Fuels equipment costs

Fuel costs vary significantly by region, and the numbers in this row assume minimum fuel cost. For a specific application, contact manufacturers of specific equipment to get an idea of fuel consumption. Contact local gas, diesel, or other fuel supplier (or see Department of Energy databases) to get an estimate of what fuel will cost. 

The heat resulting from these irreversibilities must then be removed in order to maintain the fuel cells at a desired operating temperature. Irreversibilities and the resulting quantity of heat produced can be reduced, in general, by increasing the active area of the fuel cells, heat exchangers, and fuel reformer but increased equipment costs result. 

One method proposed for estimating the cost of fuel cell power plants is to calculate distributive (bulk) costs as a function of the equipment cost using established factors based on conventional generating technologies. When applied in such a way as to compensate for the differences associated with a fuel cell plant, this approach can yield reasonable results. NETL has elected, based on the international prominence of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE), to utilize this approach in estimating the costs for fuel cell/turbine power plant systems currently under study. 

Electric motor drives are preferred if the power cost is low, since electric packages are less costly than turbine drives, and motors generally have lower maintenance requirements. Turbine drives are preferred if the fuel gas cost is more attractive than the cost of electric power. Turbines can also provide process heat for the pre-treatment system and may, thus, reduce the need for heating equipment. In many installations, gas turbine fuel is provided from flash gas in the main process. 

First, a literature search was conducted to gather information on pyrolysis and burning tires for fuel and to identify companies using tires or TDF in their process. Information was gathered on emissions, control techniques required, control technique effectiveness, and control equipment cost. 

This will yield an optimal design for each specified electrical output. These suboptimizations will not be functions of the price of electricity and will depend only on the relative costs of fuel, equipment, and of capital. Once the value of electricity is known, the overall optimum design can be selected from these suboptimizations. 

Objective Function. The objective of the optimization is to minimize the total cost of owning and operating the system (at fixed product output). The objective function must be expressed in terms of the system s costs (fuel, equipment, and capital) by using an amortized capital investment, Z, for each component and the total fuel cost, CFUEL, written per operating hour. The objective function may be written as... 

Fixed charges for the low pressure furnace, FCf, are estimated in the same manner as the cogeneration system, at one and a half times the equipment cost. The fuel cost of producing hot water, CFUELf, is estimated using the unit cost of fuel, CF, the heat input to the water, Q, and the estimated furnace efficiency... 

To perform simulation and optimisation of a power system using the HOMER tool, information and data on natural resources (such as wind and solar irradiance data), electric and thermal loads, economic constraints, current and future equipment costs, user behaviour and control strategies are required. The main purpose of the techno-economic analysis presented in this chapter was to investigate the impact of diesel generators and batteries replacement with hydrogen technologies, including fuel cells both in technical and financial terms. 

The purchased-equipment cost for a plant which produces pentaerythritol (solid-fuel-processing plant) is 300,000. The plant is to be an addition to an existing formaldehyde plant. The major part of the building cost will be for indoor construction, and the contractor s fee will be 7 percent of the direct plant cost. All other costs are close to the average values found for typical chemical plants. On the basis of this information, estimate the following ... 

An important result of this study is the finding that the work and pressure of compression or extrusion can be reduced by a factor of about two by preheating the feedstock to 200-225 C before densification, This requires extra thermal energy for complete drying and to heat the biomass (heat capacity about 1.8 J/g-C) to the higher temperature however, these are offset by lower electrical power costs, lower equipment costs because of the lower pressure requirements, possibly reduced die wear due to improved lubricity of the biomass at increased temperatures, and increased fuel value due to complete water removal and prepyrolysis. These factors must be tested at the commercial scale before any conclusions can be drawn on the desirability of preheating feedstock. 

High and low production volume FCV and hydrogen fueling station equipment costs have been estimated using progress ratios. 

The equipment cost is affected by the size of the dryer and the consumption rate of fuel, assunung that a furnace is used for heat supply. Thus,... 

The prime economic problem is to balance the annual cost of extra investment against fuel savings. Therefore solar drying could be economical only if the equipment cost is decreased or in the event of fuel cost escalation. 

Thus, more development work needs to be done to understand the value of the reaction products (esters, charcoal, and recovered resin) in various chemical markets and determine if fuel use is the only option for developing the large market needed for the ethyl levulinate produced. If the fiiel oxygenate additive market is the only large market option, less distillation processing would be required, and revision of the process and plant design is needed. The production cost could be much lower, since the cost of the distillation columns was 65% of the purchased equipment cost in the plant design described above. 

C. Cathode Depolarization. Combustion in burners and use in fuel cells both depend on the oxidation of hydrogen already formed to reclaim some of the energy consumed in the electrolysis of brine. While not strictly a recovery process, a more elegant and possibly more effective approach would be to accomplish reaction (101) directly at the cathode. None of the equipment costs or energy losses associated with handling and reaction of the hydrogen would exist. 

The economic assessment was a joint activity between EFRUG and EFR Associates. The assessment involved a number of qualified nuclear equipment manufacturers in Europe who provided quotations for the main compcHients. Also, the major companies for fuel fabrication and reprocessing provided fuel service cost information enabling an assessment of the fuel cycle costs to be carried out. 

Commercial fabrication of uranium oxide fuels for light-water reactors is the fastest maturing segment of the nuclear fuel cycle. Some ten commercial fuel faibii-cators now routinely manufacture uranium fuels bn a more or less mass production basis. With this maturing comes an increased incentive to increase production rates and thereby reduce fuel fabrication costs. One astutely observes that the criticality safety. K, therefore, behooves us to periodically reexamine plant equipment in light of advances in criticality safety technology and to adjust limits wherever possible to enhance the economics of the fuel cycle. 

The fuel cell in this example does not optimize in the usual fashion of equipment versus operating costs. The low cost of the fuel cell, about 3 % of the total fuel cost, all but eliminates equipment cost from the optimization. As the cell voltage... 

---