GE's Hydrogen Calculator

[OVERKILL]

GE has a hydrogen calculator:
https://www.gevernova.com/gas-power...rogen-fueled-gas-turbines/hydrogen-calculator

Which lets you select a turbine model, how much hydrogen is used as the fuel (which is otherwise natural gas) and then gives you the power required to produce the hydrogen and the volume of hydrogen the turbine would use at your selected feed percentage.

For fun, I chose a CCGT pair of LMS100 PB+ turbines, which produce 258.5MWe in CCGT mode (two turbines plus a Rankine steam heat recovery stage):

To feed these puppies requires 149.2 million cubic feet of hydrogen per day; 6.22 million cubic feet of hydrogen per hour.

To generate that hydrogen requires 910MW of input electricity.

So, to generate enough hydrogen to produce 258.5MW of electricity from a pair of CCGT's (the most efficient GT) turbines, it requires 910MW of electricity.

They also give you the "wind turbine" equivalent, which is 1,821MW of wind turbines, which is a wild 50% capacity factor!

You could have all kinds of fun with this math, calculate how much solar you'd need to provide 258.5MW around the clock, running the GT's after the sun goes down and all night and having enough solar to generate all that hydrogen, plus provide the 258.5WM during the day, instead of using wind, that buggers off for weeks at a time.

 

[PandaBear]

I am expecting this sort of efficiency lost because hydrogen is never meant to be burnt but rather go through fuel cell to begin with (whatever cycle they use can't be more than 40-60% efficient if they burn it versus 90% in hydrogen fuel cell), and then if you "twice cook" it you will get at between 16-36%.

It is not that bad if you are just using the waste electricity market can't absorb and you have to waste them to begin with, but the bigger problem is how do you store those hydrogen without wasting energy compressing and cooling it in between, and what benefit do you have with injecting hydrogen back into the turbine? Is it for accelerating the heat up cycle without generating CO and HC in the emission? Is it to cool down the emission to meet regulation? What are they doing other than absorbing waste and reduce emission?

Maybe, if they are just trying to reduce emission, cracking some hydrogen from natural gas to feed into the turbine and wasting some carbon to energy loss in the process is actually more eco friendly, but that pops the dream people want to use hydrogen to be eco-friendly.

 

[OVERKILL]

I am expecting this sort of efficiency lost because hydrogen is never meant to be burnt but rather go through fuel cell to begin with (whatever cycle they use can't be more than 40-60% efficient if they burn it versus 90% in hydrogen fuel cell), and then if you "twice cook" it you will get at between 16-36%.

It is not that bad if you are just using the waste electricity market can't absorb and you have to waste them to begin with, but the bigger problem is how do you store those hydrogen without wasting energy compressing and cooling it in between, and what benefit do you have with injecting hydrogen back into the turbine? Is it for accelerating the heat up cycle without generating CO and HC in the emission? Is it to cool down the emission to meet regulation? What are they doing other than absorbing waste and reduce emission?

Maybe, if they are just trying to reduce emission, cracking some hydrogen from natural gas to feed into the turbine and wasting some carbon to energy loss in the process is actually more eco friendly, but that pops the dream people want to use hydrogen to be eco-friendly.

Not sure if you read about the Newfoundland/Germany "Green hydrogen alliance" but the plan was to use wind turbines to produce hydrogen in Newfoundland, then turn it into ammonia, ship it across the Atlantic, and then use that to run gas turbines. Clearly, the stack of losses there make this whole idea utterly absurd.

Running an electrolyzer part time would massively increase the cost, so even with "free" off peak electricity from some depreciated source like a nuke or hydro, I suspect the math doesn't work. It clearly doesn't work using surplus wind, as you then have the capital cost of the electrolyzer, the gas turbines, the compressors, the wind turbines...etc.

 

[JTK]

To feed these puppies requires 149.2 million cubic feet of hydrogen per day; 6.22 million cubic feet of hydrogen per hour.

