Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "“The most dumb thing" for energy storage: Hydrogen" video.

  1. I'm also an aerospace engineer, but I have spent the last 35+ years in industrial control systems. I'm Australian but did my degree in America and unfortunately Australia's engineering policies like everywhere else are a joke which is why I have done other things. I sort of fell into energy after doing a small consulting job in 2016. *The energy issue is way bigger than anyone realises and because there have been too many people speak without understanding the problem we are all for a rough time. The real problem is NOT technology but ECONOMICS and the interference of economists. However on the technical side YOU, SABINE and others like Simon Michaux ARE WRONG for one simple fact. What else is there because NONE OF YOU are offering anything??? We do not need anymore people telling everyone what NOT to use or in their opinion that's a stupid idea and THEN NOT OFFERING a viable solution. In Australia, we have one pack of clowns screaming we need nuclear and another claiming we can do it all with wind and solar. BOTH ARE WRONG. Too much Wind & Solar causes grid instabilities. Go watch the vid on Real Engineering he explains it well. Nuclear, although fantastic in the long run has no viable private sector business model but does have a fantastic state owned business model. Its problem is it takes so long to build and thanks to the clown brigades we have in Australia we don't have the time needed because we need at least 4 major power stations in the next 3-5 years. Both Siemens and GE have a new generation of Gas Turbines that with combined cycle units can get almost 65% thermal efficiency AND THEY CAN RUN ON UP TO 50% HYDROGEN. This is what gets me damn angry. When we have days when there's lots of wind and lots of solar we have to lock down wind turbines and disconnect solar farms and lose 100% of that potential. Latest gen Electrolysers get over 90% thermal efficiency and we'd lose some in pumping the hydrogen to the power station BUT SO WHAT. We'd recover at least 50% of that energy that otherwise never gets produced and is LOST. Go and look at the Wikipedia page for Hinkley Point C which is getting 2 EPR 2 reactors which are Gen IV reactors. EPR 2s have a thermal output of 4,524 MWt and an electrical output of 1,630 MWe for a thermal efficiency of 36%. CAN YOU AND SABINE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY we are supposed to spend billions and wait 15 years to get power stations that run at 36% when we can get turbines in less than 2 years that get almost 65% that can also be used to recover giant amounts of excess Wind and Solar energy that would otherwise be lost.
    2
  2.  @trex2621  On electrolysis go look at the Wikipedia page titled "Electrolysis of water" There's a section on Efficiency with a subsection on Industrial output and in that sub section a further subsection on industrial efficiency which in part reads. "Conventional alkaline electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%.[55] Accounting for the accepted use of the higher heating value (because inefficiency via heat can be redirected back into the system to create the steam required by the catalyst), average working efficiencies for PEM electrolysis are around 80%.[56][57] This is expected to increase to between 82 and 86%[58] before 2030. Theoretical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%.[59]"
    1
  3.  @trex2621  On Gas Turbine efficiencies Both Siemens and GE quote in their literature that their aeroderivative turbines by themselves can get 44% Thermal Efficiency and in combined cycles over 64%. Go and google the GE 9HA or 7HA and look at their product data sheet.
    1
  4.  @trex2621  On who would need diesels? Anyone who doesn't have access to gas but does have access to diesel. Try mine sites & farms for 2 examples.
    1
  5. CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEER HERE: This is yet ANOTHER of Sabines rants on Hydrogen which is WRONG. FIRST: I started with a degree in aerospace but have worked for over 30 years in industrial control systems. I am formally trained in Electrical Equipment for Hazardous Areas (EEHA). In this context a hazardous area is one in which there is a potentially explosive gas, dust or gas and dust mix either on a persistent on intermittent basis. I am also formally trained and previously certified by TUV Rhineland in Functional Safety so I am well versed in preventing plants going bang. So UNLIKE Sabine I am formally trained in the design and handling of gases like methane and hydrogen. Sabine is RIGHT about a couple of things. Hydrogen is hard to engineer around, but so are many other things like nuclear power and natural gas plants. Among the most dangerous are Ethylene (C2H4) plants which was considered for use as rocket fuel but it was more dangerous than hydrogen. However - For most situations we have standards and practices that allow these plants to be built and operated safely. The real danger with any high risk process are people who think they don't have to follow the standards. For reference - NASA used hydrogen in the Apollo program. That's how long we have been able to SAFELY use hydrogen. An area where I do agree with Sabine is that hydrogen is not well suited to cars, trucks, vans, buses,...etc. In fact I am dead against those applications because I believe bad accidents are inevitable. There'll be a flash, followed by a bang and car will vanish. The cost of re-training all the mechanics and making safe fuel stations will be too much. Another Area where Sabine and I agree is in aviation. Back in the 1990s when there was a push to get the airlines off Jet Fuel there was a lot of research into replacing it with hydrogen. WHAT Sabine conveniently ignores is that companies like GE, Pratt & Witney, Rolls Royce and others sorted out all the issues with using hydrogen in gas turbines. The reason why they never used it in jets was the fuel tank issues in the jet combined with re-fuelling on the ground. BUT LIKE APOLLO THEY WORKED OUT THE ENGINE ISSUES. ON GRID LEVEL POWER is where I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH SABINE. Simply put if we don't use hydrogen then what do we use? Right now both GE and Siemens offer gas turbines that can run up to 50% Hydrogen in combination with natural gas without any modifications to the engine. These engines get almost 65% thermal efficiency when use as combined cycle generators. Combined cycle is where they use the exhaust form the turbine to boil water to feed to a steam turbine. Also the current generation of electrolyser technology is around 85% efficient and there's newer systems that are getting almost 95% efficiency. As for the transportation and compression costs. NEWS FLASH all gas systems have that issue. How do you think they pump the gas from the gas well to your house? They burn some of the gas in a turbine that drives a compressor (usually a roots type). How about the costs of cooling natural gas down to a liquid to put it on ships and transport it across oceans? How much does that reduce the overall system efficiency? THIS IS ACTUALLY THE THING THAT SABINE HAS SAID THAT REALLY IS GARBAGE AND SHE KNOWS IT. She's NOT telling you the thermal efficiency of other systems or the losses involved because if she did you'd all realise just how inefficient some of our systems are. Go look at the French EPR Nuclear Reactors. You can see the design data on the Wikipedia page for Hinkley Point C. See that the thermal power is 4,524 MWt and the electrical output is 1,630 MWe. The small t is for thermal and the small e is for electrical power. That's an efficiency of 1,630/4,524 x 100 = 36%. Take not that's the latest Gen IV design for nuclear power. I doubt any of the previous generations were better. And that figure of 36% does not include the energy used in mining, processing and creating the fuel rods. It also does not include the un-spent uranium in the fuel rods. To put that into perspective the last time I heard about the efficiency for coal fired plants they were claiming just over 42%, but I have since read there's claims they can get over 45% which is about equal with a gas turbine WITHOUT a cogeneration system attached. SORRY BUT THIS IS A BULLSHlT VIDEO by a physicist who's deliberately NOT explaining what the alternatives deliver. Its a shame because I normally like Sabines work, but she seems to have an unusual bug regarding hydrogen.
    1