Science > Physics > I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2006 01:32:02 PM |
| Object: |
I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen. Wind energy now has costs of
barely 5 cents per kwh (there are no transmission and distribution
costs because the hydrogen plants would be located next to the wind
farms). So it would cost [65 kwh x $0.05 per kwh] =3D $3.25 to make 1
kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has the same energy as 1 gallon of
gasoline.
At $50 a barrel of oil, gasoline costs $1.20 from the oil (there are 42
gallons in a barrel of oil) and an extra dollar from refining and
retail distribution. Let's exaggerate the cost to distribute liquid
hydrogen and say it will be 2 dollars per kilogram. This gives us a
final retail price for gasoline of about $2.20 per gallon and for
liquid hydrogen of about $5.25 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
In Europe the price of gasoline has always been between $4 and $5 and
this hasn't caused them to stop using cars, although they certainly
don't reach the extremes of the US and drive around in SUVs all the
time. So $5.25 for a gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen
is not the end of the world. And as we all know, it would actually
ensure that the world doesn't end.
Besides, I used very conservative figures to reach that $5.25 figure.
With the most efficient state of the art hydrogen plants, we could
produce 1 kilogram of hydrogen with somewhat less than 65 kwh. Also,
the cost I quoted for generating 1 kwh of electricity from wind, of 5
cents, is VERY conservative, and in the future it will reach 2 or 3
cents. Some modern installations already have a cost of around 4 cents.
And lastly, I slapped on 2 dollars of distribution costs per kilogram
of liquid hydrogen just to be safe, since I don't have a clue how much
this part would truly cost. But in the case of gasoline, 50 cents is
due to refining, and only the remaining 50 cents is truly distribution
and retail. Since we don't have to refine liquid hydrogen, my estimate
of 2 dollars is 4 times the cost of distribution/retail of a gallon of
gasoline. Taking all these things into account, we could very well
reach an ultimate price for liquid hydrogen of barely $2.50 per gallon
of gasoline equivalent (at the pump).
BMW says it will start selling a Series 7 model next year which will
run on a split system of gasoline and liquid hydrogen. So were not
talking about space age technology that will reach us in decades to
come. It's right around the corner. I'm sure that these first cars are
going to cost as much as a Ferrari, but that's how things get started.
10 years from now hydrogen cars could well be selling for a comparable
price to gasoline cars. In the case of bigger vehicles such as trains,
ships and big trucks, the cost increase is perhaps already small enough
to make it viable right now.
Finally, how much land would we need to carpet with wind mills to make
all this hydrogen fuel? In the case of North America, if we use the
best land for wind energy (the Great Plains), we can put 4 to 7 wind
mills of 1.3 megawatt capacity per km=B2. Let's say we can fit 5 per
km=B2, on average. Let's also presume a rather conservative efficiency
of only 30%, which means that on average each windmill will be
generating [1.3 megawatts x 30%] =3D 0.4 megawatts of electricity. Each
windmill will produce, in 1 year, about [0.4 megawatts per hour x 24
hours x 365 days] =3D 3500 megawatts. And since there are 5 per km=B2,
each km=B2 will generate 17500 megawatts. At 65 kwh (65,000 watts) to
generate 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen, each km=B2
of the Great Plains could produce the equivalent of 260,000 gallons of
gasoline every year [1,300,000 watts capacity per windmill x 30%
efficiency x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year x 5 windmills per
km=B2 / 65,000 watts to produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent of
liquid hydrogen].
The US uses 9 million barrels of oil per day to run its cars, which is
380 million gallons per day, which is 140 billion gallons per year. If
1 km=B2 of the Great Plains can produce 0.26 million gallons of gasoline
equivalent per year, then we would need to carpet 530,000 km=B2 (200,000
square miles) of the Great Plains with wind mills to generate all the
liquid hydrogen necessary to replace every last drop of gasoline
currently being used in cars in the US. This is equal to a square whose
sides are 730 km long (450 miles). This is about the size of North and
South Dakota combined (plus a little more). This might sound terrible,
but consider what we are already doing:
On 60 Minutes they had a segment about the tar sands in Canada. The
people who were personally involved in developing the tar sands were
admitting to the 60 Minutes interviewer that the best they were going
to get from the whole operation was an extra 3 million barrels of oil
per day (in about 1 decade), a meaningless increase of world oil
production, which is curently running at around 84 million barrels per
day. To get this extra oil, they are going to create the worst mining
ecological disaster ever, bar nothing. They are going to destroy an
area the size of England, turning it into a toxic sludge filled with
mercury and other crap, which they then dump back on the land where
they scraped it up from, and put a layer of grass and trees on top,
while this toxic sludge is still steaming. The amount of water they use
for this is unbelievable, and of course, they dump it back into the
river and it makes its way into the Hudson Bay, with all the industrial
chemicals added in the industrial process, and at a higher temperature
than normal. Ironically, the land that they are going to permanently
destroy is one of the best places on Earth for wind energy (and
absolutely nobody lives there). Just that piece of real estate (the
size of England, roughly 250,000 km=B2) could generate the equivalent of
4 million barrels of oil per day in liquid hydrogen from wind energy,
with zero effect on Earth's climate, zero pollution or destruction of
the local land (or the Hudson Bay), and it can work forever (until the
wind stops blowing, which is very different from the lifespan of the
tar sands operation). But instead, the plan is to permanently damage
this land while generating less energy (3 million barrels of oil per
day). Am I missing something? Did I misplace a zero in one of my
calculations? Somebody enlighten me.
.
|
|
| User: "NobodyYouKnow" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
05 Nov 2006 08:48:08 PM |
|
|
<retyop@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
1 kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has
the same energy as 1 gallon of gasoline.
Energy cost equivalence is a false aergument. Hydrogen can vbe converted to
motive power with much lower loss so it is equivalent to sseveral gallons of
gasoline burned in a standard internal combusrtion car engine.
The cost of the AMENITY (desired product) is what is important.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 07:58:39 AM |
|
|
<retyop@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
are no transmission and distribution costs because the hydrogen
plants would be located next to the wind farms
but which is easier to distribute? Electricity or liquid hydrogen?
I recall an article in New Scientist some time back where the author
considered the question... "If we suddenly had a source of hydrogen what
should we do with it?" His conclusion was that use in cars should be a low
priority. Better to use it for local power generation. The author
considered our overall use of energy and the energy cost of delivering that
energy to the point of use.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Eld" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
05 Nov 2006 05:04:17 PM |
|
|
<retyop@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen. Wind energy now has costs of
barely 5 cents per kwh (there are no transmission and distribution
costs because the hydrogen plants would be located next to the wind
farms). So it would cost [65 kwh x $0.05 per kwh] = $3.25 to make 1
kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has the same energy as 1 gallon of
gasoline.
At $50 a barrel of oil, gasoline costs $1.20 from the oil (there are 42
gallons in a barrel of oil) and an extra dollar from refining and
retail distribution. Let's exaggerate the cost to distribute liquid
hydrogen and say it will be 2 dollars per kilogram. This gives us a
final retail price for gasoline of about $2.20 per gallon and for
liquid hydrogen of about $5.25 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
In Europe the price of gasoline has always been between $4 and $5 and
this hasn't caused them to stop using cars, although they certainly
don't reach the extremes of the US and drive around in SUVs all the
time. So $5.25 for a gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen
is not the end of the world. And as we all know, it would actually
ensure that the world doesn't end.
Besides, I used very conservative figures to reach that $5.25 figure.
