Summary of Phase I
1.0 Background and Problem Definition
Harbec Plastics is a full service thermal injection mold manufacturer established in 1977. Their commitment to the environment has been a model for the community and manufacturing industry. This commitment was further advanced by the August 2001 introduction of a wind turbine system which complements Harbec’s contingent of low-emission natural gas powered microturbines. It also allows Harbec to offer a low emissions power system that can operate fully independent from the grid. Currently, the plant utilizes the energy captured from the wind turbine during five of the seven days of its operation. This accounts for a total of 25% of the power requirements of the facility over a year’s time. During the plant downtime over the weekend, the energy created by the wind turbine is wasted. Harbec seeks to capture this energy and utilize it in an alternative energy system.
1.1 Relationship to People, Prosperity and the Planet
The advantage of wind power for individuals is found in the reduction of health risks in comparison to conventional energy production (coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil). Conventional power plant emissions create smog, which can lead to acute health problems such as persistent coughing, wheezing, and headaches. Conventional power production also creates fine sulfate particles that are toxic in nature and can be linked to premature deaths from heart and lung disease, including cancer1. Increased use of wind energy could decrease reliance on traditional fossil fuel energy generation reducing power plant emissions and promoting better health.
Wind power and hydrogen technology could also have a positive effect on the economy. Studies have shown that the conversion from conventional energy production to alternative energy production will not cause people to lose their jobs1. Economic studies have also shown that wind power provides more jobs per unit of energy than other forms of energy[1]. Employment can be found through various manufacturers (turbines, blades, and components), logistics, project managers, finance expertise, pile drivers, grid connectors, sales, and domestic wind farmers. In addition, using locally generated wind power keeps the capital spent on electricity within a region’s economy. The more industries that utilize wind power and hydrogen fuel cells the more commercially available the components will become.
The production of electricity generates more pollution than any other single industry in the United States. Conventional energy production creates many unwanted side effects that endanger the environment. These side effects include acid rain, poor air quality, nuclear waste disposal, and global warming. Wind power and hydrogen are environmentally friendly energy sources that are clean, abundant, domestic, and renewable. These resourcesare pollution free and make electricity with no combustion, smoke, or waste.
1.2Relevance and Significance to the Developing and Developed World
Wind and hydrogen energy is a viable option for energy production in developing countries where a central grid has not yet been established. Governments could assist in providing the resources to these communities by providing funding and incentives for alternative energy systems such as the one being investigated by this project.
Figure1 illustrates the typical mixture of resources2 that Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E, the energy company in this region) uses to create their electricity. The energy mixture includes nuclear (69%), hydroelectric (4%), coal (25%), natural Gas (2%) and oil (< 1%). 2 RG&E’s fuel mixture consists primarily of non-renewable resources. The majority of these produce either toxic emissions or other adverse effects on the environment.
Developing nations and economies can utilize this technology to build “green” industries and provide power for communities. Implementing these systems could reduce the relianceon traditional power production and avoid the rising costs of acquiring the resources needed to fuel them.
Already developed communities, where grid systems exist, could also promote this technology to commercial industries on a large scale as these components become more readily available. They can institute this technology in cars, buses, trucks and other vehicles. In addition these energy systems can be utilized in homes, offices, and manufacturing facilities.
1.3 Implementation of the P3 Award as an Educational Tool
The P3 award acted as an educational tool by allowing an opportunity to research and develop hydrogen based power systems. This provided a multi-disciplinary challenge involving technical feasibility analysis, financial feasibility analysis, facilities analysis, and environmental impact analysis. It also provided the opportunity to work on a project team and provided project management experience which plays a critical role in engineering careers.
2.0 Purpose, Objective, and Scope Limitations
2.1 Purpose and Objective
The purpose of this project is to study the technical, financial, and environmental implications associated with the development of an alternative energy system. This system will capture the wasted energy from an existing wind turbine, convert it into hydrogen as a storage medium, and use it as an alternative energy source.
2.2 Scope Limitations
The following list presents the scope limitations determined by the USEPA and Harbec:
- Design considerations will be given primarily to commercially available products
- Designs must provide for the conversion of wind energy to hydrogen
- Primary designs will consider fuel cell or hythane energy systems
- Designs should not increase emissions generated by the facility
- Design will be dependant upon the existing wind turbine at Harbec plastics for energy
- Design will be commercially safe
3.0 Data, Results, and Findings
Four models were developed as viable implementation options for Harbec. Each of these models represents different levels of industrial application. They are constrained by the following assumptions:
- The electrolyzer will produce hydrogen for two days, which represents the plant downtime given over the weekend (weekends account for most plant downtime).
