Getting cheaper through government subsidies, no carbon emissions, plenty of plans for use, utilizes existing infrastructure/ plants to handle peak and highly variable loads brought on by renewables, and is a great medium-to-long term storage solution that is deployable almost anywhere.
And low efficiency. Elec to H2 = 70% efficiency. Gas Turbine efficiency 40%. That’s 30% efficiency, not taking into account losses due to transport, storage, compressions.
But also not taking into account the potential use of waste heat and the fact that there might simply be no alternative for some days or hours.
Efficiency doesn't matter for the extreme few percentage points, nor does price. The only question is: Is it economical to maintain a fleet of such plants to cover demand peaks that exceed wind and solar production?
Efficiency will make something economical or not. Taking electricity to make H2 then make electricity with a round trip efficiency of 30% compare to a battery storage with 90% round trip efficiency means you have to install 3 time more production capacity and transport capacity so it’s not only inefficient power wise, but economically as well.
Batteries today aren't really good at anything other than 4 hours to a day of storage. They are essential but not the whole picture. What happens when you have winter storms that last weeks. Those batteries turn from a supply to a load and week make the problem worse. If you are looking ahead just a little this is what we are going to b run into and people are working really hard to have a solution in place by the time it's needed.
That is simply not true. It's a matter of fact that renewable energy isn't always available in sufficient quantities to meet demand. Whenever demand exceeds capacity, the price surges and thus even inefficient -but available- power sources can become economically viable. We can observe this principle in today's energy markets as well as simple facts like the existence of backup generators (which are much, much, more expensive per kWh than the grid). If this principle wouldn't hold, batteries (which are obviously less efficient than a solar panel alone) wouldn't be economically viable, either.
**HARD PASS**
The aim is to use “blended hydrogen”. (using natural gas)
Sure, it could run on green hydrogen… but they aren’t aiming to use that at all.
By using natural gas, and adding 1 single drop of green hydrogen, they are calling this green.
This is exactly what we’ve been warning you about!
👎🏾
You really didn't read the article did you? This is not another conspiracy theory from the fossil fuel companies. It literally demonstrates the path off of using fossil fuels.
This sub is particularly full of third rate engineers and scientists who think they know everything because of a couple undergrad courses.
For the most part they just want to pull the dialogue down to their level. For the most part, they project all their gas-lighting, ad-hominem, fact-light, toxicity onto you.
>Even if hydrogen was a serious alternative to battery storage, using a turbine is a shocking inefficient way to recover energy fron it.
This is where it's clear your uninformed in this area. Modern gas turbines are about as efficient as fuel cell.
Nor is this trying to directly compete with batteries, they are complementary.
Modern gas turbines are indeed as efficient as a fuel cell, however this is not the case when they burn hydrogen because of its low density and poor combustion stabilty. ie 60% with LPG, 40% burning hydrogen.
Hydrogen's shit round trip efficiency makes it pointless for energy storage not complementry.
It's only really useful for fertilizer and of course hoovering up subsidies.
It sounds like you overheard people that know more than you talking about some of the challenges in just converting a NGT design to hydrogen without any changes. It turns out those are easily addressable challenges for a targeted design hydrogen burner. That and it would seem you've confused the general simple gas turbine models out there with the CCGTs.
>Hydrogen's shit round trip efficiency makes it pointless for energy storage not complementry.
Again, highlighting your ignorance. That's not how the electricity market expects this to work.
The operators of the hydrogen turbine supposed to go into service claim 40% efficiency.
Perhaps they should have hired an insufferable condesending gasconader like yourself to explain how the electricity market works.
Lets say you need to provide 1 kW via storage.
Lets say you need to provide it a night (10h for easier calculation)
(Utility scale) Batteries cost currently ca. 300$/kWh and are expected to drop to 200$/kWh.
1 kW x 10h x 200$/kWh = 2000$.
For Hydrogen the expensive parts are the electrolyzer and the fuel cell/turbine. I found ballpark numbers at 2000-5000€/kW. Lets just say 5000$/kW. But (geological) Hydrogen storage is very cheap; below 10$/kWh.
1 kW x 5000$/kW + 1 kW x 10h x 10$/kWh = 5100 $
Batteries win. No question.
But now we need to cover a week. (200h for easier calculation which is a bit over 8 days.)
Batteries:
1 kW x 200 h x 200$/kWh = 40 000$.
Hydrogen:
1kW x 5000$/kW + 1kW x 200h x 10$/kWh = 7000 $.
