonmonoxide (as in town gas) and also when its stored under pressure?

Hubertus

This occurred to me when I heard that some new CH boilers are “Hydrogen Ready”. I believe this means the burner can be adjusted or replaced so it can run on a percentage of Hydrogen mixed with Methane. I don’t see the point but I understand boiler manufacturers hedging their bets to stay in business. Thanks to a certain person in Russia the trend now seems to be to move away from such a high dependence on this fuel.

[SteviegtrParticipant @steviegtr]

Has anyone thrown synthetic fuel into this yet. F1 seem to have it now. Or is that just as dirty .

Steve.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2023 09:51:35:

Posted by hubertus fischer on 08/01/2023 19:37:01:

Due to the small size of the H2 molecule hydrogen diffuses through metals and also causes hydrogen embrittlement.

does this or did it cause leaks when mixed wih methane or carbonmonoxide (as in town gas) and also when its stored under pressure?

Hubertus

This occurred to me when I heard that some new CH boilers are “Hydrogen Ready”. I believe this means the burner can be adjusted or replaced so it can run on a percentage of Hydrogen mixed with Methane. I don’t see the point but I understand boiler manufacturers hedging their bets to stay in business. Thanks to a certain person in Russia the trend now seems to be to move away from such a high dependence on this fuel.

The point is the lower Carbon emission with a portion of the heat coming from H2.

regards Martin

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Clive India on 09/01/2023 09:28:14:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 08/01/2023 15:10:35:

Rhubarb

Electricity produced by Green methods is dirt cheap, the problem being it depends on the weather. So it has to be stored in some way.

Even more Rhubarb

Dave

I don't think so – the main methods currently proliferating do though.

.

Clive

For the benefit of readers … could you please not insert comments within what purports to be a quotation.

Thanks

MichaelG.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

"If I'd asked people what they wanted, they'd have told me 'A faster horse'." — Henry Ford

Some things never change.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

The 660MW alternators in the power stations are cooled by pure hydrogen , because it has a coefficient of heat

transfer 2000 times that of air, as I remember.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by J Hancock on 09/01/2023 10:54:06:

The 660MW alternators in the power stations are cooled by pure hydrogen , because it has a coefficient of heat

transfer 2000 times that of air, as I remember.

With rather unfortunate results sometimes

Although this one (Callide power station, Australia) appears to have blown the turbine end, reportedly after the HP blades flung off and pierced the casing, causing a hydrogen explosion. The official report has not yet been released so still relying on gobbledygook from journalists how know nothing about it.

But apparently they lost the 12 volt power supply to the control system, which shut down the turbine by default in failsafe mode, closing off the steam valves and shutting down the bearing lube pump etc. But the breaker connecting the generator to the grid failed to drop out, so the generator started to act like a giant electric motor and spin the turbine up until it overspeeded, flung the blades and set off the hydrogen used presumeably for bearing cooling or perhaps even gas bearings themselves. Luckily they cleared the building before it went off. Turbine blades were found some hundreds of metres away.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Clive India on 09/01/2023 09:28:14:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 08/01/2023 15:10:35:

Rhubarb

Electricity produced by Green methods is dirt cheap, the problem being it depends on the weather. So it has to be stored in some way.

Even more Rhubarb

…

…

Not sure why the idea Green electricity could be cheap is surprising!

When coal was first exploited it was expensive compared with wood. Digging coal out of the ground and transporting it around the country by packhorse was daft compared with firewood from the forest. Didn't last! England was heavily forested, but our forefathers chopped most it down, needing land for farming, and wood for construction, heating, and charcoal for iron and steel. A huge energy crisis developed during the 18th century as the country ran out of wood, and coal saved the day.

Not cheap or easy. Not much UK coal was near the surface. Expensive shafts had to be dug below the water table, requiring costly horses to lift large quantities of water and waste. Coal itself is heavy, making it costly to distribute to customers, because everything needed animal muscle at a top speed of 2mph.

The high cost of distributing coal was solved by building a large canal network. Seriously difficult at the time and the engineering cost more than most countries earned, leading to major advances in finance and understanding how to organise enormous infrastructure projects. Many other side benefits, because the system allowed other goods to be transported cheaply around the country. Canals cost a lot of time and money to set up, but once up and running they paid for themselves.