- Power consumption of the components is limited to 34 kW, which is the average power production of the wind turbine
- Limiting factors of using the average wind turbine power production
- No hydrogengeneration during power production troughs
- Wasted energy during power productionpeaks
- Minimal overall costs
3.1 Basic Level Model
Figure 2: This schematic is representative of the basic level system. It is composed of three main components: the electrolyzer, hydrogen storage, distiller, and fuel cell. The key support components are also shown in the schematic[i].
3.1 Model A Specifications, Features, and Outputs:
System Power Production: / 1.4 kWRun Time (Hours): / 32
Type of Storage: / Gas
System Efficiency: / 27%
Cogeneration: / Yes
Electrolyzer and Fuel Cell: / PEM[ii]
Yearly Energy Production: / 2400 kWh
Yearly Cost Savings[iii] / $660
Volume of H2 Produced (SCM): / 23.62
Floor Space Required: / 10 m2
This system can be implemented without major changes to the existing infrastructure due to the low hydrogen storage requirement. Storage consumes the majority of the floor space within each model represented[iv]. Potential floor plans for each model can be found in appendix B-5
3.2 Finance Model A:
Table 3 lists the net present value of all systems over a ten year period from January 1st 2006. Financial assumptions can be found on Appendix B-1.
Model / Cost / Payback / Net Present ValueBasic / $115,000 / 175 years / $ -66,500
Mid Level / $166,000 / 144 years / $ -94,300
High Level / $215,000 / 134 years / $ -121,400
Hythane / $70,000 / 320 years / $ -58,000
Table 3: 2006 Financial Investment Data. At present, this model shows that the system is not a financially feasible investment given the financial expectation of an 8-10 year payback. Additional financial models can be found in appendix B-2.
The costs savings are not high enough alone to financially justify system implementation. A drastic increase in energy pricing of 45-50% every year over the next ten years would financially justify model costs. Given the trends[v] in electric and gas prices, 4%-5% growth in electric costs and 5-10% growth in natural gas prices are expected.
Although current application of the model is not financially feasible, future investment would serve as an education tool for future research, study, and actas an industry example. It would be one of the first renewable dispatchable energy systems in the region.
3.3 Financial Limitations
Several factors currently hinder widespread use of hydrogen based systems. One of the major influencing factors is the commercial availability of products. Low product availability has led to high component pricing. The electrolyzers in each model account for approximately fifty to seventy percent of the total cost.
Energy production is another factor that effects cost justification. Higher energy production from the wind turbine would appear to ease cost justification by increasing the amount of hydrogen generated. However, it would require greater system capabilities which demand more capital. The increased amount of hydrogenwould require morestorage. The costs of both the electrolyzer and storage account for 60%-70% of the system costs. Althoughoverall savings would increase, it alone would not be enough to financially justify the system[vi].
Energy costs and trends are other factors that affectthe financial justification. While energy costs are increasing, they are not increasing at a rate that would cause dramatic changes in our conclusions. Costs would have to increase exponentially in the next ten to fifteen years to provide adequate savings. Energy cost trends of the last ten years are shown in Appendix B-3.
3.4Financial Recommendations
To increase the financial level of commercial feasibility, the development of a larger alternative energy market would be necessary. This can be achieved through increased grants and tax incentives for companies demonstrating an interest in alternative energy system implementation. Assuming the scarcity of fossil fuels and other forms of conventional energy in the future, these systems will become more appealingas electric and gas prices increase. Pioneering these systems today may prove useful in learning lessons for future commercial implementation.
4.0Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The conversion of wind to hydrogen project was able to balance the elements of people, prosperity, and the planet. Alternative energy systems will eventually replace the use of conventional energy. This will lead to increased health benefits, more jobs, and reduced pollution.
The key to this project was that all the team members contributed in a substantial and constructive manner. Mechanical engineers were needed to examine the vast elements required for this system to capture, convert, and store hydrogen power. The industrial engineers focused on the financial justification, environment, and facilities layout aspects for the system. Harbec provided the external assistance for this project. Harbec supplied information on their existing system and its energy requirements.
This project is beneficial because it demonstrates that a fuel cell system could be used in industrial applications as long as the costs of the components decrease in the future. It would reduce emissions and improve the environment. This technology could also be replicated in other industries, communities, and countries around the world.
4.1Quantifiable Benefits to People, Prosperity and the Planet
The energy mixture for Rochester Gas & Electric contains 25% coal and 2% natural gas. These resources are responsible for the release of emissions into the atmosphere as a byproduct when energy is being produced. The emissions created in the energy production process are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. Figure 3 shows the emissions released by RG&E in the year 2000.2
Figure 3: RG&E Output Emissions for the Year 20002
The information in Figure 3 was used to determine the quantitative effects of the conversion of wind power to hydrogen on people, prosperity and the planet.
