Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » High-frequency electrolyzers

Author Message
RadicalModerate
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:54 am
 
I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.

--
The published From: address is a trap.
Take my first initial and last name
and look at the origin of this post.
if you really want to send me email.
Or request a private reply in the group.
 
Don Lancaster
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:48 am
 
RadicalModerate wrote:
[quote:ac298c0d21]I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.

[/quote:ac298c0d21]
What possible use could you have for an electrolyzer?

Because of their staggering loss of exergy, all they do is convert lots
of high quality energy into significantly less energy of monumentally
lower quality.

Use of an electrolysizer is pretty much the same as 1:1 converting US
dollars into Mexican Pesos.

They are, of course, TOTALLY USELESS for bulk hydrogen energy apps when
driven from high value sources such as wind, grid, or (especially) pv.

Regardless of source, there ALWAYS will be more intelligent things to do
with high exergy electricity than instantly and irrecoverably destroying
most of its value.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf and
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf for detailed tutorials.

But to directly answer your question, by Faraday's Law, electrolysis is
based ONLY upon the Fourier DC term of any fancier high frequency
waveform. Because of the extreme nonlinearity of an electrolysis cell
(it is basically a very sloppy diode), certain high frequency components
may get inefficiently converted to a partial dc contribution.

Until recently, it has been enormously difficult to properly measure
these waveforms. Especially those lacking fundamental EE skills.

Thus, bad or nonexistant labwork has been the norm.

Much more at http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
 
Eeyore
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:15 pm
 
RadicalModerate wrote:

[quote:d91886fa86]I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.
[/quote:d91886fa86]
Fot them to be more effective than low frequency or DC elelctrolysers, there
would have to be a scientific principle that could explain it.

I'm not aware of any such principle. Are you ?

I would entirely disregard alleged reports of their efficiency from what are
essentially uninformed sources that seem to view anything involving science as
"Gee Whiz" technology and seem unlikely to have any understanding of the actual
physical principles involved.

Graham
 
Bill Ward
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:18 pm
 
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:54:08 +0000, RadicalModerate wrote:

[quote:a5fd7233e8]I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.
[/quote:a5fd7233e8]
Electrolysis is by definition DC. The issue of somehow supplying the
decomposition energy as AC has been the basis of several scams.

The best argument I've seen against AC decomposition of water as a
dielectric is the fact that thousands of high power RF amplifiers use
deionized water as dielectric and coolant. They run at all sorts of
frequencies and voltages, yet no such effect has been reported. Exploding
amplifiers would likely be noticed.

I haven't yet seen any credible experimental data showing what does
happen in the limit as the dielectric finally breaks down, though. My
guess is you'd get arcing, heating, and steam.

Anybody know of credible data on the subject? (Stanley Meyers and the ilk
are not credible.
 
Guest
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:42 pm
 
On Jun 3, 11:54 am, radicalmoder...@attnn.com (RadicalModerate) wrote:
[quote:583655be8c]I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.

--
The published From: address is a trap.
Take my first initial and last name
and look at the origin of this post.
if you really want to send me email.
Or request a private reply in the group.
[/quote:583655be8c]
Electrolyzers that break water down into hydrogen and oxygen and can
be quite simple and efficient especially if designed to be cost
efficient. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull these things
apart, like lifting a weight or pulling two magnets apart - and doing
it in steps doesn't change the total energy. The big issue is capital
cost.

One technique explored by the US DOE is to use iodine and sulfur along
with heat to convert water to hydrogen with nearly 50% of the thermal
energy showing up as heat value in the hydrogen gas. This is
tremendously efficient. Electricity is more efficient, with even
simple systems achieving 80% efficiency. However, electricity is
generally more valuable as electricity than chemical energy. But as
in all things, this genral rule doesn't always apply.

For example, I have a very low-cost electrolyzer that is no more than
stainless steel electrodes in a tank of water with potassium hydroxide
salt added for conductivity, with headers that collect the gases off
the electrodes. These systems can very their load from 0% to 100%
quite easily and cost as little as $0.02 per peak watt. These are
ideally sutied to work with low-cost solar panels costing less thant
$0.07 per peak watt. In a sunny region hydrogen can be produced from
water for as little as $170 per ton. At this price,there are lots of
uses for the hydrogen - despite technical inefficiencies.

This variable load electrolyzer can also work with baseload power
plants to make use of offpeak power obtained very cheaply - sometimes
even free. I discuss below how free energy at night might be cheaper
for all of us than no spare energy at night.

