Hydrogen

CO2-free hydrogen from water, coal, or natural gas
for upgrading coal + biomass biocrude oil to vehicle fuels
(For wax hydrocracking to make diesel and jet fuel from Fischer-Tropsch syncrude.)

________________________________________________________________________________________

CO2-free hydrogen from water
for upgrading coal + biomass biocrude oil to vehicle fuels

The strategy is simple. Boost the temperature of the FLiBe molten salt with electrical energy from the Stirling air turbine.

________________________________________________________________________________________

CO2-free Hydrogen from Coal or Natural Gas

CO2-free hydrogen from coal, or natural gas
for upgrading coal + biomass biocrude oil to vehicle fuels

Carbon Capture Hydrogen Generator

"Carbon Capture and Sequestration" made as simple as possible.

The Swedish company, Vattenfall, have prepared an excellent set of explanations covering the four major coal CO2 capture and sequestration technologies developed so far. Vattenfall recently designed and built the world's most advanced CCS demonstration facility in Germany.

Oxyfuel Combustion Capture: http://www.vattenfall.com/en/ccs/oxyfuel-combustion.htm $50 to $60 per ton CO2.

Precombustion Capture: http://www.vattenfall.com/en/ccs/precombustion.htm $25 to $50 per ton CO2.

Postcombustion Capture: http://www.vattenfall.com/en/ccs/postcombustion.htm $25 to $75 per ton CO2.

Chemical Looping: http://www.vattenfall.com/en/ccs/chemical-looping-.htm

Precombustion Capture is the technology we are looking for.

Go to Vattenfall's web site to learn about the process of obtaining hydrogen gas from coal.

http://www.vattenfall.com/en/ccs/precombustion.htm

Natural gas can be used instead of synthesis gas. You don't have to convert or clean it, just separate out its CO2 and sulfur.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydrogen Basics

Hydrogen Basics - Production (Florida Solar Energy Center http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/production.htm )

Hydrogen is not an energy source, but is an energy vector or carrier. This means that it has to be produced from one of the primary energy sources: fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, geothermal and urban waste resources. All the energy we use, including hydrogen, must be produced from one of these three primary energy resources.

On earth, hydrogen is found combined with other elements. For example, in water, hydrogen is combined with oxygen. In fossil fuels, it is combined with carbon as in petroleum, natural gas or coal. The challenge is to separate hydrogen from other naturally occurring compounds in an efficient and economic manner. See the "Hydrogen Production Paths" chart below for unique ways to produce hydrogen from the three sources.

There are several methods for producing or extracting hydrogen. Steam reforming is a well-established technology that allows hydrogen production from hydrocarbons and water. Steam-methane reformation currently produces about 95 percent of the hydrogen used in the United States.

Another conventional technique is electrolysis, which applies electrical current to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The electricity for electrolysis can come from any of the three energy sources.

The cost of hydrogen production is an important issue. Hydrogen produced by steam reformation costs approximately three times the cost of natural gas per unit of energy produced. This means that if natural gas costs $6/million BTU, then hydrogen will be $18/million BTU. Also, producing hydrogen from electrolysis with electricity at 5 cents/kWh will cost $28/million BTU — slightly less than two times the cost of hydrogen from natural gas. Note that the cost of hydrogen production from electricity is a linear function of electricity costs, so electricity at 10 cents/kWh means that hydrogen will cost $56/million BTU.

A listing of the cost and performance characteristics of various hydrogen production processes is as follows:

	Energy Required (kWh/Nm3)
Process	Ideal	Practical	Status of Tech.	Efficiency [%]	Costs Relative to SMR
Steam methane reforming (SMR)	0.78	2-2.5	mature	70-80	1
Methane/ NG pyrolysis			R&D to mature	72-54	0.9
H2S methane reforming	1.5	-	R&D	50	<1
Landfill gas dry reformation			R&D	47-58	~1
Partial oxidation of heavy oil	0.94	4.9	mature	70	1.8
Naphtha reforming			mature
Steam reforming of waste oil			R&D	75	<1
Coal gasification (TEXACO)	1.01	8.6	mature	60	1.4-2.6
Partial oxidation of coal			mature	55
Steam-iron process			R&D	46	1.9
Chloralkali electrolysis			mature		by-product
Grid electrolysis of water	3.54	4.9	R&D	27	3-10
Solar & PV-electrolysis of water			R&D to mature	10	>3
High-temp. electrolysis of water			R&D	48	2.2
Thermochemical water splitting			early R&D	35-45	6
Biomass gasification			R&D	45-50	2.0-2.4
Photobiological			early R&D	<1
Photolysis of water			early R&D	<10
Photoelectrochemical decomp. of water			early R&D
Photocatalytic decomp. of water			early R&D

This table was originally published in IEEE Power & Energy, Vol. 2, No. 6, Nov-Dec, 2004, page 43, "Hydrogen: Automotive Fuel of the Future," by FSEC's Ali T-Raissi and David Block

Cost of hydrogen from different sources

For example, how is the hydrogen produced? Is it produced from natural gas, wind, nuclear, solar, or some other way?

If it is produced from natural gas, is the hydrogen made at the fueling station? Or is it produced off-site and then delivered by truck?

If hydrogen is produced from wind power, how far away is the hydrogen fueling station from the wind-to-hydrogen production facility? Is it closer to 10 miles, 100 miles, or 1000 miles away?

And is the fueling station in a very expensive location like Beverly Hills, California or a very inexpensive location like Amarillo, Texas?

The point is that there are a large number of factors that will affect the cost of hydrogen.

Before estimating the cost of hydrogen per kilogram from various sources, the benefits of a kilogram of hydrogen need to be shown. How does a kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle compare with a gallon of gasoline used in an internal combustion engine vehicle?

The Toyota FCHV-adv hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (mid-size SUV) is basically a Toyota Highlander Hybrid with a fuel cell. The Toyota FCHV-adv recently achieved 68.3 miles per kilogram in a real-world test with the Department of Energy. On the other hand, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid gets an EPA-rated 26 miles per gallon.

The Toyota fuel cell vehicle is 2.63 times as efficient as the gasoline version. Furthermore, a rule of thumb is that fuel cells are 2-3 times as efficient as internal combustion engines.

Therefore, a reasonable figure to use is 2.5 times as efficient. This means the cost estimates below need to be divided by 2.5 to get the equivalent cost of a gallon of gasoline (i.e. $4 to $12 per kilogram of hydrogen is equivalent to gasoline at $1.60 to $4.80 per gallon).

The average cost for gasoline taxes in the U.S. is currently about $0.50 per gallon.

Since a kilogram of hydrogen in a fuel cell will power a vehicle approximately 2.5 times as far as a gallon of gasoline in an internal combustion engine, the current average for gasoline taxes has been multiplied by 2.5 to get a figure of $1.25 per kilogram of hydrogen for taxes.

For example, the cost of wind power used below in the wind-to-hydrogen estimate is around 7 cents per kilowatt hour (which multiplied by the approximately 50 kilowatt hours of electricity needed to produce a kilogram of hydrogen via electrolysis would equal $3.50 for the energy costs).

This is an unsubsidized cost figure for electricity produced at large wind farms.

4. As a point of reference, hydrogen (likely from natural gas) sold for $8.18 per kilogram at the Washington, D.C. Benning Road Shell fueling station in September 2008. Moreover, hydrogen produced from hydroelectric power sold for $6.28 per kilogram in Norway back in May.

5. There is absolutely no way of knowing what the exact cost of hydrogen would be right now in the scenarios below if millions of hydrogen fuel cell cars were on the road. The estimates below are educated guesses based on what I have learned over the past five years.

With all of this in mind, here are the cost estimates per kilogram (which each include $1.25 for taxes):

Hydrogen from natural gas (produced via steam reforming off-site and delivered by truck)

Hydrogen from nuclear (via thermochemical cycles – assuming the technology works on a large scale)

Hydrogen from solar (via thermochemical cycles – assuming the technology works on a large scale)

As mentioned above, a cost of hydrogen of $4 to $12 per kilogram is equivalent to gasoline at $1.60 to $4.80 per gallon.

Centrica pulls out of UK CCS competition
Projects / Policy, May 11 2009 (Carbon Capture Journal)

- Centrica has sold its 50% stake in the Eston Grange IGCC project on Teeside back to developers Progressive Energy.

The company said the technology was too uncertain, and will concentrate on wind and nuclear projects.

"Given the large investment we are making in other low carbon technologies and the current uncertainties surrounding CCS we decided to end our involvement in the Eston Grange CCS project," said Centrica.

