That link you provided doesn't encompass gas turbines. Gas turbines capable of burning hydrogen do exist, but only at smaller concentrations, 70% methane and 30% hydrogen or less.
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.
Right, but then we're not talking about combined-cycle gas turbines to convert hydrogen back into electricity. If we're going to boil water than that's much less efficient than the ~66% efficiency we get out of combined cycle gas turbines.
Also, in case you weren't aware a combined cycle turbine also involves boiling water and spinning a turbine. The reason why they're so efficient is because energy is extracted both from the gas turbine (basically a jet engine) and a steam turbine driven by the heat from the exhaust from the gas turbine.
>Honestly, you should learn some thermodynamics and chemistry before accusing others of being ignorant.
Sure, we could burn hydrogen and drive a boiler like a coal plant. But that's not where this comment thread started.
> Those gas turbines you're referring to can simply be modified natural gas gas turbines
Sure, if you just want to run them for a short period of time and generate a lot more wear. If these turbines are so simple to modify, why does GE say that it won't be until 2045 that their turbines will be able to run 100% hydrogen gas?
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.