Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Turbines

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Some guys on twitter were talking about the value of round-trip efficiency in the context of low solar prices a couple days ago. 

https://twitter.com/ramez/status/1261675564550651904?s=20

 

Yeah, this concept is where I started from. Basically, if the operational costs are near zero ("photons are free"), then who cares what the efficiency is? You only care about how much it costs to buy and install the equipment and how long it will last. Using green CH4 is cheating: you get to use a lot of installed infrastructure instead of new-build. But if you aren't cheating, you don't win. I prefer to think of it as "preserving the value of assets that would otherwise be stranded".

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/17/2020 at 6:39 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

I tried to find the H2 storage capacity of the salt domes and failed miserably. The only number I found was "enough to store the energy used by 150,000 households for a year" in this "geologically rare" salt dome. Well, folks, that's not going to scale well. By comparison, California has massive underground storage for CH4 already in place and operating. Take the additional efficiency hit to convert the H2 to CH4, and then just inject it into the existing NG infrastructure at effectively zero incremental capital cost for storage, transport, and retrieval. Yes, there is new capital cost for the H2==>CH4 converters, but no need to develop. pay for, and deploy fancy new turbines or H2 storage and transport infrastructure.

Is the process here the Sabatier reaction? 

If so you are going to lose 50% of that Hydrogen as it becomes water. You gain something back with the addition of Carbon. 

Unless there is a more efficient reaction I would have thought Ammonia production makes more economic sense or possibly using the hydrogen to make ethylene as you only lose 1/3rd of the Hydrogen as water. Also small quantities of H can be injected straight into gas pipelines - perhaps better to just do that initially? 

[Richard D + 86]

As the hydrogen content burns hotter and is more reactive than methane,adding nitrogen to the mix would seem to be worth trying. 25% of the natural gas deposits in the USA cannot be used because of nitrogen content. This low-grade fuel could,presumably,be used in gas turbines if mixed with hydrogen.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

There really is a current need for H2 as an industrial feedstock. The biggest use is making ammonia, which is in turn mostly used for fertilizer. It is currently made from fossil CH4. if solar and wind are available, then using solar and wind to make the H2 is cost-effective. This use accounts for three to four percent of the world's energy usage.

Another current big use for H2 is in oil refineries for upgrading and for sulfur removal. This is prpbably the destination for the hydrogen in that big new Texas storage facility. As long as those refineries are running, cheaper solar and wind H2 will result in cheaper gasoline, and the replaced fossil CH4 can be sold to CH4 consumers. As part of the  transition away from oil and fossil CH4, wind and solar can shift its output mix to make less H2 and more CH4.

I see no "need" for H2 for energy storage and generation, but the electricity==>H2==>(transport and storage)==>electricity round trip is more efficient than electricity==>CH4==>(transport and storage)==>electricity round trip, so the decision will be made based on capital costs. My guess: H2 will make economic sense for mid-term storage when the solar and wind are close to the electricity consumers.

We have a CH4 natural gas to ammonia plant near me. I am not aware that it needs any hydrogen brought in. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

We have a CH4 natural gas to ammonia plant near me. I am not aware that it needs any hydrogen brought in. 

It does not. That's because it is producing the H2 from the CH4 on-site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production#Modern_ammonia-producing_plants

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, Richard D said:

As the hydrogen content burns hotter and is more reactive than methane,adding nitrogen to the mix would seem to be worth trying. 25% of the natural gas deposits in the USA cannot be used because of nitrogen content. This low-grade fuel could,presumably,be used in gas turbines if mixed with hydrogen.

Speaking personally, my entire focus is on reducing the amount of extracted fossil CH4, so I hope  green H2 will not be used to make fossil CH4 more attractive. This will not be an issue in the near term, as we are awash in excess fossil CH4, and I hope by the time we have green H2 in quantity, it will make more economic sense to use it directly or to make green CH4.

[markslawson + 1,042]

21 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

How do you understand the concept of a bridge fuel? 

Bradley - it's obviously the other way around. Why do you think the installation of these turbines is evidence of anything? Who or what is going to be making commercial quantities of hydrogen in the foreseeable future? I have no idea who or why anyone would do this but if you can point them out, I'd be most interested. 

