IJHE 485 26 10
Don Lancaster
ContentsDirect from Elsevier Science
======================================
Journal: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
ISSN : 0360-3199
Volume : 26
Issue : 10
Date : Oct-2001
Visit the journal at http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/jnlnr/00485
pp 1017-1022
On the eclectic concept of sustainability
W. Seifritz
pp 1023-1033
The solar thermal decarbonization of natural gas
D. Hirsch, M. Epstein, A. Steinfeld
pp 1035-1040
Activation behaviors of Mg"2NiH"4 at different hydrogen pressures in
hydriding combustion synthesis
L. Li, T. Akiyama, J.-i. Yagi
pp 1041-1058
Spectroscopic identification of a novel catalytic reaction of atomic
hydrogen and the hydride ion product
R.L. Mills
pp 1059-1096
The nature of free electrons in superfluid helium-a test of quantum
mechanics and a basis to review its foundations and make a comparison
to classical theory
R.L. Mills
pp 1097-1102
Electrochemical investigations of ZrCr"mFe"nCo"pV"o (m+n+o+p=2)
electrode for Ni-MH battery applications
N. Rajalakshmi, K.S. Dhathathreyan, S. Ramaprabhu
pp 1103-1108
Thermodynamic analysis of a hydrogen fed solid oxide fuel cell based
on a proton conductor
A. Demin, P. Tsiakaras
pp 1109-1113
Zero-emissions gas-fired cogeneration of power and hydrogen
G. Verkhivker, E. Yantovski
pp 1115-1121
Emissions reductions using hydrogen from plasmatron fuel converters
L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood
pp 1123-1136
IAHE Announcements and Adverts
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (520)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
KERSPLOSH
http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/jnlnr/00485
Below I submit a supposition based in part on information regarding one of the
articles from that site. As I am pro renewable energy and hydrogen production,
my qualms are somewhat different then those of the naysayers. I think if you
bear with me though, there is another issue that I am concerned about that
bears thinking about. Even if all of this stuff is pigs in clover, the
following would seem to me to be a major obstacle.
Per this article from that site, "Hybrid solar high-temperature hydrogen
production system," (J. Padin, T.N. Veziroglu, A. Shahin) roughly 38.8 kWh = 1
kg of hydrogen. (The point of the article is that greater efficiency for
hydrogen production can be created if the operating temperature of the hydrogen
electrolizer is increased. You get a little bit more hydrogen and some more
excess heat, to heat water I suppose. As the study was done in warm places like
Miami and Phoenix, I would assume that hot water is not at a premium in those
locations. Also, we all know that if try you turn the hot water into
electricity you will result in a great loss of energy.) Per this site, 38.8 kWh
= roughly 1 kg of hydrogen.
http://www.elsevier.nl/cdweb/journals/03603199/articles/25/4/S036031999900
028.pdf
Per boron_blast site (I love that site! Very informative and well thought
out.), 621 miles by car = 26.5 kg of hydrogen. So 1 kg of hydrogen = 23.43
miles by car. That would put the cost at 38.8 kWh, or US$3.88 cents for 23.43
miles based on US$0.10 per kWh. This cost reflects only the cost the
electricity needed to generate 1 kg of hydrogen. This does not reflect all of
the other costs, such as; distribution, pressurization, storage, etc. (Actual
mileage should be greater based on claims of fuel cell enthusiasts, though.)
Not taking everything into account, this doesn't sound too bad - right?
Now another interesting point is that EPRI's (Electric Power Research
Institute) Brent Barker "If you add up the horsepower of all the machines and
engines in US factories, businesses, farms, power plants, mines, ships,
aircraft, railroads, and automobiles," Barker says, "you find that 95 percent
of the power capacity in our country resides in automobiles, with only about 2
percent in electric power plants."
The state of California was capable of producing 30,663 megawatts, or 30
gigawatts in 1998. Divide 30,663,000,000 watts by 27,878,409 watts, the amount
that you can create from 1 square mile of solar panels*** and the result is
1,099.88.
This result represents the amount of square miles of solar panels needed to
produce 30,663 megawatts. This would equal an area that is roughly 33.16 by
33.16 square miles. This would cost about $153,314,522,454 dollars, retail,
just for the solar panels.
