7 ms·

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 o

by 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.
      - Manfredo_1 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." 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).

by Hypx 5y ago

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.
    - Manfredo_1 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." 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).