My apologies, I meant commercial quantities to compete with natural gas extraction. There are commercial applications of hydrogen just nothing like the bulk required to substitute for methane.

Edited May 20, 2020 by markslawson
correcting error..

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yep, thanks.  Midland TX to NYC  is about 3,000 km by road, which is probably a good proxy for the HVDC line. You therefore lose about 10.5% of the energy, not counting any loses in the DC=>AC conversion at the destination. Long-haul CH4 pipeline losses are about 3%. (Sorry I cannot find a per-mile loss figure). Since you are already postulating an H2 turbine, the CH4 turbine at the destination end will conversion efficiency roughly equivalent to the H2 turbine, so that's a wash. The transport efficiency difference makes up for the energy lost during the H2==>CH4 step or the green CH4 production.

Incidentally, I know CH4 has serious problems, especially when any of it is accidentally vented. Green CH4 is not a magic bullet.

I think a lot bigger problem than accidental venting is flaring, especially worldwide. Nature also vents a tremendous amount of methane, the actual amount is unknowable. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

32 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I think a lot bigger problem than accidental venting is flaring, especially worldwide. Nature also vents a tremendous amount of methane, the actual amount is unknowable. 

Flaring of NG (fossil CH4) occurs mostly in oil fields, where the NG is a waste product. Since my focus is on replacing fossil CH4 with green CH4 made for solar or wind electricity, it won't be flared just to get rid of it, ans as long as there is still a market for CH4 (fossil or green), the oil producers will still have an incentive to sell instead of venting or flaring.

Yes, there is a whole bunch of uncaptured biogenerated CH4, both completely natural and from agriculture, but that is a separate issue from using fossil CH4.  Flaring green CH4 or biogenerated CH4 is carbon neutral. Venting biogenerated or green CH4 is technically carbon neutral, but CH4 is a greenhouse gas that's worse on a per molecule basis than the CO2 it came from, so it contributes to global warming until it finally gets turned back into CO2.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
clarify

[markslawson + 1,042]

13 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

This will not be an issue in the near term, as we are awash in excess fossil CH4, and I hope by the time we have green H2 in quantity, it will make more economic sense to use it directly or to make green CH4.

I understand you want to reduce the use of fossil methane but the bulk of hydrogen production is still from fossil fuels. In fact just 4 per cent  comes from electrolysis (admittedly a 2008 figure but not much would have changed).. further you are hoping it will be a store of energy or a substitute for long-distance DC transmission lines that are now coming into use?  None of this sounds very likely, and will certainly require a great deal of research and development.. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, markslawson said:

I understand you want to reduce the use of fossil methane but the bulk of hydrogen production is still from fossil fuels. In fact just 4 per cent  comes from electrolysis (admittedly a 2008 figure but not much would have changed).. further you are hoping it will be a store of energy or a substitute for long-distance DC transmission lines that are now coming into use?  None of this sounds very likely, and will certainly require a great deal of research and development.. 

This is true now, but this entire thread started as a discussion of H2 from solar and wind. My focus is on CH4 from solar and wind, not H2 (H2 is an intermediate) and the use of the existing CH4 infrastructure instead of building an entirely new H2/HVDC infrastructure. So yes, the H2/HVDC scheme will require some amount of new R&D and a huge capital investment.  Solar==>CH4 requires  some R&D and modest and incremental capital investment.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

17 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
mistaken post

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

Bradley - it's obviously the other way around. Why do you think the installation of these turbines is evidence of anything? Who or what is going to be making commercial quantities of hydrogen in the foreseeable future? I have no idea who or why anyone would do this but if you can point them out, I'd be most interested. 

My apologies, I meant commercial quantities to compete with natural gas extraction. There are commercial applications of hydrogen just nothing like the bulk required to substitute for methane.

The primary reason is energy policy. California demands zero emission so they may buy methane reformed hydrogen with carbon capture. A second reason is solar PV curtailment. They don't need the curtailed solar to meet daily demand but they can shift the excess production to seasonal by splitting water into H2. 

Mitsubishi Hitachi is able to build NG turbines capable of burning hydrogen for almost the same cost as a NG only turbines. Upgrading a NG/H2 mix turbine to H2 only doesn't require new technology, we could do it today if we wanted. 

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/11/19/economic-curtailment-what-it-is-and-how-to-embrace-it/

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

So yes, the H2/HVDC scheme will require some amount of new R&D and a huge capital investment.  Solar==>CH4 requires  some R&D and modest and incremental capital investment.

With cheap solar and wind everyone designs for curtailment. Thus, you get the HVDC lines no matter what because you're building a renewable grid. So, from the perspective of seasonal H2 storage, there's no extra cost for the HVDC. 

Power to CH4 and power to H2 both require technology development to reduce the cost of catalysts. But, if you don't need to transport the gas, I think H2 is probably superior. Especially if policy makers are seeking zero GHG emissions. If a hydrogen storage facility springs a leak you don't get a methane plume report in the news every day. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

We have a CH4 natural gas to ammonia plant near me. I am not aware that it needs any hydrogen brought in. 

That will also produce the CO2 to put in soft drinks and help rot your teeth! 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Speaking personally, my entire focus is on reducing the amount of extracted fossil CH4, so I hope  green H2 will not be used to make fossil CH4 more attractive. This will not be an issue in the near term, as we are awash in excess fossil CH4, and I hope by the time we have green H2 in quantity, it will make more economic sense to use it directly or to make green CH4.

What process is used to make 'green CH4'?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

What process is used to make 'green CH4'?

Start with solar and wind electricity. Electrolysis of water to make H2, Then a Sabatier reaction (or other methanation technique) with atmospheric CO2 to make CH4. I'm not making this up (I don't have the knowledge or experience to do that). It's "green" , or "carbon neutral", in the sense that the amount of CO2 created when you burn it is equal the amount you take out of the air when you produce it. No fossil carbon is used in this process, only atmospheric CO2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas#Power-to-methane

Edited May 20, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
sp, fmt, fix word

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

With cheap solar and wind everyone designs for curtailment. Thus, you get the HVDC lines no matter what because you're building a renewable grid. So, from the perspective of seasonal H2 storage, there's no extra cost for the HVDC. 

Power to CH4 and power to H2 both require technology development to reduce the cost of catalysts. But, if you don't need to transport the gas, I think H2 is probably superior. Especially if policy makers are seeking zero GHG emissions. If a hydrogen storage facility springs a leak you don't get a methane plume report in the news every day. 

You are assuming your conclusion. You don't need an HVDC grid if you already have a CH4 pipeline grid. The decision to build the HVDC grid will depend on economics.

Power==>H2 and power==>CH4 will both get better with more research, but they are already probably good enough. Power==>CH4 actually needs more such research, since its really power==>H2==>CH4. However, you need a whole lot of R&D and capital to build out the H2/HVDC storage and transport infrastructure, while you need no additional infrastructure with CH4: it's already there and in use.

Yes, both schemes work by adding more solar and wind, and then converting the otherwise-curtailed excess into storable gas. the at any moment, locally the electricity has three possible sinks: first, meet all instantaneous demand without storage, then fill up your short-term battery storage, and finally start making and storing gas. HVDC may let you avoid storage and its inefficiencies, at the cost of the HVDC (probably lower)  inefficiencies, but it does not help with seasonal imbalances.

Green CH4 avoids the current biggest venting problem, which occurs at the wellhead. Inadvertent venting of CH4 is its biggest drawback, and it must be addressed. We will be living with the existing fossil CH4 system for at least another 30 years no matter what, so we need to fix the venting problem. The first step is aggressive detection. The next step is to add equipment to convert venting to flaring. With fossil CH4 flaring is bad for global warming, but not as as bad as venting. With green CH4, flaring is carbon neutral and becomes an efficiency problem rather than a climate problem. With aggressive detection, we can implement antipollution regulations that make venting very expensive.

The existing CH4 system is thousands of times bigger than the existing H2 system and has been in place for a century. This means that its problems are thousands of times more frequent and more visible. If H2 is deployed at scale, we will eventually see some truly spectacular accidents and incidents.

