Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

cleantechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 257 posts

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#191

Post by Manfredo_1 »

Hypx wrote: post #189
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm familiar with moving the goalposts. It's exactly what you've been doing in this thread. First you claimed that existing natural gas turbines could be modified to run hydrogen. That hydrogen turbines usable for grid generation were off the shelf. After realizing that these turbines only burn a mixture of 30% hydrogen and 70% natural gas you moved to goalpost to saying, "we have experience with hydrogen turbin…

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…

> This whole 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.

Now you're just straight up lying. Nowhere did I claim that hydrogen gas turbine was impossible. In fact I even provided an example of the soviets experimenting with hydrogen powered jets. Do you realize that a jet engine is a gas turbine?

What I did say is that you can't just repurpose the existing fleet of natural gas turbines for hydrogen generation. I'm well aware that companies are working on 100% hydrogen turbines, but even the examples you cited require a mix of natural gas.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#192

Post by [deleted] »

Hypx wrote: post #190
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we aren't using combined cycle gas turbines round-trip efficiency of hydrogen storage is seriously reduced. I'm not moving any goalpost. This is your comment when you claimed that gas turbines could be repurposed to burn hydrogen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162 > Those gas turbines you're referring to can simply be modified natural gas gas turbines. > It's past time to admit you were wrong. Follow y…

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

[deleted]

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#194

Post by Hypx »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #191
Hypx wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This whole 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. Now you're just straight up lying. Nowhere did I claim that hydrogen gas turbine was impossible. In fact I even provided an example of the soviets experimenting with hydrogen powered jets. Do you realize that a jet engine…

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.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#195

Post by Manfredo_1 »

Hypx wrote: post #194
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This whole 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. Now you're just straight up lying. Nowhere did I claim that hydrogen gas turbine was impossible. In fact I even provided an example of the soviets experimenting with hydrogen powered jets. Do you realize that a jet engine…

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.

> nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence."

This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162

> 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.

This is wrong, we'd have to build new gas turbines to run on a 100% hydrogen mixture in addition to building electrolysis capacity. At this point I think it's clear you're not interested in engaging honestly, and in the other thread you'e already started to throw around ad-hominem insults [1].

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599959

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#196

Post by Hypx »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #195
Hypx wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162 > 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. This is wrong, we'd ha…

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.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#197

Post by yazaddaruvala »

flavius29663 wrote: post #150
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, gas definitely doesn't *need to* be involved. At that point you're better off with fission. For example, the US is connected north to south in 2 electric grids (TX excludes itself, but is huge). Making all three of those grids large enough that the sun definitely isn't obscured for weeks. Additionally, places like India are talking about building a "world gird" to be the solar power generator for the world.

it's one thing to interconnect a few GW here and there, but to power the Texas grid you need 80GW or so. That is a humongous amount of power. You would need at least 10-20 HVDC projects that span thousands of miles each. BTW, Texas is already connected to the other grids, but not synchronized, e.g. https://www.tdworld.com/overhead-transmission/article/209645... As we all know, these kind of connections were not enoug…

Yeah I think we are on the same page.

It’s likely just a difference between thinking 10-30 years out, and thinking 100-300 years out.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#198

Post by Manfredo_1 »

Hypx wrote: post #196
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162 > 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. This is wrong, we'd ha…

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 ex…

> 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).

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#199

Post by Hypx »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #198
Hypx wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

> 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…

So even a 90% hydrogen concentration burning, existing gas turbine with zero modifications still doesn't count. I see the goalposts move even further...

Yeah, keep shoving your head up your own ass. Maybe you'll see daylight if you shove hard enough.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#200

Post by fpgaminer »

elihu wrote: post #140
zizee wrote: post #41

I think the future will be robust national/international grids, with a mixture of storage options (batteries/pumped hydro) to smooth out the intermittent nature of wind and solar. Cynics always talk about the amount of energy storage required for solar as if you need to store 24 hours of energy for solar/wind to be viable. I'd like to see numbers on having 1 hour of storage for peak demand, a robust national grid, an…

I wonder what the limits are on transmitting power around the world? Like, if we wanted to connect Northern Africa to the North American power grid, how feasible would it be, and what would the losses and power capacity be? It seems that with all the interest in using ReBCO tape in tokomaks due to its ability to transmit more power at higher temperatures than the materials that preceded it (used, for example in ITER)…

I dunno, back of the envelope says you'd only lose 33% with today's HVDC lines from North Africa to North America. The ocean will sink the lost energy for us. And we can make up the difference with more solar/wind, which is cheap.

Superconducting would be nice to have, but doesn't seem necessary.

Post reply on HN