With the most efficient state of the art hydrogen plants, we could
produce 1 kilogram of hydrogen with somewhat less than 65 kwh. Also,
the cost I quoted for generating 1 kwh of electricity from wind, of 5
cents, is VERY conservative, and in the future it will reach 2 or 3
cents. Some modern installations already have a cost of around 4 cents.
And lastly, I slapped on 2 dollars of distribution costs per kilogram
of liquid hydrogen just to be safe, since I don't have a clue how much
this part would truly cost. But in the case of gasoline, 50 cents is
due to refining, and only the remaining 50 cents is truly distribution
and retail. Since we don't have to refine liquid hydrogen, my estimate
of 2 dollars is 4 times the cost of distribution/retail of a gallon of
gasoline. Taking all these things into account, we could very well
reach an ultimate price for liquid hydrogen of barely $2.50 per gallon
of gasoline equivalent (at the pump).
BMW says it will start selling a Series 7 model next year which will
run on a split system of gasoline and liquid hydrogen. So were not
talking about space age technology that will reach us in decades to
come. It's right around the corner. I'm sure that these first cars are
going to cost as much as a Ferrari, but that's how things get started.
10 years from now hydrogen cars could well be selling for a comparable
price to gasoline cars. In the case of bigger vehicles such as trains,
ships and big trucks, the cost increase is perhaps already small enough
to make it viable right now.
Finally, how much land would we need to carpet with wind mills to make
all this hydrogen fuel? In the case of North America, if we use the
best land for wind energy (the Great Plains), we can put 4 to 7 wind
mills of 1.3 megawatt capacity per kmē. Let's say we can fit 5 per
kmē, on average. Let's also presume a rather conservative efficiency
of only 30%, which means that on average each windmill will be
generating [1.3 megawatts x 30%] = 0.4 megawatts of electricity. Each
windmill will produce, in 1 year, about [0.4 megawatts per hour x 24
hours x 365 days] = 3500 megawatts. And since there are 5 per kmē,
each kmē will generate 17500 megawatts. At 65 kwh (65,000 watts) to
generate 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen, each kmē
of the Great Plains could produce the equivalent of 260,000 gallons of
gasoline every year [1,300,000 watts capacity per windmill x 30%
efficiency x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year x 5 windmills per
kmē / 65,000 watts to produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent of
liquid hydrogen].
The US uses 9 million barrels of oil per day to run its cars, which is
380 million gallons per day, which is 140 billion gallons per year. If
1 kmē of the Great Plains can produce 0.26 million gallons of gasoline
equivalent per year, then we would need to carpet 530,000 kmē (200,000
square miles) of the Great Plains with wind mills to generate all the
liquid hydrogen necessary to replace every last drop of gasoline
currently being used in cars in the US. This is equal to a square whose
sides are 730 km long (450 miles). This is about the size of North and
South Dakota combined (plus a little more). This might sound terrible,
but consider what we are already doing:
On 60 Minutes they had a segment about the tar sands in Canada. The
people who were personally involved in developing the tar sands were
admitting to the 60 Minutes interviewer that the best they were going
to get from the whole operation was an extra 3 million barrels of oil
per day (in about 1 decade), a meaningless increase of world oil
production, which is curently running at around 84 million barrels per
day. To get this extra oil, they are going to create the worst mining
ecological disaster ever, bar nothing. They are going to destroy an
area the size of England, turning it into a toxic sludge filled with
mercury and other crap, which they then dump back on the land where
they scraped it up from, and put a layer of grass and trees on top,
while this toxic sludge is still steaming. The amount of water they use
for this is unbelievable, and of course, they dump it back into the
river and it makes its way into the Hudson Bay, with all the industrial
chemicals added in the industrial process, and at a higher temperature
than normal. Ironically, the land that they are going to permanently
destroy is one of the best places on Earth for wind energy (and
absolutely nobody lives there). Just that piece of real estate (the
size of England, roughly 250,000 kmē) could generate the equivalent of
4 million barrels of oil per day in liquid hydrogen from wind energy,
with zero effect on Earth's climate, zero pollution or destruction of
the local land (or the Hudson Bay), and it can work forever (until the
wind stops blowing, which is very different from the lifespan of the
tar sands operation). But instead, the plan is to permanently damage
this land while generating less energy (3 million barrels of oil per
day). Am I missing something? Did I misplace a zero in one of my
calculations? Somebody enlighten me.
You are confusing manufacturing costs with retail prices. If hydrogen costs
$3 to manufacture it could be expected to sell in the $9 or $10 range. At $5
dollars it would be at least $15 or even more when burdened with taxes,
transportation, storage etc. The 5 cents per kWH if true is only for the
elctricity. Obviously it would cost money to convert it to hydrogen. It's
hard to imagine that those costs would not add at least another nickel
probably a lot more. Furthermore if one has electricity it is marketable as
such without doing anything. Wind electricity will always have a market to
displace coal generated electricity which makes much more economic sense
than generating hydrogen or any other fuel. Notice that at 65kWH equivalent
per gallon of gasoline, you have thrown away half of that valuable
electrical energy to generate about 32kWH of fuel product. That's a loss of
exergy as Lancaster calls it and illustrates the absurdity of creating fuel
with electricity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 04:51:31 PM |
|
|
Bob Eld wrote:
<retyop@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You are confusing manufacturing costs with retail prices. If hydrogen costs
$3 to manufacture it could be expected to sell in the $9 or $10 range. At $5
dollars it would be at least $15 or even more when burdened with taxes,
transportation, storage etc.
Look at gasoline: At $50 a barrel of oil, it'll cost you $1.20 to get a
gallon of oil, then add $0.50 to refine that gallon of oil into a
gallon of gasoline, and finally $0.50 to distribute and sell it at the
retail level. The retail cost adds $0.50 to the original manufacturing
price of $1.70. Besides, the premise of what you're saying doesn't make
sense. The cost to distribute something isn't a multiple of what it
cost to produce it, that just doesn't make sense. Back in 1998, oil was
$12 a barrel, and yet, the distribution/retail cost was still about
$0.50 a gallon (adjusted for inflation). Retail costs made up 40% of
the price at the pump back then, now they're down to 20%-ish.
The 5 cents per kWH if true is only for the
elctricity. Obviously it would cost money to convert it to hydrogen. It's
hard to imagine that those costs would not add at least another nickel
probably a lot more.
That's a fair observation, I forgot to include the cost of
building/running the hydrogen conversion plant itself. Yup, chip in
some more money per kg of liquid hydrogen. That sucks.
Furthermore if one has electricity it is marketable as
such without doing anything. Wind electricity will always have a market to
displace coal generated electricity which makes much more economic sense
than generating hydrogen or any other fuel. Notice that at 65kWH equivalent
per gallon of gasoline, you have thrown away half of that valuable
electrical energy to generate about 32kWH of fuel product. That's a loss of
exergy as Lancaster calls it and illustrates the absurdity of creating fuel
with electricity.
There's nothing absurd about this. We can't use the electricity flat
out to run the car (can't plug the car into the highway) so we have to
convert one form of energy into another. And there's a loss in the
process. We do that all the time. We burn coal to generate electricity.
Isn't that a waste? We're losing most of the heat energy in the
process. The loss is even greater in that case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Eld" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 06:16:23 PM |
|
|
<retyop@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162853491.377219.229250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bob Eld wrote:
<retyop@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You are confusing manufacturing costs with retail prices. If hydrogen
costs
$3 to manufacture it could be expected to sell in the $9 or $10 range.
At $5
dollars it would be at least $15 or even more when burdened with taxes,
transportation, storage etc.
Look at gasoline: At $50 a barrel of oil, it'll cost you $1.20 to get a
gallon of oil, then add $0.50 to refine that gallon of oil into a
gallon of gasoline, and finally $0.50 to distribute and sell it at the
retail level. The retail cost adds $0.50 to the original manufacturing
price of $1.70. Besides, the premise of what you're saying doesn't make
sense. The cost to distribute something isn't a multiple of what it
cost to produce it, that just doesn't make sense. Back in 1998, oil was
$12 a barrel, and yet, the distribution/retail cost was still about
$0.50 a gallon (adjusted for inflation). Retail costs made up 40% of
the price at the pump back then, now they're down to 20%-ish.
The 5 cents per kWH if true is only for the
elctricity. Obviously it would cost money to convert it to hydrogen.
It's
hard to imagine that those costs would not add at least another nickel
probably a lot more.
That's a fair observation, I forgot to include the cost of
building/running the hydrogen conversion plant itself. Yup, chip in
some more money per kg of liquid hydrogen. That sucks.
Furthermore if one has electricity it is marketable as
such without doing anything. Wind electricity will always have a market
to
displace coal generated electricity which makes much more economic sense
than generating hydrogen or any other fuel. Notice that at 65kWH
equivalent
per gallon of gasoline, you have thrown away half of that valuable
electrical energy to generate about 32kWH of fuel product. That's a loss
of
exergy as Lancaster calls it and illustrates the absurdity of creating
fuel
with electricity.
There's nothing absurd about this. We can't use the electricity flat
out to run the car (can't plug the car into the highway) so we have to
convert one form of energy into another. And there's a loss in the
process. We do that all the time. We burn coal to generate electricity.
Isn't that a waste? We're losing most of the heat energy in the
process. The loss is even greater in that case.
Well, you CAN use the electricity flat out to run the car. Battery
technology is moving ahead much faster than hydrogen technology. Look at the
hybrids now available. The use of electricity directly has much more promise
than hydrogen. Yes there are losses in burning coal, thermodynamic losses
with any fuel or nuclear scheme. But, coal and other heat sources are low
value commodities, Electricity is a high value commodity. They are not
comparable. The value of electricity already contains the losses associated
with it's generation. To turn electricity back into fuel so you can
experience the losses a second time is economic nonsense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 05:40:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Look at gasoline: At $50 a barrel of oil, it'll cost you $1.20 to get a
gallon of oil...
That has nothing to do with the real cost for this civilization.
Furthermore if one has electricity it is marketable as
such without doing anything. Wind electricity will always have a market to
displace coal generated electricity which makes much more economic sense
than generating hydrogen or any other fuel. Notice that at 65kWH equivalent
per gallon of gasoline, you have thrown away half of that valuable
electrical energy to generate about 32kWH of fuel product. That's a loss of
exergy as Lancaster calls it and illustrates the absurdity of creating fuel
with electricity.
There's nothing absurd about this. We can't use the electricity flat
out to run the car (can't plug the car into the highway).
There is a rather large nitch that EVs can fill. At least three times as
efficient as the electricity->hydrogen vector.
We burn coal to generate electricity.
So?
Isn't that a waste?
No.
We're losing most of the heat energy in the
process.
You are not 'losing' heat. It is rejected. IGCC will come of age.
The loss is even greater in that case.
Show your math.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tater" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
05 Nov 2006 09:14:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Am I missing something? Did I misplace a zero in one of my
calculations? Somebody enlighten me.
a bit. and all the explaining in the world is just going to cause you
to argue.
so here is the simple solution. go get yourself a windplant, an
electrolysis plant, a cryo-compressor, and a hydrogen powered car.
assemble and use, let us know how it works.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
05 Nov 2006 02:42:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen. Wind energy now has costs of
barely 5 cents per kwh (there are no transmission and distribution
costs because the hydrogen plants would be located next to the wind
farms). So it would cost [65 kwh x $0.05 per kwh] = $3.25 to make 1
kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has the same energy as 1 gallon of
gasoline.
First assumption, that this Wind Farm will be built. In the real world,
today, wind is just a part of the input. This is where hydrogen would
come from.
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
It is a fallacy to assume hydrogen production in isolation where
electricity is concerned. You would not be displacing the primary input
of coal to the grid so the equivalence remains. As coal is the primary
input and the next economically viable alternative is coal liquefaction,
so, that would be the most reasonable investment of resources.
At $50 a barrel of oil, gasoline costs $1.20 from the oil (there are 42
gallons in a barrel of oil) and an extra dollar from refining and
retail distribution. Let's exaggerate the cost to distribute liquid
hydrogen and say it will be 2 dollars per kilogram. This gives us a
final retail price for gasoline of about $2.20 per gallon and for
liquid hydrogen of about $5.25 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
Here the poster assumes that you can compare the real cost of oil
production with the market price. We buy oil with U.S. Securities. We
don't have to produce to acquire this energy. We simply make a promise
to pay while producers like Saudi Arabia accept this promise. The Saudis
produce for about $2/barrel so their risk is rather benign. At the
least, that must be the way they see it or why would they take our
securities for their oil. The poster also assumes the cost can be
measured in today's equivalent dollars. This neglects inputs for
production that are fueled with virtually free oil.
In Europe the price of gasoline has always been between $4 and $5 and
this hasn't caused them to stop using cars, although they certainly
don't reach the extremes of the US and drive around in SUVs all the
time. So $5.25 for a gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen
is not the end of the world. And as we all know, it would actually
ensure that the world doesn't end.
Here the poster continues to confuse market price with real cost. Taxes
in Europe are recycled in their economy. By the same mechanism we get
oil practically for nothing, so does Europe.
<snip continued assumptions base on previously flawed assumptions>
BMW says it will start selling a Series 7 model next year which will
run on a split system of gasoline and liquid hydrogen. So were not
talking about space age technology that will reach us in decades to
come. It's right around the corner. I'm sure that these first cars are
going to cost as much as a Ferrari, but that's how things get started.
10 years from now hydrogen cars could well be selling for a comparable
price to gasoline cars. In the case of bigger vehicles such as trains,
ships and big trucks, the cost increase is perhaps already small enough
to make it viable right now.
Here the poster makes a claim. He is sure. That does not constitute a
truth...
<snip windmill stuff, because...>
Hydrogen can be produced with a nuclear source. With something like the
sulfur iodine cycle it would likely be as cost effective. There is also
solar. But all of these schemes are much more expensive than the real
cost of producing oil.
On 60 Minutes they had a segment about the tar sands in Canada. The
people who were personally involved in developing the tar sands were
admitting to the 60 Minutes interviewer that the best they were going
to get from the whole operation was an extra 3 million barrels of oil
per day (in about 1 decade), a meaningless increase of world oil
production, which is curently running at around 84 million barrels per
day. To get this extra oil, they are going to create the worst mining
ecological disaster ever, bar nothing. They are going to destroy an
area the size of England, turning it into a toxic sludge filled with
mercury and other crap, which they then dump back on the land where
they scraped it up from, and put a layer of grass and trees on top,
while this toxic sludge is still steaming. The amount of water they use
for this is unbelievable, and of course, they dump it back into the
river and it makes its way into the Hudson Bay, with all the industrial
chemicals added in the industrial process, and at a higher temperature
than normal. Ironically, the land that they are going to permanently
destroy is one of the best places on Earth for wind energy (and
absolutely nobody lives there). Just that piece of real estate (the
size of England, roughly 250,000 kmē) could generate the equivalent of
4 million barrels of oil per day in liquid hydrogen from wind energy,
with zero effect on Earth's climate, zero pollution or destruction of
the local land (or the Hudson Bay), and it can work forever (until the
wind stops blowing, which is very different from the lifespan of the
tar sands operation). But instead, the plan is to permanently damage
this land while generating less energy (3 million barrels of oil per
day).
Ahhh, the unfairness of it all. The poster doesn't like the behavior of
mankind. The poster wants this fixed. Well, it has been the same old
thing for millennia. Welcome to the real world poster. Man will exploit
the easiest resources first. The real catch is that mankind is not
planning for a lack of a next cheaper resource. This means there will be
a limit and mankind does not deal with limits very well.
Does the poster really see all the leaders of the world sitting down and
talking about sharing a limited resource without going to war over it? I
would recommend the poster look at mankind's history for an answer.
Am I missing something?
Now the question is, 'Are you still missing something?'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
08 Nov 2006 05:40:39 PM |
|
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:E0s3h.4769$Ka1.3218@news01.roc.ny
Does the poster really see all the leaders of the world sitting down and
talking about sharing a limited resource without going to war over it? I
would recommend the poster look at mankind's history for an answer.
Am I missing something?
Now the question is, 'Are you still missing something?'
Silly naysay boy. How's your offshore tax-avoidance of all that coal,
oil and natural gas energy banking/investment account doing these days?
You do realize that the solar + wind footprint of what's 100% renewable
energy density is simply way more than ten fold better off than anything
nuclear. (I didn't think so)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
08 Nov 2006 05:48:19 PM |
|
|
Actually, H2, LH2 and even H2O2 are essentially free byproducts from
having all of the potential surplus of solar+wind derived energy.
How many thousand tonnes worth of spare h2o2 per day would you like?
If you have 500 GW of continuous spare energy to burn; as such, what
would you like to do with it?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
05 Nov 2006 05:44:48 PM |
|
|
In sci.environment,
<>
wrote
on 5 Nov 2006 11:32:02 -0800
<1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen.
And this is from where?
1 kg = 500 moles
H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 242 kJ/mol H2
or 121 MJ/kg H2
or 33.6 kWh
At 90% conversion efficiency that means 37.35 kWh / kg H2.
Hydrogen has a specific heat capacity of 28.836 J/(mol K) at
25 degrees C, and a heat of vaporization of 0.904 kJ/mol.
Assuming the capacity holds for all states until 20.28K
and that the ambient temperature is indeed 25C = 298.15 K,
this translates into the requirement that we remove 4.006 MJ
to cool 1k hydrogen and a further 452 kJ to liquefy it.
Since one will be using a Carnot engine that translates into
(4.006 + 0.452) * 298.15 / 20.28 = 65.5 MJ or about 18.2 kWh,
minimum.
Wind energy now has costs of
barely 5 cents per kwh (there are no transmission and distribution
costs because the hydrogen plants would be located next to the wind
farms).
It is far from clear how to calculate this properly; there are several
costs involved.
[1] Construction costs, including permit application, fabrication,
land acquisition, ground prep, and material transport.
[2] Maintenance costs for the equipment.
Fuel costs of course are zero. :-)
So it would cost [65 kwh x $0.05 per kwh] = $3.25 to make 1
kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has the same energy as 1 gallon of
gasoline.
Not exactly a bargain yet. Bear also in mind that the wholesale cost of
gasoline is less than retail. Granted, it's in the ballpark and if
we do run low on oil this suggests that a liquid hydrogen economy is at
least economically possible although there are a fair number of issues
in ensuring that we don't have problems in e.g. leaving a car parked on
a hot day.
On the flip side, one might also contemplate PV cells.
These cost about $6-$9 per watt (construction costs); over
a 20-year lifespan that works out to be maybe $0.102/kWh.
AIUI, their costs are also dropping; the main problem with
PV cells is that they must cover land, whereas turbines
do not.
At $50 a barrel of oil, gasoline costs $1.20 from the oil (there are 42
gallons in a barrel of oil) and an extra dollar from refining and
retail distribution. Let's exaggerate the cost to distribute liquid
hydrogen and say it will be 2 dollars per kilogram. This gives us a
final retail price for gasoline of about $2.20 per gallon and for
liquid hydrogen of about $5.25 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
In Europe the
retail, after taxes
price of gasoline has always been between $4 and $5 and
this hasn't caused them to stop using cars, although they certainly
don't reach the extremes of the US and drive around in SUVs all the
time. So $5.25 for a gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen
is not the end of the world. And as we all know, it would actually
ensure that the world doesn't end.
You've forgotten taxes. Presumably, European taxes on
gasoline approach 125% (in the US the taxes are far lower,
about 20%, if that) given your figures.
A similar tax on hydrogen would boost that kg to $11.80.
Whether that's logical or not is far from clear, of course;
hydrogen burns far more cleanly than gasoline or diesel.
However, there is a flip side: hydrogen is *not* an energy
source, but an energy conveyance. With wind power one
has issues such as birdkills; it is not 100% clear whether
that's more damaging than photochemical smog, oil spills
(e.g., Valdez), or global warming. 99% clear, perhaps. :-)
Besides, I used very conservative figures to reach that $5.25 figure.
With the most efficient state of the art hydrogen plants, we could
produce 1 kilogram of hydrogen with somewhat less than 65 kwh. Also,
the cost I quoted for generating 1 kwh of electricity from wind, of 5
cents, is VERY conservative, and in the future it will reach 2 or 3
cents. Some modern installations already have a cost of around 4 cents.
Wiki suggests 3.2 pence, which is about US $0.041.
And lastly, I slapped on 2 dollars of distribution costs per kilogram
of liquid hydrogen just to be safe, since I don't have a clue how much
this part would truly cost.
An interesting question in its own right. Of course, there are several
methods I could see in distributing hydrogen, of varying efficacy.
[1] Gaseous hydrogen could probably be transported in a manner very
similar to natural gas today. There are some issues around seals, since
hydrogen tends to make some materials brittle; however, these can
probably be handled with proper maintenance.
[2] Liquid hydrogen can be trucked, much like gasoline is today,
although the truck proper would have to be more along the lines of
trucks used to transport liquid nitrogen or oxygen -- basically,
very large Dewar-type tanks.
But in the case of gasoline, 50 cents is
due to refining, and only the remaining 50 cents is truly distribution
and retail. Since we don't have to refine liquid hydrogen,
You're lucky. :-) The electrolysis of hydrogen might be contaminated
by such things as lithium, beryllium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, and
calcium, etc. Since all of these are solids the hydrogen should be
almost 100% pure (there's some water contamination but presumably one
could apply some sort of a dessicator in the process, or just let the
water freeze out during the chilling -- if one can do it carefully
enough since ice has a nasty habit of cracking things during expansion).
On the flip side, the oxygen could be easily contaminated by nitrogen,
fluorine, chlorine, and maybe bromine, plus the aforementioned water.
my estimate
of 2 dollars is 4 times the cost of distribution/retail of a gallon of
gasoline. Taking all these things into account, we could very well
reach an ultimate price for liquid hydrogen of barely $2.50 per gallon
of gasoline equivalent (at the pump).
Except for taxes.
BMW says it will start selling a Series 7 model next year which will
run on a split system of gasoline and liquid hydrogen. So were not
talking about space age technology that will reach us in decades to
come. It's right around the corner. I'm sure that these first cars are
going to cost as much as a Ferrari, but that's how things get started.
10 years from now hydrogen cars could well be selling for a comparable
price to gasoline cars. In the case of bigger vehicles such as trains,
ships and big trucks, the cost increase is perhaps already small enough
to make it viable right now.
Finally, how much land would we need to carpet with wind mills to make
all this hydrogen fuel?
Good question, since the land is what's driving the windmills. Hot air
from the land rises, with colder air going past the windmills as
it comes in to replace it. At least, as far as I know.
In the case of North America, if we use the
best land for wind energy (the Great Plains), we can put 4 to 7 wind
mills of 1.3 megawatt capacity per kmē. Let's say we can fit 5 per
kmē, on average. Let's also presume a rather conservative efficiency
of only 30%, which means that on average each windmill will be
generating [1.3 megawatts x 30%] = 0.4 megawatts of electricity. Each
windmill will produce, in 1 year, about [0.4 megawatts per hour x 24
hours x 365 days] = 3500 megawatts. And since there are 5 per kmē,
each kmē will generate 17500 megawatts. At 65 kwh (65,000 watts) to
generate 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent of liquid hydrogen, each kmē
of the Great Plains could produce the equivalent of 260,000 gallons of
gasoline every year [1,300,000 watts capacity per windmill x 30%
efficiency x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year x 5 windmills per
kmē / 65,000 watts to produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent of
liquid hydrogen].
The US uses 9 million barrels of oil per day to run its cars,
The US consumes 20 million bbl/day, about 13 of which
is imported. Granted, a good fraction of that (I have
no idea how much) is for fabrication of plastic thingies,
fuel oil, and roadway repair materials such as asphalt.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
which is
380 million gallons per day, which is 140 billion gallons per year.
http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/gasoline.htm
suggests 400 Mgal/day, during August -- our summer driving season, so
you're right on the money.
If
1 kmē of the Great Plains can produce 0.26 million gallons of gasoline
equivalent per year, then we would need to carpet 530,000 kmē (200,000
square miles) of the Great Plains with wind mills to generate all the
liquid hydrogen necessary to replace every last drop of gasoline
currently being used in cars in the US. This is equal to a square whose
sides are 730 km long (450 miles). This is about the size of North and
South Dakota combined (plus a little more). This might sound terrible,
but consider what we are already doing:
On 60 Minutes they had a segment about the tar sands in Canada. The
people who were personally involved in developing the tar sands were
admitting to the 60 Minutes interviewer that the best they were going
to get from the whole operation was an extra 3 million barrels of oil
per day (in about 1 decade), a meaningless increase of world oil
production, which is curently running at around 84 million barrels per
day. To get this extra oil, they are going to create the worst mining
ecological disaster ever, bar nothing. They are going to destroy an
area the size of England, turning it into a toxic sludge filled with
mercury and other crap, which they then dump back on the land where
they scraped it up from, and put a layer of grass and trees on top,
while this toxic sludge is still steaming.
You're probably also aware of the fiasco in the Alaskan National
Wildlife Refuge. The amount of oil in that area is estimated to
be 1.4 million bbl/day -- only 10% of what we would need, given
current consumption rates.
And that's according to the US Department of the Interior, which
under Bush is probably being very optimistic.
http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
The amount of water they use
for this is unbelievable, and of course, they dump it back into the
river and it makes its way into the Hudson Bay, with all the industrial
chemicals added in the industrial process, and at a higher temperature
than normal. Ironically, the land that they are going to permanently
destroy is one of the best places on Earth for wind energy (and
absolutely nobody lives there). Just that piece of real estate (the
size of England, roughly 250,000 kmē) could generate the equivalent of
4 million barrels of oil per day in liquid hydrogen from wind energy,
with zero effect on Earth's climate, zero pollution or destruction of
the local land (or the Hudson Bay), and it can work forever (until the
wind stops blowing, which is very different from the lifespan of the
tar sands operation). But instead, the plan is to permanently damage
this land while generating less energy (3 million barrels of oil per
day). Am I missing something? Did I misplace a zero in one of my
calculations? Somebody enlighten me.
Actually, given the data I can get my hands on using Google, your
calculations look pretty good. Granted, I'm not sure regarding
wind power; I prefer photovoltaic. Of course PV might have
the problem that instead of killing the birds the panels might
be fouled thereby (assuming they're not equipped with anti-perching
spikes or something), which means someone's going to have to go up
there and wash 'em. :-)
The main fault: I don't know how much Europeans or
Canadians will want to tax this fuel source.
In America, it might be less of a problem; $5.25 would generate
about $1.05 in taxes. Oil would have to run at $120/bbl or so
before hydrogen becomes a good alternative -- and that's assuming
our infrastructure is ready for it. (It's getting closer; you've
mentioned the BMW for example.)
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 02:54:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:44:48 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
On the flip side, one might also contemplate PV cells.
These cost about $6-$9 per watt (construction costs); over
a 20-year lifespan that works out to be maybe $0.102/kWh.
AIUI, their costs are also dropping; the main problem with
PV cells is that they must cover land, whereas turbines
do not.
By construction costs you mean what it costs to build a panel? I
thought you could _buy_ a panel for that in the US.
However. Sorry. My hobby-horse.
I will still question the cost per KWH valuation. The extremely high
capital setup of PV per watt means that you have to factor in the
interest cost of the capital at setup. You should with all
installations. It's just that because mtce costs are so low with PV,
but the capital cost is pretty high per watt, the higher cost of
capital becomes more relevant than the mtce orientated costing used to
calc the cost of other, fuel-based forms of power gen.
This makes the cost per KWH much higher for PV than the simple setup
cost alone.
For instance if I assume that a solar panel at $6 per W produces 12
KWH per day, and that it requires 3.6 KW peak to do this (probably
generous), it will cost $21600. At 3% interest (no borrowings. Just
money not in the bank), over 20 years that costs about $38,000, and
makes 12 * 365 * 20 = 87600 KWH. That's over $.40 / KWH.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 04:56:57 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.environment,
<>
wrote
on 5 Nov 2006 11:32:02 -0800
<1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen.
And this is from where?
1 kg = 500 moles
H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 242 kJ/mol H2
or 121 MJ/kg H2
or 33.6 kWh
At 90% conversion efficiency that means 37.35 kWh / kg H2.
Hydrogen has a specific heat capacity of 28.836 J/(mol K) at
25 degrees C, and a heat of vaporization of 0.904 kJ/mol.
Assuming the capacity holds for all states until 20.28K
and that the ambient temperature is indeed 25C = 298.15 K,
this translates into the requirement that we remove 4.006 MJ
to cool 1k hydrogen and a further 452 kJ to liquefy it.
Since one will be using a Carnot engine that translates into
(4.006 + 0.452) * 298.15 / 20.28 = 65.5 MJ or about 18.2 kWh,
minimum.
This is making my head spin. Are you saying that 1 kg of liquid
hydrogen could be produced with 37.35 + 18.2 = 55.55 kwh ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 05:45:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
This is making my head spin. Are you saying that 1 kg of liquid
hydrogen could be produced with 37.35 + 18.2 = 55.55 kwh ?
And you could take that 180kwh of input of coal, turn it into liquid
fuels, (we have an infrastructure for that), at over 90% overall efficiency.
My thinks you are an old hydrogen loving, (a believer that refuses to
look at real world numbers), poster with a new moniker.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
08 Nov 2006 12:55:17 AM |
|
|
In sci.environment, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com>
wrote
on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:45:17 GMT
<hOP3h.4855$Ka1.1399@news01.roc.ny>:
retyop@techemail.com wrote:
This is making my head spin. Are you saying that 1 kg of liquid
hydrogen could be produced with 37.35 + 18.2 = 55.55 kwh ?
