Wind Turbines

We are the Borg.
sparks
Posts: 17371
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by sparks »

By burning coal or oil to crack water. Zero emission my bony butt.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Or nukes, or wind, or solar. I'm not a fan of hydrogen power for cars but it could work for aviation. For sure, crashes will be more exciting.
ed
Posts: 41481
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ed »

H2O ----> H2 + O2

What is the (unexpected) consequence of dumping large amounts of O2 into the atmosphere? "More and faster oxidation" ... ok, thanks Mr. Wizard.

What else?

Bigger expositions when H2 aircraft crash perhaps?

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1
sparks
Posts: 17371
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by sparks »

The point is that the energy required to crack water has to come from somewhere. We are still a fossil fuel driven economy in spite of Listy's noting that the energy could also come from nukes and renewables.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Cracking water -- and and just as importantly compressing the resultant hydrogen -- seems like the perfect application of solar. The unreliability and unpredictability of solar doesn't really have an impact there.
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Yep


But unless they fly low it’s still going to dump a lot of water vapor into the upper troposphere, which causes climate change
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

It’s not zero emissions at all
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

You'll have to convince me the effect would be measurable.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d ... 2/joc.4303

didn't.
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Contrails are not the same as humidity

Even so the conclusion of the paper states contrails should be considered for both weather and climatology
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

But hey, there actually is an entire set of deniers who claim stratospheric water vapor also has zero effect on climate, so it’s all good
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

robinson wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:45 pm Contrails are not the same as humidity

Even so the conclusion of the paper states contrails should be considered for both weather and climatology
what part of 'didn't' didn't you get? It didn't convince me.

I submit (and I think the math would support me) that the energy budget of the entire aviation world running on hydrogen and making water vapor would not move the needle one iota compared to evaporation of water caused by the sun (at 1,368 watts per square meter).

Not even times a million.

It's like saying a windmill would measurably slow down the wind on a global scale.

But I have an open mind.
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Like I said, if they still fly high it changes the natural balance of water vapor near the tropopause, which does effect climate

Flying over the poles jets dump a lot of WV into the stratosphere, which normally is very dry

No doubt it alters the energy balance there
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

In the mid latitudes the stratosphere is around 32,000 feet, but at the poles it is 23,000

Sometimes lower

Dumping tons ( many many tons) of WV from burning fossil fuels seriously alters the chemistry in the polar regions

Burning hydrogen would increase the amount, while reducing CO2

Adding a fuckton of water vapor to an extremely dry stratosphere alters things

There are few natural ways for water vapor to get into the stratosphere, no matter how much is below in the troposphere
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Contrails are a different story
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

I don't doubt there is an effect. I submit that the effect is comparatively so small as to not be measurable.

In that paper, what value did they give?
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

I am speaking to water vapor added to the very dry stratosphere

Not the same thing as mid latitude contrails
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Try to follow along
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

robinson wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:17 pm I am speaking to water vapor added to the very dry stratosphere
You say it is significant. Give me a metric and number.

Here's one for you. At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water.<google>

Here's another: At any given time there are ~6000 jets in the air. <google>

How many gallons of water vapor would hydrogen powered aviation add to that if all of them burned hydrogen?

I'll try to follow.
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Studies have shown even small changes in stratospheric humidity may have significant climate impacts
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... phere.html
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Give me the number.
robinson
Posts: 16849
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Nonsense question

Try harder
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Solar meets 100 per cent of South Australia demand for first time

The combination of rooftop and utility scale solar met 100 per cent of demand in South Australia for the first time on Sunday, reaching a milestone that will surely be repeated many times over – and for longer periods – in the future.

The milestone was reached at 12.05pm grid time (Australian eastern standard time), with rooftop solar providing 992MW, or 76.3 per cent of state demand, and utility scale solar providing a further 315MW – meaning all three of the state’s big solar farms, Bungala 1m Bungala 2 and Tailem Bend were operating at full capacity.

The new record came just weeks after solar set a previous milestone of 94 per cent of state demand and rooftop solar output reached 900MW for the first time. On Sunday, that level (94 per cent) was beaten for more than two and a half hours. The combination of sunny weather, mild temperatures and relatively low weekend demand is sure to see more records fall.