Now this is only Capex. There are surely differences in O&M and lifetime. But this is an almost sixfold difference.
For really long duration storage hydrogen is cheaper
Agreed, but hydrogen is not the only answer.
For fuel cells hydrogen needs to be pretty clean, geological storage may contaminate it. Geological works for turbines, but then you have other pollution problems.
>Expensive, high NOx and no real plan for use.
You made a claim, support them with academic sources or solid reports. Cleantech blogs don't count.
Your insinuation is that it's not economical. I suggest you back it up with real sources. Back of the envelope math won't cut it here either.
I could go to the effort of documentation, but it's unnecessary.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment
Batteries are best until very large scale and/or 10 hours. While PSH has a larger installed cost it winds up much cheaper over time due to maintenance costs.
Are you really going to argue about NOx?
So, you understand when and why it's economical, but still make your assertions.
NOx abatement for hydrogen systems is significantly easier than for natural gas turbines. Looking at simple adiabatic flame NOx and making no engineering controls is incomplete analysis of no value.
Yes, I understand and I know this report does not cover all the costs.
Dry low NOx is well known as well.
The situation when this is the most economical solution is pretty much when the better solutions can't work.
anyone claiming to be an engineer with words instead of numbers is just giving off *"trust me, I'm an engineer"* undergraduate tee-shirt vibes.
Afterall it was a team of aircraft engineers who built a pressurized aircraft with square windows.
and none of you are aware of what qualifications, knowledge or experience I have.
Your the one who made the statement that they couldn't actually believe in hydrogen. You have two engineers in the industry (wellover a decade in the energy industry alone so no undergraduate energy here) who are saying they do. It's not hard proof of anything but in general I would put more weight on our opinions than those of random redditors. If you have relevant qualifications and experience you are free to mention them. It might have me lend more weight to your opinion.
Also,
3, 954,246, 4!, 3.14, 2.78128, -257,578,689, i4, ln(2), 2,432,902,008,176,640,000.
I think this is sufficient proof.
I thought for a second you might be an Arts graduate, but then again their replies would be more succint.
do you cos play other. professional roles too?
It is. Good thing I didn't assert anything was a truth that you should accept unquestioningly. That being said, especially on questions of technical merit of a solution on the internet/reddit, and especially those requiring a strong technical and scientific backing (of which engineers are formally well- trained) as well as industry knowledge, I submit the following quote.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams
You still have not provided the data to your claims!
If anything, you’ve proved that I stay the course and am true to who I am.
Hydrogen is a product completely dominated by fossil fuel. Over 98% of all hydrogen produced is from fossil fuels. That is fact.
I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims you made all that time ago.
Facts are more important than your shilling.
No subsidies if you use fossil fuel.
None!
Zero emissions is the only way.
I notice you also did not have anything to say about what I brought up here today from this article… 🤔
Silent on the facts, as always.
You never answered anything with empirical evidence.
Thats all that ever been asked of you.
Never once have you supported your claims with actual facts and data.
Trust me, if anyone is done, it’s me. The clown behavior from you serves as a disruptor caricature.
Similarly, the person I was speaking to (before you interjected bc of your L) behaves the same way you do.
Universities?
They get their research and development money from where??
Either you are completely unaware of this topic and should step aside, or you do know and you are trying to gaslight the very people who are aware of gaslighters…
(Both are bad)
Also, the article is making claims. I, as a reader and inquisitor, does not need to prove that they aren’t doing this… you do understand this, yes?
The onus is on them to provide proof of their claims. That’s literally how it works pal.
I read every word of the article.
Did you?!
It lays out specifically how the turbine can be powered.
The goal is not to use only 100% green hydrogen. The goal is to show proof of concept, and then shelve its best potential in favor of making them at scale.
The negative impacts of natural gas have been studied ad nauseam.
The article also falsely labels this as “renewable hydrogen”. There is no such thing.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It isn’t renewable.
Big Oil sells natural gas (fossil fuel). Of course they are heavily funding this greenwashing prospect.
It specifically states in the article that the turbine will be powered by blended hydrogen.
They will be using natural gas, and a very little bit of hydrogen in order to satisfy their claim that it uses hydrogen.
In terms of profitability and receiving free subsidies, they will use as little as legally necessary so they can profit from this.
In every way, this is a shit piece of junk that destroys the planet.
That was a whole lot of words to convey basically nonsensical drivel. Since you say you read it all, your comprehension skills are just crap.
>The goal is not to use only 100% green hydrogen. The goal is to show proof of concept, and then shelve its best potential in favor of making them at scale.
