Sciencesciencehydrogenh2cleangreenbatterieschinapowerelectricityrenewableindependence

Thu Oct 3, 2019, 06:37 PM

Tractebel developing offshore platform to produce environmentally friendly hydrogen from wind



Power-Technology.com | October 3, 2019

Tractebel unveil new offshore hydrogen platform

Power consultancy Tractebel are developing an offshore platform that will produce environmentally friendly hydrogen from offshore wind energy at an industrial scale.

The platform uses electrolysis to deliver 400 MW, which Tractebel say exceeds the output of previous technologies, and is ready to put into practise in areas like the North Sea..

The company are confident the role of hydrogen is gaining importance in the energy mix, because the proportion of “green” hydrogen or H2 derived from renewable sources can be increased on a carbon-neutral basis. In addition, the method effectively stores energy and the multiple transportation options of hydrogen provide relief for the electricity transmission grid, the capacities of which are limited. Furthermore, hydrogen can balance out seasonal fluctuations in renewable energy sources.

Tractebel sees potential for carbon-neutral production of green hydrogen in large-scale offshore wind farms and its team is currently working on a detailed solution for the use of the new platform at an industrial scale. Currently, it accommodates all the technical components required for production – including electrolysis units, transformers and desalinisation plants.

Another benefit of the platform is that transportation of energy generated in this way is flexible and can be transmitted by pipelines or ships. These transport means are alternatives to the contentious or overloaded cable lines – in the sea or over land... more: https://www.power-technology.com/news/company-news/tractebel-hydrogen-wind-offshore/

12 replies, 87 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Aquila (Original post)

Thu Oct 3, 2019, 07:48 PM

1. "The platform uses electrolysis to deliver 400 MW,..."

"The platform uses electrolysis to deliver 400 MW, ..."

That makes no sense. Electrolysis does not produce power, it consumes power.

What are they really trying to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 3, 2019, 11:56 PM

3. Very poorly written, not written by someone who understands the process

I ain't no scientist/physicist/whatever, just an old mekanik, and I know that electrolysis is used in the process to separate the hydrogen, which is then stored to be used as a "fuel" in cells to which store/create electricity.

"Delivery" is obviously the pipelines/cables that would transport electricity to land, or hydrogen to be used to refuel cells.

Pretty clever system, but not so cleverly written



CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Thu Oct 3, 2019, 08:53 PM

2. Cool project, hope it works out for them...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 12:05 AM

4. yeah - picture this . . .

A home solar system that uses ALL the power the panels create - house gets supplied with it's total needs with power to spare during sunny periods - any excess is used to create hydrogen for cells located on the premises for cloudy periods.

Might be an improvement on the huge battery banks/fossil fuel generators needed to take up the slack

I had a friend and neighbor who was totally solar - NEVER had hydro poles on the property - never had hydro period. They had one huge 12V battery that replaced half dozen smaller ones in their basement - 6 men to get it down the stairs - and - a gas generator for the times when neither solar or battery could supply their needs.

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akaConcernedCanuk (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:37 AM

5. Hydrogen House Project since 2005 - in New Jersey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 07:55 AM

6. ...and how much $$$$$$$$$ did all that cost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 5, 2019, 07:42 PM

9. The video answers that very question.

Clik on the damm thing!



CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akaConcernedCanuk (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 07:58 AM

7. You do understand each time you convert something into something else you waste efficiency, right??

"and - a gas generator for the times"...won't be any gas if the green new deal wankers get their way...then what will you do ''when neither solar or battery" can supply your needs???

What's really funny is how those GNDW's are totally against nuclear power...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 04:10 PM

8. Well - "waste" is not really an accurate term here imo . . .

ponder this:

"The efficiency is the energy output, divided by the energy input, and expressed as a percentage. A perfect process would have an efficiency of 100%. W out = the work or energy produced by a process. Units are Joules (J)."

So - the trick is to find what is most efficient, but that's only ONE part of the electricity conundrum.

We have to try and balance what is the least damaging to our environment, safest, convenient, just plain doable and so on.

We have not a clue how to dispose of our nuclear waste yet - the harm from the waste has yet to be borne by it's creator - us. And when one of them messes up, although rare, the effects of just ONE major fuckup like Chernobyl or Fukushima has worldwide consequences, for decades - probably longer. "Has cleaner emissions compared to steam power stations but produces nuclear waste, which is currently an unsolved problem."

Hmmmm - even Google cant come up with a meaning for GNDW -

our first major power source was damming up rivers - ergo "hydro" electricity. Converting water motion to power.

Hydro comes up 85% efficient, Nuclear 55%

and so on.

Nuclear is gonna bite us in the ass - severely. It has the potential for global disasters, whereas no other form of energy creation methods have. Fossil fuels are non-renewable - we're already messing up our own landscape with fracking and tar sands . . . . . Hell, we've been fight wars for a century to control the fossil fuels, and may even unleash the nuclear holocaust as the reserves run lower . . . . .

And water wars are in our futures unless we learn to share equitably.

New hydro dams become increasing awkward as whole cities and towns now would be destroyed as most of our 6 billion plus live on the waters edge, or close enough to be severely affected.

Solar, Wind and Hydrogen can be supported almost anywhere, but no matter what method we use - some part of the environment is gonna get changed/damaged/destroyed.

Ah well - this old fart is gonna miss it all, be lucky if this old body lasts another decade or so . . . .



CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akaConcernedCanuk (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 6, 2019, 07:37 AM

10. Wrong...US taxpayers have been paying for the Yucca Mountains storage facility since 1987...

"We have not a clue how to dispose of our nuclear waste yet..."

...so there HAS BEEN such a place for decades. Next excuse for not going with one of the only alternative energy sources that works anywhere and runs basically 24/7 all year long...???

"Hydro comes up 85% efficient, Nuclear 55%"...and WHERE did you read nuclear power was only 55% efficient???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 6, 2019, 12:35 PM

11. You don't know Yucca mtn idea was scrapped ?





/snip/


The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct amendments of 1987, is to be a deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the United States. The site is located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas Valley.

The project was approved in 2002 by the 107th United States Congress, but federal funding for the site ended in 2011 under the Obama Administration via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed on April 14, 2011 by the Republican controlled house of Representatives. The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the non-local public, the Western Shoshone peoples, and many politicians. The project also faces strong state and regional opposition. The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.

This leaves American utilities and the United States government, which currently disposes of its transuranic waste 2,150 feet (660 m) below the surface at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, without any designated long-term storage site for the high-level radioactive waste stored on site at various nuclear facilities around the country.

/snip/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Hell, ya got over 100 temporary sites spread all over the USA . . . .

TEMPORARY!



CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akaConcernedCanuk (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 6, 2019, 05:25 PM

12. ''federal funding for the site ended in 2011 under the Obama Administration''..thanks for confirming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencesciencehydrogenh2cleangreenbatterieschinapowerelectricityrenewableindependence