Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
And I say "piffle" to your comments!
Are you really suggesting:
- Hydrogen is cheap to produce,
- It is cheap to ship,
- It can be transported safely,
- It is cheap to store, and
- It is safe to store?
Your comment about "hydrogen embrittlement" seems consistent with my argument.
something else I wanted to comment on ...
If the Australian electricity market is to convert to a mix of renewables and storage, rechargeable batteries won't cut it.
To guarantee the lights stay on -- something I suggest is a must -- Australia needs to be able to store grid scale power for around 72 hours.
At a rough estimate Australia currently uses 200 terawatt hours per annum. Allowing for the increase in usage driven by population growth and the increase in usage required to fully decarbonise the economy by 2050 -- I've seen estimates suggesting a three fold increase in electricity demand -- the demand for storage comes to about 5000 gigawatt hours. A Giga is 10^9, most power generators are rated in Megawatts 10^6, or the "number of homes" they can power.
Paul,
If I recall correctly, the power station you work at is rated at 500 MW.
So, if I have the proportions right your station would need to run flat out for 10^4 hours -- say 14 months -- just to charge the storage battery.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
perhaps I should have included an appropriate emoji somewhere in my screed.
but back to your points
- hydrogen is cheap to produce -- as long as you use electrolysis and "free" day-time solar power
- hydrogen is cheap to ship -- as long as you build specialised ships (Toyota, or is it the Japanese govt, have a trial ship in use today)
- hydrogen can be transported safely -- as long as you know about hydrogen embrittlement (I strongly doubt if the words "hydrogen embrittlement" have ever been mentioned in the hearing of any Australian politician), and apart from this forum who else who, doesn't work in a related metallurgical field has heard of the term?
- hydrogen is cheap to store -- well "cheap" is really a relative term. Do you mean "cheap" in the context of the alternative of heating the entire planet by an average of 3 degrees and relocating most seaside communities? Or do you mean cheap in the context of the price of petrol before the Covid pandemic and Russia invaded Ukraine?
- hydrogen is safe to store -- as long as you follow the required safety protocols. Hydrogen burns with a colourless flame so to detect a hydrogen fire you need to place a combustible material, like a straw broom, in the flame.
So yes, for me the issue of hydrogen embrittlement is the killer MUST SOLVE issue.
When I was writing my screed, I was thinking about the local (to me) Alberta politicians who are currently touting the conversion of Alberta's gas infrastructure into a nation-wide hydrogen gas distribution network, and thinking to myself
Hydrogen is so light and hard to contain that using an existing gas pipeline seems to me to be pure madness.
so, my apologies if my sarcasm was not immediately apparent.
ianQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
I have to say nothing is completely simple.
You are correct with your statement that electricity prices have fallen dramatically during the "sunny" hours and indeed at times they go to zero dollars or even a negative price,, but it is not consistent and neither do power stations have to generate at their maximum load all the time. Most stations can ramp down to a minimum amount of generation during periods of low pricing and develop strategies to combat these low prices. The last ditch effort is to wear the below economic price as that is still cheaper than coming offline and having the added cost of a restart. Certainly in time the price will be so poor that stations will have to close but we are not there yet and until satisfactory means of storing electricity are developed the coal stations will be there for a long time yet.
The stations that are about to close, such as Liddell, are old, at the end of their useful life, too expensive to repair and would have been due to close anyway.
Although daytime prices are low, for the moment, the night time market is buoyant as the 2022 Q1 is showing.
I have not worked at a gas powered station, but my impression is that they do have contracts, although I can't say for how long they are. My reason for saying this is during the SA power crisis a couple of years back, there was huge criticism levelled at the Pelican Point gas turbine station, probably unfairly I might add. At the time of the excursion one unit had been mothballed and that was the first impediment to starting up in a hurry. The second impediment for a longer term startup was that they "had no contract" to supply gas to that unit. This leads me to believe that they did indeed have a contract for the other unit and gas was not purchased on a spot market. In fact if they were buying on the spot market I don't see how they could bid. Bidding now is done on a five minute time frame! You absolutely need to know your ongoing costs and fuel is big.
