Jones Beene wrote:
It would not be expensive according to my calculations -- see
below. The energy cost works out to ~$3.39 per gallon of gasline
equivalent. Perhaps the cost of capital equipment would add
significantly to that.
Indeed it would add a significant amount. That is exactly why the GE
figure of $3/kg which includes not only capital equipment and
overhead but also all other expenses and profit MUST be the result
of at least double the yield (or more) compared to the normal
efficiency of electrolysis.
Well, it does not seem like it should add much. The NREL energy
overview document says the capital cost of electrolysis generation
equipment circa 1990 is $1000 per kilowatt of capacity (see table C1,
p. 15). That is the same as a refinery and it is cheaper than a
central baseload fossil plant ($1500). It is hard to believe that
$1000 per kilowatt capacity would add $5/kg to the cost of hydrogen,
unless you are making only a few kilograms I suppose . . .
IOW the GE figure of $3 is apparently a wholesale price to the
dealer (comparable to the gasoline wholesale price which is now
~$1.75). When you use 'just' the energy-cost of $3.39, you are not
comparing apples to apples.
Well, $0.06/kWh is the wholesale price of electricity. Actually, it
is the high-end non-PTC cost for wind turbine electricity. Often the
cost is closer to four cents, which would bring the cost of hydrogen
down to $2.26 equivalent, which is cheaper than regular gasoline in
Atlanta today. Based on this, I suppose that in North Dakota you
could install wind turbines and start generating hydrogen for ICE
engines economically.
Actually, as a practical matter, electricity itself is worth more
than vehicle fuel, so a dual use system would be best. You would set
up a vast number of turbines to provide nearly all of electricity
used locally for conventional purposes during the day, and you would
generate hydrogen during periods of low demand at day and most of the
night. Normally, when more than 20% of electricity comes from wind
turbines, load balancing becomes a big problem. With this scheme it
would not be a problem because whenever demand fell significantly you
would divert the load into hydrogen generation, and you would
continue to supply some electricity with quick response
load-balancing generators, which I suppose would be natural gas turbines.
Actually, I would prefer to see them generate some sort of hydrogen
based synthetic fuel, but I expect the efficiency of that operation
would be far lower than 65%, so is probably not a good idea.
Of course, GE has not admitted anything remotely like OU - but
anyone can run the numbers and see that they MUST have something of
extraordinary efficiency.
The NREL document predicted 75% efficiency would be achieved by now.
- Jed
