This reminds me of Moore's Second Law, namely that the cost of maintaining Moore's Law will itself follow an exponential growth curve. You figure there will come a date where any attempt to maintain Moore's Law will become so expensive that there's no way it can avoid slowing down drastically. At which point the semiconductor industry will behave like other heavy industries and improves at a much more modest rate.
Exactly! You went so far up your own asshole in denying the existence of hydrogen combustion in industrial use that you even forgot about steam turbines. The whole point was showing how ridiculous it was to go this far. It would be easy to sacrifice a bit of efficiency for a simpler system that's guaranteed to work and the basic premise would've been the same. No one until you came along did anyone thought there could be any doubt that hydrogen gas turbine couldn't do the job.
You could saved yourself all this trouble by just admitting you were wrong.
Gas turbines that can run at 90% hydrogen and have existed for decades, still doesn't count as "existing" for you. And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist.
The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything else you're saying is just a red herring.
> Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.
And there's not a single grid that's green, since they all produce CO₂. Even zero emissions grids like wind and solar still produce CO₂ during manufacturing.
And remember just how far up your own asshole you are with this: You've reject 90% hydrogen gas turbines, future gas turbines of only nine years from now, or even steam power plants running on 100% hydrogen. At this point your rationale is so dishonestly unfair it allows zero wiggle to justify any kind of electric cars. So time to admit you were wrong, not red herring your way out of this.
Even more moving of the goalposts... Now it's every single gas turbine out there needs to be upgradable to 100% hydrogen, and "peak" blends don't count.
Keep fucking that chicken.
Hell, your own source says:
> Similarly, the goal of 100 percent hydrogen combustion capability will be achieved step by step, test by test. “With hydrogen-fired gas turbines we can easily avoid the ‘valley of death’ where brilliant inventions die before they even scale to full potential,” says Larfeldt. “The same turbines can be used with different percentages of hydrogen in the fuel mix, with brown or green hydrogen. Existing gas turbines can be retrofitted to the latest standards. It’s an organic evolution.”
So even a 90% hydrogen concentration burning, existing gas turbine with zero modifications still doesn't count. I see the goalposts move even further...
Yeah, keep shoving your head up your own ass. Maybe you'll see daylight if you shove hard enough.
So how else we're suppose to interpret this statement: "No, hydrogen rapidly corrodes any metals that it comes into contact with. If they are interchangeable, expect drastically smaller service intervals."
And if you read actually my statement carefully I didn't say that it had to be an existing, already built gas turbine. Only that we had to modify gas turbines intended for natural gas for hydrogen. Either new or existing, this isn't a hard challenge, especially considering that we replace old turbines all the time.
And you still seem unaware that even your goal-post moving argument is wrong. We really can just run existing gas turbines at 90% concentration for years on end.
You pretty much did say that anything above 30% concentration would destroy any gas turbine, nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence." Like I said, it's time to admit you were wrong, assuming you are capable of that at all.
> Take the Gibraltar-San Roque oil refinery in Spain, where the GE-made 6B.03 turbine has logged thousands of hours burning a blend of fuel gas and hydrogen. This same 6B.03 machine is also working in a South Korean refinery, where it has racked up more than 20 years burning a fuel blend containing more than 70 percent hydrogen. This turbine has even gone all the way up to a 90 percent hydrogen blend.
So even your goalpost moving argument is still wrong.
This whole thing started because no one here thought someone would seriously try to argue that hydrogen gas turbines are impossible. For some of us this was too obvious to even bother trying to debunk.
Then repurpose old coal plants for the same reason. None of this needs to be hard.
This whole debate started when you were caught making ignorant statements regarding basic chemistry and thermodynamics. You're not going to win by just doubling on everything or moving goalposts. It's past time to admit you were wrong.
> The Soviets built a plane that flew on hydrogen, but it only completed 100 flights. And only part of those were with hydrogen, the rest were with natural gas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155
So you admit this has been done since the 1980s? You seriously don't think we can improve on 33 year old technology?
How dishonest are you going to get before you will admit you were wrong?
In addition to what I said in the other post regarding gas turbines, you also don't need a gas turbine to generate power. As long as you can boil water the rest follows logically.
Honestly, you should learn some thermodynamics and chemistry before accusing others of being ignorant.
> I'd say you're being deliberately ignorant here, but I'm really not so sure. A gas turbine spins rapidly, putting huge stresses on the blades. They also operate at extremely high temperatures.
Seriously, your projection is out of control here. A gas turbine burning hydrogen does not experience any stresses that is meaningfully different from one burning natural gas or kerosene. Simply applied engineering can solve all of the issues associated with hydrogen gas turbines.