Moore, R.B.; V. Raman, “<strong>Hydrogen</strong> infrastructure for fuel cell transportation,” Air Products and Chemicals, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 133-142. More than 8.5 million tonnes <strong>of</strong> H 2 are produced in the United States each year, but more than 95% is used in-situ to refine oil or produce commodity chemicals such as ammonia and methanol. The remaining “merchant” H 2 is used in the chemicals, metals, glass, and electronics industries. Only a tiny fraction is used for transport, above all for the space program, and the LH 2 production capacity is 80 tonnes/yr distributed in 20,000 trailer loads /yr. The paper examines the infrastructure options to supply fueling stations, each with 500 cars/d capability (2.7 tonnes/d H 2); a home option for one car is also examined. Three main options, and some subdivisions, are costed. The options and costs under today’s market conditions, are: 1. Large-scale LH 2 production at remote natural gas wells, by steam methane reforming (SMR), shipped by tankers an average <strong>of</strong> 800 km to 10-100 fueling stations. The remote plant maintains 5 days storage, the fueling station 1.5 days’ storage, and the LH 2 is vaporized at 340 atm for vehicle use. The H 2 price at the station would be $3.35/kg for a 27 tonne/d remote plant, and $2.35/kg for a 270 tonne/d plant. 2. Large regional and local GH 2 production by SMR <strong>of</strong> natural gas at 15-30 atm.; 50-km pipelines in straight radial directions, each with 10 fueling stations spaced 5 km apart. Only 1.5 days’ storage at plant, none at fueling stations. The H 2 price at the station would be $2.91/kg for 27 tonnes/d plant feeding one pipeline, and $2.47/kg for 270 tonnes/d plant feeding 10 pipelines. 3. Individual fueling station producing 2.7 tonnes/d H 2 by SMR <strong>of</strong> natural gas. One-half day storage at station. The H 2 price would be $3.57/kg. 4. Same as #3, but using on-site partial oxidation <strong>of</strong> heavy oil as production method. The H 2 price would be $3.96/kg. 5. Home garage electrolysis producing 3 kg/d GH 2 for one car, half tank per day. The H 2 price would be $6.97/kg. 6. Same as #3 and #4, except methanol stored and reformed at fueling station. The H 2 price would be $3.76/kg. The paper concludes with a discussion on how the market could grow, depending on the preferred form <strong>of</strong> onboard hydrogen storage. Specht, M., et al., “Comparison <strong>of</strong> the renewable transportation fuels liquid hydrogen and methanol with gasoline--energetic and economic aspects,” Center for Solar Energy and <strong>Hydrogen</strong> Research, University <strong>of</strong> Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 227-239. These researchers have developed a process to extract CO 2 from the atmosphere and combine it with H 2 from sources such as hydroelectricity to produce methanol. This process, which includes shipping the product to Europe, is now compared to LH 2 from the same hydropower, and both are compared to crude oil-gasoline production from energy efficiency and cost viewpoints. The overall efficiency <strong>of</strong> the crude oil-gasoline-vehicle system is about 19%, compared to about 9% for LH 2 and slightly more for pure methanol. The costs are determined largely by the energy input and capital cost <strong>of</strong> production plants. When used in ICE cars, the renewable-based methanol and LH 2 are approximately equal; gasoline is about 25% cheaper, all based on untaxed fuel. Apart from a possible tax advantage for environmentally benign fuels such as LH 2 and methanol, the advent 56
<strong>of</strong> commercial FCs would swing the balance away from gasoline. Considering infrastructure and vehicle components, methanol shows a considerable advantage over LH 2. Provenzano, J., et al., “Demonstration <strong>of</strong> fleet trucks fueled with PV hydrogen,” Clean Air Now, California, USA, pp. 283-291. The authors describe the initial results with three trucks, after illustrating details <strong>of</strong> the integrated photovoltaic generation <strong>of</strong> H 2 and storage facilities. Despite some misfiring, performance is satisfactory, with substantially more power than on gasoline, and <strong>of</strong> course very low emissions:
- Page 1 and 2:
IEA Agreement on the Production and
- Page 3 and 4:
1.0 Introduction This report was co
- Page 5 and 6:
Memories of the Hindenburg disaster
- Page 7 and 8: During the past 5 years, a carbon s
- Page 9 and 10: Wetzel (1996) gives a comprehensive
- Page 11 and 12: The 11th WHEC shows increasing inte
- Page 13 and 14: ! There is higher efficiency at low
- Page 15: Some overall observations may be ap
- Page 20 and 21: Europe--Fuel Cells Table 2. Hydroge
- Page 22 and 23: 11, Florence, 1992. Dufour, A.; B.G
- Page 24 and 25: Lamy, C; J.-M. Leger, “Les piles
- Page 26 and 27: Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, 1569-1
- Page 28 and 29: Fischer and Eichert (1995) provide
- Page 30 and 31: ! Take cryogenic precautions. ! Det
- Page 32 and 33: A1.4 The Challenger Accident Certai
- Page 34 and 35: The air on the inlet stroke is ofte
- Page 36 and 37: of approach: ! A mechanical/hydraul
- Page 38 and 39: y Furahama et al. (1991) for high-p
- Page 40 and 41: difficulties must be overcome: ! Hi
- Page 42 and 43: Turning finally to the electrical t
- Page 44 and 45: The most abundant and accessible hy
- Page 46 and 47: more air in the combustion chamber
- Page 48 and 49: noticed.... 7. Environmental Impact
- Page 50 and 51: 8. Liquid Hydrogen and Hydride Vehi
- Page 52 and 53: 8.4 The cost of liquefying hydrogen
- Page 54 and 55: tensions and conflict related to im
- Page 56 and 57: Proceedings of the 11th World Hydro
- Page 60 and 61: ! Cryogenic GH 2 is still in the R&
- Page 62 and 63: Pizak, V. et al., “Investigations
- Page 64 and 65: Initial tests on a representative e
- Page 66 and 67: Cleghorn, S., et al., “PEM Fuel C
- Page 68 and 69: vehicles (as well as stationary) ap
- Page 70 and 71: To ease the introduction of a new t
Change language