Canals didn't solve the problem of lifting coal and water above ground, so our ancestors tackled that too, inventing steam pumps, steam winches, and steam locomotives. All hugely expensive at the time, but the money encouraged other industries to do better. Iron makers switched from Charcoal to Coke, and the price of metal to dropped sharply. Everyone profited by selling more.

Steam locomotion led to the railways, another gigantically expensive infrastructure investment, and these created even more wealth, and made us mobile.

We call this period the Industrial Revolution because it completely changed how we live. In the 1841 Census, the largest single occupation is Agricultural Labourer. The 1851 Census shows massive numbers left farming for many new occupations in the cities. British society changed radically in the 19th Century, and the rest of the world followed. Disbelieving similar scale change is possible is a failure of imagination.

Back then, newspapers, diaries, sermons and parliamentary debates all show strong resistance to these changes. Small c conservatives in droves found it necessary to explain that changes wouldn't work, where too expensive, would ruin society, were godless, or any other objection they could imagine.

In the main, they were wrong! Although a few lost out, and change is always unpleasant, most people prospered.

The same is true today. Resource shortages challenge the way we do things, and so does knowing human activity is changing the atmosphere enough to cause climate change. The consequences of are very severe, for example triggering mass migrations all around the planet. The current problem is tiny in comparison.

It's true that switching to new energy sources requires heavy investment, and other changes, but there's nothing new in that. The Victorians changed the world; so can we. Making progress requires us to accept that old ways aren't the only answer. Also know that although new technology starts out by being expensive and unreliable, that doesn't last. As technology develops, prices drop whilst reliability rises. Everything from cars to computers via TV sets! Colour TV was once an expensive luxury, now a mobile phone does TV as an afterthought. Vision by telephone was impossible when I was 40, but new technology changed everything.

Exactly the same arc with Green Electricity. Twenty years ago it was heavily subsidised, made an insignificant contribution to the grid, and didn't impress.

Pay attention at the back! Time marches on. About 30% of UK electricity now comes from Green sources, and the figure is rising. Cheap too: once built and connected (both pricey), maintenance costs are low and the fuel is free. The only disadvantage is wind and sun depend on the weather.

Meanwhile, the price of coal and oil are rising as demand exceeds supply. Not cheap either; new oil rigs cost billions, and then coal and oil have to be shipped to us. That fossil fuel costs are going to rise sharply over the next 20 years is very obvious. That alone is forcing change on us. Hoping it won't happen doesn't help! It's 2022, not 1955.

Anyway, rhubarb is good for us. It clears ill-humours by unblocked our nethers! Not sure rhubarb fixes constipated imaginations though. Shocking though it may seem, our successors don't have to rely on grandad's opinions. Just as well, because the future brings different problems.

Dave

[Clive IndiaParticipant @cliveindia]

Thank you for that.
Someone on here said the likelihood of a thread being read is inversely proportional to length – can't be true surely?

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by Steviegtr on 09/01/2023 09:53:14:

Has anyone thrown synthetic fuel into this yet. F1 seem to have it now. Or is that just as dirty .

Steve.

Do a Google. I read just the other day that it’s just as bad. It seems to be a last ditch attempt by a couple of German car manufacturers to continue making combustion engines. I stand to be corrected but I thought the only thing you can burn cleanly is Hydrogen gas?

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2023 17:15:47:

Posted by Steviegtr on 09/01/2023 09:53:14:

Has anyone thrown synthetic fuel into this yet. F1 seem to have it now. Or is that just as dirty .

Steve.

Do a Google. I read just the other day that it’s just as bad. It seems to be a last ditch attempt by a couple of German car manufacturers to continue making combustion engines. I stand to be corrected but I thought the only thing you can burn cleanly is Hydrogen gas?

I believe synthetic fuels are hydrogen carbons produced from coal. About twenty years ago a South African firm produced a fuel that met the aviation kerosene specification. The process was a development of a German wartime process.

Hydrogen is the only useful clean burning fuel. There are others, Ammonia has a low heat release while Hydrazine is far too dangerous.

JA

That is excluding metals as fuels. I do not know what a Magnesium burning engine would look like.

Edited By JA on 09/01/2023 18:17:39

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

If you produce ethanol from biomass it should be nett zero carbon. It will emit CO2 from the tailpipe, but the plants from which it was made absorbed it in the first place. Unfortunately ethanol has a lower calorific value than petrol.

