« Teijin, Mitsubishi Chemical To Mass-Produce Carbon Fiber Autoparts | Main | QuantumSphere NiFe Nanoparticle Electrodes Push Electrolyzer Efficiency to 85% »
DOE to Provide $35-$40M for Materials-Based Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence; Gaseous and Liquid Hydrogen Systems Not Included
2 March 2008
The Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is soliciting applications to fund one multidisciplinary Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence (CoE) team. Applications are due 4 June 2008.
This CoE team will complement the work of existing independent projects and the three materials-based hydrogen storage CoEs (adsorbents, metal hydrides and chemical hydrogen storage materials) by researching and developing onboard vehicular hydrogen storage systems and components that will allow for a driving range of more than 300 miles while meeting vehicular packaging, safety, cost and performance requirements. DOE intends to select one team and provide approximately $35 to $40 million over 6 years for this effort.
The DOE has set the following objectives with the goal of achieving the 300+ mile range:
By 2010, develop and verify on-board hydrogen storage systems achieving 2 kWh/kg (6 wt.%), 1.5 kWh/Liter, and $4/kWh.
By 2015, develop and verify on-board hydrogen storage systems achieving 3 kWh/kg (9 wt.%), 2.7 kWh/Liter, and $2/kWh.
The DOE calculates that a approximately 5 to 13 kg of hydrogen (~5 to 13 gallons of gasoline equivalent [GGE]) would be required to achieve greater than 300 mile driving range across various light-duty vehicle platforms. Assuming no major changes in the basic vehicle platform designs, the 2010 targets would enable some vehicles to achieve a driving range of at least 300 miles, while the 2015 targets would enable virtually all of the light-duty vehicle platforms to achieve this driving range.
Hydrogen storage systems, particularly materials-based systems, are complex and have a multitude of design parameters, subsystems, and input/output variables that impact overall system performance. System issues include, but are not limited to, thermal management, material handling, refueling, cost, start-up/shut-down, transient control, manufacturability, geometric constraints/packaging, safety and interface with the power plant and the fueling infrastructure. Examples of material issues that impact system performance include packing density, capacity, kinetics, mass diffusion, thermodynamics, operating temperature and pressure. Off-board regenerable materials (e.g., chemical hydrogen carriers or hydrides) also require additional considerations for handling of hydrogenated and spent material(s) within the on-board system. Vehicle inventory and components for “re-filling” and removal should also be considered. Such system issues require a new comprehensive engineering effort to meet DOE’s goals.
The new Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence (CoE) will complement the work of the existing materials-focused CoEs and independent projects by addressing these on-board system concerns, providing both assessments of realistic on-board system performance and important feedback to the material developers.
—FOA Announcement
The CoE will develop engineering, design, and system models that address on-board subsystems, including refueling, thermal management, hydrogen discharge, and the storage-delivery interface. The CoE will also design, construct, test, evaluate and decommission subscale prototypes based upon adsorbents, metal hydrides and chemical hydrogen storage materials.
Specific objectives of the new Engineering CoE are to:
Develop and utilize an understanding of storage system requirements for light-duty vehicles to design innovative components and systems with the potential to meet DOE performance and cost targets;
Develop innovative on-board system concepts for materials-based storage technologies;
Develop and test innovative concepts for storage subsystems and component designs;
Develop engineering, design and system models which address both on-board subsystems and the fuel cycle, including refueling, transfer and separation of fresh and spent fuel for chemical approaches, hydrogen discharge profiles, thermal management and the storage-delivery interface; and
Design, fabricate and test subscale prototype components and systems for each material-based technology (adsorbents, metal hydrides and chemical hydrogen storage materials).
Specifically excluded from the scope of this particular opportunity are:
Engineering of the off-board regeneration of spent chemical hydrogen/hydride storage materials;
Sodium borohydride hydrolysis nor pure, undoped single-walled carbon nanotubes—to be consistent with the Program’s no-go decisions in these areas.
Liquid hydrogen storage systems;
High-pressure compressed hydrogen storage systems;
Cryogenic high-pressure compressed hydrogen storage systems;
Hydrogen storage systems for stationary power or portable power applications;
Physical integration and experimental testing of a storage system integrated with a fuel cell or ICE power plant (however, modeling of these issues is included in the scope); and
Scale-up of material synthesis methods towards pilot production levels.
Advanced low-cost, conformable pressurized or cryo-tank/hybrid systems are within scope as part of a materials-based hydrogen storage system.
