DOCSLIB.ORG

Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Systems Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Systems 30 September 2015 By: Brian D. James Daniel A. DeSantis Revision 3 1 Sponsorship and Acknowledgements This research was conducted under Subcontract Number AGB-0-40628-01 and AGB-0-40628-03 to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory1 (NREL) under Prime Contract Number DE-AC36-08GO28308 to the US Department of Energy. The authors wish to thank Dr. Bryan Pivovar of NREL and Mr. Jason Marcinkoski of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) for their technical and programmatic contributions and leadership. Authors Contact Information Strategic Analysis Inc. may be contacted at: Strategic Analysis Inc. 4075 Wilson Blvd, Suite 200 Arlington VA 22203 (703) 527-5410 www.sainc.com The authors may be contacted at: Brian D. James, BJames@sainc.com (703) 778-7114 Document Revisions Rev 1 September 2015 Original document Rev 2 October 2015 Minor formatting corrections Rev 3 August 2016 Correction of installation costs as applied to all three fuel cell technologies 1 Actual subcontract is with the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC which is the management and operating contractor for NREL. 2 Table of Abbreviations AC alternating current ATS automatic transfer switch BOL beginning of life BOM bill of material BOP balance of plant CCB customer critical bus CFCL Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (of Australia) CO carbon monoxide CPU central processing unit DC direct current DFMA Design for Manufacturing and Assembly DI de-ionizing DOE US Department of Energy EOL end of life ELRB electrically resistive load bank ePTFE expanded polytetrafluoroethylene ESC electrical subsystem configuration FC fuel cell FCS fuel cell system FP fuel processor GDC gadolinia-doped ceria GDL gas diffusion layer HDPE high density polyethylene HHV higher heating value HT high temperature kWe kilowatts of electricity LB load bank LHV lower heating value LSCF lanthanum-strontium-cobalt-ferrite LT low temperature MCFC molten carbonate fuel cell MCO manganese cobalt oxide MEA membrane electrode assembly MPPT Maximum Power Point Tracking NiO nickel oxide Ni-Co nickel cobalt NLB No Load Bank Nm3 normal cubic meters NRE non-recurring engineering 3 NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory NSTF nanostructured thin film PEM proton exchange membrane ppmv parts per million (by volume) PROX preferential oxidation Pt/Co/Mn platinum-cobalt-manganese PV photovoltaic SA Strategic Analysis, Inc. SMR steam methane reformer SOFC solid oxide fuel cell SR steam reforming TB tie bar TIG tungsten inert gas WGS water gas shift YSZ yttrium stabilized zirconia 4 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Summary of System Configurations and Operating Conditions ................................................. 10 1.3 Overview of Changes to the 2012 Fuel Cell System Cost Report ................................................ 13 1.4 Summary of System Cost and Price Results ................................................................................ 13 1.4.1 System Price Comparison as a function of Manufacturing Rate ........................................ 13 1.4.2 Breakdown of price results at subsystem level .................................................................. 15 1.4.3 Cumulative global installed capacity ................................................................................... 18 1.4.4 Additional Cost Comparisons of Fuel Cell Subsystems ....................................................... 19 1.4.5 Comparison of System Installed Price between the Three FC Types .................................. 21 1.4.6 Primary Findings .................................................................................................................. 22 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 25 2.1 Project Motivation ...................................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Fuel Cell System Summary .......................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Structure of Report ..................................................................................................................... 26 3 Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 28 3.1 System Conceptual Design .......................................................................................................... 28 3.2 System Physical Design ............................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Cost Modeling ............................................................................................................................. 29 3.3.1 Core System Components ................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Balance of Plant Components ............................................................................................. 32 3.3.3 Cost and Price Factors Included in Analysis ........................................................................ 32 3.3.4 Iteration to Improve Analysis .............................................................................................. 33 4 System Design, Performance, and Manufacturing Details ................................................................. 34 4.1 System Overview......................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1 Breakdown of Subsystems .................................................................................................. 34 4.1.2 Common Design and Cost Assumptions ............................................................................. 