Our average cryo liquid H2 tanker truck holds 1.5 million cubic feet. That would be 100 truck loads.

 

[PandaBear]

Not sure if you read about the Newfoundland/Germany "Green hydrogen alliance" but the plan was to use wind turbines to produce hydrogen in Newfoundland, then turn it into ammonia, ship it across the Atlantic, and then use that to run gas turbines. Clearly, the stack of losses there make this whole idea utterly absurd.

Running an electrolyzer part time of could would massively increase the cost, so even with "free" off peak electricity from some depreciated source like a nuke or hydro, I suspect the math doesn't work. It clearly doesn't work using surplus wind, as you then have the capital cost of the electrolyzer, the gas turbines, the compressors, the wind turbines...etc.

Never read that book but I know just by hearing it that investment won't return anything after all that.

To be honest with all the new data center need, it is probably more efficient to run aluminum refinery (or smelter? whatever you call that facility) and data center for peak load high energy cost equipment in these areas than to "store energy" to be used elsewhere.

I also think that going from free electricity to ammonia to hydrogen to turbine / fuel cell is just a cover. The reality could be that ammonia turn into fertilizer once it hit the shore instead of back into hydrogen and electricity. People need to feel good to approve something instead of the truth, hence the sales pitch.

 

[Dave Hess]

Is GE’s numbers impressive or just average ?

I know nothing about this industry….

 

[OVERKILL]

Never read that book but I know just by hearing it that investment won't return anything after all that.

To be honest with all the new data center need, it is probably more efficient to run aluminum refinery (or smelter? whatever you call that facility) and data center for peak load high energy cost equipment in these areas than to "store energy" to be used elsewhere.

I also think that going from free electricity to ammonia to hydrogen to turbine / fuel cell is just a cover. The reality could be that ammonia turn into fertilizer once it hit the shore instead of back into hydrogen and electricity. People need to feel good to approve something instead of the truth, hence the sales pitch.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newf...ada-germany-hydrogen-partnership-nl-1.6559787

The plan included 164 wind turbines

""Germany expects a need of 90 to 110 terawatt-hours of hydrogen in 2030," Scholz said."

Now, for those doing the math here, our 258.5MW of CCGT hydrogen would produce 2.26TWh/year, so we'd need 44x that to meet this target. That's 11,374MW of hydrogen CCGT's, burning 273.68 million cubic feet of hydrogen per hour, which would require 40,040MW of generating capacity to produce running round-the-clock. That's 351TWh of generation to facilitate ~100TWh of production via CCGT hydrogen. That's equivalent to the 2024 production of the entire French nuclear fleet to cover 1/5th of Germany's power consumption

 

[OVERKILL]

Is GE’s numbers impressive or just average ?

I know nothing about this industry….

AFAIK, they have the most efficient turbines in the industry.

 

[4WD]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newf...ada-germany-hydrogen-partnership-nl-1.6559787

The plan included 164 wind turbines

""Germany expects a need of 90 to 110 terawatt-hours of hydrogen in 2030," Scholz said."

Now, for those doing the math here, our 258.5MW of CCGT hydrogen would produce 2.26TWh/year, so we'd need 44x that to meet this target. That's 11,374MW of hydrogen CCGT's, burning 273.68 million cubic feet of hydrogen per hour, which would require 40,040MW of generating capacity to produce running round-the-clock. That's 351TWh of generation to facilitate ~100TWh of production via CCGT hydrogen. That's equivalent to the 2024 production of the entire French nuclear fleet to cover 1/5th of Germany's power consumption

Sounds like they got screeched on George Street

 

[Shannow]

My heart sinks, and the Gods of Entropy smile when a politician talks about hydrogen.

When 9Kg of water to produce 1Kg hydrogen gets explained away as "the science is getting better, that will be improved"...I just shut down.