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

For very fundamental reasons you can't get more than 100% efficiency
so - as a practical matter any system that touts HUGE increases in
efficiency is bogus, and any systemthat touts free energy or more
energy out than in is bogus for that reason too.

Now, when you electrolyze water you're using an electric field to pull
apart the two differently charged components of H2O - you've got an H
ion in solution and an OH ion in solution. - and the OH is negatively
charged and the H is postively charged, so they're drawn apart and
there is a reaction at the electrode producing Oxygen on the cathode
and hydrogen on the anode.

Pulling charges apart against their own electric forces is sort of
like lifting a weight or pulling magnets apart. It takes energy to
lift a 5 gallon jug from the floor to the counter. Now, you can put
it in a swing and give it gentle pushes, and it can swing higher and
higher until it reaches the counter, if you push it just right - in
time with the rate of swinging - but the TOTAL energh MUST be the same
to lift the weight the same distance against gravity.

Ditto for the electric charges attracted to each other. It takes the
same amount of energy no matter what. A variable frequency system
claims to be able to spin the atoms until they fly apart. Even if
that were true - it doesn't change the energy, or the losses when the
ions in solution react with the electrodes.

There are losses due to heating of the water, and inefficiencies at
the electrodes no matter what you do. These are controlled at
reasonable costs without having to go to the expense of PEM by
treating the electrode surfaces. But without PEM you cannot run an
electrolyzer backwards like a fuel cell- well not efficiently anyway.

The big issue isn't the efficiency - its the cost per unit energy.
And if the cost per unit energy. If the electric source is
intermittent, and free or essentially free, and other costs can be
kept low, then a business can be made out of making synthetic fuels
from alternative sources. Conventional sources of electricity and
wrong choices in electrolzer designs mean you cannot make fuel
competitively.

..Here's an example, take this variable load electrolyzer of mine. At
$0.02 per peak watt, or $20 per peak kilowatt, or $20,000 per peak
megawatt, or $20 million per peak gigawatt - you can hook it up to a
baseload generator and generate hydrogen very cheaply during off
hours. Many utilities won't need to charge for the electricity used
off-peak for this system, since they can reduce their generation costs
in the daytime even if they give their spare capacity away at night.

Electricity traders make a killing using electricity generated by
baseload generators on the East coast, and selling it in the Mid West
by taking advantage of the nature of baseload power generation.
Hydrogen electrolyzers made sufficiently flexible and at sufficiently
low cost, can make hydrogen cheaply too..
..
Electricity use falls to half its peak use at night. A region that
needs 2,000 MW (2 GW) at 5 PM, will consume 1,000 MW (1 GW) at 5AM.
The trouble with this is that if you have a nuclear power plant, its
not that easy to get it to run up and down in its power output that
quickly. So, as a practical matter utilities must use peaking plants
to fill in the peak at 5PM - and let the nuke be 'baseload' or operate
a 1,000 MW.

As a rule the capital cost and recurring costs of peaking plants are
double that of baseload plants. So, about 35% of all the power is
four times as expensive as it needs to be. Why four times? Because
the peaking plants aren't used 100% of the time. They're used only
during PEAK TIMES. The rest of the time they're idle.

So, if you paid $1 billion for 1 billion watts of baseload and $2
billion for 1 bilion watts of peak load, and then paid $0.02 per kWh
for the baseload fuel and $0.04 per kWh for the peak load fuel
(without wheeling or other costs added in) that peak gets mightly
costly.

BUT - if you doubled the output of your baseload - to get rid of ALL
your peaking plants, you'd replace $2 billion worth of peaking plants
in the example above with additional baseload - and save $1 billion!
And if you charged the peak load users enough to pay ALL costs for the
baseload by increasing what they did use, then they'd be ahead since
fuel and capital costs are lower. - AND YOU COULD GIVE YOUR UNUSED
BASELOAD AWAY FREE TO AN INTERMITTENT VARIABLE LOAD ELECTROLYZER! And
make hydrogen for just the $0.02 capital cost plus water costs - VERY
CHEAPLY.

The 100 or so nuclear power plants and the hydroelectric plants if
fully converted to hydrogen production off-peak, could produce a
substantial amount of hydrogen. A portion of that hydrogen could be
burned in coal fired plants to eliminate CO2 emissoins. A portion of
the hydrogen could be combined with the unburned coal to make
gasoline. And the gasoline could be sold to make a substantial profit
while reducing reliance on foreign oil.

There is also a DOE effort to use Iodine and Sulfur reactions (Iodic
Acid and Sulfuric Acid) that breaks water apart into hydrogen and
oxygen and when heated releases the hydrogen and oxygen as a gas,
restoring the acids to be reused.

