Green Car Congress: SRNL Hits Milestone in Nuclear Hydrogen Production

« India Likely to Have National Biofuels Policy in Place in Several Months | Main | Malibu Hybrid Makes its Debut »

SRNL Hits Milestone in Nuclear Hydrogen Production

6 July 2007

The Hybrid Sulfur Process has two stages. First, the electrolysis of sulfur dioxide and water to generate hydrogen and sulfuric acid, followed by the thermochemical conversion of the sulfuric acid back to sulfur dioxide. Click to enlarge.

The US Department of Energy’s Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) recently successfully completed a 100-hour long demonstration of a sulfur dioxide depolarized electrolyzer (SDE), designed and fabricated by SRNL, to produce hydrogen from water. The SDE is a core component of the Hybrid Sulfur Process.

The demonstration, which showed that the electrolyzer can successfully operate continuously without significant loss of performance, represents a milestone in the development of an efficient, economical process for generating large quantities of hydrogen using advanced nuclear reactors. In previous demonstrations, the electrolyzer had only been operated for short durations.

The Hybrid Sulfur Process (HyS) is one of the variants on sulfur-based thermochemical cycles for the production of hydrogen and is derived from a Westinghouse process. The electrolyzer oxidizes sulfur dioxide to form sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) at the anode and reduces protons to form hydrogen at the cathode. The overall electrochemical cell reaction consists of the production of H₂SO₄ and H₂:

SO₂ + 2H₂O → H₂SO₄ + H₂

The initial electrolysis reaction of sulfur dioxide and water occurs at low temperature. The resulting sulfuric acid is decomposed into steam and sulfur trioxide, which is then further decomposed into sulfur dioxide and oxygen at high temperature (850-950 °C) with heat obtained from the nuclear reactor.

The sulfur dioxide in the electrolyzer reduces the required electrode potential well below that required for electrolysis of pure–water, thus reducing the total energy consumed by the electrolyzer. An electrolyzer operating in the range of 500-600 mV per cell can lead to an overall HyS cycle efficiency in excess of 50%, which is superior to all other currently proposed thermochemical cycles, according to the researchers at SRNL.

An important factor in the efficiency of the Hybrid Sulfur Process is the low amount of cell voltage required by the electrolyzer, which determines the amount of electricity needed. In the 100-hour test, SRNL’s electrolyzer required about 0.8 volts per cell, leaving researchers optimistic that the commercial goal of 0.6 volts per cell can be achieved when operating the electrolyzer at higher temperature and pressure.

Future work will seek to further improve the cell performance and extend its operational durability. SRNL is currently building a larger, multi-cell electrolyzer. Plans call for beginning construction of an integrated labscale Hybrid Sulfur Process, including the larger electrolyzer, during the next fiscal year.

The long-term goal is to build an engineering demonstration of the HyS Process that can be operated in conjunction with DOE’s planned Next Generation Nuclear Plant, scheduled for operation after 2017 at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Resources:

July 6, 2007 in Hydrogen Production, Nuclear | Permalink | Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19846730

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SRNL Hits Milestone in Nuclear Hydrogen Production:

Comments

Roger will like this one. It just seems to me that you could run this off of geothermal or solar heat instead of using a nuclear station.

Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 6, 2007 10:53:24 AM

Oh great. Nuclear Hydrogen. Now we can have a Hindeberg that glows weather it's on fire or not.

Actually, in spite of the many challenges of hydrogen, this seems like good fundamental research. I continue to hope we can have more efficient large scale storage of excess energy than Hydrogen, though. Even, "in excess of 50% efficiency" still sounds like we lose almost half the electric potential when storing energy as H2.

Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Jul 6, 2007 10:57:50 AM

Roger will like this one. It just seems to me that you could run this off of geothermal or solar heat instead of using a nuclear station.

Yeah, from all those 900 C geothermal sources we have out there. Planning to tap the magma from an active volcano?

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jul 6, 2007 10:59:26 AM

Yes Solar & Geothermal will also work, but is there anyway to store Heat instead of converting to Hydrogen.

