Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Turbines

[nsdp + 449]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Umm...Where is this "efficiency"?  And no, you do not get 200bar for free... There is no way in this world to get 200bar and 85% efficiency.  If there was, every single pump and turbine around the world would be changed out YESTERDAY.  In fact if it was 1bar and 85% efficiency, every pump and Turbine around the world would be changed to take advantage of the new physics. 

Obviously you know nothing at all and have never heard about the ITM Power Shell Rheinland  Refining 10MW project https://www.itm-power.com/refhyne or  ITM Power has supplied the first and second PEM P-2-G systems into Germany to the Thuega Group and RWE/Innogy.  Conversion of wind an solar to H2.

[Richard D + 86]

The refinery hydrogen project reference gives figures of 10MW a year for the production of 1300 tonnes of hydrogen. This works out at 60% efficiency,using the figure from the internet of 39.4 kWh/kg hydrogen. Obviously,an electrolyser cannot produce hydrogen at 200 bar unless a use can be found for the oxygen also produced at 200 bar.

As the German project is EU funded,expect more propaganda than facts. Try asking how much cooling water the electrolyser requires. That will measure waste heat and give you an exact figure for efficiency.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Umm...Where is this "efficiency"?  And no, you do not get 200bar for free... There is no way in this world to get 200bar and 85% efficiency.  If there was, every single pump and turbine around the world would be changed out YESTERDAY.  In fact if it was 1bar and 85% efficiency, every pump and Turbine around the world would be changed to take advantage of the new physics. 

I read somewhere that to get Hydrogen compressed to a density where it has an energy content similar to petrol by volume you need to use approximately 40% of the energy value.

Hence the reason I've never been overly confident that Hydrogen fuelled cars were going to be viable. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

7 hours ago, nsdp said:

Obviously you know nothing at all and have never heard about the ITM Power Shell Rheinland  Refining 10MW project https://www.itm-power.com/refhyne or  ITM Power has supplied the first and second PEM P-2-G systems into Germany to the Thuega Group and RWE/Innogy.  Conversion of wind an solar to H2.

Obviously you.... can't read.  What part of 200 bar from 1 bar is too complex for ya?

And Hell no they are not making H2 at 85% efficiency.  Went through its "efficiency" in another thread.  But go for it knock yourself out. 

[nsdp + 449]

On 5/30/2020 at 6:41 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Obviously you.... can't read.  What part of 200 bar from 1 bar is too complex for ya?

And Hell no they are not making H2 at 85% efficiency.  Went through its "efficiency" in another thread.  But go for it knock yourself out. 

 

On 5/30/2020 at 6:41 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Obviously you.... can't read.  What part of 200 bar from 1 bar is too complex for ya?

And Hell no they are not making H2 at 85% efficiency.  Went through its "efficiency" in another thread.  But go for it knock yourself out. 

Well excuse my old eyes I haven't been legally allowed to drive for 6 years and ITM's website and Oil Price neither one is ADA Compliant. . It should have been 20 BAR in reports for the HGasXMW.

Hydrogen generation pressure (bar)20https://www.itm-power.com/images/Products/HGasXMW.pdfon the 

Efficiency is 77% without O2 capture https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-hydrogen-production-electrolysis 

O2 capture adds 15%  did your source dump the O2 or capture?  Why don't you post your thread source so we can all see who is posting. In the mean time why don't  follow up on this project to get legitimate real world results.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Xcel Energy, Wind-to-Hydrogen Project  XCEL Energy https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47302.pdf January 2010 P12.  The hydrogen-production system utilizes a bipolar alkaline electrolyzer nominally capable of producing 30 Nm3/h (2.7 kg/h). The hydrogen is compressed to 6,000 psi and delivered to an on-site three-bank cascading storage assembly with 80 kg of storage capacity This project has come a long way in 10 years. What did you do tie into some of the old EREE papers from 2000-3 maybe?

Did you join in the EERE  Hydrogen  conference this year? It was on line you know. Try it next May, maybe, you wouldn't look like a cubicle engineer in training. 

[nsdp + 449]

On 5/30/2020 at 3:14 AM, Richard D said:

The refinery hydrogen project reference gives figures of 10MW a year for the production of 1300 tonnes of hydrogen. This works out at 60% efficiency,using the figure from the internet of 39.4 kWh/kg hydrogen. Obviously,an electrolyser cannot produce hydrogen at 200 bar unless a use can be found for the oxygen also produced at 200 bar.

As the German project is EU funded,expect more propaganda than facts. Try asking how much cooling water the electrolyser requires. That will measure waste heat and give you an exact figure for efficiency.

