Air source heat pumps
- Thread starter WouldBe
- Start date
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
no is proper reverse(ish) fridge. Interesting link though.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
See my other posts about the gas network already being able to transport hydrogen whereas the electric network isn't capable to handle all the extra power.
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
That’s handy to know. I live 5 miles from the seaJust be aware that if you live close ( five miles?) to the sea an air source heat pump will have a much reduced life as the salt in the air will corrode the very small heat exchanger pipes far more quickly than in non literal areas.
Ms 747 and I were very keen to go the heat pump route, but spoke to the main ( probably only) chap at the British Association of heat pump suppliers. He warned us of this. He said that almost all manufacturers will say the salt issue isn’t a problem for their heat pump but they will all be fibbing and the issue won’t manifest till after the warranty. His view is near the coast only ground source are suitable, and given the small size of our garden that would have meant a bore hole for us.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Yes the local energy networks are going to change considerably, with likely more locally generated and stored energy too. Every area has local area energy plans in development that is looking to help plan gor all this.What seals? The gas pipes are heat welded and most of the network is already hydrogen ready.
With the extra electricity demand from heat pumps you're going to have to upgrade all the transmission lines, sub stations and dig up every street in the country to put in heavier duty cables.
You might not need the investment in electricity networks to do hydrogen but you'd need to generate an awful lot more renewable electricity in the first place because the process is intrinsically inefficient, especially compared too heat pumps. And the electricity networks need upgrading anyway to take account of more local generation and EVs regardless of home heating.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
I believe there are coatings designed to avoid this issue, I don't think it's a flat no to heat pumps on the coast. Just a factor to be aware of.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Literally 3 seconds on Google, and that's just the first hit.What seals? The gas pipes are heat welded and most of the network is already hydrogen ready.
With the extra electricity demand from heat pumps you're going to have to upgrade all the transmission lines, sub stations and dig up every street in the country to put in heavier duty cables.
Can we use the pipelines and power plants we have now to transport and burn hydrogen, or do we need new infrastructure?
Most legacy pipelines and power plants built for natural gas would need to be retrofitted or replaced to use hydrogen—except as a small percentage of a blend with natural gas.
Heat pumps are not a high demand device. If we can push EVs, we can sure as fuck do heat pumps. Hydrogen is a dead end for homes and personal transport. It does have industrial use though.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
There's an energy guy on Twitter who has been collecting all the studies on hydrogen home heating (independent ones). They all come to the same conclusion - costly, inefficient, won't meet climate targets. He's up to 60 now.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
That link is from MIT and refers to the gas network in the US. The UK network is mostly plastic and is capable of delivering hydrogen.Literally 3 seconds on Google, and that's just the first hit.
Can we use the pipelines and power plants we have now to transport and burn hydrogen, or do we need new infrastructure?
Most legacy pipelines and power plants built for natural gas would need to be retrofitted or replaced to use hydrogen—except as a small percentage of a blend with natural gas.climate.mit.edu
Heat pumps are not a high demand device. If we can push EVs, we can sure as fuck do heat pumps. Hydrogen is a dead end for homes and personal transport. It does have industrial use though.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Then why was the estimated cost of converting the UK gas network to hydrogen £182 billion? For a fuel that, let's remember, is less efficient and less green than the alternative?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
The alternative being heat pumps. It's clear methane's days are numbered either way.
Editing to add: The time isn't quite right. I wouldn't replace a working gas boiler and I wouldn't buy an EV today. But I think they're both quite clearly the future unless something quite disruptive gets invented in the short term.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Are those from climate change deniers?
Burning hydrogen adds no carbon to the atmosphere.
3 main ways of producing hydrogen are:-
a) splitting methane to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Bad idea.
b) electrolysis. Add no more carbon to the atmosphere.
c) Another method of splitting methane produces hydrogen and fine carbon particles, which could be sequestered or if fine enough could be used as a source of carbon nanoparticles. Again this process doesn't add any carbon to the atmosphere.
So I have no idea how they claim using hydrogen doesn't decarbonise much.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Are you sure about running costs?
My elecy is 5 to 6 times more expensive than gas per kWh.
And heat pumps have an efficiency of about 2.
So that's means whatever you spend on gas through your boiler could cost you 2.5 to 3 times more on elecy with a heat pump.
And how is your hot water going to be heated?
That's what the sales buff says.
Only independent research I have seen says 2 max
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Even if we assume the gas network is 100% ready for 100% hydrogen. It still takes over 100 kWh of electricity to produce 80kWh of hydrogen.
That report just reads like "Fossil fuel company throw some money into greenwashing swan song."
I'm unconvinced.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Anybody remember solar roadways? The money thrown at that was mind-blowing. Anyone with half a working brain could see it was never going to work, yet even governments threw money at it.
Some people seem to totally disregard simple laws of physics when 'green energy' is mentioned.
Some people seem to totally disregard simple laws of physics when 'green energy' is mentioned.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
That's precisely what it is. WouldBe may want to look into what the government was budgeting for the project before they wisely killed it. If it were actually just a case of pumping a different gas through the existing system, there is no way the project would have been dumped.
I suppose it doesn't matter now - it's dead, and no other countries are seriously considering it either. Research is ongoing, but on the back burner for the EU and Japan.
Edit to add: On a practical level, if you wanted to still use the gas network and boilers, you'd manufacture methane via carbon capture of atmospheric CO2. You end up carbon neutral for the same energy cost as hydrogen, without having to modify anything. But there aren't hundreds of billions to be made out of that.
Last edited:
WouldBe
Dislicksick
If you produce the hydrogen from ammonia in waste water (basically piss) you get this.
Hydrogen electrolysis
How much energy is produced?
What are the benefits?
Useful links
Electrolysis is a commercially viable option for producing hydrogen from renewable resources.
How much energy is produced?
Electrolysis of ammonia in waste water consumes just 1.55 kWh of electrical energy to produce 1 kg of hydrogen. When used as part of a fuel cell, 1 kg of hydrogen can produce up to 23 kWh of electrical energy, but this figure could be lower with an older battery.
If the electricity for electrolysis comes from renewables (wind and solar), there is no ‘direct’ release of CO2 when generating, or burning, the hydrogen.
So you're talking rubbish.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I very much did read it. Trial's done, been analysed, no further funding coming.And yet if you bothered to read the article I linked to they are actually doing trials at the moment in Cumbria it's not been dumped.
Look, it's great for industrial use and has a rosy future there. But the practical hurdles for both home heating and automotive power don't suit wide consumer use. Electricity has too many advantages over it. Efficiency - the first law of thermodynamics is king - most of all.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
If you think that page bolsters your position, there aren't enough facepalms.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
This is starting to read like someone who got roped into a pyramid scheme, trying to convince others that it isn't a scam.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I get the appeal. In theory it's the simplest thing going. Stars run on it. Scifi has touted the hydrogen economy since forever. But the catch in SF is that it relies on cheap fusion. Without cheap, plentiful power, hydrogen takes too much effort to use. Use hydrogen instead of electricity and you're throwing away 25% of your energy right off the bat to make the hydrogen. It's the most plentiful substance in the entire universe, but only in space. Elemental hydrogen is incredibly rare on Earth and it needs a lot of power to extract from water.
So I understand the draw.