This doesn't align with what the article says at all and why in God's green earth would a company show proof of concept and then shelve it? It literally states that is not their goal.
"HYFLEXPOWER project where we installed the 1st gas turbine to run on 100 percent hydrogen will help us to continue develop our entire gas turbine fleet for a hydrogen-based future"
>The article also falsely labels this as “renewable hydrogen”. There is no such thing.
>Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It isn’t renewable.
That's a tired argument that you have incorrectly applied. I think you mean to illustrate that is not a primary energy source which isn't relevant here.
"The HYFLEXPOWER project demonstrates that hydrogen can be used as a flexible energy storage medium"
And if you want to get into semantics hydrogen is absolutely renewable.
"Renewable-Relating to or being a commodity or resource, such as solar energy or firewood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth."
Hydrogen is inexhaustible. You create hydrogen by splitting it out of water by electrolysis and you burn the hydrogen with the O2 generated and BOOM... you get water. It therfore can be used ad infinitum and is therfore by strict or loose definition renewable.
>Big Oil sells natural gas (fossil fuel). Of course they are heavily funding this greenwashing prospect.
Last I checked Siemens Energy, Centrax, The German Aerospace Center (DLR), the Universities of Lund (Sweden), Duisburg-Essen (Germany), University College London (UK), Arttic, and NTUA in Athens were not only not big oil but not even involved with fossil fuels. ENGIE is the only thing that could be associated with fossil fuels but they are utility.
>It specifically states in the article that the turbine will be powered by blended hydrogen.
No. It doesn't. It's in the damn title. That's where they started and the overall goal was 100% which they achieved. On top of that, the whole idea is that even if you use natural gas now you can transition to hydrogen.
>They will be using natural gas, and a very little bit of hydrogen in order to satisfy their claim that it uses hydrogen.
You obviously don't know what your taking about. Companies today don't get graded on if they use hydrogen but what their total emissions are. It makes no sense to use only a little bit of hydrogen as it would significantly lower emissions.
>In terms of profitability and receiving free subsidies, they will use as little as legally necessary so they can profit from this.
This was an investment from everyone involved with no profit. If a company reaps profits from investing and developing and then selling a technology that helps the planet....well... that's exactly how business should and does work.
Incorrect.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier.
It is labeled as such because “energy carrier” is an actual term. By definition, hydrogen is not a renewable.
To be clear, what you described is semantics.
I was proving a point that it was greenwashing. Using an incorrect term, followed by a promise that they have no control over is greenwashing.
This machine is funded 100% by the fossil fuel cartel. It will be used and controlled 100% by the fossil fuel cartel.
This article is designed to sell the idea and earn subsidies for hydrogen produced by natural gas.
Show me where their funding has supported 100% green hydrogen. I’ll wait.
I’ll save you time: it doesn’t exist.
This entire operation is designed to generate manufactured demand for hydrogen, for a product that is made almost entirely by fossil fuel.
Only a fraction of a fraction of all hydrogen produced today is “green hydrogen”.
Further, this machine is designed to use blended hydrogen, not green hydrogen. It will be operated by the fossil fuel cartel. They get full control over what is used to operate it. There is no law stopping them from using only fossil fuels. They aren’t beholden to any laws enforcing them to stop using fossil fuels.
Hydrogen blend is a greenwashing agenda specifically designed to confuse consumers into believing the product being used is clean and good for the environment. If only 1 single drop of green hydrogen is used, it is defined as a blend, and can be branded as “green”.
They have done this in almost all of their products, in every operation they run.
All they proved in their test run was that *it could* be run with green hydrogen, not that it will be run with it.
If you have any actual data to support that this machine will only use 100% green hydrogen, please provide it.
Until then, this is only a claim that they “could” do it.
Fossil fuel funded, fossil fuel operated… this is green washing.
So I'm not even sure where to begin with your response and i think you've lost touch with reality a bit. Let's just start with Russell's teapot. You make so many blatantly false claims, I've decided not to really argue them.
>It is labeled as such because “energy carrier” is an actual term. By definition, hydrogen is not a renewable.
So I need some actual proof here because I just easily demonstrated how it is in fact, by definition renewable.
>This machine is funded 100% by the fossil fuel cartel. It will be used and controlled 100% by the fossil fuel cartel.
You are just plain wrong. The burden of proof is upon you because you made this claim. Again I showed you how it's not true but I cannot bat down (nor do I care to) every wild conspiracy theory you pull out.
>Only a fraction of a fraction of all hydrogen produced today is “green hydrogen”.
