Hydrogen leaks from EVERYTHING

 Do you know what fraction of hydrogen would leak from a storage tank in one year, assuming it is stored at pressure that is common in the industry?

ChatGPT

The leakage rate of hydrogen from a storage tank, assuming it is stored at pressures common in the industry, varies depending on several factors including the quality of the tank construction, the materials used, the pressure level, and the maintenance practices. Common industrial pressures for hydrogen storage are in the range of 350 to 700 bar (5,000 to 10,000 psi) for high-pressure tanks used in vehicles, and lower pressures for other types of storage.

Leakage rates are typically very low due to the stringent standards applied to the design and maintenance of these tanks, aimed at minimizing any losses and ensuring safety. The actual fraction of hydrogen that would leak from a tank in one year is generally expected to be a small percentage of the total stored volume. However, hydrogen's small molecular size makes it more prone to leakage than larger molecules, which is why special materials and technologies are employed to contain it effectively.

Industry standards and studies might suggest specific leakage rates, often in terms of grams per day per ton of storage capacity, but finding an exact fraction without referencing specific tank specifications and operational conditions is challenging. A well-designed and maintained hydrogen storage system can achieve very low leakage rates, but without specific data, providing a precise fraction is difficult.

For detailed and specific leakage rates, it would be necessary to refer to the manufacturer's data of the storage tank in question or studies conducted under similar storage conditions. If you're interested in a more precise figure or a case study, I can look for general information on leakage rates from industry sources or scientific literature.

John

It appears that, even though hydrogen is notoriously leak-prone, due to its small size, the small amount lost when a filling hose is connected and disconnected might account for a substantial fraction of total losses, if we were to rely on hydrogen at scale. My concern is that, in shifting to reliance on hydrogen, we replace one long-term, serious risk with a longer-term, more serious risk. (Leakage will translate into accelerated loss of hydrogen to space. This means the Earth will become more like Mars *sooner* than it otherwise would. We *could* apply energy from MSRs to make hydrocarbons, and avoid this problem in its worst manifestation. The economy would automatically find the best solutions, if we were focused on moral precepts enough to demand honest markets / accounting for externalities.

ChatGPT

Your concern highlights a significant aspect of the debate around the sustainability and environmental impact of various energy carriers, including hydrogen. The potential for hydrogen to leak due to its small molecular size and contribute to atmospheric escape over extremely long time scales is an interesting point, albeit one that operates on geological time frames. The process by which hydrogen molecules escape Earth's gravity and are lost to space is indeed a natural phenomenon, but the rate at which this would be accelerated by human activity, specifically through the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier, would likely be minimal in comparison to the vast scale of natural hydrogen loss.

However, the crux of your concern seems to be about the broader implications of energy choices and the importance of an economic system that fully accounts for externalities, particularly environmental ones. Here's how your ideas could relate to this context:

1. Accounting for Externalities: Implementing a system where all costs, including environmental impacts, are reflected in market prices is essential for honest economic signaling. This would encourage the adoption of energy sources and technologies that are truly sustainable and have minimal negative impacts on the environment. For hydrogen, this would mean considering not just the operational emissions or leakages but also the energy source used for hydrogen production and the lifecycle emissions of the infrastructure.

2. 
   

3. Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and Hydrocarbons: Your suggestion to use energy from MSRs to produce hydrocarbons is an example of using advanced nuclear technology for carbon-neutral fuel production. This approach could indeed mitigate some of the concerns associated with hydrogen, such as leakage and its potential long-term atmospheric consequences, by providing a liquid fuel that is more easily handled and integrated into existing infrastructure. It aligns with the broader principle of using clean energy to synthesize fuels that have a lower risk of environmental externalities.

4. 
   

5. Market Solutions and Moral Precepts: The idea that markets, when properly aligned with moral precepts such as truth and fairness, can find the best solutions to environmental challenges is a powerful one. It suggests that with the right policy frameworks in place, such as pricing carbon and other pollutants, markets can efficiently allocate resources towards sustainable practices. This approach would also support innovation in areas like renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, and alternative fuels, including the responsible use of hydrogen and synthetic hydrocarbons.

Addressing these concerns requires a multifaceted approach, including technological innovation, regulatory frameworks that accurately price externalities, and a shift in societal values towards sustainability and environmental stewardship. While the potential risks associated with any energy source must be carefully considered and mitigated, the transition to a more sustainable energy system is critical in addressing the urgent challenges of climate change and environmental degradation. Your emphasis on integrating moral precepts into economic systems offers a valuable perspective on how to achieve a more sustainable and equitable future.

John Champagne on 𝕏