[Europan Ocean (OP)]

The NSW state government plans to build a new power station in case the green powers sources temporarily under supply. People complain that natural gas is a fossil fuel. But could a station that burns gas also be designed to burn Hydrogen?

[Bored chemist]

But could a station that burns gas also be designed to burn Hydrogen?

Yes.

Where do you plan to get the hydrogen from?

[alancalverd]

Unlimited renewables, of course. Or cucumbers.

[Bored chemist]

renewables, of course

That's obviously possible.
You can pass steam through hot charcoal to get hydrogen, but it's not practical because you could just burn the charcoal in a conventional power station.

[alancalverd]

You can pass steam through hot charcoal to get hydrogen, but it's not practical

Indeed, so impractical that it provided the main source of fixed domestic and light industrial power including street lighting,  in the western world for about 150 years.

[Bored chemist]

You can pass steam through hot charcoal to get hydrogen, but it's not practical

Indeed, so impractical that it provided the main source of fixed domestic and light industrial power including street lighting,  in the western world for about 150 years.

So, you don't realise that coke is different from Pepsi and from charcoal.

Here's a hint; one is renewable and was not used much to make hydrogen.
The other is a fossil fuel.

But it would still be impractical anyway- since you could burn the coal/ coke/ charcoal in a power station without the wasted effort of making hydrogen.

[alancalverd]

Coke is not much different from charcoal. It's coal from which all the useful volatiles has been distilled, leaving about 70 - 90% carbon. As you say, it is totally impractical to pass the resulting gases through pipes to be burned in ovens and engines, which is why the Victorians did it on such a large scale.

Manufacturers of gas engines include Hyundai Heavy Industries, Rolls-Royce with the Bergen-Engines AS, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Liebherr, MTU Friedrichshafen, GE Jenbacher, Caterpillar Inc., Perkins Engines, MWM, Cummins, Wärtsilä, GE Energy Waukesha, Guascor Power, Deutz, MTU, MAN, Fairbanks-Morse, Doosan, and Yanmar.

All hopeless fools with no engineering credibility at all.

[Petrochemicals]

Yes.

[Bored chemist]

Coke is not much different from charcoal.

Radiocarbon date them and get back to me.

Or just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".

[alancalverd]

You missed the point. The process is entirely practical, whether you use charcoal (made by distilling all the pollutants from fresh biological material) or coke (ditto, fossil material) but not particularly efficient if you are going to use the hydrogen to generate electricity. Either way you produce lots of carbon dioxide, which is a mortal sin. 

Only problem with burning charcoal directly in a power station is that the energy required to harvest, transport and reduce fresh biowaste to carbon  is currently more than the electrical energy it generates!

[Bored chemist]

Either way you produce lots of carbon dioxide, which is a mortal sin.

No.
In one approach you return CO2 to the atmosphere which was there recently, and in the other you dump ancient carbon into the atmosphere.

just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".

[Petrochemicals]

You missed the point. The process is entirely practical, whether you use charcoal (made by distilling all the pollutants from fresh biological material) or coke (ditto, fossil material) but not particularly efficient if you are going to use the hydrogen to generate electricity. Either way you produce lots of carbon dioxide, which is a mortal sin. 

Only problem with burning charcoal directly in a power station is that the energy required to harvest, transport and reduce fresh biowaste to carbon  is currently more than the electrical energy it generates!

Hydrogen is an exellent way to ween people off oil and powerstations of gas. Sience and industry do not mix. What is scientifically achievable and industrially worthwhile are two very different things. After aceptance you can introduce the hydrogen fuel cell etc. Infrastru ture is a very expensive thing to implement.

[alancalverd]

No.
In one approach you return CO2 to the atmosphere which was there recently, and in the other you dump ancient carbon into the atmosphere.

Blasphemy!  Apostasy!
If the carbon was once there, the planet must have survived its presence. So putting it back won't do any serious harm.

[Bored chemist]

No.
In one approach you return CO2 to the atmosphere which was there recently, and in the other you dump ancient carbon into the atmosphere.

Blasphemy!  Apostasy!
If the carbon was once there, the planet must have survived its presence. So putting it back won't do any serious harm.

It wasn't all there at the same time.
it wasn't all there when there were humans
it wasn't all there when the Sun's activity was as high as it currently is.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:21:34
just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".

[alancalverd]

It wasn't all there at the same time.

It was surely (nearly) all there when the first carbon-sequestering organisms evolved, and the quantity of atmospheric CO2 generally decreased with time as coal and oil deposits were laid down. The presence of humans is fairly irrelevant to the ultimate fate of the planet, though you can reasonably argue that we are restoring the air towards its pre-Carboniferous composition.

[Bored chemist]

It was surely (nearly) all there when the first carbon-sequestering organisms evolved,

it wasn't all there when there were humans

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:09:27
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:21:34
just stop trying to pretend that you screwed up on the relevant issue of "renewable ness".

[alancalverd]

I repeat, the planet has survived much higher CO2 concentrations, up to 6000 ppm. It is toxic to most mammals at around 3% (30,000 ppm) so it doesn't pose a chemical threat to humans at current or even prehistoric concentrations.

The problem for humans is that our society is not sufficiently robust to accommodate significant climate change, and has not been for thousands of years, with coastal communities either being swamped or finding themselves a hundred miles from where the sea used to be, and deserts encroaching on farm land. Getting excited about a whiff of CO2 isn't going to solve the human problems caused by overpopulation and a reliance on climate stability. 

[Bored chemist]

I repeat, the planet has survived much higher CO2 concentrations, up to 6000 ppm.

And I repeat that we haven't.

The presence of humans is fairly irrelevant to the ultimate fate of the planet,

If you are so sure that you (as a human) are irrelevant, why not shut up?

[Bored chemist]

Getting excited about a whiff of CO2 isn't going to solve the human problems caused by overpopulation and a reliance on climate stability. 

Not fixing CO2 emission doesn't help those issues either- it makes them worse.

[alancalverd]

True, but whilst we will run out of fossil fuel eventually and thus resolve that obsession, if we carry on as usual the human population will continue to grow until disaster strikes or we all agree to live in overcrowded misery.

Just because humans have no cosmic significance is no reason why life should not be pleasant for our descendants.