Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Turbines

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

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. 

I reckon easier to convert into Ammonia in the first instance and use that in Japanese agriculture. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

55 minutes ago, NickW said:

I reckon easier to convert into Ammonia in the first instance and use that in Japanese agriculture. 

What are the drawbacks to Ammonia, does it work as well in a gas turbine as NG and H2?

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

What are the drawbacks to Ammonia, does it work as well in a gas turbine as NG and H2?

You can actually burn Ammonia in a diesel engine with only minor modifications. Not sure about its use in turbines but it has been used as a rocket fuel. 

My point is that until supply is such that there is a surplus better to divert H2 into processes where it is most efficiently used. Using it to make Ammonia saves far more natural gas than converting it Methane. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

What are the drawbacks to Ammonia, does it work as well in a gas turbine as NG and H2?

If a supply of surplus H2 exists from renewable overbuild the order of use that would make sense would be:

1. Blending into the Natural Gas network - up to about 15% by volume / 3% by energy content

2. Conversion into Ammonia displacing the use of NG. Used primarily used as fertiliser 

3. Short term storage to burn in generators - storage is an issue though

4. Use in fuel cells if that becomes viable. Personally I think not as battery energy density improves EV's to make FC unviable. 

Only when the above outlets are saturated would I consider:

• Conversion to Methane as it loses half the hydrogen in the process and you also have to have a large supply of clean CO2 which requires considerable energy inputs unless a waste stream of CO2 is available
• Conversion to Ethylene as it loses 1/3rd of the Hydrogen in the process. As above with CO but the feedstock in this process is CO. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

22 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

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.

Dan - seriously? I wish I'd caught up with the thread earlier as this sounds entertaining but I'm going to leave you with that one and wish you good luck, as you will need it. Although I guess its a little less far fetched than using hydrogen. Anyway, thanks for that.. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

17 hours ago, NickW said:

If a supply of surplus H2 exists from renewable overbuild the order of use that would make sense would be:

1. Blending into the Natural Gas network - up to about 15% by volume / 3% by energy content

2. Conversion into Ammonia displacing the use of NG. Used primarily used as fertiliser 

3. Short term storage to burn in generators - storage is an issue though

4. Use in fuel cells if that becomes viable. Personally I think not as battery energy density improves EV's to make FC unviable. 

Only when the above outlets are saturated would I consider:

• Conversion to Methane as it loses half the hydrogen in the process and you also have to have a large supply of clean CO2 which requires considerable energy inputs unless a waste stream of CO2 is available
• Conversion to Ethylene as it loses 1/3rd of the Hydrogen in the process. As above with CO but the feedstock in this process is CO. 

I think the main benefit of Power to CH4 is transportation through pipelines/CNG and compatibility with existing turbines. That's why Dan keeps pointing out existing infrastructure benefits. A renewable grid needs seasonal power. We can get that with coal, fossil fuel NG, power to NG, power to H, power to NH3, thermal storage, pumped hydro, etc. 

The theory of low solar prices, as I understand it, is that we curtail to meet daily demand. Curtailment puts the kibosh on NG baseload to peakers. Consequently, we wind up with a large surplus of electricity during the belly of the duck curve. What do we do with the surplus of electricity? 

We should consider energy policy politics as well as costs. If a seasonal storage option wasn't the least expensive we might choose it anyway just because California is a big customer. California's energy policy metrics will be limited to energy systems and won't consider Haber-Bosch. 

The eventual outcome won't necessarily be the economically efficient outcome. Or maybe climate change externalities will be accurately captured by energy politics in ten years and the outcome is economically efficient, who knows. Personally, I think H2 is the easiest public sell in the USA right now with reasonable expectation of cost efficiency on a renewable grid. The promise of an H2 economy has had good public relations since forever. NG, despite the fact I love it, has gotten pretty beat up. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by BradleyPNW
spelling correction

[nsdp + 449]

On 5/19/2020 at 3:28 AM, 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.

You are only about 15 years out of date.   Today's wind prices prodcue H2 under $2/kg

[nsdp + 449]

6 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

What are the drawbacks to Ammonia, does it work as well in a gas turbine as NG and H2?