Gas turbines are in the normal course of events are only used during peaks, which are during the "sunless" hours and generally system demand can be covered by the coal fired units. There is a slightly unusual situation at the moment with a number of units offline for maintenance and of course the Callide unit 4 is, and will be, offline for quite some time yet so that is placing pressure on the market. It is a graphic demonstration of what might happen if coal fired units were retired prematurely.
I should probably mention that there are two levels of gas turbine plant: Those that have an HRSG tacked onto the exhaust utilising low pressure steam and those that don't, which are consequently once though and quite inefficient.
Regards
Paul
Nothing is completely insurmountable, but some things are just too difficult or too uneconomic.
Many power stations have been making their own hydrogen, which is used for the cooling medium in the generators, for years. It is done by electrolysis and of course power stations have a cheap source of power to hand. The hydrogen is compressed and stored in large torpedo tubes at about 16mPa. At Millmerran we don't make our own hydrogen and buy it from a commercial supplier. So it is delivered by truck. I don't see the problem here. On our plant the pipework from the storage torpedoes to the individual units is stainless steel.
About half the hydrogen produced in the world is produced by a dirty process (steam reforming either natural gas or methane) and not electrolysis. That is not good for the environment. Hydrogen has to be made by electrolysis and the power source needs to be renewables.
Hydrogen needs development to make it easily available, but a few years ago so did EVs. While they are not yet ubiquitous we are in reach.
Regards
Paul
PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I wasn't meaning to imply that coal power stations were on their way out.
all coal fired stations will have a minimum fuel quantity that has to be burned to keep the steam temperature and pressure high enough so that the power station can come back online almost instantaneously -- the spinning reserve (?) -- or at a predicable future time as solar power output declines.
.
.
I would have said that for a gas fired plant, fuel costs are huge -- something like >95% of the operating cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
But your other point is about Pelican Point having "no gas supply contract".
Gas supply contracts take several forms -- the supply infrastructure and the gas (energy) itself.
Pelican Point couldn't suddenly purchase the vast quantity of gas required unless the gas supply line to the plant is already pressurised.
So to me "no gas supply contract" strongly implies that, with one (out of two (?) units) mothballed, the Pelican Point owner had determined that the cost of keeping the plant's gas supply line fully pressurised between March and December 2016 was too costly at a time when it was expected that the plant may only need to be available to run for the few peak load hours over January and February 2017. The gas supply line wouldn't be drained, but the pumps that kept the supply line pressurised would be turned off. Remember that keeping the supply line pressurised costs Pelican Point money.
Also, at the time of the excursion -- late September 2016 -- the management expectation at Pelican Point would have been that the gas turbine wouldn't need to be available to supply electricity till late December that year, if at all over that summer. So "no gas supply contract" could mean what it says -- there was no contract in place in September because it was anticipated that the plant would not need to be available for switching on (gas supply line pressurised and gas supply contract (based either on the future spot market or a take-or-pay basis) for at least 3 months.
PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I don't pretend to be a metallurgist, but on the basis that the Millmerran hydrogen pipework is all stainless steel, the idea (in Alberta) that the existing non-stainless steel natural gas network can be used to distribute compressed hydrogen across the country is ludicrous.
Toyota must have done research into hydrogen embrittlement. They are releasing a Prius and a Corolla in 2023 and both are H powered. The components of the engine and onboard storage that are steel (and exposed to H) would reveal the answer.
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
I missed this post before.
I have previously stated that for the Aussie grid to become fully renewable, the daytime capability needs to be closer to four times the current demand: That is is to store energy, be that batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen production or any other form of energy storage that may be developed. Add cloudy days (could be up to a week) and the required capacity has probably risen to five times the current generation. Add the electrification of all the transport that is currently powered by other fuels and you may be talking six or seven times current demand. Actually with other forms of fuel throttled back presumably the industrial refining processes would be diminished so some electricity would be offset. However, I think the principle is clear: Down the track we will require much more electricity than is currently the case.