Posted by: Max Reid | Jul 6, 2007 10:59:58 AM

Even, "in excess of 50% efficiency" still sounds like we lose almost half the electric potential when storing energy as H2.

Since that's the conversion ratio from heat energy, that's actually rather good. It's better than you'd get from putting nuclear-generated electricity into an ordinary electrolyzer, since producing that electricity throws away about 2/3 of the heat energy in a typical nuclear powerplant.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jul 6, 2007 11:02:13 AM

Hey, if geothermal gets you a third of the way there, why not use it? Top it up with whatever other energy you have around. No magma needed.

Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 6, 2007 11:22:16 AM

Anyway you look at it an improvement in catalysts is good news.

Max: a little off topic but heat can be stored. For geothermal it is already stored. For solar heat up something and use the heat at night.

I have idly speculated that solar thermal be used to heat a large mass of iron or another cheap material. Something rather nontoxic, and noncorrosive, with an appropriate melting point. That would be a commercial scale operation.

At the residential level the analogue would heat a water mass by solar and let that help the heat pump in winter.

I am too old and long retired to be at all concerned with the calculations. Might pan out. Might not.

Posted by: K | Jul 6, 2007 11:28:41 AM

The nukular power industry power mongers will use any ruse/technofix to create and maintain a monopolistic hold over the basic commodity of energy. No doubt, the military/industrial complex is involved in this Machiavellian nukular power charade.

Posted by: Wells | Jul 6, 2007 11:32:31 AM

This is interesting research, but electricity is still used to create the hydrogen. To put this process into widespread use would mean either electricity demand would have to be reduced somewhere, or more plants of some type (goal, gas, nuke) built. Perhaps a combination of waste heat and intermittent electricity (wind, solar) would be fruitful.

Using waste heat alone to drive a chemical reaction directly would be ideal, but since this is fairly obvious, I guess there is nothing useful that can happen at the temperatures of a typical secondary cooling circuit.

Posted by: PeakVT | Jul 6, 2007 12:14:15 PM

Its nice to know that the Peakist's End of the (civilized) World will not arrive,for yet another reason. I view this technology as a last step to be taken if all the other interim and preferable technological efforts run into unblock-able obstacles.

I see little need for a full Gen IV high temperature reactor development based on Fission. It is a aways off anyhow. It won't be there before 2030. By then Fusion and even the He3+ He3 reaction may be the answer of choice.

That is not in the cards however. Li-Ion and Electrified Ground Transport has been demonstrated and cost is a manageable issue. It will arrive long before this technology matures.

I would prefer a Gen III+ standardized Nuke providing half the temperature, a pre-heating if you will. to around 400 degrees C. The technology is here, safety margins are just much better.

There are certainly enough advanced Nukes being built to supply the pre-heat. By last count, there are 251 Nukes being built outside the USA. Within the USA there are 29 Nukes in the process of seeking "Combined Operating and Construction" license approval as well.

Although there are 102 Nukes active in the USA, the latest 50 produce 67% of the electrical energy, as the early ones were significantly smaller. The new standardized designs up rate these last 50 by a small amount of output too.

As a consequence by 2020, the USA will be generating about twice as much electricity from Nukes as is does today, when the oldest Nukes start to retire. So the USA will have 35-40% of its electrical energy coming for m Nukes, with another 16% from Hydro and a few 4-5% from other "renewables" as well. That places half of the US load from non fossil sources. It is also a source of a lot of low level waste heat.

Secondary use of the waste heat has not been used, so using any of it will only improve the plant economics some more. I would think that large scale desalinization would be preferable use, but some H2 preparation is another possible use, as is Nitrogen (fertilizer) creation.

Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jul 6, 2007 12:28:08 PM

So how much energy does it take to turn the Sulfuric Acid back into water?

Or are we just going to turn all of our freshwater into Sulfuric Acid?

Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jul 6, 2007 12:34:14 PM

An Ideal combination to add to the hydrogen to biomass gasification to significantly increase biofuel yields, and possibly displace 100% of our liquid energy consumption.

Posted by: Mike Z | Jul 6, 2007 1:14:36 PM

It may be possible to convert nuclear heat (from reactors not yet slated for construction) to hydrogen at 50% efficiency, but it has to be converted at the other end. PEM fuel cells are ~60% efficient, so end-to-end would be 30% minus gas compression and other losses. Used in an internal combustion engine at 25% instead of a PEMFC, end-to-end becomes 12.5%.

The electrical efficiency of a nuke plant is about 33%. Transmission efficiency, ~90%. Batteries, motor and such, 70%. End to end, 21%, all losses included and no cost or reliability issues stemming from PEMFC's.

Posted by: R | Jul 6, 2007 1:17:14 PM

Greyflcn: you may want to take a closer look at the insert chart. There are two reactions involved. The first one uses the Sulfuric acid as a reactant.

Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 6, 2007 1:58:31 PM

Cheap H2 made from non-fossil fuels is a good thing. Electrolyze CO from atmospheric CO2 (again with non-fossil energy), use that plus the H2 to make synthetic liquid hydrocarbons, and we can keep using internal combustion engine vehicles with no net contribution of greenhouse gasses.

Posted by: richard schumacher | Jul 6, 2007 9:21:54 PM

One advantage that no one is mentioning is that hydrogen can be stored, then used in a turbine by burning, or in a fuel cell during a peak demand period.. and it can be piped to the final location easily if so desired.

Posted by: Herm Perez | Jul 6, 2007 10:00:04 PM

Herm Perez,

We are mentioning that Hydrogen can be stored. We also explicitly state that much energy is lost in creating, storing, and burning hydrogen...so much so that we want a more efficient storage medium. For example, if you have two reservoirs (one 1,000 feet above the other), then you can use excess electricity to pump water up to the higher reservoir, and when you need peak power, let it flow back down hill through turbines. This is a much more efficient form of energy storage than electrolysis, pressurization and combustion, and it works on a huge scale at reasonably low cost with well-established technology. Just because Hydrogen burns cleanly does not make it optimally efficient, or even the most environmentally friendly form of energy storage.

Posted by: | Jul 7, 2007 12:00:22 AM

Thanks, Neil, for the thought of me. This is happy news, indeed, but minus the nuclear energy, though. I've just read in the current Scientific American edition that wider utilization of nuclear energy will increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid happening in Iran and other unstable and unfriendly regimes in the world! Much safer to concentrate on solar and wind electricity, but with a major caveat, due to the unreliability of both of these renewable energy sources!

I figure that since over 50% of electrical generation in the US is from coal-fired plants, the heat from the coal combustion itself can be used in conjunction with renewable electricity from wind or solar sources to produce H2, in order to double (?) the electrical efficiency of room-temp electrolysis. Why? Because steam turbines in coal-fired plants cannot change their output rapidly enough to respond to the fluctuating output of wind or solar electricity. Because of the unreliability of wind or solar electricity, utility companies must invest extra in back-up fossil fuel generation capacity, and this greatly reduce the appeal of renewable electricity. Unless, of course, if unreliable but renewable electricity can be used very efficiently to generate transportation-grade fuels, in the form of hydrogen for the future, or, for now, via Fischer-Trophs synthesis when the H2 can be combined with the CO2 output of the coal-fired plants to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

Now then, why not charge your PHEV or BEV with renewable electricity instead of bother to make H2? WEll, because your PHEV or BEV is not always plugged into the grid when the wind blows the strongest nor when the sun is at its peak of luminosity. The cost of battery is too high for utility providers to use it to store excess wind or solar electricity output. H2 storage is much cheaper and not dependent on scarce materials if deployed in massive quantity.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 7, 2007 12:51:23 AM

Hi Ben, if you're the author of the anonymous last posting?
Storing energy in the form of H2 is not inefficient if one uses the H2 ,or methane, or synthetic hydrocarbon via FT when H2 is combined with waste CO2, as transportation fuels, or via local pipeline for home heating or for distributed generation whereby both heat and electricity can be harnessed from the H2 (or methane, when H2 is combined with CO2) at 80-90% overall efficiency!