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Start with solar and wind electricity. Electrolysis of water to make H2, Then a Sabatier reaction (or other methanation technique) with atmospheric CO2 to make CH4. I'm not making this up (I don't have the knowledge or experience to do that). It's "green" , or "carbon neutral") in the sense that the amount of CO2 created when you burn it is equal the amount you take out of the air when you burn it. No fossil carbon is used in this process, only atmospheric CO2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas#Power-to-methane

Ok as I thought - the only issue with that is you are going to lose half your hydrogen in that process as water and have to split it again. 8 H in for 4 out in the form of CH4.

Making Ammonia is going to be a more efficient use of that Hydrogen. The other possibility is making Ethylene which I think is a similar reaction but using CO instead of CO2. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

Just now, NickW said:

Ok as I thought - the only issue with that is you are going to lose half your hydrogen in that process as water and have to split it again. 8 H in for 4 out in the form of CH4.

Making Ammonia is going to be a more efficient use of that Hydrogen. The other possibility is making Ethylene which I think is a similar reaction but using CO instead of CO2. 

Yes, the intermediate H2 can be tapped off and used for other purposes, specifically including ammonia and ethylene. This is not about the best use of the H2.  For ammonia in particular, this displaces the fossil CH4 that is currently used to make the H2.

This is not about the 5% of today's fossil CH4 used to produce H2 for ammonia and ethylene. It's about the most cost-efficient way to store the energy produced by solar and wind after you have fulfilled the world's demand for feedstock H2. The cost includes capital cost and operations cost. If the input energy cost is zero ("photons are free") then the efficiency of the conversion process is not the most important part of the equation. You need to look at the total capital cost to make, store, transport, and consume the CH4, and compare it to the total capital cost for any alternative. But the entire CH4 infrastructure (storage, transport, and turbines) is already in place, along with all of the trained personnel. By contrast, any alternative to CH4 will require truly massive capital investment.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

That will also produce the CO2 to put in soft drinks and help rot your teeth! 

I have drunk a lot of carbonated water in my lifetime and still have great teeth! I think the sugar is the problem. I drink diet sodas and waters. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

What process is used to make 'green CH4'?

Biomethane AKA biogas https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

Blending hydrogen into natural gas lines is also being considered but plain natural gas is fine IMO. Just stop flaring it and leaking it!

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

You are assuming your conclusion. You don't need an HVDC grid if you already have a CH4 pipeline grid. The decision to build the HVDC grid will depend on economics.

The existing CH4 system is thousands of times bigger than the existing H2 system and has been in place for a century. This means that its problems are thousands of times more frequent and more visible. If H2 is deployed at scale, we will eventually see some truly spectacular accidents and incidents.

Apparently, the problem with HVDC is neither technology nor cost but permitting. But as Jay McKinsey pointed out, you can bury HVDC in the ground and install it under water. Further, a web of Natural Gas pipelines -- along with their easements -- cover the United States. You wouldn't run into permitting problems if you followed those routes, you'd just need the cooperation of the pipeline owners. 

Ramez Naam claims HVDC is "incredibly cost effective." I have no idea why or how and I don't know enough about energy to ask him a smart question to find out. But, if it is cost effect then that's the answer with regard to the economics of installing HVDC. (If Naam's characterization is not overstating the cost effectiveness.) 

I don't think we'd see excess accidents with H2. I think we'd see fewer because, in contrast to CH4, we wouldn't be transporting H2. A generation site over storage would have water pipelines coming in but no H2 pipelines going out. That's safe compared to apartment buildings and homes blowing up with CH4 connections. If we can get away from transporting gas we should be much better off with regard to safety and system complexity. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Now, I'm not sure if H2 would be good outside the United States. Or if transporting H2 from solar PV abundant Australia to energy starved Japan would be a good idea. 

Japan could install HVDC lines coming from China and South Korea but there are political problems involved with that. In contrast to the United States, the politics might work against seasonal H2 storage in Japan. 

I don't care about climate change, but if someone is concerned about climate change then they'd want the ability to transport inexpensive clean energy over borders. Either physically as a fuel or by technology transfer that allows a country to produce clean energy cheaper than fossil fuel energy. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I have drunk a lot of carbonated water in my lifetime and still have great teeth! I think the sugar is the problem. I drink diet sodas and waters. 

I agree its the predominant issue however CO2 in water forms carbonic acid which also attacks the teeth