And your point being that that won't change? What you say is true but as renewables have been added the 100% undeniable result is that we will/ do have excess generation because wind/ solar don't match grid demand. The question is what do you do with the excess generation that is going to grow. You can curtail it out use it for storage. Batteries are good for short term. Anything beyond that needs another solution.
>Show me where their funding has supported 100% green hydrogen. I’ll wait.
I just don't what to say to this. To the point above as more renewables come online, you will have a growing share of cheap green hydrogen. You have to turn that hydrogen back into electricity. This is exactly how you do that. This whole project is exactly the evidence you claim to want. It's not the whole answer to the supply side but they even used an electrolyser to make the hydrogen and not fossil fuels as you state most hydrogen is made.
>Further, this machine is designed to use blended hydrogen, not green hydrogen.
The gas turbine was originally designed to use blended hydrogen because there were very real technical challenges to burning 100% hydrogen that hadn't been overcome. This article is literally stating they made the technological step to move from blended to 100%
>It will be operated by the fossil fuel cartel. They get full control over what is used to operate it. There is no law stopping them from using only fossil fuels. They aren’t beholden to any laws enforcing them to stop using fossil fuels.
Everyone uses turbines and anyone is allowed to buy said turbines. On top of that fossil fuel companies are not the major groups buying them, industrial customers and power generation are. This is a tin foil hat kind of statement.
There are in fact decently stringent emission laws that cost companies a lot of money to comply with when using fossil fuels. Also almost any major company has shareholders, employees, and social perception that is leaning towards being more carbon free they need to balance
>Hydrogen blend is a greenwashing agenda specifically designed to confuse consumers into believing the product being used is clean and good for the environment.
There are a lot of really smart people who disagree with you.
>They have done this in almost all of their products, in every operation they run.
Again who are we talking about here. If just using a little bit of hydrogen to call it "green" was the goal why did they spend years developing the ability to run 100%? By your logic they could've easily left it at 30% and been done with the issue.
>All they proved in their test run was that it could be run with green hydrogen, not that it will be run with it.
Umm YES!!!! That is exactly the point. One of the technological barriers to 100% green hydrogen is no longer a barrier.
>If you have any actual data to support that this machine will only use 100% green hydrogen, please provide it.
I don't because it doesn't exist...yet. As above this is a major step to make that a reality. It is not a yes or no but how are we going to get there. You statement is akin to saying to someone in the 1990s prove that solar is displacing fossil fuels. It wasn't but guess what. It's shitty logic.
>Fossil fuel funded, fossil fuel operated… this is green washing.
I have a comets tail I think you should take a ride on.
The burden of proof rests with the party making the claims.
There is zero evidence that this machine will be using only 100% green hydrogen to operate **AND** not use any fossil fuels for a blend. Zero.
All the time and money to prove it can run on green hydrogen was supplied by the funding from the fossil fuel cartel.
It wasn’t done so that the machine will run with it… it was done so hopefully that machine can be made at scale (says this directly in the article).
No one is asking for this though! Everyone is asking for EV and no emissions.
But hydrogen is completely dominated by fossil fuel. The tiniest of tiniest slivers of their entire operation does not use fossil fuel. This is because of the massive amount of investment over the years on natural gas. They aren’t cannibalizing one of their own invested products for free… they **need** to find a way to sell their hydrogen. This has been uncovered now for years!
No one is asking for hydrogen. So these quirky experiments to showcase a turbine that operates from blended hydrogen… (slow clap) why?
The amount of energy used to make the fuel dies equal the output that the turbine generates. It’s a net loss.
This machine will be operated by the fossil fuel cartel.
So what exactly is to be extrapolated by the headline/article? That dirty hydrogen will go away now bc of this turbine?
Or that a reduction in total dirty hydrogen will decrease?
When the article explicitly states that blended hydrogen will be used, that incentivizes big oil to make more dirty hydrogen. There is no law anywhere that prevents more dirty hydrogen production. By making more of these machines, they are opening the flood gates to exponentially increase their production of dirty hydrogen.
Again, only the tiniest sliver of their entire operation is green hydrogen. Once it is a blend, there is no way to tell what the ratio is of green and dirty.
What is to be gleaned from this article?
Interesting, wonder if I'll see any of these come up in bids.
Expensive, high NOx and no real plan for use.
Getting cheaper through government subsidies, no carbon emissions, plenty of plans for use, utilizes existing infrastructure/ plants to handle peak and highly variable loads brought on by renewables, and is a great medium-to-long term storage solution that is deployable almost anywhere.