35 4.1.2.1 Power levels and Manufacturing Rates .......................................................................... 35 4.1.2.2 Gross Power vs. Net Power ............................................................................................. 35 4.1.2.3 System Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 35 4.1.2.4 Air Supply ........................................................................................................................ 36 4.1.2.5 Fuel and Water Supply .................................................................................................... 36 4.1.2.6 Desulfurization System ................................................................................................... 37 4.1.2.7 Fuel Processor ................................................................................................................. 37 4.1.2.8 Stack Degradation ........................................................................................................... 40 5 4.1.2.9 CHP Operation ................................................................................................................ 41 4.1.2.10 System Housing ........................................................................................................... 42 4.1.2.11 Grid-Dependent vs. Grid-Independent Operation ...................................................... 42 4.2 System Schematics ...................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.1 LT PEM ................................................................................................................................. 44 4.2.2 HT PEM ................................................................................................................................ 44 4.2.3 SOFC .................................................................................................................................... 44 4.3 Fuel Cell Subsystem .................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.1 Fuel Cell Stack ..................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.1.1 LT PEM Stack Parameters................................................................................................ 46 4.3.1.2 HT PEM Stack Parameters ............................................................................................... 48 4.3.1.3 SOFC Stack Parameters ................................................................................................... 49 4.3.2 Fuel Cell Balance of Plant .................................................................................................... 53 4.3.2.1 Common FC BOP Parts .................................................................................................... 53 4.3.2.2 Unique LT PEM BOP Components ................................................................................... 56 4.3.2.3 Unique HT PEM BOP Components .................................................................................. 56 4.3.2.4 Unique SOFC BOP Components .....................................................................................
Load more
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

137 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Economics of Investment in Human Resources
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 04E d48 VT 012 352 AUTHOR Wood, W. D.; Campbell, H. F. TITLE Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Economics of Investment in Human Resources. An Annotated Bibliography. INSTITUTION Queen's Univ., Kingston (Ontario). Industrial Felaticns Centre. REPORT NO Eibliog-Ser-NO-E PU2 EATS 70 NOTE 217F, AVAILABLE FROM Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada ($10.00) EDBS PRICE EDPS Price MF-$1.00 HC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Annotated Bibliographies, *Cost Effectiveness, *Economic Research, *Human Resources, Investment, Literature Reviews, Resource Materials, Theories, Vocational Education ABSTRACT This annotated bibliography presents 389 citations of periodical articles, monographs, and books and represents a survey of the literature as related to the theory and application of cost-benefit analysis. Listings are arranged alphabetically in these eight sections: (1) Human Capital, (2) Theory and Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis, (3) Theoretical Problems in Measuring Benefits and Costs,(4) Investment Criteria and the Social Discount Rate, (5) Schooling,(6) Training, Retraining and Mobility, (7) Health, and (P) Poverty and Social Welfare. Individual entries include author, title, source information, "hea"ings" of the various sections of the document which provide a brief indication of content, and an annotation. This bibliography has been designed to serve as an analytical reference for both the academic scholar and the policy-maker in this area. (Author /JS) 00 oo °o COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND THE ECONOMICS OF INVESTMENT IN HUMAN RESOURCES An Annotated Bibliography by W. D. WOOD H. F. CAMPBELL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CENTRE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY Bibliography Series No. 5 Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Economics of investment in Human Resources U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogas Membrane Reformer for Decentralized Hydrogen Production