Water intensive in a desert climate.   Hydrogen fuel storage is a closed loop if you capture the O2 along with the H2.

Edited May 21, 2020 by nsdp

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

I think the main benefit of Power to CH4 is transportation trough pipelines/CNG and compatibility with existing turbines. That's why Dan keeps pointing out existing infrastructure benefits. A renewable grid needs seasonal power. We can get that with coal, fossil fuel NG, power to NG, power to H, power to NH3, thermal storage, pumped hydro, etc. 

The theory of low solar prices, as I understand it, is that we curtail to meet daily demand. Curtailment puts the kibosh on NG baseload to peakers. Consequently, we wind up with a large surplus of electricity during the belly of the duck curve. What do we do with the surplus of electricity? 

We should consider energy policy politics as well as costs. If a seasonal storage option wasn't the least expensive we might choose it anyway just because California is a big customer. California's energy policy metrics will be limited to energy systems and won't consider Haber-Bosch. 

The eventual outcome won't necessarily be the economically efficient outcome. Or maybe climate change externalities will be accurately captured by energy politics in ten years and the outcome is economically efficient, who knows. Personally, I think H2 is the easiest public sell in the USA right now with reasonable expectation of cost efficiency on a renewable grid. The promise of an H2 economy has had good public relations since forever. NG, despite the fact I love it, has gotten pretty beat up. 

Water is a very precious resource unless you are dealing with salt water or brine.   no problem with the H2 that people with a higher IQ won't solve.  CH4 is considerable more inefficient in water use if you have CCGT and much more inefficient as a fuel if you use a SCGT.

[nsdp + 449]

On 5/19/2020 at 12:21 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

 

Dan , have you looked at the infrastructure studies of  the American Society of Civil Engineers recently?  70% of the NG infrastructure is beyond the design replacement  criteria dates.  Lot of spiral wound  and welded seam pipe still in the ground.  That doesn't even consider shoddy construction practices  (keep installed cost low) that went on before 1970.   Take a look at  how many people get killed every year in NG pipeline explosions. I did code compliance for Tennessee GP, Amoco Gas and Valero transmission.  Infrastructure is going to have to be replaced either way.   You have critical transmission feeds that are 100 years old  and 55% of NG on a diameter inch mile bases is pre 1960.  Built before the Pipeline Safety Act.   HVDC costs about 1/2 of AC and about 45% of new NG pipe .

Do you think that our current infrastructure is safe?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

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

I create a lot of saliva to wash it away. 😁

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours 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 produce it. No fossil carbon is used in this process, only atmospheric CO2.

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

How is that really better than biomass plantations and forests to create wood chips, wood pellets, etc.?  Most environmentalists hate biomass. Aren't you just creating a different form of biomass as a gas?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

6 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Dan , have you looked at the infrastructure studies of  the American Society of Civil Engineers recently?  70% of the NG infrastructure is beyond the design replacement  criteria dates.  Lot of spiral wound  and welded seam pipe still in the ground.  That doesn't even consider shoddy construction practices  (keep installed cost low) that went on before 1970.   Take a look at  how many people get killed every year in NG pipeline explosions. I did code compliance for Tennessee GP, Amoco Gas and Valero transmission.  Infrastructure is going to have to be replaced either way.   You have critical transmission feeds that are 100 years old  and 55% of NG on a diameter inch mile bases is pre 1960.  Built before the Pipeline Safety Act.   HVDC costs about 1/2 of AC and about 45% of new NG pipe .

Do you think that our current infrastructure is safe?

The current NG infrastructure is ageing and is likely unsafe to lesser or larger degree. You are clearly more expert than I am. However, it is also currently in use and I see no way to take it out of service quickly, so it will continue in service, probably for at least 30 years. This means we are forced to continue to live with its nasty problems or fix them. Fixing them can be done incrementally. If we try to completely replace that infrastructure, we must invest in the replacement infrastructure while maintaining the old one, and that will be a technical and economic nightmare.

