How are people going to afford heat this year?

leonz

Don't kill the messenger;


If the local zoning would allow it a district heating system using Anthracite Stoker Coal in a coal stoker boiler and burns with no smoke.

Sub Bituminous Coal from the Powder River Basin is very inexpensive per ton and burns with little smoke.

Not much help here but in Iceland they take advantage of the thermal energy that ground provides to them to have district heating and sidewalk snow melting.

The Horizontal Directional Drilling method could be used for making dual pipe runs for the hot water and cool water return pipes and a small vault could be placed in front of each home to make the heating connection, install the shut off valves and cool water return using a smaller Horizontal Directional Drill to run the pipes to the home.

By the time all is said and done though an insulated low pressure dry steam pipeline would make more sense economically especially when connecting to a heating system like scorched air.

The threaded steel steam pipe feeding the home would have to be protected by an insulated casing pipe from the vault to allow it to be replaced if needed by disconnecting it from the main using a steam pressure rated closure valve off of a welded T connection and steam rated gasketed flange joints?

I have no idea how the delivered steam would be controlled in the home but I would imagine it would be the same way it is done in many large cities feeding buildings off a common pipeline/or how the air vent system would be employed in the home or whether the home would require a battery of air vents to protect the home when the heating system is calling for heat or if a main vent would be needed at the end of the pipeline as well.

Jamie Hall

District heating -- preferably steam, as there is much more heat transfer capacity -- is perfectly feasible, @leonz . New York, among other cities, has been (or had been) using it for years. One can have one pipe or two pipe steam, or can use a heat exchanger for either hot water or forced air. No problem with that.

But...

What is your heat source? It's not going to be coal or any other fossil fuel. It could be nuclear, but I can't imagine much future in trying to site a nuclear reactor -- even one of the advanced ones now available -- in an urban setting. If it's something electrically powered, it's going to be a lot cheaper to run the electricity to the site rather than pipes.

GW

I have NG high efficiency boiler with a well sealed and insulated home, and full-on geothermal hvac: energy costs would have to quadruple one more time before I begin to have fuel costs on my radar. But others—-I have no idea- wondering if the question was rhetorical 

Jamie Hall

It wasn't rhetorical, @GW . If we define fuel poverty as spending 10% or more of one's income on heat, probably half my parish will be there this winter -- including myself, for what that's worth.

GW

Jamie ok just wondering how heating guys would have an answer to that style of question. We don’t control policy and fuel costs 

Jamie Hall

GW said:

Jamie ok just wondering how heating guys would have an answer to that style of question. We don’t control policy and fuel costs 

I don't think we as a trade do have an answer, at least in one sense -- and I'm not at all sure we should be expected to, since in many ways it's much more a political question than a nuts and bolts one. What I do think is that it's worth thinking about, and helping our clients get the most they can either out of what they have -- if they can't afford to change to a different system -- or out of their structure (such as by suggesting insulation and draught sealing). Beyond that, and helping make sure we make what they have run as well as it can, I think we're kind of stuck.

leonz

Jamie Hall said:

District heating -- preferably steam, as there is much more heat transfer capacity -- is perfectly feasible, @leonz . New York, among other cities, has been (or had been) using it for years. One can have one pipe or two pipe steam, or can use a heat exchanger for either hot water or forced air. No problem with that.

But...

What is your heat source? It's not going to be coal or any other fossil fuel. It could be nuclear, but I can't imagine much future in trying to site a nuclear reactor -- even one of the advanced ones now available -- in an urban setting. If it's something electrically powered, it's going to be a lot cheaper to run the electricity to the site rather than pipes.

==================================================================================================================================

Hello Jamie,

I doubt the public is ready for a very small Thorium Salt Reactor that would fit on a flat bed tractor trailer
to make steam but anything is possible.

I guess we would be going back to the local dealer making coal deliveries of Western Sub Bituminous Stoker Coal to feed the home furnaces and boilers.

hot_rod

Why not a 130F district system, one that favors GSHP, solar thermal, waste heat from sewer systems, A2WHPs
Unless the steam is a a waste heat from power generation, seems more efficient to transmit low temperature water.

Jamie Hall

hot_rod said:

Why not a 130F district system, one that favors GSHP, solar thermal, waste heat from sewer systems, A2WHPs
Unless the steam is a a waste heat from power generation, seems more efficient to transmit low temperature water.