Hydrostatic energy storage is well known, and occurs in the natural form as lakes with dams and hydro-electricity, but costs too much when all the structures have to be built from scratch. Plus, how do you put these hydrostatic energy storage into your car? Battery? Aye, there's the rub! Current A123 battery costs $2000/kwh, and there's concern of shortage of Lithium upon massive adoptation of PHEV's.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 7, 2007 1:11:28 AM

Roger: Yes the batteries still cost too much. But IMO that problem is much smaller than working out all the remaining wrinkles in hydrogen (hydrogen ICE is inefficient and fuel cells make batteries look cheap). Batteries are no longer so much a science problem as they are a manufacturing/engineering problem now. As for Lithium, the oceans are full of the stuff.

Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 7, 2007 8:31:59 AM

NiMh battery systems are more appropriate for more classes of PHEV vehicles than Li-ion batteries. The notion of reducing weight to increasing driving range is Neanderthalic.

Carefully distributed battery weight lowers vehicle center-of-gravity, thus improves stability and handling and offers a major safety feature especially applicable to top-heavy roll-prone SUVs. Furthermore, the crash test rule of thumb 'the lighter car always loses' is still valid.

Battery weight becomes less of an issue and more of an advantage with larger vehicles.

The heavier the battery, the more the battery recycling and maintenance industries are likely to remain localized, rather than outsourced to 3rd World slave labor states.

Batteries are likely to have additional use as household electricity storage for low-demand uses, when wear reduces their utility in vehicles. Do NOT forget that a portable, household battery supply can be a lifesaver in an emergency or grid failure, not to mention the ideal means to wrest control of energy systems out of the hands of corporate bourgeoise.

The foremost issue with future automobiles is that their use be limited and travel by other means improved as necessary replacements. Current and predicted numbers of future 'better' cars cannot be supposedly accommodated via high-tech Li-ion batteries, fuel cells, hydrogen, super-light hypercars, computerization, etc. The PHEV vehicle, particularly because of its batteries, offers substantial technological advancement and revolutionary reform for travel, land-use, development and energy.

This forum is habited by nearsighted nerds playing science fiction games.

Posted by: Wells | Jul 7, 2007 9:31:25 AM

Mr. Wells,

If you don't like the company you keep, it is not the fault of the establishment you frequent.

James

Posted by: James | Jul 7, 2007 10:33:33 AM

Wells: Who's playing sci-fi games? If you actually owned an EV then you might actually know what you're talking about. Weight is a lot more than just range. It's also the ability to get up a steep hill and accelerate at a reasonable rate. In my experience, NiMh are a damn site better than lead-acid but still only marginally acceptable. I could even wish for an improvement over my current LiFePO4.

Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 7, 2007 11:28:48 AM

Hi Neil,
ICE like the diesel cycle can attain up to 45% efficiency. ICE, when optimized strictly for Hydrogen fuel, can attain as high as 50% efficiency without requiring the high compression ratio of traditional Diesel engine, due to the much faster combustion rate of Hydrogen. The high compression of Diesel engine creates more friction loss in comparison to net output at part load or even at high load, but the slower combustion (isobaric combustion) of heavy petroleum like diesel fuel requires high compression for proper expansion. Fast combustion rate of H2 allowing near-isochoric combustion at TDC, hence efficient expansion of combusted gas without requiring very high compression like 1:20 in a Diesel. Compression ratio of 1:13 is sufficient for optimal H2-ICE efficiency, leading to less engine internal friction.

Now, with a full hybrid ICE-HEV drive train, the optimal efficiency of the ICE can be maintained throughout all driving mode, allowing the H2-ICE-HEV to get close to the FCV-HEV in term of overall efficiency.

