DOCSLIB.ORG

Replacing 10% of NSW Natural Gas Supply with Clean Hydrogen: Comparison of Hydrogen Production Options

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Replacing 10% of NSW Natural Gas Supply with Clean Hydrogen: Comparison of Hydrogen Production Options Replacing 10% of NSW Natural Gas Supply with Clean Hydrogen: Comparison of Hydrogen Production Options Prepared for the Department of Regional New South Wales Alex Zapantis Tony Zhang June 2020 Contents 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 2. Current Global Hydrogen Production Methods ............................................................................. 5 2.1 Emissions Intensity of Hydrogen Production ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Cost of Clean Hydrogen Production ..................................................................................... 8 Cost Drivers ................................................................................................................................. 10 Hydrogen Production Costs in 2030 ........................................................................................... 12 3. Clean Hydrogen Supply – Comparison of Options ..................................................................... 13 3.1 Calculation of H2 supply requirement .................................................................................. 13 3.2 Calculation of resource requirements to produce 30,490 tonnes of H2 .............................. 14 Scale of Production Facilities ...................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Calculation of Emissions Abatement Potential of Renewable Electricity ............................ 18 3.4 Discussion of Clean Hydrogen Production Options ............................................................ 20 Climate Benefit ............................................................................................................................ 20 Resource Use.............................................................................................................................. 21 Maturity at Scale ......................................................................................................................... 22 Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 22 4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix 1. Description of Technologies ............................................................................................ 24 Steam Methane Reforming (CO2 Capture Options also shown) .................................................... 24 Syngas Production for Industrial Processes ............................................................................... 24 Pure Hydrogen Production .......................................................................................................... 24 Summary of Key Operational Parameters for SMR with CO2 Capture ....................................... 25 Autothermal Methane Reforming (CO2 Capture Options also shown) ........................................... 26 Summary of Key Operational Parameters for ATR with CO2 Capture ........................................ 27 Coal Gasification (CO2 Capture Options also shown) .................................................................... 28 Summary of Key Operational Parameters for Coal Gasification with CO2 Capture ................... 28 Hydrogen as a Bi-product of Chlor-Alkali Production ..................................................................... 29 Hydrogen Production by Electrolysis of Water ................................................................................ 30 Page | 1 Alkaline Electrolysis .................................................................................................................... 31 Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis ................................................................................... 31 Solid Oxide Electrolysis ............................................................................................................... 31 References .......................................................................................................................................... 33 Page | 2 1. Executive Summary The Department of Regional NSW retained the Global CCS Institute to produce a report describing and comparing options for the production of clean hydrogen (H2) in NSW. This study considers a scenario where sufficient clean hydrogen is produced to achieve a 10% H2:90% CH4 (natural gas) mix by volume in the NSW gas network and supply the same total energy as is currently supplied by natural gas alone. This requires the production of 30,490t of clean hydrogen per year. Options considered were reformation of natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), coal gasification with CCS, and electrolysis of water using renewable electricity. The study is based upon published reports and literature and is general in nature. It is not a detailed study of any specific proposed clean hydrogen production facility. Nonetheless, it is clear that the best option for the production of clean hydrogen in NSW considering cost, scale, resource use, and emissions abatement outcomes is to utilise coal or gas with CCS. The production cost of clean hydrogen from coal gasification with CCS or steam methane reformation with CCS is one third to one half of renewable powered electrolysis, and is expected