It's quite true that you would have significantly less heat loss at the lower temperature. But... you have to move a lot more mass, and it won't move itself. It has to be pumped. Engineering tradeoffs there. Where's my slide rule?

Not to mention that steam can heat steam heated buildings without modification, and any low temperature system with simple heat exchangers.

hot_rod

The low temperatures could be exchanged with high COP, 3-4 depending on the lift, that would need to calculate into the analysis between steam or low temperature water.

Jamie Hall

ron said:

How are people going to afford heat this year?

Why this question, when it is transitory?




I admire your optimism. But, perhaps, you have a short time frame. Try the Carter years and the 15 to 20 percent inflation he engineered, which stuck.

HomerJSmith

Rubbing two sticks together works for me. One could always move toward the equator. Sounds cynical? I have 3 sources of heat in my house. I saw this coming 20 yrs ago.

I'm thinking of buying another Mod/Con and putting it in storage for when my present one poops out and there ain't any available, believe it or not, besides which, you would be buying it at today's prices. It might be old technology, tho. However, it's never going to be cheaper than today. But, then again, will one have NG to run it on or can one afford NG?

How does that Chinese curse go? "May you live in interesting times."

Robert_25

Jamie Hall said:

Someone up there suggested burning wood or pellet stoves. I was just at a conference yesterday with people in the lumber industry in my area (loggers, foresters, that sort) and over half of them have shut down their operations. They can't afford the fuel to keep their equipment running... Wood fuel isn't going to be cheap.

Hi Jamie. I agree that cost of solid fuels will go up, but typically the price is much more stable than the price of diesel fuel. As you note below, due to the labor required to burn solid fuels, not everyone is willing or able to switch from oil/gas to wood, coal, etc.

Jamie Hall said:

There are several problems with wood heat. First, even with machinery (power splitters, cordwood saws, skidders, what have you) it's labour intensive. Not really a good game for older people. Second, you do have to know what you are doing with the stuff, and what to burn -- or what not to burn. Chimney fires are great neighborhood entertainment, but can ruin your whole day.

Third, and perhaps most important, while it is a renewable resource (if you do your forestry properly) it is also a limited resource: if you are burning hardwood (which you should) you can figure no more than 1 cord per acre of woodland in good condition as a renewable resource. Most hardwoods run around 25,000,000 BTU per cord -- which is equivalent to around 180 gallons of oil. Suppose a reasonably tight normal house in the northern US, burning around 1,000 gallons of oil per winter -- that's the yield from 5 acres of decent woodland.

The problem should be obvious: the vast majority of houses do not have access to 5 acres of decent woodland. They might have 5 trees... total.

Availability and pricing of firewood depends a lot on where you live. In my area (Northern NY) ordering a load of firewood is the pretty much the same process as scheduling a delivery of heating oil or propane. Call the firewood guy, tell him how much you want, and it arrives a few days later. Seasoned firewood is available, and well worth the cost if you aren't planning a year ahead. The biggest problems I see with firewood are people getting into the game late and trying to burn wood that is not properly seasoned. That results in creosote and if not careful, a chimney fire.

If done correctly wood can be a very economical form of heat...but I do not expect the latest generation of homeowners to be installing woodstoves this fall. Most of them did not grow up burning wood and IMO are more likely to consider other options (including being cold).

HomerJSmith

The insiders are already talking about blackouts coming soon. How many heating strategies rely on electricity? hmmm

JakeCK

HomerJSmith said:

The insiders are already talking about blackouts coming soon. How many heating strategies rely on electricity? hmmm

I got a duel fuel generator, and failing that I can run my boiler off my truck using an inverter. And if it got really nasty maybe wire some of my solar panels up to charge a few batteries to run the boiler. This assume NG. I do have a wood burning fireplace but I wouldn't trust that yet with out an inspection.

Jamie Hall

Seems to me that as a group we are a pretty resourceful lot. The ones who I worry about are the folks in a third floor walkup in some urban area, or on a quarter acre plot in a subdivision of a few hundred similar crackerboxes...

Dave Carpentier

Noticed an ominous phrase one day that went something like -
"Just because you think something is too awful to happen, doesnt mean it wont".

I remember 20 years ago when I bought my oil boiler, thinking the price of oil would never get out of hand because the transportation industry depends on it.
So now Im jumping to gas (propane first but switch to NG when it gets here), thinking it will never get out of hand, because so many homes depend on it for basic heat.