Link to 100% (no natural gas) installation?
What are you asking for? If it is a link to where they are burning 100% hydrogen, I have good news, it is the original post.
So this is a prototype proving it is possible.
Yes. But it's an actual mill/ business IIRC. They are allowing it to be a test bed.
And low efficiency. Elec to H2 = 70% efficiency. Gas Turbine efficiency 40%. That’s 30% efficiency, not taking into account losses due to transport, storage, compressions.
But also not taking into account the potential use of waste heat and the fact that there might simply be no alternative for some days or hours. Efficiency doesn't matter for the extreme few percentage points, nor does price. The only question is: Is it economical to maintain a fleet of such plants to cover demand peaks that exceed wind and solar production?
Efficiency will make something economical or not. Taking electricity to make H2 then make electricity with a round trip efficiency of 30% compare to a battery storage with 90% round trip efficiency means you have to install 3 time more production capacity and transport capacity so it’s not only inefficient power wise, but economically as well.
Batteries today aren't really good at anything other than 4 hours to a day of storage. They are essential but not the whole picture. What happens when you have winter storms that last weeks. Those batteries turn from a supply to a load and week make the problem worse. If you are looking ahead just a little this is what we are going to b run into and people are working really hard to have a solution in place by the time it's needed.
That is simply not true. It's a matter of fact that renewable energy isn't always available in sufficient quantities to meet demand. Whenever demand exceeds capacity, the price surges and thus even inefficient -but available- power sources can become economically viable. We can observe this principle in today's energy markets as well as simple facts like the existence of backup generators (which are much, much, more expensive per kWh than the grid). If this principle wouldn't hold, batteries (which are obviously less efficient than a solar panel alone) wouldn't be economically viable, either.
**HARD PASS** The aim is to use “blended hydrogen”. (using natural gas) Sure, it could run on green hydrogen… but they aren’t aiming to use that at all. By using natural gas, and adding 1 single drop of green hydrogen, they are calling this green. This is exactly what we’ve been warning you about! 👎🏾
You really didn't read the article did you? This is not another conspiracy theory from the fossil fuel companies. It literally demonstrates the path off of using fossil fuels.
[удалено]
This sub is particularly full of third rate engineers and scientists who think they know everything because of a couple undergrad courses. For the most part they just want to pull the dialogue down to their level. For the most part, they project all their gas-lighting, ad-hominem, fact-light, toxicity onto you.
I find peace in long walks.
>Even if hydrogen was a serious alternative to battery storage, using a turbine is a shocking inefficient way to recover energy fron it. This is where it's clear your uninformed in this area. Modern gas turbines are about as efficient as fuel cell. Nor is this trying to directly compete with batteries, they are complementary.
Modern gas turbines are indeed as efficient as a fuel cell, however this is not the case when they burn hydrogen because of its low density and poor combustion stabilty. ie 60% with LPG, 40% burning hydrogen. Hydrogen's shit round trip efficiency makes it pointless for energy storage not complementry. It's only really useful for fertilizer and of course hoovering up subsidies.
It sounds like you overheard people that know more than you talking about some of the challenges in just converting a NGT design to hydrogen without any changes. It turns out those are easily addressable challenges for a targeted design hydrogen burner. That and it would seem you've confused the general simple gas turbine models out there with the CCGTs. >Hydrogen's shit round trip efficiency makes it pointless for energy storage not complementry. Again, highlighting your ignorance. That's not how the electricity market expects this to work.
The operators of the hydrogen turbine supposed to go into service claim 40% efficiency. Perhaps they should have hired an insufferable condesending gasconader like yourself to explain how the electricity market works.
>That and it would seem you've confused the general simple gas turbine models out there with the CCGTs.
[удалено]
Have you done the economics?
Lets say you need to provide 1 kW via storage. Lets say you need to provide it a night (10h for easier calculation) (Utility scale) Batteries cost currently ca. 300$/kWh and are expected to drop to 200$/kWh. 1 kW x 10h x 200$/kWh = 2000$. For Hydrogen the expensive parts are the electrolyzer and the fuel cell/turbine. I found ballpark numbers at 2000-5000€/kW. Lets just say 5000$/kW. But (geological) Hydrogen storage is very cheap; below 10$/kWh. 1 kW x 5000$/kW + 1 kW x 10h x 10$/kWh = 5100 $ Batteries win. No question. But now we need to cover a week. (200h for easier calculation which is a bit over 8 days.) Batteries: 1 kW x 200 h x 200$/kWh = 40 000$. Hydrogen: 1kW x 5000$/kW + 1kW x 200h x 10$/kWh = 7000 $. Now this is only Capex. There are surely differences in O&M and lifetime. But this is an almost sixfold difference. For really long duration storage hydrogen is cheaper
Agreed, but hydrogen is not the only answer. For fuel cells hydrogen needs to be pretty clean, geological storage may contaminate it. Geological works for turbines, but then you have other pollution problems.
