We spoke to gas explorer and developer Sound Energy. Here are the latest updates from Executive Chairman Graham Lyon. Watch the full video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Some bad wording in paragraph 2 to correct: So instead of after that I should have said after cold storage and the cold gas turbine generation..
Further news to tell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_energy_storage
Did some basic research on LAEC and it requires caverns to absorb the cold given off when the liquid is expanded and pushed through the turbine. There is little corroborating evidence for Professor Cebon's assertion that the concept achieved regular efficiencies of 70% +. There is no indication of taking the in built resistance of the AC grid itself into the 70% overall figure and the efficiency itself usually relies upon waste heat from another industrial process in order to increase the efficiency of the turbine. So some unintended jiggery pokery there.
Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever why this process would not be able to use H2 instead. Indeed after the initial cold generation one could either export the gas to the grid or run it to a gas turbine and produce electricity instead. After that you have the option of fuel cells, Gas turbines, re-liquefaction of the H2 (which is a 90% efficient operation) and/ or sending it to the grid to power H2 domestic boilers.
Finally, I've done some research on the effectiveness of heat pumps and other sources of hot water:
Britain's population is mostly centred around dense cities and urban areas. Most homes are 2-3 bed and placed in close proximity. This limits ground source heat pump viability because of potential services violation (gas, sewers, water etc). Air source heat pumps usually deliver 2.5KW h of heat for every 1KWh of electricity. This is because they suck the ambient energy out of the air. These however require an air conditioner sized box in your garden and solar heat panels attached to the roof or wall. For most two up two down Victorian terraces a washing machine sized box in a 5m * 4m garden impedes.
Air source costs are between £6-10000 + plus labour whereas current gas boilers are £3000 + £2500 labour
Email sent with a terrible sketch. The real quandary is whether the fan blade material can be made grippy enough yet light enough because of the very coefficient of friction of H2. Maybe some kind of rough carbon fibre or graphene coating? Anyway I am no physicist or materials expert so I who knows eh? I think I have to use my real name for the government, more's the pity, Seaangler but my name is boat related so that isn't so bad.
Given your LSE handle , what will you name it McBF?
I received a nice email from the Science and Technology Committee asking for a written submission on the matter. So I'll hack out a quick sketch and say 'What if we'..
I'm not sure is the answer. The friction coefficient for hydrogen is apparently much less for H2 than air. Yet if the system was vacuum sealed (which it pretty much is given H2's habit of escaping storage) there would be no oxygen in order to light that spark.
Wouldn't the ignition temperature of H2 running through axial flow turbine be a problem ?
I've notified everyone Greg clark, Professor Cefon, ITM.
They will at least have to perform a small scale study to discern the energy created via pumping the h2 through say ThyssenKrupp or Siemens turbine just to see how much buck they can get for their bang.
I fully expect ITM to steal it as their own idea but we know better don't we boys, girls and some people in-betweens!
Yes you are correct Mr SKC Investments, the lower density H2 will provide less friction for the turbine's efficiency. Yet because it is a lower density gas this means you can store more gas in the tank and also utilise more energy from the fuel cell in the next stage. swings and roundabouts. Believe me I haven't done an analysis of hydrogen spinning an axial flow turbine. In a jet engine there is a compressor for the fuel to be squeezed into before being burnt and providing thrust. So squeeze a lower density gas by multiples of MPascals, make the pressure/ friction equivalent to compressed air and then fire it through the turbine. The extra energy required to compress harder can be recouped via the fuel cell and TONEMAN's excellent suggestion to capture and recycle the waste heat from the fuel cell.
Botey, just a crosscheck. Wouldn't the density of H2 adversely affect turbine efficiency?
That's it I'm contacting Greg Clark and ITM
I honestly think I've solved it! If we just put turbines in front of tanks of compressed H2 before we send the first stage gad to the fuel cells we have more than doubled the overall efficiency of the system, Eureka!
Boaty, if you can utilise the waste heat from some of the processes too, e.g. from the fuel cell operation, you can increase the efficiency even more. When are you going to build it?...I'll invest ;-)
Professor Cebon was kind enough to send me a reply this morning.
