Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Turbines

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I operate a 130 hp loader tractor on a daily basis, and I can tell you that changing batteries every 3-4 hours would be a massive inconvenience. Unless you can guarantee an entire day of operation. 

It has been 50 years since I drove a tractor (hauling a pea combine in Illinois). How many gallons of diesel do you use a day? That is the best measure of the energy requirement. We can use that as a rough estimate of the energy we need to store/replace per day.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

Who pays to keep NG lines in good working order when NG starts competing with inexpensive solar/offshore wind transported through HVDC? Banks aren't going to finance it. 

Once you have a HVDC network you can locate your turbines anywhere you want. No need to pipe gas. I think they will probably locate the hydrogen turbines over salt formations like they did in the article. Absent pipelines, they'll import inexpensive solar from New Mexico, harvest H2 from the Rio Grande with electrolysis, then store it in engineered salt caverns in Texas. During winter and night, those Texas hydrogen turbines will transport electricity through HVDC to Toronto. 

Banks won't finance NG pipelines but they will finance HVDC and hydrogen turbines located near water resources and over the right geology for storage. 

Who pays to build the HVDC network if it costs more than maintaining the CH4 pipeline network? Both networks have transmission losses and maintenance costs, so investors will do a comparative financial analysis. Pipelines have very low transmission losses. I do not know what the HVDC transmission losses are. In the solar==>CH4 scenario, the CH4 consumers (electrical utilities with existing CH4 CCGT) continue to pay for the green CH4 just as they currently pay for fossil CH4.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Try the Freiberg Technische institute.. largest salt storage for hydrogen is Fannett Texas built by Liquide which holds about 160 GWH

That's nice. Germany currently has CH4 storage capacity of about 200,000 GWh.  The US has 9,240 BCF, or about 2,680,000 GWh. Of that, about 175,000 GWh is in California. It's already in place and has been working for decades.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

56 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Talking into the wind, my friend, talking into the wind.

I believe you have the adage wrong...

Pissing into the wind my friend, pissing into the wind.  😜

[Blackbag99 + 20]

On 5/18/2020 at 5:49 AM, ronwagn said:

I really see no need for hydrogen at all, but we will see how it works out. I also see no need for sequestering CO2. Maybe you could briefly remind me why hydrogen is better in your opinion. 

Its not. Expensive to produce, expensive to store and zero infrastructure. 

On economics it fails on all levels.

I could see a place for Hydrogen as a jet fuel replacement. It would require Worldwide Government legislation to happen, not innovation.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

2 hours ago, Blackbag99 said:

Its not. Expensive to produce, expensive to store and zero infrastructure. 

On economics it fails on all levels.

I could see a place for Hydrogen as a jet fuel replacement. It would require Worldwide Government legislation to happen, not innovation.

What are you doing, flying a blimp around?  Under what universe does the density of Hydrogen come even close to that of Kerosene. 

[Blackbag99 + 20]

5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What are you doing, flying a blimp around?  Under what universe does the density of Hydrogen come even close to that of Kerosene. 

It would require Worldwide Government legislation to happen

I can at least read a post before making comment!

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/17/2020 at 6:42 PM, BradleyPNW said:

You can burn H2 with CH4 in the same turbine. We can create all the salt caverns we could ever need. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/salt-cavern

Isn't that basically the proposal with putting Hydrogen into existing networks which can take Hydrogen content up to about by 15% by volume which would be about 3-4% by energy content. Same with domestic boilers.

That would allow the gas national grid in the UK to take around 30 Twh of green hydrogen per year at current usage levels. 

This allows a certain level of renewable overbuild which reduces the intermittency issue at least with wind while utilising surpluses in a productive way and putting it into a form of storage. 

[Richard D + 86]

Talking of high school mathematics;here in the UK,sixty years ago,I was taught that an equation with an unknown in it could not be solved. Since an unknown number of climatic factors are unknown quantitatively,it follows that to produce a temperature figure for claims of warming is pure fraud. Scientific honesty would require people at the UN to say that their figures are guesswork.

[NickW + 2,714]

33 minutes ago, Richard D said:

Talking of high school mathematics;here in the UK,sixty years ago,I was taught that an equation with an unknown in it could not be solved. Since an unknown number of climatic factors are unknown quantitatively,it follows that to produce a temperature figure for claims of warming is pure fraud. Scientific honesty would require people at the UN to say that their figures are guesswork.

What would they be then?

[Richard D + 86]

Unemployed?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:49 PM, ronwagn said:

I really see no need for hydrogen at all, but we will see how it works out. I also see no need for sequestering CO2. Maybe you could briefly remind me why hydrogen is better in your opinion. 

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.

[Richard D + 86]

If hydrogen is made by electrolysis using wind and solar power,is the anode oxygen simply vented to atmosphere?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour 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.

Global production of Ammonia is in the region of 150MT so that's a potential market for 26-27MT of Hydrogen per annum. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 minutes ago, Richard D said:

If hydrogen is made by electrolysis using wind and solar power,is the anode oxygen simply vented to atmosphere?

it would make sense to save this although there may already be an adequate supply as a byproduct of the Nitrogen industry. Most oxygen in tank form is used in Iron Smelters and Ethylene industry. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Isn't that basically the proposal with putting Hydrogen into existing networks which can take Hydrogen content up to about by 15% by volume which would be about 3-4% by energy content. Same with domestic boilers.

That would allow the gas national grid in the UK to take around 30 Twh of green hydrogen per year at current usage levels. 

This allows a certain level of renewable overbuild which reduces the intermittency issue at least with wind while utilising surpluses in a productive way and putting it into a form of storage. 

In the USA, I think everything depends on what solar PV prices do. If they don't fall well below NG then we will continue using NG with a little hydrogen. If solar prices fall through the floor everything will revolve around that. We would definitely design for curtailment -- overbuild -- with cheap solar. 

The only thing I know about the UK is they have excellent access to offshore wind. But I don't know if offshore wind can play in the same park as ultra-cheap solar. I'd be happy if offshore wind could go that low. As I understand it, the UK has done a good job reducing their GHG emissions but I don't care about climate change so I don't follow that aspect as closely as others. 

The USA may be a special case. We have a web of pipeline easements covering the entire country. It will be easy to supply the whole country with underground HVDC or possibly repurpose existing pipelines to carry HVDC rather than gas. Today? Not a chance. NG is too inexpensive. But if solar prices fall our domestic NG pipeline companies go belly up and they will be scrambling for revenue sources. 

Similarly, the USA was a special case with shale O&G. In that case, land owners owned the mineral rights and could negotiate directly with the O&G companies. If you analyzed shale O&G from a European perspective it would never work because the land owners don't own the mineral rights. A small thing like that made all the difference in America's gas windfall. 

Alright, so IF that solar price plunge/HVDC buildout special case happens, I don't think you'd bother mixing H2 into the existing NG infrastructure. Locate your H2 turbines over salt (Texas) where you have good access to rivers. The H2 gets generated on site and pumped straight down into salt cavern storage. Rather than transporting NG through pipelines over long distances you generate H2 and store on-site then burn H2 on-site to transport electricity through HVDC over long distances. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

30 minutes ago, NickW said:

it would make sense to save this although there may already be an adequate supply as a byproduct of the Nitrogen industry. Most oxygen in tank form is used in Iron Smelters and Ethylene industry. 

Where you have already paid for the electricity==>H2 system co-located with a solar or wind farm, it may make sense to use fuel cells  for mid-term storage and instead of or in addition to lithium batteries for short-term storage. Storing the O2 and using it for the fuel cells will increase their economic efficiency. The massive amounts extra O2 you generate when making H2 and CH4 for long-term storage and transport make it a waste product, driving its price at the source to zero. Unless a major consumer of O2  (e.g., an ethylene plant) is co-located, the value of the O2 is driven by the cost of putting it in tanks versus the price you can get for it.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen

[BradleyPNW + 282]

12 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Who pays to build the HVDC network if it costs more than maintaining the CH4 pipeline network? Both networks have transmission losses and maintenance costs, so investors will do a comparative financial analysis. Pipelines have very low transmission losses. I do not know what the HVDC transmission losses are. In the solar==>CH4 scenario, the CH4 consumers (electrical utilities with existing CH4 CCGT) continue to pay for the green CH4 just as they currently pay for fossil CH4.

"On average, the losses on the HVDC lines are roughly 3.5% per 1000 km, contrasted with 6.7% for comparable AC lines at similar voltage levels (Siemens 2017). HVDC lines also experience losses at the converter stations, which range between 0.6 and 1% of the power delivered. In a side‐by‐side comparison, the total HVDC transmission losses are still lower than AC losses for long‐distance lines (lower by 30%–40%, typically). Figure 3 compares the losses on a 1200 MW overhead line using HVDC and HVAC configurations. As shown in the figure, beyond the break‐even distance of 300 km (or 186 miles), the losses on AC lines are consistently higher than comparable HVDC lines." (Assessing HVDC Transmission for Impacts of Non‐Dispatchable
Generation, EIA, page 10) 

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmission/pdf/transmission.pdf

 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

12 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Who pays to build the HVDC network if it costs more than maintaining the CH4 pipeline network? 