to remain so beyond 2030. Table 1. Estimated cost of clean hydrogen production Coal Gasification + Steam Methane Renewable CCS Reformation + CCS Electricity Powered Electrolysis Estimated Cost in Australia in 2020 $2.90 $2.50 $8 (AUD/kgH2) Estimated Cost in Australia in 2030 $2.25 $2.10 $5 (AUD/kgH2) These costs are based on recently published reports by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA), and the Hydrogen Council. They are approximate for Australia. The scale of facilities for coal gasification with CCS or steam methane reformation with CCS required to replace 10% of NSW natural gas demand with clean hydrogen is small and familiar compared to existing facilities making project development less difficult. A renewable powered electrolyser project at this scale would be unprecedented. There are seven facilities currently operating that produce hydrogen from coal (or similar products) or gas with CCS with capacities of between 200t H2 per day and 1,300t H2 per day. The oldest of these facilities commenced operation in 1982. The most recent commenced operation in 2020. Producing 1 30,490t H2 per year, or 83.5t H2 per day from coal or gas with CCS would require the development of a small facility that is well within the experience of several technology vendors and project developers. In comparison, the world’s largest renewable electricity powered electrolyser in Fukushima Japan can only produce up to 2.4t of clean hydrogen per day. A renewable powered electrolyser project that could produce 83.5t of hydrogen per day would be unprecedented. 1 Quantity of H2 required to replace 10% of NSW natural gas demand by volume Page | 3 Coal gasification with CCS or steam methane reformation with CCS requires modest amounts of relatively plentiful resources (coal, gas, pore space for CO2 storage), whereas renewable hydrogen requires very large amounts of relatively scarce resources (renewable electricity and land with excellent wind resources). Resource requirements are summarised in Table 2. The electrolysis of water requires very large amounts of electricity. For the scenario considered in this study, a 550MW dedicated wind farm occupying over 23,000Ha of land would be required. That assumes an excellent wind resource with a capacity factor of 0.35. The production of the same quantity of clean hydrogen using coal or gas with CCS would require 232kt of coal or 5.8PJ of gas. These are about 5% of the coal demand of a 1.5GW coal fired power station and 40% of the gas demand of a 300MW combined cycle gas power plant operating at 95% capacity factor. The electricity requirements for coal and gas production pathways includes electricity used in the production of the coal or gas. Table 2. Resource requirements for the production of 30,490t of clean hydrogen Coal Gasification + Steam Methane Renewable CCS Reformation + CCS Electricity Powered Electrolysis Land (Ha) 503 503 23,500 Electricity (MWh) 106,000 58,000 1,677,000 Water (Ml) 274 192 274 Coal (kt) 232 0 0 Gas (PJ) 0 5.76 0 Pore space for CO2 storage (tonnes of 640,000 232,000 0 CO2) Coal gasification with CCS or steam methane reformation with CCS provides very much greater emissions abatement by allowing renewable electricity to be used as electricity in the grid rather than for the production of hydrogen which then displaces combustion of natural gas. There is an abatement opportunity cost for using renewable electricity to produce clean hydrogen instead of using that renewable electricity in the grid. That opportunity cost is very significant even after considering the abatement delivered by the use of clean hydrogen in place of natural gas. Using renewable electricity in the grid (assuming a grid emissions intensity of 0.738tCO2e/MWh), will deliver 5.6 times more abatement than using the same quantity of renewable electricity to produce hydrogen, which then displaces the combustion of natural gas. Even if the renewable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Energy in the 21St Century: a Primer
    U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46723 SUMMARY R46723 U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Since the start of the 21st century, the U.S. energy system has changed tremendously. Technological advances in energy production have driven changes in energy consumption, and Melissa N. Diaz, the United States has moved from being a net importer of most forms of energy to a declining Coordinator importer—and a net exporter in 2019. The United States remains the second largest producer and Analyst in Energy Policy consumer of energy in the world, behind China. Overall energy consumption in the United States has held relatively steady since 2000, while the mix of energy sources has changed. Between 2000 and 2019, consumption of natural gas and renewable energy increased, while oil and nuclear power were relatively flat and coal decreased. In the same period, production of oil, natural gas, and renewables increased, while nuclear power was relatively flat and coal decreased. Overall energy production increased by 42% over the same period. Increases in the production of oil and natural gas are due in part to technological improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that have facilitated access to resources in unconventional formations (e.g., shale). U.S. oil production (including natural gas liquids and crude oil) and natural gas production hit record highs in 2019. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas, a net exporter, and the largest consumer. Oil, natural gas, and other liquid fuels depend on a network of over three million miles of pipeline infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification
    Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Storing syngas lowers the carbon price for profitable coal gasification ADAM NEWCOMER AND JAY APT Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Tepper School of Business, and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 254 Posner Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation systems with carbon capture and sequestration have desirable environmental qualities, but are not profitable when the carbon dioxide price is less than approximately $50 per metric ton. We examine whether an IGCC facility that operates its gasifier continuously but stores the syngas and produces electricity only when daily prices are high may be profitable at significantly lower CO2 prices. Using a probabilistic analysis, we have calculated the plant-level return on investment (ROI) and the value of syngas storage for IGCC facilities located in the US Midwest using a range of storage configurations. Adding a second turbine to use the stored syngas to generate electricity at peak hours and implementing 12 hours of above ground high pressure syngas storage significantly increases the ROI and net present value. Storage lowers the carbon price at which IGCC enters the US generation mix by approximately 25%. 1 Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Introduction Producing electricity from coal-derived synthesis gas (syngas) in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility can improve criteria pollutant performance over other coal-fueled technologies such as pulverized coal (PC) facilities [1-5] and can be implemented with carbon capture and sequestration.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg
    energies Review Process Technologies and Projects for BioLPG Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting, 8136 Gattikon, Switzerland; [email protected]; Tel.: +41-44-772-1079 Received: 8 December 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)—currently consumed at some 300 million tonnes per year—consists of propane, butane, or a mixture of the two. Most of the world’s LPG is fossil, but recently, BioLPG has been commercialized as well. This paper reviews all possible synthesis routes to BioLPG: conventional chemical processes, biological processes, advanced chemical processes, and other. Processes are described, and projects are documented as of early 2018. The paper was compiled through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with participants and stakeholders. Only one process is already commercial: hydrotreatment of bio-oils. Another, fermentation of sugars, has reached demonstration scale. The process with the largest potential for volume is gaseous conversion and synthesis of two feedstocks, cellulosics or organic wastes. In most cases, BioLPG is produced as a byproduct, i.e., a minor output of a multi-product process. BioLPG’s proportion of output varies according to detailed process design: for example, the advanced chemical processes can produce BioLPG at anywhere from 0–10% of output. All these processes and projects will be of interest to researchers, developers and LPG producers/marketers. Keywords: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); BioLPG; biofuels; process technologies; alternative fuels 1. Introduction Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a major fuel for heating and transport, with a current global market of around 300 million tonnes per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues
    fermentation Article Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues: Simulation, Performance Analysis, and Environmental Impact Sahar Safarian 1,*, Seyed Mohammad Ebrahimi Saryazdi 2, Runar Unnthorsson 1 and Christiaan Richter 1 1 Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Iceland, Hjardarhagi 6, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland; [email protected] (R.U.); [email protected] (C.R.) 2 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Sharif University of Technologies, Tehran P.O. Box 14597-77611, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Wood and forestry residues are usually processed as wastes, but they can be recovered to produce electrical and thermal energy through processes of thermochemical conversion of gasification. This study proposes an equilibrium simulation model developed by ASPEN Plus to investigate the performance of 28 woody biomass and forestry residues’ (WB&FR) gasification in a downdraft gasifier linked with a power generation unit. The case study assesses power generation in Iceland from one ton of each feedstock. The results for the WB&FR alternatives show that the net power generated from one ton of input feedstock to the system is in intervals of 0 to 400 kW/ton, that more that 50% of the systems are located in the range of 100 to 200 kW/ton, and that, among them, the gasification system derived by tamarack bark significantly outranks all other systems by producing 363 kW/ton. Moreover, the environmental impact of these systems is assessed based on the impact categories of global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication (EP) potentials and Citation: Safarian, S.; Ebrahimi normalizes the environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy and the Hydrogen Economy