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by JA on 09/01/2023 18:12:02:

I believe synthetic fuels are hydrogen carbons produced from coal. About twenty years ago a South African firm produced a fuel that met the aviation kerosene specification. The process was a development of a German wartime process.

Hydrogen is the only useful clean burning fuel. There are others, Ammonia has a low heat release while Hydrazine is far too dangerous.

JA

That is excluding metals as fuels. I do not know what a Magnesium burning engine would look like.

Edited By JA on 09/01/2023 18:17:39

I seem to remember the Germans made fuel from coal during the Second World War. I believe the octane value at the time was not as high as the fuel used by the allies though. Germany has large coal reserves so it’s understandable they want to burn it one way or another. Now if someone invents a coal battery they’re made!

That last bit was a joke by the way.

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Posted by Steviegtr on 09/01/2023 09:53:14:

Has anyone thrown synthetic fuel into this yet. F1 seem to have it now. Or is that just as dirty .

Steve.

Sort of, see my post on P1 of this thread; 08/01/2023 15:59:28

What is HVO made from?
PeakHVO is synthetically made through the hydrotreatment process from vegetable oils, grease waste or residue from food industry and agriculture. These 100% renewable raw materials can be regrown when stock is needed, making it a sustainable fuel.

http://www.peakhvo.co.uk/faqs

The only trouble for me was the price per litre of 40p over their normal premium diesel.

Bill

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by JA on 09/01/2023 18:12:02:

[…]

Hydrogen is the only useful clean burning fuel. There are others […]

.

… and yet; current thinking doesn’t quite class it as a fuel

**LINK**

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/hydrogen-and-fuel-cells_en

… if I understand EU-speak correctly

MichaelG.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by duncan webster on 09/01/2023 18:25:01:

If you produce ethanol from biomass it should be nett zero carbon. It will emit CO2 from the tailpipe, but the plants from which it was made absorbed it in the first place. Unfortunately ethanol has a lower calorific value than petrol.

Except you have cut down the plants that were absorbing the CO2 and now have to wait some months or in the case of forests, years, for the next crop to regrow to meet the same capacity to absorb C02. Hard to see how it is net zero in that period?

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2023 18:30:32:

…

I seem to remember the Germans made fuel from coal during the Second World War. I believe the octane value at the time was not as high as the fuel used by the allies though. Germany has large coal reserves so it’s understandable they want to burn it one way or another. Now if someone invents a coal battery they’re made!

That last bit was a joke by the way.

Not as much of a joke as one may think! They are working on making batteries from wood, well from lignin extracted from wood. This just popped up on the BBC **LINK**

But will they end up clearcutting the forests to make batteries for clean green electric cars?

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Hopper on 09/01/2023 22:22:40:

Posted by duncan webster on 09/01/2023 18:25:01:

If you produce ethanol from biomass it should be nett zero carbon. It will emit CO2 from the tailpipe, but the plants from which it was made absorbed it in the first place. Unfortunately ethanol has a lower calorific value than petrol.

Except you have cut down the plants that were absorbing the CO2 and now have to wait some months or in the case of forests, years, for the next crop to regrow to meet the same capacity to absorb C02. Hard to see how it is net zero in that period?

You have to grow the crops before you cut them down, but it's a similar argument to burning biomass at Drax, which I think is a very silly idea. And if you're devoting large areas of land to growing crops to make bioethanol, where do you grow the crops to feed people. I didn't say it was a good idea! Using waste chip fat doesn't sound too bad, but I bet it doesn't scratch the surface of replacing fossil fuels.

Edited By duncan webster on 09/01/2023 23:48:39

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Drax to me seems a bit of a temporary gain in the mix. If you start from being entirely coal burning, moving to biomass helps in the short term by switching from historic to present carbon although the energy/carbon ratios need to be watched but the prior existence of all the generation and transmission infrastructure has to be factored in. Coal burning produces some of its energy from Hydrogen and some coals are better than others in this respect. The fly in the ointment, like everything, is the potential change in behaviour. You may start off burning waste wood from the timber industry but if there is money in it biologicals will be grown specifically for burning and with weak legislation that may take you down an unhelpful road. The problem remains of how you actually close down the facility when better solutions have come on line elsewhere. I’m sure Drax will fight like mad to stay alive.

I kind of agree with Duncan but it also ‘sort of depends’

regards Martin

[Author]

Posts