One of my first jobs 32 years ago was to build and commission a hydrogen plant...

 

[Shannow]

 

[y_p_w]

I am expecting this sort of efficiency lost because hydrogen is never meant to be burnt but rather go through fuel cell to begin with (whatever cycle they use can't be more than 40-60% efficient if they burn it versus 90% in hydrogen fuel cell), and then if you "twice cook" it you will get at between 16-36%.

There are a lot of things that end up with a net loss in the process. Hydrocracking petroleum to make more desirable products ends up reducing the total energy content of the fuel output. All while using energy in the process.

I used to think that the losses from battery storage or hydro storage weren't worth it, but now it makes a ton of sense with intermittent energy sources. Part of it would be the efficiency gains over the years.

Now I'm not sure if hydrogen is the ideal solution. Certainly I don't see the US Navy converting to hydrogen to power its marine turbines (which are pretty similar to turbine generators). But I could see a cruise line perhaps doing so as a PR move.

I got curious about the cruise ship thing, and apparently Viking Ocean Cruises is working with Fincantieri on a hydrogen fuel cell ship. That along with retrofitting their current fleet for hydrogen fuel cells.

https://www.fincantieri.com/en/medi...se-ship-and-sign-contracts-for-two-new-units/

Quite a few cruise lines have gone to marine turbines, but I'm not sure any would convert to hydrogen. Thise release is from 2001, so I'm thinking it's probably a lot more by now.

https://www.geaerospace.com/news/pr...ngines-continues-make-inroads-cruise-industry

 

[97prizm]

I am expecting this sort of efficiency lost because hydrogen is never meant to be burnt but rather go through fuel cell to begin with (whatever cycle they use can't be more than 40-60% efficient if they burn it versus 90% in hydrogen fuel cell), and then if you "twice cook" it you will get at between 16-36%.

It is not that bad if you are just using the waste electricity market can't absorb and you have to waste them to begin with, but the bigger problem is how do you store those hydrogen without wasting energy compressing and cooling it in between, and what benefit do you have with injecting hydrogen back into the turbine? Is it for accelerating the heat up cycle without generating CO and HC in the emission? Is it to cool down the emission to meet regulation? What are they doing other than absorbing waste and reduce emission?

Maybe, if they are just trying to reduce emission, cracking some hydrogen from natural gas to feed into the turbine and wasting some carbon to energy loss in the process is actually more eco friendly, but that pops the dream people want to use hydrogen to be eco-friendly.

How cold is hydrogen stored in tanks

 

[OVERKILL]

There are a lot of things that end up with a net loss in the process. Hydrocracking petroleum to make more desirable products ends up reducing the total energy content of the fuel output. All while using energy in the process.

I used to think that the losses from battery storage or hydro storage weren't worth it, but now it makes a ton of sense with intermittent energy sources. Part of it would be the efficiency gains over the years.

Now I'm not sure if hydrogen is the ideal solution. Certainly I don't see the US Navy converting to hydrogen to power its marine turbines (which are pretty similar to turbine generators). But I could see a cruise line perhaps doing so as a PR move.

I got curious about the cruise ship thing, and apparently Viking Ocean Cruises is working with Fincantieri on a hydrogen fuel cell ship. That along with retrofitting their current fleet for hydrogen fuel cells.

https://www.fincantieri.com/en/medi...se-ship-and-sign-contracts-for-two-new-units/

Quite a few cruise lines have gone to marine turbines, but I'm not sure any would convert to hydrogen. Thise release is from 2001, so I'm thinking it's probably a lot more by now.

https://www.geaerospace.com/news/pr...ngines-continues-make-inroads-cruise-industry

The Viking link is interesting. Sounds like the boat has a 6MW fuel cell that they can switch to when navigating into areas that require zero emissions. It's not the primary source of propulsion or electricity for the ship.

The problem with converting to hydrogen completely, aside from the supply side issues, is the volume consumed, which would need to be stored onboard, which as you can see from the numbers presented in this thread, is quite the issue.