The state’s generators were producing more than they needed and exporting most of the surplus to Victoria with some going into the state’s big batteries.

South Australia is currently required to run a minimum amount of gas-fired generation to provide grid services such as inertia and system strength, but the need for this will be reduced when four new synchronous condensers are switched on over the next 12 month, and as battery storage begins to provide “synthetic” inertia services.

The expanded Hornsdale big battery is trialling those inertia services, and has the capacity to meet half the state’s inertia requirements. The construction of a new link to NSW will also further reduce the need for local gas fired generators, and will accelerate the shift towards the state Liberal government’s target of net 100 per cent renewables (averaged over a year).

The continued surged in rooftop solar installations means that South Australia is also likely to reach a new milestone of having rooftop solar alone meet 100 per cent of its demand needs.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-meets ... ime-78279/
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Witness wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:18 pm
Solar meets 100 per cent of South Australia demand for first time
...
ten for more than two and a half hours. The combination of sunny weather, mild temperatures and relatively low weekend demand is sure to see more records fall.

The state’s generators were producing more than they needed and exporting most of the surplus to Victoria with some going into the state’s big batteries.
What is the $/kwh of that battery?
South Australia is currently required to run a minimum amount of gas-fired generation to provide grid services such as inertia and system strength, but the need for this will be reduced when four new synchronous condensers are switched on over the next 12 month, and as battery storage begins to provide “synthetic” inertia services.
I guess I could google 'synchronous condensers' and "synthetic inertia services" but it sounds like battery.
The expanded Hornsdale big battery is trialing those inertia services,
I envision a day when a battery technology exists that can compete. I know it is out there.

I'm so tired. I try to always respond to BS solar news. I never get debate. I should stop. I don't think I excelled in this debunking but nobody is likely to respond.

I am bullish on batteries. The $/kwh will someday make sense. I don't see that happening in my very short life.
sparks
Posts: 17371
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by sparks »

Batteries are essentially chemical in nature. No Rob. They will never compete. It's better nukes or nothing.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

sparks wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:12 pm Batteries are essentially chemical in nature. No Rob. They will never compete. It's better nukes or nothing.
I'm not going to be it's bitch, but I think it will compete in certain markets.
The car market is certainly one that competes, thus far, when few have it. When more millions have it, the true cost will emerge.

The home market eludes, even with huge subsidies and buzzwords like inertia.
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Rob Lister wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:53 pm I'm so tired. I try to always respond to BS solar news. I never get debate. I should stop. I don't think I excelled in this debunking but nobody is likely to respond.
Rest assured I always appreciate your comments/criticisms.

Rest also assured that just being read is already high praise in this epoch of immediate/visual content, even if the praise isn't explicit.

As for the debate you crave, (sadly?) I don't necessarily endorse the stuff I post – being aware it's somewhere between wishful thinking/vaporware and early results – and so have little motivation to fight your criticism. But I think these are interesting data points, even when stripped of excessive optimism, seeing it as a movement in a direction I approve.


Specifically for Australia, they seem to believe in Photo Voltaic:

https://i.imgur.com/afJ2w0r.png

But the batteries you despise are only a small part of it (yet there is a market for home installations, at 10,000 - 20,000 Au$), e. g. Tesla's Hornsdale Power Reserve now upgraded to 150 MW.

All BS?
ceptimus
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

I still find it difficult to imagine having enough battery storage to cope with a few weeks of dark, cold, windless, winter weather.

Presumably, a country will still need to maintain lots of conventional generating capacity, even though those generators may then sit idle for much of the time?

But capitalism won't want to do that - so there will be power shortages during periods of bad weather.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Witness wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:22 am
But the batteries you despise are only a small part of it (yet there is a market for home installations, at 10,000 - 20,000 Au$), e. g. Tesla's Hornsdale Power Reserve now upgraded to 150 MW.

All BS?
Lister loves batteries, does not despise. It's BS because it leaves out the costs.

