[Hypx]

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.

[Manfredo_1]

> nevermind this whole goalpost moving argument of "current gas turbine already in existence."

This was the original goalpost. Let's re-read it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599162

> Those gas turbines you're referring to can simply be modified natural gas gas turbines. The only limiting factor would be electrolysis, but that is already something people are planning to build a lot of.

This is wrong, we'd have to build new gas turbines to run on a 100% hydrogen mixture in addition to building electrolysis capacity. At this point I think it's clear you're not interested in engaging honestly, and in the other thread you'e already started to throw around ad-hominem insults [1].

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599959

[Hypx]

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.

[Manfredo_1]

> 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."

I'm not sure why you're having trouble comprehending it. Existing gas turbines are meant to run on either oil or natural gas, not hydrogen. In addition to corrosion, hydrogen burns hotter.

You cited one specific turbine model that had a peak hydrogen mixture of 90% (average was 70%). Ignoring the fact that you're picking one specific model that's being highlighted for it's ability to accept hydrogen fuel, this still isn't viable for a carbon-neutral storage system since it still burns natural gas. No, we can't just run them at 90% for years on end because that will still advance climate change.

> Either new or existing, this isn't a hard challenge, especially considering we replace old turbines all the time.

It's good that you're admitting that it's not a simple matter of modifying existing turbines, and that new turbines have to be developed. But it is an additional bottleneck, it's not just a matter of electrolysis we also have to build the generation infrastructure to turn that hydrogen back into electricity.

Likewise if you interpreted my original comment as saying that it's impossible to run a gas turbine with hydrogen that is indeed incorrect. Though I'm rather unsure of how you reached this interpretation given that I even provided an example of a soviet experiment with hydrogen jet engines (albeit with significantly shorter flight time).