https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-16/clean-air-gas-trucks-la-long-beach-ports

[ronwagn + 6,290]

The left wing L.A. Times is complaining because the Port Authority has approved natural gas trucks to relieve local air pollution from diesel trucks and encourage more CNG and LNG trucks. The writer tries to be fair but must keep his job methinks. 

Actually, he is missing the much larger point of pollution from the ships dropping off the containers. They should be pressured to switch to LNG powered  ships. Europe is demanding cleaner ship fuel for their ports. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:59 PM, ronwagn said:

The left wing L.A. Times is complaining because the Port Authority has approved natural gas trucks to relieve local air pollution from diesel trucks and encourage more CNG and LNG trucks. The writer tries to be fair but must keep his job methinks. 

Actually, he is missing the much larger point of pollution from the ships dropping off the containers. They should be pressured to switch to LNG powered  ships. Europe is demanding cleaner ship fuel for their ports. 

Nat. gas beats diesel on emissions, that's for sure. The agenda setters are letting perfection get in the way of better.

[Boat + 1,315]

They missed the Obama memo. Nat gas is the bridge fuel to tomorrow’s electric economy. Coal was the targeted enemy. Nat gas has done very well and coal, not so much as the trends continue. The woke agenda still rules in spite of the republic and the constitution being attacked. 

[nsdp + 449]

On 8/28/2021 at 11:59 PM, ronwagn said:

The left wing L.A. Times is complaihydrogen ning because the Port Authority has approved natural gas trucks to relieve local air pollution from diesel trucks and encourage more CNG and LNG trucks. The writer tries to be fair but must keep his job methinks. 

Actually, he is missing the much larger point of pollution from the ships dropping off the containers. They should be pressured to switch to LNG powered  ships. Europe is demanding cleaner ship fuel for their ports. 

IMO:Jan 1,2020 0.5 sulfur world wide  for all ships.  They also have limits on PM10 and PM2.5 That and covid are why twice the normal tonnage of ships re going to the breakers.   TSTI has  provided Hydrogen powered Class 8 Kenworth trucks for San Pedro Long Beach LA since 2012.  Bay area since 2017 and Port of Houston from Deepwater to Kemah since 2019.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 9/1/2021 at 1:07 AM, nsdp said:

IMO:Jan 1,2020 0.5 sulfur world wide  for all ships.  They also have limits on PM10 and PM2.5 That and covid are why twice the normal tonnage of ships re going to the breakers.   TSTI has  provided Hydrogen powered Class 8 Kenworth trucks for San Pedro Long Beach LA since 2012.  Bay area since 2017 and Port of Houston from Deepwater to Kemah since 2019.

I hadn't heard about the hydrogen trucks but am pretty sure they and their fuel is much more expensive than CNG or LNG. Cost/Benefit ratio is my main concern. Most hydrogen comes from natural gas as the source. A little may come from wind and solar excess power. 

[nsdp + 449]

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I hadn't heard about the hydrogen trucks but am pretty sure they and their fuel is much

Yes it comes from NG 80% on a btu basis.  UC Irvine https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/national-first-uc-irvine-inje has a plant that supplies hydrogen from excess electricity off the WECC grid. Excess wind from Oregon during spring runoff and surplus from BC Hydro  are booked to Irvine on proof of concept for Ca solar H2.  CNG still produces too much PM2.5. On the positive side, Ca no longer has to dump the  morning solar that is excess on the duck curve. i,

Cost benefit comes on elimination of PM10 and PM2.5.  Electric costs about $40/mwh which is breakeven with $2.00 natural which we haven't seen in over a year.  PM2.5 goes through the air sac in your lungs and concentrates in your blood stream and is very carcinogenic. So benefits are medical and don't fit conventional cost benefit analysis.  AS of next year every thing will be electric or H2.  Electric H2 produces PM2.5 in Arizona mostly.  NG despite its other great attributes produces a lot of PM2.5 which we have no way to reduce right now. That is because it is small enough to go any filters and does not have enough electrostatic charge.

Either way diesel is gone and that is the motivation.

Quote

 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

14 hours ago, nsdp said:

Electric costs about $40/mwh which is breakeven with $2.00 natural

Are you referring to hydrogen production in this respect? H2 from methane is way less expensive than $40/MWh + electrolytic cells. 

[nsdp + 449]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Are you referring to hydrogen production in this respect? H2 from methane is way less expensive than $40/MWh + electrolytic cells. 

Current market price(Platts posting) from assessments https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/our-methodology/price-assessments/e Teh chart shows four ddifffernt grades now tell me which grade are you talking about.

 If you are talking 4-9's electrolysis nearly always going to be cheaper because of  the absence of carbon in the process.  If you are going to spout off at least be  knowledgeable. The chart shows 4 different grades . since you are such a genius list the grades and standards for the rest who don't know.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 9/3/2021 at 10:35 PM, nsdp said:

Current market price(Platts posting) from assessments https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/our-methodology/price-assessments/e Teh chart shows four ddifffernt grades now tell me which grade are you talking about.

 If you are talking 4-9's electrolysis nearly always going to be cheaper because of  the absence of carbon in the process.  If you are going to spout off at least be  knowledgeable. The chart shows 4 different grades . since you are such a genius list the grades and standards for the rest who don't know.

Alright buddy. Do you know how to read a stream table? Because I can find one for a steam methane reformer, and we can work out the cost of hydrogen from there. You’re full of shit if you think electrolysis is competitive with SMR at $40 / MWh. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 9/2/2021 at 9:46 PM, nsdp said:

Electric costs about $40/mwh which is breakeven with $2.00 natural which we haven't seen in over a year. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-production-cost
 

$1.25 per kg when gas is at $3.00/MMBtu 

Assuming electrolysis is 100% efficient (it’s NOT, which is what makes this next part really funny), hydrogen from $40/MWh electricity costs about $1.60. Without loss, and without equipment cost. 
 

