3 ms·
The challenge lies in moving the water, not in building a container to store it. > You could even truck it in from a thousand miles away without really impacti
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
The challenge lies in moving the water, not in building a container to store it.
> You could even truck it in from a thousand miles away without really impacting the cost very much.
Lets' do the math. Trucking costs ~$.15 per short ton per mile as per Google. So shipping 270 tons over 1,000 miles works out to $40,000. And you're using the thermal energy density of hydrogen, not the electrical energy density - as in, accounting for inefficiency of electricity generation. 1 GWh thermal is typically 500 MWh electrical for both fuel cells and turbines. The actual cost would be double that, given that most systems are 40-60% efficient. So if by "without really impacting the cost vey much" you mean "increasing the cost by a factor of 5-9x", then sure. Moving large amounts of water is energy intensive, most infrastructure built to move water relies on gravity to move water from alpine reservoirs to lowlands. And unless you're capturing the output of whatever you're using to transform hydrogen back into electricity, then this is a recurring cost not a capital cost. This is easier to do for some implementations, like electrochemical cells, but much harder for gas turbines.
- reitzensteinm 6y agoYeah, I mean in the case where you're recapturing the water. Trucking it to use it once is madness, and storage isn't really relevant if you've got a pipeline or a river to draw from. You're totally right about thermal vs electrical, even with a fuel cell.
- pfdietz 6y agoIf the volume involved is high enough to be problematic, it's high enough to justify building pipelines. The cost of trucking is irrelevant.
- reitzensteinm 6y agoRight. I was just sketching out that you could build it self contained in a desert if you really had to and still make it economical. Ad absurdum only, not a serious suggestion.