Wells,
Your posting sounded real intelligent until the last sentence. For the record, I have 20/20 vision without the use of corrective lenses. Never needed them. :)

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 7, 2007 11:49:25 AM

You cant store energy hydrostatically in S Florida, it is flat as a pancake, so hydrogen can take the place of natural gas if it can be made cheap enough for peak demand power generation.. if you burn it in simple gas turbines you can get up to 46% efficiency, up to 90% if you can reuse the heat in co-generation schemes..

If large fuel cells can beat this then even better.

Posted by: Herm Perez | Jul 7, 2007 1:09:06 PM

Hydrogen has its uses. You and I might prefer a PHEV as a more efficient way to use generated energy but that's because we see the car as 'transportation.' But let's face it, there are people out there who see a car as something else; call it 'image' call it 'lifestyle' - whatever, you're not going to see a hybrid Ferrari or a Porsche with a battery pack. Where's a reason BMW researched liquid hydrogen fueled cars. They know their customers want to hear the engine purr. An electric whine doesn't cut it in some people's minds.

Given the driving patterns of most people; if you can give a car a CO2-free range of 25km you've got the GW thing beat. Let's not argue either/or, let's use both and just get it done.

Posted by: ai_vin | Jul 7, 2007 2:18:13 PM

The same can be said of the domestic brands; What do you call a Ford pick-up without the throaty roar of a V8?
A Nissan.

Posted by: ai_vin | Jul 7, 2007 2:27:37 PM

The great thing about being alive now is seeing how this all works out and watching history that will be taught for centuries.. as it happens.

I personaly think things like this will lead to big things over the next 200 years.

Posted by: wintermane | Jul 7, 2007 6:38:31 PM

Of course, advanced batteries like nanotech lithium or NiMh are still extremely important now and in the future of transportation, in the form of battery packs for HEV's. Imagine the amount of money to be made by battery mfg's if 600 million to 1 billion cars in the world will one day sport a 1-2kwh battery pack? And investors in Lithium and Nickel and rare earth minerals will also be laughing all the ways to the bank as well. So, cheer up, battery enthusiasts! even if we can manage to produce a large amount of transportation fuel from renewable wind and solar energy, the advance batteries will still be crucial for this revolution. A123, Altair Nano, Cobasys, Panasonic, etc. will one day be the equivalent of Intel, AMD or even Microsoft.

But, just imagine how neat it would be if we can synthesize most of our future transportation fuels from wind and solar energy, with a little help (heat) from waste biomass or coal combustion in power generation plants? Adios, amigos OPEC!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 7, 2007 9:48:39 PM

Well, whaddayaknow. Finally got some feedback from my uncommon view. Unfortunately, you science fiction pretenders missed most of it and focused your mental faculties instead on unbunching your panties.

A PHEV need not provide battery operation driving range at speeds above 35mph or driving distance more than 20 miles. Limiting PHEV battery operation range and speed is an advantage - an economic incentive to drive less, rocket scientist wannabees.

Driving less affects development patterns whereby more destinations become accessable without having to drive. Walking, bicycling become better travel options and mass transit more practical to arrange.

Economies that depend upon and accommodate all modes of travel, (the least efficient being any kind of car), are inherently local and regional. The breakthrough that must follow full implementation of PHEV-related technology (plug-in, V2G, photovoltiac rooftop panels, standardization of vehicular NiMh batteries and electronic controls, conversion to PHEV industries, etc), will be landscaping. People walking more often need better sidewalks, streetscapes and other such places to walk.

Stuff that in your science fiction pipe, smoke it and see what you can dream up, boys. Is a technological breakthrough in landscaping like actually necessary? Absolutely! Got any ideas how to turn asphalt-poisoned roadways and parking lot drek into more natural settings once the real problem of too many freaking cars is solved?

Posted by: Wells | Jul 8, 2007 12:01:49 AM

Well well Wells!
It's kinda like the tea pot calling the kettle black!