 

That is hydrogen only.  Now figure with O2 capture.   You guys aren't very current on elctrolyzer  design.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

Efficiency is 77% without O2 capture https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-hydrogen-production-electrolysis 

O2 capture adds 15%  did your source dump the O2 or capture?  Why don't you post your thread source so we can all see who is posting. In the mean time why don't  follow up on this project to get legitimate real world results.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Xcel Energy, Wind-to-Hydrogen Project  XCEL Energy https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47302.pdf January 2010 P12.  

Well, I suggest reading again.  Even ignorant me, knows the difference between white paper "target" efficiency and the real world. 

[Richard D + 86]

'Oxygen-capture' sounds a lot like EuroSpeak. What is the oxygen to be used for;coal gasification?

[nsdp + 449]

22 hours ago, Richard D said:

'Oxygen-capture' sounds a lot like EuroSpeak. What is the oxygen to be used for;coal gasification?

An 8% difference between combustion in air and in pure oxyigen  because you do get a higher combustion temperature(higher heat value to engineers)  because you waste no heat in inert gases. A clean coal sound like you have zip for knowledge. You use it in a fuel cell or combustion turbine for efficiency gains.

Look up higher heating value vs lower heating value of hydrogen.

as Ralph Kramden used to say "whata maroon."

Edited June 2, 2020 by nsdp

[nsdp + 449]

On 6/1/2020 at 12:35 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well, I suggest reading again.  Even ignorant me, knows the difference between white paper "target"the EERE conferences.  efficiency and the real world. 

I suggest you check the papers at EERE's annual performance review if you know how to access them.  ThE paper I linked was sucker bait(from the 2010 conference) AND YOU TOOK IT.  Giner hit the target in 2016 and Hydrogenics, Norskhydro  and ITM did in 2017.

Here Seimens says 80% efficiency. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:139de890-44e1-453b-8176-c3d45c905178/version:1587996910/white-paper-efficiency-en.pdf  Then add 8% for being able to use the higher heating value of hydrogen in you combustion process plus reducing the power needed to supply combustion oxygen (1/5 of the volume)instead of an 80/20 mix of nitrogen and oxygen plus a closed loop system so no NOx controls. 

Did you pass high school chemistry? How?

Edited June 2, 2020 by nsdp

[Richard D + 86]

If you want to use the oxygen produced from electrolysis,then you must take into account the fact that cryogenics can produce oxygen using less than one-tenth of the power. Attempts to notionally add 12% to the efficiency of electrolysis by use of the oxygen is a fraud. Because cryogenic air separation is a real technology,that figure must go down to 1%,at best.

The only people to deliver ,long-term, in the real world was the Swiss firm that supplied electrolysers to a firm in Zimbabwe which used the hydrogen to make ammonia. The equipment worked for 35 years,but the firm now inports ammonia from SASOL in South Africa.

The way I see that things could be made to work for power generation is to produce hydrogen and oxygen at 20-30bar using renewable energy. The gases could then be stored underground without the cost of compression. Each store could then supply the gases to fuel cells. Whatever clever tricks you use,there is no getting away from the fact that renewable energy requires hugely expensive back-up. What happens in the real world can be seen,starkly,here in the UK. When a large wind farm on the east coast went down,Little Barford GTCC was called upon for power. It also failed,leading to large areas being blacked out. Something that I would also comment on is that I have seen Little Barford start up and produce clouds of brown oxides of nitrogen. Low emissions from Gas Turbine Combined Cycle power stations can obviously only be obtained at steady-state operating conditions. They were not designed for stop/start.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

I suggest you check the papers at EERE's ann

So, you do not know the difference between an overview wishful utopia white paper BS, and reality... 

Pretty much sums up our discussion

[nsdp + 449]

17 hours ago, Richard D said:

If you want to use the oxygen produced from electrolysis,then you must take into account the fact that cryogenics can produce oxygen using less than one-tenth of the power. Attempts to notionally add 12% to the efficiency of electrolysis by use of the oxygen is a fraud. Because cryogenic air separation is a real technology,that figure must go down to 1%,at best.

The only people to deliver ,long-term, in the real world was the Swiss firm that supplied electrolysers to a firm in Zimbabwe which used the hydrogen to make ammonia. The equipment worked for 35 years,but the firm now inports ammonia from SASOL in South Africa.

The way I see that things could be made to work for power generation is to produce hydrogen and oxygen at 20-30bar using renewable energy. The gases could then be stored underground without the cost of compression. Each store could then supply the gases to fuel cells. Whatever clever tricks you use,there is no getting away from the fact that renewable energy requires hugely expensive back-up. What happens in the real world can be seen,starkly,here in the UK. When a large wind farm on the east coast went down,Little Barford GTCC was called upon for power. It also failed,leading to large areas being blacked out. Something that I would also comment on is that I have seen Little Barford start up and produce clouds of brown oxides of nitrogen. Low emissions from Gas Turbine Combined Cycle power stations can obviously only be obtained at steady-state operating conditions. They were not designed for stop/start.