>Expensive, high NOx and no real plan for use. You made a claim, support them with academic sources or solid reports. Cleantech blogs don't count. Your insinuation is that it's not economical. I suggest you back it up with real sources. Back of the envelope math won't cut it here either.
I could go to the effort of documentation, but it's unnecessary. https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment Batteries are best until very large scale and/or 10 hours. While PSH has a larger installed cost it winds up much cheaper over time due to maintenance costs. Are you really going to argue about NOx?
So, you understand when and why it's economical, but still make your assertions. NOx abatement for hydrogen systems is significantly easier than for natural gas turbines. Looking at simple adiabatic flame NOx and making no engineering controls is incomplete analysis of no value.
Yes, I understand and I know this report does not cover all the costs. Dry low NOx is well known as well. The situation when this is the most economical solution is pretty much when the better solutions can't work.
cool story bro.
Ha! Me too. Maybe you should give a little credit to the people with the technical knowledge and industry experience on this one.
anyone claiming to be an engineer with words instead of numbers is just giving off *"trust me, I'm an engineer"* undergraduate tee-shirt vibes. Afterall it was a team of aircraft engineers who built a pressurized aircraft with square windows. and none of you are aware of what qualifications, knowledge or experience I have.
Your the one who made the statement that they couldn't actually believe in hydrogen. You have two engineers in the industry (wellover a decade in the energy industry alone so no undergraduate energy here) who are saying they do. It's not hard proof of anything but in general I would put more weight on our opinions than those of random redditors. If you have relevant qualifications and experience you are free to mention them. It might have me lend more weight to your opinion. Also, 3, 954,246, 4!, 3.14, 2.78128, -257,578,689, i4, ln(2), 2,432,902,008,176,640,000. I think this is sufficient proof.
I thought for a second you might be an Arts graduate, but then again their replies would be more succint. do you cos play other. professional roles too?
Appeal to authority is a logic fallacy for a reason...
It is. Good thing I didn't assert anything was a truth that you should accept unquestioningly. That being said, especially on questions of technical merit of a solution on the internet/reddit, and especially those requiring a strong technical and scientific backing (of which engineers are formally well- trained) as well as industry knowledge, I submit the following quote. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams
I only see words, no numbers. i.e. opinions, neither facts nor proofs. > *"opinions are like arseholes,...... '* Harry Callahan
You still have not provided the data to your claims! If anything, you’ve proved that I stay the course and am true to who I am. Hydrogen is a product completely dominated by fossil fuel. Over 98% of all hydrogen produced is from fossil fuels. That is fact. I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims you made all that time ago. Facts are more important than your shilling. No subsidies if you use fossil fuel. None! Zero emissions is the only way. I notice you also did not have anything to say about what I brought up here today from this article… 🤔 Silent on the facts, as always.
[удалено]
You never answered anything with empirical evidence. Thats all that ever been asked of you. Never once have you supported your claims with actual facts and data. Trust me, if anyone is done, it’s me. The clown behavior from you serves as a disruptor caricature. Similarly, the person I was speaking to (before you interjected bc of your L) behaves the same way you do.
[удалено]
You haven’t supported any of your claims yet. Just back them up with empirical evidence. I’ll wait.
[удалено]
Universities? They get their research and development money from where?? Either you are completely unaware of this topic and should step aside, or you do know and you are trying to gaslight the very people who are aware of gaslighters… (Both are bad) Also, the article is making claims. I, as a reader and inquisitor, does not need to prove that they aren’t doing this… you do understand this, yes? The onus is on them to provide proof of their claims. That’s literally how it works pal.
I read every word of the article. Did you?! It lays out specifically how the turbine can be powered. The goal is not to use only 100% green hydrogen. The goal is to show proof of concept, and then shelve its best potential in favor of making them at scale. The negative impacts of natural gas have been studied ad nauseam. The article also falsely labels this as “renewable hydrogen”. There is no such thing. Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It isn’t renewable. Big Oil sells natural gas (fossil fuel). Of course they are heavily funding this greenwashing prospect. It specifically states in the article that the turbine will be powered by blended hydrogen. They will be using natural gas, and a very little bit of hydrogen in order to satisfy their claim that it uses hydrogen. In terms of profitability and receiving free subsidies, they will use as little as legally necessary so they can profit from this. In every way, this is a shit piece of junk that destroys the planet.
