SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
While examining fuel-reforming technology for fuel cells onboard aircraft, Glenn Research Center partnered with Garrettsville, Ohio-based Catacel Corporation through the Glenn Alliance Technology Exchange program and a Space Act Agreement. Catacel developed a stackable structural reactor that is now employed for commercial hydrogen production and results in energy savings of about 20 percent.
Energy transfer and ion cost in hydrogen plasma
Cost analysis of liquid hydrogen for aircraft fuel, considering production methods, plant capacity and technological advances
Historical cost curves were developed for hydrogen masers and cesium beam standards used for frequency and timing calibration in the Deep Space Network. These curves may be used to calculate the cost of future hydrogen masers or cesium beam standards in either future or current dollars. The cesium beam standards are decreasing in cost by about 2.3% per year since 1966, and hydrogen masers are decreasing by about 0.8% per year since 1978 relative to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration inflation index.
At NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and through associated contractors, a broad spectrum of work is being carried out to develop improved hydrogen maser frequency standards for field use, improved experimental hydrogen maser frequency standards, and improved frequency and time distribution and measurement systems for hydrogen maser use. Recent progress in the following areas is reported: results on the Nr masers built by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, the development of a low cost hydrogen maser at Goddard Space Flight Center, and work on a low noise phase comparison system and digitally phase locked crystal oscillator called the distribution and measurement system.
The comparative costs entailed in producing hydrogen by major technologies that rely on petroleum, natural gas, coal, thermochemical cycles, and electrolysis are examined. Techniques were developed for comparing these processes by formulating the process data and economic assessments on a uniform and consistent basis. These data were normalized to permit a meaningful comparative analysis of product costs of these processes.
A comparison is made of the cost and thermal efficiency of producing liquid hydrogen, liquid methane and synthetic aviation kerosene from coal. These results are combined with estimates of the cost and energy losses associated with transporting, storing, and transferring the fuels to aircraft. The results of hydrogen-fueled and kerosene-fueled aircraft performance studies are utilized to compare the economic viability and efficiency of coal resource utilization of synthetic aviation fuels.
A comparison is made of the cost and thermal efficiency of producing liquid hydrogen, liquid methane and synthetic aviation kerosene from coal. These results are combined with estimates of the cost and energy losses associated with transporting, storing, and transferring the fuels to aircraft. The results of hydrogen-fueled and kerosene-fueled aircraft performance studies are utilized to compare the economic viability and efficiency of coal resource utilization of synthetic aviation fuels.
In an effort to establish baseline information whereby specific projects can be evaluated, a current set of parameters which are typical of coal gasification applications was developed. Using these parameters a computer model allows researchers to interrelate cost components in a sensitivity analysis. The results make possible an approximate estimation of hydrogen energy economics from coal, under a variety of circumstances.
The concept of an advanced-technology (viz., 1985 technology) nuclear-electrolytic water electrolysis facility was assessed for hydrogen production cost and efficiency expectations. The facility integrates (1) a high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor (HTGR) operating a binary work cycle, (2) direct-current (d-c) electricity generation via acyclic generators, and (3) high-current-density, high-pressure electrolyzers using a solid polymer electrolyte (SPE). All subsystems are close-coupled and optimally interfaced for hydrogen production alone (i.e., without separate production of electrical power). Pipeline-pressure hydrogen and oxygen are produced at 6900 kPa (1000 psi). We found that this advanced facility would produce hydrogen at costs that were approximately half those associated with contemporary-technology nuclear electrolysis: $5.36 versus $10.86/million Btu, respectively. The nuclear-heat-to-hydrogen-energy conversion efficiency for the advanced system was estimated as 43%, versus 25% for the contemporary system.
An advanced technology, fully dedicated nuclear-electrolytic hydrogen production facility is presented. This plant will produce hydrogen and oxygen only and no electrical power will be generated for off-plant use. The conceptual design was based on hydrogen production to fill a pipeline at 1000 psi and a 3000 MW nuclear base, and the base-line facility nuclear-to-shaftpower and shaftpower-to-electricity subsystems, the water treatment subsystem, electricity-to-hydrogen subsystem, hydrogen compression, efficiency, and hydrogen production cost are discussed. The final conceptual design integrates a 3000 MWth high-temperature gas-cooled reactor operating at 980 C helium reactor-out temperature, direct dc electricity generation via acyclic generators, and high-current density, high-pressure electrolyzers based on the solid polymer electrolyte approach. All subsystems are close-coupled and optimally interfaced and pipeline hydrogen is produced at 1000 psi. Hydrogen costs were about half of the conventional nuclear electrolysis process.
Study, cost, and systems analysis of present and projected liquid hydrogen production
Significant progress was made toward the development of a commercially marketable hydrogen nickel oxide battery. The costs projected for this battery are remarkably low when one considers where the learning curve is for commercialization of this system. Further developmental efforts on this project are warranted as the H2/NiO battery is already cost competitive with other battery systems.
The general gas cost equation for utility financing is presented. Modifications and assumptions made in order to apply the cost equation to hydrogen production are described. Cost data are given for various methods of hydrogen production. The cost matrix procedure is briefly discussed.
A hydrogen production plant was designed based on a hybrid electrolytic-thermochemical process for decomposing water. The sulfur cycle water decomposition system is driven by a very high temperature nuclear reactor that provides 1,283 K helium working gas. The plant is sized to approximately ten million standard cubic meters per day of electrolytically pure hydrogen and has an overall thermal efficiently of 45.2 percent. The economics of the plant were evaluated using ground rules which include a 1974 cost basis without escalation, financing structure and other economic factors. Taking into account capital, operation, maintenance and nuclear fuel cycle costs, the cost of product hydrogen was calculated at $5.96/std cu m for utility financing. These values are significantly lower than hydrogen costs from conventional water electrolysis plants and competitive with hydrogen from coal gasification plants.
The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH 2 ) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (~1,000 m 2 /g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH 2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH 2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH 2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH 2 . The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH 2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH 2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.
Low cost, ambient temperature catalyst for reacting hydrogen gas with air in a catalytic cell near the point of evolution at a controlled rate is announced.
The state of hydrogen production technology is evaluated. Specific areas discussed include: hydrogen production fossil fuels; coal gasification processes; electrolysis of water; thermochemical production of hydrogen; production of hydrogen by solar energy; and biological production of hydrogen. Supply options are considered along with costs of hydrogen production.