I wish I got to do fun little projects like this at my job. Anyway, this proof of concept shows that hydrogen would be a great alternative to propane and natural gas for cooking. Hat tip to @[email protected].

  • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Hydrogen is so much smaller than natty light that on a Continental scale the losses could be significant, but that’s neat history. It’s fun how long stuff has been around like gasification.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      From all that I’ve seen electricity lines (also HVDC) have higher transmission losses by a magnitude. With hydrogen and modern material science you’ll probably have the choice between higher losses and embrittlement, but that’s just another economical equation: Do you want to eat the higher losses, or replace the pipeline in a couple of decades or a century.

      At least environment-wise hydrogen leaks aren’t an issue: Some atoms diffusing through the wall don’t constitute a fire hazard and the end result is water. Methane, OTOH, is a nasty greenhouse gas.

      Speaking of nature: Ammonia is nasty, but nature produces it itself (just not at those concentrations) and can deal with it. The site directly surrounding a leak would be dead, a bit further downstream (literally) there’s going to be over-fertilisation. Not nice but definitely better than an oil leak and fixing it quite literally involves waiting until grass has grown over it as rain dilutes it and microorganisms migrate back in to eat it. Similar things apply to ethanol which I’d say would be a better choice for general use such as hybrid cars, camping stoves and whatnot because it’s not going to burn your lungs away. Can’t rely on people being conscious enough to get up and flee the ammonia stench when they’re in a car accident.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        At least environment-wise hydrogen leaks aren’t an issue:

        Hydrogen is a strong indirect greenhouse gas.

        The climate impact of hydrogen is about 34 times higher than CO2 when measured over a 20-year period. Looking at the impact over 100 years, the global warming potential reduces to between eight and 13 times.

        Hydrogen causes this by stabilising methane in the atmosphere and creating tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour.

        https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/scientists-reiterate-concerns-about-climate-warming-hydrogen-leaks/

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          We shouldn’t be having methane in the atmosphere in the first place. Sure, if you produce the hydrogen from natural gas then you have a problem because that stuff comes with plenty of methane which won’t suddenly stop leaking.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            We shouldn’t be having methane in the atmosphere in the first place.

            Ha. So we are banning farmers from owning livestock

            Sure, if you produce the hydrogen from natural gas then you have a problem because that stuff comes with plenty of methane which won’t suddenly stop leaking.

            Also if you inject hydrogen into the existing natural gas pipeline.

            The point here is that hydrogen leaks are very much an issue. Your previous statement was false.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Noone here is planning to inject hydrogen into existing pipelines. If anything, synthesising methane during the transition so that consumers only have to switch their burners once, from nat gas to hydrogen, and not first to nat gas + more hydrogen and then to pure hydrogen. Gotta switch whole municipalities at once doesn’t make sense to duplicate the last-mile gas pipes. If, and that’s not even clear yet, hydrogen pipes will even be a thing for private consumers.

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Noone here is planning to inject hydrogen into existing pipelines.

                Ok. Not you. But lots of people elsewhere in this thread.

                If anything, synthesising methane during the transition so that consumers only have to switch their burners once, from nat gas to hydrogen, and not first to nat gas + more hydrogen and then to pure hydrogen.

                Agree. Burning hydrogen has to be done carefully to avoid NOx and other side effects.

                And that’s not even clear yet, hydrogen pipes will even be a thing for private consumers.

                Agreed.

                Industrial green hydrogen is a necessity to remove fossil fuels. Residential hydrogen I am very sceptical about. Even 100% clean fuel cells burn too hot for domestic heating.

      • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Probably true since transmission loses come after engine losses. Ammonia is also pretty cool though, I’ve read about the idea of using it in big engines since it’s also easy to store/make.