 

 

If we depended on engineering skills of individuals like you, we would still be using kerosene to light our homes and Stanley Steamers as advanced automobiles.  .   See ASME Publication  https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/POWER/proceedings-abstract/POWER2018/51395/V001T06A004/277431  Distributed Power Generation and Energy Storage From Renewables Using a Hydrogen Oxygen Turbine

Dr Keller is  retired as Department Manager Combustion in Engines and Hydrogen Energy Combustion Research Facility Sandia National Laboratories https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f10/cng_h2_workshop_2_keller.pdf and is now a member of the faculty of UC Irvine.

Dr. Shoengung is a Standford  U Phd in Mech E and works as an industry consultant in silicon valley.

Susan and Jay have probably each  forgotten more than you will ever know on this subject.

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by nsdp

[nsdp + 449]

15 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, you do not know the difference between an overview wishful utopia white paper BS, and reality... 

Pretty much sums up our discussion

Are you calling Dr. Philipp Lettenmeier of Siemens a liar?   Or are you Ignoring the link to his paper and his research? https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:139de890-44e1-453b-8176-c3d45c905178/version:1587996910/white-paper-efficiency-en.pdf

I consider the research staff at Siemens far more competent than you are!!  Where is the thread you claim shows only lower efficiencies.??

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

Are you calling Dr. Philipp Lettenmeier of Siemens a liar?   Or are you Ignoring the link to his paper and his research? https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:139de890-44e1-453b-8176-c3d45c905178/version:1587996910/white-paper-efficiency-en.pdf

I consider the research staff at Siemens far more competent than you are!!  Where is the thread you claim shows only lower efficiencies.??

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)  

SO, not only do you NOT know what a white paper is(utopian BS), but you do not even know what a generic overview is(paper shown). 

Thank you for removing all doubt. 

[Richard D + 86]

Interested to note that there were no constructive comments on the points I made. Academics and researchers do not have to put their money where their mouths are and build machines that the people in charge of electricity supply can actually go out and buy.

In that connection,does anyone know what became of the high-temperature electrolysis of steam that was all the rage with researchers,around a decade ago?

[Tom S. + 3]

Does making hydrogen from wind and storing it underground make thermodynamic sense?   Wind at best is 50% efficient, hydrolysis maybe 80%, compression into underground storage maybe 30%, combusting in the turbine 62% and finally transmission from Utah to California maybe 90%.    If we start with 100 BTU of wind energy we get:   100 x .5 * .80 x .30 x .62 x .9 = 7 BTU.   This does not include fabrication, installation and maintenance.   Seems more than a little crazy.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

4 hours ago, Tom S. said:

Does making hydrogen from wind and storing it underground make thermodynamic sense?   Wind at best is 50% efficient, hydrolysis maybe 80%, compression into underground storage maybe 30%, combusting in the turbine 62% and finally transmission from Utah to California maybe 90%.    If we start with 100 BTU of wind energy we get:   100 x .5 * .80 x .30 x .62 x .9 = 7 BTU.   This does not include fabrication, installation and maintenance.   Seems more than a little crazy.

Now Tom: using 3rd grade multiplication to make basic statements of reality is too complex for utopians.  You really have to delve down to their base level; below 1st grade level.  Still learning how to count to 10.  You see they know numbers exist, they just do not know how to use them.  Stresses their undeveloped brains too far. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 hours ago, Tom S. said:

Does making hydrogen from wind and storing it underground make thermodynamic sense?   Wind at best is 50% efficient, hydrolysis maybe 80%, compression into underground storage maybe 30%, combusting in the turbine 62% and finally transmission from Utah to California maybe 90%.    If we start with 100 BTU of wind energy we get:   100 x .5 * .80 x .30 x .62 x .9 = 7 BTU.   This does not include fabrication, installation and maintenance.   Seems more than a little crazy.

The efficiency of wind does not matter because the marginal cost of wind is near zero. Convert it into H2 at 80% efficiency then to CH4 which let's say will be another 10% efficiency loss. Now pipe the Green CH4 to CA via the existing natural gas system with the same cost and efficiency structure as natural gas has. The question then is when does the cost of Green Meth drop below natural meth? 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, Tom S. said:

Does making hydrogen from wind and storing it underground make thermodynamic sense?   Wind at best is 50% efficient, hydrolysis maybe 80%, compression into underground storage maybe 30%, combusting in the turbine 62% and finally transmission from Utah to California maybe 90%.    If we start with 100 BTU of wind energy we get:   100 x .5 * .80 x .30 x .62 x .9 = 7 BTU.   This does not include fabrication, installation and maintenance.   Seems more than a little crazy.

