Re: Turning Hydrogen into electricity

From: Dan Bloomquist (EXTRApublic21_at_lakeweb.com)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:46:21 GMT

alex wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>Alex Terrell wrote:
>>

Hope you don't mind that I snipped the above. It was pretty mangled. By
google?! Is that the agent you used?

>>
>>False. Use nuclear to produce electricity. Put a hydrogen vector in
>>there and the efficiency goes down quite a bit at a higher cost. It
>>makes no sense.
>>
>
> Maybe, but let's do some BOTE calculation.
>
> If I have a high temperature nuclear power plant, I can produce
> electricity at some 40% efficieny.
>
> Or I can produce Hydrogen at 50%. This hydrogen could be used in a gas
> turbine to produce electricity at 60%, giving an overall efficinecy of
> 30%.
>
> However, I can now sell my 30% efficent electricity during the day, at
> more than double the price of my 40% efficient electricity generated at
> night.
>
> So at first glance, it makes sense. Of course, the capital costs also
> come into it. A 1GW (electrical) output nuclear reactor will cost about
> $1.6 billion. A 750MW gas turbine plant will cost about $300 million. I
> have no idea about the chemical plant and hyfrogen storage facility,
> but maybe a total of $600 million.

If your 'turbine' is 60% efficient it is something like GE's H System or
a combined cycle system. Are you sure you can purchase one of these
things for $.40/watt???

>
> So I've increased my capital costs by about 40%. Given capital costs
> account for most, but not all of the running costs, my average price of
> electricity might rise by some 30%. (3c to 4c per KWHr).
>
> However, I can now sell all my electricity at day time rates, rather
> than an average of day and night rates. This MAY be profitable,
> depending on the exact nature of the electricity market in question.

There are 20,000 MWatts of pumped storage in this country. It is a cheap
and efficient method of storing energy over night. Granted, I haven't
been through all the numbers. But at this time, I don't believe all the
baggage needed for the hydrogen vector can come close to competing.

>>>Can it be used for domestic heating and cooking?
>>
>>Using hydrogen for stationary applications will never make sense.
>>
>
> Using the above figures, if the choice is heating home with nuclear
> electricity, or nuclear thermal hydrogen, thermal hydrogen might win
> out because of higher efficiency.

Homes are heated with fuels because of the low initial cost. Ground
water heat pumps are far more efficient than direct fuel heating.

Will the cost of creating an infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to homes
for heating make more sense than to upgrade the heating of the home in
the long run?

>
>
>>>Is there an established process to "burn" coal in hydrogen to make
>>>methane? This produces a fuel which is much more enviromentally
>>>friendly than coal, though still with carbon.
>>
>>It ends up as fuel for a vehicle and will produce the same CO2 as
>
> using
>
>>oil at the auto. Figure in the additional infrastructure, like
>
> cement,
>
>>and you create more CO2.
>>
>
> You'd probably run the car on methanol or methane, which emit less CO2
> than normal fuel. You also use local / australian coal, which is
> plentiful, rather than OPEC oil.

Here on the North American continent, there is plenty of oil. If nuclear
is used, it will most likely be to process that oil. Sand oil is running
some $15 a barrel with methane as the feed stock. Coal as the base stock
is some $35 - $45 a barrel as I recall.

>
> Thanks for your thoughts - Alex

Thank you.
Best, Dan. 

-- 
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Also I tried to be open-minded, I tried splitting H2O tonight with 12V 120 amps,
    ... Solar DC Electricity to chemical energy with matched load: ... million MWh per sq km per year of sunlight converts to ... I charge a little over HALF their disposal and carbon costs, ... Mobile oil is removed, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Lets Call It Done
    ... Is it really realistic that we could increase electricity output ... enough to take over for oil? ... nearly all the hydro options that we have, ... leaves nuclear. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: The Observer: At last: lets put that rail crisis behind us
    ... electricity, and transmitting it halfway across the country, really is ... oil could be consumed in such plant if such oil weren't too expensive, ... types of fuel that are hard to use (nuclear and coal). ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Lets Call It Done
    ... Is it really realistic that we could increase electricity output ... enough to take over for oil? ... nearly all the hydro options that we have, ... leaves nuclear. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Lets Call It Done
    ... enough to take over for oil? ... eliminates oil as a source for electricity. ... nearly all the hydro options that we have, ... nuclear, ...
    (misc.transport.road)