Im putting an extra port on my buffer tank so that I could potentially heat that water with something else if needed (outdoor wood burner ? I have 8 acres of trees..)

Jamie Hall

If the local climate hawks allow a wood burning boiler, and if you -- or your sons and grandsons (or daughters!) have the strength and the time to harvest the wood, you should be fine, @Dave Carpentier

cowdog

Jamie Hall said:

Someone up there suggested burning wood or pellet stoves. I was just at a conference yesterday with people in the lumber industry in my area (loggers, foresters, that sort) and over half of them have shut down their operations. They can't afford the fuel to keep their equipment running... Wood fuel isn't going to be cheap.

It's time to electrify. The tractor could drag a spool of wire from the nearest road to the logging site.

cowdog

Jamie Hall said:

There are several problems with wood heat. First, even with machinery (power splitters, cordwood saws, skidders, what have you) it's labour intensive. Not really a good game for older people. Second, you do have to know what you are doing with the stuff, and what to burn -- or what not to burn. Chimney fires are great neighbourhood entertainment, but can ruin your whole day.

Third, and perhaps most important, while it is a renewable resource (if you do your forestry properly) it is also a limited resource: if you are burning hardwood (which you should) you can figure no more than 1 cord per acre of woodland in good condition as a renewable resource. Most hardwoods run around 25,000,000 BTU per cord -- which is equivalent to around 180 gallons of oil. Suppose a reasonably tight normal house in the northern US, burning around 1,000 gallons of oil per winter -- that's the yield from 5 acres of decent woodland.

The problem should be obvious: the vast majority of houses do not have access to 5 acres of decent woodland. They might have 5 trees... total.

Wood stoves and boilers are compatible with a wide range of solid fuels, including municipal solid waste, C&D waste, waste tires, peat, lignite, coal, etc.

Ash from burning municipal solid waste contains enough metal per cubic ft to be worth picking up, so it also increases metal recycling rate.

There is no local supply problem. Every city has a landfill that can be mined and have the MSW dugged up, shredded and briquetted or pelletized.

Jamie Hall

cowdog said:

Jamie Hall said:

Someone up there suggested burning wood or pellet stoves. I was just at a conference yesterday with people in the lumber industry in my area (loggers, foresters, that sort) and over half of them have shut down their operations. They can't afford the fuel to keep their equipment running... Wood fuel isn't going to be cheap.

It's time to electrify. The tractor could drag a spool of wire from the nearest road to the logging site.

I hope you're kidding. Either that or you have no experience with any commercial logging. One skidder will run around 400 KW. Forwarder about that. That's one heck of an extension cord... a couple of miles into the woods. And that assumes that the road has power -- which a lot of them don't.

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Someone up there suggested burning wood or pellet stoves. I was just at a conference yesterday with people in the lumber industry in my area (loggers, foresters, that sort) and over half of them have shut down their operations. They can't afford the fuel to keep their equipment running... Wood fuel isn't going to be cheap.

It's time to electrify. The tractor could drag a spool of wire from the nearest road to the logging site.

I hope you're kidding. Either that or you have no experience with any commercial logging. One skidder will run around 400 KW. Forwarder about that. That's one heck of an extension cord... a couple of miles into the woods. And that assumes that the road has power -- which a lot of them don't.

I think he was kidding.

cowdog

Jamie Hall said:

cowdog said:

Jamie Hall said:

Someone up there suggested burning wood or pellet stoves. I was just at a conference yesterday with people in the lumber industry in my area (loggers, foresters, that sort) and over half of them have shut down their operations. They can't afford the fuel to keep their equipment running... Wood fuel isn't going to be cheap.

It's time to electrify. The tractor could drag a spool of wire from the nearest road to the logging site.

I hope you're kidding. Either that or you have no experience with any commercial logging. One skidder will run around 400 KW. Forwarder about that. That's one heck of an extension cord... a couple of miles into the woods. And that assumes that the road has power -- which a lot of them don't.

The skidder does not continuously pull 400kw, it's "peak" power that can be jerked out of a battery. A Tesla Model 3's peak power is 480hp(350kw).

ChrisJ

cowdog said:

Someone up there suggested burning wood or pellet stoves. I was just at a conference yesterday with people in the lumber industry in my area (loggers, foresters, that sort) and over half of them have shut down their operations. They can't afford the fuel to keep their equipment running... Wood fuel isn't going to be cheap.