Did you notice gas was at $3.00 too, and not $2.00 like you mentioned? 

Edited September 5, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-production-cost
 

$1.25 per kg when gas is at $3.00/MMBtu 

Assuming electrolysis is 100% efficient (it’s NOT, which is what makes this next part really funny), hydrogen from $40/MWh electricity costs about $1.60. Without loss, and without equipment cost. 
 

Did you notice gas was at $3.00 too, and not $2.00 like you mentionedg plus

You flunked high school Chemistry didn't you. A kg of hydrogen is 500 x Avagadros number.  Your source used LNG numbers for hydrogen density  to yield 1 kg of H2 instead of density at atmospheric from gaseous NG.   You better go over to the NREL numbers  To get 500 times Avagadro's number   starting from water at STP heat it first to 100C which takes  122 kcal/kgTo change state from water at 100C to steam at 100C you need another 2458 kj/kg.   The paper ignores heat that goes up the flue with the CO2.

You didn't read the publishing  date 2007 and so you miss the difference in efficiency between Chlor alkali cells and PEM cells- todays technology.. You probably need to go back to kindergarten.

You didn't check PLatt's did you.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

You flunked high school Chemistry didn't you. A kg of hydrogen is 500 x Avagadros number.  Your source used LNG numbers for hydrogen density  to yield 1 kg of H2 instead of density at atmospheric from gaseous NG.   You better go over to the NREL numbers  To get 500 times Avagadro's number   starting from water at STP heat it first to 100C which takes  122 kcal/kgTo change state from water at 100C to steam at 100C you need another 2458 kj/kg.   The paper ignores heat that goes up the flue with the CO2.

You didn't read the publishing  date 2007 and so you miss the difference in efficiency between Chlor alkali cells and PEM cells- todays technology.. You probably need to go back to kindergarten.

You didn't check PLatt's did you.

Didn't flunk HS chem. I'm taking organic chemistry, on the path to completing a chemical engineering degree in 3 years. You want me to do the stoichiometry and the thermochemistry for you? Avagadro's number is a strange thing to use at this scale, given that we have more useful conversion factors available. What you're talking about is marvelously inefficient. The energy required to run the process is all inferred when you look at its energetic efficiency. 

WHY are you starting at STP? You think plants take in water that's zero celcius? Wth. 

Waste heat recovery is why the energy to heat the water isn't that enormous. Over 50% of that can be recovered for use. 

If you want to know the theoretical hydrogen yield from methane, take the btu value per thousand cubic feet and convert it to kilojoules. Divide that number by the heat of formation of water, then multiply by 2 (2 hydrogens for every water). Finally, multiply your moles of hydrogen by 1.00794 grams/mole, and divide by 1000 to get kilograms. I don't know why the fuck you'd do it your way. 

It gets only slightly more complicated when we factor in pricing, SMR efficiency, capex etc. Using real industrial examples (like some anhydrous ammonia plants recently commissioned by KBR) we find that the $1.25 figure is pretty accurate. I'm happy to show you how. 

If what I posted is from 2007, you can assume hydrogen from SMR is cheaper, since modern steam reforming is more efficient than it was in 2007. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@nsdp

Here's a useful to way to find out how much hydrogen costs in the real world. Examine a commodity made exclusively from NG, water, and air, with hydrogen production as a critical intermediate. I'm talking about ammonia.

The point of this is that the natural gas input to the ENTIRE process (not just the hydrogen production) produces a cost figure for hydrogen  significantly less than you're claiming. We'll accomplish this by finding out how much hydrogen was made for each ton, and approximately how much energy went into it (we'll just say all the gas was used, why not, since we're still far underneath electrolytic costs) 

Here's an article detailing the efficiency of modern ammonia plants. Not small scale either. Remember that SMR is the backbone of this process. 

ww.prnewswire.com/news-releases/successful-commissioning-of-worlds-most-energy-efficient-ammonia-plant-at-cfcl-india-using-kbr-technology-301049820.html#:~:text=CFCL constructed and commissioned its,world's most efficient ammonia plant.

Right, so if you do the correct math you'll find out how much natural gas is going into making that ammonia on a per ton basis. (25.4 thousand cubic feet). I used a google calculator that converted the 6.417 Gcal to Btu. I divided this value by 1 x 10^6 to obtain thousands of cubic feet. 

Important: we're talking metric tons of anhydrous

1,000,000 grams NH3 / 17.031 g/mol = 58716.458 moles NH3 * 3 moles H per mole NH3

= 176149.37 moles of hydrogen. This is 177.5 kilograms of hydrogen. 

We put in less than 25.4 thousand scf to make this shit (remember, some was used to heat the ammonia synthesis loop and run equipment, but we'll assume we used it all) which costs $76.20 at $3.00 per million btu. 

What do we get on a $USD/kg basis for natural gas input?

$76.20 / 177.5 kg H2

=

$0.43/kg H2

Okay, so we just assumed that all of the gas went to hydrogen production, when some was clearly spent on other parts of the process. The hydrogen value from the ammonia product is calculated to be $0.43 per kilogram. If we found out how much gas was actually spent on the hydrogen, it would be even cheaper. Probably not by much though. 

You'll accuse me of keeping out the capital costs. Remember that I excluded it for electrolytic hydrogen too. What you're looking at is the difference in energy expenditure, and its clear that the electricity will cost far more than the gas for the same product. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior