Comparison of Investment and Related Requirements for Selected Hydrogen Vehicle System Pathways
Tóm tắt
A model was developed for production, transmission, delivery, and consumption of hydrogen for large-scale systems ultimately providing shaft-work for hydrogen-based vehicles. (See Glossary, after References). Presently, the supply technologies are limited to solar photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, and nuclear thermochemical sources. Transmission technologies include electric power, hydrogen pipeline, and liquid hydrocarbon pipeline. Delivery technologies include both liquid and gaseous hydrogen and liquid hydrocarbon. Storage modes were selected as appropriate for the pathway transmission and delivery modes. Finally, consumption technologies are fuel-cell based, with and without a fuel processor (reformer). Overall, there were 39 separate pathways in this initial analysis. Subsystem efficiencies, capital costs, and capacity factors were derived from a literature search and supported by calculations where necessary. Overall systems efficiency, system peak power capital costs, and systems average power capital costs were calculated to indicate the potential capital investment requirements. The model was exercised to assess the capital cost (and related aspects) requirements to provide the equivalent automobile shaftwork of eleven million barrels of oil per day by the year 2040 (the Administration's objective). These costs range from $650 billion to $11.7 trillion and primarily depend on the selected energy source. The results reveal that nuclear thermochemical systems based on liquid hydrocarbon transmission and delivery lie at the low-cost end of the range, followed by nuclear or wind electric, then nuclear or wind hydrogen pipeline, and finally by solar electric and solar hydrogen pipeline. It is noted that thermochemical systems based on liquid hydrocarbons was the least-cost option for all of the energy sources. One vehicle storage technology, chemical hydride, was determined to be too costly to be included for later analysis. The results were compared against what might be expected of fusion energy. It was found that fusion hydrogen plant capital costs did not compete with Nuclear or Wind (but did with current Solar Photovoltaics) unless fusion plants were very large. The model is planned to be expanded to include coal-based hydrogen production (with CO2 sequestration) and extended to calculate the total cost of energy delivered to the wheels.
Tài liệu tham khảo
“'Fundamental Difference,' ” President George W. Bush, (February 6, 2003).
P. Holihan, Technology Manufacturing, and Market Trends in the U.S. and International Photovoltaics Industry (Energy Information Agency, Internet Open Literature, 1999).
ARIES-AT detailed costing, http://aries.ucsd.edu/miller/AT/ output.html-accounts1.
OSIRIS and SOMBRERO Inertial Fusion Power Plant Designs, final report, DOE/ER-54100, WJSA-92-01 (March 1992).
C. D. Orth, et al., Nucl. Fusion 36, (1996).
B. Grant Logan, et al., “Requirements for Low Cost Energy and Hydrogen Production from Multi-Unit Inertial Fusion Energy Plants with a Shared Driver and Target Factory,” LLNL, DoE Contract W-7405-ENG-48.
J. Sheffield, et al., JIEE 2000-06 (June 2000).
H. D. Lightfoot and C. Green, An Assessment of IPCC Working Group III Findings in Climate Change 2001: Mitigation of the Potential Contribution of Renewable Energies to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Stabilization, C2 GCR Report No. 2002-5, November, 2002.
D. R. Simbeck and E. Chang, Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways: Scoping Analysis, NREL/SR-540-32525, July, 2002.
D. Mignard et al., Methanol Synthesis form Flue-Gas CO2 and Renewable Electricity: A Feasibility Study, (Heriot-Watt University, circa 2002).
Gasification of Solid and Liquid Fuels for Power Generation, Department of Trade and Industry, Great Britain, TSR-008, 1998.