Hydrogen powered cars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
One of the problems with windmills is what to do with the power when it's not needed. I think this would work well with some H2 production.


That's when you turn the coal power stations down to minimum load.

I sort of partly agree with you, as a few years ago in Oz, the wholesale prices were going negative overnight. I wrote an internal discussion paper about using the -ve priced electricity (they would pay you to use it), make hydrogen, and pump it into the NG main for our gas turbines for use later.

Hopelessly inefficient, cycle wise, but if you are paying tens of grand an hour to keep the units at min load, you at least get something back

Got laughed at...then last year, India started augmenting their NG with hydrogen, as it's easier to pump it into an existing gas pipeline than run feeders.
 
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
If it is a tank of hydrogen, then it has to gas off to relive pressure.
So in a week or so a full tank is empty.


For liquid storage you have to offgas to maintain the temperatures. gaseous, 3000psi doesn't give you much energy density for a big heavy tank.

In the 80s, NiMH storage systems were going to be big. Toyo Kogoyo were heavily into hydrogen, as the octane requirements of the wankel were very suited to burning hydrogen.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
There is another form of Hydrogen that is being considered for use as a fuel: anhydrous ammonia (NH3). Its main advantage is that it is stored as a liquid (moderately pressurized like LPG) on the vehicle, so the main problem of gaseous storage of high-pressure H2 is avoided. Just do an Internet search using "ammonia fueled engines", and you can read up on it.


Anhydrous ammonia is being phased out industrially where it can due to the safety of the stuff...automobiles missed the boat on that one (thankfully).
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
One of the problems with windmills is what to do with the power when it's not needed. I think this would work well with some H2 production.


That's when you turn the coal power stations down to minimum load.

I sort of partly agree with you, as a few years ago in Oz, the wholesale prices were going negative overnight. I wrote an internal discussion paper about using the -ve priced electricity (they would pay you to use it), make hydrogen, and pump it into the NG main for our gas turbines for use later.

Hopelessly inefficient, cycle wise, but if you are paying tens of grand an hour to keep the units at min load, you at least get something back

Got laughed at...then last year, India started augmenting their NG with hydrogen, as it's easier to pump it into an existing gas pipeline than run feeders.


Around me they are closing down the coal generators, at least most of them. There a quite a few nukes here in Illinois though.

Downstate they just went on line the cleanest and most efficient coal plant in the world.

THE FUTURE OF ENERGY

There also are 1000s of windmils as well as the nukes.

Here is the LaSalle nuke plant in Illinois, it's surrounded by windmills.

u41BmB6.jpg


OQEzOro.jpg
 
GFC cut the heart out of electricity, dropping peak load in Oz by 40%...Solar and wind had an impact, but nothing like the GFC.

Stimulus TVs were LCD, dropping a couple hundred watts of power consumption, and another 100 watts of cooling in many houses.

For scale in the pic, those wind turbines combined wouldn't drive a feed pump in the power station...

As to the most efficient coal station in the world, I doubt it...the advertised technologies are 60s stuff.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
GFC cut the heart out of electricity, dropping peak load in Oz by 40%...Solar and wind had an impact, but nothing like the GFC.

Stimulus TVs were LCD, dropping a couple hundred watts of power consumption, and another 100 watts of cooling in many houses.

For scale in the pic, those wind turbines combined wouldn't drive a feed pump in the power station...

As to the most efficient coal station in the world, I doubt it...the advertised technologies are 60s stuff.


Nonsense.

There are a couple hundred 1.5MW wind turbines there. And the coal generator is over 92% efficient. Coal mine is on site so no transportation cost.
 
92% ?

I'll see your nonsense, and raise absolute bollocks...

Where on earth did you even get the concept that the coal generator could be over. 50 ?

Show me the source and I'll call them a liar
 
I went on a tour of this plant last month. My power coop is an 8% partner in the plant.

The exhaust is only water and CO2. Puts out 877 gross Mwh and runs at around 93% efficiency, putting out 809 Mwh per generator. There are two generators but one was down for scheduled maintenance.

You can go here for more but you have to register. 50% indeed. They shut down at least 5 plants in Illinois that were in that range last year.

https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?t=126116&highlight=coal+generator
 
You need to do some reading on thermal power cycles.