I am not clear on your comments regarding charging batteries from fossil fuelled stations as that would be counterproductive.
Millmerran has 2 x 435MW units. Power stations consume about 5% of their rated output to run their own auxiliaries (fans, pumps etc). So in our case we can send around 825MW "over the fence" into the grid. That of course is under ideal conditions. There are many factors that may limit the output, but normally our aim is to generate as much power as possible while ever the economic viability is there.
Regards
Paul
AHEM! Spoken like a true Queenslander! Can I just point out that down here, due to La Niña, between ~November and March there were probably 10 sunny days, and around maybe 15 days without rain. All the rest of the time it was persisting down wi' rain and the cloud cover was pretty dense. Electricity generation via Solar would have been considerably down I should think. Apparently this is the way of the future – smoke clouds or rain clouds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Sometimes it stopped raining at night.
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
Neither am I a metallurgist. At the very least I would have to research the issue. Most articles refer to hydrogen embrittlement caused during the manufacturing process of the steel resulting in material failure down the track as opposed to a reaction with hydrogen being "piped" through the lines.
The torpedoes we use to store hydrogen, and are the transportation vessels (eight to a semi trailer), don't appear to be stainless, but I would have to check that when I am next at work. I am now in the transition phase to retirement and job share with a colleague so I am not back at work until 11 May.
Regards
Paul
:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Brett
I nearly made a reference to the "Sunshine State" not being typical. However, you have identified a solar flaw!
Regards
Paul
There have been several Hydrogen powered vehicles released to the market and the notable manufacturers are BMW, Honda & Toyota. The latter have provided several vehicles to the Federal for use in the ACT and Honda have pulled their latest attempt from the market in the US in recent times. It is a bit like VHS & Beta, someone is going to lose and my money is on Hydrogen not being practical for transport purposes at this point in time. For static industrial use where distribution is not so much of an issue I feel the jury is still out and my crystal ball is all scratched so I can't see into the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Practising for retirement is really hard work but someone has to do it.:UQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
All of my balls are scratched too. Regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
I was going to say earlier that you probably have some kind of handle on how cloudy the last 5-6 months have been (although you fared a little better with cloud coverage than up here). What do your stats say about solar electricity generation?
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
Chris
I and my job sharer colleague are the first people in the operations section to go down this path, which has previously only been the domain of the admin dept (and only female). As such it is a trial, but another two from operations are due to commence the same work practice in July: So far so good. As far as hard work is concerned I plead the 5th, although I have to say the projects assigned to me at home seem to have escalated.
Regards
Paul
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Solar (commercially) typically is sited in the most sunny regions just as wind is sited in the windy spots. I imagine there are very few solar farms up on your mountain. I imagine that, apart form rooftop solar, there are few solar farms in the Blue Mountains. The problem then arises to transmit the electricity from one region to another.
This leads me to pose another question and that is how the existing thermal stations themselves will transition from their traditional method of producing electricity? They have all the infrastructure (power lines and transformers) existing. Will they gradually go solar or wind? The recent Cannon Brookes bid for AGL looked very much as though it was to acquire the infrastructure as much as the stations themselves. Trouble is that the thermal stations in recent years were positioned close to their fuel supplies and not for their suitability for wind or solar energy.
Regards
Paul
ianQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
Our information in the industry was that Pelican Point had been running their two units consistently at half load. For that reason they had deemed it more efficient to run a single unit at or near full load. Consequently the other unit was mothballed and effectively unavailable.
I don't know the breakdown of costs but usually, fuel is the largest single component.
Regards
Paul
I was thinking only of how it affects rooftop solar. I don't see that is not being part of the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Just for one thing, and as ugly a thought as it might be, having all your energy generation across millions of sites (homes) grossly mitigates the chances of knocking out a country's electrical energy supplies in the event of war. I think our current Defence Minister would agree that it would be good preparation for the future.
PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I wasn't sufficiently clear in my previous post.
I didn't mean to imply that electricity storage (grid scale batteries, pumped hydro, and similar) should be energised by fossil fuelled stations.
I meant to imply that using Li-ion technology, or other batteries, for storing electricity won't cut it when it comes to grid scale systems.
At seven times current electricity usage, the storage requirement becomes about 10,000 gigawatt hours.
There's over 20 million registered motor vehicles in Australia.
Assuming all these vehicles are converted to electric power -- a big ask for any vehicle that regularly needs to travel more than about 200 km per day -- the available battery materials will be fully utilised just powering motor vehicles, with very little battery material left over for energy storage.
Me thinks it maybe time for three or four transcontinental (Perth to Eastern state) DC interconnectors.
To supply solar power from WA to the Eastern states which, in solar terms, have their evening peak periods offset by 2 hours.
So WA can be feeding "clean" power to NSW, Victoria and Qld during the evening while the "sand gropers" are still at work.
IIRC this was discussed in t'other thread a year or so back, and was dismissed as as way too costly, and with that sort of money ($5 Bills per connector??) we could achieve better results with other tech, or investing in other tech research.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
Yes, I misunderstood your previous reference. I have to say I don't know where energy storage is going to come from and I agree that batteries are going to be severely stretched: There will have to be something else for energy storage.
A DC link from WA to the East Coast is going to suffer huge transmission losses over nearly 3500Km not to mention the cost of the link and booster substations. Although talk of DC Links between Darwin and Indonesia , have been bandied around, all they have been is "bandied" around and I can't see much traction there at this time. Having said that, if the DC line was there is would provide the facility to feed into that line from desert based solar, or other, power sources along the way.
Hmmm.... food for thought.
Regards
Paul
Some really good thoughts above. Its excellent there are several insiders to provide insight.
My thoughts on Hydrogen are:
-- One doesn't need to transport it
-- It is made/generated in a place, then stored in that same place
At the source of energy:
-- Solar/wind farms obviously carry their loads during the peaks, yes?
-- So, if those renewable farms generate too much power, or the price is inequitable, they use the excess/cheap energy to generate hydrogen and store it on site
-- When the wind don't blow, nor the sun don't shine, or its night, or the electricity wholesale rate blows up, they use the stored H in their Magic Machines to pump out electrons.
-- Maybe this can also be used as an onsite delivery-leveller for variable weather days?
IF those solar/winds have grids connected up, which they would, as its WHY they are there, and so do the cities/places that use it.... why not generate the H within the city and store it there too?
At the source of the users:
-- The power already is already being delivered, yes?
-- Hindenburg, you say... but how is that worse than any other volatile substance we use now?
-- In fact, there will be no natural gas pipes, or petrol pipelines, or H-pipes or trucks.... the only infrastructure required will be electricity cables
Makes me think, is there an opportunity to use this like a Tesla Home Battery but a hydrogen store at home? No worse than a big BBQ bottle...
-- Suck in cheap electricity at night, generate H
-- use the H to power the home during the day
Everyone is hung up on the amount of power transmission is needed. Is this really the case though?
-- If the current system at its peak can handle a current PEAK volume, can it sustain that peak 24 hours a day? Or does it need to "rest" (IDK, cool down, or it buns out?)
-- So if we keep the whole system revving along at 80% all the time rather than 100% day 5% at 3am.....
-- Could this system then "transfer" H stored in one place, convert to electrons, pump via the wires, make H in "somewhere else"... (yeah, yeah, conversion efficiencies, etc, but lets ignore that)
-- all acting as some sort of self-levelling system?
-- e.g. if we know that Brisbane is going to need a lot of juice due to an oncoming heatwave, we pre-send a sheet-ton of electrons up there where its pre-stored a week or 3 before Brissy melts? (just like any natural gas, or fuel depot)
Its a bit like leaving the hose on overnight isn't it? By itself its pretty pathetic, but overnight it can certainly help fill a pool.
Will we ever get to a point where we will have too much H stored?
Obviously I'm just throwing around ideas and know little of the realities.
BTW, I think H cars are a bad idea. Electrification is the key.
Well, my ranting and raving are for naught - my ideas are hardly novel!
A quick DuckDuckGo shows there are PLENTY of H2 generators and H-to-e power units!
H2 Energy Offers Affordable Hydrogen Generator For Home Use - The Green Optimistic
Quote:
1kWh of electricity can be produced at a cost of 3 to 10 cents and 1kilogram of H2 (1 gallon of gas equivalent) costs about $1. A car can drive 60 miles on 1 kilogram of H2.
Edit - this is cool - these "petrol stations" make the Hydrogen onsite. There is even one in Canberra.... Australia 's third hydrogen-car refuelling station to open in Brisbane - Hydrogen Central
Tell BMW, Toyota and Honda they are wrong. It is amazing that ALL the Japanese manufacturers have ignored the changes being forced on the automotive industry by legislation world wide perhaps because the Japanese Government seem to have ignored it also. There is some speculation that Mazda may not survive the changes because they seem to have completely ignored the move to BEV's except for one half hearted attempt which seems to be a total failure. It is all a bit strange as Toyota and Honda led the world with their hybrid models years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I took a good look at hydrogen cars today.
There is not much more to them than a regular electric car.
There is a storage tank, a Hydrogen membrane to convert it to electrons, then to shove energy into the battery. Otherwise it's all fairly standard electric.
Which is interesting, for if one could charge the thing like a regular electric car, the Hydro addition is nothing more than a Just-in-case or a distance elongator.
So, as a novelty it's interesting, but a good charging infrastructure makes it a bit redundant. Useful for long trips though! (Ahem, Australia!)
Which sort of adds to the question of whether one could rip that hydro out after a prang and reverse it into other purposes... Eg a. Generator for a farm, etc....
re hydrogen transport and storage: hydrogen its self doesn't burn, its that pesky oxygen that screws everything up.
keep the purity 99.9% and everything is fine, that and use beryllium tools when working near the stuff (non sparking)
Hydrogen tends to generate fear into the imagination of the populace in general and I think in no small degree the Hindenburg tragedy is primarily responsible for this. Historical images of the giant airship catching fire are burnt ( :rolleyes: ) into the fleshy tablets of our minds.
However, in the power industry we have used hydrogen for at least the last fifty years as the cooling medium for the rotors in our generators. As haveabeer has pointed out, it needs oxygen (from air) to be a combustible gas. There is an UEL (upper explosive limit) and a LEL (lower explosive limit). The LEL is about 4% of H2 in air, while the UEL is 75% of H2 in air. In the power stations we are very careful to make sure these limits are adhered to. The only time our hydrogen could be outside these ranges is when we are either purging or refilling the generator. In fact even then we do not allow this to happen as purging of hydrogen is done with CO2 first before introducing air or when refilling the air is first purged with CO2 before introducing hydrogen.
I don't think hydrogen will be burnt in cars: It will be the fuel cell technology, which is significantly different and potentially much safer....I think. Some information here:
Fuel Cell Basics | Department of Energy
For the sensationalist seekers among you some more information on the explosive nature of H2:
Hydrogen Explosion - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Regards
Paul
PS: The beryllium tools mentioned by haveabeer are very sexy looking (pretty much look like brass, but are a little harder), not as robust as steel and very expensive.
The drivers (speakers) in my headphones are beryllium – so thin that it floats down like a feather (demo in a video)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
And the Poms are starting to distribute load on the grid via electric car charging at off peak times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMag..._channel=eFIXX
WRT H fuel cell EVs, do we know if you can also charge them at home (or wherever) with the cheapest electricity of all, or do they have to constantly make their own elec?
Little wonder this thread has been so resilient, and lots of interesting information shared. A couple of comments about hydrogen if I may. "Green Hydrogen" has been reported as only 35% efficient when used for combustion and 41% using fuel cells. Saul Griffiths argues that direct conversion from wind or solar and stored in batteries is the best use of the source energy. His point is pretty compelling.
