Capital cost of hydrogen

For example, if we compare the 2012 low-cost PEM figures with the PEC estimates based on performance today we see that the PEC system would require around 20% less area of PV and hence the cost of PV. However, the land area used by the PEC system today would be dominated by the 300 m of PEC which is some five times the area of a compact PEM system in which the PEM electrolyzer does not need exposure to light and can be located beneath the PV. The capital cost of hydrogen produced per kg is around double from the PEC system assuming it can... 

Figure 8.3 highlights that for PEC with a 1 Sun photocurrent of 8 mA/cm and a bias of 0.8 V, capital costs of hydrogen per kg less than 3/kg, with a 10-year payback, cannot be achieved (solid line). Equally, PEC at similar photocurrents with 1.2 V bias cannot achieve sub- 3/kg hydrogen costs even with a 15-year payback (large dashed line). To achieve sub- 3/kg hydrogen capital costs for PEC with photocurrents of 8 mA/cm, the bias must be at least as low as 0.8 V with a 15-year payback and PEC costs below 100/m (small dashed line). If the bias can be reduced further to 0.4 V then with a 15-year payback PEC costs as high as 150/m can be sustained, which is arotmd half the current cost of PV. 

The upper limit of efficiency of the biophotolysis of water has been projected to be 3% for weU-controUed systems. This limits the capital cost of useful systems to low cost materials and designs. But the concept of water biophotolysis to afford a continuous, renewable source of hydrogen is quite attractive and may one day lead to practical hydrogen-generating systems. 

When hydrogen is burned in a combustion chamber instead of a conventional boiler, high-pressure superheated steam can be generated and fed directly into a turbine. This could cut the capital cost of a power plant by one half. While hydrogen is burned, there is essentially no pollution. Expensive pollution control systems, which can be almost one third of the capital costs of conventional fossil fuel power plants are not required. This should also allow plants to be located closer to residential and commercial loads, reducing power transmission costs and line losses. 

Generally, distance and volume are decisive factors. For a short distance, a pipeline can be very economic because the capital expense of a short pipeline may be close to the capital cost of trailers, and there are no transportation or liquefaction costs. As the distance increases, the capital cost of a pipeline increases rapidly, and the economics will depend on the quantity of hydrogen pipelines will be favoured for larger quantities of hydrogen. For small... 

The assumed capital costs of different hydrogen production systems are summarised in Table 15.4, based on H2A s future (2015) technology assumptions (USDOE, 2007b). 

By 2010, verify renewable integrated hydrogen production with water electrolysis at a hydrogen cost of 2.50/kg (electrolyser capital cost of 300/kWe for 250 kg/day with 73% system efficiency). By 2010, verify large-scale central electrolysis at 2.00/kg hydrogen at the plant gate. 

The CRG process is one of a range of processes developed by the British Gas Corporation for production of fuel gases. The range and application of these processes and their impact has been described by Hebden, illustrating the effect on capital cost of increasing the carbon/hydrogen ratio of the feedstock,... 

The electrolyte in these baths is robust and the throwing power of the bath is excellent however, current efficiency falls with increasing current density as hydrogen evolution increases. The bath also presents significant effluent disposal problems since cyanide must be destroyed by chlorine or hypochlorite oxidation, thus adding to the capital costs of the plant. 

Fixed cost indicator is derived form the total capital cost of the system. It defined as 5% of capital cost. It comprise operational and maintenance cost for whole system, including hydrogen production and its utilization for the electric energy production. 

A few ammonia plants have been located where a hydrogen off-gas stream is available from a nearby methanol or ethylene operation (e.g., Canadian plants at Kitimat, BC and Joffre, Alberta). Gas consumption at such operations range from 25 million to 27 million BTU per tonne of ammonia, depending on specific circumstances. Perhaps more important, the capital cost of such a plant is only about 50% of the cost of a conventional plant of similar capacity because only the synthesis portion of the ammonia plant is required. However, by-product carbon dioxide is not produced and downstream urea production is therefore not possible56. 

Kythnos PV-hydrogen Power System Techno-economic Analysis To asses the economic viability of the proposed PV-hydrogen power system two different scenarios for equipment costs were considered. In the first one, current capital costs for hydrogen energy equipment were taken into account, while in the second one, long-term (2020) forecasts for equipment costs were introduced. 

Basic investment and operating cost information was obtained from information in our files plus some input from Reference (1) adjusted to mid-1979 dollars. Natural gas is the assumed feedstock at a base cost of 2.00/106 Btu. Based on the guidelines, the capital cost of a 100 million SCF/day plant is 66.3 million, and the hydrogen price is 1.61/103 CF or 4.76/106 Btu. 

G-3 Nuclear Reactor Options and Their Power Cycle Efficiency, 210 G-4 An Overview of Nuclear Hydrogen Production Options, 211 G-5 Capital Costs of Current Electrolysis Fueler Producing 480 Kilograms of Hydrogen per Day, 221... 

---