He agrees that excess turbine energy should not be wasted but that it should be stored as other media. Compressed liquid air liquid storage is his favourite and it has a much higher efficiency ratio. What he doesn't comment on is transport or industrial clusters. I obviously have to believe his analysis because I haven't done my own levelled storage cost analysis . I would dispute that LAES is ready to manufacture at scale and also the idea that large scale H2 storage is untested. Indeed, large tanks and caverns would be required for both technologies so his point about geography being a limiting factor for h2 is moot. The idea for LAEC is to blow the stored air into a turbine at the end and this improves upon H2 - FC conversion by 34%. But again this air tech does not bode well for transport. Finally, the resistance of all the copper cables, other wires and transformers is not mentioned in this blog post. If one converts to H2 direct on the turbine itself and then pumps the gas ship to shore you immediately eliminate those electricity losses via heat transfer and plastic is cheaper to manufacture than massive 30 mile long copper cables.
I’ll tell you something else. Looking at his description he states that pumping the air through a turbine generates the electricity needed. Good, great, but has he looked into lower pressure utilisation? Back in the days of steam you would have your high pressure cylinder/ turbine and then a lower pressure cylinder to get every Joule of energy out of the steam. So applying that to compressed air seems obvious but what happens if you place a turbine in front of the compressed, stored h2 and then shove that lower pressure gas into a fuel cell eh? Massive spike in H2 efficiency is what happens!
Trader87 Only hurts if you sell at a loss.
I must say I like your maths and writing style. Something is alarming to me though. Wtf is the government doing taking advice from an expert with no experience on the field of hydrogen? This makes me a bit concerned bc usually the gov will take advice from experts but will choose experts that will give them the answers they wanted. This is just a theory but using this scientist would make me think theybalreadybhave their minds made up? I don't know why. I keep coming back to them saying they want to have zero emissions and I can't see any other way than H2.
I really belive in ITM. Long term their backlog and future pipeline tender make for a really bright future. I think a lot of this drop has been down to a lot of Flakey investors taking a quick buck. But like when I invested in tesla...when Elon musk smoked a spliff on the Internet I got a 15% discount on tesla. So swings and round abouts.
Doesn't stop the dips hurting the pocket though
I your point take he is unlikely to change his view regarding the necessary purity for industry compared to domestic, but I'm fine with that outcome. Every turbine still should get an electrolyser to save multiple billions over the lifetime of the turbine and the planet. 50GW is really the definitive base from which to build from. Renewable energy will become cheaper and cheaper per MWh and there's nothing wrong with splitting turbine production to both gas and electric. The question is what proportion? Indeed H2 pipes are much cheaper to manufacture that copper cables and that extra cost in turn should be weighed against the flexibility the dual option offers.
capacity cost for the gas. Nonetheless the revenue savings/ profits for this utilisation will probably be in the tens of billions.
Indeed, the inflation, H2 storage + extra CO2 storage costs and loan interest will be factors for CCS. CCS also has the 50% efficiency issue when it comes to converting blue H2 back into electricity via fuel cell technology.
Normal Peak demand projection; at 8 hrs a day per turbine/ annum: that is 2/3 the amount of MWh produced by 12hr projection. So 78,840,000MW / 3*2 = 52,560,000MW @ 100% utilisation/ 36000 = 14,600 MWh @ £50 = £730,000 per annum
21,900 MWh utilised @ 30% = 6570MWh
If 14,600 MWh = full yearly productivity and 100% of the £50 per MWh price tag.
How much does 6750MWh represent in equivalent percentage terms and denoted in cost reduction per Mwh?
14600/ 100 = 146 = 1%, so 6750 / 146 = 46.233% price reduction per MWh.
£50/ 100 * 46.233 = £23.11
50 – 23.11 =
Eventual Projected Wind: £26.89 per Mwh if every turbine had an electrolyser.
Using equivalent cost and wholesale production @ £50 per MWh.
So for now let me present you with a numeric tale about a single 10MW wind turbine….
(Hrs in a year are: 24*365 = 8760 / 2 = 4380hrs.)
A 10 MW turbine is blown round for 50% of the year (4380hrs) producing 10MW*60seconds*60minutes*4380hrs= 157,680,000 MW per ½ annum.
For 8 hrs a day it is used for peak energy demand and for the rest of the day the stopped turbine is basically wasted potential energy.
24-8= 16 hrs, but let’s be kind; say 12 hrs a day is wasted potential.
157,680,000 MW / 2 = 78,840,000 MW unutilised potential energy. Thus, at 30% overall efficiency Green H2 transformation = 23,652,000MW created and saved for a cold yet still day.