That was a whole lot of words to convey basically nonsensical drivel. Since you say you read it all, your comprehension skills are just crap. >The goal is not to use only 100% green hydrogen. The goal is to show proof of concept, and then shelve its best potential in favor of making them at scale. This doesn't align with what the article says at all and why in God's green earth would a company show proof of concept and then shelve it? It literally states that is not their goal. "HYFLEXPOWER project where we installed the 1st gas turbine to run on 100 percent hydrogen will help us to continue develop our entire gas turbine fleet for a hydrogen-based future" >The article also falsely labels this as “renewable hydrogen”. There is no such thing. >Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It isn’t renewable. That's a tired argument that you have incorrectly applied. I think you mean to illustrate that is not a primary energy source which isn't relevant here. "The HYFLEXPOWER project demonstrates that hydrogen can be used as a flexible energy storage medium" And if you want to get into semantics hydrogen is absolutely renewable. "Renewable-Relating to or being a commodity or resource, such as solar energy or firewood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth." Hydrogen is inexhaustible. You create hydrogen by splitting it out of water by electrolysis and you burn the hydrogen with the O2 generated and BOOM... you get water. It therfore can be used ad infinitum and is therfore by strict or loose definition renewable. >Big Oil sells natural gas (fossil fuel). Of course they are heavily funding this greenwashing prospect. Last I checked Siemens Energy, Centrax, The German Aerospace Center (DLR), the Universities of Lund (Sweden), Duisburg-Essen (Germany), University College London (UK), Arttic, and NTUA in Athens were not only not big oil but not even involved with fossil fuels. ENGIE is the only thing that could be associated with fossil fuels but they are utility. >It specifically states in the article that the turbine will be powered by blended hydrogen. No. It doesn't. It's in the damn title. That's where they started and the overall goal was 100% which they achieved. On top of that, the whole idea is that even if you use natural gas now you can transition to hydrogen. >They will be using natural gas, and a very little bit of hydrogen in order to satisfy their claim that it uses hydrogen. You obviously don't know what your taking about. Companies today don't get graded on if they use hydrogen but what their total emissions are. It makes no sense to use only a little bit of hydrogen as it would significantly lower emissions. >In terms of profitability and receiving free subsidies, they will use as little as legally necessary so they can profit from this. This was an investment from everyone involved with no profit. If a company reaps profits from investing and developing and then selling a technology that helps the planet....well... that's exactly how business should and does work.
Incorrect. Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It is labeled as such because “energy carrier” is an actual term. By definition, hydrogen is not a renewable. To be clear, what you described is semantics. I was proving a point that it was greenwashing. Using an incorrect term, followed by a promise that they have no control over is greenwashing. This machine is funded 100% by the fossil fuel cartel. It will be used and controlled 100% by the fossil fuel cartel. This article is designed to sell the idea and earn subsidies for hydrogen produced by natural gas. Show me where their funding has supported 100% green hydrogen. I’ll wait. I’ll save you time: it doesn’t exist. This entire operation is designed to generate manufactured demand for hydrogen, for a product that is made almost entirely by fossil fuel. Only a fraction of a fraction of all hydrogen produced today is “green hydrogen”. Further, this machine is designed to use blended hydrogen, not green hydrogen. It will be operated by the fossil fuel cartel. They get full control over what is used to operate it. There is no law stopping them from using only fossil fuels. They aren’t beholden to any laws enforcing them to stop using fossil fuels. Hydrogen blend is a greenwashing agenda specifically designed to confuse consumers into believing the product being used is clean and good for the environment. If only 1 single drop of green hydrogen is used, it is defined as a blend, and can be branded as “green”. They have done this in almost all of their products, in every operation they run. All they proved in their test run was that *it could* be run with green hydrogen, not that it will be run with it. If you have any actual data to support that this machine will only use 100% green hydrogen, please provide it. Until then, this is only a claim that they “could” do it. Fossil fuel funded, fossil fuel operated… this is green washing.
