Going Green isn’t easy

[Buckman]

In the 1980s I was involved with a Canadian advocate of Hydrogen, Dr Geoff Ballard, who set up Ballard Power Systems and his prime interest was in using hydrogen for transport power using fuel cells. Alternatively my main interest was the safe storage of hydrogen. I recall attending a demonstration where an incendiary bullet was fired in to a hydrogen storage vessel designed for a bus application. All we got was a brief puff of flame. Same when another round was shot into the container. This was because the hydrogen was stored in a metal hydride. Our application of interest was hydrogen generated at pressures up to 3000psi required to be stored prior to disposal, in parallel carbon dioxide had to be captured for disposal, whilst nitrogen partial pressure had to be maintained. To add further complexity carbon monoxide and freons had to be managed too. We certainly did not underestimate the potential of hydrogen to spoil your day.

They say you can throw a lit match into a petrol tank and it will go out due to no oxygen. The trick is getting the lit match into the tank without oxygen being in the vicinity. I am not willing to test the theory. LOL! 🤣

 

[ProfJohnL]

There are massive complications in attempting to use hydrogen for motive power and for distributed heating systems.

Presently there is no method by which hydrogen can be produced economically in the quantities that would be needed to cover all transport and heating needs in addition to the the present uses for hydrogen.

Even large scale electrolysis using green energy would mean expanding the numbers of solar and wind farms by a large factor. This is of course not impossible but there is no escaping the fact it uses more energy to produce hydrogen than can be extracted from the hydrogen. H2 may be the preferred fuel source in some places where other sources have their own difficulties but it will not be the majority energy source across the world, until there is a vastly cheaper and more efficient way to produce usable hydrogen.

There are other significant issues with the storage and distribution of H2. Hydrogen is the smallest and simplest atom we have discovered which is why it at number 1 in the periodic table. Hydrogen's molecule is 1/16 the size of a natural gas molecule, an as such it can squeeze though much smaller gaps than NG, making the containment of H2 a far more difficult process. It is estimated even the best containment is likely to lose 2% and the more typical commercial equipment often loses 10 to 20%.

Now consider the proposal to use the present natural gas distribution system in the UK to distribute commercial Hydrogen gas! The present NG system is estimated to lose up to 10% of the gas through put. If hydrogen were the gas the losses be massive, not to mention the safety implications. The gas pipe network would all need to be massively upgraded.

H2 Research and development is being carried out, but it is nowhere near a point where large scale H2 production and distribution could meet any significant portion of the UK or the worlds transport or space heating energy needs.

 

[Buckman]

There are massive complications in attempting to use hydrogen for motive power and for distributed heating systems.

Presently there is no method by which hydrogen can be produced economically in the quantities that would be needed to cover all transport and heating needs in addition to the the present uses for hydrogen.

Even large scale electrolysis using green energy would mean expanding the numbers of solar and wind farms by a large factor. This is of course not impossible but there is no escaping the fact it uses more energy to produce hydrogen than can be extracted from the hydrogen. H2 may be the preferred fuel source in some places where other sources have their own difficulties but it will not be the majority energy source across the world, until there is a vastly cheaper and more efficient way to produce usable hydrogen.

There are other significant issues with the storage and distribution of H2. Hydrogen is the smallest and simplest atom we have discovered which is why it at number 1 in the periodic table. Hydrogen's molecule is 1/16 the size of a natural gas molecule, an as such it can squeeze though much smaller gaps than NG, making the containment of H2 a far more difficult process. It is estimated even the best containment is likely to lose 2% and the more typical commercial equipment often loses 10 to 20%.

Now consider the proposal to use the present natural gas distribution system in the UK to distribute commercial Hydrogen gas! The present NG system is estimated to lose up to 10% of the gas through put. If hydrogen were the gas the losses be massive, not to mention the safety implications. The gas pipe network would all need to be massively upgraded.

H2 Research and development is being carried out, but it is nowhere near a point where large scale H2 production and distribution could meet any significant portion of the UK or the worlds transport or space heating energy needs.

The are huge pockets of natural hydrogen in the earth;s crust so no need to produce it. It just needs to be extracted. As mentioned earlier, we as the consumer are paying wind farms millions to shut down when excess energy is being produced.