    Energy and the Hydrogen Economy Ulf Bossel Fuel Cell Consultant Morgenacherstrasse 2F CH-5452 Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland +41-56-496-7292 and Baldur Eliasson ABB Switzerland Ltd. Corporate Research CH-5405 Baden-Dättwil / Switzerland Abstract Between production and use any commercial product is subject to the following processes: packaging, transportation, storage and transfer. The same is true for hydrogen in a “Hydrogen Economy”. Hydrogen has to be packaged by compression or liquefaction, it has to be transported by surface vehicles or pipelines, it has to be stored and transferred. Generated by electrolysis or chemistry, the fuel gas has to go through theses market procedures before it can be used by the customer, even if it is produced locally at filling stations. As there are no environmental or energetic advantages in producing hydrogen from natural gas or other hydrocarbons, we do not consider this option, although hydrogen can be chemically synthesized at relative low cost. In the past, hydrogen production and hydrogen use have been addressed by many, assuming that hydrogen gas is just another gaseous energy carrier and that it can be handled much like natural gas in today’s energy economy. With this study we present an analysis of the energy required to operate a pure hydrogen economy. High-grade electricity from renewable or nuclear sources is needed not only to generate hydrogen, but also for all other essential steps of a hydrogen economy. But because of the molecular structure of hydrogen, a hydrogen infrastructure is much more energy-intensive than a natural gas economy. In this study, the energy consumed by each stage is related to the energy content (higher heating value HHV) of the delivered hydrogen itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas and Propane
    Construction Concerns: Natural Gas and Propane Article by Gregory Havel September 28, 2015 For the purposes of this article, I will discuss the use of natural gas and propane [liquefied propane (LP)] gas in buildings under construction, in buildings undergoing renovation, and in the temporary structures that are found on construction job sites including scaffold enclosures. In permanent structures, natural gas is carried by pipe from the utility company meter to the location of the heating appliances. Natural gas from utility companies is lighter than air and is odorized. In temporary structures and in buildings under construction or renovation, the gas may be carried from the utility company meter by pipe or a hose rated for natural gas at the pressure to be used to the location of the heating appliances. These pipes and hoses must be properly supported and must be protected from damage including from foot and wheeled traffic. The hoses, pipes, and connections must be checked regularly for leaks. For permanent and temporary structures, LP gas is usually stored in horizontal tanks outside the structure (photo 1) at a distance from the structure. September 28, 2015 (1) In Photo 1, note the frost on the bottom third of the tank that indicates the approximate amount of LP that is left in the tank. LP gas for fuel is heavier than air and is odorized. It is carried from the tank to the heating appliances by pipe or hose rated for LP gas at the pressure to be used. As it is for natural gas, these pipes and hoses must be properly supported and protected from damage including from foot and wheeled traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen from Biomass Gasification
    Hydrogen from biomass gasification Biomass harvesting, Photo: Bioenergy2020+ IEA Bioenergy: Task 33: December 2018 Hydrogen from biomass gasification Matthias Binder, Michael Kraussler, Matthias Kuba, and Markus Luisser Edited by Reinhard Rauch Copyright © 2018 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved ISBN, 978-1-910154-59-5 Published by IEA Bioenergy IEA Bioenergy, also known as the Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. Executive Summary Hydrogen will be an important renewable secondary energy carrier for the future. Today, hydrogen is predominantly produced from fossil fuels. Hydrogen production from biomass via gasification can be an auspicious alternative for future decarbonized applications, which are based on renewable and carbon-dioxide-neutral produced hydrogen. This study gives an overview of possible ways to produce hydrogen via biomass gasification. First, an overview of the current market situation is given. Then, hydrogen production based on biomass gasification is explained. Two different hydrogen production routes, based on biomass gasification, were investigated in more detail. Hydrogen production was investigated for steam gasification and sorption enhanced reforming. Both routes assessed, appear suitable for hydrogen production. Biomass to hydrogen efficiencies (LHV based) of up to 69% are achieved and a techno-economic study shows, hydrogen selling prices of down to 2.7 EUR·kg-1 (or 79 EUR·MWh-1). Overall it can be stated, that governmental support and subsidies are necessary for successful implementation of hydrogen production based on biomass gasification technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes
    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Development of Dry Coking/Coal