And you could take that 180kwh of input of coal, turn it into liquid
fuels, (we have an infrastructure for that), at over 90% overall efficiency.
My thinks you are an old hydrogen loving, (a believer that refuses to
look at real world numbers), poster with a new moniker.
No, I'm not Roger. :-P Although I'll admit to some
fondness for the idea of hydrogen, mostly because it's
non-polluting from the standpoint of the vehicle (one
could drink the exhaust after it cools, theoretically,
though I'll admit to some curiosity regarding byproducts
such as formic acid, ammonia, and other such [*]). However,
hydrogen is an energy conveyance; someone has to impart
energy somewhere to create it; Roger is fond of PV-powered
or wind-powered electrolysis, apparently, and these
are probably the cleanest, though I'll admit to wondering
about manufacturing issues; glass, fibrous or otherwise,
is basically melted sand, for example.
AUIU, current hydrogen production is from oil, which is
just about as bad as the current diesel/gasoline system
and less efficient. However, transitions are always
problematic.
If we can, better to simply restructure the zoning so that
most can walk to do shopping, employment, etc.; if we can
get more people to telecommute -- that uses 500W or so,
mostly because the computer requires 300-400W and the
monitor eats the rest; one could construe that as 4kWh
over an 8-hour day -- as opposed to commuting 1 hour round
trip using a 72 kW vehicle -- 72kWh -- we'd be better off,
from an energy usage standpoint.
Of course for most jobs that's probably not all that possible.
Roadway construction isn't doable by clicking a mouse. :-)
(Unless that click drives some sort of tractor.)
[*] the cooling, of course, could be accelerated by imparting
additional energy, warming the Earth further. There probably
wouldn't be much point.
--
#191,
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
08 Nov 2006 02:55:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:55:17 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
I accept that PC will use a lot less energy in a day thana an hour or
two in a car.
BUT it seems to me.....
You have fallen into a trap that I have fallen into as well. A "72KW"
vehicle uses nowhere near 72KWh, per hour, for two main reasons.
Firstly when cruising, it is doddling along; it is using only a
fraction of its power. Secondly, we have tripped across from HP (which
were known as _brake_ horsepower and had little relationship to true
acceleration HP at 550 ft lbs / sec^2 acceleration) to KW without any
such rider.
A car has nowhere near the KW capability that is claimed.
IIRC, British cars had trouble selling in the US _partly_ because they
showed true, not brake horsepower, and it sounded ridiculously
gutless. A US 100HP vehicle was Brirish 30HP vehicle.
We would still be beter off. Inefficiency will acount for a large lump
of the difference :-<
If we can, better to simply restructure the zoning so that
most can walk to do shopping, employment, etc.; if we can
get more people to telecommute -- that uses 500W or so,
mostly because the computer requires 300-400W and the
monitor eats the rest; one could construe that as 4kWh
over an 8-hour day -- as opposed to commuting 1 hour round
trip using a 72 kW vehicle -- 72kWh -- we'd be better off,
from an energy usage standpoint.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
08 Nov 2006 08:57:32 PM |
|
|
In sci.environment, OldNick
<nsremovable@iinet.net.au>
wrote
on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:55:48 +0800
<9v53l29erv4kun94cnrvqas75l2sifchmt@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:55:17 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
I accept that PC will use a lot less energy in a day thana an hour or
two in a car.
BUT it seems to me.....
You have fallen into a trap that I have fallen into as well. A "72KW"
vehicle uses nowhere near 72KWh, per hour, for two main reasons.
Firstly when cruising, it is doddling along; it is using only a
fraction of its power. Secondly, we have tripped across from HP (which
were known as _brake_ horsepower and had little relationship to true
acceleration HP at 550 ft lbs / sec^2 acceleration) to KW without any
such rider.
A car has nowhere near the KW capability that is claimed.
IIRC, British cars had trouble selling in the US _partly_ because they
showed true, not brake horsepower, and it sounded ridiculously
gutless. A US 100HP vehicle was Brirish 30HP vehicle.
We would still be beter off. Inefficiency will acount for a large lump
of the difference :-<
I'd frankly have to do more research. Judging from the
figures I have, a Mini Cooper S on an absolutely flat
roadway in calm air would be theoretically able to get
about 180 to 200 mpg at 67 mph, if one switches out the
engine for a far more fuel-efficient variety and ignores
everything except atmospheric drag (e.g., drivetrain
friction, tire rolling friction). Of course one gentle
breeze or a hill and it'll have to slow down.
I use kW mostly because it's SI and therefore slightly
easier to work with than HP. But there are several issues
regarding power consumption:
[1] chemical energy
[2] thermal energy (burning things)
[3] mechanical energy
If I use a priori calculations (as opposed to building an actual
vehicle), it is far from clear to me how these interact, mostly because
my specialty is more along the lines of software engineering than
mechanical building/testing.
If we can, better to simply restructure the zoning so that
most can walk to do shopping, employment, etc.; if we can
get more people to telecommute -- that uses 500W or so,
mostly because the computer requires 300-400W and the
monitor eats the rest; one could construe that as 4kWh
over an 8-hour day -- as opposed to commuting 1 hour round
trip using a 72 kW vehicle -- 72kWh -- we'd be better off,
from an energy usage standpoint.
--
#191,
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
09 Nov 2006 04:33:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:57:32 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.environment, OldNick
<nsremovable@iinet.net.au>
wrote
on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:55:48 +0800
<9v53l29erv4kun94cnrvqas75l2sifchmt@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:55:17 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
I accept that PC will use a lot less energy in a day thana an hour or
two in a car.
BUT it seems to me.....
You have fallen into a trap that I have fallen into as well. A "72KW"
vehicle uses nowhere near 72KWh, per hour, for two main reasons.
Firstly when cruising, it is doddling along; it is using only a
fraction of its power. Secondly, we have tripped across from HP (which
were known as _brake_ horsepower and had little relationship to true
acceleration HP at 550 ft lbs / sec^2 acceleration) to KW without any
such rider.
A car has nowhere near the KW capability that is claimed.
IIRC, British cars had trouble selling in the US _partly_ because they
showed true, not brake horsepower, and it sounded ridiculously
gutless. A US 100HP vehicle was Brirish 30HP vehicle.
We would still be beter off. Inefficiency will acount for a large lump
of the difference :-<
I'd frankly have to do more research. Judging from the
figures I have, a Mini Cooper S on an absolutely flat
roadway in calm air would be theoretically able to get
about 180 to 200 mpg at 67 mph, if one switches out the
engine for a far more fuel-efficient variety and ignores
everything except atmospheric drag (e.g., drivetrain
friction, tire rolling friction). Of course one gentle
breeze or a hill and it'll have to slow down.
If you are talking a "genuine" Mini Cooper S (as in Michael Caine's
Italian Job) then who cares? <GG>
I just felt that the KW thing needed pointing out. My mistake was to
do with airconditioners in cars and how they affect the cars'
performance. Because I assumed that the car actually really produced
the (say 72KW) then an aircon that perceptibly slowed the car must use
quite a bit of power.
In the end, probaboy the best way is to see how petrol is consumed to
drive for that hour by the "average car" each day. That's the real
energy figure. Then add a bit for the fact that (mostly) a car will be
worse than a power station for pollution/KW consumed, and we then
compare a PC to the car.
It is an interesting thing, though that while the commuter uses the
car only when commuting, the telecommuter will quite often leave the
PC on for _24_ hours per day. I mean, PCs use so _little_ <G>
I use kW mostly because it's SI and therefore slightly
easier to work with than HP. But there are several issues
regarding power consumption:
[1] chemical energy
[2] thermal energy (burning things)
[3] mechanical energy
If I use a priori calculations (as opposed to building an actual
vehicle), it is far from clear to me how these interact, mostly because
my specialty is more along the lines of software engineering than
mechanical building/testing.
If we can, better to simply restructure the zoning so that
most can walk to do shopping, employment, etc.; if we can
get more people to telecommute -- that uses 500W or so,
mostly because the computer requires 300-400W and the
monitor eats the rest; one could construe that as 4kWh
over an 8-hour day -- as opposed to commuting 1 hour round
trip using a 72 kW vehicle -- 72kWh -- we'd be better off,
from an energy usage standpoint.
--
#191,
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
08 Nov 2006 12:57:09 AM |
|
|
In sci.environment,
<>
wrote
on 6 Nov 2006 14:56:57 -0800
<1162853817.128135.312760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.environment,
<>
wrote
on 5 Nov 2006 11:32:02 -0800
<1162755122.172309.10830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen.
And this is from where?
1 kg = 500 moles
H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 242 kJ/mol H2
or 121 MJ/kg H2
or 33.6 kWh
At 90% conversion efficiency that means 37.35 kWh / kg H2.
Hydrogen has a specific heat capacity of 28.836 J/(mol K) at
25 degrees C, and a heat of vaporization of 0.904 kJ/mol.
Assuming the capacity holds for all states until 20.28K
and that the ambient temperature is indeed 25C = 298.15 K,
this translates into the requirement that we remove 4.006 MJ
to cool 1k hydrogen and a further 452 kJ to liquefy it.
Since one will be using a Carnot engine that translates into
(4.006 + 0.452) * 298.15 / 20.28 = 65.5 MJ or about 18.2 kWh,
minimum.
This is making my head spin. Are you saying that 1 kg of liquid
hydrogen could be produced with 37.35 + 18.2 = 55.55 kwh ?
Given the requisite amount of water, yes....theoretically.
No doubt it's even being done, at least on a small to medium
scale.
I was merely checking your figures given what I know.
--
#191,
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 02:25:24 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2006 11:32:02 -0800, wrote:
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen. Wind energy now has costs of
barely 5 cents per kwh (there are no transmission and distribution
costs because the hydrogen plants would be located next to the wind
farms). So it would cost [65 kwh x $0.05 per kwh] = $3.25 to make 1
kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has the same energy as 1 gallon of
gasoline.
How do you work out the cost per KWH of a wind turbine system?
Seriously interested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Matonak" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 04:34:44 AM |
|
|
OldNick wrote:
....
How do you work out the cost per KWH of a wind turbine system?
Seriously interested.
How do you work out the cost per KWH of any generation system?
You just add up the costs and divide by the amount of energy
produced.
You start with what it costs to setup the thing in the first
place, a capital cost. This includes the cost of the equipment
as well as labor to install it and real estate to put it on,
and so forth. Then you have your continuing maintenance and
lastly, you'll have disposal or decommissioning costs. Until
they've reached the end of their lives, some of those figures
will have to be estimates.
Anthony
.
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 04:09:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:34:44 GMT, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
OldNick wrote:
...
How do you work out the cost per KWH of a wind turbine system?
Seriously interested.
How do you work out the cost per KWH of any generation system?
You just add up the costs and divide by the amount of energy
produced.
OK. The question probably is: Do we know enough about wind farms to
actually give this cost accurately yet? Are there figures to prove
that claimed cost?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 05:10:26 PM |
|
|
OldNick wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:34:44 GMT, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
OldNick wrote:
...
How do you work out the cost per KWH of a wind turbine system?
Seriously interested.
How do you work out the cost per KWH of any generation system?
You just add up the costs and divide by the amount of energy
produced.
OK. The question probably is: Do we know enough about wind farms to
actually give this cost accurately yet? Are there figures to prove
that claimed cost?
Well, the big wind company Isvestia of Denmark can build the most
efficient wind mill, of 1.3 megawatt capacity for about U$S 2 million,
if I'm not mistaken. Over a 20 year period, this wind mill would
generate:
[1,300 kwh x 30% efficiency x 24 hours x 365 days x 20 years] = 68
million kwh.
So the 2 million dollar cost to build it would be spread out over 68
million kwh. Each kwh would cost U$S 0.029 (3 cents per kilowatt). On
top of that are maintenance and taxes and the profit margin and
miscellaneous garbage, and we reach a nice round 5 cents per kilowatt.
Perfectly in line with the 5 cents per kilowatt cost of electricity
from conventional power plants.
The kicker is when you realize that these windmills are going to last
for more than half a century, unless there's an earthquake in the Great
Plains. That takes the cost down to about 3 cents per kilowatt.
And of course, the efficiencies and technological advances in the wind
mill industry are still rolling along at full speed, like they have
been for the last 2 decades. Adjusted for inflation, it cost 1 dollar
to generate a kilowatt back in 1980, and those things looked like fans
and they only worked in extremely favorable places. The inflation
adjusted cost per kilowatt back in 2000 was around 7-8 cents. All
experts agree there will be much more progress in the coming decade.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
06 Nov 2006 06:05:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics wrote:
OldNick wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:34:44 GMT, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
OldNick wrote:
...
How do you work out the cost per KWH of a wind turbine system?
Seriously interested.
How do you work out the cost per KWH of any generation system?
You just add up the costs and divide by the amount of energy
produced.
OK. The question probably is: Do we know enough about wind farms to
actually give this cost accurately yet? Are there figures to prove
that claimed cost?
Well, the big wind company Isvestia of Denmark can build the most
efficient wind mill, of 1.3 megawatt capacity for about U$S 2 million,
if I'm not mistaken. Over a 20 year period, this wind mill would
generate:
[1,300 kwh x 30% efficiency x 24 hours x 365 days x 20 years] = 68
million kwh.
So the 2 million dollar cost to build it would be spread out over 68
million kwh. Each kwh would cost U$S 0.029 (3 cents per kilowatt). On
top of that are maintenance and taxes and the profit margin and
miscellaneous garbage, and we reach a nice round 5 cents per kilowatt.
Perfectly in line with the 5 cents per kilowatt cost of electricity
from conventional power plants.
The kicker is when you realize that these windmills are going to last
for more than half a century, unless there's an earthquake in the Great
Plains. That takes the cost down to about 3 cents per kilowatt.
And of course, the efficiencies and technological advances in the wind
mill industry are still rolling along at full speed, like they have
been for the last 2 decades. Adjusted for inflation, it cost 1 dollar
to generate a kilowatt back in 1980, and those things looked like fans
and they only worked in extremely favorable places. The inflation
adjusted cost per kilowatt back in 2000 was around 7-8 cents. All
experts agree there will be much more progress in the coming decade.
Yeah, except the real world capacity factor of windmills runs about 35%
typically, which makes the cost about three times what it would be if
they delivered 100%.
And since capacity factor is determined by the variations in wind
speed over time and electrical demand over time, you can't fix this
with technology.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
07 Nov 2006 12:38:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:
OldNick wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:34:44 GMT, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
OldNick wrote:
...
How do you work out the cost per KWH of a wind turbine system?
Seriously interested.
How do you work out the cost per KWH of any generation system?
You just add up the costs and divide by the amount of energy
produced.
OK. The question probably is: Do we know enough about wind farms to
actually give this cost accurately yet? Are there figures to prove
that claimed cost?
Well, the big wind company Isvestia of Denmark can build the most
efficient wind mill, of 1.3 megawatt capacity for about U$S 2 million,
if I'm not mistaken. Over a 20 year period, this wind mill would
generate:
[1,300 kwh x 30% efficiency x 24 hours x 365 days x 20 years] = 68
million kwh.
