Hydrogen in the gas grid

In summary: CO2 emissions. Sure, it is better than doing nothing, but overall it doesn't look like something that is worth scaling up.
  • #1
tech99
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,780
1,289
TL;DR Summary
A trial has commenced at Keele Unversity in the UK where 20% Hydrogen, produced from wind and solar, is injected into the domestic gas supply. In this way it can be stored and then utilised by existing domestic burners. Can this be a quick solution to reducing domestic CO2 emissions? Or is it better to use battery storage and use the electricity?
A trial has commenced at Keele University in the UK where 20% Hydrogen is injected into the domestic gas supply. In this way it can be stored and then utilised by existing domestic burners. Can this be a quick solution to reducing domestic CO2 emissions? Or is it better to use battery storage and use the electricity? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50873047
What is the best way of using wind and solar for electric cars? Is the domestic heat pump a better long term investment for home heating?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
Electricity -> hydrogen isn't a very efficient process. Electricity store and electric heating would be more efficient. Heat exchangers instead of raw electric heating would make it even better. Combined you can easily win a factor 5. Is "renewables but we can't control when" really so much cheaper than electricity storage? Sure, it is better than doing nothing, but overall it doesn't look like something that is worth scaling up.
 
  • #3
tech99 said:
Or is it better to use battery storage and use the electricity?
You are missing the point - there are many more efficient ways to use energy for space heating and domestic hot water, they all require time and money invested in every dwelling to use them. In order to get near to zero carbon we HAVE to invest this time and money, but it will take decades and £billions invested in individual homes as well as infrastructure to do it, whereas...

tech99 said:
Can this be a quick solution to reducing domestic CO2 emissions?
...domestic CO2 emissions in the UK could possibly be reduced by up to 20% almost overnight using this solution.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
mfb said:
Sure, it is better than doing nothing, but overall it doesn't look like something that is worth scaling up.
It is a very common misconception that it'll be for free if the electricity itself is cheap.
 
  • #5
ITSM the correct cost / benefit is whether a marginal KW of electricity generated by renewables is better utilized in the grid or being converted to H to reduce emissions from the domestic burning of natgas for heat and cooking. Assume equal transmission losses, the electricity should go to the grid until it is close to 100% renewable (which will not happen for decades). The KW sent to the grid either:
A) replaces a KW generated by coal, which has around 2x the greenhouse gas emission
B) replaces a KW generated by Natgas, but with greater efficiency than using that KW to create H

Also, given a marginal dollar to invest, it would have greater impact using that dollar to provide natgas to poor countries that burn solid fuel (greater greenhouse gas emission plus a host of health benefits) than it would to replace natgas with H in rich economies
 
  • Like
Likes tech99 and BillTre
  • #6
BWV said:
The KW sent to the grid either:
A) [notreplaces a KW generated by coal, which has around 2x the greenhouse gas emission
B) replaces a KW generated by Natgas, but with greater efficiency than using that KW to create H
The context of the article is the UK where, as stated in the article, approximately 85% of homes are heated by natural gas which is piped to each home and used in a system something like this. How can a kW of electricity sent to the grid be used in such a system?
Edit (restated for clarity): How can a kW of electricity sent to the grid replace the kW produced by burning the gas that heats the water in such a system to heat my home?
 
  • #7
pbuk said:
How can a kW of electricity sent to the grid be used in such a system?
In the same way all other electricity is used in the grid.
The UK got rid of most of its coal power plants, so additional renewables will mainly replace gas. Burning gas in homes to heat them and using electricity from renewables is more efficient than burning gas to produce electricity and using renewables to produce hydrogen to burn in the houses.
 
  • #8
mfb said:
In the same way all other electricity is used in the grid.
I have edited my post as the point I was trying to make was not clear.
mfb said:
Burning gas in homes to heat them and using electricity from renewables is more efficient than burning gas to produce electricity and using renewables to produce hydrogen to burn in the houses.
It may be more efficient, but it also produces more CO2.
Edit: This is only true if you assume that the low-carbon energy used to produce hydrogen could have been used to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Already in the UK, at times this is not the case - and in the near future perhaps even more so.