92 could be the turbine/ generator efficiency, but there will be 1200mw each unit lost to the cooling system

Efficiency will be less than 50

And no power station that they are closing down will be anywhere near 50...ever

Google 'high efficiency coal china' and you can see what can be done... And it's not 90%

Google 'Carnot efficiency' and you can find out why.

Just had a thought .. Do you have district heating ?
 
Did you not look at the original link? And google coal plants shut down in Illinois last year.
 
Yeah, I looked that the link before I posted.

They don't list the efficiency at 92%, and nor would they as it's not true.

They DO say 1600MW of energy, and they DO say 7M tonnes of coal.

which is 50.5GJ of sent out energy...100% capacity factor, and no outage rates (as you said, one was out when you visited, so these are VERY VERY generous estimates, given that outage factors of 5% and capacity factors in the low 90s are pretty good).

The coal is apparently high sulfur, and looks from the aereals to be underground, so it's black, and of decent specific energy, I'll pick 20MJ/Kg, as 7M tons is pretty on the high end for an 1,600MW power station...6.3M Tonnes in S.I.

That makes a fuel input of 126GJ...

Efficiency is energy output divided by energy input, or 50.5/126, which equals 40.08%, which is what I would have expected for a modern plant based on '60s technology.

After typing, went looking for the coal source, and found that the Lively Grove Coal mine is part of the Herrin 6 coal seam,, and has an average energy of 11.170 btu/lb (makes 25.964 MJ/Kg...really a high value coal, 'cept for the sulfur)

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625d/508/Chapter_E_508.pdf

That makes the efficiency worse...

It's NOT 92% efficient, CANNOT BE 92% efficient, and no coal fired power station that you can ever imagine CAN be 92% efficient...ever...It's NOT the most efficient power station in the world, it's modern middling.





Where does the 92% come from ?

I think they are claiming that they use 8% of the generated load in house, which internationally is a pretty high number. But we can analyse that

Each operating 800MW unit will have 20MW (roughly) of pumps in the feedwater process (thus my earlier statement about the number of wind turbines to drive pumps), and having ESP particulate removal, draft plant will be light on, and probably be 10MW or thereabouts...Cooling towers have 24 stacks per productive unit, about 500hp each (say 12MW)...we've accounted for 42MW of the 69MW auxiliary power. I would expect maybe another 4-5 depending on the water treatment processes involved.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yeah, I looked that the link before I posted.

They don't list the efficiency at 92%, and nor would they as it's not true.

They DO say 1600MW of energy, and they DO say 7M tonnes of coal.

which is 50.5GJ of sent out energy...100% capacity factor, and no outage rates (as you said, one was out when you visited, so these are VERY VERY generous estimates, given that outage factors of 5% and capacity factors in the low 90s are pretty good).

The coal is apparently high sulfur, and looks from the aereals to be underground, so it's black, and of decent specific energy, I'll pick 20MJ/Kg, as 7M tons is pretty on the high end for an 1,600MW power station...6.3M Tonnes in S.I.

That makes a fuel input of 126GJ...

Efficiency is energy output divided by energy input, or 50.5/126, which equals 40.08%, which is what I would have expected for a modern plant based on '60s technology.

After typing, went looking for the coal source, and found that the Lively Grove Coal mine is part of the Herrin 6 coal seam,, and has an average energy of 11.170 btu/lb (makes 25.964 MJ/Kg...really a high value coal, 'cept for the sulfur)

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625d/508/Chapter_E_508.pdf

That makes the efficiency worse...

It's NOT 92% efficient, CANNOT BE 92% efficient, and no coal fired power station that you can ever imagine CAN be 92% efficient...ever...It's NOT the most efficient power station in the world, it's modern middling.





Where does the 92% come from ?

I think they are claiming that they use 8% of the generated load in house, which internationally is a pretty high number. But we can analyse that

Each operating 800MW unit will have 20MW (roughly) of pumps in the feedwater process (thus my earlier statement about the number of wind turbines to drive pumps), and having ESP particulate removal, draft plant will be light on, and probably be 10MW or thereabouts...Cooling towers have 24 stacks per productive unit, about 500hp each (say 12MW)...we've accounted for 42MW of the 69MW auxiliary power. I would expect maybe another 4-5 depending on the water treatment processes involved.



Very interesting.

But I would think having the coal mine on site improves things. And the windmills were around the LaSalle nuke plant.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ

Around me they are closing down the coal generators, at least most of them. There a quite a few nukes here in Illinois though.

