Guys,

Let's look at this from a common sense, realistic point of view. At present we have a perfectly good natural gas distribution network and a perfectly good electrical distribution network. Both of which at present can meet the requirements of the vast majority of consumers within the UK.

By saying that we should no longer burn natural gas without replacing it, would mean shutting down the gas supply industry with the loss of tens of  thousands of jobs.

Replacing the energy provided by natural gas would not yet be possible by the present electricity supply and distribution system. For it to be able to do so would require vast amounts of investment and a great deal of upheaval around the country. It is not just a matter of installing a few extra wind turbines and running a few extra cables. You cannot just get large high voltage power transformers off the shelf, the lead time is well over 1 year.

Because electrical energy cannot be stored in bulk, the Winter heating load would require many more wind turbines to supply ASHP's reliably, than would be required to produce Hydrogen gas by electrolysis throughout the year to meet the same heat demand.

Nuclear power stations are certainly not cheap to build or operate, and since they cannot just be switched on and off have limited ability to provide grid security and demand balancing.

For a sustainable future we require all possible energy sources to be explored and utilised to help mitigate climate change.

I have just watched a video where there are proposals to use solar energy in Australia to produce Hydrogen, which would then be exported to other Asian countries. Makes good common sense to me.

Posted by: @batalto

@derek-m if gas remains the cheapest method of heating, no one will switch. That's just straight fact. Gas heating has to be made more expensive in comparison to electric.

I moved to ASHP as it should lower my heating costs when tied to solar, battery and a highly insulated home. The interesting thing on electric is that the UK actually uses the same amount now as it did the 90s. Energy efficiency has drastically lowered the KW per person demand. In the end the grid will need to be adapted to provide more base load. For me, nuclear is the clear choice until such time as better storage for renewables comes along and vehicle 2 grid systems. 

If I was the government I'd start by mandating all new houses have 1kw of solar panels and 2kw of batteries. This would even out the 7pm peak loads and reduce overt demand in the day

Energy usage and source graph

Hi Batalto,

Looking at the electricity generation data for the past year from National Grid, it would appear that almost 40% was from gas fired plant. Increasing the price of gas would therefore increase the price of electricity.

Posted by: @julianc

Mars second info graphic is useful. I can see H2 being useful for large industrial processes. But not for cars or homes. Homes H2 boilers would operate at a maximum 20% H2, 80% CH4. Higher % to this means lower calorific value. Higher pressure doesn’t help. So you are still burning fossil fuels. So a step. But not a big enough step. ASHPs are a better answer. Some for EVs vs fuel cells. 70% loss in creating and compression and transport of H2 compared to using electric in BEVs. So why bother?  BEVs can be used for V2G in the future to help balance the grid. Case closed. 

The 20% hydrogen trial has started. Permission was given in July and pumping started in August.

Winlaton, Gateshead, supplying 668 houses, a school and several small businesses, for 10 months starting in August with Northern Gas  Networks.

Will see earlier results from this than the H100 Fife trial. Although it's only a stop gap like E10 introduced at the petrol pumps this month.  

@derek-m yes that's true, but there is a pretty big difference between wholesale costs to generators and retail costs to residential heating - my point is focused on the latter.

I think we need to be open minded and embrace different solutions.  Just like BEVs may not be the only solution for personal transport, ASHPs may not be the only way for greener domestic heating. 

And free market prices will not bring about a move away from fossil fuels, we need incentives and penalties, which may need to include making heating with fossil fuels more expensive.  Left to the market, we would all be driving diesel cars and heating with shale gas.

Thanks @jeff Will keep an eye on the 100% trial. The 20% one is easily doable. But only gets us 20% of the CO2 reduction. 
@derek-m just because we have invested a lot in something in the past does not make it the best future solution - look at the canal system. We have a nation wide electric power grid. Further investment will be required to support ASHPs. 
@kev-m I happen to think BEVs are the answer for personal transportation. Not necessarily for long distance trucks, ships or aircraft. H2 fuel cells for cars are an interesting science project, but require too much development & then national supply of H2. Plus the losses in H2 production. 
Now I’ve had a go at all you lovely people, I will go sit on the naughty step 😊

@julianc

Just FYI

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/19511983.worlds-first-hydrogen-heating-grid-fife-gets-go-ahead/

I came across this video:

This is the perspective of, shall we call them, 'Big Boiler'.  They take the position that they can build hydrogen boilers and they're better for retrofit.  The questions about how to generate and transmit the hydrogen are not addressed, nor the efficiencies...

An extremely interesting article on the trial colour of blue hydrogen: https://renewableheatinghub.co.uk/blackish-blue-bruise-coloured-hydrogen

As others have said, I can't see a long term future for significant hydrogen pumped to homes for heating.  It's so inefficient and complex to make, transport last mile and then just burn, so will surely cost more than cheap rate electricity per kWh.  Home heating can be done directly with the cheapest rate electricity, so the sensible long term comparison price is with this lowest night rate.  There's a lot of vested interest wanting it to work though - Boiler manufacturers, fossil fuel lobby hoping for "blue" H2, homeowners - so it will linger for ages I think, and there will be H2 boilers, trials etc etc - but I think it will come down to the price per kWh compared to cheap rate elec. 

I can however see it being generated whenever or wherever renewable elec is cheap, and transported long distance by ship as either H2 or NH3, then used by planes, maybe long range cars, and certainly for dispatchable elec generation when there's no local sun or wind instead of gas, as it is easier to store large quantities of it compared to battery storage.  I just hope we don't fall for the "blue" H2 nonsense, which is by all accounts worse than just burning the gas, in all but PR.