Most of us here in GCC share your ideal of reducing automobile use, reducing urban sprawl, more public transportation etc. BUT, these are ideals to be decided by the public at large and not by us engineers and scientists! We have solutions to help end the oil addiction and to control global warming TODAY! But we are not dictators who can force the public to abandon their cars, their opulent lifestyle, and their oversized houses in the suburb.

Meanwhile, we still have the responsibility to help the public to find the most sustainable way to poison our planet.

Meanwhile, I'd like to recite our most wise and revered vice president Dick Cheney, who once said: "The American way of life is not negotiable!" [sarcasm] This, apparently, is a viewpoint shared my the majority of the public at large.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 8, 2007 12:46:51 PM

Roger. Save the quote, "We have the responsibility to help the public find the most sustainable way to poison our planet." Recognizable sarcasm. I'll just assume the rest of your post is also sarcasm. My claim that plug-in hybrid technology as paramount is in no way dictatorial - it is a choice that the public cannot hear amidst the clamour of high-tech pipe dreams.

Most GCC participants do not incorporate low-tech considerations into their convoluted endorsements for high-tech psuedo-fixes. Maintaining current levels of motoring guarantees overwhelming growth of motoring and energy/fuel consumption. Factor that in.

The production of hydrogen at centralized facilities eliminates the means that consumers may use to reduce their own consumption. Household production on a smaller scale, though it may not offer an extended driving range, is comparitively low-tech. The even simpler technology of storage batteries in a plug-in hybrid drivetrain enables energy conservation to a much greater degree.

This high-tech vs low-tech argument is like California's High-speed rail project. Arbitrary legislation mandated its top speed reach 200mph. Such speeds require expensive electrification, special transets and complete grade-separation. If the legislative mandate instead required a top speed of 150mph, cost is cut in half, and freight rail can also use the new rail on a limited basis. Thus, it is likely that high-tech nerds and policy wonks have doomed the rail project's current effort. Thanks a lot, nerds!

Posted by: Wells | Jul 9, 2007 1:06:51 PM

Wells,
U r an astute observer!
But blame costly technologies more on greedy Big Business that use big money to corrupt governments at many levels. Why did Bush Adm invade Iraq, put up missile defense after he antagonized N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran on purpose to give him reason to develop missile defense tech, and push for inefficient ethanol? To please Big Defense and Farm lobby.

And U r right also on the Microsoft nerds who kept pushing ever more complex OS so that they and all the software and hardware makers have chance to cash in on the sales of new softwares and hardwares when the old ones won't be compatible anymore!

And cars are getting heavier and heavier, ladden with all the gizmos and doo-dads that most consumers don't know what to do with! Any fuel-saving technologies gained are wasted on porky luxo sedans, SUV's and minivans weighing 5000-6000 lbs.

The Chinese and Indians are no longer happy going to work on their bicycles, as more and more are using polluting motorbikes and cars...greatly increase the risks of cancers and other diseases.

Of course, everyone else have got to feed themselves and their families and thus have to put up with the rat race!

Blame it on HUMAN NATURE, Wells! GREED, VANITY, One-upmanship, selfishness, or just plain basic instinct toward competitive survival in this dog-eat-dog world!

But the ability to synthesize our fuels from renewable energy in the post-petroleum era will be crucial to sustain our world as we know it! This will be our new reality. Anything else would be fantasy.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 9, 2007 5:20:08 PM

Look Roger, if you take objection to being called a nerd, don't prove yourself one with tangiential retorts and conspiracy theories about agribusiness, defense contractors, Microsoft, China's trend toward motor vehicles, human greed and vanity and Bushco fascism. Your attempts to make fun of my views are insipid.

I support bio-fuels when utilized in the Plug-in hybrid drivetrain, whereby combustion efficiency is maximized, battery operation furthers fuel economy, and offer many other important advantages and benefits which have apparently gone completely over your head.

I've presented many logical arguments in defense of Plug-in hybrids here and receive the least replies. Posters here are far too entranced with high-tech gizmos that only increase automobile dependency and corporate control. This is not a game, boy.

