From Manhattan Contrarians
Francis Menton
In the fantasy of a zero-emissions electricity future, either devastating blackouts will occur periodically, or there must be something to support intermittent wind and solar generation. In New York we call this fiction “DEFR” (Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources). But what is it? Nuclear energy has been stymied for decades, especially in the blue jurisdictions most aggressively pursuing a wind/solar future. Batteries are not technically up to the job and are also very expensive. Hydrogen gas remains. If you have any other ideas, please leave a message.
I have posted several articles discussing whether hydrogen can do the job, such as this article on February 14, 2024 and this article on July 20. . It turns out that this cost is many times the cost of drilling through rock to produce natural gas (for comparable energy content). From time to time I mention other potential problems with replacing natural gas with hydrogen in the power system, such as leaks, explosions, and the need for entirely new pipeline and truck infrastructure to transport the materials and power plants to burn them. But so far, I've found no detailed research on how serious these additional problems might be.
Now, an August 18 article was published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Science and Engineering titled “A Review of Challenges in Producing Hydrogen Using Natural Gas Systems.” This article was linked to by Paul Homewood on the Not a Lot of People Know That website on 23 August, and further linked to by Watts Up With That on 24 August.
The main author is a man named Paul Martin. Unusually for an article in this type of journal, Mr. Martin's academic background is not given. When I looked him up on LinkedIn, I discovered that he is not an academic but describes himself as a “chemical process development expert” who has “spent many years in the industry” and currently works for Spitfire Research, Inc. The company further states that it specializes in “Advising on a Decarbonized Future.” Mr. Martin then identified several of the co-authors on the paper as “The Environmental Defense Fund’s Team.” This information may well influence your view of what Martin et al. say in their paper.
The point of the paper is that existing natural gas infrastructure, including storage facilities, pipelines and power plants, must never be repurposed for hydrogen; in fact, no practical way to safely transport and burn hydrogen at scale exists. Even trying would come at a huge cost. I'll just give some examples of succinct quotes from the paper:
- Pipeline deterioration and rupture: “Extensive testing of typical European pipe materials recently showed that fatigue cracking is accelerated and fracture toughness is reduced when hydrogen is used, but the effects vary by material.36 Welds and their heat-affected zones, as well as fabrication or fabrication defects in pipes, can serve as sites for crack initiation, increasing vulnerability.37“
- “Blending” hydrogen into natural gas is not the solution: “Even with the addition of small amounts of molecular hydrogen to high-pressure natural gas pipelines made of high-yield-strength carbon steel, the acceleration of fatigue cracking is expected to be greatly accelerated and the pipeline material’s resistance to fracture will be increased by a factor of 30 and reduced by as much as 50%.34“
- Hydrogen's lower volumetric energy density means that pipelines and storage facilities need to be twice as large to transport the same energy: “Switching the gas system to pure hydrogen, the energy density per unit volume is about one-third that of a typical pipeline gas; therefore, if the storage pressure and volume are held constant, it will result in the “pipe pack” storage volume being reduced to one-third of the current value one (picture 5).49 If pipeline design pressure must be reduced to accommodate additional risks associated with hydrogen-related pipeline construction materials (as discussed in Section 1) 3.2), it is expected that the line group will be further reduced.
- Existing consumer appliances that use natural gas are not suitable for hydrogen: “Compared to CH4, H2 is more explosive and flammable, burns at higher temperatures, has faster flame speeds, and has lower visibility; these characteristics bring higher safety risks. Therefore, there are characteristics between typical natural gas mixtures and H2 significant differences, thus requiring changes in the design of the burner and burner management system to achieve a relative level of safety, which must then be certified (Fig. 6).No. 17, 67”.
- Even with new consumption infrastructure, hydrogen is far more dangerous to consumers than natural gas: “A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) was carried out before planning trials of pure hydrogen in UK residential gas distribution systems.18 The report concluded that even if homes are equipped with equipment designed and certified for hydrogen use, the risk of damage and injury due to fire and explosion is increased.
- in conclusion: “Overall, while repurposing natural gas systems for use with hydrogen may appear attractive at first glance, the limited practicality, risks, and data gaps strongly suggest that like-gas substitution offers limited benefits for the increased risks,” Even if major technical and economic barriers have been overcome.
After all that, you'd think these authors would give up and decide we'd just have to stick with natural gas. But no, remember, these are anti-carbon crusaders aligned with environmental foundations. This is the last paragraph of the conclusion:
[C]Continued reliance on natural gas is also not a viable option for solving the climate crisis. Given its physical and chemical properties, hydrogen is not an effective decarbonization tool for use in homes and buildings. As with any decarbonization strategy, it is crucial to determine whether fuel is actually needed and compare it with potentially more efficient options, such as direct electrification using renewable electricity.
We will only do “direct electrification using renewable electricity.” I guess what this means is, with solar panels on your roof, when the sun goes down, the air conditioning and heating turn off and the lights go out. This is the gkam solution without undocumented nightly mesh connections.
Perhaps the most valuable part of the article is EDF’s revelation that it stands ready to oppose the creation of hydrogen infrastructure, just as it does any natural gas infrastructure. Even if zero-emission electricity is important and hydrogen is a good solution to achieve this, EDF will be prepared to block it through a series of lawsuits.
Relevant