DOE wants to build a Generation 4 nuclear reactor that they say will
be cheap, and will operate at 1,000 C to 1,200 C - hot enough to run
this reaction. In fact, a nuclear reactor that just produces hydrogen
is being discussed - which could be better and less costly than a
nuclear reactor making electricity and electrolyzing water to make
hydrogen.

Gen 4 reactor ---> Hydrogen 60%

Today's reactor ---> Electricity 40%
Electricity ---> Hydrogen 85% (34% overall)

But if you're getting rid of the peaking plants and expanding baseload
capacity, you're saving money by reducing costs, and the extra
hydrogen can supply something like 20% of our oil needs and replace
20% of our coal use and eliminate 20% of our CO2 emissions.

So, eletrolyzers can be useful if done right.
 
Guest
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:43 pm
 
On Jun 3, 1:15 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:5494b4f934]RadicalModerate wrote:
I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.

Fot them to be more effective than low frequency or DC elelctrolysers, there
would have to be a scientific principle that could explain it.

I'm not aware of any such principle. Are you ?

I would entirely disregard alleged reports of their efficiency from what are
essentially uninformed sources that seem to view anything involving science as
"Gee Whiz" technology and seem unlikely to have any understanding of the actual
physical principles involved.

Graham
[/quote:5494b4f934]
Well, Graham I couldn't have stated better my reasons for disregarding
your reports of 3 fold improvements in NiMH batteries... haha..
 
Robert Adsett
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:20 pm
 
In article <1181259760.318128.268050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...
[quote:d9be497e2f]But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..
[/quote:d9be497e2f]
Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Eeyore
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:33 pm
 
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

[quote:4f9448cff7]Eeyore wrote:
RadicalModerate wrote:
I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.

Fot them to be more effective than low frequency or DC elelctrolysers, there
would have to be a scientific principle that could explain it.

I'm not aware of any such principle. Are you ?

I would entirely disregard alleged reports of their efficiency from what are
essentially uninformed sources that seem to view anything involving science as
"Gee Whiz" technology and seem unlikely to have any understanding of the > actual
physical principles involved.


Well, Graham I couldn't have stated better my reasons for disregarding
your reports of 3 fold improvements in NiMH batteries... haha..
[/quote:4f9448cff7]
My batteries actually exist.
http://www.en.varta-consumer.com/content.php?path=/1515_1138618221.html&&domain=www.en.varta-consumer.com

And Sony has a 15 minute recharge version !
http://products.sel.sony.com/battery/nimh_charger.php

And the latest improvement is low self-discharge
http://www.vapextech.com.hk/instant.html
http://products.sel.sony.com/battery/cycle_energy.php

70-85% of stored capacity available after one year of inactivity.

Graham
 
Eeyore
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:39 pm
 
Robert Adsett wrote:

[quote:57cd41e759]William Mook (the flying car evangelist) wrote:

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?
[/quote:57cd41e759]
You don't of course. Mookie just makes it up as he goes along.

And do please try to get your attributions correct (I fixed them).

Graham
 
Robert Adsett
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:24 pm
 
In article <4668A56C.CCA9604C@hotmail.com>, Eeyore says...
[quote:af7b262981]And do please try to get your attributions correct (I fixed them).
[/quote:af7b262981]
Hmm, for some reason his name doesn't show as ab attribution up in a
followup. Maybe ny newsreader is censoring him :)

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Guest
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
 
On Jun 7, 8:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:eb928329db]Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
RadicalModerate wrote:
I'm curious as to whether high-frequency electrolyzers have been
conclusively been shown to be frauds or whether they indeed have a higher
yield per watt than conventional elecrolyzers.

Fot them to be more effective than low frequency or DC elelctrolysers, there
would have to be a scientific principle that could explain it.

I'm not aware of any such principle. Are you ?

I would entirely disregard alleged reports of their efficiency from what are
essentially uninformed sources that seem to view anything involving science as
"Gee Whiz" technology and seem unlikely to have any understanding of the > actual
physical principles involved.

Well, Graham I couldn't have stated better my reasons for disregarding
your reports of 3 fold improvements in NiMH batteries... haha..

My batteries actually exist.http://www.en.varta-consumer.com/content.php?path=/1515_1138618221.ht...