It's time to electrify. The tractor could drag a spool of wire from the nearest road to the logging site.

I hope you're kidding. Either that or you have no experience with any commercial logging. One skidder will run around 400 KW. Forwarder about that. That's one heck of an extension cord... a couple of miles into the woods. And that assumes that the road has power -- which a lot of them don't.

The skidder does not continuously pull 400kw, it's "peak" power that can be jerked out of a battery. A Tesla Model 3's peak power is 480hp(350kw).

You do understand there's a big reason tractor trailers are not running the same engines as sports cars right?

The engine from a vette wouldn't be very pretty in a Kenworth hauling logs......


How long do you think that Tesla will deliver 350kw?   A skidder might need it a lot more continuous than you think.

Jamie Hall

My good optimist. Just this morning I ran our skidder -- mostly flat out -- for about 4 hours. Meanwhile my son in law was running the forwarder, granted not flat out all the time (I don't think we had more than about 60,000 pounds of logs on it at a time) on a two mile up hill haul to the landing. All morning and most of the afternoon.

Most people have absolutely no clue as to just how much of the rated power of these machines -- from our farm tractors up to logging equipment and over the road trucks (never mind railroad engines) -- is used, all the time. It's usually 75% and up. It's not even remotely comparable to a passenger car. I'll happily grant your Tesla can put out 350 KW. Briefly. All morning? Not a hope. The model 3 battery has, as I understand it, 82 KW-hour capacity. That would last about 10 minutes in the woods -- if it didn't overheat and explode first.

I like the comment about a Corvette engine in a Kenworth! As it happens, though, for a while Chevy did put the big block 454 in heavy duty pickup trucks; I have one. It's tuned (by Chevy) for peak torque at about 1500 rpm and peak horsepower (230 hp at the wheels) at 2500 rpm. I used to use it towing heavy horse trailers long distances, and there have been times when I've had it floored or nearly so for 10 minutes at a time (there are some real climbs on I-81 and I-87). It never complained.

On a more serious note, it is this sort of misconception which leads people to make wishful statements like we can easily electrify heavy equipment. Over the road trucks, farm and logging and construction, railroads. Yes, it can be done -- after all, the world's biggest dragline -- Big Musky -- was powered by an extension cord of sorts (I've heard it took the power equivalent to about 28,000 average houses to run). There are short range battery powered railroad engines used for very local switching. But 3,000 horsepower from a diesel rail engine for, say, the climb from Vancouver to Kicking Horse Pass -- 6 hours flat out -- or an eight hour run in that Kenworth, using upwards of 300 horsepower continuously? please...

ChrisJ

@Jamie Hall a truck tuned 454 isn't a Corvette engine and you know it. 


I was talking more along the lines of a recent 500-600hp one.

It wouldn't like running wide open for long periods.  Just like that Tesla battery wouldn't like it.  Not sure about the electric motor but that probably wouldn't either 


Doesn't mean we can't build an electric tractor but it does mean the hardware from a Tesla S car isn't up to the job.  In my humble opinion.

That darn duty cycle......

cowdog

Jamie Hall said:

Most people have absolutely no clue as to just how much of the rated power of these machines -- from our farm tractors up to logging equipment and over the road trucks (never mind railroad engines) -- is used, all the time. It's usually 75% and up. It's not even remotely comparable to a passenger car. I'll happily grant your Tesla can put out 350 KW. Briefly. All morning? Not a hope. The model 3 battery has, as I understand it, 82 KW-hour capacity. That would last about 10 minutes in the woods -- if it didn't overheat and explode first.

Tesla Semi use the same motors with Model 3. The motor itself is OK, it's the cooling that limits model 3 from sustaining its peak power.
but transmission is definitely a bottleneck. For remote and temporary application, you can use one-wire transmission (only one 11kv high voltage overhead wire, current is returned from the ground, it needs a 40A (#8 AWG) wire.

I am not an electrician but I can predict it works in a makeshift setting. We just lack an industrial standard (including how to hang it on trees, how to monitor, how to protect against fallen wires, how to isolate the operators from the current etc)

cowdog

Jamie Hall said:

District heating -- preferably steam, as there is much more heat transfer capacity -- is perfectly feasible, @leonz . New York, among other cities, has been (or had been) using it for years. One can have one pipe or two pipe steam, or can use a heat exchanger for either hot water or forced air. No problem with that.

But...

What is your heat source? It's not going to be coal or any other fossil fuel. It could be nuclear, but I can't imagine much future in trying to site a nuclear reactor -- even one of the advanced ones now available -- in an urban setting. If it's something electrically powered, it's going to be a lot cheaper to run the electricity to the site rather than pipes.

For a city's district heating, the heat source could be municipal solid waste. It's a fuel resource with decades of cache (landfills) that's not likely to run out, and with existing transport infrastructure.

SlamDunk

I'm not sure this is germaine to the topic anymore, but my company is building a net zero warehouse with drive in cooler storage. It will take utility power but with the solar panels, the meter shouldnt move. Geo thermal for heating/cooling and two, maybe 3,Tesla Megapacks to provide 6-9MWh of power during power outages to keep geothermal running and lights on. I guess my point is that there are ways to lighten to load on the grid and still have a functional building without harming the environment. This is our third net zero building and they work well year round.

leonz

from the main to the homes where a vault would be used with a steam rated closure valve for the home to shut the line off if needed to the home steam line.

The same would be true for hot water heating with a second line for the cooler return water to the heating plant.
==================================================================================================================================

cowdog said:

Jamie Hall said:

District heating -- preferably steam, as there is much more heat transfer capacity -- is perfectly feasible, @leonz . New York, among other cities, has been (or had been) using it for years. One can have one pipe or two pipe steam, or can use a heat exchanger for either hot water or forced air. No problem with that.

But...

What is your heat source? It's not going to be coal or any other fossil fuel. It could be nuclear, but I can't imagine much future in trying to site a nuclear reactor -- even one of the advanced ones now available -- in an urban setting. If it's something electrically powered, it's going to be a lot cheaper to run the electricity to the site rather than pipes.

For a city's district heating, the heat source could be municipal solid waste. It's a fuel resource with decades of cache (landfills) that's not likely to run out, and with existing transport infrastructure.

================================================================

In our area my thought would be to use the Western coals which burns much cleaner to make steam and deliver it with a single pipe system at 15 pounds pressure in the pipeline as is done at Cornell University to heat its buildings.

Of course the typical residence would use only 1.5 PSIG dry steam to heat a home in any case as would an multiple apartment house.


The typical old city dumps/town dumps do not exist anymore nor are they useable for large methane collection and use for that matter.

Our old Ithaca city dump located near the Lehigh Valley railroad yard was hacked through with a flood control channel in 1965 by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to reduce lake flooding risk.

Use of municipal waste for power generation would require an incinerator built as well as the OCCRA rock cut road incinerator on route 481 in the Town of Geddes in Onondaga County outside of Syracuse NY or for more municipal waste to be transported to the Rock Cut Road facility or the garbage to steam plant owned by Cargill near Albany, NY.

Tapping into the methane flow from the landfills near Buffalo, NY would be an option but the issue would always be how much methane can be reclaimed as it would have to be collected at negative pressure, cleaned, scrubbed of impurities then compressed and then used in a small diesel engine to push power back into the grid to sell it and recoup the cost over several decades.

leonz

ChrisJ said:

@Jamie Hall a truck tuned 454 isn't a Corvette engine and you know it. 


I was talking more along the lines of a recent 500-600hp one.

It wouldn't like running wide open for long periods.  Just like that Tesla battery wouldn't like it.  Not sure about the electric motor but that probably wouldn't either 


Doesn't mean we can't build an electric tractor but it does mean the hardware from a Tesla S car isn't up to the job.  In my humble opinion.

That darn duty cycle......

=================================================================

This is one more reason why Mercedes Benz is testing hydrogen as fuel in its heavy trucks, THANK GOD!!!!

ChrisJ

leonz said:

@Jamie Hall a truck tuned 454 isn't a Corvette engine and you know it. 


I was talking more along the lines of a recent 500-600hp one.

It wouldn't like running wide open for long periods.  Just like that Tesla battery wouldn't like it.  Not sure about the electric motor but that probably wouldn't either 


Doesn't mean we can't build an electric tractor but it does mean the hardware from a Tesla S car isn't up to the job.  In my humble opinion.

That darn duty cycle......