 

[IndyIan]

My heart sinks, and the Gods of Entropy smile when a politician talks about hydrogen.

When 9Kg of water to produce 1Kg hydrogen gets explained away as "the sceince is getting better, that will be improved"...I just shut down.

One of my first jobs 32 years ago was to build and commission a hydrogen plant...

So what are the actual efficiency numbers for a hydrogen to ammonia fuel system? Newfoundland has lots of windy spots(over 10m/s on average) on land away from people and practically unlimited fresh water. Wind power in that location should be among the cheapest source of electricity on the planet I would think?

I'd be interested in knowing that the efficiency numbers are for oil and gas production? How much energy is needed to extract, refine, ship and transport, store, etc... I think if you were trying to sell the current fossil fuel system from scratch, the $30-40 trillion infrastructure we have now may not make a lot of sense!

Plus it is likely to be a short term energy source anyways for humanity(if we want to have a similar climate to now in 1-2-3-400+ years?) Planning to jack atmospheric CO2 levels to their highest in 50-100 million years, seems like not a great idea? Either we will run out of practical extractable sources, or the green house and ocean acidification effects of very very high atmospheric CO2 will be pretty crazy.

 

[kschachn]

How cold is hydrogen stored in tanks

Liquifying hydrogen only makes the thermodynamics more stupid than it is to start with. That takes energy on a massive scale and you don’t get any of it back in combustion.

 

[kschachn]

So what are the actual efficiency numbers for a hydrogen to ammonia fuel system? Newfoundland has lots of windy spots(over 10m/s on average) on land away from people and practically unlimited fresh water. Wind power in that location should be among the cheapest source of electricity on the planet I would think?

I'd be interested in knowing that the efficiency numbers are for oil and gas production? How much energy is needed to extract, refine, ship and transport, store, etc... I think if you were trying to sell the current fossil fuel system from scratch, the $30-40 trillion infrastructure we have now may not make a lot of sense!

Plus it is likely to be a short term energy source anyways for humanity(if we want to have a similar climate to now in 1-2-3-400+ years?) Planning to jack atmospheric CO2 levels to their highest in 50-100 million years, seems like not a great idea? Either we will run out of practical extractable sources, or the green house and ocean acidification effects of very very high atmospheric CO2 will be pretty crazy.

Why would you add the additional efficiency loss of converting the very expensive hydrogen to ammonia prior to combustion? Plus the fact that ammonia is highly toxic whereas hydrogen gas is not.

Oil is completely different. You pump it out of the ground as a net energy source. There are no viable hydrogen mines or wells despite breathless media “reports” about their existence.

 

[97prizm]

Why would you add the additional efficiency loss of converting the very expensive hydrogen to ammonia prior to combustion? Plus the fact that ammonia is highly toxic whereas hydrogen gas is not.

Oil is completely different. You pump it out of the ground as a net energy source. There are no viable hydrogen mines or wells despite breathless media “reports” about their existence.

This. Hydrogen is tightly bonded to other molecules in nature. There aren't any hydrogen reserves like there is for crude oil. Alot of the hydrogen that is free floating is in the upper atmosphere. Jupiter is about the only planet that has so much hydrogen that you can literally suck it out of the atmosphere and compress it. Unfortunately Jupiter doesn't have any solid ground, and has 1300 mph winds which would make for a really breezy afternoon.

 

[OVERKILL]

So what are the actual efficiency numbers for a hydrogen to ammonia fuel system? Newfoundland has lots of windy spots(over 10m/s on average) on land away from people and practically unlimited fresh water. Wind power in that location should be among the cheapest source of electricity on the planet I would think?

Wind turbine prices have pretty much plateau'd at this juncture. While I expect wind CF in Newfoundland to be higher than Ontario, it is nowhere near the cheapest source of electricity on the planet, which is currently fully depreciated reservoir hydro, followed by fully depreciated nuclear.