Why is anyone even thinking about H2 powered cars? Liquid hydrogen has a specific gravity of 0.07. Add a storage cylinder which is safe to say 20,000 psi and insulated to cryogenic levels, and that's what you'd be carting around in your car. Am I missing something here?
mick
G'day Mick,Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
Agreed, but many people will need an option for Outback Oz, and elsewhere in the world, where there will never be any charging stations, but either a desire or a need to travel there. Sticking a solar panel on the roof *may take some time*.
I presume you're referring to accident impact. Maybe the stats on LPG explosions in accidents might yield a clue to this. I know it's a different can of worms to H2, but if either of them explode I think you'd be just as dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
That is a real waffle article, WP, strong on hype but devoid of any credible facts. The first sentence sums it up:
" ... Low-cost hydrogen generator from H2 Energy Renaissance is coming soon to wipe out fossil fuels. ... "
That little phrase "is coming soon" is code for "It does not exist yet".
Tell me when it arrives at Bunnings!
A video from someone who has a few qualifications in the engineering field on Hydrogen in cars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained
That's a good link Chris. Visitors to this thread might also like to see his other video on the relative pros and cons of H2 vs Gasoline (petrol to us). It may be that only turbocharged or supercharged engines are suitable as always the problem is getting air into the engine's cylinders. It's all about air rather than the fuel. Best option for H2 appears to be the the fuel cell.
The Difference Between Gasoline And Hydrogen Engines - YouTube
Also an entertaining Dinky Die "exposé" as to why H2 is no good for the combustion engine.
Everything wrong with hydrogen fuel for internal combustion engines | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube
His fact #3 is pertinent in particular (Go Green). Also much of his detail replicates our American mate.
Regards
Paul
Jason always presents his facts and education videos well and in clear language, Cardogen I will leave to others who are attracted to his somewhat manic style and to my eyes bias. Thanks for the heads up on the second video Paul, I had not seen one. What I have been looking for is a video explaining how the Hydrogen fuel cell works in detail and why it would be any better than a BEV at this point in time. JCB in the UK are pushing Hydrogen for farm equipment and if it could be produced on the farm via renewable energy it could be a winner as farming is a huge contributor to green house gas emissions. hydrogen farm equipment - YouTube The top two videos are to be recommended.
Something that I don't think has been addressed is that in ten to twenty years (my conjecture on timelines and pure guesswork) there will be a whole heap of fossil fuelled cars trucks and agricultural/industrial equipment. I am supposing that they will in fact be phased out to some extent due to natural attrition. Does this mean that at some point owners of private vehicles and commercial operators will have to completely replace their fossil fuelled combustion vehicles with EVs? Or will they be able to convert their old vehicles to H2 fuel (combustion not fuel cell)? For the owners who replace their vehicle on a regular basis, this won't be a problem, particularly as the cost of EVs reduces with the combination of technology and sheer volumes, but for those that have older vehicles or only buy second hand, what will be their options?
Twenty to thirty years ago there was a big push to run vehicles on LPG and conversions were available for that purpose so perhaps something similar for H2. There are also all those car enthusiasts out there with classic, vintage, veteran and other collectible forms of transport. What are they going to do?
One other quick question. As EVs begin to dominate what will take the place of oil excise? I think one state has already made moves to start taxing EVs on a different basis.
Regards
Paul
Victoria have already got the tax thing covered ZLEV road-user charge : VicRoads as at least one US state
and the US Special Fees on Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (ncsl.org)
The turnover in the European and US fleets will be quicker because the road conditions destroy cars due to salted roads whereas Australia by world standards has a pretty old fleet because we don't have that problem. The Europeans are regulating disposal to a very high degree, here is BMW's operation and it is fascinating to see the detail of how they dispose of old cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzKdevYQpgA&ab_channel=AmazingRoadLife