I'm not sure why you're trying to deny the existence of chemical facts: https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-....
So, when you said hydrogen rapidly corrodes any metal it comes into contact with, that didn't include the metal that the chemical industry makes their equipment from? So, let's just put a "this is chemical industry" signs on our hydrogen storage plants, and presto! Magically protected!
Note that one of the things the chemical industry does with hydrogen-rich gases is burn them in combustion turbines, just like in a proposed hydrogen energy storage facility. Turbines for burning hydrogen have been available for decades. See, for example, what General Electric says:
https://www.ge.com/power/gas/fuel-capability/hydrogen-fueled...
"Our turbines have nearly 30 years of experience operating on a variety of fuels that contain hydrogen, totaling over 6 million operating hours as hydrogen-fueled turbines using concentrations ranging from 5% to 95% (by volume)."
Off. The. Shelf.
> I'm not sure why you're trying to deny the existence of chemical facts: https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-....
I'm not sure why you're presenting a link that doesn't back up the claim you made.
I'd say you're being deliberately ignorant here, but I'm really not so sure. A gas turbine spins rapidly, putting huge stresses on the blades. They also operate at extremely high temperatures.
And from your link:
> The use of hydrogen as a gas turbine fuel has been demonstrated commercially, but there are differences between natural gas and hydrogen that must be taken into account to properly and safely use hydrogen in a gas turbine. In addition to differences in the combustion properties of these fuels, the impact to all gas turbine systems as well as the overall balance of plant, must be considered. In a power plant with one or more hydrogen-fueled turbines, changes may be needed to the fuel accessories, bottoming cycle components, and plant safety systems. GE’s broad field experience enables our engineers to understand the impact of using hydrogen as a gas turbine fuel.
Hmm, maybe not so simple.
And when we look at what's actually being deployed, it's not 100% hydrogen it's a mixture that's mostly natural gas with only a small portion of hydrogen:
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/gas-turbines-hydro...
> The new gas turbines will be commercially guaranteed capable of using a mix of 30% hydrogen and 70% natural gas fuel. Between 2025 and 2045, the hydrogen capability will be systematically increased to 100% renewable hydrogen.
These turbines still mostly burn natural gas. GE says it'll get there eventually, possibly over the course of 3 decades.
Seriously, your projection is out of control here. A gas turbine burning hydrogen does not experience any stresses that is meaningfully different from one burning natural gas or kerosene. Simply applied engineering can solve all of the issues associated with hydrogen gas turbines.
Did you misread that comment? The point was that hydrogen's application in the chemical industry don't involve turbine blades spinning at extreme speeds at high temperatures.
Yes, the principle of combusting a gas, driving a turbine with the expanding gas, and using that turbine to drive a compressor is the same. That doesn't mean you can just feed a gasoline powered turbine hydrogen and be done with it. The turbines that can run hydrogen today can only run a small portion of it.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/12/08/...
> The challenges of using hydrogen go beyond body shape, though. Redesigning a turbine engine to run on the stuff will be a multi-billion-dollar endeavour. Hydrogen burns faster than kerosene, and also burns hotter. That means materials exposed to its combustion experience greater stresses. It also risks increasing the pollution generated in the form of oxides of nitrogen, which would partially negate the environmental benefits of burning hydrogen. And it would be useful as well to arrange matters so that some of the energy used to compress or liquefy the hydrogen for storage could be recovered and put to work.
The Soviets built a plane that flew on hydrogen, but it only completed 100 flights. And only part of those were with hydrogen, the rest were with natural gas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155
So you admit this has been done since the 1980s? You seriously don't think we can improve on 33 year old technology?
How dishonest are you going to get before you will admit you were wrong?
> How dishonest are you going to get before you will admit you were wrong?
When you show me where I can buy a gas turbine that runs off of hydrogen. Not a gas turbine that runs mostly off of natural gas with a little bit of hydrogen mixed in. Not a press release of a company saying "we have experience with hydrogen turbines". If you're going to say that hydrogen gas turbines are off-the-shelf then show me the shelf off of which I can buy it.
For the third time, if this modification is so simple why is GE saying it won't be until 2045 that its turbines will be able to run 100% natural gas? Hydrogen gas turbines are not off the shelf devices.
If you have done any kind of digging at all you realize that they have ran gas turbines at 90% hydrogen decades ago: https://www.ge.com/news/reports/hydrogen-generation-gas-turb...
> Take the Gibraltar-San Roque oil refinery in Spain, where the GE-made 6B.03 turbine has logged thousands of hours burning a blend of fuel gas and hydrogen. This same 6B.03 machine is also working in a South Korean refinery, where it has racked up more than 20 years burning a fuel blend containing more than 70 percent hydrogen. This turbine has even gone all the way up to a 90 percent hydrogen blend.