I'd be interested in knowing that the efficiency numbers are for oil and gas production? How much energy is needed to extract, refine, ship and transport, store, etc... I think if you were trying to sell the current fossil fuel system from scratch, the $30-40 trillion infrastructure we have now may not make a lot of sense!

You are looking for EROI, or EROEI, Energy Return on (Energy) Invested. Fossil fuels are net positive, while these projects would be net negative, since hydrogen is effectively a storage medium.

The one Newfoundland project, which is slated to have 3.5GW of wind and 150MW of solar to produce between 950,000 and 1 million tons of ammonia per year is slated to cost $12 billion CDN:
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/ar...anadas-first-commercial-green-ammonia-project

Assuming a 20 year payback period, 16% CF for the solar and 50% CF for the wind, just to recoup the capital cost, so not factoring in OPEX, we have 15.6 million MWh over which to spread that $12 billion, or 311.33 million MWh over 20 years. That's $38.50/MWh right out of the gate for capital cost, not including taxes, staffing, shipping, interest on borrowing...etc. to cover your $600 million year capital payback.

So, that's your base input cost, so that's baked into the cost of your ammonia. If we assume the high end of the ammonia production at 1 million tons per year, that's $600/ton.

If we look at the ammonia price index:
https://businessanalytiq.com/procurementanalytics/index/ammonia-price-index/

Ammonia is currently $0.48/KG in North America, or $480/ton.

So, we are already more expensive than the market price for ammonia and we haven't factored in operating costs, loan interest, property taxes...etc.

The math on these projects doesn't work unless companies are willing to pay a rather massive premium for "Green" ammonia, which of course will drive up electricity prices when you run all this math backwards and include that stack of losses.

Plus it is likely to be a short term energy source anyways for humanity(if we want to have a similar climate to now in 1-2-3-400+ years?) Planning to jack atmospheric CO2 levels to their highest in 50-100 million years, seems like not a great idea? Either we will run out of practical extractable sources, or the green house and ocean acidification effects of very very high atmospheric CO2 will be pretty crazy.

It's not a reasonable source, the inputs are simply too great compared to the outputs to make it practical. The investment required to make it at scale, both in terms of generating resources and transport is staggering, it's like re-inventing the entire fossil fuel supply chain all over again, but with considerable added complexity due to having to handle a product that is far more difficult to store and transport and has far higher input energy costs.

Hydrogen, as a storage medium, is awful. The only reason it gets any traction is because of the ability reuse some FF technology and infrastructure (like GT's for example) and of course it's more portable than batteries. We'd be further ahead looking at carbon neutral synfuels which lack these issues and can reuse all of our existing infrastructure.

 

[IndyIan]

Why would you add the additional efficiency loss of converting the very expensive hydrogen to ammonia prior to combustion? Plus the fact that ammonia is highly toxic whereas hydrogen gas is not.

Oil is completely different. You pump it out of the ground as a net energy source. There are no viable hydrogen mines or wells despite breathless media “reports” about their existence.

Well getting the gallon of gas to your car, takes a lot of energy, and almost all the energy inputs to make gasoline at the pump from crude oil in the ground, are also fossil fuels. So how efficient is that process? Then your car only uses 30% of energy in the fuel for motion?

Wind power is the energy source, pumping electricity out of the air. The trick is to get that energy to where its needed(Germany in this case). Some people with a few degrees thought that using hydrogen gas produced relatively cheaply in Newfoundland, to make liquid ammonia and ship it, is a practical way to do this?

I get that making liquid ammonia is inefficient, but wind has the advantage of being free and should be around forever, and using more of it doesn't effect the climate other than costs of installation. I don't think inefficiency is as much of a problem if the inputs are renewable and practically unlimited?
I think fossil fuels are also inefficient, but they are limited, and using them is creating much more serious problems than renewables?