I am wondering why some scientist cannot come up with a way so that excess wasted energy cannot be used for the electrolysis of hydrogen. It does not have to be on a massive scale requiring more wind farms etc. but maybe a way of storing energy when there is no wind or solar?

 

[otherclive]

The are huge pockets of natural hydrogen in the earth;s crust so no need to produce it. It just needs to be extracted. As mentioned earlier, we as the consumer are paying wind farms millions to shut down when excess energy is being produced.

I am wondering why some scientist cannot come up with a way so that excess wasted energy cannot be used for the electrolysis of hydrogen. It does not have to be on a massive scale requiring more wind farms etc. but maybe a way of storing energy when there is no wind or solar?

Have a read about The Orkney Hydrogen Initiative, it’s doing exactly what you propose. Nothing new, the technology is available but the economics and usage profiles need to match b

 

[GUMPY]

It will be cheaper and more efficient to put in transmission lines so the excess power from wind turbines can be shifted to where it's needed than it will be to develop plants to process Hydrogen. That's without starting on storage and transmission of hydrogen.

 

[otherclive]

It will be cheaper and more efficient to put in transmission lines so the excess power from wind turbines can be shifted to where it's needed than it will be to develop plants to process Hydrogen. That's without starting on storage and transmission of hydrogen.

I think most of us do realise the limitations of hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas. I wish I’d not mentioned it as my first (TIC) option now that my options to upgrade our existing vented gas system are seemingly so limited.

 

[GUMPY]

I'm changing tack with my new gas boiler and running it with a variable flow temperature controlled by the outside temperature. I set the required house temperature on the boiler and use the old thermostat as a maximum backstop.
This should result in the boiler running at lower power rather than flat out and remove the peaks and troughs* that you get with a high flow temperature stat system.
At present the flow temp is 38degC so we are down at heat pump temperatures but with oversized rads in the living area it's not a problem.


* All be it they were only about 1degC as the rads continued to heat the house after the stat had switched off.

 

[otherclive]

I'm changing tack with my new gas boiler and running it with a variable flow temperature controlled by the outside temperature. I set the required house temperature on the boiler and use the old thermostat as a maximum backstop.
This should result in the boiler running at lower power rather than flat out and remove the peaks and troughs* that you get with a high flow temperature stat system.
At present the flow temp is 38degC so we are down at heat pump temperatures but with oversized rads in the living area it's not a problem.


* All be it they were only about 1degC as the rads continued to heat the house after the stat had switched off.

I thought that weather compensation is featuring in many new boilers and some will even adjust based on internet weather data. Looks a beneficial feature.

 

[GUMPY]

I thought that weather compensation is featuring in many new boilers and some will even adjust based on internet weather data. Looks a beneficial feature.

I'm trying weather compensation as it means I don't need a new control system just a sensor outside on a north wall.
Open Therm requires a new control system, more expense.
Even before this because of Thermal Gain (south facing rear elevation) the heating seems to spend more time off than on.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The are huge pockets of natural hydrogen in the earth;s crust so no need to produce it. It just needs to be extracted. As mentioned earlier, we as the consumer are paying wind farms millions to shut down when excess energy is being produced...

Hydrogen has long been known as a cleaner fuel. If the hydrogen in the earth's crust was accessible, it might have been exploited long ago, rather than the oil. But the hydrogen is nowhere nearly as accessible. You also have to factor in the issues with extraction, containment and distribution, all of which I explained in #102. You can bet the sources will be commercially exploited and it would not be as cheap as oil.

Ultimately the hydrogen reserves have not been fully quantified, and as with oil they will be finite, and the human races hunger for energy would depleate them again like oil faster than they are created.

Why rely on an energy source that is finite, expensive to obtain, and accessed through idelogical greedy states when there is low cost energy widely available and not controlled by politically motivated states or companies.

If you were to view the video interview I suggested you should understand why a diversity of power generation is required to protect the supply and that means some forms of generation have to be sacrificed at some times.

 

[Buckman]

Hydrogen has long been known as a cleaner fuel. If the hydrogen in the earth's crust was accessible, it might have been exploited long ago, rather than the oil. But the hydrogen is nowhere nearly as accessible. You also have to factor in the issues with extraction, containment and distribution, all of which I explained in #102. You can bet the sources will be commercially exploited and it would not be as cheap as oil.

