Hacker News Reader

Comment by Manfredo_1 | Hacker News Reader

Why would it count in the context of climate change? It's still emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And again, this is one specific model. Many gas turbines are only capable of much smaller concentrations: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2019/...

You're going from "we can just run existing gas turbines with hydrogen" to "this one specific gas turbine can use mostly hydrogen fuel but still needs 30% natural gas". Again 90% was peak not average hydrogen concentration.

Companies are looking at developing natural gas turbines that run on 100% hydrogen. But they're targeting 2030 or 2040. Are you going to tell GE and Seimens to shove their head up their ass, too?

View on HN

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.

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?

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

Yes, keep fucking that chicken.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this hellish flamewar. I realize the other user went beyond the pale in attacking you, but you were also badly at fault. Please stay out of flamewars in the future.

I was going to ban your account as well, but on a closer look it seems that the other commenter was being far more vicious, so I'm not going to do that right now. But perpetuating a flamewar like this is still absolutely against the rules—especially the interminably tedious tit-for-tat sort, which this one was. No more of this, please.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

To be honest I think you should go ahead and delete that account (and this, my main). Upon further reflection I think my engagement with HN has become unhealthy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com