Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Humboldt State University Presentation (2005)

1,158 views

Published on

Humboldt State University Presentation at the 2005 Hydrogen Student Design Contest

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Humboldt State University Presentation (2005)

  1. 1. Humboldt State University Student Design Team David Carter Juliette Bohn Nicole Campbell Dustin Jolley Stephen Kullmann Steve Lora Matthew Marshall Avram Pearlman Douglas Saucedo Anand Gopal Design Proposal for a Hydrogen Power Park
  2. 2. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Definition of a Hydrogen Power Park • Small to medium sized energy station in close proximity to energy consumers • Providing: • Combined heat and power • Hydrogen fuel • High efficiency • Reliability • Reduced CO2 production
  3. 3. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Design Criteria H2U Guidelines •Minimum of 100 kW Electrical Output •Fueling • 2010: 50 kg per day • 2019: 250 kg per day •21,000 ft2 footprint •Onsite hydrogen production •Safety is paramount Evolution Energy Systems Criteria •Renewable fuel source •High efficiency •Integrated into our local community •99.999% Fueling Reliability
  4. 4. Cummings Road Landfill
  5. 5. Landfill Gas CH4 Local Gas Grid Power Park ElectricityHeat H2
  6. 6. Humboldt State University Student Design TeamPlan view (Year 2019)
  7. 7. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Fueling Station Simulation Model Objectives • Assess the reliability, serviceability, and economics of the fueling station design by manipulating the Number of Hydrogen dispensers (serviceability) Number and type of Storage tanks (reliability) Number of Hydrogen production units (reliability)
  8. 8. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Fueling Station Simulation Model Objectives • Minimize System Lifecycle Costs (C) subject to • Fueling Reliability (R): %999.99%100 arrived)vehicles(# filled)vehicles(# R    2019 2010YR 2019 2010YR Costs)OperationlSPPW(AnnuaCosts)areSPPW(HardwminC
  9. 9. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Fueling Station Simulation Model Objectives • Model Fueling Station Operations • Vehicle arrival intensities • Vehicle queuing characteristics • Excess hydrogen production
  10. 10. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Fueling Station Simulation Simulation Methodology • More details available through poster presentation • Stochastic Queuing Theory Model • Fueling Station – Vehicle Interactions • Cascading Storage Algorithm • Fueling Station – Hydrogen Storage Interactions • Daily vehicle intensities increased annually • 10 vehicles per day (2010) • 46 vehicles per day (2019) • One hydrogen bus (2010 – 2019) • System evaluated every second over design horizon
  11. 11. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Fueling Station Simulation Simulation Results • Equipment installation schedule over design horizon • Station Serviceability (Design Year 2019) • Approximately 17,000 vehicles serviced • 28 vehicles waited with an average wait time of 2 minutes • Daily Average: 45 vehicles and 1 Bus • Maximum Observed Intensity: 11 vehicles in an hour • Excess Hydrogen production (Design Year 2019) • Daily Average: 38.8 kg-H2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 vehicles/day Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CumulativeProbability Frequency Cumulative % 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 More sec/queue Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CumulativeProbability Frequency Cumulative %
  12. 12. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Fueling Station Animation
  13. 13. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Safety Analysis Building Codes FMEA
  14. 14. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Safety Analysis tural Disasters Local Fire Dept. Approval
  15. 15. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Environmental Analysis CEQA Compliance • Draft Environmental Impact Report Electricity produced with 40% less CO2 emissions when compared to conventional electricity generation technology
  16. 16. Marketing and Education Adaptive Management Plan • Implement education/awareness programs • Address outcomes • Adapt programs Marketing Campaign • Industrial Revolution – Industrial Evolution “There is no Revolution - Only Evolution”
  17. 17. Other, $308 Fuel Cells $750 K FC Core Replacement $500 K PSAs $240 K Compressors $170 K Plumbing $118 K Dispensers $97 K City lot $84 K Building costs $1,456 K Total Discounted Capital Investment: $3.2 million
  18. 18. 1511 kW CH4 84 kW In-house loads 415 kW H2 Fuel 442 kW electricity: $0.09 / kWh 133 kW heat: $0.60 / therm Power Park Energy Balance (Year 2019) Net system efficiency: %66 1511 415442133    kW kWkWkW 
  19. 19. Research grade H2 Sales $604 K H2 Vehicle Fuel $193 K Process Heat Revenues $24 K Electricity $297 K Fuel $195 K Continual Costs $177 K O&M $36 K Operating Costs and Revenues (Year 2019) Expenses Revenues
  20. 20. Results Of Economic Analysis • “Six nines” H2: $39 - $47 per kg delivered • By selling excess H2 for $47/kg in Silicon Valley, we can sell H2 for $2.50/kg at the pump.
  21. 21. Humboldt State University Student Design Team Questions ?

×