4 ms·

"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://ww

"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... How are you going to use hydrogen to generate electricity without generating CO2 and other emissions? How are you going to make e-fuel or other synthetic fuels cost effectively? Even if electricity is free, the plants aren't.

pfdietz 3y ago
Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvable problem has to again be solved in this case.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  How is your comment different from: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      > It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today. We literally cannot burn 100% hydrogen at scale to provide utility power today. We may be able to do so in the future, which would be great. Even better if we can do so without emissions and cheaper than other alternatives. But we cannot do so today. Siemens thinks we can do 100% combustion turbines in about a decade or so. Time will tell. There may be obstacles or maybe everything goes swimmingly. > And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up? I brought it up because it is a pertinent detail. Hydrogen is touted as being the solution to storage for renewables. We are still far from that. According to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ it might not be such an affordable solution. And even with 100% hydrogen combustion turbines there is the question of storage. Salt caves are cheap, steel storage tanks aren't.
pydry 3y ago
Theyre not commercially available because theres no market for it not because theres anything infeasible about it - cost-wise or otherwise. The amount of deployed solar and wind around the world isnt even enough to turn off the gas turbines during the sunniest windiest days yet. Theres little point to electrolyzing gas into existence until it routinely overproduces and beyond existing storage capacity and by a lot. Needing to close that 3% gap? That'd be a good problem to have but we are years away.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  And then, there is little reason to burn that gas in turbines until existing consumers of hydrogen (like ammonia plants) have had their fill of it. Even before it's used in turbines, it would operate as dispatchable demand. And when it's used in turbines, it will be mixed with natural gas at first. Below about 20% H2 existing combustors work fine.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    To solve the emission problem we need to be able to turn 100% hydrogen in to electricity.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Yes, and this is possible, and has been done before. The point I was making is that it's not necessary to do it immediately. There are intermediate steps where it isn't necessary.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  So, it's a solved problem? There are prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines?
  - pydry 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvable problem has to again be solved in this case.

ftth_finland 3y ago
How is your comment different from: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."
- pfdietz 3y ago
  It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    > It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today. We literally cannot burn 100% hydrogen at scale to provide utility power today. We may be able to do so in the future, which would be great. Even better if we can do so without emissions and cheaper than other alternatives. But we cannot do so today. Siemens thinks we can do 100% combustion turbines in about a decade or so. Time will tell. There may be obstacles or maybe everything goes swimmingly. > And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up? I brought it up because it is a pertinent detail. Hydrogen is touted as being the solution to storage for renewables. We are still far from that. According to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ it might not be such an affordable solution. And even with 100% hydrogen combustion turbines there is the question of storage. Salt caves are cheap, steel storage tanks aren't.

pydry 3y ago

Theyre not commercially available because theres no market for it not because theres anything infeasible about it - cost-wise or otherwise. The amount of deployed solar and wind around the world isnt even enough to turn off the gas turbines during the sunniest windiest days yet. Theres little point to electrolyzing gas into existence until it routinely overproduces and beyond existing storage capacity and by a lot. Needing to close that 3% gap? That'd be a good problem to have but we are years away.

pfdietz 3y ago
And then, there is little reason to burn that gas in turbines until existing consumers of hydrogen (like ammonia plants) have had their fill of it. Even before it's used in turbines, it would operate as dispatchable demand. And when it's used in turbines, it will be mixed with natural gas at first. Below about 20% H2 existing combustors work fine.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  To solve the emission problem we need to be able to turn 100% hydrogen in to electricity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Yes, and this is possible, and has been done before. The point I was making is that it's not necessary to do it immediately. There are intermediate steps where it isn't necessary.
ftth_finland 3y ago
So, it's a solved problem? There are prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines?
- pydry 3y ago