Personally I think there are better long-term solutions than replacing natural gas with 100% hydrogen in domestic boilers, but that doesn't mean that it is not worth investigating mixing hydrogen into the domestic natural gas supply for a short-term gain.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
pbuk said:
The context of the article is the UK where, as stated in the article, approximately 85% of homes are heated by natural gas which is piped to each home and used in a system something like this. How can a kW of electricity sent to the grid be used in such a system?
Edit (restated for clarity): How can a kW of electricity sent to the grid replace the kW produced by burning the gas that heats the water in such a system to heat my home?

you seem to be missing the point that electricity generated from renewables is a finite resource. The point is that its better to use that electricity to replace electricity generated by fossil fuels in the grid before the much less efficient process of using that electricity to create H to burn for heat or cooking
 
  • #10
tech99 said:
Can this be a quick solution to reducing domestic CO2 emissions?

No. Apart from the excellent point that burning natural gas to create electricity to make hydrogen is less efficient than burning the natural gas at point of use, it's focusing on a tiny part of the problem.

In the US (where numbers are easily available) 12% of GHG emissions are from the commercial and residential sectors, and 89% of that is natural gas, or 10.7%. Replacing 20% of this - by magic, not by the inefficient process described above - would change US emissions by 2%, or world-wide emissions by 0.3%.

The UK is ~10x smaller, so we're talking 0.03% or so.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BWV
  • #11
pbuk said:
It may be more efficient, but it also produces more CO2.
No it doesn't.
You'll produce 1 kWh of electricity from renewables in the next hour. What do you do?
- regulate down a natural gas power plant to produce 1 kWh less. It will reduce CO2 emissions by 400 g.
- produce hydrogen with an energy content of maybe 0.3 kWh, send it to consumers. They burn it, saving a bit of natural gas in the process. You reduced CO2 emissions by 200 g (optimistic).

Once most natural gas power plants are out of business this might become more interesting as the first option won't exist any more. By that time hopefully most people switched to electric heating. Then this 1 kWh will save 400 g of CO2 again. Or, even better, switched to heat pumps, then it saves over 1 kg of CO2 emissions.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk and BWV
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
In the US (where numbers are easily available) 12% of GHG emissions are from the commercial and residential sectors, and 89% of that is natural gas, or 10.7%. Replacing 20% of this - by magic, not by the inefficient process described above - would change US emissions by 2%, or world-wide emissions by 0.3%.
The question was not "will this have a dramatic effect on total global emissions", it was "Can this be a quick solution to reducing domestic CO2 emissions?" Let's redo your calculation: 89% of US commercial and residential emissions are from natural gas. Replacing 20% of this (assuming this can be done without creating additional emissions) could change US domestic emissions by 18%. That sounds like it's worth investigating - and even more so in the UK where the existing domestic energy infrastructure gives different challenges.
Vanadium 50 said:
Apart from the excellent point that burning natural gas to create electricity to make hydrogen is less efficient than burning the natural gas at point of use
Of course it is, and burning coal to do it would be even worse. But if you could generate that hydrogen using surplus renewable capacity at times of low demand it wouldn't be. And even if you did burn gas to generate power for electrolysis there is the potential for carbon sequestration which is not possible when burning natural gas in a domestic boiler.
Vanadium 50 said:
it's focusing on a tiny part of the problem.
In my experience that is how big problems are solved.
 
  • #13
At least here in the USA, many (most?) gas pipes are steel. Using Hydrogen in them brings up the problem of making the steel pipes brittle, leading to fractures... and a pure Hydrogen flame is invisible! (no incandescent Carbon to generate visible light.)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+in+steel&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Not saying it can't be done, just that there are a lot 'unmentioned circumstances.'

Cheers,
Tom
 
  • Like
Likes Barakn, Nik_2213 and pbuk
  • #14
pbuk said: It may be more efficient, but it also produces more CO2.
mfb said:
No it doesn't.
You'll produce 1 kWh of electricity from renewables in the next hour. What do you do?
- regulate down a natural gas power plant to produce 1 kWh less. It will reduce CO2 emissions by 400 g.
- produce hydrogen with an energy content of maybe 0.3 kWh, send it to consumers. They burn it, saving a bit of natural gas in the process. You reduced CO2 emissions by 200 g (optimistic).
OK, I understand where you are coming from. But what if the first alternative is not available because gas plants are already at minimum capacity? In the UK we already store surplus energy at times of high generation and low demand (mainly in pumped hydro), and as fickle renewable generation increases this will become a bigger issue (as I write this, wind is providing 45% of the UK's current power need because most people are in bed with the heating off and there are strong winds on our offshore wind farms).

I will edit my assertion accordingly.

mfb said:
Once most natural gas power plants are out of business this might become more interesting as the first option won't exist any more. By that time hopefully most people switched to electric heating. Then this 1 kWh will save 400 g of CO2 again. Or, even better, switched to heat pumps, then it saves over 1 kg of CO2 emissions.
Yes, by that time also we (again I am talking about the UK) should also have improved insulation which will reduce demand further. Let's assume that we don't achieve this until 2050; is it not wise to investigate the potential of achieving a material reduction in GHG emissions 20 years earlier?
 
  • #15
Tom.G said:
At least here in the USA, many (most?) gas pipes are steel. Using Hydrogen in them brings up the problem of making the steel pipes brittle, leading to fractures... and a pure Hydrogen flame is invisible! (no incandescent Carbon to generate visible light.)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+in+steel&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Not saying it can't be done, just that there are a lot 'unmentioned circumstances.'

Cheers,
Tom
This is less of an issue in the UK - we are already replacing much of our infrastructure (particularly the local network within 30 metres of buildings) with MDPE for safety reasons. Invisible flame is not really an issue because:
  • this project is looking at a 20% H2 mix
  • flames in domestic boilers are hidden
  • flame failure devices are mandatory on (new since 2008) gas appliances in the UK - a real pain when trying to cook dinner!
It's probably time for some references:
 
  • #16
pbuk said:
...if you could generate that hydrogen using surplus renewable capacity at times of low demand...
Right now (and anywhere in the foreseeable future) it is a 'no'. With the low efficiency of the electricity => hydrogen conversion and the cost (CO2 footprint of building/maintenance/running included) of the relevant machinery this is a losing business for any other time but when seriously negative electricity prices dominating the market.
But by that time most utilities would be long out of the grid anyway.

While it is nice to know that the gas pipes can tolerate 20% hydrogen, this statement right now (and within the next few decades) has very little practical value.

Unless some new technology got developed to radically increase the productivity of hydrogen generation, there are far better solutions to reduce CO2 emission with available cheap electricity.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
pbuk said:
Let's assume that we don't achieve this until 2050; is it not wise to investigate the potential of achieving a material reduction in GHG emissions 20 years earlier?
I don't think anyone argued against research. You asked about wide-scale implementation. And that is not a good idea today. In the very rare cases where renewables cover so much that the energy can't be used at all this might be interesting - but setting up large electrolysis plants for something that happens once or twice per year isn't useful.
 
  • #18
pbuk said:
Let's redo your calculation: 89% of US commercial and residential emissions are from natural gas. Replacing 20% of this (assuming this can be done without creating additional emissions) could change US domestic emissions by 18%.

Only if commercial/residential were 100% of US emissions. But it's 12%.

pbuk said:
surplus renewable capacity at times

I don't think our problem is that we're drowning in "surplus renewable energy at times".
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #19
I've seen a few analysis that forecast that the cost of renewable hydrogen (REH2) will be close to, or slightly higher than, natural gas costs. On that basis, without a carbon tax to underpin the economics of change, the wholesale adoption of any hydrogen use case is unlikely.
 
