correcting Italic problem Testing...testing

second try

I am for nuclear power and think we should follow the lead of the French. We should not burn coal for any of our electric power.

Unfortunately there are risks. A 4' thick containment structure like on current power plants could be damaged or opened by a plane. It would be very hard to aim at the proper structure to hit especially at 400mph. A 757 would probably not do it but a 747 would. The wingbox is just too heavy and strong. But a 747 can do damage almost anywhere like a stadium, LNG facility or so many other places.

Um the reason a plane can do damage to the pentagon is some idjit put 4 zillion windows in its gtrealomh outer wall... They have tested vs planes aloy since 9/11 and as long as ge doesnt go home and garden on us the plants are safe.

As for h2 electrolysis eff... it already passed 75% years ago and yes 85% WORKING units have been reported on this very site. As for heat assisyed versions... they might b e able to commercialize the lower temp versions they feveloped vut the plan so far is still to build some type 4 reactores and use thier high temp heat to belt out huge cheap h2 in BULK.

This is the simple inevitable way h2 will ramp..

Phase 1

Vost per mile 30-100 cents. Yatgeted customers.. extreme sports cars to suv.big trucks.
Codt of h2 at pump...around 15 bucks a kilo.. less per gallon equive.. Effective cost per mile...30-90 cents per mile.

Phase 2
target 15 cents per mile
Target group// cjeaer sports cars and subs and motr trucks.

cost of fuel...7.5 bucks a kilo.

Phase 3
Target 10 cents a mile.

Target group everyone.

Target fuel cost..5-6 bucks a kilo depending on fc milage...

Current stated goal of h2 cost at pump? 3.5 buks a kilo.

Current tech h2 ... 70 cents per for coal.. 270 per for ng and depending on energy cost... 180-420 a kilo for electrolysis via 3-7 cents per kqh electric.

Main current cost is equipment cost not energy cost and alot of progress in that area has been made so far.

See all that is needed for an economy to pop up is a resource cheaper then the product it makes.. and enough people willing to pay enough for that prodict. In this case.. we have a few billion car owners ahuge number of ways to make the product.. h2 cheap enough soon.

And rgus alot of money flows. Meanwhile ev.. deals is low low margin fuel source and in the end bargin bin cars... matve 1/10000 th the amount of money as h2 and thus 1/10000th the force behind it.

Roger Pham: Please don't mind E-P's sarcastic and often caustic comments. It is his way to treat people who are not on the exact same wavelenght.

Luckily, most posters and humans are not like him. It would be a sad world with half a dozen E-P's and six billions slaves.

Back to the subject at hand...it seems more and more obvious that PHEVs + BEVs will be mass produced at an increasing rate between 2010 and 2020.

With over 40 worldwide battery packs manufacturers, there will be no shortages. Competition will bring battery price down very quickly.

Smaller, common sense, e-cars will eventually be much simpler, much more efficient and cheaper than current oversized ICE vehicles.

Lower cost BEVs will come from China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, Japan, Malaysia, etc. USA and Canada cannot compete in that area and are condemned to produce 3+ tonnes monsters for our oversized brain washed drivers. Since the latter compose almost 30% of our population, and is growing fast, that niche market wil be very important for GM, Ford and Chrysler's future.

Ten to fifteen years from now, the yearly local market may be for 3 to 5 million locally built monsters + 10 to 15 million imported PHEVs and BEVs.

Will the 1:3 ratio change with time (as the local drivers get bigger) or will PHEVs and BEVs accomodate them with larger e-vehicles?

I wouldn't worry too much about the extra clean electricity required. PHEVs and BEVs introduction will be progressive (over two+ decades) giving ample time to build 100+ new up-to-date nuclear power plants + wind farms + solar etc.

Interesting times ahead.

==The gas turbine power plant of the future will be powered by HYDROGEN stored from excess summer solar or wind energy==

If thats so.

Care to show us the system efficiency your hydrogen storag?

If you put in 100 MWh of electricity,
How many MWh of electricity would you get back out?

Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of electrolyzing hydrogen, why not use that excess summer sunlight-generated electricity to pump water up hill, then let it flow back down hill during the cloudy winter months and spin a hydro plant? I bet it would be more efficient.

GreyFlcn,
For higher efficiency, try Solid Oxide Fuel Cell/Electrolyzer (SOFC/E) for power generation AND H2 production when there will be an excess of electricity from wind or solar PV, for efficiency around 60-80% from H2 to electricity.

The SOFC/E works like a battery with nearly unlimited energy supply: H2 plus O2 in and electricity out, or electricity in plus H2O and H2 and O2 will be the products, depending on whether there will be a surplus of wind electricity or shortage of electricity.

