Eco house with hydrogen heating technology. [Image credit: emergingrisks.co.uk]
Sounds like game over for that site. Back to the drawing board for the climate obsessed UK government.
– – –
A study exploring the potential of a decommissioned gas field in Scotland as a major hydrogen store has highlighted concerns over potential leaks and recommended that it shouldn’t be used, says the University of Aberdeen (via Phys.org).
Research led by Professor John Underhill at the University of Aberdeen and Malcolm Butler at the UK Onshore Geophysical Library (UKOGL) concluded that the Cousland gas field in Midlothian fails to meet the criteria for safe subsurface storage.
The site near Dalkeith in Midlothian, which was decommissioned in the 1960s, has been highlighted by other academic studies as a potential contender for large-scale hydrogen storage to help meet national net zero ambitions.
However, the study has found numerous barriers to its adoption for this purpose, including a lack of evidence of the nature of the subsurface sedimentary rocks and the structure of the field.
This has led to concerns over the potential for hydrogen to escape and present a risk to the local environment and surrounding communities. The findings have been published in the Earth Science, Systems and Society journal.
Professor Underhill, who is Director of the University’s Center for Energy Transition, said, “Hydrogen has been proposed as a possible green energy vector in the transition, but it forms a small, nimble molecule and is very difficult to contain.
“It can be stored safely in subsurface geological sites, but so far these have largely been limited to man-made hermetically sealed soluble caverns in halite (rock salt) deposits.
“The absence of salt deposits onshore in Scotland is what has led to the proposal that former and now depleted hydrocarbon fields such as the Cousland gas field, could be used.
“However no natural hydrogen has been discovered in any existing onshore or offshore fields in the UK, which raises the question of whether it was once there and leaked, and crucially if it would stay underground if it was injected into a subsurface site.
“We used geological data available through the UK Onshore Geophysical Library (UKOGL) to critically evaluate the possibility and concluded that the Cousland field fails to meet the criteria for safe subsurface storage, is a poor site for a hydrogen repository and should not be used for this purpose.”
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Puh!
It was said here before by Mark J:
“There is no idea so insane, laughable, vile, or dangerous that an academic won’t buy into it.”
Of course of course of course! And where does the hydrogen come from? Excess windmill capacity? Burning gas? And how compressed for transport (keep well clear)! And who’s to pay for gas station pressure tanks. Insurance? Nowhere near me, cobber
I don’t ‘get this!
‘Natural gas’ (~CH4) isn’t ‘hydrogen’ (H2) which is difficult to ‘contain’ within a ‘manufactured boundary’, but with ‘natural gas’ (~CH4) the ‘carbon atom ‘ (C) increases the ‘captivity quotient’ of the ‘complete molecule’ of CH4 when piping/distributing the ‘natural gas’. Why would we ‘exclude’ this natural resource that’s the best/nearest resource to ‘hydrogen’ (H2)? It’s ‘low carbon’.
I just don’t get it.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
‘A poor site for a hydrogen repository and should not be used for this purpose.’
Are there any good sites?
UK government must kick-start the construction of large-scale electricity storage or fail to meet legally binding net zero targets by 2050, warns Royal Society report
08 September 2023
It concludes that large scale electricity storage is essential to mitigate variations in wind and sunshine, particularly long-term variations in the wind, and to keep the nation’s lights on. Storing most of the surplus as hydrogen, in salt caverns, would be the cheapest way of doing this.
The report, based on 37 years of weather data, finds that in 2050 up to 100 Terawatt-hours (TWh) of storage will be needed, which would have to be capable of meeting around a quarter of the UK’s current annual electricity demand. This would be equivalent to more than 5,000 Dinorwig pumped hydroelectric dams. Storage on this scale, which would require up to 90 clusters of 10 caverns, is not possible with batteries or pumped hydro. Storage requirements on this scale are not currently foreseen by the government. Work on constructing these caverns should begin immediately if the government is to have any chance of meeting its net zero targets, the report states.
There are currently three hydrogen storage caverns in the UK, which have been in use since 1972… [bold added]
https://royalsociety.org/news/2023/09/electricity-storage-report/
90*10 caverns needed, 3 there, 897 to go. How many decades before that’s done?
I’d like to offer a ‘quote’ from your response of 28/01/2024 at 3.00 pm, but I’m unable to ‘quote’ at this time (my bad I’m sure).
IMHO the cheapest/best employment for an ‘interim energy source’ leading towards any ‘green energy regimen’ would be ‘natural gas’ (CH4).
I fully understand that ‘natural gas’ isn’t actually ‘CH4’, but it’s its ‘nearest equivalent’ (~CH4). So is the nearest equivalent to a ‘green alternative’ to/for use during a ‘transition period’ between a ‘carbon’ and ‘green energy’ transition (it’s ‘natural’).
That being said, the chemicals to produce ‘battery energy’ to this magnitude require the extraction of rare earth chemicals together with the ‘energy needed’ to ‘produce’ the ‘battery’. This isn’t sustainable on a ‘global’ scale’.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).