  • #20
Tghu Verd said:
I've seen a few analysis that forecast that the cost of renewable hydrogen (REH2) will be close to, or slightly higher than, natural gas costs.
I'd like to see that analysis, because I can't imagine that being true. I'd bet it's an order of magnitude more expensive.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive
  • #21
russ_watters said:
I'd bet it's an order of magnitude more expensive.
After following the green business for some time already I've started to ignore entirely every and all analysis based on experimental technology only instead of actual industrial practice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, russ_watters, BWV and 1 other person
  • #22
mfb said:
You asked about wide-scale implementation.
I don't think I have asked anything - perhaps you are confusing me with the OP. This thread does seem to have wandered a little with some confusion over what we are talking about. Perhaps it's time to go back to @tech99's OP, with some editing for clarification:

tech99 said:
Can this be a quick solution to reducing domestic CO2 emissions?
Can introduction of 20% H2 into the domestic (i.e. residential) natural gas supply be a quick solution to reducing CO2 emissions from homes in the UK?
It's possible, and because over 80% of homes in the UK use individual gas boilers for heating and hot water the short-term options for reducing domestic emissions are limited. Note however that even if it is feasible (the current HyDeploy trial is a small-scale investigation of this feasibility) there are other factors to be be considered. These include the environmental opportunity cost of the energy used to generate the hydrogen, in other words whether it would be better to use this energy to replace other GHG emissions particularly from fossil fuel fired power stations.

tech99 said:
Or is it better to use battery storage and use the electricity?
This is not a short-term option for heating homes in the UK.

tech99 said:
What is the best way of using wind and solar for electric cars?
I think this is a topic for a different thread.

tech99 said:
Is the domestic heat pump a better long term investment for home heating?
It may well be - but the key words here are 'long term'. Replacing c.20 million gas boilers will take many years and many £ billions, and key decisions including what technolgy and how it will be paid for have not yet been taken in the UK. The Keele trial is looking at a less optimal solution that can be implemented quickly and cheaply while we are working towards the long term solution.

(Minor edits for readability)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes anorlunda
  • #23
russ_watters said:
I'd like to see that analysis, because I can't imagine that being true. I'd bet it's an order of magnitude more expensive.

Such reports are not too hard to find, @russ_watters, here's one, two, and three (though this last needs your details to get the underlying calcs) as examples of various price curves. Note that I've not seen any forecast that predicts really cheap REH2, hence my carbon tax comment. If it's not cheaper than incumbent natural gas, then without an external driver, change will not happen. Esp. because it's going to cost $T to retool everything for hydrogen.

(I'm also aligned with @Rive's comment about ignoring forecasts for things that are not productionized. Probably REH2 will be cheaper...or more expensive...but don't ask me to be any more accurate than that :wink:)
 
  • #24
pbuk said:
I don't think I have asked anything - perhaps you are confusing me with the OP.
Okay, let me be exact: You didn't ask, you made a statement about wide-scale implementation.
pbuk said:
...domestic CO2 emissions in the UK could possibly be reduced by up to 20% almost overnight using this solution.
And, as discussed, this isn't true. Wide-scale implementation now would increase CO2 emissions. It can only decrease CO2 emissions if the gas power plants have been replaced largely, at least in frequent times of peak renewable production.
 
  • #25
mfb said:
Okay, let me be exact: You didn't ask, you made a statement about wide-scale implementation.And, as discussed, this isn't true. Wide-scale implementation now would increase CO2 emissions. It can only decrease CO2 emissions if the gas power plants have been replaced largely, at least in frequent times of peak renewable production.
We are talking about two different things. I am saying that domestic CO2 emissions in the UK (i.e. emissions from people's homes) could possibly (i.e. making certain assumptions which have to be further developed and trialled) be reduced in the short term (i.e. years rather than decades) by introducing H2 into the natural gas supply.