And Sony has a 15 minute recharge version !http://products.sel.sony.com/battery/nimh_charger.php

And the latest improvement is low self-dischargehttp://www.vapextech.com.hk/instant.htmlhttp://products.sel.sony.com/battery/cycle_energy.php

70-85% of stored capacity available after one year of inactivity.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote:eb928329db]
I would like to see a peer reviewed article discussing the chemistry
and mechanisms involved and see laboratory test results, rather than
promotional literature misquoted on usenet.
 
Guest
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:35 am
 
On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
[quote:1619204fd4]In article <1181259760.318128.268...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
[/quote:1619204fd4]
http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf
 
Guest
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:04 am
 
On Jun 7, 8:39 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:655fcf7e4e]Robert Adsett wrote:
William Mook (the flying car evangelist) wrote:

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

You don't of course. Mookie just makes it up as he goes along.

And do please try to get your attributions correct (I fixed them).

Graham
[/quote:655fcf7e4e]
Your mischaracterizations of me are funny Graham. The real flying car
evangelist is Moller;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar

And actually don't you mean 'maglev car enthusiast'? Is *that* the
conversation you're referring to? Well, in that case I'd STILL say
you were wrong, because I was just reporting the efforts of another
enthusiasts work - Malewecki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skytran

You are misquoting my responses to your foolish comments about battery
powered vehicles. EVs are certainly possible, but the cost and
environmental impact of batteries make them a difficult proposition at
present.

Buying a $65,000 EV and replacing a $30,000 battery every three years
isn't something that makes a lot of economic or environmental sense.

But EVs are interesting and potentially quite an advance over ICEs.
If you can get rid of the stinking battery. I merely said that
powering the roadway - like oldstyle electric streetcars, or slot
cars, or inductively powered cars - would achieve that end. I also
said that while you're at it, use magnetic forces to lift the vehicle
(lightweight without a battery!) and you can get rid of wheels,
rolling friction and suspension - to create a hugely efficient
vehicle.

I finally concluded that powered roadways were purchased and run out
of business by the major oil companies to increase sales from 1930
through 1950 in the US - so it makes sense if we want to be less
reliant on major oil we might want to consider resurrecting some form
of powered roadway system - running EVs.

Haha.. Graham, you're the one who said engineers couldn't find fuel
tank volume for a hydrogen tank in a conventional car - which was dumb
- and you're the one who got the energy density off by a factor fo
300! haha.. Then you turn around and tell everyone they need to carry
a 200 lb battery around with them. hahaha.. when all the real world
practical experience tells us it would be more like 800 lbs of
batteries.

So, let me repeat what I said since you are telling lies about it.

I said EVs have a lot going for them, if you could get rid of the
battery. And I said that has already been done and commercial proven
- back in the 20s - they were called STREET CARS and INTERURBANS.
They were put out of business in the the 30s 40s and 50s by major oil
companies and car companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines

And all I said Graham is that these are very efficient and low-tech
devices. They're in service throughout Europe - Trams and electric
trains - are widely used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_trams

And they could likely be updated using modern technology including
using inductive loops in the roadway (similar to the battery charger
in many electric toothbruses)

http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/path/reports/UCB-ITS-PRR-94-7/

trending toward maglev vehicles like those already in service and PRT
systems like skytran already pointed to above..
 
Don Lancaster
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:23 am
 
Robert Adsett wrote:

[quote:825db0d69c]
Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

Robert

Even if you did get one, by thermodynamic fundamentals involving exergy,[/quote:825db0d69c]
all it would do is be 80 percent efficient at converting high value,
high quality kilowatt hours of energy into low value, low quality ones.

In an inherently and irreversibly destructive process.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
 
Guest
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:38 pm
 
On Jun 8, 9:23 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote:23414896e3]Robert Adsett wrote:

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

Robert

Even if you did get one, by thermodynamic fundamentals involving exergy,
all it would do is be 80 percent efficient at converting high value,
high quality kilowatt hours of energy into low value, low quality ones.

In an inherently and irreversibly destructive process.

Seehttp://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
[/quote:23414896e3]

How ae you defining 'high value' ??? Certainly if you have
electricity and can use it when you have it - that's the highest best
use. However, details count - and you don't seem to be able to admit
that they do! haha..

Look, if you have AC power generated by a baseload or peak load
generator, certainly taking that AC power and converting it to
hydrogen isn't the smartest thing to do. I'll grant you that.

