Posted on 05/05/2002 3:40:58 AM PDT by 2Trievers
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:25 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A year ago, it was a barren warehouse at the end of a dead-end street in South Windsor, empty and with no signs of life.
Today it is a sophisticated laboratory and office complex buzzing with a multinational staff of 100 chemical and mechanical engineers and energy experts from around the world.
In this uncommon setting, they are searching for affordable ways to capture the most common element in the universe - hydrogen.
(Excerpt) Read more at ctnow.com ...
The fuel-cell fuel produces more electricity than would be generated by simply burning the fossil fuel - and with no pollution.
Hydrogen produces no pollution.
But the electricity used to make it does, upstream, where the gullible do not see it...and electrolysis is VERY energy inefficient, so BTU per BTU they are actually causing three times as much pollution....SOMWHERE ELSE!
Everything is driven buy economics, NOT, some VFFC.
These are niche markets, not mass markets like hydrogen for transportation, with IS years away from realization.
Just FYI, Gorza---electrolysis is an EXTREMELY efficient process, ranging from a low of about 70% conversion of electricity to in the high 90's, depending on load factor.
I think I said "BTU for BTU".
Hydrogen to run an AA or FID GC is cost-effective at lab scales because of cylinder handling and demurrage.
Hydrogen generation from power from the grid for use as FUEL, even considering State-of-the-Art 50% efficient fuel cells, if you begin at the generating plant and then to the energy obtained from the hydrogen, will always be a losing proposition.
"Thermodynamics! Not just a good idea, anymore: It's the Law(s)"!
Yup, as are the NEW areas targeted by Proton. Just as solar cells are cost effective electricity sources for many applications SIMILAR to those targeted by Proton. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many of those remote power applications needing short bursts of high power will get their energy from solar cells, with storage and conversion by an electrolyzer/fuel-cell pairing.
"Hydrogen generation from power from the grid for use as FUEL, even considering State-of-the-Art 50% efficient fuel cells, if you begin at the generating plant and then to the energy obtained from the hydrogen, will always be a losing proposition."
I got news for you---fuel cells are WAY more efficient than 50%. Operated directly from hydrogen, they are on the order of 80-90% efficient. Your 50% factor is just about correct for fuel cells OPERATED BY CONVERTING HYDROCARBONS into hydrogen (NOT from the grid), as there is a signficant energy usage in making the conversion.
"Thermodynamics! Not just a good idea, anymore: It's the Law(s)"!"
Ohhhhhh, I AM impressed!!!!
It certainly is news. And it must be recent, too.
Because I have been out of the field only a year; Prior to that I spent three years working on DoE Hydrogen Energy programs, and attended the seminar in DC.
So let's leave it like this: You invest all you want in these "80-90%" fuel cells. Please drive the prices way up. That will really help my retirement when I short them.
So not post a link or two to your evidence, genius boy. I've been following fuel cell technology for 20 years, and seen lots of examples of hydrogen to electricity conversion on the order of 80%. I'm NOT talking about "total fuel efficiency", which includes the loss of energy in converting some fuel to hydrogen. The only fuel cells I have seen with conversion efficiencies around 50% are cells running on fuels other than hydrogen.
The efficiency numbers you mention work fine on a bench. They do not take into account the oxidizer overhead. Compressed air is not "free". Oxygen is not "Free". I suspect you know this.
The reason I sound unreceptive to some of these technologies is because of the first reactions to peoplem when they see them..."Gee, this would be a good stock to buy"! There are all kinds of people on this forum and some can afford to play with these and some cannot. They do not understand that without doing their homework, buying stock this way is no better than buying lottery tickets.
http://www.dodfuelcell.com/fcdescriptions.html
A comparison of the fuel cell types is summarized below:
PAFC MCFC SOFC PEMFC ELECTROLYTE Phosphoric Acid Molten Carbonate Salt Ceramic Polymer OPERATING TEMPERATURE 375°F (190°C) 1200°F (650°C) 1830°F (1000°C) 175°F (80°C) FUELS Hydrogen(H2) Reformate H2/CO/ Reformate H2/CO2/CH4 Reformate H2 Reformate REFORMING External External/Internal External/Internal External OXIDANT O2/Air CO2/O2/Air O2/Air O2/Air EFFICIENCY (HHV) 40-50% 50-60% 45-55% 40-50%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.