Resources
Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence (DE-PS36-08GO98006)
March 2, 2008 in Hydrogen Storage | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26689166
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DOE to Provide $35-$40M for Materials-Based Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence; Gaseous and Liquid Hydrogen Systems Not Included :
Comments
Finally they realized Gaseous and Liquid hydrogen won't work! But, they still are a step behind, where is the Engineering Center of Excellence for Advanced Lithium-Ion battery cathode developement?
Posted by: Dave | Mar 2, 2008 9:56:04 AM
Dave: in government there is always a tendency to fund development of something that can't happen for a few years rather than what is near (lithium-ion).
A cynic will say that is very convenient for those who don't have to deliver. The optimist will say there is no reason to prod what is well underway. Both can be right at times. Take your choice here.
$40m over 6 years is trivial. Nothing of the scope described will get done with the money mentioned. Government money often does go farther; as a rule-of-thumb projects don't pay taxes and facilities are often free.
Look over the five specific objective bullets (last one is not dotted).
First Bullet: Lots of extra words there. "develop and utilize an understanding of ... requirements"?
Yep! That really bodes well. And the bullet is a word string which should be two complete sentences.
Anyway, they are gonna design components that have the potential to meet requirements.
At the end, after the exclusions list, they add a sentence about cyro/tank stuff. That should be in the last (undotted) bullet of the specific objectives list.
Or is that what they want you to think?
Let us hope the team does some good work.
Posted by: K | Mar 2, 2008 11:44:39 AM
STORE YOUR FUEL IN WATER
HYDROGEN IS ALREADY COMPRESSED (STORED) IN WATER. DEVOTE YOUR ENERGY TO DECOMPRESSING THAT HYDROGEN, THROUGH ELECTROLISIS OR SOME OTHER MEANS AND USE IT TO POWER YOUR VEHICLES. YOU CAN DRIVE YOUR CAR OVER 100 MILES ON TWO OUNCES OF WATER. CONVERT THE WATER TO HYDROGEN ONBOARD THE CAR, ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR CHARGING STATUONS.
YOU COULD OPERATE ALL YOUR VEHICLES ON HYDROGEN FUEL ELECTROLIZED FROM WATER IF YOU WISHED FOR A LOT LESS MONEY THAN OIL AND WITHOUT THE UNCERTAIN SECURITY AGENDA THAT COMES WITH IMPORTED OIL.
WHAT DOES WATER COST???
YOU CAN RUN YOUR GENERATORS AND PUMPS ON WATER -- HYDROGRN ALSO.
Posted by: LEO WELLS | Mar 3, 2008 6:35:53 AM
Hey DOE:
Here is how you store your 'hydrogen'. You react it with carbon nanospheres (obtained from ambient carbon dioxide) in a Sabatier reactor to produce independent quad-connected hydrogen matrices. These matrices, when stored under reasonable pressure, can achieve your goals of 2.7 kW-hr/liter or better.
Since the quad-connected hydrogen matrices are actually just methane (CH4), then the existing NG infrastructure can move it around as needed. Existing IC engines can burn the stuff. Using methane as a fuel also saves half the water use compared with hydrogen as a fuel.
4H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + 2H2O
WHY ARE YOU STILL WASTING MONEY ON HYDROGEN STORAGE RESEARCH!!!????!!!!
Methane is a quite adequate fuel in terms of density for use in vehicles. It can be readily obtained from biomass sources as well. So methane can provide the needed range. Together with PHEVs, that's all we need to displace oil. No Hydrogen, no hydrogen storage, and no fuel cells are needed.
Why can't the DOE get this through their heads?
Center for excellence???? More like a Center for Incompetence....
The Department of Energy: Co-Opted by Big Coal and Big Oil since 1981.....
Posted by: Jim | Mar 3, 2008 8:08:35 AM
Jim,
I agree. CH4 methane is a good way to store and transport hydrogen. It is nature's little way of doing this. It makes no sense to reinvent the wheel. Methane can be used to so many things in our society, it would seem obvious. The price of natural gas has been very low for a long time and only since deregulation has the price risen and become volatile. What you see now in the U.S. are more wells being drilled that last a shorter time. More wells lasting a shorter time increases costs and prices which leads to more high cost drilling for even shorter well production spans...and so on.