My focus is on long-term storage, since I see it as the biggest unsolved problem for green energy. I think the needed long-term storage will be on the same order of magnitude as the existing NG storage. In the US today, we currently have up to 4000 BCF of working NG stored at seasonal max. At 0.29 kWh/CF, this is 1160,000 GWh. So, my question to you: How do you propose to pay for this amount of storage if we must create a new storage infrastructure instead of using this existing storage? Yes, you may use lots of tricks to reduce this number, but even if I'm off by a factor of ten you still have a multi-trillion dollar problem to solve.

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

13 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

How is that really better than biomass plantations and forests to create wood chips, wood pellets, etc.?  Most environmentalists hate biomass. Aren't you just creating a different form of biomass as a gas?

Using the excess solar and wind electricity to produce CH4 is very different than biomass.  Biomass requires an entirely separate production source (forest or whatever), while solar CH4 is made using the excess power that would otherwise be curtailed. The idea is that when you build enough solar and wind to meet your daily peak loads on most days, your will have a lot of "free" electricity at non-peak times that you can convert to CH4. (You still use 4-hour batteries for intra-day peak shifting). No need for a bunch of fields or forests for biomass.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I like a bunch of fields and forests better than solar plants and wind turbines. I do like my little garden windmill though. I just put reflective tape on all the vanes so that I can see it at night. 😊

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I like a bunch of fields and forests better than solar plants and wind turbines. I do like my little garden windmill though. I just put reflective tape on all the vanes so that I can see it at night. 😊

But the solar plants and wind turbines will already be there. the CH4 is just a way to use then more effectively. I also like  fields and forrests, but I like them wild. A commercial biomass forest or farm is usually an industrial operation. A lot of pine is grown for paper pulp in South Carolina, and those "forests" look pretty sad when harvested.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

But the solar plants and wind turbines will already be there. the CH4 is just a way to use then more effectively. I also like  fields and forests, but I like them wild. A commercial biomass forest or farm is usually an industrial operation. A lot of pine is grown for paper pulp in South Carolina, and those "forests" look pretty sad when harvested.

You are right about that. I am a small landowner at heart. If I were a young man again I would like to have more acreage and be able to prune my own trees for firewood, have my own solar, a small wind turbine, and battery system. My home would be built for optimal insulation and mass. I would have an efficient wood stove also. At heart I am a Mother Earth News type. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

Water is a very precious resource unless you are dealing with salt water or brine.   no problem with the H2 that people with a higher IQ won't solve.  CH4 is considerable more inefficient in water use if you have CCGT and much more inefficient as a fuel if you use a SCGT.

nsdp, you are saying that you need more water to use natural gas than hydrogen? Please explain. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The current NG infrastructure is ageing and is likely unsafe to lesser or larger degree. You are clearly more expert than I am. However, it is also currently in use and I see no way to take it out of service quickly, so it will continue in service, probably for at least 30 years. This means we are forced to continue to live with its nasty problems or fix them. Fixing them can be done incrementally. If we try to completely replace that infrastructure, we must invest in the replacement infrastructure while maintaining the old one, and that will be a technical and economic nightmare.

My focus is on long-term storage, since I see it as the biggest unsolved problem for green energy. I think the needed long-term storage will be on the same order of magnitude as the existing NG storage. In the US today, we currently have up to 4000 BCF of working NG stored at seasonal max. At 0.29 kWh/CF, this is 1160,000 GWh. So, my question to you: How do you propose to pay for this amount of storage if we must create a new storage infrastructure instead of using this existing storage? Yes, you may use lots of tricks to reduce this number, but even if I'm off by a factor of ten you still have a multi-trillion dollar problem to solve.

 

So, are you saying it would be more expensive to maintain a natural gas system that is proven to work and is less expensive than ever while more efficient than ever? Your option is an unproven system that does not have one working example at scale!

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

26 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So, are you saying it would be more expensive to maintain a natural gas system that is proven to work and is less expensive than ever while more efficient than ever? Your option is an unproven system that does not have one working example at scale!