You are saying that if this were done, the net effect would be to increase CO2 emissions because of the energy used in producing the H2. This may or may not be true, but it has no effect on the validity of my statement because I am talking about only the emissions from people's homes NOT the total emissions based on any assumptions about the energy used for H2 generation.

My final attempt to clarify what I am saying is to express it symbolically:
Let ## G_0(UK) = G_0(homes) + G_0(other) ## and ## G_1(UK) = G_1(homes) + G_1(H2) + G_1(other) ##
My statement: ## G_1(homes) < G_0(homes) ## your statement: ## G_1(homes) + G_1(H2) > G_0(homes) ##
Do you not agree that both these statements can be true?
 
  • #26
Tghu Verd said:
Such reports are not too hard to find, @russ_watters
On PF we require people to provide sources for their own claims. Sometimes I'm willing to do others' research for them, but often when the claim seems far off I don't bother.
here's one, two, and three...
The first is behind a paywall and the third is talking about future potential. The second, however, says hydrogen from electrolysis is currently about nine times more expensive than reforming it from natural gas. It would be even worse vs just using the natural gas itself. Oddly, they give the future cost as an exact number, but today's cost as a range.

This really does badly fail the smell test, and it should be pretty obvious from logic or simple cost research.
1. Current energy costs are publicly available, but for people who use natural gas for heating the numbers for gas and electricity are right there on the bill, with only simple conversions of the energy values needed for a good comparison. I've been watching my parents' for comparison to mine since I use propane: electricity is about five times more expensive than natural gas (propane about 3x)...

2. ...And that's before you use the electricity to make hydrogen. Look at the process from start to finish: You have some natural gas. What can you do with it?
a. You can sell it.
b. You can run it through an expensive industrial plant and make electricity (at a loss of efficiency), then sell the electricity. Obviously the electricity has to be much more expensive than the gas was.
c. You can run it through an expensive industrial plant to make electricity, then run the electricity through another expensive industrial plant (at additional lost efficiency) to make hydrogen. Then you can sell the hydrogen in exactly the same way you would have sold the natural gas in the first place.

Obviously it must always be much, much more expensive to make hydrogen from electricity from natural gas and much more expensive to make electricity from natural gas, than just sell the natural gas. Each step in the process makes the resulting energy several times more expensive than what you started with.

Now, I used natural gas here because the comparison is linear and obvious. But what about if we use solar? Well the obviously issue is; how does the cost of solar electricity compare with natural gas fuel? Well, to answer that, let's jump in at step b: is solar electricity a lot cheaper than natural gas electricity? No, it's not -- it's still more expensive. So there's no alleviation of the giant two-step cost escalation by using solar instead of natural gas.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dragrath
  • #27
russ_watters said:
On PF we require people to provide sources for their own claims.

Sorry, wasn't intending to be tricky.

And I mostly agree with your logic, apart from gas generating cheaper electricity than renewables. Lazard's latest LCOE analysis costs utility solar and wind below gas combined cycle and well below gas peakers. It doesn't really change the economics of creating hydrogen, though. It's going to be expensive and to get right back to the OP, unlikely to make a meaningful dent on CO2 emissions.

In the time will take to fund the H2 generation companies, provision and scale the plants, suffer through the bankruptcies cycle as dreamers and fools get swept away, and establish the interconnects, RE electrical generation will have only dropped further in price, storage costs will have dropped, and a carbon price will have kiboshed burning fossil fuels in any event so the painful transition away from gas (or gas+H2) and to electrical everything will have inexorable momentum.
 
  • #28
Tghu Verd said:
Lazard's latest LCOE analysis costs utility solar and wind below gas combined cycle and well below gas peakers.
As being an end-user I'm a bit unhappy with this kind of stuff since it is not cost what's on the bill but some kind of system level price. And the price (increase) generated by different sources feels quite different to the accounted cost.
The 'paradox' is well known and widely debated, but there are just a few study (of acceptable quality) yet so I would rather not link anything at this point.

russ_watters said:
Obviously it must always be much, much more expensive to make hydrogen from electricity from natural gas and much more expensive to make electricity from natural gas, than just sell the natural gas. Each step in the process makes the resulting energy several times more expensive than what you started with.
The proposed Hydrogen generation is actually based on double utilization: one is about to use it for load side balancing of the grid, the second is to save the curtailed part of wind/solar generation. So it would not be that bad - still, the price remains terrible.

