Re: Thermodynamics_Solar Hydrogen vs. Central Electricity Generation


"Doug Houseman" <dhouseman232621mi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dhouseman232621mi-08A7FC.17315029052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <v3Ieg.19668$fb2.5391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Raleigh Myers" <ramyers@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:K5Ndg.7$wA1.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ra Energy Fdn.
Raleigh Myers
Work*** bio
http://raenergy.igc.org/ArchitypeOfFairness.html
Blog
http://raenergy.blogspot.com/

If what we are contemplating is not fair to our progeny we have a
failed
event in retrospect
--Raleigh

Thermodynamics_Solar Hydrogen vs. Central Electricity Generation

Centralized Electricity fired by fossil fuel, two thirds of the energy
lost
up the stack, more lost in transmission, Ten Percent buffer for surge
protection, which averages out to less than twenty percent fuel
efficiency
at the end user site before use_ fossil fuel to electricity back to
heat
with all the losses and inefficiencies?

Solar Hydrogen uses the sun, converts to electricity, to Hydrogen. The
cogen
gives the sun more efficiency than the fossil fuel in conventional
power
plant and it is free. It is collected with facilities way less capital
intensive than any fossil fuel power or nuclear plants. The tens of
thousands of square miles destroyed by fossil fuel leases and coal
mining
is
a moot point when the land use is concerned.

With the modular strategies using Concentrator solar collectors the
heat
can
be used directly rather than conversion for many uses. If the Solar
Concentrator electricity is converted to Hydrogen the hydrogen can be
used
directly as heat rather requiring very little electricity
re-conversions
and
the original conversion medium is free energy from the sun. Hydrogen
in
the
existing natural gas grid as H85 is less fragile than electric
transmission
lines in extreme weather.

When we incorporate sewer gas, dump gas, mine gas, other natural gas
and
methane producing sources
we have the beginnings of a back to town gas that is still being used
in
Europe.
We can add the Solar Hydrogen as we gear up the production and use all
the
compatible
gases which would pollute without benefit if left to vent to the
atmosphere.
http://raenergy.igc.org/stupid.html#Town
Cut...

Your efficiency numbers are way off of the mark, but even if they were
correct which they are not, it's not about efficiency at least thermal
efficiency. It's about economic efficiency; i.e. dollars per installed
kW of
capacity and operating efficiency, dollars per kWh generated. In
otherwords
it's ALL about MONEY and hydrogen is NOT cost effective no matter how
you
slice it. Today there is no such thing as "Solar Hydrogen" at any cost.
If
you run the numbers, you will see why.

The best combined cycle plants are 39% efficient when fired with natural
gas - in real operation.

The next generation coal plants may pass 40% with many of the advantages
of the combined cycle included.

In today's world - given the price of coal vs the price of gas, coal is
the preferred fuel, even though most coal plants are over 30 years old
and have efficiencies in the 32 to 34% range.

That makes the 2/3 loss realistic (FERC Form-1)

Transmission loss varies by temperature and load as well as distance, on
a cold winter day on a lightly loaded transmission line can see losses
of between 2 and 3 percent - on a hot summer day, the typical run sees a
loss of 5 to 7%. (Again FERC Form-1)

Distribution losses are seldom measured, since there is little
instrumentation in the distribution grid. The largest loss is the
difference is loading between phases, followed by theft of power. The
rule of thumb is 5% in distribution, that is being revised upward as the
grid ages and the amount of theft rises.

so if I do the math - 1 *.34 *.93 * .95 we get a delivered efficiency of
approximately 30% of the BTU's in the initial fuel - based in the
installed equipment we have today in the electric grid.

The cost for a new gas fired combined cycle plant is running around $983
US per KW of output

The cost of the grid per KWh installed (Transmission and Distribution)
and operated is about $0.08 per KWH...this is a very rough number that
includes the profit allowed and capital recovery. (FERC Form-1)

All in the average cost of delivered power is under $0.14 per KWh in the
US. In Canada it is less... (FERC- Form-1)

The reality is that about 1% of the total is stolen, so really
delivered...so make the delivered power 31% of the BTU's in the initial
fuel on a summer day.

Solar systems are now pushing 14% efficiency in a typical installation
(not the lab, but the real world, with the typical installers and
selected inverter, etc).

The cost for our solar systems (all 1KW) installed is around $3800 US we
see a realized output on the system (DC here not AC) of 92% of the rated
power as installed by the typical installer

If we assume a 30 year life for the system and 40% solar availability
(solar effective light). you can expect that the system will produce
94320 solar effective hours and as a DC system - 86774 KWH. If you
assume the system requires no maintenance - then the cost of the power
from this system over its life is - $ 0.044 KWH, about 1/3 of the cost
of the current central generation.

In our test rigs, we are seeing home owners having an efficiency of 74%
on the conversion of water to H2 and O2, the rated capacity of the
systems is around 84%. We find that weekly cleaning is required to keep
the solids from building up (yes we are using tap water run thru a
filter).

there are a number of key assumptions:

1) Fuel prices will not increase greatly - right now this is true for
coal, but not for gas.
2) Capital costs are from 2005
3) There is no maintenance required on the solar system (note: we are
not finding this true in the real world today).
4) The solar system has a 30 year life with no decrease in capability
5) That the solar system needs to deliver DC power for the creation of H2
6) You can pick other sources for your numbers and get very different
results - I chose FERC Form-1 because it is the largest database of
central power generation information in the public domain.

We find today that the best way to run the system is with off-peak
central power (e.g. night time) and on-peak solar.

I am not a liberty to provide more information on where the experiment
is taking place or why.

Doug

Very nice but a couple of problems: Where do you get 40% solar availability?
In the Arizona desert it might be 20% that is about 5kWh per day per sq.
meter. And, at 14% efficiency, that amounts to a net average power of (.14)
* 5kWH / 24 Hrs = 29Watts/sq meter! Secondly, where is a one kW system
which would be about 7 sq meters installed for $3800? This system would
deliver an average power of 207 Watts! Am I wrong?


.

Loading