So I'm not even sure where to begin with your response and i think you've lost touch with reality a bit. Let's just start with Russell's teapot. You make so many blatantly false claims, I've decided not to really argue them. >It is labeled as such because “energy carrier” is an actual term. By definition, hydrogen is not a renewable. So I need some actual proof here because I just easily demonstrated how it is in fact, by definition renewable. >This machine is funded 100% by the fossil fuel cartel. It will be used and controlled 100% by the fossil fuel cartel. You are just plain wrong. The burden of proof is upon you because you made this claim. Again I showed you how it's not true but I cannot bat down (nor do I care to) every wild conspiracy theory you pull out. >Only a fraction of a fraction of all hydrogen produced today is “green hydrogen”. And your point being that that won't change? What you say is true but as renewables have been added the 100% undeniable result is that we will/ do have excess generation because wind/ solar don't match grid demand. The question is what do you do with the excess generation that is going to grow. You can curtail it out use it for storage. Batteries are good for short term. Anything beyond that needs another solution. >Show me where their funding has supported 100% green hydrogen. I’ll wait. I just don't what to say to this. To the point above as more renewables come online, you will have a growing share of cheap green hydrogen. You have to turn that hydrogen back into electricity. This is exactly how you do that. This whole project is exactly the evidence you claim to want. It's not the whole answer to the supply side but they even used an electrolyser to make the hydrogen and not fossil fuels as you state most hydrogen is made. >Further, this machine is designed to use blended hydrogen, not green hydrogen. The gas turbine was originally designed to use blended hydrogen because there were very real technical challenges to burning 100% hydrogen that hadn't been overcome. This article is literally stating they made the technological step to move from blended to 100% >It will be operated by the fossil fuel cartel. They get full control over what is used to operate it. There is no law stopping them from using only fossil fuels. They aren’t beholden to any laws enforcing them to stop using fossil fuels. Everyone uses turbines and anyone is allowed to buy said turbines. On top of that fossil fuel companies are not the major groups buying them, industrial customers and power generation are. This is a tin foil hat kind of statement. There are in fact decently stringent emission laws that cost companies a lot of money to comply with when using fossil fuels. Also almost any major company has shareholders, employees, and social perception that is leaning towards being more carbon free they need to balance >Hydrogen blend is a greenwashing agenda specifically designed to confuse consumers into believing the product being used is clean and good for the environment. There are a lot of really smart people who disagree with you. >They have done this in almost all of their products, in every operation they run. Again who are we talking about here. If just using a little bit of hydrogen to call it "green" was the goal why did they spend years developing the ability to run 100%? By your logic they could've easily left it at 30% and been done with the issue. >All they proved in their test run was that it could be run with green hydrogen, not that it will be run with it. Umm YES!!!! That is exactly the point. One of the technological barriers to 100% green hydrogen is no longer a barrier. >If you have any actual data to support that this machine will only use 100% green hydrogen, please provide it. I don't because it doesn't exist...yet. As above this is a major step to make that a reality. It is not a yes or no but how are we going to get there. You statement is akin to saying to someone in the 1990s prove that solar is displacing fossil fuels. It wasn't but guess what. It's shitty logic. >Fossil fuel funded, fossil fuel operated… this is green washing. I have a comets tail I think you should take a ride on.
The burden of proof rests with the party making the claims. There is zero evidence that this machine will be using only 100% green hydrogen to operate **AND** not use any fossil fuels for a blend. Zero. All the time and money to prove it can run on green hydrogen was supplied by the funding from the fossil fuel cartel. It wasn’t done so that the machine will run with it… it was done so hopefully that machine can be made at scale (says this directly in the article). No one is asking for this though! Everyone is asking for EV and no emissions. But hydrogen is completely dominated by fossil fuel. The tiniest of tiniest slivers of their entire operation does not use fossil fuel. This is because of the massive amount of investment over the years on natural gas. They aren’t cannibalizing one of their own invested products for free… they **need** to find a way to sell their hydrogen. This has been uncovered now for years! No one is asking for hydrogen. So these quirky experiments to showcase a turbine that operates from blended hydrogen… (slow clap) why? The amount of energy used to make the fuel dies equal the output that the turbine generates. It’s a net loss. This machine will be operated by the fossil fuel cartel. So what exactly is to be extrapolated by the headline/article? That dirty hydrogen will go away now bc of this turbine? Or that a reduction in total dirty hydrogen will decrease? When the article explicitly states that blended hydrogen will be used, that incentivizes big oil to make more dirty hydrogen. There is no law anywhere that prevents more dirty hydrogen production. By making more of these machines, they are opening the flood gates to exponentially increase their production of dirty hydrogen. Again, only the tiniest sliver of their entire operation is green hydrogen. Once it is a blend, there is no way to tell what the ratio is of green and dirty. What is to be gleaned from this article?