Posted by: Wells | Jul 9, 2007 7:47:53 PM

Wells,
then, you'll be happy to read this latest article on GCC: Ford and Edison cooperating on plug-in-hybrid.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/ford-and-edison.html#more

Time will tell how PHEV will fan out. It'll hinge upon the ability to mass produce durable battery at cost competitive with other method of energy storage. It'll also depend on availability of critical raw material to produce hundreds of millions of ~10kwh battery packs or greater. It'll also depend on what percentage of the public would want to give up some cargo space or a spare tire, and incurring excess weight, for the larger PHEV battery pack, vs a smallish HEV battery pack like that in the Prius II.

Meanwhile, I see no way out of being able to synthesize transportation fuels from renewable energy, or having practical methods of storing electrical generating fuels from renewable energy (eg. solar photosynthesis) for rainy days, (preparing for many rainy days in a row, literally) when all oil, gas, coal, and even nuclear energy will be exhausted. Peace :)

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 9, 2007 11:07:01 PM

and even nuclear energy will be exhausted.

This won't happen for millions of years, if then, if fuel cycles with breeding are adopted.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jul 10, 2007 8:11:54 AM

Roger. Regarding durable batteries; NiMh Rav4 battery packs exceed 100,000 miles, and their utility extended with low-demand household use, which I must repeat will prove invaluable in an emergency or grid failure.

Regarding consumer preference; nevermind any presumed limit to crass materialism, the PHEV offers limited battery operation of 20 miles or so, (as I have consistently stipulated as an economic advantage), and entails a smaller battery pack that takes up less cargo space, particularly when mounted low on the frame, most likely under the seatspace, lower trunk space, etc.

Regarding battery production; raw materials for NiMh batteries are more available and practical than exotic materials used in fuel cells. Also, battery recycling has been a viable industry for decades.

Regarding the production of fuels via renewable energy, PHEVs discourage long-distance driving thereby reducing the demand for fuel to the point within renewable energy capacity.

I find the article on the Denver hybrid battery/fuel cell bus more interesting and promising. The batteries supply most of the driving energy, and the fuel cell extends the driving range of the batteries. I believe the use of hydrogen will require frequent maintenance.

This new and hypothetical process to synthesize hydrogen through nukular power is a ruse. The entire scheme is too complex, too costly, and offers too little incentive for various conservation measures; oh, but it's really totally like cool and everything.

Posted by: Wells | Jul 10, 2007 10:57:05 AM

Paul,
You may be right, but this is a moot point since we are trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapon proliferation. The fewer nuclear plants there will be, the less chance for bomb-grade material will fall into the wrong hands. Getting permit to build a nuclear plant and decommissioning an old nuclear plant both are very daunting and expensive tasks, the latter will generate radio-active materials everywhere, the stuffs that can leak into your water supply and grazing, farming areas, like in France! And everyone remember Chernobyl or 3-mile island.

At the same time, a few percentage of desert area will be sufficient to supply most of our energy needs. Solar thermal electricity is promising and soon to become competitive with fossil fuel generation if one factor in the cost of global warming or cost of carbon sequestration in coal-fired plants. HVDC (high voltage DC) electrical line has very low-loss transmission at a loss of 3% for every 1000 km, thus can power most of our country for under 8% loss. The ~$600 billions USD pumped into Iraq and Afghanistan so far can build a lot of solar electric capability. At $2,000 USD/kw, that money will buy 300 Gw of power. The exportation of solar plants and solar technology to the Middle East will do wonders for our manufacturing jobs and technological base, instead of exporting wars, violence and deaths.

Wells,
Massive adaptation of PHEV will not achieve gain in efficiency over HEV if you still use chemical fuels (coal, gas, oil, H2) for electricity generation, or using chemical fuel generation capacity to backup unreliable solar and wind. Well-to-wheel efficiency of BEV or PHEV is not superior to HEV. If you still use chemical fuels to make electricity, might as well use it to run your high-efficiency HEV, to avoid loss in electrical transmission from plant to home socket.