"While we are not looking to develop any further projects, we believe in time CCS technology will be commercially viable and we may be involved in this technology in the future."

There is more than one way to skin a cat - and to remove carbon dioxide from a power station. In the UK, the two carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies being developed are the post-combustion variety, where carbon dioxide is removed after coal or gas is burned, and pre-combustion capture, where carbon dioxide (CO2) is extracted before the hydrocarbon is burned.

Pre-combustion capture leaves behind hydrogen, an environmentally friendly fuel that produces only water vapour when it is burned. However, this technology has one major difference with post-combustion: it cannot be retro-fitted to power plants and must be installed during construction. To some, this is a disadvantage. Developing CCS technology that could be retro-fitted to plants would allow nations going ahead with coal or gas plants to tackle their emissions later, once the technology is perfected.

Others believe this attitude is irresponsible. "Developing CCS technology that could one day be retro-fitted to coal power stations is like building a car with no exhaust," says Andrew Hanson of Centrica. "You drive around polluting your town for years and then finally fit an exhaust. That is scarcely a responsible way to behave. We need to behave properly from the start."

Hence the decision by Centrica to work with Progressive Energy to prepare plans to build the country's first pre-combustion CCS plant at Eston Grange in Teesside. The 850MW plant would have the capacity to supply power for around a million people and would use standard oil refinery technology to turn gasified coal into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

The system would have three key stages: hydrocarbon fuel - in this case gasified coal - is converted, using steam and a catalyst, into hydrogen and carbon monoxide to form a synthetic gas. The carbon monoxide is mixed with water to produce carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is then separated from the hydrogen, which can be burned cleanly, while the carbon dioxide can be compressed, transported and stored.

According to Centrica's plans, Eston Grange's carbon dioxide would be pumped into a nearby depleted North Sea oil or gas field. At the same time, hydrogen from the plant would be burned to drive turbines to produce power.

"We reckon our plant would have emissions that contain 85% less carbon dioxide than those from a standard fossil fuel power plant," says Hanson.

More critical for many is the fact that hydrogen is a holy grail for environmentalists: a fuel that is light, easily transportable and zero carbon. Pre-combustion CCS technology could help to establish a hydrogen economy in Britain.

It sounds promising, though there are downsides. "It cannot be retro-fitted to power stations, [so] planners must decide in advance that they are going to commit themselves to the technology," says CCS expert Professor Stuart Haszeldine of Edinburgh University.

Pre-combustion plants are also more (though not drastically) expensive to run than post-combustion plants and they do not respond well to sudden surges in demand for electricity from the grid. They also produce high levels of nitrogen oxide emissions, which require the installation of special scrubbers to prevent these gases escaping.

On the other hand, post-combustion plants are less efficient. "It is clear the best solution would be to build both types of plant," says Haszeldine. "Between them, they would give the nation a good balance of efficiency versus rapidity of response."

The government's decision to back post-combustion technology rather than pre-combustion for its competition to build a full-scale power station equipped with CCS by 2014 was a blow for the technology and led BP to shelve plans with Scottish and Southern Electricity to build a pilot pre-combustion plant in Peterhead. And it is uncertain whether Centrica and Progressive Energy will be able to go ahead with Eston Grange in the near future, due to the prohibitive costs involved.

Centrica calculates the construction of Eston Grange will cost between £1.2bn and £1.5bn - three to four times more than that of a standard gas-powered electricity generating plant of the same capacity.

But while the UK is backing post-combustion for its CCS demonstration plant, pre-combustion and oxyfuel combustion - a third technology being developed in Germany in which fossil fuel is burned in almost pure oxygen, producing a flue gas high in Co2 that is then condensed, compressed and stored - will all get a chance to show what they can do if the EU can move forward with its plans for 10 to 12 demonstration plants across Europe.

Meanwhile, in Abu Dhabi, where tight finance is perhaps not such a problem, BP and Rio Tinto are working with the government on a $2bn plan to build a 420MW hydrogen power plant equipped with CCS that could capture up to 1.7m tonnes of CO2 each year - equivalent to taking every car in the emirate off the road.

The CO2 will be pumped deep into the oil field, replacing the natural gas that is currently doing the job of recovering oil, and the natural gas-fuelled power plant will burn zero emission hydrogen.

The plant could be up and running as early as 2012 - two years before there is any chance of Europe having a commercial-scale CCS power plant.