Even though the price of the solar kWh is practically free, the storage is stupid expensive. And solar without storage is worthless for 16 hours in 24.
South Australia tops the list with just under A$0.50 per kWh, with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria also represented in the world’s top 10 highest electricity prices. As a comparison point, the European Union average is just over A$0.30 per kWh, while US consumers, benefiting from a glut of cheap gas, pay between A$0.10 and A$0.20. A report published in June by the Grattan Institute found that wholesale electricity prices increased by 130% in the NEM between 2015 and 2017.
https://www.power-technology.com/featur ... gy-prices/

I bitch about my peak summer electric bill of $100 (.11/kWh)1. They pay four times that for the same kWh. I'm guessing swamp coolers are popular there.

On the bright side, there's a lot of theoretical room for improvement in battery technology; 5 times li-ion is doable.


1. We really need to move. I'm heating and cooling 3200 square feet of house and we use maybe, maybe 1000 square feet of that; den, kitchen, mast bed and bath. The wife won't even entertain the notion. "What if the kids need to move back in!?" I say, move and don't tell them the new address!
Last edited by Rob Lister on Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

ceptimus wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:12 am I still find it difficult to imagine having enough battery storage to cope with a few weeks of dark, cold, windless, winter weather.

Presumably, a country will still need to maintain lots of conventional generating capacity, even though those generators may then sit idle for much of the time?

But capitalism won't want to do that - so there will be power shortages during periods of bad weather.
I agree with everything but the last sentence. Capitalism demands the meter never stops turning. That's what lobbyists are for, I suppose. Brownouts will not be tolerated long, for real.

Nuclear as a base load and
natural gas for peaks and
wind to make environmentalists feel better
is the way to go right now.

I hate coal. I hate coal with all my manly firmness. I couldn't give less of a shit about global warming, but coal is dirty, nasty and stinky.

But damn, where would we be without it! Abject poverty. It fueled our first-world wealth. I don't think a sane man would disagree.

It's good to be in a situation where we can move away from it. But solar isn't the answer. Solar isn't a panel, it's a system. The most expensive system that exists.

:!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29660
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Anaxagoras »

Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

I agree that batteries aren't that great (for now). One of the quirks of 'tricity is that it's difficult to store.

In some places (including Australia) solar (or wind) is used to drive pumping stations, that's not bad. As I hinted there is also a market for home solar which doesn't necessarily need batteries, just a variable connection to the grid. In summer you can run your AC all day long practically for free.

And an article:
Solar power is now “cheapest electricity in history”, says IEA

The International Energy Agency has often been mocked for its poor assessment of the potential of solar power, both in terms of deployment and cost reductions, and it is still is. But now, even the IEA has conceded that solar power is low cost, in fact it is now “the cheapest electricity in history.”

This extraordinary admission was included in the 2020 version of its annual reference tome, the World Energy Outlook – a must read for energy wonks and the energy industry, even if its interpretation of industry trends, and its promotion of “business as usual” over climate targets frustrates many.

The WEO2020 includes, for the first time, a scenario that is broadly consistent with what might be needed to try and cap average global warming to a maximum 1.5°C, rather than the second prize of 2.0°C previously modelled under its Sustainable Development Scenarios.

This requires reaching net zero emissions by 2050, rather than 2070, and includes significant emissions reductions over the next decade, driven mostly by a vast increase in wind and solar production, a shift to electric vehicles, and “behavioural changes” that could reduce demand.

The IEA appears ready to embrace this because it has discovered that solar is much cheaper than it thought – in fact, up to 50 per cent cheaper than its estimates of just two years ago, in WEO2018. And it’s not the market that’s changed, so much as IEA’s interpretation of the facts.

The key to the IEA’s re-assessment is the cost of capital of wind and solar, which it now admits is as low as 2.6 per cent in Europe and the US, and far below its previously assumed range of 7-8 per cent.

That means that solar can now be produced “at or below” $US20 a megawatt hour, as has been delivered in auctions in Portugal ($US13/MWh) and the Middle East. It is now so cheap that the IEA says: “For projects with low-cost financing that tap high-quality resources, solar PV is now the cheapest source of electricity in history.”

