UK trial begins injecting hydrogen to fuel gas-fired power plant

[Crick]

The trial will only run up to 3% hydrogen but the hoped-for results are the ability to run on 100% hydrogen thus completely eliminating GHG emissions at this plant and others like it. If the hydrogen is produced by renewably-powered electrolysis, methane hydrolysis or plasma reforming, no CO2 would be produced. However, any effort to fully power the energy and transportation sector with hydrogen produced without large coproduction of GHGs will require large scale nuclear electrolysis.

UK trial will inject hydrogen into a gas-fired, grid-connected power station

Hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in a wide range of industries.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The trial will only run up to 3% hydrogen but the hoped-for results are the ability to run on 100% hydrogen thus completely eliminating GHG emissions at this plant and others like it. If the hydrogen is produced by renewably-powered electrolysis, methane hydrolysis or plasma reforming, no CO2 would be produced. However, any effort to fully power the energy and transportation sector with hydrogen produced without large coproduction of GHGs will require large scale nuclear electrolysis.

UK trial will inject hydrogen into a gas-fired, grid-connected power station

Hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in a wide range of industries.

www.cnbc.com

Methane hydrolysis and plasma reforming produce no CO2?

However, any effort to fully power the energy and transportation sector with hydrogen produced without large coproduction of GHGs will require large scale nuclear electrolysis.

If you've already got nuclear, why would you need to power the energy sector with nuclear produced hydrogen?

 

[Crick]

Methane hydrolysis and plasma reforming produce no CO2?

Nope

However, any effort to fully power the energy and transportation sector with hydrogen produced without large coproduction of GHGs will require large scale nuclear electrolysis.

If you've already got nuclear, why would you need to power the energy sector with nuclear produced hydrogen?

The plant in the article is a peaking plant, a type of smaller generating facility that assists larger electricity sources when demand peaks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope

The plant in the article is a peaking plant, a type of smaller generating facility that assists larger electricity sources when demand peaks.

Do you know what methane hydrolysis is?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The trial will only run up to 3% hydrogen but the hoped-for results are the ability to run on 100% hydrogen thus completely eliminating GHG emissions at this plant and others like it. If the hydrogen is produced by renewably-powered electrolysis, methane hydrolysis or plasma reforming, no CO2 would be produced. However, any effort to fully power the energy and transportation sector with hydrogen produced without large coproduction of GHGs will require large scale nuclear electrolysis.

UK trial will inject hydrogen into a gas-fired, grid-connected power station

Hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in a wide range of industries.

www.cnbc.com

I wonder if they understand that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen, than it is possible to get back by burning it.

And di-hydrogen monoxide, which is a product of burning hydrogen, is a far more serious and significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to claim that burning hydrogen does not produce any greenhouse gasses is just a plain flat-out lie.

 

[Crick]

I wonder if they understand that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen, than it is possible to get back by burning it.

And di-hydrogen monoxide, which is a product of burning hydrogen, is a far more serious and significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to claim that burning hydrogen does not produce any greenhouse gasses is just a plain flat-out lie.

There are two processes that can produce hydrogen from methane without producing CO2. That is the claim which is backed up by the fact that there are companies doing it. And I think everyone here got the dihydrogen monoxide joke in the fourth grade.
And water vapor is not a problem in this regard because, as I pointed out just yesterday, it is condensable. But if you're worried about it, you could stop preparing pasta.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are two processes that can produce hydrogen from methane without producing CO2.

How do they do that? Link?

 

[ding]

How do they do that? Link?

Natural Gas Reforming/Gasification

Do you need to be spoon fed everything?

 

[Crick]

Do you know what methane hydrolysis is?

I was doing that in bed last night while my wife was trying to watch some tear-jerker episode of The Crown. She was pissed!

If humanity is to survive the next few centuries, we HAVE to get fusion reactors going and we have to run transportation on hydrogen. And, to be honest, looking at the various methods for producing hydrogen right now is a bit depressing. Two don't create huge amounts of CO2 but they're difficult to scale and inefficient. What's needed are fission (and later fusion) reactors doing nothing but electrolyzing sea water (and maybe making fresh water along the way) but with the unpopularity of fission reactors at the moment, that seems unlikely.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two don't create huge amounts of CO2 but they're difficult to scale and inefficient.

Explain how they create hydrogen with no CO2.

 

[Crick]

Explain how they create hydrogen with no CO2.

Look here for methane pyrolysis and plasma reforming

Hydrogen production - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look here for methane pyrolysis and plasma reforming

Hydrogen production - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Methane pyrolysis?

You said it was methane hydrolysis.

I thought you said it didn't produce CO2?

I see CO2 on the right side of the equation.

 

[Crick]

Methane pyrolysis?

You said it was methane hydrolysis.

View attachment 717590

I thought you said it didn't produce CO2?

I see CO2 on the right side of the equation.

CH4(g) → C(s) + 2 H2(g)
ΔH° = 74.8 kJ/mol
See the 's' and 'g's in parentheses? That indicates solid and gas. The process produces pure carbon, not CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CH4(g) → C(s) + 2 H2(g)
ΔH° = 74.8 kJ/mol
See the 's' and 'g's in parentheses? That indicates solid and gas. The process produces pure carbon, not CO2.

First you said methane hydrolysis, which doesn't seem to be a thing.
Then you said methane pyrolysis, which is what I posted.

What is this new process? How is it accomplished?

 

[Crick]

First you said methane hydrolysis, which doesn't seem to be a thing.
Then you said methane pyrolysis, which is what I posted.

If I said hydrolysis I misspoke. When you first asked about it the term was unfamiliar to me but maybe some other source used that term. Memory's the first thing to go.

What is this new process? How is it accomplished?

Did you not read the Wikipedia article I linked?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you not read the Wikipedia article I linked?

I did.

^Cheapest source.

Geezus. Bubbling through molten metal? And then putting the carbon into a landfill?

Really sounds like a lot of work, energy and money to "reduce the overall carbon intensity”

 

[Crick]

I did.


View attachment 717626


^Cheapest source.

View attachment 717627
Geezus. Bubbling through molten metal? And then putting the carbon into a landfill?

Really sounds like a lot of work, energy and money to "reduce the overall carbon intensity”

Fresh out of college I worked on a drilling rig in the North Sea. You want to talk about a lot of effort and expense we can chat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fresh out of college I worked on a drilling rig in the North Sea. You want to talk about a lot of effort and expense we can chat.

Profitably drilling for useful amounts of cheap, reliable energy.

Nice!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No matter by what process, the production of hydrogen necessarily involves more energy being put into the process, than what can be recovered by using that hydrogen as a fuel.

Bu8ild any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant, and use all of the energy produced by that plant to produce more hydrogen, and the whole thing will operate at a net loss. You won't get any energy out of it, and you'll have to put more energy into it from some other source, to keep it going.

The concept that Crick is trying to sell here, in in the realm of perpetual motion.

 

[jc456]

I was doing that in bed last night while my wife was trying to watch some tear-jerker episode of The Crown. She was pissed!

If humanity is to survive the next few centuries, we HAVE to get fusion reactors going and we have to run transportation on hydrogen. And, to be honest, looking at the various methods for producing hydrogen right now is a bit depressing. Two don't create huge amounts of CO2 but they're difficult to scale and inefficient. What's needed are fission (and later fusion) reactors doing nothing but electrolyzing sea water (and maybe making fresh water along the way) but with the unpopularity of fission reactors at the moment, that seems unlikely.

Are you saying we don’t need co2?