We can make methane from gasifying biomass and with solar electric hydrogen and oxygen we can enhance the process. The oxygen is used in the gasification process and the hydrogen is used to increase the yield of methane per ton. The wholesale price will have to go from below 70 cents per therm to over $1 per therm to make it economical, but it has been over that price in the volatile swings in recent years anyway. So we might as well set a price floor there and get on with it.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 3, 2008 9:50:55 AM
Leo Wells,
Please go back to college, or even high school, to relearn basic physics and chemistry!
Jim,
Once H2 storage solution is optimized, there will be no need for the methane route via Sabatier reaction, which results in efficiency loss and extra cost in term of chemical reactions. Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is an expensive and energy-consuming step.
The beauty of H2 as fuel is that it's so simple and very efficient to produce in comparison to any other chemical fuels.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Mar 3, 2008 9:57:52 AM
Leo, can you provide some numbers detailing how much energy you get from burning this hydogen, versus the energy you need to put in to eletroyze it out of the water in the rist place?
Posted by: MarkMC | Mar 3, 2008 12:23:53 PM
OK sjc, what do you tink of Leo's hydrogenation efficiency improvement scheme? The idea being injecting a little hydrogen into your fuel stream improves combustion efficiency. I trust your opinion. Hit his name and you'll link.
Posted by: MarkMC | Mar 3, 2008 12:34:05 PM
H2 can help reduce emissions and that is about it. Maybe a bit more efficiency under certain circumstances. The gadgets that some are promoting do nothing, as far as I know.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 3, 2008 12:46:22 PM
@ Administrator
LEO WELLS was funny the first time, but is getting tiring with the repeated posting of stupidity.
It is against your rules of being off topic, and of posting spam, and of being wild diversions, and of being insulting to anyone with even the slightest intelligence.
Can you do something?
Please?
Posted by: John Taylor | Mar 3, 2008 5:29:08 PM
JOHN TAYLOR
WHY ARE YOU BEING SO CRUDE AND VULGAR.
HYDROGEN IS A MORE EFFICIENT FUEL THAN GASOLINE. IT IS ALREADY COMPRESSED (STORED) IN WATER AND CAN BE FREED, UNDER YOUR HOOD WITH ELECTROLISIS, TO FUEL YOUR MOTOR.
EVERY DRINKING FOUNTAIN, HYDRANT OR WASH ROOM IS A FILLING STATION. THINK ABOUT IT...WHY MESS WITH THE OTHER INFERIOR FUELS WHEN YOU CAN RUN YOUR CAR ON WATER.
LEO WELLS
Posted by: LEO WELLS | Mar 3, 2008 6:19:21 PM
GENTLEMEN, LADIES AND JOHN TAYLOR
ARE YOU AWARE THAT HENRY FORD MARKETED A MODEL "A" FORD AUTO OR A MODEL "T" fORD IN THE EATLY 1900'S THAT RAN ON HYDROGEN ELECTROLIZED RIGHT IN THE CARBORATOR RESIVOR TANK, USING A LEAD FROM IGNITION AND A GROUND, WITH WATER SUPPLIED FROM THE GAS (WATER) TANK WITH THE STANDARD FORD FUEL PUMP. IT WASN'T A SUCCESS BECAUSE IT WAS AHEAD OF IT'S TIME...12 VOLT SYSTEMS AND HIGH AMPERAGE ALTERNATORS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BACK THEN. BUT NOW YOU CAN GET ALTERNATORS WITH WHATEVER AMPERAGE OUT PUT YOU WISH. AND YOU CAN KICK THE VOLTAGE WHERE EVER YOU WANT IT WITH CONDENSERS. THINK ABOUT IT!!!! THERE IS MORE POTENTIAL IN USING WATER FOR FULE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER INFERIOR FULES IN USE TODAY.
WHY ARE YOU RELUCTANT TO TO CONSIDER THE BEST REPLACEMENT FOR OIL BAISED FUEL THERE IS WHEN WATER HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO BE A FUEL WITH MORE BTU'S THAN GASOLINE AND AT A MEGER FRACTION OF THE COST OF GASOLINE.
LEO WELLS
Posted by: LEO WELLS | Mar 3, 2008 6:46:47 PM
Leo,
If there is all this electricity in a car to electrolyze water, then why not just apply it to an electric motor?
Posted by: jim | Mar 4, 2008 6:42:12 AM
any data about a membrane selector particularly diatomic????????????????????????????????
Posted by: mark | Mar 4, 2008 9:07:23 PM
