Here is a study which looks at options for both the electricity grid and the gas pipe network as we decarbonise:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X23000925

' The flexible operation of the gas network, as well as the lower cost of gas storage and transport compared to alternative options such as electricity and heat networks, make it a reliable option for supplying heat in many regions. For instance, in the UK, on cold winter days, daily gas demand can be around 4.7 TWh, more than five times the energy delivered by the electricity grid on an average winter day'

And:

' In the complete electrification scenario (HP scenario), all the heating demand supplied by fossil fuels in the present system will be transferred to the electricity grid. As a result, the peak electricity demand increases from 49 GW in the base year to around 133 GW, and a significant expansion and reinforcement of the electricity grid (a nearly 158% increase of installed capacity) will be required to securely supply the electricity demand. '

The gas grid represents one heck of a stranded asset to write off.

Their conversion scenarion focusses on hydrogen boilers, which are not a very efficient way of doing things, and completely omit the possibility of using fuel cells in homes and commercial buildings, which would be way, way more efficient, for reasons which are entirely obscure to me.

Hi Bernard

We are going to get there, no doubt about that. But the figures are interesting.

The study I have linked takes account of the efficiencies of heat pumps. My gripe is that it assumes inefficient hydrogen boilers, when fuel cells are way more efficient, and much more efficient than present practice of burning NG centrally, throwing much of the energy away through cooling towers, then transmitting it.

They are 90% plus efficient for electrical plus thermal energy, and would turn out very different figures to those presented for different mixes of grid.

By the way we can make the methane to fill the pipelines easily using the sequestered carbon from the fossil fuel power plants along with the renewable hydrogen from solar and wind electricity, not that difficult actually.

There was plenty of hydrogen in the gas networks here!:

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/history-of-energy-UK

' The UK’s gas industry was born in 1812. Britain was still at war with Napoleon when Frederick Winsor created the first company in the world to build a public gas works and distribute gas to customers through a network of underground pipes. This business opened up the markets for gas; something that would transform the everyday life of millions of people, as they got their first taste of reliable light, heat and energy.

Gas was used to light London’s streets and the original gas-powered lamp posts still exist dotted around St James in London. By 1827, London’s network provided gas to almost 70,000 streetlights.'

No doubt not to modern safety standards, save perhaps for Boeing.

@Bernard:

I do wish you would say where you get your figures from!

Here is what I turned up when I googled:
' Uk losses in natural gas distribution network'

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319923018189

' This paper studies leakage from the UK natural gas distribution system. British Gas maintains that the leakage rate is around 1% of supply. This paper estimates a Low, Medium and High Case leakage rate of 1.9%, 5.3% and 10.8% respectively. The authors are confident that the leakage rate is above 1.9% and consider it more likely that the leakage rate is between the Medium and High Case. This investigation has been very cautious in that only leakage from the low pressure, medium pressure and service pipelines has been calculated. No estimates of leakage from the broader supply system have been included because of lack of verifiable information. The implications of these leakage rates for energy policy are considered.'

Which is pretty bad, likely because not much attention has been paid to the issue, but way under the unsubstanatiated figure you quote, or rather, simply claim.

And losses from the electric grid are far from trivial:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjbwKf3pf6EAxWwZ0EAHSdZCiQQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Futilityweek.co.uk%2Fuks-creaky-infrastructure-leaks-twice-as-much-electricity-as-it-imports%2F&usg=AOvVaw05k3eGkmQq8KzuyumOHLgW&opi=89978449

' Recent research by Citizens Advice suggests that about 1.7% of the electricity transferred over the transmission network is lost, and a further 5-8% is lost over the distribution networks.'

Yeah, we are going to have to reduce losses. But just presenting it as a show stopper, and without any figures or comparisons to alternatives......