Now, breeder nuclear electricity will advance the case of PHEV over that of HEV, since electricity will go directly to PHEV without having to thru H2 or HC fuel route. But, nuclear energy to electricity has ~40% efficiency, whereas nuclear energy to H2 can be as high as 50% as stated in this article, enough to compensate for the less-efficient H2 to wheel vs battery to wheel step. But, again, the concern for nuclear proliferation will make this "nuclear option" a moot point!

Only ~1 million HEV's built so far, and the price of Nickel has escalated 3 folds. This forces Toyota to look into Li-ion to replace NiMh. Imagine a ten to 100 folds increase in numbers of HEV's, with ~1-2kwh battery packs. Imagine replacing these with 10-20kwh battery packs, a further 10-fold increase! What will that do to the price of Nickel and rare earth metals?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 10, 2007 10:40:40 PM

Roger. Mass production of batteries and their recycling are standard industry practice, and not likely to be outsourced to slave-labor 3rd World states when fuel costs for shipping become prohibitive. Neither is it justifiable that market forces of supply and demand dictate increased costs, as mass production is likely to reduce costs.

We should not try to parse effiency standards to some hypothetical maximum point of perfection. California's hi-speed rail project is likely to be rejected because of its arbitrary legislative mandate to reach an unecessary top speed that doubles the project cost and limits the new rail's practical use.

PHEV technology creates advantages and benefits beyond the question of well-to-wheel efficiency. I have listed these advantages numerous times here, but you have NOT given them the least consideration.

The advantages of PHEV exceed those of BEV and HEV under all energy production configurations.

Posted by: Wells | Jul 11, 2007 10:25:10 AM

Wells,

I am delighted that you deigned to grace our pages with your "bon mots" and your Ph.D in changing Human Nature and creating a non-bourgeoisie "New Man".

I just offer the point that it has never happened yet; and all your buddies who appoint themselves to lead the development of the "new man" seem to have failed.
Of course, we humans are just too stupid to see the revealed truth of a way to organize society that is dialectically perfect. I'm sure that I and most here don't share your view that we must liquidate or Gulagize the miscreants who won't reform or agree to walk... while you ride.

Your views are quaint.

It all serves to make the point that there are still people like you, that really do believe humanity is really pretty stupid. It is really quaint too, to think that and that we have need of guidance from such genius as you display.

Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jul 12, 2007 10:50:31 AM

Stan. Bug off. Thanks.

Posted by: Wells | Jul 12, 2007 3:26:03 PM

You may be right, but this is a moot point since we are trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapon proliferation.

Judging by the success rate of the effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and the time scale I mentioned (millions of years), this seems to be a pointless objection. And, breeding isn't going to be needed soon anyway even if the world goes whole-hog nuclear; once-through cycles with improved uranium supplies and/or fuel elements incorporating thorium can be used for a long time.

Decomissioning has led to nuclear materials getting into water supplies in France? I doubt any significant amount has done so, but perhaps you could provide more evidence. Understand that the global human dose from radioisotopes in phosphate fertilizers is, each year, about half the total integrated human dose from Chernobyl, so contamination from nuclear plants could be quite bad before it begins to compare with contamination we're already accepting.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jul 13, 2007 10:37:05 AM

Well, Paul, which technology would you want the developed countries such as ours to export? Nuclear tech and a large world-wide shipments of nuclear fuel, or large-scale solar thermal plants, or small scale solar panels on large number of rooftops? Thank God, N.Korea has now agreed to shut down their nuclear plant, after so much international objection and coaxing and threat! Can we hope the same from Iran, which is making the western civilization quite nervous? What if Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya will follow suit, once the nuclear technology is so widely available?

No, the UN must get its act together to be much tougher on nuclear proliferation, and that means abandoning nuclear energy altogether as the eventual goal, and put the Genie back in the bottle and throw it away into the sea!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 20, 2007 10:16:20 PM