No, that's that ndsp was saying. I'm saying that fixing the existing system will be cheaper than replacing it with an H2/HVDC system.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I like a bunch of fields and forests better than solar plants and wind turbines. I do like my little garden windmill though. I just put reflective tape on all the vanes so that I can see it at night. 😊

Agriculture can work hand in hand with renewables. Wind farms can be farmed close up to the bases. The ground around solar farms can be grazed or used for horticulture. Infact in hot climates the shade will be beneficial to plant growth by protecting them from the midday sun. 

The aesthetics are another issue but solar/wind and agriculture are not mutually exclusive. 

[Richard D + 86]

Regarding electrolysis,how about using it as a waste disposal technology? I suggest that the black liquor produced during the production of wood pulp could be electrolysed with a membrane cell to give hydrogen and sodium hydroxide solution in the cathode compartment. At the anode,the lignin content of the black liquor would be oxidised to (green) carbon dioxide. The depolarisation at the anode would greatly reduce the current required per cubic metre of hydrogen.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

11 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

No, that's that ndsp was saying. I'm saying that fixing the existing system will be cheaper than replacing it with an H2/HVDC system.

If we emphasize cost I don't think we wind up with green CH4. 

Low solar/wind prices result in a HVDC grid no matter what. In turn, that strands NG assets. Everything from baseload to peakers gets wiped out and we only keep enough NG for seasonal need. Result: a much smaller NG network compared to today. But you won't fill it with green NG, you'll fill it with fossil NG + hydrogen mix. When you wind up with excess supply of H2 do you start converting it to green CH4? I don't think so. I think what you do is build H2 storage and turbines because fossil NG is doing your heavy lifting. Over time, as you start adding excess supply H2 turbines you decrease demand for fossil NG and NG winds up in a slow death spiral. Green NG never gets an opening because it was competing with fossil NG. 

The only way we get green CH4 is if we mandate it through energy policy. But that means you're dealing with California, etc. California and others have a habit of shutting down perfectly good working nuclear plants. They can shut down nuclear because people are afraid of it. NG, even if it is green like nuclear, faces an uphill battle. The nuclear industry has a really hard time convincing people it is safe even though it is the safest primary energy source. Further, when the green NG political battle comes the anti-NG people will be able to point and say, "Look, we have H2, it isn't a greenhouse gas." So the gravity of energy policy naturally falls toward H2. 
 

Edited May 21, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

If we emphasize cost I don't think we wind up with green CH4. 

Low solar/wind prices result in a HVDC grid no matter what. In turn, that strands NG assets. Everything from baseload to peakers gets wiped out and we only keep enough NG for seasonal need. Result: a much smaller NG network compared to today. But you won't fill it with green NG, you'll fill it with fossil NG + hydrogen mix. When you wind up with excess supply of H2 do you start converting it to green CH4? I don't think so. I think what you do is build H2 storage and turbines because fossil NG is doing your heavy lifting. Over time, as you start adding excess supply H2 turbines you decrease demand for fossil NG and NG winds up in a slow death spiral. Green NG never gets an opening because it was competing with fossil NG. 

The only way we get green CH4 is if we mandate it through energy policy. But that means you're dealing with California, etc. California and others have a habit of shutting down perfectly good working nuclear plants. They can shut down nuclear because people are afraid of it. NG, even if it is green like nuclear, faces an uphill battle. The nuclear industry has a really hard time convincing people it is safe even though it is the safest primary energy source. Further, when the green NG political battle comes the anti-NG people will be able to point and say, "Look, we have H2, it isn't a greenhouse gas." So the gravity of energy policy naturally falls toward H2. 
 

In the US today, we currently have up to 4000 BCF of working NG stored at seasonal max. At 0.29 kWh/CF, this is 1160,000 GWh. So, my question to you: How do you propose to pay for this amount of storage if we must create a new storage infrastructure instead of using this existing storage?

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Just now, Dan Clemmensen said:

In the US today, we currently have up to 4000 BCF of working NG stored at seasonal max. At 0.29 kWh/CF, this is 1160,000 GWh. So, my question to you: How do you propose to pay for this amount of storage if we must create a new storage infrastructure instead of using this existing storage?

If the context of discussion is cost without regard to politics my answer is we don't replace the existing NG storage. We just use fossil fuel NG. Green NG never happens.