Molten salt nuclear reactor developer Terrestrial Energy has partnered with Southern Company and several U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to develop a more efficient and cleaner method for producing hydrogen using nuclear heat and power.
The two-year research and development project will examine the efficiency, design and economics of the IMSR® power plant to produce carbon-free, industrial-scale hydrogen using the hybrid sulfur process. This carbon-free method of generating hydrogen from water may be more efficient than high-temperature steam electrolysis.
The project intends to demonstrate the commercial and industrial-scale viability of pairing the hybrid sulfur process with an IMSR® power plant for large-scale production of hydrogen with zero greenhouse-gas emissions.
This work builds on two decades of research at Savannah River National Laboratory, which will continue to lead the technology development along with Sandia National Laboratories and Idaho National Laboratory.
Besides current uses of hydrogen in ammonia production, petroleum refining, chemicals production and other industrial applications, hydrogen is expected to grow significantly as a storable energy carrier. Future applications include all forms of transportation, thermal energy and energy storage, as well as growth in conventional uses of hydrogen. By 2020, the hydrogen market is expected to reach $200 billion.
Today, most hydrogen is made from fossil energy using steam methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas, followed by partial oxidation (POX) and autothermal reforming (ATR), which combines SMR and POX processes.
Removing carbon from the production of hydrogen helps bring deep decarbonization into reach. It points the way to the production of carbon-neutral transport fuels and zero-emissions fertilizers.
Hydrogen could play a bigger role in a carbon-free economy
Hydrogen is already very important for industrial applications.
Hydrogen could be better than electrical batteries for industrial equipment, planes and drones.
Both alkaline and PEM water electrolyzers are available in Megawatt (MW) scale. In April 2017, a 3 MW PEM electroylzer stack was unveiled at Hannover Messe. A large-scale (400 MW) alkaline system consisting of 187 electrolyzer stacks is currently available at $450/kW USD plus housing. High temperature electrolysis splits water at between 700-1000°C. The solid oxide electrolyer (SOEC) is the most commonly used high temperature electrolyzer.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the cost of distributed (as opposed to centralized) hydrogen production via electrolysis using off-peak electricity was $3.90 USD/kilogram (kg) H2 in 2015, while the 2020 cost target for distributed hydrogen production is $2.30/kg H2.
The DOE estimates the hydrogen threshold cost – the sweet spot for competition of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) with hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) – to be $2.00-$4.00/gge (gallon gasoline equivalent) on a cost per mile basis in 2020.
Sale of forklifts for industrial uses is increasing: this market segment is the “low hanging fruit” of hydrogen applications. In the U.S., some 11,600 forklifts (logistics vehicles) were sold as of October 2016. Hydrogen powered forklifts are more cost effective than battery powered forklifts due to low refueling times that are a tenth of that required to swap out a fully charged battery. The CAPEX for hydrogen powered forklifts is competitive with battery-powered forklifts.
Easy Jet has partnered with French Aerospace giant Safran to test hydrogen fuel cells on their planes. Fuel cells will collect energy through solar panels and kinetic energy as the planes brake on the runway through “regenerative braking”, which will in turn power the planes taxiing capabilities. (If applied across their entire 279 plane fleet, they estimate savings of 55,000 tonnes of fuel per year).
Hydrogen is being used to power certain drones.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
No way this stuff gets designed, let alone built, without a 1000-plus engineer design bureau on a 5 year deployment plan – and that is what is missing for each of these MSR efforts. Such a design organization exists at Westinghouse, GE, TerraPower, NuScale, Framatome, Atomstroyexport, etc.. If you don’t see a 1000-man army making test-rigs, drawings, fab-drawings, schedules, QA programs, licensing documents, and 30 other things that elude me, then IT AIN’T GETTING BUILT BRO. How many people are working on the BFR or the Model 3 or whatever is coming down the pike? Minimum of a thousand – prolly more. Similar depth needed for a simple nuclear plant – ’cause guess what – they ain’t as simple as you expect.
No way this stuff gets designed let alone built without a 1000-plus engineer design bureau on a 5 year deployment plan – and that is what is missing for each of these MSR efforts. Such a design organization exists at Westinghouse GE TerraPower NuScale Framatome Atomstroyexport etc.. If you don’t see a 1000-man army making test-rigs drawings fab-drawings schedules QA programs licensing documents and 30 other things that elude me then IT AIN’T GETTING BUILT BRO.How many people are working on the BFR or the Model 3 or whatever is coming down the pike? Minimum of a thousand – prolly more. Similar depth needed for a simple nuclear plant – ’cause guess what – they ain’t as simple as you expect.