    Biogas membrane reformer for decentralized hydrogen production Newsletter – Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 This Newsletter Previous release Membrane & Catalysts Industrial specifications development Reference case First results @ Lab scale First membrane & First release of LCA catalyst release analysis March September March September March September 2016 2017 2018 Editorial Dear BIONICO friends I am glad to welcome you to the second project newsletter! The last project meeting was held at the end of August, allowing all the consortium members to take stock of the situation: in the second six months of the project new membranes, membrane supports and catalyst specifically designed for operating with biogas have been tested at TU/e labs and soon new promising finger-like porous asymmetric ceramic supports will be tested. The information collected allow now the Abengoa Hidrogeno engineering team to start with the design of the pilot scale reactor that will contain around 100 membranes! The scale of the project represents a strong step forward for CMR technology. Not only experimental, but also simulation work was performed by POLIMI in order to have benchmark cases for BIONICO. At the same time environmental performance of these technologies is being evaluated by Quantis, in order to demonstrate not only improved efficiency performance but also environmental ones for the BIONICO technology! I hope you will find the info in this newsletter interesting. On our website www.bionicoproject.eu you will find public presentations, all the public deliverables of the project and many other interesting news. Stay tuned! BIONICO newsletter - Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 www.bionicoproject.eu In this Issue: Editorial .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Synthesis Gas Processes
    Review of Synthesis Gas Processes This review is extracted from the following report: SOFC AS A GAS SEPARATOR By M.A. Korobitsyn F.P.F van Berkel G.M. Christie December 2000 Synthesis gas production 1. Introduction There are a number of technologies available to produce syngas, these technologies are summarized in Fig. 1. Of the technologies shown in Fig. 1, steam methane reforming (SMR) is the most common. In this process light hydrocarbon feedstock and steam are converted in an endothermic reaction over a nickel catalyst. Heat to the reaction is provided in a radiant furnace. Due to the sulfur content in heavier hydrocarbons their use in the SMR process can cause problems with the catalysts, also there is a risk of tar and coke deposition. The second most common technology is partial oxidation (POX) which proceeds exothermically. Non-catalytic oxidation reaction allows a wider range of feedstock, however, an oxygen source is needed in most applications. Carbon dioxide reforming is a less common technology, which is primarily used for the production of syngas with a low H2/CO ratio. The combined and advanced processes, also detailed in Fig. 1, are either a combination or an enhancement of the three basic processes. In the following sections firstly the three basic processes are further described, shorter descriptions of the combined and advanced processes follow later in the section. Fig. 1 General overview of the routes from natural gas to chemicals. 2. Steam methane reforming (SMR) Background The steam methane reforming (SMR) process can be described by two main reactions: CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2, ΔH = 198 kJ/mol (1) CO + H2O = CO2 + H2, ΔH = -41 kJ/mol (2) The first reaction is reforming itself, while the second is the water-gas shift reaction.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: from Conventional to Emerging Technologies
    environments Article Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies Andi Mehmeti 1,* ID , Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis 2 ID , George Arampatzis 3 ID , Stephen J. McPhail 4 and Sergio Ulgiati 5 1 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80143 Naples, Italy 2 School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; a.angelisdimakis@hud.ac.uk 3 School of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, 731 00 Chania, Greece; geo.arampatzis@gmail.com 4 DTE-PCU-SPCT, ENEA C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy; stephen.mcphail@enea.it 5 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80134 Naples, Italy; sergio.ulgiati@uniparthenope.it * Correspondence: andi.mehmeti@uniparthenope.it; Tel.: +39-327-556-3659 Received: 26 December 2017; Accepted: 2 February 2018; Published: 6 February 2018 Abstract: A common sustainability issue, arising in production systems, is the efficient use of resources for providing goods or services. With the increased interest in a hydrogen (H2) economy, the life-cycle environmental performance of H2 production has special significance for assisting in identifying opportunities to improve environmental performance and to guide challenging decisions and select between technology paths. Life cycle impact assessment methods are rapidly evolving to analyze multiple environmental impacts of the production of products or processes. This study marks the first step in developing process-based streamlined life cycle analysis (LCA) of several H2 production pathways combining life cycle impacts at the midpoint (17 problem-oriented) and endpoint (3 damage-oriented) levels using the state-of-the-art impact assessment method ReCiPe 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Capital and Fixed Assets Guide 2019 Portugal Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore South Africa 126 133 141 145 150
