• MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Heat pumps take outside heat into the building, which means per kWh of electricity they produce more then 3 kWh of heat. Since hot water can be stored with ease, all it takes a big water tank with good insulation, hydrogen storage is not needed in this case. Also there are to the best of my knowledge no boilers able to burn both 100% hydrogen and 100% natural gas. The 100% hydrogen ones are even more expensive then heat pumps right now. That is to purchase running them is even more expensive.

      This is a fairytale to pretend hydrogen can just be used instead of gas to not see a huge push for heat pumps, but keep gas infrastructure in place.

      • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The cost to rip out all boilers and replace them with heat pumps is a fantasy. You’re looking at 10k with all the tanks etc. Not going to happen.

        As a transition fuel, green hydrogen makes sense, new boilers can burn a hydrogen mix and all the gas pipes in the UK are in the process of having plastic inserts installed so hydrogen won’t escape.

        You either make hydrogen with renewables, with the cost on a par with fossil fuel methods, which is already happening, or have to use batteries, batteries are full of rare earth minerals and are also expensive.

    • PupBiru@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      however the cheapest way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels, so it also continues to line the pockets of the fossil fuel industry until people figure that out and mount enough pressure to force another transition

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Green hydrogen makes sense as a means of storing electricity from renewables, and for use in some transport applications where batteries aren’t workable. But it’s quite inefficient so it doesn’t make sense to burn hydrogen (green or otherwise) as an alternative to heat pumps. And it’s the “otherwise” that really matters. Making home heating dependent on hydrogen opens the door to other colours of hydrogen, which is exactly what Big Carbon is pushing for.

    • Tschuuuls@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah that’s stupid. We won’t have a abundance of hydrogen, or extra energy to burn for years to come. This hydrogen boiler thing is just a measure to stay on fossils for longer, because certain models will have problems with it and there won’t be enough hydrogen available. Which means oil companies will benefit.

      • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Renewables are peaky, how do you propose we smooth those peaks? Hydrogen or batteries seem the only two viable options for energy storage.

        Plus you can make ammonia from renewables for use as a ship fuel or fertilizer

        Btw energy companies are the ones with the capital to fund the transition off fossil fuels, how else do you propose funding it?