Ultimately the hydrogen reserves have not been fully quantified, and as with oil they will be finite, and the human races hunger for energy would depleate them again like oil faster than they are created.

Why rely on an energy source that is finite, expensive to obtain, and accessed through idelogical greedy states
when there is low cost energy widely available and not controlled by politically motivated states or companies.

If you were to view the video interview I suggested you should understand why a diversity of power generation is required to protect the supply and that means some forms of generation have to be sacrificed at some times.

Good post and I understand what is being said, but wind and solar are also not finite as at times we have no wind or solar for several or more days on a trot and that hits the consumer in the pocket.

They are already extracting white hydrogen. Green hydrogen is the process of electrolysis and renewables are used.

 

[otherclive]

Your own personal data center in a shed seems to have merit according to today’s BBC report of a trial. But I bet it still needs 22mm+ pipes ☹️

'I heat my Essex home with a data centre in the shed'

"It's fantastic because it's eco-friendly...We're not burning any gases," says Terrence Bridges.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Mr Plodd]

I live in a 1999 3 bed semi, I have 15 solar panels on a SE facing roof and an 8.2kwh storage battery.

I am paying £30 per month for combined gas and electric and I am currently nearly £300 in credit (I have been in credit now fir many years, less in the winter and more in the summer)
In addition, having installed the panels in 2015 I also get a Feed In Tariff (FIT) payment every quarter. This year, so far, those FIT payments have totalled over £600 (That FIT payments system ceased many gears ago for very obvious reasons) The FIT payments are seperate to my export earnings and dont get paid in to reduce my energy bills, they are paid into my holiday fund! My battery has been in just short of 2 years now.

The last couple of days its been so dull that my solar panels have produced virtually nothing, so I have had to charge my 8,2kwh storage battery for around 15p/kwh in the early hours (I cannot get a cheaper overnight rate because I dont have a EV)

That 8.2kwh of battery power is just enough to run my house for 24 hours. So it currently costs me roughly 50p per day in electric (exc standing charge of course) Combi gas fir hot water and heating. Tge heating has yet to be turned on, we have a gas fire in the lounge and currently thats enough heat for us.

So solar panels and battery storage has been an excellent investment for me. The downside is, depending on usage etc, payback is long not short term, think in terms of 10 -12 years. (My solar panels paid for themselves after about 9 years, battery is well on the way to match that and no I dont have a spreadsheet to prove it)

I cannot for the life of me understand why current building regs dont require, where practicable, that all new builds have both solar panels and battery storage. Think how much load doing that woukd take off the National Grid, and save households.

 

[Buckman]

I live in a 1999 3 bed semi, I have 15 solar panels on a SE facing roof and an 8.2kwh storage battery.

I am paying £30 per month for combined gas and electric and I am currently nearly £300 in credit (I have been in credit now fir many years, less in the winter and more in the summer)
In addition, having installed the panels in 2015 I also get a Feed In Tariff (FIT) payment every quarter. This year, so far, those FIT payments have totalled over £600 (That FIT payments system ceased many gears ago for very obvious reasons) The FIT payments are seperate to my export earnings and dont get paid in to reduce my energy bills, they are paid into my holiday fund! My battery has been in just short of 2 years now.

The last couple of days its been so dull that my solar panels have produced virtually nothing, so I have had to charge my 8,2kwh storage battery for around 15p/kwh in the early hours (I cannot get a cheaper overnight rate because I dont have a EV)

That 8.2kwh of battery power is just enough to run my house for 24 hours. So it currently costs me roughly 50p per day in electric (exc standing charge of course) Combi gas fir hot water and heating. Tge heating has yet to be turned on, we have a gas fire in the lounge and currently thats enough heat for us.

So solar panels and battery storage has been an excellent investment for me. The downside is, depending on usage etc, payback is long not short term, think in terms of 10 -12 years. (My solar panels paid for themselves after about 9 years, battery is well on the way to match that and no I dont have a spreadsheet to prove it)

I cannot for the life of me understand why current building regs dont require, where practicable, that all new builds have both solar panels and battery storage. Think how much load doing that woukd take off the National Grid, and save households.

