At 2:03 PM 2/15/5, Jones Beene wrote: >>> ...compressors are much cheaper than electric generators, >these wind >farms should cost less. > >> I did not write the above. In fact I questioned it. >Jones wrote it. > > >Yup, I wrote it and stand by it. > >Here is an example. Maybe you can find a contrary one... >(I'm sure you can, but it stands to reason that with the >cost of copper being so much higher than iron, the >comparison will favor the item NOT containing lots of >copper.) > >3 HP compressor Discount Price $199.99 >http://www2.northerntool.com/cat-1/87+90145+2000008.htm > > 3 HP motor 1725 rpm, 230 Volts, 16 Amps, List $439 >Discount $390 >http://www.phaseconverter.com/ElectricMotor.html > >BTW DC generators generally cost more than AC motors, so >instead of the difference being nearly a 2:1 spread it would >likely be more.
A 3 HP compressor is not a liquifaction plant. It therefore doesn't follow that liquifaction is cheaper than electrolysis, etc. > >Jones > >BTW hydrogen electrolyzers are very expensive, so I do not >think that there is much of a case for a favorable capital >cost comparison vs. liquefaction. It would be interesting to find a true liquifaction plant cost. Also, you are ignoring operating cost. A motor or generator can easily run more than 20 years without maintenance. Our local water system has been run by a 5 HP submerged pump for over 20 years. When motor/generators do require maintenance it is typically brushes or bearings. Compressors are more like engines, and require major overhauls. One of the problems though is that of comparing what exists now and what an appropriate amount of research and engineering can likely provide for a major source of US energy transport and storage. That applies to both hydrogen and liquified air/LN2 systems. Regards, Horace Heffner
