Manfredo_1

> And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist.

Yet again, you originally said we could use gas turbines for hydrogen storage. Not steam turbines. Of course steam turbines can easily be run off hydrogen, you don't need compressor blades, combustors, or anything special. Just a source of heat, a boiler, and a steam turbine. This is less efficient, so there's good reason to develop hydrogen gas turbines.

You're the one who first brought up steam turbines when you changed the goal posts to saying we could repurpose coal plants instead of gas turbines.

And good night.

I didn't reject future hydrogen gas turbines. In fact, I'm the one who brought them up. That's the entire point I'm making: hydrogen gas turbines are still in development. If hydrogen gas turbines already exist, why are GE, Siemens, and others talking about how they plan to develop hydrogen gas turbines by 2030 or 2040? They're not off the shelf technology, because they aren't even on the shelf yet.

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

An electric car is as green as the grid that powers it. But a hybrid will never be green even if the grid is 100% green because it still burns fossil fuels. Same with a turbine that consumes a mixture containing natural gas. If your generator uses fossil fuels it's emitting carbon dioxide.

Why? Electric cars don't use a mixture of gas and batteries. Those cars do exist and we call them "hybrids". But those are not carbon neutral and we don't pretend they are.

The goalpost never moved. If you want to use hydrogen storage in a carbon neutral grid you need 100% hydrogen fuel. We're not there there yet. And we won't be there for the better part of a decade, or longer.

I guess I'll keep "fucking that chicken" along with GE and Siemens and the companies that actually build gas turbines.

> So your own source disagrees with you.

Did you miss the "in 2030" part?

> 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."

I'm not sure why you're having trouble comprehending it. Existing gas turbines are meant to run on either oil or natural gas, not hydrogen. In addition to corrosion, hydrogen burns hotter.

You cited one specific turbine model that had a peak hydrogen mixture of 90% (average was 70%). Ignoring the fact that you're picking one specific model that's being highlighted for it's ability to accept hydrogen fuel, this still isn't viable for a carbon-neutral storage system since it still burns natural gas. No, we can't just run them at 90% for years on end because that will still advance climate change.

> Either new or existing, this isn't a hard challenge, especially considering we replace old turbines all the time.

It's good that you're admitting that it's not a simple matter of modifying existing turbines, and that new turbines have to be developed. But it is an additional bottleneck, it's not just a matter of electrolysis we also have to build the generation infrastructure to turn that hydrogen back into electricity.

Likewise if you interpreted my original comment as saying that it's impossible to run a gas turbine with hydrogen that is indeed incorrect. Though I'm rather unsure of how you reached this interpretation given that I even provided an example of a soviet experiment with hydrogen jet engines (albeit with significantly shorter flight time).