Even on the IEA’s modified “value adjusted levellised cost of electricity” (VALCOE), which includes the simulated value of three system services: energy, flexibility and capacity, solar still beats coal and gas in all continents, and is beaten only by onshore wind in Europe.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-power ... iea-39195/ with some graphs.
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

I'll put that strange article here.
Iron Powder Passes First Industrial Test as Renewable, Carbon Dioxide-Free Fuel

Oxidizing and reducing powdered iron has the potential to provide clean power on an industrial scale

Simple question: What if we could curb this whole fossil fuel-fed climate change nightmare and burn something else as an energy source instead? As a bonus, what if that something else is one of the most common elements on Earth?

Simple answer: Let’s burn iron.

While setting fire to an iron ingot is probably more trouble than it’s worth, fine iron powder mixed with air is highly combustible. When you burn this mixture, you’re oxidizing the iron. Whereas a carbon fuel oxidizes into CO2, an iron fuel oxidizes into Fe2O3, which is just rust. The nice thing about rust is that it’s a solid which can be captured post-combustion. And that’s the only byproduct of the entire business—in goes the iron powder, and out comes energy in the form of heat and rust powder. Iron has an energy density of about 11.3 kWh/L, which is better than gasoline. Although its specific energy is a relatively poor 1.4 kWh/kg, meaning that for a given amount of energy, iron powder will take up a little bit less space than gasoline but it’ll be almost ten times heavier.

It might not be suitable for powering your car, in other words. It probably won’t heat your house either. But it could be ideal for industry, which is where it’s being tested right now.

Researchers from TU Eindhoven have been developing iron powder as a practical fuel for the past several years, and last month they installed an iron powder heating system at a brewery in the Netherlands, which is turning all that stored up energy into beer. Since electricity can’t efficiently produce the kind of heat required for many industrial applications (brewing included), iron powder is a viable zero-carbon option, with only rust left over.

So what happens to all that rust? This is where things get clever, because the iron isn’t just a fuel that’s consumed— it’s energy storage that can be recharged. And to recharge it, you take all that Fe2O3, strip out the oxygen, and turn it back into Fe, ready to be burned again. It’s not easy to do this, but much of the energy and work that it takes to pry those Os away from the Fes get returned to you when you burn the Fe the next time. The idea is that you can use the same iron over and over again, discharging it and recharging it just like you would a battery.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/en ... 2free-fuel for the technical details.
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

EU plans to increase offshore windfarm capacity by 250%

Proposal would create 62,000 jobs and help towards carbon neutrality, says commission

https://i.imgur.com/fvfzTGZ.jpg
[Nice pic.]

The capacity of the EU’s offshore windfarms in the North Sea, the Baltic, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea will be increased by 250%, under a draft plan drawn up by the European commission.

The move follows Boris Johnson’s announcement this year of his intention to generate enough electricity to power every home in the UK within a decade from the country’s offshore sites.

Both the UK and the EU are seeking to make progress on the target of carbon emission neutrality by 2050 and pioneer potentially rival innovations that will put its industry at the forefront of the growing sector.

The total energy generating capacity in Europe’s seas stands at 23 gigawatts (GW), from 5,047 grid-connected wind turbines across 12 countries, including the UK.

Under a European commission strategy, the 27 EU member states alone would achieve a capacity of 60GW by 2030 and 300GW by 2050, with Germany set to hugely increase its investment in the sector.

According to the leaked paper, the commission “estimates that an installed capacity of 300GW of offshore wind [and around 60GW of ocean energies] by 2050 would be needed in the integrated, greener and climate neutral energy system of 2050.”

The commission writes: “This is feasible for a sector where Europe has gained unrivalled technological, scientific and industrial experience and where strong capacity exists already across the supply chain, from manufacturing to shipping and installation. Nonetheless, it is a very challenging horizon. It means that offshore renewable energy capacity should be multiplied by 25 times by 2050. The investment needed is estimated up to €789bn.” [25 times = 250% increase? Hmmm…]

The UK, which left the EU in January, has the largest amount of offshore wind capacity in Europe, with 45% of all installations. Germany is second with 34%, followed by Denmark (8%), Belgium (7%) and the Netherlands (5%).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... city#img-1
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Australia’s Ambitious $16 Billion Solar Project Will Be The World’s Biggest