    Development of Coking/Coal Gasification Concept to Use Indiana Coal for the Production of Metallurgical Coke, Liquid Transportation Fuels, Fertilizer, and Bulk Electric Power Phase II Final Report September 30, 2007 Submitted by Robert Kramer, Ph.D. Director, Energy Efficiency and Reliability Center Purdue University Calumet Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ………………………………………………..…………… 3 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………… 5 List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. 6 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 7 Process Description ……………………………………………………………. 11 Importance to Indiana Coal Use ……………………………………………… 36 Relevance to Previous Studies ………………………………………………. 40 Policy, Scientific and Technical Barriers …………………………………….. 49 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 50 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………… 52 2 Executive Summary Coke is a solid carbon fuel and carbon source produced from coal that is used to melt and reduce iron ore. Although coke is an absolutely essential part of iron making and foundry processes, currently there is a shortfall of 5.5 million tons of coke per year in the United States. The shortfall has resulted in increased imports and drastic increases in coke prices and market volatility. For example, coke delivered FOB to a Chinese port in January 2004 was priced at $60/ton, but rose to $420/ton in March 2004 and in September 2004 was $220/ton. This makes clear the likelihood that prices will remain high. This effort that is the subject of this report has considered the suitability of and potential processes for using Indiana coal for the production of coke in a mine mouth or local coking/gasification-liquefaction process. Such processes involve multiple value streams that reduce technical and economic risk. Initial results indicate that it is possible to use blended coal with up to 40% Indiana coal in a non recovery coke oven to produce pyrolysis gas that can be selectively extracted and used for various purposes including the production of electricity and liquid transportation fuels and possibly fertilizer and hydrogen.
    [Show full text]
  • Substitutability of Electricity and Renewable Materials for Fossil Fuels in a Post-Carbon Economy
    Article Substitutability of Electricity and Renewable Materials for Fossil Fuels in a Post-Carbon Economy Antonio García-Olivares Received: 7 September 2015; Accepted: 17 November 2015; Published: 25 November 2015 Academic Editor: Robert Lundmark Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Marine Sciences, Ps. Maritim de la Barceloneta 37-49, Barcelona 08003, Spain; [email protected]; Tel.: +34-932309500 Abstract: A feasible way to avoid the risk of energy decline and combat climate change is to build a 100% renewable global energy mix. However, a globally electrified economy cannot grow much above 12 electric terawatts without putting pressure on the limits of finite mineral reserves. Here we analyze whether 12 TW of electricity and 1 TW of biomass (final) power will be able to fuel a future post-carbon economy that can provide similar services to those of a contemporary economy. Contrarily to some pessimistic expectations, this analysis shows that the principle economic processes can be replaced with sustainable alternatives based on electricity, charcoal, biogas and hydrogen. Furthermore, those services that cannot be replaced are not as crucial so as to cause a return to a pre-industrial society. Even so, land transport and aviation are at the limit of what is sustainable, outdoor work should be reorganized, metal primary production should be based on hydrogen reduction when possible, mineral production should be increasingly based on recycling, the petrochemical industry should shrink to a size of 40%–43% of the 2012 petrochemical sector, i.e., a size similar to that the sector had in 1985–1986, and agriculture may require organic farming methods to be sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection Data Package—Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Waste Form
    PNNL-20704 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Secondary Waste Form Down- Selection Data Package—Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Waste Form NP Qafoku MM Valenta JH Westsik, Jr. RP Pires DM Strachan Septemeber 2011 DISCLAIMER 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 Battelle Memorial Institute, 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, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen Energy Storage: Grid and Transportation Services February 2015
    02 Hydrogen Energy Storage: Grid and Transportation Services February 2015 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy EfficiencyWorkshop Structure and Renewable / 1 Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Hydrogen Energy Storage: Grid and Transportation Services February 2015 Hydrogen Energy Storage: Grid and Transportation Services Proceedings of an Expert Workshop Convened by the U.S. Department of Energy and Industry Canada, Hosted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the California Air Resources Board Sacramento, California, May 14 –15, 2014 M. Melaina and J. Eichman National Renewable Energy Laboratory Prepared under Task No. HT12.2S10 Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-62518 February 2015 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401 303-275-3000 www.nrel.gov 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]