EIA 3

The notes for the EIA hydrogen third report are below and you can access the link accordingly


I have one more report to analyze hopefully I can get that done and posted before class tomorrow, otherwise that about sums up stuff on my end and it is now time to arrange a brief meeting where we discuss how we are going to present the information and deadlines all that jazz

Chapter 3 provides quantitative estimates of energy and CO2 emission impacts of FCVs, based on different market penetration scenarios, hydrogen production technologies (including the manner in which they are deployed from distributed to centralized production), and hydrogen vehicle efficiency (fuel economy). The results are compared with results for an alternative technology, PHEVs. The analysis provides some observations and insights into the potential impacts of the large-scale introduction of hydrogen vehicles.

· Emission projections are subject to change due to various scenarios considered in this report

· However, the projections suppose three scenarios of change that could took place as follows

· One- considered least aggressive market strategy with development not really beginning until 2015 and increases slowly for a significant period and then accompanied by state and federal incentives increases with rapid technology and consequently infrastructure change with roughly 45% of energy intensive markets and fuels adapted by 2045

· Two- more aggressive, charting a sales path of faster consumption of these products and consequently a faster realization of their benefits to the environment, characterized by a steady increase at first and then a more rapid one until 2050 when 90% of all cars sold are FCV’s

· Three- most aggressive strategy, rapidly developed, assumes all costs goals are met in infrastructure is developed in Tandem, which after considerable advancements and economic investments spikes upward after 2024 and has reached a peak of almost 100% FCV sales by 2038

· In order to have a more comprehensive projection the study also includes a number of sceanrios in which the fuel finds it way into the economy

· Distributed natural gas SMR, centralized natural gas SMR, centralized coal gasificaton with CCS, centralized biomass gasification, and centralized nuclear electrolysis HTE of water- the pathways listed are only meant to provide prospective gauges for different emission levels that could result from the different choices and are not necessarily reflective of what will be or is the most economically effective and therefore are worth mentioning and referencing the accompanying charts but are not crucial to our analysis.

· SLOW STOCK TURNOVER- benefits of market penetration will be not be fully realized until a decade after significant market penetration and this lapse between periods poses the risky transition period for investors and consumers from a gasoline centric market to a hydrogen fueled market and this period demonstrates the greatest challenge to integration.

· The emissions do not include the CO2 emissions associated with the full life cycle of the fuel and therefore are considered in terms of direct energy use scenarios given that projections about the technology needed to bring us the fuel cannot with any accuracy be predicted.

· The study then explores the different scenarios in context to LDV direct energy use impacts and also the comparative case for a point of reference of the impacts of plug in hybrid. See accompanying graphs and charts in the link for a more colorful representation

·

·

·

· The scenarios, as one might expect produced hugely different results in terms of fuel emissions and therefore the key findings of this analysis are summed up as follows

· It is highly unlikely given the technological and infrastructure challenges that hydrogen FCV will have a significant impact on LDV energy use and CO2 emissions by 2030

· However depending on market penetration and improvements in the fuel economy by 2050, the reduction of petroleum demand could range anywhere from 37.1 % - 84.1%

· Also depending on the means of production, the full fuel cycle reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 could be as high as 63.8% to merely 2.0% in the various scenarios

· The fuel economy of FCVs and the electricity generation mix are the key determinants of relative emissions and outcomes

·

Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Bringing the research full circle through an analysis of the intensive report produced in 2008 by the EIA on hydrgen fuel cell and its reciprocal use and implementation in our economy
here is the link for chapter two which i have just read and taken comprehensive notes on which we will later compile into our paper
chapter one was merely an introduction however i will also post a basic page provided by the EIA on Hydrogen Fuel Cell without an economic analysis

Chapter 2 of this report systematically reviews the components of existing industrial hydrogen production, capacity, and use, as well as those elements associated with the contemplated future hydrogen economy. The review proceeds from sources of supply and production technologies through distribution and storage issues, and then to dispensing and end uses. End-use issues are related to HICEs and FCVs as well as stationary applications of hydrogen fuel cells.

· Supply-Production-Distrbution-Dispensing and End use

· # of potential feedstock and production pathways is much larger than depicted in 2.1 e.g. commited solar supplies for electrical provision or wind powered

· Hydrogen is an energy carrier not primary energy resource- similar to electricity

· Cellulosic biomass can also produce as well as natural gas, coal, oril and so forth

· 10 quadrillion BTU per year in 2030 of estimated biomass supply

· ^^polysys comp model

· Another source is simply electrolysis of water – NASA has used such however its rather expensive compared to alternatives and would require diverting energy use from the 49% of electric generation vis a vis coal burning plants

· Constructing a renewable capacity for exclusive purpose of hydrogen from electrolysis is undesirable from investment perspectives because ti would require the cost of electricity to be less than the wholesale price at which could be sold to the grid

· Standalone wind systems in production face this challenge and thus seem economically unfeasible

· Direct biomass gastircation would prove better economically if engineering challenges of raising max capacity to atleast 80% were overcome

· Hydrogen production would require reforming natural gas and hydrogen byproducts of petroleum processing

· Nuclear is a possibility that hasn’t fully been explored

· Hydrogen could be produced as a byproduct o some other exisiting industrial process

· ^^^clearly production could be accomdated

· Reforming- highly favorable because it wouldn’t require much infastructe change and industry already ecists for natural gas feedstock

· Partial Oxidation- typically produces at faster rate than the later but less from the same qunaityt moreover, fluxating natural gas prices are a detriment however

· Electrolysis- cost prohibitice and net energy losss associated with production

· Advanced techonoligies e.g. thermochemical reactions, nuclear fission, photosynthesis, fermentation and so forth however nothing is guaranteed on this new frontier

· ECONOMICS of production depends upon the underlying efficiency of technology employed, current state of industrial development, scale of plant, annual utilization and cost of its feed back, see chart 2.1 for reference

· We need investors to cover the plant capital costs in order to establish a dependeable production method less sensitive to production costs

· Smaller plants that would require less infrastructure tend to have higher feedstock and utility costs, lower effiences, and higher operation and maintence costs

· HYDROGEN TRANSMISSION and DISTRI

· Currently 20% of hydrogen production could be transported without modifying the 180,000 mile natural gas pipeline infrastructure

· Amount of quantity production will affect how we transport- e.g. midsized over the road and via rail cars- generally longer distances- larger quantities via pipes over shorter distances

· Hydrogen is highly volatile and safety is a necessary consideration in facilitating transport

· 99%^ of all hydrogen gas is transported via compressed gas in pipelies

· However, integrating transport into the already established natural gas pipelines could facilitate the shift although those are all headed toward homes and require a shift in processing through technology in home heating and so forth

· How this system will evolve is unknown and its costs cannot be estimated within reason because of this

· Quantities and distance determine cost of distribution and modes of transport also liquid versus gaseous stae

· One of the greatest challenges in developing a hydrogen economy is efficient storage

· **various storage methods** dk if its necessary though

· Hydrogen dispensing and hydrogen highway intiatives- see chart 2.3 California is winning the race

· Hydrogen end use applications currently

· Petroleum refining—to remove sulfur from crude oil as well as to convert heavy crude oil to lighter products

· Chemical processing—to manufacture ammonia, methanol, chlorine, caustic soda, and hydrogenated non-edible oils for soaps, insulation, plastics, ointments, and other chemicals

· Pharmaceuticals—to produce sorbitol, which is used in cosmetics, adhesives, surfactants, and vitamins

· Metal production and fabrication—to create a protective atmosphere in high-temperature operations, such as stainless steel manufacturing

· Food processing—to hydrogenate oils, such as soybean, fish, cottonseed, and corn oil

· Laboratory research—to conduct research and experimentation

· Electronics—to create a special atmosphere for the production of semiconductor circuits

· Glass manufacturing—to create a protective atmosphere for float glass production

· Power generation—to cool turbo-generators and to protect piping in nuclear reactors.

· Transportation end uses are mainly in the conceptual stage however LDV’s conversion could conserve and cut down on import enormously

· HICE’s VERSUS FCV’s

· HICE- modified mass produced vehicle designed, considerably lower cost and could be deployed much sooner, development of this vehicle type could facilitate massive infrastructure change

· 1000$ for on board electrolyzer and for has demonstrated the ability to optimize the combustion of hydrogen fuel given the design of the vehicle. These HICE’s could also include for a relatively low cost LDV onboard storage with equally effeicient fuel standards

· EV’s and PHEVS

· Major automakers hold the EV as a legitimate immediate emission free replacement however long range capabilities are still the challenge

· FCVS – instiallation of R and D fuel cells to work as an onboard electricity generaor storage system replacement

· Constant source of necessary chemicals for battery like reaction is the jist

· However major automotive companies eg Chrysler and GM require billion dollar expenditures in order to develop the system

· Current impediments to the sytem is costm fuel cell durability, and expanding operational temp range of cell – also necessary minimum range for consumers

· The fuel cell itself which last half as long as an internal combustion engine – where do the batteries go? Is it safe to throw them away- the study doesn’t say

· Stationary power systems are now in use and demonstrate the burgeoning industry