"For wind and solar, PHEV CD mode provides far more kilometers of service than the use of the renewable electricity in electrolysis to create hydrogen."

Maybe some people see solar electric hydrogen as part of the hydrogen highway and economy, this shows that it is not as efficient.

We seem to be trying to find practical ways to work with the vehicles that we have on the roads now, instead of hoping for a complete conversion in a short time.

I think that the situation may work out, if we stay on the path towards the solution instead of going forward and backward, depending on who is in office.

Continued from above,
so, assuming 70% SOFC efficiency in term of electricity generation of the SOFC/E, plus high-temp waste heat that can be used toward electrolysis , and for high-temp electrolysis with 140% electrical efficiency plus input waste heat from the SOFC, then you would be getting close to 90-100% efficiency from hydrogen to electricity and heat, and then electricity and heat to hydrogen again, with good insulation.

The question is then, why not just use the wind electricity directly, without going the circuitous route of SOFC/E. The issue here is that wind energy is highly unconstant, such that immediate back up source will be needed when the wind quickly abates, and that source to absorb the excess wind electricity will need to be at hand when the wind gusts to high speed. Also, there will be days in which there will be no wind at all. So, it is important to keep the SOFC/E hot and ready to go in respond the wind status, whether to produce more electricity, or absorb more electricity. Gas turbines takes a lot time to spool up and cannot respond quickly to the wind's fluctuation in output, so it must be running constantly to provide base load.

"High temp waste heat"

And where does this heat come from? You have to heat the SOFC to produce the electricity or to produce the H2...so you are looking at the efficiency of the H2 conversion process without including the electricity used to heat the SOFC itself.

140% electrical efficiency...okay, but what is the total system efficiency including heat input? Remember we are talking about a totally PV/Solar system here not a natural gas co-generation unit that has "waste heat".

If you use the solar radiation to heat the water for the electrolysis process, how much energy goes into heating the water that could have instead been used for direct electricity generation?

Roy,

Pumped hydro has been proven more than 70% efficient for many decades. If you have the land and the vertical drop, it remains a very cost effective method of energy storage and one that I favor for practical nighttime renewable energy.

Roger: You greatly exaggerate the variability of wind power. As the installed base grows you will find the power produced averages out. If you put your windmills up into the jet stream the flow becomes much more reliable. There are solar systems that can generate power even at night (from stored heat). Wave systems are reliable. Short of a reasonable way to store hydrogen, it's only good for niche applications.

Patrick,

Concentrated solar thermal itself, per unit kwh of heat energy, is much cheaper than solar thermal electricity or solar PV electricity, per unit kwh. Solar thermal electricity requires a heat transfer fluid and a heat engine like a Sterling or steam turbine and a generator, all adding up to many times over the investment of a simple parabolic disk for concentrated solar heat.
Thus, surplus solar electricity from roof-top PV's can be routed thru the grid to be fed to the SOE (solid oxide electrolyzer) heated by concentrated solar heat to produce hydrogen at near the site of H2 storage or dispensing.

140% electrical energy efficiency is very good for the high-temp electrolysis process, since the electrical energy is expensive to obtain. The extra solar heat or waste heat from a gas turbine power plant is dirt-cheap in comparison, and thus will bring the total energy cost of H2 production down.

Remember, since solar energy and wind energy are free, total system efficiency would be irrelevant! The cost of solar collector and wind turbines are getting cheaper and cheaper as more wide-spread implementation will take place.
The total cost of H2 production from renewable energy vs. the total cost of Battery Electricity, taking into account the amortization cost of the battery itself, would be more relevant!

Um the reason h2 is moving along so fast is....

1 the power company wants to replace its massively expensive jet turbines with something far cheaper. These are the spot load kings and cost bloody tons to operate so ya h2 is CHEAPER.

The power company also wants to get ready to replace nat gas as it ALSO hits peak soon and will rocket up in price... Finalyqindfarms and solar stations and such want h2 because belive it or not they dont actualy sell thier variable capacity.. they sell thier base cap and then maybe manage to sell some of the rest in the spot market... Thus h2 means more money. Finaly the coal power side of things has a lovely new trick... its new super super plant makes h2. Thats how it works... and that h2 is CHEAP. Obh abd then there is nuke power.. under 2 cent per kwh operating cost now.. and new plants are even cheaper to run.. and amazingly amazing.. the type 4 reactor will make even cheaper power AND a metric oodle of h2.. very very cheap h2.


Its dirt simple folks h2 is getting cheaper and more abundant every month and even without cars in the loop its gona be BIG snf vheap.. and with those 2 features cars are sure to follow. How cheap? We dont know... cheaper then today is good enough. How abundant? we cant say.. but the trend is VERY ABUNDANT.