    Worldwide Capital and Fixed Assets Guide 2019 Capital expenditures represent one of the largest items on a company’s balance sheet. This guide helps you to reference key tax factors needed to better understand the complex rules relating to tax relief on capital expenditure in 31 jurisdictions and territories. The content is based on current information as of February 2019 unless otherwise indicated in the text of the chapter. The tax rules related to capital expenditures across the world are constantly being updated and refined. This guide is designed to provide an overview. To learn more or to discuss a particular situation, please contact one of the country representatives listed in the guide. The Worldwide Capital and Fixed Assets Guide provides information on the regulations relating to fixed assets and depreciation in each jurisdiction, including sections on the types of tax depreciation, applicable depreciation rates, tax depreciation lives, qualifying and non-qualifying assets, availability of immediate deductions for repairs, depreciation and calculation methods, preferential and enhanced depreciation availability, accounting for disposals, how to submit a claim and relief for intangible assets. For the reader’s reference, the names and symbols of the foreign currencies that are mentioned in the guide are listed at the end of the publication. This is the second publication of the Worldwide Capital and Fixed Assets Guide. For many years, the Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide has been published annually along with two companion guides on broad- based taxes: the Worldwide Personal Tax Guide and the Worldwide VAT, GST and Sales Tax Guide. In recent years, those three have been joined by additional tax guides on more specific topics, including the Worldwide Estate and Inheritance Tax Guide, the Worldwide Transfer Pricing Reference Guide, the Global Oil and Gas Tax Guide, the Worldwide R&D Incentives Reference Guide and the Worldwide Cloud Computing Tax Guide.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas
    applied sciences Article A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas Timo Blumberg 1,*, Tatiana Morosuk 2 and George Tsatsaronis 2 ID 1 Department of Energy Engineering, Zentralinstitut El Gouna, Technische Universität Berlin, 13355 Berlin, Germany 2 Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany; tetyana.morozyuk@tu-berlin.de (T.M.); georgios.tsatsaronis@tu-berlin.de (G.T.) * Correspondence: blumberg@tu-berlin.de; Tel.: +49-30-314-23343 Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 20 November 2017; Published: 24 November 2017 Abstract: Methanol is one of the most important feedstocks for the chemical, petrochemical, and energy industries. Abundant and widely distributed resources as well as a relative low price level make natural gas the predominant feedstock for methanol production. Indirect synthesis routes via reforming of methane suppress production from bio resources and other renewable alternatives. However, the conventional technology for the conversion of natural gas to methanol is energy intensive and costly in investment and operation. Three design cases with different reforming technologies in conjunction with an isothermal methanol reactor are investigated. Case I is equipped with steam methane reforming for a capacity of 2200 metric tons per day (MTPD). For a higher production capacity, a serial combination of steam reforming and autothermal reforming is used in Case II, while Case III deals with a parallel configuration of CO2 and steam reforming. A sensitivity analysis shows that the syngas composition significantly affects the thermodynamic performance of the plant. The design cases have exergetic efficiencies of 28.2%, 55.6% and 41.0%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M
    Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46587 November 2010 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory Prepared under Task No. BB07.7510 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-6A20-46587 Golden, Colorado 80401 November 2010 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbonomics the Rise of Clean Hydrogen
    EQUITY RESEARCH | July 8, 2020 | 11:34PM BST Carbonomics The Rise of Clean Hydrogen Clean hydrogen has a major role to play in the path towards net zero carbon, providing de-carbonization solutions in the most challenging parts of the Carbonomics cost curve - including long-haul transport, steel, chemicals, heating and long-term power storage. Clean hydrogen cost competitiveness is also closely linked to cost deflation and large scale developments in renewable power and carbon capture (two key technologies to produce it), creating three symbiotic pillars of de-carbonization. Clean hydrogen is gaining strong political and business momentum, emerging as a major component in governments' net zero plans such as the European Green Deal. This is why we believe that the hydrogen value chain deserves serious focus after three false starts in the past 50 years. Hydrogen is very versatile, both in its production and consumption: it is light, storable, has high energy content per unit mass and can be readily produced at an industrial scale. The key challenge comes from the fact that hydrogen (in its ambient form as a gas) is the lightest element and so has a low energy density per unit of volume, making long-distance transportation and storage complex and costly. In this report we analyze the clean hydrogen company ecosystem, the cost competitiveness of green and blue hydrogen in key applications and its key role in Carbonomics: the green engine of economic recovery. Michele Della Vigna, CFA Zoe Stavrinou Alberto Gandolfi +44 20 7552-9383 +44 20 7051-2816 +44 20 7552-2539 michele.dellavigna@gs.com zoe.stavrinou@gs.com alberto.gandolfi@gs.com Goldman Sachs International Goldman Sachs International Goldman Sachs International Goldman Sachs does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Vision of the U.S. Biofuel Future: a Case for Hydrogen-Enriched Biomass Gasification
    Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 8863-8874 8863 Vision of the U.S. Biofuel Future: A Case for Hydrogen-Enriched Biomass Gasification Mark A. Dietenberger* Forest Products Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest SerVice, One Gifford Pinchot Dr., Madison, Wisconsin, 53726-2398 Mark Anderson Department of Engineering Physics, UniVersity of Wisconsin-Madison, 1500 Engineering DriVe, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Researchers at the Forest Product Laboratory (FPL) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) envision a future for biofuels based on biomass gasification with hydrogen enrichment. Synergisms between hydrogen production and biomass gasification technologies will be necessary to avoid being marginalized in the biofuel marketplace. Five feasible engineering solutions have been suggested for this synergism. We are researching one solution to investigate cleaner and more-efficient wood gasification via high-temperature liquid metal as a carrier fluid and making use of hydrogen, power, and waste heat from future nuclear reactors. The enrichment of syngas with nuclear, windmill, or solar hydrogen permits full conversion of all carbon from biomass to produce competitive synthetic gasoline, diesel, or other liquid hydrocarbon or alcohol fuels. Introduction have been improving in their ability to gasify the carbon in the biomass completely, there arises the challenge of converting as Futuristic productions of hydrogen or biomass synfuels by much of that carbon as possible into the liquid synfuel. The themselves are threatened to be marginalized in the motor fuel use of external hydrogen can make this possible as (1) a fuel in market sector if the coal-to-liquid (CTL) technologies now being the burners, (2) a reactant (to more easily convert the carbon to commercialized are able to produce diesel at a cost of $1/gal at a gaseous form), and (3) a diluent to increase the H2/CO gas the plant gate.1 In this paper, we show how separate productions molar ratio needed by the Fischer-Tropsch reactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Onboard Plasmatron Hydrogen Production for Improved Vehicles
    PSFC JA-06-3 Onboard Plasmatron Hydrogen Production for Improved Vehicles L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, N. Alexeev, A. Samokhin, K. Hadidi, J. Palaia, N. Margarit-Bel February 6, 2006 MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Work supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of FreedomCar and Vehicle Technologies, Contract number: DE-AC03-99EE50565 1 Abstract This paper describes progress in plasmatron fuel reformers and applications to internal combustion vehicles. Several plasmatron configurations and their performance with a variety of fuels are described. Fuels investigated range from methane and propane to gasoline, diesel and biofuels. Applications described include lean spark ignition operation, NOx trap regeneration, diesel particulate filter regeneration and ignition timing control in advanced combustion mode engines. 2 Table of Contents 1) INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT................................................................. 5 2) PLASMATRON DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 7 A) THERMAL PLASMATRON (GEN 1)............................................................................................................. 8 Summary of thermal plasmatron features ................................................................................................. 11 B) LOW CURRENT PLASMATRON FUEL CONVERTERS (GEN 2) ................................................................... 12 Summary of gen 2 plasmatron features....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IEAGHG Technicalreview
    IEAGHG Technical Review 2017-TR3 March 2017 Reference data and Supporting Literature Reviews for SMR Based Hydrogen Production with CCS IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME vsdv International Energy Agency The International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in 1974 within the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to implement an international energy programme. The IEA fosters co-operation amongst its 28 member countries and the European Commission, and with the other countries, in order to increase energy security by improved efficiency of energy use, development of alternative energy sources and research, development and demonstration on matters of energy supply and use. This is achieved through a series of collaborative activities, organised under 39 Technology Collaboration Programmes (Implementing Agreements). These agreements cover more than 200 individual items of research, development and demonstration. IEAGHG is one of these Implementing Agreements. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of the work sponsored by IEAGHG. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the IEAGHG, its members, the International Energy Agency, the organisations listed below, nor any employee or persons acting on behalf of any of them. In addition, none of these make any warranty, express or implied, assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product of process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights, including any parties intellectual property rights. Reference herein to any commercial product, process, service or trade name, trade mark or manufacturer does not necessarily constitute or imply any endorsement, recommendation or any favouring of such products.
    [Show full text]