Nuclear Hydrogen

[Nuclear Renaissance]

I'd like to know how many BTUs one would need to allocate to supply one average-use hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, given electrolysis as the H source. BTU from nuclear core to hydrogen is only about 8-10% efficient, provided 30-35% nuclear plant efficiency and 25% electrolysis efficiency.

[rlbinc]

According to Idaho National Laboratory...
http://www.inl.gov/scienceandtechnology/alternativefuels/nuclearhydrogen.shtml

"... a high-temperature advanced nuclear reactor coupled with a high-efficiency, high-temperature electrolyzer could achieve a thermal-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency of 45 to 55%."

That includes the combined reactor and electrolysis processes. It seems competitive when one considers the world price (US is still an virtual Disneyland at $3.00 a gallon) and trends of gasoline and diesel.

The concept takes is investment and development. Nuclear Utilities have enough on their hands buying replacements for aging reactors. Automotive companies have enough on their hands keeping the doors open.

[Nuclear Renaissance]

I'd like to know how many BTUs one would need to allocate to supply one average-use hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, given electrolysis as the H source. BTU from nuclear core to hydrogen is only about 8-10% efficient, provided 30-35% nuclear plant efficiency and 25% electrolysis efficiency.

According to Idaho National Laboratory...
http://www.inl.gov/scienceandtechnology/alternativefuels/nuclearhydrogen.shtml

"... a high-temperature advanced nuclear reactor coupled with a high-efficiency, high-temperature electrolyzer could achieve a thermal-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency of 45 to 55%."

That includes the combined reactor and electrolysis processes. It seems competitive when one considers the world price (US is still an virtual Disneyland at $3.00 a gallon) and trends of gasoline and diesel.

The concept takes is investment and development. Nuclear Utilities have enough on their hands buying replacements for aging reactors. Automotive companies have enough on their hands keeping the doors open.

Yes, I've seen the DOE high-temperature options, but they face 3 biggies:

* high temperature electrolysis is nowhere close to commercial scale

* the Gen-IV high-temperature reactors are timescale 2040 designs

* high-temperature reactor hydrogen production is centralized production, which overlooks the trillion-dollar problem of a hydrogen distribution infrastructure

I am decidedly pro-hydrogen and these concepts deserve plenty of funding dollars, but there needs to be a realistic bridge. Hence, my earlier question of how many watts of a conventional LWR do we need to allocate, to supply a single average-use fuel cell vehicle, using the existing electrical grid and distributed standard-electrolysis filling stations. I've never seen that number.....

[thenuttyneutron]

Economics drive everything.  I do like nuclear energy but don't see hydrogen as the future.  H2 is too expensive to use because of the investments we would have to make in infrastructure.  Also do you trust the average American to properly refuel their cars with such an explosive fuel?

I see fossil fuels and synthetic versions of them as the future.  I would rather see nukes being used to convert coal in to oil.  This Fisher-Tropsch process is an old technology developed by the Germans in WW2.  We can use the heat that we are throwing away anyway to make oil from coal.  Also using nukes we can extract oil from the Alberta Oil Sands.  That Bitumen requires heat and water to make oil.  Nukes can supply the heat at the cheapest price.

I want to also move our electric generation towards 90% being made by nukes on the Thorium fuel cycle.  We would have to develop the reprocessing technologies for use in America.  If we ever did these 2 things we would easily become energy independent.

[rlbinc]

I think technology solves those issues of hazard (Hydride Storage) and expense. (20 years ago I bought a PC for $4000, now they're $300.)

The automotive industry leaders like Honda are already deploying Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles in California. They are leasing them for $600 per month to folks who live near their filling stations.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/?from=fcx.honda.com
That's not PR.

That's an admission that Greenhouse Gas Regulations - and they are coming - will require infrastructure changes in the transportation field.

Battery development may exceed Hydrogen Infrastructure. Hydrogen FCVs are simply a oxidative fuel fed battery which produces DC Electrical Power.
The industry considers BOTH technologies viable at this point.

There were no petroleum pipelines in operation when Henry Ford started building gasoline powered cars. The idea necessitated the development.
(There was no internet when Bill Gates first built an operating system for a PC... same deal)

Even without Greenhouse Gas emission concerns - Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch, and Chevron won't always be oil companies, according to Hubbert's Peak Theory. They'll go where the money is.
Hubbert's Peak Theory suggests that as oil usage exceeds oil deposit discovery, prices will rise rather sharply. This economic pressure will drive diversification into other energy sources.

Science tries to play nice and suggest alternatives.
Economics plays hardball and requires it.

[HydroDave63]

I'd like to know how many BTUs one would need to allocate to supply one average-use hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, given electrolysis as the H source. BTU from nuclear core to hydrogen is only about 8-10% efficient, provided 30-35% nuclear plant efficiency and 25% electrolysis efficiency.

Here's a 2-fer:  Have windmills get off the grid ( they require high voltage support that must come from large generation nearby, and cause harmonics problems for neighbors, plus costly DC-AC conversion equipment ) and making hydrogen by dissociation there at the wind farm, and let nukes do what they do best, run baseload for electrical generation. The wind-hydrogen can go to a local storage tank, and run a CT. http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_15531_26314-30916-0_0_0-0,00.html

Need a hydrogen fillup? Then use nuclear electricity to your local station, and generate the hydrogen as you need it  http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

Nuclear to hydrogen, which would then require transport and storage, is nearly as inefficient as making the cars nuclear powered.

[thenuttyneutron]

I think technology solves those issues of hazard (Hydride Storage) and expense. (20 years ago I bought a PC for $4000, now they're $300.)

The automotive industry leaders like Honda are already deploying Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles in California. They are leasing them for $600 per month to folks who live near their filling stations.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/?from=fcx.honda.com
That's not PR.

That's an admission that Greenhouse Gas Regulations - and they are coming - will require infrastructure changes in the transportation field.

Battery development may exceed Hydrogen Infrastructure. Hydrogen FCVs are simply a oxidative fuel fed battery which produces DC Electrical Power.
The industry considers BOTH technologies viable at this point.

There were no petroleum pipelines in operation when Henry Ford started building gasoline powered cars. The idea necessitated the development.
(There was no internet when Bill Gates first built an operating system for a PC... same deal)

Even without Greenhouse Gas emission concerns - Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch, and Chevron won't always be oil companies, according to Hubbert's Peak Theory. They'll go where the money is.
Hubbert's Peak Theory suggests that as oil usage exceeds oil deposit discovery, prices will rise rather sharply. This economic pressure will drive diversification into other energy sources.

Science tries to play nice and suggest alternatives.
Economics plays hardball and requires it.

The snip about battery technology has some merit.  I read an article a few months ago about a company developing large capacity capacitors for use as a car power supply.  The thing that was most interesting about it is the ability to charge them in just a few minutes and the car having a 300 mile range.

If I could drive across the country in a car powered by this and take a few minutes every 4 hours to charge it, I would use this over the gas powered vehicles we now have.  I wonder what the cost savings would be overtime if gas were $4/gallon and this car had only a $5000 premium over the gas powered version at the dealership.

[StevenPeck]

The Voltaire battery is where Hydrogen started and should end.  The preventative costs of Palladium and Platinum is what keeps the real technology out of markets.  Until somebody comes up with a battery design with minimal cost inputs, we will continue using the old "cheap" batteries.  BTW, there is a corporation in Utah that has been working with nanodots of Nickel that imitate Platinum for use in catalytic converters--wonder how long it will be before somebody decides to make nanowires or nanorods with those same dots for battery use?--.

I am all for fertile Thorium cycles, but using a LMFBR (generation 4 reactor, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor) we could use spent fuel, depleted U, and some Fissile Pu (239,241) to cover much more than energy independence.  The French had a working reactor that was shutdown in 1997, Superphenix, that was exceptional for such uses.  Seems the international community is taking this seriously again: http://www.nuclear.gov/newsroom/2008PRs/nePR020108.html.

If we want real energy independence, then we will need advocates that can get the villainous picture of bean counters out of the public images--or get rid of the bean counters.  We developed the future decades ago; just didn't get around to doing anything with it (sounds like CD's all over again).  We can't avoid the future forever, just until our competition uses it to crush us.

==============

I am a Physicist; Engineering is just a hobby.