I mean realy look at the current trend... DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Roger: I don't know how often you've tried to fly the "cost of hydrogen vs the cost of batteries" canard. That duck doesn't fly for anyone that has an IQ over 50 and thinks about it for more than two seconds. How about the cost of hydrogen vs. the cost of electricity and the cost of batteries vs. the cost of fuel cells? That's the true comparison.

I still haven't gotten an answer on Hydrogen Storage.

If you put 100 MWh of electricity in, how many MWh of electricity do you get out.

(Also 140% efficiency wtf? Second law of thermodynamics please?)

Oj grey ill explain..

In thermi assisted electrolysis a good part of the energy needed comes not from electric power but from heat. Thus rvrn tho h2 packs 36 kwh of energy per kilo you instead get 1/4 kilos of h2 for that much electricity.

As for the heat... they use the heat from a typr 4 reactor or from anything how enough.. and STILL manage to generate as much electric power as before.. thus h2 production AND more electric power ALL doe the same amount of nuke fuel as used to make alot less electric power and NO h2. win win win.

NOW the cool thing isyou can then take that 1.4 kilos of h2 and cram it into an 80 eff stationary fuel cell abd get 112 % of the electricity you put in comming back out.

But thats not why the power company loves it... see jet turbines are used for spot power needs and gas turbines for peak needs... many of the spot power sources cost MORE then a buck a kilowatt.. but you cram cheap excess nuke power and all the excess variable wind solar wave power into that sucker and you generate cheap h2 you can sell for a solid profit AND still have tons left to fire both gas turbines and jet turbines thus saving HUGE amounts of loot. And they MIGHT be avle to even replace that jet turbine with a set of fuel cells wich would require far far far FAAAAAAR less maintenance then the jet turbines and do a better job AND not cost the company MILLIONS in pollution fines abd dont make noise and dont explode if yiu dont tear em apart and onspect/ repair em after nearly every use...

Wintermane, peaking power isn't expensive because of turbine cost. Jet turbines are dirt cheap. The problem is you have to amortize the cost over very few hours of operation.

Fuel cells make this problem much, much worse because the upfront cost is very high. Amortizing that high upfront cost over minimal operating hours is a recipe for financial disaster.

However, before solar and wind pass 1% of energy generation; the environmental impact will be too much to tolerate.

As a side note, my numbers say wind is very near 1% of US electricity mix today. Doesn't sound like much, but a continuation of 30% growth rates put it at 10% by 2016 and 100% by 2025. The latter obviously won't happen, but people who dismiss wind simply aren't doing the math.

Well I didnt realy listen carefully as I was bussy eating mint chocolate fudge oreo icecream at the time and the people talking were bloody boring.. but the power company guy stated clearly that h2 and fuel cells was a garanteed done deal as soon as enough h2 was around to handle it. And that they were making sure that would be soon.

My gwnweal view is ill let the boring people fight it out and enjoy whatever the heck pops out the other side.. tho personaly I want a h2 car simply so I can scream oh the humanity if one blows up on the news or youtube . That and a fuell cell is just cooler then a battery and for once I want something cool to pop out of those boring behemoths factories.

About new car fuel, check this out.

- Solid biofuel vehicle solutions.
www.precer.com

I have been looking for alternative hybrid car
solutions for a while and while searching I found
this company in Europe who has developed a new
solid biofuel powered vehicle technology that sounds
like what we all have been waiting for.

They have a new vehicle called BioRacer and are
developing their technolgy for other vehicles also.

Have a look at www.precer.com

There are alot of writing about the company in different
newspapers and also on television in Sweden.
They have alot of different links to the articles and
what 2 different Swedish televison companies has made
about this company, you can see the vehicle drive in
these links.

I really like what they are doing, so please check it
out. I will try to get more information.

John

Reading this has been a real hoot. About the only things I know for sure are:

1: that the electric utility industry is, generally speaking, semi-orgamistic over the growth potential of PHEV's/BEV's.

and

2: that DoE really (in economic reality terms) stands for the Department of Electricity.

What I don't know for certain is what will dominate electric generation plants in the future and/or how much distributed generation there will be. At present, natural gas dominates new centralized power plants and distributed generation is shrinking at least in CHP.

As for the merits of GREET, I believe it is on the right track in that the model is relatively transparent, as opposed to EIA's "NEMS" used for DoE's appliance efficiency programs. However, more should be done with GREET. For one, sensitivity/risk analyses.
What if carbon capture & sequestering doesn't pan out?

I'd also like to see a breakout of where the reductions comne from. For example, what are the savings relative to smaller, lighter and more aerodynamic vehicles as opposed to the efficiency of the fuels themselves?

Kind time of days!
I want to offer unique medicine against a HIV Details can learn here
Be convinced of it!