Rex, It is always good to hear from you again. I can always count on you to come up with better, faster and cheaper ways to get things done. $2/kg is considerably different than $12/kg for hydrogen costs. What biomass feedstock and gasification style does PROTON POWER use to produce such high hydrogen content syn gas? I notice no nitrogen content in the syn gas so I presume they are using pure oxygen as the oxidizing agent. Is it pressurized as well? I see the photo on their website shows a horizontal "pug mill" style mixer which I assume is their gasifier as well. Good to hear from you again.
Art > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:59:13 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Tennessee company - pyrolysis biochar + hydrogen > ($1.75 per gallon diesel-equivalent?) > > Art, > > You are correct about making hydrogen from methane particularly at the > $4/MMBTU level seen in the USA. However, this is only strictly true on large > scale. At small scale gasification is an order of magnitude cheaper than > steam methane reforming. When I made enquiries about a small (75bpd) > hydrotreater, I was given a rough cost of $10m with a further approximately > $8m for the SMR. Needless to say, I nearly fell off my chair! Some of the > issues were that the design of a hydrogen plant is by its very nature > expensive. Then there are materials of construction - stainless steel. Then > there are the safety aspects that require as much instrumentation as a 2000 > bpd plant. One comment I got was "do they make hydrogen compressors that > small?". > > Proton Power claim to have a process that produces 65% H2, 30% CO2 and 5% CO > starting at the 250kWe scale. It is a very small step from there via > pressure swing absorption to get 99.9% hydrogen. PSA equipment does exist at > small scale and they have the compressors for compressing syngas. This > should produce hydrogen at the $2/kg level rather than the methane SMR route > of $12/kg. > > Kind regards > Rex > > Dr. Karve, > > Being able to technically generate hydrogen using incandescent carbon in a > water gas reaction does not make the process economically competitive. > Typically, the use of incandescent carbon is a batch, cyclic process which > produces pulses of gases which vary in purity over each cycle > > Compare the economics of using a batch feedstock which has a variable > composition to one which has a very pure, low cost feedstock (CH4) day in > and day out. As a process designer, you can readily see that even through > the chemistry works out to generate hydrogen using incandescent carbon, the > day to day practicality of operating a multistage process with such a > variable feedstock is much more difficult and more expensive. > > Art, > > You make a very valid point, particularly on large scale equipment. However, > down at small scale, you cannot beat the competitiveness of gasification as > a hydrogen producer. It is an order of magnitude less than going the SMR > route using methane. > > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Gasification mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org > > for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: > http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
