4 ms·

Qq where did this hydrogen come from for the 50-50 mix? From a quick reading above it looks like it came from cracking fossil fuels rather than electrolysis wh

Qq where did this hydrogen come from for the 50-50 mix? From a quick reading above it looks like it came from cracking fossil fuels rather than electrolysis which is understandable but I think that should be made clear to everyone. It’s really just another way to ship fossil fuels in that sense. Burns slightly cleaner on your stove is the only real advantage here.

ajb 2y ago
In town gas, yes. But that was until the 70s. The first climate change treaty was only signed in 1994. No-one wants to go back to town gas. I don't think it burned cleaner, it was made from coal. And it contained CO, which is lethal. I mention it merely as an existence proof that it's possible to ship hydrogen. I don't personally think it will be economic to do so without compromising climate goals, except as a tool to mitigate the carbon consumption of existing appliances.
- danans 2y ago
  > except as a tool to mitigate the carbon consumption of existing appliances. Does it matter if you reduce CO2 it at the household point of combustion if the fuel is ultimately C02 emissions heavy? Accounting for the inefficiencies of cracking natural gas into H2, it may actually increase the GHG emissions, not to mention being more expensive (due to energy loss during the gas cracking process). Furthermore, the primary local issue with combustion appliances is air quality, and mixing in a little H2 not going to do much to improve that. So piping fossil derived hydrogen into gas pipes doesn't solve either GHG emissions or local air quality issues. You're better off continuing with piped methane gas and phasing in electric heat pumps over time.
  - ajb 2y ago
    If you are putting hydrogen in the mix to reduce CO2 emissions, obviously you should not do it by cracking methane and letting out the resulting carbon. Assuming you don't let out the carbon (or use electrolysis) then maybe there is a case for it.

ajb 2y ago

In town gas, yes. But that was until the 70s. The first climate change treaty was only signed in 1994. No-one wants to go back to town gas. I don't think it burned cleaner, it was made from coal. And it contained CO, which is lethal. I mention it merely as an existence proof that it's possible to ship hydrogen. I don't personally think it will be economic to do so without compromising climate goals, except as a tool to mitigate the carbon consumption of existing appliances.

danans 2y ago
> except as a tool to mitigate the carbon consumption of existing appliances. Does it matter if you reduce CO2 it at the household point of combustion if the fuel is ultimately C02 emissions heavy? Accounting for the inefficiencies of cracking natural gas into H2, it may actually increase the GHG emissions, not to mention being more expensive (due to energy loss during the gas cracking process). Furthermore, the primary local issue with combustion appliances is air quality, and mixing in a little H2 not going to do much to improve that. So piping fossil derived hydrogen into gas pipes doesn't solve either GHG emissions or local air quality issues. You're better off continuing with piped methane gas and phasing in electric heat pumps over time.
- ajb 2y ago
  If you are putting hydrogen in the mix to reduce CO2 emissions, obviously you should not do it by cracking methane and letting out the resulting carbon. Assuming you don't let out the carbon (or use electrolysis) then maybe there is a case for it.