Hypx

Energy storage based on hydrogen can easily scale up to power homes and industry during the winter: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-s...

We have petawatt-hours worth of storage capacity.

Gas turbines that can run at 90% hydrogen and have existed for decades, still doesn't count as "existing" for you. And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist.

The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything else you're saying is just a red herring.

Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.

You're projecting again.

And there's not a single grid that's green, since they all produce CO₂. Even zero emissions grids like wind and solar still produce CO₂ during manufacturing.

And remember just how far up your own asshole you are with this: You've reject 90% hydrogen gas turbines, future gas turbines of only nine years from now, or even steam power plants running on 100% hydrogen. At this point your rationale is so dishonestly unfair it allows zero wiggle to justify any kind of electric cars. So time to admit you were wrong, not red herring your way out of this.

Grids are not 100% green. So by your definition they're not green either.

Imagine electric cars were held to that standard. There would be no carbon neutral products of any kind.

Yes, keep fucking that chicken.

Even more moving of the goalposts... Now it's every single gas turbine out there needs to be upgradable to 100% hydrogen, and "peak" blends don't count.

Keep fucking that chicken.

Hell, your own source says:

Similarly, the goal of 100 percent hydrogen combustion capability will be achieved step by step, test by test. “With hydrogen-fired gas turbines we can easily avoid the ‘valley of death’ where brilliant inventions die before they even scale to full potential,” says Larfeldt. “The same turbines can be used with different percentages of hydrogen in the fuel mix, with brown or green hydrogen. Existing gas turbines can be retrofitted to the latest standards. It’s an organic evolution.”

So your own source disagrees with you.

So how else we're suppose to interpret this statement: "No, hydrogen rapidly corrodes any metals that it comes into contact with. If they are interchangeable, expect drastically smaller service intervals."

And if you read actually my statement carefully I didn't say that it had to be an existing, already built gas turbine. Only that we had to modify gas turbines intended for natural gas for hydrogen. Either new or existing, this isn't a hard challenge, especially considering that we replace old turbines all the time.

And you still seem unaware that even your goal-post moving argument is wrong. We really can just run existing gas turbines at 90% concentration for years on end.

You pretty much did say that anything above 30% concentration would destroy any gas turbine, nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." Like I said, it's time to admit you were wrong, assuming you are capable of that at all.

It's almost endearing how far someone can shove their head up their own asshole and still keep shoving...

You do realize that has more to do with the availability of hydrogen and that they only have to hit their emissions target by 2050?

If you have done any kind of digging at all you realize that they have ran gas turbines at 90% hydrogen decades ago: https://www.ge.com/news/reports/hydrogen-generation-gas-turb...

Take the Gibraltar-San Roque oil refinery in Spain, where the GE-made 6B.03 turbine has logged thousands of hours burning a blend of fuel gas and hydrogen. This same 6B.03 machine is also working in a South Korean refinery, where it has racked up more than 20 years burning a fuel blend containing more than 70 percent hydrogen. This turbine has even gone all the way up to a 90 percent hydrogen blend.

So even your goalpost moving argument is still wrong.

This whole thing started because no one here thought someone would seriously try to argue that hydrogen gas turbines are impossible. For some of us this was too obvious to even bother trying to debunk.

Then repurpose old coal plants for the same reason. None of this needs to be hard.

This whole debate started when you were caught making ignorant statements regarding basic chemistry and thermodynamics. You're not going to win by just doubling on everything or moving goalposts. It's past time to admit you were wrong.

Are you familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"?

So now you're arguing that anything less than ~60% efficiency is unacceptable? Even for emergency backup or long-term power storage reasons?

You're at multiple layers of denial at this point. It's time to admit you were wrong.

The Soviets built a plane that flew on hydrogen, but it only completed 100 flights. And only part of those were with hydrogen, the rest were with natural gas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155

So you admit this has been done since the 1980s? You seriously don't think we can improve on 33 year old technology?

How dishonest are you going to get before you will admit you were wrong?

In addition to what I said in the other post regarding gas turbines, you also don't need a gas turbine to generate power. As long as you can boil water the rest follows logically.

Honestly, you should learn some thermodynamics and chemistry before accusing others of being ignorant.

I'd say you're being deliberately ignorant here, but I'm really not so sure. A gas turbine spins rapidly, putting huge stresses on the blades. They also operate at extremely high temperatures.

Seriously, your projection is out of control here. A gas turbine burning hydrogen does not experience any stresses that is meaningfully different from one burning natural gas or kerosene. Simply applied engineering can solve all of the issues associated with hydrogen gas turbines.

Are you familiar with fuel gases? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_manufactured_fuel_g...

Burning hydrogen gas (blended with other gases) for heat or power has been around for a long time.

I'm not sure why you're trying to deny the existence of chemical facts

You're projecting here.

A claim which simply isn't true. Only certain alloys have a problem with hydrogen. We've been using hydrogen in industry for decades and most of this problem has been solved.

Super-capacity is going to be a major driver for the build-out of water electrolysis for the production of hydrogen. You can turn what will basically be a waste product into a highly useful fuel. I've seen people contend that this will be expensive, but given the very cheap input costs I believe this will be a very cheap process.

Those gas turbines you're referring to can simply be modified natural gas gas turbines. The only limiting factor would be electrolysis, but that is already something people are planning to build a lot of.

Nuclear's problem are fundamentally political in nature. If we really cared about green energy, nuclear power could easily be built out at scale.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-s...

We could easily have Petawatt-hour scale hydrogen energy storage.

The most ironic result would be ICE powered vehicles outlasting EVs. They could be the vinyl records of transportation.

Particulate emissions can come from the tires. EVs aren't magic on this form of pollution. Plus, you can have particulate filters on the engine exhaust, reducing this greatly.

There is the option of fuel cell cars in addition to synthetic fuels. Electric cars is only 1 of several possible directions we can go.

With synfuels the status quo is an option. Nothing fundamentally has to change.

Since synthetic fuels are zero emissions, why would they ever need to be replaced by EVs? A better question is why we need to bother with electrification at all if there are alternative paths to zero emissions?

Youtube has been estimated to have an amount of data in the exabyte range: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-size-storage-capacit...

This was a few years ago, so it might be possible that Youtube has more data than what can be addressed with a 64-bit value.

Hydrogen pipelines are a solved problem. We have been doing it for decades[1]. I could have said "stuck in 1930" but that might be overdoing it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport

As soon as everyone agrees to build more nuclear power... We're not anywhere near ready to use anti-matter, but the next best thing faces extreme opposition for some reason.

Hydrogen is pretty much a solved problem too. Most of the critics are just stuck in 2010 or earlier.

That's much lower than hydrogen. So what was the argument here?

You can buy a fuel cell car today too. I've notice that many of you guys are stuck in 2010 or so. Fuel cells cars are far beyond your outdated viewpoints.