This would only produce 30,663 megawatts for say five hours a day. The cost of
the solar panels must be accounted for before there is any net profit (Don L.
will say that there is no profit, I don't know.) But you have to make other
concessions to both sides as well. Solar panels closer to the source of use
would result in less loss by distribution by grid (one half to one-third).
The cost listed above also do not take into account time and labor in laying,
connecting and maintaining the solar cells, nor the cost of the land itself.
Even if the land is desert and not expensive, an infrastructure must be built
to house and feed the workers. As far as maintenance of the solar cells is
concerned, those costs should be negligible as they are considered to be nearly
maintenance free. 42.4% of electricity produced in California during 1998 was
hydroelectric. The damage to the environment is already done, so full speed
ahead. Cut the need by 42.4%.
But the real issue for me is this. If it takes 1,099.88 miles of solar panels
to create enough electricity to create 30 gigawatts, and that is 2% of the
energy potential in electric power plants and hydroelectric and nuclear power
and stuff, then by EPRI's Brent Barker scenario then it would take 1,099.88 x
47.5 miles just to create enough electricity >>potential<< to create enough
hydrogen to run all of the cars. (This figure of course is very incorrect and
does not take into account a lot of other stuff, mostly bad.) that would equal
52,244.3 square miles. The state of California is about 158,693 square miles.
That's like a third of the state!
I am sure that my numbers are way off, but this is only a thumbnail sketch. I
would be interested in anybody else that has better ways to define these
numbers. This has always been my major concern about renewable energy, where
are we going to get it from?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
**Put quote in context:
EPRI's Brent Barker paints a scenario in which cars become the roaming palmtops
of the Energy Web, plugging into the grid when they need to recharge - or
selling power back, at a profit, when the grid needs it. "If you add up the
horsepower of all the machines and engines in US factories, businesses, farms,
power plants, mines, ships, aircraft, railroads, and automobiles," Barker says,
"you find that 95 percent of the power capacity in our country resides in
automobiles, with only about 2 percent in electric power plants." With
interfaces for absorbing and distributing the output of this new energy
resource added to the grid, he suggests, you could power your home or office
with the gas or hydrogen fuel cells in your car, and even help out the local
mall during periods of peak demand by jacking into an outlet in the parking
lot. Then the bargaining would begin.
"The microprocessor in your car could negotiate with bulk-power trading tigers
like Dynegy or Enron to buy power if you needed it," he says, "or to sell power
when the price is right. If the price wasn't right, your microprocessor could
call all the other microprocessors in the area to negotiate a better deal."
Barker isn't the only one thinking along these lines. Ferdinand Panik, the head
of DaimlerChrysler's fuel-cell program, is right there with him, The Economist
reported in February. With widespread micropower generation and advanced
methods for energy storage in place - such as "reversible" fuel cells,
supercapacitors, and flywheels - DIY power providers will be able to aid in
stabilizing the entire infrastructure from the bottom up.
Call it net metering writ large. Utilities in 30 states allow custoåmers who
generate their own power to sell electricity back to the grid. In March, Senate
Democrats introduced a bill that directs energy suppliers to provide
net-metering capabilities to all customers with onsite generators that run on
renewable sources.
Girding Up For the Power Grid (**notes below to put quote in perspective)
By Steve Silberman - June 14, 2001
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,44516,00.html
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
***one square mile of solar panels
Solar panels are roughly $5 per square foot, and each square foot generates
about 1 watt.
If one square foot equals 1 watt (roughly,) then 1 square mile equals
27,878,409 square feet, or 27,878,409 watts, or 27 megawatts. At $5 dollars US
per square foot of solar panels, one mile of solar panels would cost
$139,392,045.
At 10 cents a kilowatt, this would generate 4,927,500 dollars in revenue. The
original cost $139,392,045 divided by $4,927,500 equals 28.28 years, or 28.28
years before you get your money back.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
KERSPLOSH
Dan Bloomquist
KERSPLOSH wrote:
> (Sorry! I accidentally posted this twice.)
But you are providing information, this is a good
thing.
Best, Dan.