The proposed fuel cell systems would reduce the amount of energy needed from RG&E to power Harbec’s manufacturing facility. Implementation of the high-level fuel cell system in combination with the wind turbine would reduce the need for energy supplied from RG&E by 12.8 mWh annually. The reduction of energy off the grid leads to a decrease in the total emissions output for RG&E.
Figure 4: Emissions Avoided Based on Implementation of the High- Level Fuel Cell System2
Figure 4shows that if Harbec utilizes a fuel cell the emissions avoided from RG&E will be significantly increased. In this model carbon dioxide emissions experienced the most sizeable reduction with a decrease of 7460.99 lbs annually.
The proposed system will also decrease the levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury released in the atmosphere. The emission rate information for the other two fuel cell systems can be found Appendix C-1 and C-2.
The other concept that was proposed was a Hythane system. This system uses the existing microturbines but adds hydrogen into the fuel mixture. Figure 5illustrates the carbon dioxide emissions avoided the implementation of the hythane system versus the fuel cell system.
Figure 5: Output Emissions of CO2
for the Hythane and Fuel Cell Systems. 2
The emission avoidance shown by both systems in Figure 5could have a large impact on the environment. However, the majority of the fuel used for RG&E’s energy comes from nuclear power production. The generation of nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide. However, fossil fuel emissions are created in the processes of uranium mining and uranium enrichment.3 Fossil fuel emissions are also created in the transportation of uranium to the nuclear power plant.
There are other places in which the fuel cell or hythane systems would create a larger impact on the environment. For Example,Kentucky Powergenerates power from a fuel mixture consisting of 99.8% coal and .2% oil2. Kentucky Power’s fuel mixture will generate more toxic emissions than RG&E because RG&E relies heavily on nuclear power. The following figures show the emission rates of RG&E and Kentucky power.
Figure 6: Carbon Dioxide Output Rate for Rochester Gas & Electric & Kentucky Power in 2000.2
Figure 7: Emission Rates for Rochester Gas & Electric & Kentucky Power in 2000.2
Figure 6and Figure 7both illustrate the difference in emissions between RG&E and Kentucky Power. A wind power and hydrogen energy system implemented in Kentucky or another high fossil fuel consumption area will have substantial effects on the environment through the decreaseof greenhouse gases. In addition there will be a reduced risk of the health problems associated with toxic emissions.
The conversion of wind power to hydrogen has an effect on prosperity. Wind power is a renewable source of energy with a fixed price. Once a turbine is installed on a property there are minimal costs incurred for upkeep of the system.
4.2Qualitative Benefits to People, Prosperity and the Planet
Implementation of a fuel cell system will have many qualitative benefits for the people, prosperity and the planet. RG&E gets the majority of their energy from fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Generating power using these resources releases pollutants contaminants into the atmosphere. The major pollutants that this analysis focused on are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide.
Sulfur dioxide belongs to a family of gases that dissolves easily in water. Sulfur existscrude oil, coal, and ore.4 Sulfur dioxide gases are produced when fuel that contains sulfur is burned. Once sulfur dioxide dissolves in water, vapor acid is formed. Sulfates are formed when this acid interacts with other gases and particles in the air. Sulfates and other products of sulfur dioxide can be very harmful to human beings and their environment. The hazardous impacts of sulfur dioxide include respiratory effects, visual impairment, acid rain, plant and water damage, along with aesthetic damage to statues and sculptures.4
Another major pollutant created in traditional energy production is nitrogen dioxide. When fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process, nitrogen oxides are created. Nitrogen dioxide can be seen as a reddish-brown layer over metropolitan cities.5Nitrogen dioxide can also be very harmful to people and the environment. It is one of the main pollutants responsible for the formation of ground-level ozone, which can initiate serious respiratory problems. Along with respiratory problems this chemical has also been known to cause visual impairment. In addition to health problems, nitrogen dioxide contributes to environmental problems such as the formation of acid rain, deteriorates water quality, and contributes to global warming.5
Another emission produced in fossil fuel energy production is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a major byproduct of fossil fuel combustion. An increase in carbon dioxide could lead to ecological disaster, including wild swings in weather patterns, desertification, spread of hot-climate infectious diseases, and greater risks of severe, damaging weather.6
Mercury is another toxic element released when creating energy from fossil fuels, especially when using coal. Exposure to mercury can be harmful to humans, and even fatal at high doses.7 Mercury emissions are carried through the air as a vapor and can be deposited on land or in water.7Mercury exposure has negative effects on people and the environment. Exposure to mercury in pregnant women has been known to cause birth defects. It may also lead to impairment to the peripheral vision, disturbances in sensations, and lack of coordination in movement, muscle weakness. Mercury exposure can cause impairment in speech, hearing, and walking.8 Higher levels of exposure can result in kidney effects, respiratory failure and death.8