Also, I have some doubts about the load side balancing part. It is expected to save some natural gas, but on the other hand it is making ways for chap coal to keep positions => sure it san save cost, but will it actually save CO2 emission?
 
  • #29
Tghu Verd said:
And I mostly agree with your logic, apart from gas generating cheaper electricity than renewables. Lazard's latest LCOE analysis costs utility solar and wind below gas combined cycle and well below gas peakers. It doesn't really change the economics of creating hydrogen, though. It's going to be expensive and to get right back to the OP, unlikely to make a meaningful dent on CO2 emissions.
Rive said:
As being an end-user I'm a bit unhappy with this kind of stuff since it is not cost what's on the bill but some kind of system level price. And the price (increase) generated by different sources feels quite different to the accounted cost.
The 'paradox' is well known and widely debated, but there are just a few study (of acceptable quality) yet so I would rather not link anything at this point.
Let me expand on that issue a bit(I haven't read the sources yet). Right now, solar (and wind, but we are mostly discussing solar) is treated as stand-alone when its energy costs are analyzed. That's unfair to other sources because solar adversely affects their pricing and production. Essentially, it is a hidden subsidy provided to solar, from (mostly) natural gas.

Let me put it another way: Say you shut down a 100 MW coal plant and replace it with a 100 MW solar plant. Groovy, right? Wrong: since solar often produces nothing, you also need to build 100 MW natural gas plant to provide up to 80% of the annual energy (if it was a baseload coal plant). But in the typical analysis the two projects are treated as if they were separate, even though the electricity is much more expensive than if you had just built the natural gas plant. The natural gas plant has the same capital cost, but it sells 20% less energy in this scheme, and at lower rates. So a lot of the economic downside of the solar plant is paid for by the gas plant.

This a lot of the reason why Germany and California have such expensive electricity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes mfb, Rive, ChemAir and 1 other person
  • #30
Rive said:
As being an end-user I'm a bit unhappy with this kind of stuff since it is not cost what's on the bill but some kind of system level price.

Yep, retail price transparency is an issue, compounded by the variance in global retail prices and the diverse electrical supply chain - entirely State owned, privatized but price capped, private but regulated, entirely deregulated - making any analysis of that kind very difficult. Also, while retailers typically publish standard tariffs, customers can be on special deals / hardship deals / time of day deals / etc. and retailers cite commercial in confidence requirements to keep what's actually paid by the customer opaque.

But that does not detract from the system cost comparisons, as those are the ones regulators and investors use to decide the merit of generation projects, and empirical methods can be applied to establish consumer cost ranges from the system level price. Because domestic energy cost increases have been highly politicized in Australia, their consumer commission did an analysis in 2018 that provides an example of such supply chain cost split.

russ_watters said:
Wrong: since solar often produces nothing, you also need to build 100 MW natural gas plant

Yes that's the typical gas peaker plant, but we are seeing instances of them being replaced with PV+storage and some States (e.g., Arizona, California, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, Virginia) are legislatively favoring RE as the cost of PV / wind / storage cost curve is making fossil fuel plants - even gas - uneconomic.

That's why I think the 'electrify everything' trend is a better investment than gas+hydrogen, because the moment we have a price on carbon is the moment the exodus from gas for domestic use starts in earnest. Most retail customers are already baying at the cost of energy and adding a "gas tax" will drive prices up, not down.
 
  • #31
Tghu Verd said:
That's why I think the 'electrify everything' trend is a better investment
What makes you think that your opinion matters, or opinions of others like you? Investors have their own opinions, and they hire their own consultants, and that is what counts.
 
