Page 14 - Gi_March2021

on hydrogen

finding from the study. know we can join to them. conditions it has been placed under
We looked in particular at our I think we did a very comprehensive it has allowed us to extrapolate one
electrofusion fittings; we’ve looked at study. It’s been well-received by the hundred years into the future. Those
the surface temperature that you get regulator and the networks. We found are the same methods we use now
from the fittings when you use them, to that with hydrogen it was probably for water, which acts as a stand-in
make sure that they don’t have the slightly safer going from methane to for methane gas, which is industry
activation energy that might create an hydrogen, taking the RCP mode as an accepted. So when we’re doing this for
event in your welding. We were hoping example, and for other modes we didn’t actual hydrogen, we’re using the same
for something interesting, like a little find anything detrimental, so it was a kind of practices we already use.
blue flash or something. Again, the good result in that sense. Interestingly, I can say that of the
result – the result we wanted – was pipes that are on test now at 20°C,
that nothing happened. But from a SA-D: We had initial batches for just technically they were predicted to
technologist’s perspective it would have testing out the facility, so that was last only 5,000 hours. So the fact that
been nice if something a little more done first with nitrogen to see how they’re looking like they’re heading to
exciting had happened! But the great everything performed and to make 10,000 is actually an overperformance.
news for real people installing these sure everything could be shut down We were testing pipes up to
things is it was a nice, safe, reliable and controlled as we wanted. Once destruction – that was the aim; to find
way of joining for the future. So, we the nitrogen testing was done, we out at which point they burst, so that
know we can repair these pipes and we went onto hydrogen. With hydrogen, it we know if they burst at this pressure,
was an unknown; there was no pre-set reduce it by a safety factor of X amount,
data we could use to do the testing of then reduce it further so the working
From a safety perspective, the same values. It was very much a pressure can actually be, in this way,
unlike methane, there’s no case of “this is the range we believe down below the limit at which the
chance of carbon monoxide we need, so let’s pick one here, one burst starts. The pipes are actually
here, one here.” We built it up that way
doing better than expected. Hydrogen
poisoning within your own in terms of the amount of testing. It hasn’t made the pipe deteriorate or
home, so when you’re was always the same – the same batch become so soft that it collapses in on
burning hydrogen you won’t of pipe, same sizes – the only thing itself. It’s been overperforming.
From a safety perspective, unlike
that was changed was the pressure
have to be concerned that it’s ranges. The testing will only be carried methane, there’s no chance of carbon
burning properly out for a year and a half, but with the monoxide poisoning within your own

14

11/02/2021 13:35
RadiusHydrogen.indd 3 11/02/2021 13:35
RadiusHydrogen.indd 3