However, there are details that make it worthwhile. For example, lets
look at the following situation;

You've got a region that consumes 2 GW peak at 5 pm, but drops to 1
GW at 5AM along a sinusoidal type curve. Here are two situations;

1A) You have a 1 GW nuclear baseload that cost $2 billion and has
pretty much $0.01 per kWh recurring costs, and 1 GW gas fired peaking
plants that cost $3 billion and have $0.06 per kWh recurring cost for
natural gas. The baseload plant runs throughout the day and the
peaking plants run at peak demand responding to it - and at peak the
average cost per kWh is $0.035 recurring cost and the capital base is
$5 billion with capital costs of $0.04 per kWh - So,off-peak power
runs for $0.05 per kWh and peak power runs for $0.08 per kWh -

2A) You have a 2 GW nuclear basedload that cost $4 billion and $0.01
per kWh recurring cost and use only 65% of this capacity throughout
the day. You can't turn the baseload power down, but you can have
electrolyzers designed to make hydrogen gas during off-peak times at
the $0.01 per kWh recurring cost - with all other costs going to the
regular customers. In this case there is a capital cost of $0.03 per
kWh and a recurring cost of $0.01 per kWh - so rates here are $0.04
per kWh - less than the off-peak power rates above,EVEN WHEN THE
BASELOAD EXCESS OFF PEAK IS GIVEN AWAY AT RECURRING COST. Here, the
hydrogen costs $500 per metric ton - combined with 10 tons of coal
costing another $350 - this produces 2,940 gallons of gasoline - at a
recurring cost of $0.30 per gallon. The capital cost of creating
494,000 gallons per day from this excess adds $220 million in capital
cost and $0.12 per gallon for a total cost of $0.42 per gallon.

So, here is an example of making use of extra baseload capacity to
create hydrogen using 'high value' electricity and everyone ends up
ahead!

How about this situation involving solar energy;

1B) A new low-cost solar panel technology costs $0.09 per peak watt to
generate hydrogen at $170 per metric ton. Here DC electricity makes
hydrogen from water. The hydrogen is transmitted by pipeline to be
burned in a boiler that fires a 950 MW coal fired plant. In this way
1,512 tons of hydrogen gas replace 9,329 tons of coal and avoid 34,206
tons of carbon-dioxide.while saving $70,000 per day in fuel costs and
100% of the energy comes from sunlight in the region. Hydrogen stored
in the pipe and in underground formatoins (old gas wells) provide for
100 day backup capacity..

2B) A new low-cost solar panel technology costs $0.07 per peak watt to
generate DC electricity at $0.003 per kWh. Here DC electricity is
controlled to achieve peak power matching against available load and
inverted at an added cost of $2.00 per peak watt. Since there is no
storage capacity, the solar panel can produce no more than 15% of
total demand in a given area for only a few hours a day - adding only
a miniscule total to the total energy. So, in the example above a 950
MW coal fired plant costing $2 billion has attached to it a 30 MW
solar panel array costing $60 million - that contributes a total of
90 MWh of energy per day at a cost of $0.20 per kWh !!

3B) A new low-cost solar panel technology costs $0.07 per peak att to
generate DC electricity at $0.003 per kWh. Here DC electricity is
controlled to achieve peak power matching against available load at an
added cost of $2.00 per peak Watt. 10 Watt hours of battery storage
capacity is added at a cost of $18 per peak watt - along with intertie
and inverter - for a total cost of $20 per peak watt. This system is
exposed to 5 hours of sunlight per day - and so requires 5 Watts of
solar power and 50 Watt-hours of battery capacity for each 1 Watt of
continuous production. So, a 2 GW region requires the installation of
25 GW of solar panels and 250 GW-hr of batteries at a cost of $500
billion. The batteries have a life span of 10 years and constitute
80% of the cost of the system. So, this is $40 billion per year in
battery costs, plus disposal costs, plus capital costs of $50 billion
per year. $90 billion per year - to produce 12.3 billion kWh - at a
cost of $7.33 per kWh.

In this example, the scenario that refuses to reduce the high-value
electricity to 'low-value' hydrogen actually costs the most in terms
of dollars!!!

NOTE: If the cost of batteries were reduced by a factor of 110 - (lead-
acid is the lest expensive battery in general use, sodium-sulfur
batteries have the potential to store 110x as much energy per DOLLAR
of battery, and last 3x longer) - then the $40 billion per year cost
for batteries is reduced to $120 million and $500 billion capital cost
is reduced to $183 billion - so time value is reduced to $18 billion -
reducing costs to $1.43 per kWh. - If Nas batteries are VARIABLE LOAD
design - which I have created for electrolyzers to reduce costs to
$0.02 per peak watt from $2.00 per peak watt - then costs can actually
be reduced to that of coal fired power plants - with zero emissions.

So, like I say - details count.
 
 
Page 1 of 3    Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:19 am