Wrong calculation. Producing gas requires capital investment. This is true for H2 from wind (or solar), or CH4 from a NG well. Therefore the correct metric is the amount of gas (in therms) produced per dollar invested. The transportation costs, storage/retrieval costs, and conversion factors for that gas are very nearly the same for H2 and CH4 once it is produced. The well eventually goes dry, the wind turbines eventually wear out, so the details vary. If you don't like comparing H2 to CH4, then spend some more capital and produce CH4 from the wind instead: now everything downstream from the production site is exactly the same.

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/29/2020 at 3:06 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Thanks. The first paper (from ammoniaenergy.com) is more recent and more practical. I makes the point that most of the research it surveys emphasizes ammonia as a way to store and transport H2, but that direct use as ammonia in its current roles (fertilizer) is more energy-efficient than converting to H2. It's also clear that this transport is intended as part of the H2 economy, with all the infrastructure that requires. So it can start making money immediately in Korea and Japan, but not so much elsewhere. The paper (from an ammonia organization) does not attempt a comparison with CH4.

This entire thread started with H2-capable turbines. I wonder if there is an analysis of NH3-capable turbines somewhere. If you are starting from NH3, according to the paper it should be more energy-efficient to just burn it than to first convert to H2.  (UPDATE: there is some research: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1540748918306345 )

(Disclaimer: I'm very cautious about ammonia. I worked in a frozen vegetable factory that had an ammonia-based freezing system with lots of high-pressure ammonia lines overhead. I saw a guy accidentally whack a raised forklift fork into a line. Didn't actually damage it, but it's the only time I've ever seen a guy literally thrown off a job. The foreman grabbed him off the forklift, carried him to the door and threw him about six feet, then sat on the ground and had the shakes because he had seen an actual ammonia accident.)

Some more articles that u may find of interest: https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/How-Long-Until-Hydrogen-Is-Competitive-At-The-Pump.html  and   https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/Is-Green-Hydrogen-The-Future-Of-Energy-Storage.html  and  https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/Green-Hydrogen-Is-Right-Around-The-Corner.html and finally https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/all-electric-grand-caravan-makes-maiden-flight/138600.article?mod=article_inline                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       As you can see, fossil fuels are now being attacked from all angles, whether it be electric cars, hydrogen cars, even electric or hydrogen aircraft, hydrogen shipping, batteries, pumped hydro, and hydrogen storage for electricity. You know that renewable energy produced 33% of the world electricity so far this year, more than coal. Everything changing at warp speed right now which is why I think the likes of Russia and the Middle East will be quaking in their boots within just 5 years.

Then there is this:  https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Are-Investors-Ignoring-The-Largest-Financial-Risk-Ever.html

[Richard D + 86]

What sort of price for hydrogen storage in salt caverns? There was a project here in Dorset (south coast UK) to dissolve salt from a salt deposit and store natural gas. The price given was £500 million to store a billion cubic metres of gas. Work was to have started in 2009,but the company itself was dissolved in 2015.

[Richard D + 86]

Excellent internet item; Electrolysis of water-London South Bank University. Illuminating to me.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 6/4/2020 at 6:15 AM, Tom S. said:

Does making hydrogen from wind and storing it underground make thermodynamic sense?   Wind at best is 50% efficient, hydrolysis maybe 80%, compression into underground storage maybe 30%, combusting in the turbine 62% and finally transmission from Utah to California maybe 90%.    If we start with 100 BTU of wind energy we get:   100 x .5 * .80 x .30 x .62 x .9 = 7 BTU.   This does not include fabrication, installation and maintenance.   Seems more than a little crazy.

Your math is not correct. 100 BTU of electrical energy should be starting point, as it is surplus electrical energy that will be used. Also, compression for storage need not take more than 50% of contained energy. Thus we get 100 x 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.6 x 0.9 = 21.6 BTU which is roughly the same as coal or gas.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 5/18/2020 at 7:31 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And if they put H2 in NG lines, anyone with sense will know that H2 leaks out quickly.  Which means all that "stored" H2 goes up into the atmosphere instead of being burned.  So, expenses on "storage" miraculously go massively up and the utopian dreams of an H2 future hit reality.  An "article" will be "published" where they will be "SHOCKED" to find this "new problem".  They will then start bitching that the lines leak, requiring massive $$$ to "fix" them for H2.  Then someone like you and me will point out that there really is no such thing as a leakproof H2 valve, pressure regulator, flow regulator.  They all leak, the only question is: amount. 

--> That friends is how H2 will actually work in the real world. 

That is not true.  We do it in the lab all the time, it's important to prevent explosions.

We squirt leak detector stuff (SNOOP, fancy soap water) over all the connections and lines - there are no leaks even with high pressures, two regulators to step down the pressure, and a mass flow controller.