No way this stuff gets designed, let alone built, without a 1000-plus engineer design bureau on a 5 year deployment plan – and that is what is missing for each of these MSR efforts. Such a design organization exists at Westinghouse, GE, TerraPower, NuScale, Framatome, Atomstroyexport, etc.. If you don’t see a 1000-man army making test-rigs, drawings, fab-drawings, schedules, QA programs, licensing documents, and 30 other things that elude me, then IT AIN’T GETTING BUILT BRO. How many people are working on the BFR or the Model 3 or whatever is coming down the pike? Minimum of a thousand – prolly more. Similar depth needed for a simple nuclear plant – ’cause guess what – they ain’t as simple as you expect.
No way this stuff gets designed let alone built without a 1000-plus engineer design bureau on a 5 year deployment plan – and that is what is missing for each of these MSR efforts. Such a design organization exists at Westinghouse GE TerraPower NuScale Framatome Atomstroyexport etc.. If you don’t see a 1000-man army making test-rigs drawings fab-drawings schedules QA programs licensing documents and 30 other things that elude me then IT AIN’T GETTING BUILT BRO.How many people are working on the BFR or the Model 3 or whatever is coming down the pike? Minimum of a thousand – prolly more. Similar depth needed for a simple nuclear plant – ’cause guess what – they ain’t as simple as you expect.
No way this stuff gets designed, let alone built, without a 1000-plus engineer design bureau on a 5 year deployment plan – and that is what is missing for each of these MSR efforts. Such a design organization exists at Westinghouse, GE, TerraPower, NuScale, Framatome, Atomstroyexport, etc..
If you don’t see a 1000-man army making test-rigs, drawings, fab-drawings, schedules, QA programs, licensing documents, and 30 other things that elude me, then IT AIN’T GETTING BUILT BRO.
How many people are working on the BFR or the Model 3 or whatever is coming down the pike? Minimum of a thousand – prolly more. Similar depth needed for a simple nuclear plant – ’cause guess what – they ain’t as simple as you expect.
Trouble with hydrogen is it has very low *volumetric* energy density. It may be ok for domestic flights, but for long distance you want some minimum total energy in your fuel tanks. The higher the volumetric energy density, the bigger the flight range, give or take. Jet fuel is 47.4 MJ/L, liquid hydrogen is only 9.2. Ammonia isn’t much better, btw, at 11.5 MJ/L. Liquid methane (LNG) is 22.2.
Trouble with hydrogen is it has very low *volumetric* energy density. It may be ok for domestic flights but for long distance you want some minimum total energy in your fuel tanks. The higher the volumetric energy density the bigger the flight range give or take. Jet fuel is 47.4 MJ/L liquid hydrogen is only 9.2.Ammonia isn’t much better btw at 11.5 MJ/L. Liquid methane (LNG) is 22.2.
NOX NOX WOH’s there? Ammonium hydroxide!
NOX NOXWOH’s there?Ammonium hydroxide!
Easy Jet has partnered with French Aerospace giant Safran to test hydrogen fuel cells on their planes” I’ve talked about this for years. You can get 1kwhr/kg with a H2 fuel cell stack + H2 + hig pressure container.
Easy Jet has partnered with French Aerospace giant Safran to test hydrogen fuel cells on their planes””I’ve talked about this for years. You can get 1kwhr/kg with a H2 fuel cell stack + H2 + hig pressure container.”””
According to what I read from ammonia fuel proponents it is easy to make the NOX emissions from ammonia fueled engines very low. A bit of ammonia in a high NOX exhaust reacts with the NOX to make N2 & water.
According to what I read from ammonia fuel proponents it is easy to make the NOX emissions from ammonia fueled engines very low. A bit of ammonia in a high NOX exhaust reacts with the NOX to make N2 & water.
Trouble with hydrogen is it has very low *volumetric* energy density. It may be ok for domestic flights, but for long distance you want some minimum total energy in your fuel tanks. The higher the volumetric energy density, the bigger the flight range, give or take. Jet fuel is 47.4 MJ/L, liquid hydrogen is only 9.2.
Ammonia isn’t much better, btw, at 11.5 MJ/L. Liquid methane (LNG) is 22.2.
Dimethyl ether is a better fuel than methanol. It burns well in diesel engines, with very low NOX output, is non toxic, and is not a greenhouse gas. If you have cheap nuclear heat it can be catalyzed from methanol or methane. It needs to be pressurised, like LPG, but at fairly low pressure, unlike hydrogen. Volvo, among others, has experimented with running trucks on it.
