Sparky @zig-zag.net
2005-11-11 20:31:37 UTC
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69456,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7
Scientists Offer Hydrogen Fix
02:00 AM Nov. 11, 2005 PT
Two scientists say they have come up with a way to make hydrogen fuel
cheap enough to compete with gasoline, by combining nuclear and wind
power.
In the system envisioned by Alistair Miller and Romney Duffey of Atomic
Energy of Canada, nuclear power plants would be paired with wind
turbines to power electrolysis cells, which make hydrogen by passing an
electric current through water.
Wind on its own is too variable, Miller says, leaving electrolysis
equipment frequently idle and driving up costs. "The economics just
don't work," he says. "It produces very expensive hydrogen."
Pairing it with nuclear would keep the equipment operating closer to
full capacity and bring the cost down, he says. A bonus is that when
the wind is strong and electricity demand is high, excess power can be
sold at a profit to the grid. This means that, unlike traditional
electricity-based hydrogen production, Miller's system actually makes
hydrogen cheaper as the cost of electricity goes up.
Using time-varying electricity price data from Ontario and Alberta,
Miller and Duffey calculate that their system can produce hydrogen at
$2 per kilogram, easily meeting the U.S. Department of Energy's goal of
$2 to $3 per kilogram by 2015. One kilogram of hydrogen is considered
equivalent to one gallon of gasoline.
Miller and Duffey recently presented their system, which they call
NuWind, at the 2005 Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference in
Toronto.
Other hydrogen advocates aren't thrilled about the idea of building
nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen, however.
"The nuclear guys are always trying to come up with arguments to make
their industry more green," says Daniel Sperling, co-director of the
Hydrogen Pathways Program at the University of California at Davis.
"Nuclear's got all kinds of challenges." Concerns raised frequently
include nuclear waste disposal, potential terrorist attacks on reactors
and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Miller argues that radiation from nuclear power plants is tiny compared
to what people get from natural sources and that there are cheaper
paths to nuclear proliferation than building a nuclear power plant. He
also maintains that the risks of terrorist attacks are overblown. "You
can fly a 747 into a nuclear reactor and it's very bad for the 747 but
it won't actually do anything to the meter-thick concrete around the
reactor core," he says.
And given growing concerns about climate change, he says, society can't
afford to dismiss any options for reducing carbon emissions. "We need
all the carbon-free sources we can possibly lay our hands on."
Despite his doubts, Sperling says nuclear shouldn't be dismissed out
of hand for hydrogen production. "I wouldn't see spending money on
nuclear to hydrogen at this point, but we should keep it open as an
option."
Aside from the environmental and security issues, hydrogen from the
nuclear-wind system would have other hurdles to overcome, including the
added costs of distributing the fuel.
"I think it's certainly possible that you can produce hydrogen that's
competitive in price with gasoline and that's produced from a
relatively clean source, if you're including nuclear in that," says
energy market analyst Roberta Gamble of Frost & Sullivan. "The problem
is the transportation of the fuel, the integration into the fuelling
system, and then whether or not it would ever be used."
Gamble is doubtful that fuel-cell cars will catch on among consumers,
especially within the next 10 or 15 years, when the nuclear-wind system
would be most useful. After that, other hydrogen-production
technologies being researched could be ready and might make the
nuclear-wind system obsolete.
Nearly all hydrogen today is obtained from natural gas in a process
called steam methane reforming. But unlike electrolysis, this method
produces carbon dioxide, and is growing more expensive as natural gas
prices rise.
Scientists Offer Hydrogen Fix
02:00 AM Nov. 11, 2005 PT
Two scientists say they have come up with a way to make hydrogen fuel
cheap enough to compete with gasoline, by combining nuclear and wind
power.
In the system envisioned by Alistair Miller and Romney Duffey of Atomic
Energy of Canada, nuclear power plants would be paired with wind
turbines to power electrolysis cells, which make hydrogen by passing an
electric current through water.
Wind on its own is too variable, Miller says, leaving electrolysis
equipment frequently idle and driving up costs. "The economics just
don't work," he says. "It produces very expensive hydrogen."
Pairing it with nuclear would keep the equipment operating closer to
full capacity and bring the cost down, he says. A bonus is that when
the wind is strong and electricity demand is high, excess power can be
sold at a profit to the grid. This means that, unlike traditional
electricity-based hydrogen production, Miller's system actually makes
hydrogen cheaper as the cost of electricity goes up.
Using time-varying electricity price data from Ontario and Alberta,
Miller and Duffey calculate that their system can produce hydrogen at
$2 per kilogram, easily meeting the U.S. Department of Energy's goal of
$2 to $3 per kilogram by 2015. One kilogram of hydrogen is considered
equivalent to one gallon of gasoline.
Miller and Duffey recently presented their system, which they call
NuWind, at the 2005 Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference in
Toronto.
Other hydrogen advocates aren't thrilled about the idea of building
nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen, however.
"The nuclear guys are always trying to come up with arguments to make
their industry more green," says Daniel Sperling, co-director of the
Hydrogen Pathways Program at the University of California at Davis.
"Nuclear's got all kinds of challenges." Concerns raised frequently
include nuclear waste disposal, potential terrorist attacks on reactors
and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Miller argues that radiation from nuclear power plants is tiny compared
to what people get from natural sources and that there are cheaper
paths to nuclear proliferation than building a nuclear power plant. He
also maintains that the risks of terrorist attacks are overblown. "You
can fly a 747 into a nuclear reactor and it's very bad for the 747 but
it won't actually do anything to the meter-thick concrete around the
reactor core," he says.
And given growing concerns about climate change, he says, society can't
afford to dismiss any options for reducing carbon emissions. "We need
all the carbon-free sources we can possibly lay our hands on."
Despite his doubts, Sperling says nuclear shouldn't be dismissed out
of hand for hydrogen production. "I wouldn't see spending money on
nuclear to hydrogen at this point, but we should keep it open as an
option."
Aside from the environmental and security issues, hydrogen from the
nuclear-wind system would have other hurdles to overcome, including the
added costs of distributing the fuel.
"I think it's certainly possible that you can produce hydrogen that's
competitive in price with gasoline and that's produced from a
relatively clean source, if you're including nuclear in that," says
energy market analyst Roberta Gamble of Frost & Sullivan. "The problem
is the transportation of the fuel, the integration into the fuelling
system, and then whether or not it would ever be used."
Gamble is doubtful that fuel-cell cars will catch on among consumers,
especially within the next 10 or 15 years, when the nuclear-wind system
would be most useful. After that, other hydrogen-production
technologies being researched could be ready and might make the
nuclear-wind system obsolete.
Nearly all hydrogen today is obtained from natural gas in a process
called steam methane reforming. But unlike electrolysis, this method
produces carbon dioxide, and is growing more expensive as natural gas
prices rise.