Downstate they just went on line the cleanest and most efficient coal plant in the world.

THE FUTURE OF ENERGY

There also are 1000s of windmils as well as the nukes.

Here is the LaSalle nuke plant in Illinois, it's surrounded by windmills.




I'm amazed they'd build a new coal plant. Here in Ontario we appear to be just upgrading our Nuke plants
21.gif


For example, that coal plant is 1600MW correct? And the LaSalle nuke plant is 2400.

The closest reactor to me is Darlington, which is currently 3,512MW, but may potentially be upgraded (depending on whether the government lets OPG build) by another 4,800MW, giving a total installed capacity of 8,312MW and making it the most powerful nuke plant in the world.

Then there is Pickering at 3,100MW just a few Km away from Darlington.

Then there is Bruce Power, our largest site at 6,300MW.

Bruce and Darlington if upgraded could provide more than enough power for the entire province.
 
The problem I see is that the hydrogen is still being produced from natural gas. Why not just use natural gas?

Instead of just converting a gasoline engine to run on natural gas, take advantage of the LNG's extremely high octane and extremely low carbon deposits. LNG does have a lower BTU content than gasoline so design accordingly.

I'm not certain why range would be a problem if you manufacture it with the ability to accept propane from RV parks. Why not manufacture in the ability to accept a supplemental 20lb Propane tank? You could pick that up at countless stores along the way to allow you to get to the next refill station.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Very interesting.

But I would think having the coal mine on site improves things. And the windmills were around the LaSalle nuke plant.


I factored in no transport for the coal...and my reference originally was to the feed pumps in the nuclear plant, which you declared nonsense.
 
Why, are they bad neighbors?

Back in the day I worked for Commonwealth Edison (who later sold the generating facilities to Exelon). I was in both the LaSalle and the Braidwood plants while they were under construction. Do you think they are unsafe?

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I've got 4 nukes within 100 miles of me. No more please.
 
Wow those are huge capacities. I read that upgrade to the Darlington plant would add up to four new reactors. There are very few single plants here in the US with three reactors, none with four AFAIK.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm amazed they'd build a new coal plant. Here in Ontario we appear to be just upgrading our Nuke plants
21.gif


For example, that coal plant is 1600MW correct? And the LaSalle nuke plant is 2400.

The closest reactor to me is Darlington, which is currently 3,512MW, but may potentially be upgraded (depending on whether the government lets OPG build) by another 4,800MW, giving a total installed capacity of 8,312MW and making it the most powerful nuke plant in the world.

Then there is Pickering at 3,100MW just a few Km away from Darlington.

Then there is Bruce Power, our largest site at 6,300MW.

Bruce and Darlington if upgraded could provide more than enough power for the entire province.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Why, are they bad neighbors?

Back in the day I worked for Commonwealth Edison (who later sold the generating facilities to Exelon). I was in both the LaSalle and the Braidwood plants while they were under construction. Do you think they are unsafe?

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I've got 4 nukes within 100 miles of me. No more please.


Braidwood leaked radioactive water for years and never told anyone. And as long as they store the spent fuel on site yes I think they are unsafe.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Wow those are huge capacities. I read that upgrade to the Darlington plant would add up to four new reactors. There are very few single plants here in the US with three reactors, none with four AFAIK.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm amazed they'd build a new coal plant. Here in Ontario we appear to be just upgrading our Nuke plants
21.gif


For example, that coal plant is 1600MW correct? And the LaSalle nuke plant is 2400.

The closest reactor to me is Darlington, which is currently 3,512MW, but may potentially be upgraded (depending on whether the government lets OPG build) by another 4,800MW, giving a total installed capacity of 8,312MW and making it the most powerful nuke plant in the world.

Then there is Pickering at 3,100MW just a few Km away from Darlington.

Then there is Bruce Power, our largest site at 6,300MW.

Bruce and Darlington if upgraded could provide more than enough power for the entire province.


Yes, Ontario is pretty big into our Candu reactors.

Darlington currently has 4 units on-line, and yes, the upgrade was to add another 4.

Bruce currently has, between Bruce A and B, 8 units on-line to yield the capacity noted.

The units at Darlington are higher output than the ones at Bruce. The new ones as per the upgrade plan, would be 1200MW/each.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top