10 * 60 * 60 = 36,000 MW produced in an hour = 10MWh. Wind cost as a mean figure given as $70 per MWh so $700 to produce. This price will vary because of site related variables etc’ but it is nowhere near nuclear’s cost per MWh of around $125 MWh.
78,840,000 MW / 36,000 MW = 2190 * 10MWh or 21,900 MWh.
The projection becomes a little tenuous from here on in because I’m using an out-of-date price per MWh (£35 https://www.businesselectricityprices.org.uk/retail-versus-wholesale-prices/). So let’s say £50 per MWh which is currently a tiny bit less than $70. Today’s £- $US valuation = £ 1 – 1.39
Naturally in future with electrolysers that cost falls quite dramatically because of the extra electricity sold to market.
£500* 2190 = £1,095,000 lost potential per turbine/ annum because there is no way to store it!
Even at 30% overall efficiency £1,095,000 / 100 * 30 = £328,500 per annum ( Remember: This scenario is as if the wholesale price never deviates from £50 while the cost per MWh production inevitably drops)
Includes the 50% lost due to H2 conversion back into electricity by fuel cell. Considering ITM’s projected costings of roughly £500k per MW capacity by 2023 means £5,000,000 per turbine. This projection doesn’t include future benefits of price reductions caused by increased PEM efficiency, other R&D and manufacturing LEAN production at scale.
Lifetime of a turbine: up to 30 yrs
£328, 500 * 30 = £9, 855, 000 unutilised electricity at wholesale prices created over the lifetime of the turbine: - £5,000,000 electrolyser costs = £4,855,000 extra revenues over the lifetime (exc’ inflation and any interest) per turbine.
Currently possess 24.1 GW of turbines in the UK (10,930 turbines) with roughly half their energy utilised. That number will expand to 50 GW by 2030
1GW = 1000MW
10MWh @ 30% Green H2 overall efficiency = £4,855,000 accrued over turbine life
100 * £4,855,000 = £485,500,00 accrued per GW of now utilised turbine energy over 30 years.
£485,500, 000* 50GW = extra £24,275,000,000 revenues over 30yrs.
This figure includes the installation costs of the electrolysers (£5,000,000 per 10MW) , excludes inflation, loan interest and, as far as I’m aware; ex
I don't think you'll be able to persuade Cebon though with these sorts of numbers. They're too close to the numbers he already uses and he's already made his interpretation based on them. Effectively all you're trying to do is convince him that it's worth converting the curtailment into hydrogen because the operators can still make money from it. He may well agree to that but only on the understanding that the green hydrogen goes to industrial hydrogen uses and not heat, electricity generation, or transport, because it still doesn't change the fundamentals that, due to efficiency, electricity beats green hydrogen.
Instead he would need to be persuaded that efficiency is irrelevant.
Efficiency is irrelevant to people for whom electricity is not an acceptable solution. e.g. not enough solar or enough wind (e.g Japan), vehicles that can't be charged conveniently from home, vehicles that need to travel long distances with only short refuelling intervals, or even sending energy over 10's of thousands of miles.
The problem with relying solely on electricity to do everything is that it always misses 10-20% of the time. For those cases something else needs to step in...like hydrogen. And if you've had to resort to hydrogen for some use cases like transportation then, for simplicity and overall convenience, you'd be better building your transportation infrastructure around hydrogen instead then you only need one set of infrastructure not two like we're heading for. It's not the most efficient, sure, but it establishes more convenience across the board and makes a simpler global solution. After all the internal combustion engine is way less efficient but it's been a simple global solution for decades.
Haha, thanks Toneman. I can't wait for Cebon's reply, "basically you got everything except..." There's one other thing. the $700 per MWh is a cost not revenue. it was used as an indicator for the money saved if the costs remained the same. Man this is hard..Can't wait to send the revised calculations to Greg Clark!
The observant amongst you will have spotted that I meant megajoules (MJ) as we were talking about megawatts in the multiplication below.
Hi Boaty, yes I think your numbers work out ok in the end. For your future calculations I wouldn't bother with multiplying by seconds, all that does is turn it into Joules only to turn it back again later. e.g. 10*60*60*4380= 157,680,000 Joules, not MW. Instead stick with 10*4380=43800MWh. Then later 43800 * (12/24) = 21900MWh wasted. Same answer, fewer big numbers in the way. Also remember MW is Power, MWh is Energy and Joules is Energy. You were mixing up Joules and MW a few times.