================================================================= This is one more reason why Mercedes Benz is testing hydrogen as fuel in its heavy trucks, THANK GOD!!!!

Perhaps thank Mercedes Benz?

leonz

ChrisJ said:

leonz said:

ChrisJ said:

@Jamie Hall a truck tuned 454 isn't a Corvette engine and you know it. 


I was talking more along the lines of a recent 500-600hp one.

It wouldn't like running wide open for long periods.  Just like that Tesla battery wouldn't like it.  Not sure about the electric motor but that probably wouldn't either 


Doesn't mean we can't build an electric tractor but it does mean the hardware from a Tesla S car isn't up to the job.  In my humble opinion.

That darn duty cycle......

=================================================================

This is one more reason why Mercedes Benz is testing hydrogen as fuel in its heavy trucks, THANK GOD!!!!

Perhaps thank Mercedes Benz?

===================================================================

Yes, we must thank Mercedes Benz as well.

JackW

Here in Ohio, we have the "Energy Choice Progam," which allows you to choose the supplier that provides the cheapest rates. My service provider is Columbia Gas, and they have to allow other entities to use their transmission lines. I prefer 12-month fixed-rate contracts, but the cheapest rate I could get was an 11-month fixed-rate contract for $0.259 per CCF that expired in April. So I signed a new four-month contract for $0.449 per CCF, that's up in August; that's a 73% increase. Today, the cheapest natural gas fixed-rate 12-month contract is $0.7890 per CCF. That is a 205% increase from my $0.259 rate of last year. I fear it's only going to get worse.

Jamie Hall

Mercedes-Benz is not the only firm working on hydrogen fueled engines. So are EMD, GM, and GE, to name three in this country.

Hydrogen does have some attractive properties as a fuel, particularly if viewed solely at the location of use. While the heat content is considerably less than natural gas (about a third as much per cubic foot) this is not a problem, really, in an engine, and could -- in principle -- be overcome if it were used as a substitute for natural gas with different jetting or other mixture control adjustments.

There are some practical considerations involving its use in mobile equipment, such as trucks: you have a choice; keep it as a gas at high pressure, or keep it cold as a liquid. Both work, but neither is particularly light, and either way you need a bigger tank -- considerably bigger -- than you do with conventional fuel.

Whether or not it can be considered an environmentally fuel, however, is questionable. That depends entirely on how it is created in the first place (it does not occur free naturally). The most common approaches today involve steam reforming of hydrocarbons, which does produce hydrogen. Unhappily, it also produces as much carbon dioxide as burning the hydrocarbon directly does. Locally this may not matter -- the reforming takes place over the hill, as it were, but globally you gain nothing. It can also be produced photolytically -- in principle -- but this has not been demonstrated on a production scale. It can also be created electrolytically, and created in this manner it is no more environmentally damaging than any other process involving electric generation. It is no less, either, however, and the environmental aspects of various means of generating electricity must be taken into account.

ratio

It's almost as if there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Except heat pumps? (<- j/k!)

ChrisJ

ratio said:

It's almost as if there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Except heat pumps? (<- j/k!)

There doesn't have to be a free lunch but some systems work better than others.

Converting hydrogen to helium works really well I hear 

SlamDunk

https://www.hyperion.inc/

Five minutes to fill. 1000 miles per "tank". No emissions. I think polution generated during the manufacturing of hydrogen will be offset by the pollution caused by 10,000,000 emmission free cars. Oil producing states and countries may disagree.

ratio

SlamDunk said:

https://www.hyperion.inc/

Five minutes to fill. 1000 miles per "tank". No emissions. I think polution generated during the manufacturing of hydrogen will be offset by the pollution caused by 10,000,000 emmission free cars. Oil producing states and countries may disagree.

10,000,000 "emission free cars" just means that 10,000,000 cars' worth of emissions will be emitted somewhere else. Possibly less overall emissions, but I gots me a suspicion it'll be more. But hey, you got me at "somewhere else".

Jamie Hall

As I said above, @SlamDunk , whether hydrogen can be regarded as a clean fuel depends entirely on how it is produced. As @ratio noted, there is no free lunch. Read my comment carefully. All methods of producing it have environmental negatives; how bad they are varies -- as well as, perhaps as importantly, do where they impact.

We are, as humans, not very good at evaluating local gain (look ma, no fumes!) compared to distant losses -- but we are all in this together, and must learn to balance the local with the global.