  • #32
anorlunda said:
Investors have their own opinions, and they hire their own consultants, and that is what counts.
Then we should give these investors incentives to consider the environment in their decisions. Read: A carbon tax. But I don't want to get political.
 
  • #33
mfb said:
Then we should give these investors incentives to consider the environment in their decisions. Read: A carbon tax. But I don't want to get political.
Investors don't need to get political at all. They are free to invest their money in Apple, or entertainment, or health care, or real estate, or art.

I'm sure you have some savings. Can the government tell you where to invest it?

Utilities are bound to the energy sector, but private investors are not. Even public utilities need to sell bonds to private investors.
 
  • #34
anorlunda said:
others like you

Waaa? You mean someone who does strategy work with energy regulators and assesses investment targets for private equity firms for a living? Then sure, others like me 👍
 
  • #35
Tghu Verd said:
Waaa? You mean someone who does strategy work with energy regulators and assesses investment targets for private equity firms for a living? Then sure, others like me 👍
Apologies. I should not have implied more than was warranted. Are you saying that is your active profession?

The point that I meant to make is that public opinion, and the popularity of different energy schemes don't matter much to private investors. Regulators can make tough regulations, but the result may just be to scare private investors away from the energy sector.
 
<h2>What is "Hydrogen in the gas grid"?</h2><p>"Hydrogen in the gas grid" refers to the process of injecting hydrogen gas into existing natural gas pipelines in order to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a more sustainable energy source.</p><h2>Why is there a push to incorporate hydrogen into the gas grid?</h2><p>There is a push to incorporate hydrogen into the gas grid because it is a clean and renewable energy source that can help reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. It also has the potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.</p><h2>What are the benefits of using hydrogen in the gas grid?</h2><p>The benefits of using hydrogen in the gas grid include reducing carbon emissions, promoting a more sustainable energy source, and potentially decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels. Hydrogen gas can also be produced from renewable sources, making it a more environmentally friendly option.</p><h2>What are the challenges of implementing hydrogen in the gas grid?</h2><p>One of the main challenges of implementing hydrogen in the gas grid is the cost and complexity of retrofitting existing natural gas pipelines to accommodate hydrogen gas. There are also safety concerns and the need for further research and development to ensure the viability and efficiency of this process.</p><h2>Is hydrogen in the gas grid a feasible solution for the future?</h2><p>Many experts believe that incorporating hydrogen into the gas grid is a feasible solution for the future, as it has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions and promote a more sustainable energy source. However, there are still challenges and limitations that need to be addressed in order for this to become a widespread reality.</p>

What is "Hydrogen in the gas grid"?

"Hydrogen in the gas grid" refers to the process of injecting hydrogen gas into existing natural gas pipelines in order to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a more sustainable energy source.

Why is there a push to incorporate hydrogen into the gas grid?

There is a push to incorporate hydrogen into the gas grid because it is a clean and renewable energy source that can help reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. It also has the potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

What are the benefits of using hydrogen in the gas grid?

The benefits of using hydrogen in the gas grid include reducing carbon emissions, promoting a more sustainable energy source, and potentially decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels. Hydrogen gas can also be produced from renewable sources, making it a more environmentally friendly option.

What are the challenges of implementing hydrogen in the gas grid?

One of the main challenges of implementing hydrogen in the gas grid is the cost and complexity of retrofitting existing natural gas pipelines to accommodate hydrogen gas. There are also safety concerns and the need for further research and development to ensure the viability and efficiency of this process.

Is hydrogen in the gas grid a feasible solution for the future?

Many experts believe that incorporating hydrogen into the gas grid is a feasible solution for the future, as it has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions and promote a more sustainable energy source. However, there are still challenges and limitations that need to be addressed in order for this to become a widespread reality.

Similar threads

  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
6
Views
950
Replies
14
Views
896
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
800
Replies
6
Views
920
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Electrical Engineering
4
Replies
108
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
852
Replies
14
Views
9K
Back
Top