Solar panels may be a good idea, except when they come as part of a new build as their cost will be built into the mortgage. As we are East West orientation we have no interest in solar panels as we will not see any payback in our life times. May work for others in sunnier areas.

 

[JTQ]

Solar panels may be a good idea, except when they come as part of a new build as their cost will be built into the mortgage.

I can't follow why including energy saving from a solar install in the mortgage change it from being a good to bad idea?
The savings will still be there either way, more so if the solar is on credit at what could be a higher rate than the mortgage

 

[Buckman]

I can't follow why including energy saving from a solar install in the mortgage change it from being a good to bad idea?
The savings will still be there either way, more so if the solar is on credit at what could be a higher rate than the mortgage

If you buy solar panels as a separate entity then no issue. If it is included in the cost of the mortgage, it takes bout 25 years to pay it off. Add on the interest over the 25 years and the panels that originally cost £10k, with interest probably have cost double so hardly a saving. On the other hand if the solar panels are bought afterwards they can be paid in cash or probably within 5 years plus the consumer gets any grant.

 

[RogerL]

If you buy solar panels as a separate entity then no issue. If it is included in the cost of the mortgage, it takes bout 25 years to pay it off. Add on the interest over the 25 years and the panels that originally cost £10k, with interest probably have cost double so hardly a saving. On the other hand if the solar panels are bought afterwards they can be paid in cash or probably within 5 years plus the consumer gets any grant.

If one has the cash to buy solar panels outright, why not put a bigger deposit on a new-build house with them already fitted, thus reducing the mortgage to the same level as buying without solar panels.

Mortgage interest is low rate - compared to most other forms of borrowing - and many forms of investment.

 

[Dustydog]

If one has the cash to buy solar panels outright, why not put a bigger deposit on a new-build house with them already fitted, thus reducing the mortgage to the same level as buying without solar panels.

Mortgage interest is low rate - compared to most other forms of borrowing - and many forms of investment.

So why not take the same view with double /triple glazing, super cavity wall insulation, etc. ?
Most people, younger particularly ,cannot afford massive deposits, even the Bank of Mum and Dad😉

 

[Buckman]

If one has the cash to buy solar panels outright, why not put a bigger deposit on a new-build house with them already fitted, thus reducing the mortgage to the same level as buying without solar panels.

Mortgage interest is low rate - compared to most other forms of borrowing - and many forms of investment.

They will still be paying it off over 25 years and the repayments will remain higher. If bought separately, the mortgage repayment remains lower and the after the 5 years when the panels are paid off, that extra money could be used towards making additional mortgage payments. Lastly as we all know, the mortgage payment interest may be low at present, but it could increase significantly over the next 4 years. No one knows!

 

[RogerL]

So why not take the same view with double /triple glazing, super cavity wall insulation, etc. ?
Most people, younger particularly ,cannot afford massive deposits, even the Bank of Mum and Dad😉

That's why people take on mortgages which are eye-wateringly high to us old folks.

I was commenting on Buckman's dislike of solar panels on new build which puts the price, and mortgage, up.

Back in the '70s I was lucky enough to get a 100% mortgage although there was a substantial premium on the slice above 80% - and suffered when mortgage interest soared to 15% - no such thing as fixed-rate mortgages then so you just had to pay the extra when the rate went up.

 

[RogerL]

They will still be paying it off over 25 years and the repayments will remain higher. If bought separately, the mortgage repayment remains lower and the after the 5 years when the panels are paid off, that extra money could be used towards making additional mortgage payments. Lastly as we all know, the mortgage payment interest may be low at present, but it could increase significantly over the next 4 years. No one knows!

It all comes down to the arithmetic of interest rates - the monthly payments for a mortgage plus a loan for solar panels is likely to be higher than a bigger mortgage to include the panels - important for youngsters with limited monthly income.

 

[Buckman]

That's why people take on mortgages which are eye-wateringly high to us old folks.

I was commenting on Buckman's dislike of solar panels on new build which puts the price, and mortgage, up.

Back in the '70s I was lucky enough to get a 100% mortgage although there was a substantial premium on the slice above 80% - and suffered when mortgage interest soared to 15% - no such thing as fixed-rate mortgages then so you just had to pay the extra when the rate went up.

I am not sure where I said that I dislike solar panels. Remember that we were using solar long before it was even thought of being used in the UK. It was one way to have a hot shower in the bush without smoke. My dislike was it being forced on the consumer and regarding paying it off over 25 years with the interest on top. Bad enough with heat pumps.

 

[GUMPY]

My neighbour had solar panels fitted the week after mine in January 2022. She took out a fixed 5 year loan from the bank to pay for them just before the interest rates went up. I believe she is paying about 1% interest on the loan whilst receiving ≈11% ROI from the panels. Not a bad deal but as with everything it's all about timing.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Good post and I understand what is being said, but wind and solar are also not finite as at times we have no wind or solar for several or more days on a trot and that hits the consumer in the pocket.

They are already extracting white hydrogen. Green hydrogen is the process of electrolysis and renewables are used.

I agree with what this portion of your post "but wind and solar are also not finite " but I suspect that is the opposite of what you meant to imply in which case I disagree with your intent. If something is "Finite" it has distinct end to its availability or extent, The complete opposite of finite is "infinite" in which the is no restriction or end to the subjects extent. There is however n intermediate state where something may have of discernible or practical end, and or it might have some restrictions to its availability. Google suggests

• Indefinite: This is used when the limits of a situation are not clear or certain, even if they are known to exist. For example, the edge of a fog bank is indefinite because you can't see it, even though it is finite.

Both wind and solar power in terms of their practical availability fall into the Indefinite categorisation.

No one should be under the illusion that both sources of generation can provide ALL the power we need 24/7 which is one reason we need diversity of generating capacities, and or storage.

Part of that diversity includes nuclear and fossil fuelled (coal gas, or even hydrogen) generating but one of the necessities of that is to ensure such alternative supplies are able to respond quickly enough to cover for periods when the other sources are unavailable. You cant have a piece of major equipment standing by indefinitely without incurring costs to maintain it and man it sufficiently to be able to have it rapidly deployed when necessary. These costs arise almost all the time, so when you see wind farms generating, we still have to pay to keep the gas generators at standby. so there isn't sudden massive increase in the stand down payments, they are in essence moved around to any other generators that are moved to standby.

There are reasons why some generating plant has to be turned off at times to ensure the safe and continued running of the countries whole electrical supply grid.

Small pilot plants are attempting to access "White" hydrogen, it is essentially accessed by fracking. Now there's another polluting process which has been shown to affect water supplies. Why do that when wind and sun can be used without producing any significant pollutions?

 

[Buckman]

I agree with what this portion of your post "but wind and solar are also not finite " but I suspect that is the opposite of what you meant to imply in which case I disagree with your intent. If something is "Finite" it has distinct end to its availability or extent, The complete opposite of finite is "infinite" in which the is no restriction or end to the subjects extent. There is however n intermediate state where something may have of discernible or practical end, and or it might have some restrictions to its availability. Google suggests

• Indefinite: This is used when the limits of a situation are not clear or certain, even if they are known to exist. For example, the edge of a fog bank is indefinite because you can't see it, even though it is finite.

Both wind and solar power in terms of their practical availability fall into the Indefinite categorisation.

No one should be under the illusion that both sources of generation can provide ALL the power we need 24/7 which is one reason we need diversity of generating capacities, and or storage.

Part of that diversity includes nuclear and fossil fuelled (coal gas, or even hydrogen) generating but one of the necessities of that is to ensure such alternative supplies are able to respond quickly enough to cover for periods when the other sources are unavailable. You cant have a piece of major equipment standing by indefinitely without incurring costs to maintain it and man it sufficiently to be able to have it rapidly deployed when necessary. These costs arise almost all the time, so when you see wind farms generating, we still have to pay to keep the gas generators at standby. so there isn't sudden massive increase in the stand down payments, they are in essence moved around to any other generators that are moved to standby.

There are reasons why some generating plant has to be turned off at times to ensure the safe and continued running of the countries whole electrical supply grid.

Small pilot plants are attempting to access "White" hydrogen, it is essentially accessed by fracking. Now there's another polluting process which has been shown to affect water supplies. Why do that when wind and sun can be used without producing any significant pollutions?

Thanks for the English lesson and then coming to the incorrect conclusion even though I was sort of agreeing with you.