So the 2 million dollar cost to build it would be spread out over 68
million kwh. Each kwh would cost U$S 0.029 (3 cents per kilowatt). On
top of that are maintenance and taxes and the profit margin and
miscellaneous garbage, and we reach a nice round 5 cents per kilowatt.
Perfectly in line with the 5 cents per kilowatt cost of electricity
from conventional power plants.
The kicker is when you realize that these windmills are going to last
for more than half a century, unless there's an earthquake in the Great
Plains. That takes the cost down to about 3 cents per kilowatt.
And of course, the efficiencies and technological advances in the wind
mill industry are still rolling along at full speed, like they have
been for the last 2 decades. Adjusted for inflation, it cost 1 dollar
to generate a kilowatt back in 1980, and those things looked like fans
and they only worked in extremely favorable places. The inflation
adjusted cost per kilowatt back in 2000 was around 7-8 cents. All
experts agree there will be much more progress in the coming decade.
Yeah, except the real world capacity factor of windmills runs about 35%
typically, which makes the cost about three times what it would be if
they delivered 100%.
And since capacity factor is determined by the variations in wind
speed over time and electrical demand over time, you can't fix this
with technology.
That's part of the calculation. I even used a lower capacity factor, of
just 30%, to be conservative. Here's what I wrote:
"[1,300 kwh x 30% efficiency x 24 hours x 365 days x 20 years] = 68
million kwh. So the 2 million dollar cost to build it would be spread
out over 68
million kwh. Each kwh would cost U$S 0.029 (3 cents per kilowatt)."
If I had used 35% like you said, the cost per kilowatt would have been
even less, just 2.5 cents. This is the fixed cost. Then the variable
cost is an extra 2 cents per kilowatt (maintenance, spare parts,
administrative salaries, profit margin, taxes, etc.).
And remember, this is assuming a 20 year lifespan, I think that's the
legal accounting requirement in the US. Of course, these things are
going to last half a century (maybe even 100 years), so the fixed cost
of building the wind mill is realistically more like 1 cent per
kilowatt, plus the 2 cents of variable costs.
Last year there were several newspaper articles about some folks in the
west of the US (Colorado and whereabouts, I think), who had contracted
with a wind energy company to provide them with electricity, and for
the first time in the 5 years under contract, their electricity bills
were less than normal people were paying for electricity from
conventional power plants. So we're there already! Isn't this
wonderful? There is no excuse now. Wind electricity is cheaper than
conventional electricity. No wonder it's growing 30% annually every
year for the last 15 years. The only real problem is that we already
have the conventional power plant infrastructure in place and
functioning. We would be making a huge trillion dollar investment just
to slice half a penny off every kilowatt. But there's no excuse for
making all new energy generating capacity from wind alone.
But even the existing infrastructure could be razed and rebuilt without
much of a problem. Look at France. In 1973 they had virtually 0%
nuclear electricity. By 1990 approximately 80% of all their electricity
came from nuclear. They pretty much rebuilt their entire electricity
infrastructure from scratch, and in just 15 years. Did their country
sink? Nope. Today they produce so much electricity that they export the
excess to Germany and other folks. They have the highest per capita
production of electricity in Europe (but lower than the US). The only
reason the US can't emulate France and rebuild its entire electricity
infrastructure from scratch and be a model for the rest of the world to
emulate and applaud is that the US is so broke it's not even funny
anymore, and it is only 2 steps away from a historic epic financial
implosion comparable to the 1930's. Other than that, no reason.
Go wind!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
07 Nov 2006 03:49:49 PM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2006 10:38:44 -0800, wrote:
Why did France do this? I feel that the reasons need to be looked at.
If it was emtirely because they wanted clean power then that's really
god. But if it was economic, then while it's a pity, you can't use it
as an example to countries who rely on fossil for their income, or
have it easily available.
But even the existing infrastructure could be razed and rebuilt without
much of a problem. Look at France. In 1973 they had virtually 0%
nuclear electricity. By 1990 approximately 80% of all their electricity
came from nuclear. They pretty much rebuilt their entire electricity
infrastructure from scratch, and in just 15 years. Did their country
sink? Nope. Today they produce so much electricity that they export the
excess to Germany and other folks. They have the highest per capita
production of electricity in Europe (but lower than the US). The only
reason the US can't emulate France and rebuild its entire electricity
infrastructure from scratch and be a model for the rest of the world to
emulate and applaud is that the US is so broke it's not even funny
anymore, and it is only 2 steps away from a historic epic financial
implosion comparable to the 1930's. Other than that, no reason.
Go wind!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
07 Nov 2006 04:46:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:05:03 GMT, wrote:
Thank you. Waiting for followup....
Yeah, except the real world capacity factor of windmills runs about 35%
typically, which makes the cost about three times what it would be if
they delivered 100%.
And since capacity factor is determined by the variations in wind
speed over time and electrical demand over time, you can't fix this
with technology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OldNick" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
07 Nov 2006 03:42:35 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2006 15:10:26 -0800, wrote:
[1,300 kwh x 30% efficiency x 24 hours x 365 days x 20 years] = 68
million kwh.
Ok. I stand corrected there.
So the 2 million dollar cost to build it would be spread out over 68
million kwh. Each kwh would cost U$S 0.029 (3 cents per kilowatt). On
top of that are maintenance and taxes and the profit margin and
miscellaneous garbage, and we reach a nice round 5 cents per kilowatt.
Perfectly in line with the 5 cents per kilowatt cost of electricity
from conventional power plants.
Is this happening as you state? I am concerned that "maintenance and
taxes and the profit margin" are lumped in with misc garbage. Have
these figures been ratified as a basis for charging the consumer.
I sound like a nay-sayer. But I am not. I am extremely cautious about
the financial claims made for alternative energy.
I say this realising that as you say in your post further down, there
are plenty of people willing to make renewable energy sound
non-viable, because they have vested interest in the status quo.
The kicker is when you realize that these windmills are going to last
for more than half a century, unless there's an earthquake in the Great
Plains. That takes the cost down to about 3 cents per kilowatt.
I doubt that these machines _will_ last half a century, without
requiring more mtce than they are worth. However, if the figures at
5c/LWH are true then that does not matter.
And of course, the efficiencies and technological advances in the wind
mill industry are still rolling along at full speed, like they have
been for the last 2 decades. Adjusted for inflation, it cost 1 dollar
to generate a kilowatt back in 1980, and those things looked like fans
and they only worked in extremely favorable places. The inflation
adjusted cost per kilowatt back in 2000 was around 7-8 cents. All
experts agree there will be much more progress in the coming decade.
Which is a big reason why the generators will not last half a century,
perhaps. Redundancy and economics will stop that, because they will be
replaced well before their use by date.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: I can't see the problem of using a hydrogen/wind combo |
05 Nov 2006 03:01:23 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2006 11:32:02 -0800, wrote:
It takes 50 kwh to make a kilogram of hydrogen, and another 15 kwh to
convert the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen. Wind energy now has costs of
barely 5 cents per kwh (there are no transmission and distribution
costs because the hydrogen plants would be located next to the wind
farms). So it would cost [65 kwh x $0.05 per kwh] =3D $3.25 to make 1
kilogram of liquid hydrogen, which has the same energy as 1 gallon of
gasoline.
A few months ago, there were big complaints about windmill
farms in the northeast. The locals were screaming because
the things :
a) Killed birds
b) Made a weird quasi-infrasonic noise that annoyed peopl | |