The world’s most ambitious renewable energy project to date is the proposed Australia–ASEAN Power Link. This project would combine the world’s largest solar farm, the largest battery, and the longest undersea electricity cable. The 10 gigawatt (GW) solar farm would cover 30,000 acres in Australia’s sunny Northern Territory. That is about the equivalent of 9 million rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. The solar farm would be paired with a 30 gigawatt-hour (GWh) battery storage facility to enable round-the-clock dispatch of renewable power. It’s not enough to build a solar farm in the middle of nowhere if you can’t get the power out. The project currently envisions an 800-kilometer high-voltage overhead power line to transmit 3 GW to Darwin on the northern coast of Australia’s Northern Territory. From there, it would transfer to a 3,700 km 2.2 GW undersea power line to Singapore. Sun Cable, a Singapore-based company founded in 2018, is behind the proposed $16 billion project.

For perspective, this undersea line would be five times longer than the world’s longest so long — the 720 km Norway-to-Britain North Sea Link that is scheduled to be online in 2021. The storage facility would be 155 times larger than Australia’s 193.5 megawatt-hours (MWh) Hornsdale Power Reserve, currently the world’s largest operational lithium-ion battery. And it would also be 100 times larger than the world’s largest utility-scale battery, the 300 MWh sodium-sulfur battery at Japan’s Buzen Substation.

The Australia-ASEAN project is scheduled to come online by the end of 2027. The project’s developers expect it to create up to 1,500 jobs during the construction phase, and up to 350 jobs during operations. Given the interest in these types of projects, it is important to understand the challenges and ultimate cost of transporting renewable energy over long distances. The ability to do this economically has important ramifications from the Sahara Desert to the American Midwest to the Arctic.
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy ... ggest.html
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Scottish homes to be first in world to use 100% green hydrogen

Some 300 homes in Fife to be fitted with free boilers, heaters and cooking appliances

Some 300 homes in Fife will be fitted with free hydrogen boilers, heaters and cooking appliances to be used for more than four years in the largest test of whether zero carbon hydrogen, made using renewable energy and water, could help meet Britain’s climate goals.

They will begin to receive green gas from the end of 2022, at no extra charge, and up to 1,000 homes could be included if the first phase of the trial is completed successfully.

The trial has the backing of the energy regulator, Ofgem, which has awarded £18m to SGN to develop the pioneering project. The grant is part of a funding competition which supports innovation to help prepare Britain’s energy grids for a low-carbon future. The Scottish government will support the project with a grant of £6.9m.

Ofgem’s £56m funding pot will also support a £12.7m project from National Grid to carry out “offline” hydrogen trials, using old gas grid pipes, to test the safety of transporting hydrogen gas across the country.

Green hydrogen is a central part of the government’s plan to wean Britain off fossil fuels because it can be used in the same ways as fossil fuel gas but produces no carbon emissions. This is particularly important for central heating, which makes up almost a third of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions because 85% of homes use a gas boiler.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rogen-fife
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Witness wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:52 am
Scottish homes to be first in world to use 100% green hydrogen

Some 300 homes in Fife to be fitted with free boilers, heaters and cooking appliances
...
Ofgem’s £56m funding pot will also support a £12.7m project from National Grid to carry out “offline” hydrogen trials, using old gas grid pipes, to test the safety of transporting hydrogen gas across the country.
...
Therein lies the rub. I'm guessing those old pipes are cast iron; hydrogen embrittlement yada. Maybe they could line the old pipes with some kind of fancy pvc. I'm thinking delivery by truck would be a cheaper, if not safer, option
ed
Posts: 41481
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ed »

Why not deliver it by Zeppelin?

https://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2015/04 ... nburg-.jpg
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

oh, the humanity!
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Rob Lister wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:50 pm Therein lies the rub. I'm guessing those old pipes are cast iron; hydrogen embrittlement yada. Maybe they could line the old pipes with some kind of fancy pvc. I'm thinking delivery by truck would be a cheaper, if not safer, option
Good point. For now it's just a test/proof of concept.

And there already exists current technology for coating water pipes internally to prevent problems (has been done in my building some years ago), so that could indeed be a solution.
Witness
Posts: 35689
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

https://i.imgur.com/1GIpj9S.png

Sweden, November. :mrgreen: