500 MW Hydrogen Power Plant Will Test Carbon Sequestration (CA OIL)

[jpak]

Carson, California BP and Edison Mission Group (EMG), a subsidiary of Edison International, plan on building a new $1 billion, 500 MW hydrogen-fueled power plant in California, which, while not using renewable energy, will generate clean electricity and sequester its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

<more>

oops - edited out link in OP...and can't get the one for the article to work.

It's here though....(look in Latest Headlines section)

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com

[mom cat]

1. They should add this new technology:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

[pocket]

2. link?

please.

[gristy]

3. Hydrogen, huh?

Gonna open up a bunch of hydrogen mines? Tap those hydrogen reserves? :eyes:

[Up2Late]

4. Yeah, it's called the Pacific OCEAN, ever hear of it?!?!?

It's 2/3 of the Oceans, which cover 3/4 of the EARTH. H20 = 1 Oxygen + 2 HYDROGEN = Water!

And you don't need a Nuclear Power Plant to "Crack" it, a small Solar Panel or Wind Turbine will do just fine.

You "it will never work," anti-Hydrogen people drive me nuts!

[hatrack]

6. Let me know how the net energy balance works out, OK?

nt

[eppur_se_muova]

8. It will be less than 100%, because everything is.

Hydrogen is a means of STORING energy. Hydrogen in water is reduced to elemental (gaseous) hydrogen. This consumes energy.

Hydrogen gas is burned to form water. This releases energy. The amount of energy released is never greater than the amount consumed to produce the H2 in the first place. Nothing is 100% efficient. The advantage is that the H2 can be burned in a location far removed from its generation site.

The really, really, good part is that the ONLY combustion product is H2O -- no CO2, so no greenhouse effect.

Hydrogen is stored energy in the same sense that a "battery" is -- EXACTLY the same sense, since batteries (formally "electrochemical cells") operate by chemical reactions between (relatively) high-energy chemicals. The major differences between this kind of "cell" and a fuel cell are that (1) a fuel cell has openings so that the chemicals can be replaced, and the reaction products removed, so it can operate continuously as new fuel is added, and (2) the reactions in a battery are often simple redox reactions of metals, and can be reversed, that is, the battery can be recharged. Fuel cells that burn complex fuels like methanol or hydrocarbons cannot be run in reverse, althought a H2/O2(air) fuel cell certainly could be.

The big difference between hydrogen (H2) and oil/coal/gas is that the fossil fuels are already in a relative energy-rich form -- they represent energy stored by natural processes, very slowly, over a long period of time. The material content -- complex hydrocarbons -- is also valuable, but that value is thrown away when the fuel is burned. So when you burn oil/coal/gas you are getting "free" energy but are throwing away the raw materials that could be used to make plastics/pharmaceuticals/etc. When you produce, then burn, H2, the value of the material substance is minimal; only the energy content has value, and of course the combustion product is harmless.

Hope that clarifies the advantage of H2, while not overlooking the difficulty that it's not "free" as fossil fuels are. This is far from being its only disadvantage -- the storage and distribution of H2 is very difficult, and is the only real obstacle to its widespread use. Imagine if H2 could be shipped as easily as H2O -- then power plants would distribute their energy not over electrical lines but through pipelines. This would likely be more efficient, as electrical power loses much of its energy in transit.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. self delete -- posted in wrong place

[rfkrfk]

5. sequester, sweep the dirt under the rug n/t

[hunter]

7. Short version: Injecting carbon dioxide into oil fields.

Basically they are burning petroleum coke and injecting the resulting carbon dioxide into older oil fields to enhance production. The "hydrogen-fueled" part of it isn't adding anything to the overall equation, it's just an extra pipe leading to the gas turbines. But of course it sounds "sexy" to Arnold Schwarzenegger types.

Overall, the process sounds like it will actually INCREASE overall carbon dioxide emissions, because of the oil that will be recovered in the process. It's not as if they are taking this oil, generating energy, and pumping all the carbon dioxide back into the ground. Overall emmisions of carbon dioxide are reduced from what they might have been, but they are not less than they would be if they simply left this oil in the ground.

As a water quality engineer once told me, "We're still pissing in the pool, only not so much."

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Sequestration = burying toxic waste. No difference. NONE. nt