So even your goalpost moving argument is still wrong.
This whole thing started because no one here thought someone would seriously try to argue that hydrogen gas turbines are impossible. For some of us this was too obvious to even bother trying to debunk.
Now you're just straight up lying. Nowhere did I claim that hydrogen gas turbine was impossible. In fact I even provided an example of the soviets experimenting with hydrogen powered jets. Do you realize that a jet engine is a gas turbine?
What I did say is that you can't just repurpose the existing fleet of natural gas turbines for hydrogen generation. I'm well aware that companies are working on 100% hydrogen turbines, but even the examples you cited require a mix of natural gas.
This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162
> Those gas turbines you're referring to can simply be modified natural gas gas turbines. The only limiting factor would be electrolysis, but that is already something people are planning to build a lot of.
This is wrong, we'd have to build new gas turbines to run on a 100% hydrogen mixture in addition to building electrolysis capacity. At this point I think it's clear you're not interested in engaging honestly, and in the other thread you'e already started to throw around ad-hominem insults [1].
And if you read actually my statement carefully I didn't say that it had to be an existing, already built gas turbine. Only that we had to modify gas turbines intended for natural gas for hydrogen. Either new or existing, this isn't a hard challenge, especially considering that we replace old turbines all the time.
And you still seem unaware that even your goal-post moving argument is wrong. We really can just run existing gas turbines at 90% concentration for years on end.
I'm not sure why you're having trouble comprehending it. Existing gas turbines are meant to run on either oil or natural gas, not hydrogen. In addition to corrosion, hydrogen burns hotter.
You cited one specific turbine model that had a peak hydrogen mixture of 90% (average was 70%). Ignoring the fact that you're picking one specific model that's being highlighted for it's ability to accept hydrogen fuel, this still isn't viable for a carbon-neutral storage system since it still burns natural gas. No, we can't just run them at 90% for years on end because that will still advance climate change.
> Either new or existing, this isn't a hard challenge, especially considering we replace old turbines all the time.
It's good that you're admitting that it's not a simple matter of modifying existing turbines, and that new turbines have to be developed. But it is an additional bottleneck, it's not just a matter of electrolysis we also have to build the generation infrastructure to turn that hydrogen back into electricity.
Likewise if you interpreted my original comment as saying that it's impossible to run a gas turbine with hydrogen that is indeed incorrect. Though I'm rather unsure of how you reached this interpretation given that I even provided an example of a soviet experiment with hydrogen jet engines (albeit with significantly shorter flight time).
Yeah, keep shoving your head up your own ass. Maybe you'll see daylight if you shove hard enough.
You're going from "we can just run existing gas turbines with hydrogen" to "this one specific gas turbine can use mostly hydrogen fuel but still needs 30% natural gas". Again 90% was peak not average hydrogen concentration.
Companies are looking at developing natural gas turbines that run on 100% hydrogen. But they're targeting 2030 or 2040. Are you going to tell GE and Seimens to shove their head up their ass, too?
Keep fucking that chicken.
Hell, your own source says:
> Similarly, the goal of 100 percent hydrogen combustion capability will be achieved step by step, test by test. “With hydrogen-fired gas turbines we can easily avoid the ‘valley of death’ where brilliant inventions die before they even scale to full potential,” says Larfeldt. “The same turbines can be used with different percentages of hydrogen in the fuel mix, with brown or green hydrogen. Existing gas turbines can be retrofitted to the latest standards. It’s an organic evolution.”
So your own source disagrees with you.
I guess I'll keep "fucking that chicken" along with GE and Siemens and the companies that actually build gas turbines.
> So your own source disagrees with you.
Did you miss the "in 2030" part?
Yes, keep fucking that chicken.
And remember just how far up your own asshole you are with this: You've reject 90% hydrogen gas turbines, future gas turbines of only nine years from now, or even steam power plants running on 100% hydrogen. At this point your rationale is so dishonestly unfair it allows zero wiggle to justify any kind of electric cars. So time to admit you were wrong, not red herring your way out of this.
Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.
The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything else you're saying is just a red herring.
> Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.
You're projecting again.
Yet again, you originally said we could use gas turbines for hydrogen storage. Not steam turbines. Of course steam turbines can easily be run off hydrogen, you don't need compressor blades, combustors, or anything special. Just a source of heat, a boiler, and a steam turbine. This is less efficient, so there's good reason to develop hydrogen gas turbines.
You're the one who first brought up steam turbines when you changed the goal posts to saying we could repurpose coal plants instead of gas turbines.
And good night.
I was going to ban your account as well, but on a closer look it seems that the other commenter was being far more vicious, so I'm not going to do that right now. But perpetuating a flamewar like this is still absolutely against the rules—especially the interminably tedious tit-for-tat sort, which this one was. No more of this, please.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.