All things being equal, no one pays for HVDC if it is more expensive. But HVDC is the only way you can transport ultra-cheap solar PV from New Mexico to the rest of the country. So there will be incentive to build out HVDC.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

"On average, the losses on the HVDC lines are roughly 3.5% per 1000 km, contrasted with 6.7% for comparable AC lines at similar voltage levels (Siemens 2017). HVDC lines also experience losses at the converter stations, which range between 0.6 and 1% of the power delivered. In a side‐by‐side comparison, the total HVDC transmission losses are still lower than AC losses for long‐distance lines (lower by 30%–40%, typically). Figure 3 compares the losses on a 1200 MW overhead line using HVDC and HVAC configurations. As shown in the figure, beyond the break‐even distance of 300 km (or 186 miles), the losses on AC lines are consistently higher than comparable HVDC lines." (Assessing HVDC Transmission for Impacts of Non‐Dispatchable
Generation, EIA, page 10) 

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmission/pdf/transmission.pdf

 

 

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.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 minute 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.

We won't build HVDC for H2 turbines, we will build them for solar & wind. That means your NG pipeline infrastructure will collapse (increase the cost of NG.) 

All things being equal in direct market competition, NG is better than H2. However, all things are not equal. That's why I think we're heading toward H2 and NG is going belly up. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

6 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

We won't build HVDC for H2 turbines, we will build them for solar & wind. That means your NG pipeline infrastructure will collapse (increase the cost of NG.) 

All things being equal in direct market competition, NG is better than H2. However, all things are not equal. That's why I think we're heading toward H2 and NG is going belly up. 

I don't agree that NG is "better": it depends on your metric. right now, NG is super cheap in the US because it's a waste byproduct of LTo in the Permian. That won't last forever.

I guess I do not understand your system architecture. I thought your strategy included long-term storage of H2 in salt caverns in conjunction with H2 turbines (i.e., the subject of this thread). I hope NG (fossil CH4) will be completely replaced, initially by green CH4 and ultimately by a successor technology. I don't think a massive buildout of HVDC will be part of the solution, but the market will decide.

My primary focus has been on long-term (seasonal) storage of energy. The existing CH4 storage infrastructure is thousands of times larger than any other except possibly coal, even hydro. If we want to use this infrastructure, we need to generate CH4. Everything else follows.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

15 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I don't agree that NG is "better": it depends on your metric. right now, NG is super cheap in the US because it's a waste byproduct of LTo in the Permian. That won't last forever.

I guess I do not understand your system architecture. I thought your strategy included long-term storage of H2 in salt caverns in conjunction with H2 turbines (i.e., the subject of this thread). I hope NG (fossil CH4) will be completely replaced, initially by green CH4 and ultimately by a successor technology. I don't think a massive buildout of HVDC will be part of the solution, but the market will decide.

My primary focus has been on long-term (seasonal) storage of energy. The existing CH4 storage infrastructure is thousands of times larger than any other except possibly coal, even hydro. If we want to use this infrastructure, we need to generate CH4. Everything else follows.

You're right. In the context of this thread alone my strategy doesn't make any sense. I carried over the proposition from a different thread that contained forecasts of very inexpensive solar PV. 

Also, I'm probably wrong. I was just using this thread to try to think through future scenarios. Thermal storage or pumped hydro or some sort of other storage might undercut hydrogen. Maybe even synthetic gas. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, BradleyPNW said:

You're right. In the context of this thread alone my strategy doesn't make any sense. I carried over the proposition from a different thread that contained forecasts of very inexpensive solar PV. 

Also, I'm probably wrong. I was just using this thread to try to think through future scenarios. Thermal storage or pumped hydro or some sort of other storage might undercut hydrogen. Maybe even synthetic gas. 

I absolutely agree that solar PV will keep getting cheaper, as will wind. But they will not get less intermittent locally on daily, weekly, and seasonal timeframes. At the seasonal level in particular, we need long-term storage. With long term storage and low enough capital costs, we get to the point where you can build enough wind and solar in a smallish region to fully support that region on an annual basis, so you don't really need much inter-regional interconnect, either HVDC or pipeline. If you already happen to have the interconnect in place, and you have storage, then you don't need as much contingency overcapacity.  So: NY can depend on its own wind and solar, knowing that it can import CH4 if its storage ever gets too close to empty.

For solar, increases in economic efficiency are now driven by economies of scale much more than by  magic new technological advances. This means that progress will be steady, but no longer as dramatic as it has been over the last decade. But the existing installed $/watt is already close enough, I think. Somebody who actually knows what they are doing should look at the existing $/watt and at a realistic electricity==>CH4==>storage==>electricity round-trip efficiency to see what the real breakover point is. My guess: practical round-trip efficiency will exceed 50%, and $/watt will drop by another half from today's numbers. At that point you are easily cost-competitive with fossil CH4 even at its current depressed prices, remembering that we only make CH4 after we have already supplied current demand and already filled short-term battery storage.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

23 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Somebody who actually knows what they are doing should look at the existing $/watt and at a realistic electricity==>CH4==>storage==>electricity round-trip efficiency to see what the real breakover point is. My guess: practical round-trip efficiency will exceed 50%, and $/watt will drop by another half from today's numbers. At that point you are easily cost-competitive with fossil CH4 even at its current depressed prices, remembering that we only make CH4 after we have already supplied current demand and already filled short-term battery storage.

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