5 ms·

Theyre not commercially available because theres no market for it not because theres anything infeasible about it - cost-wise or otherwise. The amount of deplo

by 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
  Yes https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-fueled-gas-turbines https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-fuele... I would humbly suggest that in future you try to avoid using rhetorical questions to make a point when the rhetorical question can be answered by google. The fact that these rhetorical questions carry what appears to be a distinctly anti environmental agenda doesnt exactly make this incuriosity better.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    > I would humbly suggest that in future you try to avoid using rhetorical questions to make a point when the rhetorical question can be answered by google. It was not a rhetorical question. Furthermore the first hit on Google is: "GE, DOE Accelerating the Path towards 100% Hydrogen" The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials. None of these refute the original quote from the 2023 Lazard report: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." Neither does the link you provided, which is full of weasel words. As such 100% hydrogen combustion turbines very much do not seem to be a solved problem. I will concede that there appear to be some prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines, which is great. Still no commercial availability, tho. Siemens (from the first page of Google results) probably has a more realistic take on the matter: " H₂ capabilities of our medium-sized gas turbines As of today, the gas turbines we're testing in our new Zero Emission Hydrogen Turbine Center are ready to burn up to 75% of hydrogen in the fuel mix. And step by step we aim to reach 100% by 2030." So, perhaps we can agree that 100% hydrogen combustion turbines are an aspirational technology. Something that might come about in the next decade or so. > The fact that these rhetorical questions carry what appears to be a distinctly anti environmental agenda doesnt exactly make this incuriosity better. LOL. I will begin by reminding you of the Hacker News guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." I will continue with noting the we, in Finland, produce about 90% (IIRC) of our electricity without fossile fuel emissions. How are you guys doing? So you can take your "anti environmental agenda" and do something interesting with it in dark, enclosed spaces. Sidestepping the incorrect use of "rhetorical", I do wonder what it is about facts and relevant questions that get under the skin of some people? Is it just the embarrassment of realizing that one's arguments are without merit or the facing one's inability to coherently explain metters?

by pydry 3y ago

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
Yes https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-fueled-gas-turbines https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-fuele... I would humbly suggest that in future you try to avoid using rhetorical questions to make a point when the rhetorical question can be answered by google. The fact that these rhetorical questions carry what appears to be a distinctly anti environmental agenda doesnt exactly make this incuriosity better.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  > I would humbly suggest that in future you try to avoid using rhetorical questions to make a point when the rhetorical question can be answered by google. It was not a rhetorical question. Furthermore the first hit on Google is: "GE, DOE Accelerating the Path towards 100% Hydrogen" The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials. None of these refute the original quote from the 2023 Lazard report: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." Neither does the link you provided, which is full of weasel words. As such 100% hydrogen combustion turbines very much do not seem to be a solved problem. I will concede that there appear to be some prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines, which is great. Still no commercial availability, tho. Siemens (from the first page of Google results) probably has a more realistic take on the matter: " H₂ capabilities of our medium-sized gas turbines As of today, the gas turbines we're testing in our new Zero Emission Hydrogen Turbine Center are ready to burn up to 75% of hydrogen in the fuel mix. And step by step we aim to reach 100% by 2030." So, perhaps we can agree that 100% hydrogen combustion turbines are an aspirational technology. Something that might come about in the next decade or so. > The fact that these rhetorical questions carry what appears to be a distinctly anti environmental agenda doesnt exactly make this incuriosity better. LOL. I will begin by reminding you of the Hacker News guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." I will continue with noting the we, in Finland, produce about 90% (IIRC) of our electricity without fossile fuel emissions. How are you guys doing? So you can take your "anti environmental agenda" and do something interesting with it in dark, enclosed spaces. Sidestepping the incorrect use of "rhetorical", I do wonder what it is about facts and relevant questions that get under the skin of some people? Is it just the embarrassment of realizing that one's arguments are without merit or the facing one's inability to coherently explain metters?