Dimethyl ether is a better fuel than methanol. It burns well in diesel engines with very low NOX output is non toxic and is not a greenhouse gas. If you have cheap nuclear heat it can be catalyzed from methanol or methane. It needs to be pressurised like LPG but at fairly low pressure unlike hydrogen. Volvo among others has experimented with running trucks on it.
NOX NOX
WOH’s there?
Ammonium hydroxide!
“Easy Jet has partnered with French Aerospace giant Safran to test hydrogen fuel cells on their planes”
I’ve talked about this for years. You can get 1kwhr/kg with a H2 fuel cell stack + H2 + hig pressure container.
According to what I read from ammonia fuel proponents it is easy to make the NOX emissions from ammonia fueled engines very low. A bit of ammonia in a high NOX exhaust reacts with the NOX to make N2 & water.
Methanol is also a good replacement for transport fuels. The key is getting a source of carbon. There is too little carbon dioxide in air for production of methanol to be economical. But there is 140 times as much carbon dioxide in seawater. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Fi3BnwL94 John Bucknell, former SpaceX engineer explaining how a helium turbo inductor pump can be used to boost an MSR’s heat output to 1,000 degrees and efficiently (50%) thermochemically crack seawater into hydrogen and use the CO2 to make methanol.
Methanol is also a good replacement for transport fuels. The key is getting a source of carbon. There is too little carbon dioxide in air for production of methanol to be economical. But there is 140 times as much carbon dioxide in seawater.www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Fi3BnwL94John Bucknell former SpaceX engineer explaining how a helium turbo inductor pump can be used to boost an MSR’s heat output to 1000 degrees and efficiently (50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) thermochemically crack seawater into hydrogen and use the CO2 to make methanol.”
Quite impractical for fuel.
Quite impractical for fuel.
Will it create a lot of NOX? Used to be used in refrigeration.
Will it create a lot of NOX?Used to be used in refrigeration.
Ammonia is sort of like a highly toxic, but somewhat less flammable LPG. It’s use as a fuel is much less convenient than gasoline, or fuel oil. At least with ammonia, you never have to add an odorant!
Ammonia is sort of like a highly toxic but somewhat less flammable LPG. It’s use as a fuel is much less convenient than gasoline or fuel oil. At least with ammonia you never have to add an odorant!
The key to hydrogen is to make it into ammonia. IEA’s Renewable Energy for Industry explains the techno-economics. Ammonia is a much better energy carrier than hydrogen. Easier to store, easier to transport, easy to use. Ammonia gets to compete with oil. Hydrogen has to compete with natural gas. You’re talking about ammonia fueled ships and airplanes instead of hydrogen-fired boilers.
The key to hydrogen is to make it into ammonia. IEA’s Renewable Energy for Industry explains the techno-economics. Ammonia is a much better energy carrier than hydrogen. Easier to store easier to transport easy to use.Ammonia gets to compete with oil. Hydrogen has to compete with natural gas. You’re talking about ammonia fueled ships and airplanes instead of hydrogen-fired boilers.
Dimethyl ether is a better fuel than methanol. It burns well in diesel engines, with very low NOX output, is non toxic, and is not a greenhouse gas. If you have cheap nuclear heat it can be catalyzed from methanol or methane. It needs to be pressurised, like LPG, but at fairly low pressure, unlike hydrogen. Volvo, among others, has experimented with running trucks on it.
Methanol is also a good replacement for transport fuels. The key is getting a source of carbon. There is too little carbon dioxide in air for production of methanol to be economical. But there is 140 times as much carbon dioxide in seawater.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Fi3BnwL94
John Bucknell, former SpaceX engineer explaining how a helium turbo inductor pump can be used to boost an MSR’s heat output to 1,000 degrees and efficiently (50%) thermochemically crack seawater into hydrogen and use the CO2 to make methanol.
Quite impractical for fuel.
Will it create a lot of NOX?
Used to be used in refrigeration.
Ammonia is sort of like a highly toxic, but somewhat less flammable LPG. It’s use as a fuel is much less convenient than gasoline, or fuel oil. At least with ammonia, you never have to add an odorant!
The key to hydrogen is to make it into ammonia. IEA’s Renewable Energy for Industry explains the techno-economics.
Ammonia is a much better energy carrier than hydrogen. Easier to store, easier to transport, easy to use.
Ammonia gets to compete with oil. Hydrogen has to compete with natural gas. You’re talking about ammonia fueled ships and airplanes instead of hydrogen-fired boilers.