7 ms·

It was done for a very short duration during the 1980s as a technology demonstrator. A prototype, not an actually commercially viable product. Yes, we can impro

It was done for a very short duration during the 1980s as a technology demonstrator. A prototype, not an actually commercially viable product. Yes, we can improve on a 33 year old technology, but it's not something we can just buy off the shelf. GE thinks it'll take until 2045 to make turbines that run off of 100% hydrogen. > 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.

Hypx 5y ago
Are you familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"?
- Manfredo_1 5y ago
  Yes, I'm familiar with moving the goalposts. It's exactly what you've been doing in this thread. First you claimed that existing natural gas turbines could be modified to run hydrogen. That hydrogen turbines usable for grid generation were off the shelf. After realizing that these turbines only burn a mixture of 30% hydrogen and 70% natural gas you moved to goalpost to saying, "we have experience with hydrogen turbines". I certainly don't doubt the latter - in fact I'm the who provided evidence of it! But that doesn't have much bearing on your first goalpost: that the existing fleet of gas turbines can be powered with hydrogen. 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.
  - Hypx 5y ago
    You do realize that has more to do with the availability of hydrogen and that they only have to hit their emissions target by 2050? 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-turbines-can-run-abundant-element-universe 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.
    - Manfredo_1 5y ago
      > This whole 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.
      - Hypx 5y ago
        You pretty much did say that anything above 30% concentration would destroy any gas turbine, nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." Like I said, it's time to admit you were wrong, assuming you are capable of that at all.
        Manfredo_1 5y ago
        > nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162 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]. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599959
        Hypx 5y ago
        So how else we're suppose to interpret this statement: "No, hydrogen rapidly corrodes any metals that it comes into contact with. If they are interchangeable, expect drastically smaller service intervals." 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.

Hypx 5y ago

Are you familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"?

Manfredo_1 5y ago
Yes, I'm familiar with moving the goalposts. It's exactly what you've been doing in this thread. First you claimed that existing natural gas turbines could be modified to run hydrogen. That hydrogen turbines usable for grid generation were off the shelf. After realizing that these turbines only burn a mixture of 30% hydrogen and 70% natural gas you moved to goalpost to saying, "we have experience with hydrogen turbines". I certainly don't doubt the latter - in fact I'm the who provided evidence of it! But that doesn't have much bearing on your first goalpost: that the existing fleet of gas turbines can be powered with hydrogen. 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.
- Hypx 5y ago
  You do realize that has more to do with the availability of hydrogen and that they only have to hit their emissions target by 2050? 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-turbines-can-run-abundant-element-universe 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.
  - Manfredo_1 5y ago
    > This whole 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.
    - Hypx 5y ago
      You pretty much did say that anything above 30% concentration would destroy any gas turbine, nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." Like I said, it's time to admit you were wrong, assuming you are capable of that at all.
      - Manfredo_1 5y ago
        > nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162 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]. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599959
        Hypx 5y ago
        So how else we're suppose to interpret this statement: "No, hydrogen rapidly corrodes any metals that it comes into contact with. If they are interchangeable, expect drastically smaller service intervals." 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.