A review of challenges with using the natural gas system for hydrogen
Martin et al. https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.1861
Replacing natural gas with zero- and low-carbon hydrogen is viewed by many as an attractive decarbonization tool, because it can potentially re-use expensive infrastructure of considerable economic value. However, this paper has shown that there are numerous unresolved challenges with using hydrogen in the existing natural gas infrastructure due to its differing physical and chemical qualities compared to methane, the main component of natural gas. These differences have major implications for the entire natural gas value chainâencompassing production, long-distance transport, local distribution, storage and end useâŚ
Although many of the concerns associated with deploying pure hydrogen energy systems can be mitigated by blending hydrogen with natural gas, doing so will not help decarbonize the economy as it does not facilitate a gradual transition to pure hydrogen, and it only offers a small reduction in GHG emissions. The benefits from reduced GHG emissions are limited due to the greatly lower volumetric energy density of hydrogenâŚ
Overall, while repurposing the natural gas system for use with hydrogen may, at first, seem appealing, the limited practicality, risks, and data gaps strongly suggest that like-for-like gas substitution provides limited benefits for increased risks, even if major technical and economic hurdles are overcome.
Comparing hydrogen to natural gas in isolation is a foolâs errand. Electricity is the best end user fuel in many cases. It would make more sense to do the comparison based on how each impacts electric generation from source to finish.
For example, this would include considering the cost differential of shipping gases via pipelines vs. shipping electricity via the grid. Complex?
The Captain
Fun fact, in AC electrons donât travel, they just wiggle 50 or 60 times per second.
This is not unlike the transition from gaslight systems that manufactured gas from coal. It contained hydrogen and carbon monoxide. (The reason for suicide by sticking your head in an oven.)
The arrival of natural gas (1927 in St Louis) required a transition as fuel values changed. Burners needed adapters to give a blue flame. Natural gas was blended in until after WWII.
Gas was used only for lighting and cooking due to production limitations. Heating was mostly by coal until additional NG capacity arrived after WWII (and underground storage was developed to improve reliability in winter. Storage filled in summer.)
This transition may be forgotten by many but does give lessons on how it was done before.
Natural gas had some clear advantages over coal gas. So there was motivation to change. Hydrogenâs main advantage is that it is carbon free. But a large percentage of people donât care about that. Hydrogenâs main disadvantage is the cost. And lots of people care about that.
The transition can be made of course, but Iâm skeptical it will be made, except for certain niche applications.
Personally I think hydrogen is most valuable as a mobile transportation fuel. Yes, you can dilute or replace natural gas in pipelines but in that case electricity direct to consumer may be a better choice. But who knows what will happen in transition. Will owners of those pipelines be willing to shut them down or will they adapt by adding hydrogen.
Only if it can be made to be more efficient. If it costs the equivalent of $6 - $8 per gallon equivalent, then nobody will go for it. The beauty of EVs is that they are some multiple more efficient than standard ICE, and perhaps twice as efficient as a good hybrid ICE vehicle.
Like I say, my nice 4-door ICE sedan got me about 50 miles out of $10 of gasoline, and my nice EV that replaced it gets me about 250 miles out of $10 of electricity.
EPA can change that any time they want to. Just as they have done with the coal industry. They can make refineries expensive to operate at will. And $10/gal gasoline is only a stroke of the pen away.
But EPA cannot change the effective energy available per unit of storage.
And can EPA make electricity prices 10X what they are now? Probably not.
And itâs all moot anyway because no EPA will ever increase gasoline prices so dramatically ⌠because their political people will be removed from office immediately and then there will be a whole set of new EPA people a few short years later.
Yet that is exactly what they have done with gas mileage requirements. They phase them in gradually over a period of years. And opposition is weak because its for a good cause per the environmentalists.
They certainly do know how to do this to accomplish their goals.
That doesnât sound very up to date. I recently had a rental car, a bog-standard 2022 Chevy Malibu, and it told me that over the last 450 miles it did 37 mpg â which is about double your distance on $10 of gasoline.
Hydrogen will not replace natural gas. Ever. Under an circumstances. First there are few calories in hydrogen. Second due to the small size of the hydrogen molecule it is almost impossible to keep sealed especially in a moving mechanical device.
If it were up to date, I wouldnât have replaced it yet! I tend to keep my cars for about 10 years, shorter if unexpected repairs begin early, longer if they remain reliable.
I wasnât comparing âbog standardâ ICE cars to well performing EV cars. I was comparing roughly similar standards of cars in roughly the same price range. The old car was a Hyundai Genesis with good acceleration and the top options package that included all the cool features. The new one was a Tesla model 3 long range AWD with good acceleration and all sorts of cool features. And since I kept a spreadsheet of every fill up, I knew exactly how much gasoline it used in real life.
Norwegian energy giant Equinor has scrapped plans to produce so-called blue hydrogen, citing high costs and insufficient demand⌠It had pledged to generate low-carbon hydrogen from natural gas, known as blue hydrogen, in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Norway. The hydrogen produced would then be exported to hydrogen-ready power plants in GermanyâŚ
The problem for Equinorâs German project was that it could not find enough customers to buy the hydrogen it proposed to produce. Mr Eidsvold said Equinor also couldnât continue maturing the projects without firm long-term commitments from European buyers to import hydrogen.
The problem for Equinorâs German project was that it could not find enough customers to buy the hydrogen it proposed to produce.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That is as predictable as the sun rising every morning. If you are looking to purchase a combustible gas, who would want to buy hydrogen at $20 per MMBTU, when they could purchase natural gas at $2.60 per MMBTU? And if the price of natural gas goes up, that still doesnât help the price difference with blue hydrogen, because natural gas is the feedstock used to make blue hydrogen.
Everyone likes the green choices, until it starts to cost them money.
But Bob posts every industrial take down piece he can find.
I wonder if he found a piece by big oil stating xyz advantages in solar, wind, and hydrogen would save the globe from heading towards a nuclear war along with creating a low cost global clean up after the fossil fuel eraâŚI wonder if Bob would read it.
I find it worthwhile to know that, for example, hydrogen-made steel is not practical or that (almost) nobody is interested in offshore wind in the Gulf of Mexico. YMMV.
