Hydrogen? No thanks...

Image by Anne Lund from Wikipedia
reproduced and modified under GNU 1.2

I've always found the old anti-nuclear badge hilarious. It might say 'Nuclear Power? No Thanks', but its central image of the smiling sun portrays the biggest nuclear reactor within several light years. But I can't resist adapting it as a comment on the over-enthusiasm for some applications of hydrogen in green energy.

Don't get me wrong, hydrogen is a wonderful element - literally the number one. There is a specific irony in my use of that image because, of course, hydrogen is the fuel of that vast nuclear reactor that keeps us alive - and, for that matter, it's one of the two component elements of the water that is essential for life.

I am also not denying that hydrogen has a useful role in the future green economy. It's often mis-described as an energy source. It's actually an energy store, and as such could be useful as a way of storing away renewable energy. For example, solar energy can be used when the Sun is not shining by producing hydrogen at power stations that is later cleanly burned. It is also a potential fuel for large, specialist vehicles if batteries are not a sensible option, such as long range buses, lorries and possibly aircraft.

However, there are two 'green energy' applications of hydrogen that are still mentioned but that have serious problems.

One is in cars. The Grand Tour presenters (formerly of Top Gear) have frequently praised hydrogen as a petrol replacement, in opposition to electric cars. But for me it has three issues. One is it's even less safe to handle and live with than petrol. A second that it has lower energy density than petrol, so you get less range for the same tank size. But the biggest one is that hydrogen ties us to fuel stations. We already have a much bigger distribution network for electricity. When, many years ago, I had a Mondex card, the original experimental cashless card, its biggest plus was I could top it up at home - I didn't have to go somewhere to get cash. The same applies to electric cars. Of course they need to be cheaper and with better range, but that will come. But who would want to keep filling stations if we could get away from them?

The other problematic application is using hydrogen as a replacement for gas heating in homes. The idea is that you put hydrogen down the same pipes we currently put natural gas down - so, like electricity, the distribution network is already there to the point of use. Sounds great. But I was always worried that hydrogen, which is better at leaking than natural gas would find far too many ways of escaping... and I'd rather get away from pumping highly flammable substances into the home.

Now, though, there's a second and even more convincing reason - it's not a cheap solution, nor is it even particularly green. This isn't a comment from an alarmist source, it's the outcome of a review of 32 independent studies, reported in Chemistry World. As the original study notes 'it takes about five times more electricity to heat a home with hydrogen than it takes to heat the same home with an efficient heat pump, either individually or as part of a district heating network.' This is not the green future.

This has been a Green Heretic production.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog