Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(12,098 posts)
9. The reason I bring up the thermal power plant at all is because your citation from energyknowledgebase
Sun Jan 5, 2025, 09:35 PM
Jan 2025

about the 65% "Losses of electricity through the delivery system" is applicable to a thermal power plant producing the electricity, so the reason I went through this thermal power plant thing is just to explain what this citation means.

That's the only reason I brought it up. You cited the 65%. I explained it. Every time you make that citation, I will explain that by far most of that is internal to the thermal power plant.

I think the energyknowledgebase wording, calling it the "delivery system", is poor, since as a former electric utility engineering professional (MSEE) in the electric power industry (Xcel Energy), formerly superintending the operational planning department, we think of "delivery system" as meaning the transmission and distribution system, i.e. the power lines. I think most non-engineering non-power-system professionals on DU would read it that way too.

To recap the systems in my post are, just to list them, whether or not they are important to the discussion of green storage systems or green energy production

41% efficiency thermal power plant (100%-54%-5%). Most are less efficient than that)

Storage system:

Hydrogen storage system electricity-to-electricy 34.8% efficiency
-or-
Battery storage system electricity-to-electricity about 80% efficiency


Transmission and distribution (the power lines) are about 10% losses combined, i.e. 90% efficient

I would not have brought up thermal power plants at all otherwise, as I think their efficiency is irrelevant and beside the point when we're discussing the efficiency of various storage systems.

..to be a worthy method of producing Hydrogen, since our only reason to produce H2, and our overarching goal, is the elmination of the use of fossil fuels. Green Hydrogen (which does not use any fossil fuels at all) is the only thing anyone should be discussing.


I agree, therefore I would urge you not to use citations applicable to thermal power plants, or, if you do, at least explain what it is (or include the next 2 paragraphs in the citation), and then explain why you are using a thermal power plant efficiency number in the first place.

Exception: nuclear thermal power plant - I will defend the right of those to be in the conversation.



 

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Wow, that was a classic attempt at a smear campaign. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #1
Video is about 5:30 m:s long (everything after that is an ad for brilliant so can skip). progree Jan 2025 #2
Yeah, no mention of the fact that the materials used in containing H2 are impervious to embrittlement... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #3
59 percentage points of that 65% is loss at the thermal power plant producing thermal power plant electricity progree Jan 2025 #5
The inefficiency is still there no matter what the cause of it... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #6
The reason I bring up the thermal power plant at all is because your citation from energyknowledgebase progree Jan 2025 #9
I use that citiation specifically to counter the position that Hydrogen is an inefficient way to produce electricity.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #11
And I include my response to clarify what that citation is about. Because that citation, calling it a "delivery system" progree Jan 2025 #14
Yes, so to sum up... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #16
Green hydrogen is the future GoreWon2000 Jan 2025 #4
"Sabine" is simply a youtube influencer. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #7
And we're all message board randos with our own agendas as all human beings have. progree Jan 2025 #10
I would gladly show you my own credentials in ecology, but, it's the internet. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #12
Sabine is putting out false information about hydrogen GoreWon2000 Jan 2025 #17
You're correct... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #18
I'm done arguing with the hydrogen promoters here. hunter Jan 2025 #8
Biden's Department of Energy will have enough to deal with anyway soon. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #13
"The math didn't work forty years ago when I first pursued it" Caribbeans Jan 2025 #15
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Hydrogen Hype is Dying, A...»Reply #9