Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
Directly? Hell no. Piping hydrogen to homes is a nightmare.
As a method to bank excess energy (like a form of gas battery) in the form of H2 in off-peak generation hours, to use later during peak consumption? It absolutely will upturn the industry in a few years.
Got a windmill and a water source? You got Hydrogen production when you are at anything under 100% capacity. And unlike batteries, expansion only requires you add another tank, not more rare metals.
You can use the hydrogen in inexpensive, rare metal free, grid scale batteries too. Companies are bringing NASA's nickel-hydrogen to market.
Humorously, the batteries are themselves gas tanks, as it uses hydrogen gas as the anode.
But why hydrogen? I'm asking from ignorance here, but hydrogen is volatile, corrosive, and notoriously hard to store. What is the advantage over gravity/hydrological batteries, molten salt, compressed air etc?
Because it is not as difficult as you think it is. A lot of gas infrastructure can be converted to use hydrogen and we have the technology to handle hydrogen. That basicly means new seals and pumps for pipelines and some storage sites can be converted as well. With that you get a massive storage site. Even more importantly a lot of chemical processes use hydrogen and some steel production processes as well.
The problem is that hydrogen is going to be more expensive then electricity and electrolysis units are very expensive today. So if you can electrify something it propably is smarter to do that then to use hydrogen.
I thought the issue with hydrogen is that it is literally small enough in gas form to just pass through materials used in existing infra.
And storing it in liquid form is very difficult (ie, have to keep it cold, as the high pressure will just force the gaseous hydrogen through the tank/pipe walls).
I wouldn't be comfortable with the thought of wall/roof cavities filling up with hydrogen.
Did a gig a while ago that ran on hydrogen generators as a publicity stunt.
There was a 10m exclusion zone around the fuel tanks.
I presume that was just "new tech? hyper health&safety".
A lot of the gas infrastructure was originally built for coal gas and that has a high hydrogen content. Standards have often been kept and so a lot of infrastructure is able to handle it.
Did it have high hydrogen? Or was it hydrocarbons rich in hydrogen?
Hydrogen gas. The basic reaction is something like:
3C (i.e., coal) + O2 + H2O → H2 + 3CO
It depends on the process thou and it is usually not super clean.
Since 95% of current hydrogen production is from fossil fuels with no foreseeable scalable replacement, the benefit is profits for fossil fuel companies who wouldn't make money off those of those proven methods.
This is largely FUD. Previous industrial H2 use made H2 as a Natural Gas or Methane derivative.
Hydrogen production from electrolysis is being expanded. Hydrogen is favored over other fuels because while it can cause enbrittlement, that can be accounted for by using materials resistant to that. It's how we've handled hydrogen for decades till now, just not in the retail sector, but also why it would not be pipelines around the country like Natural Gas is with the same pipes. This is a solved problem.
Hydrogen when used in a fuel cell or in a hydrogen combustion engine produces 0 or near 0 emissions. That is one of the biggest appeals here. The emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell is water, H2O. You can drink from the tail pipe (don't). In HICE engines, the emissions are a microscopic amount of NOx fumes, in a different world from existing gas or diesel engines.
This positions hydrogen as a much more scalable and less polluting fuel than even batteries long term. And much, MUCH lighter than batteries of similar power density. These are the appeals.
Also, while volatile as a molecule, it's also quick burning and the smallest molecule on the periodic table. Meaning a 700psi tank that has a 2in tear in it, would entirely vent /burn in around 30seconds to 1 minute. Because the molecule can literally leave faster. Unlike the never ending fires that EVs have when they light up, a H2 fire is over rapidly. There are also safety measures like quick disconnects involved. Finally, the tanks are carbon fiber wrapped and reinforced, and the tank of the Toyota Mirai can resist fire from a AR-15 directly. Puncturing these is hard.
In HICE engines, the emissions are a microscopic amount of NOx fumes, in a different world from existing gas or diesel engines.
Much less NOx, and we already have technology to reduce NOx for gasoline or diesel engines. Even better, because what usually hurts the systems used to reduce NOx is soot from the exhaust. There will be almost none of that on a hydrogen engine.
It’s just a sad ploy for the companies that own the pipes to pretend they can stay relevant for a few more years.
Pretty much
I think there's more to it than that. Much of the UK's existing housing stick will find it difficult to switch to heatpumps in the short-medium term to replace existing gas boilers, so as part of netzero, the UK government did pilots to see if piping hydrogen could be a viable alternative.
Turns out the answer is "no, not really".
Guess it's back to electrify everything then.
Induction and heatpumps are the only answer.
For home heating and cooking, they're definitely a good route.
Ordinary coil stoves are fine to cook on too (I did for decades) but don't meet the need for upper-class signalling in the way that induction does.
Ordinary coil stoves are fine to cook on too
It's not their effectiveness that's in question, just their efficiency.
Obviously the conversion of electricity > heat is always the same (100%) but induction is better at getting more of that heat into the food rather than the surroundings.
I wonder if geothermal is something they can do there.
It's common in the Nordics and is usually the cheapest way to heat homes.
Last winter electricity was so expensive that district heating won.
But geothermal has otherwise been cheapest.
Hydrogen is less efficient than electricity, and takes more energy to produce. Unless the process improves significantly, I can understand why it won't be the major source of heat for home use.
That's one way of being remember in History. Like the people who said the internet wouldn't ever be practical