Guys,
I apologise for my mediocre response.
It was late, I had a few wines and was trying to post serious analysis on my phone. Not a good idea
A spelling mistake/auto correct I didn't catch and some tardy figures made my post look sloppy.
Ok stuckinhouse, lets have a look at your responses.
8 GW is the capacity or max output of the power plant. Shipping 8 GW????
What are you talking about??The power plant is premised to produce 8GW of energy,This would be exported in the form of hydrogen. The energy content of the transported hydrogen needs to represent this energy export.This is not an accurate way of quoting a processing plants output. The most accurate way is to quote the volume of the actual output. Different plants use different equipment, different electrolysers and efficiencies, have different flow sheets and flow rates and would have varying degrees of production losses.Unless designed and build using identical plans and equipment, then no 8GW (eg) would be identical. Quoting the power plants max capacity will give you a generic overview of what the hydrogen production facility's output at full capacity could be. It also does not account for maintenance and variations in solar and wind availability.
Anyway, you were talking about putting 8gw on a ship, or
shipping 8gw. The correct method would be to quote the volume/weight of the gas on a ship , like GEV have done and LNG carriers do.
I provided my working. The working already considers the relative energy density of the compressed hydrogen. This premise is not economical.Where is you calculation?All you showed was some bizarre printout showing energy density of diesel 45mj/kg versus the energy density of hydrogen 119.96mj/kg.
Additionally, where's your calculation for the energy density of hydrogen at 250bar? I dont see it in your post anywhere...
You also quoted the ships speed at 12 knots. Its based on the CNG ship which sails at 14kts. 14 knots and will get to Japan in 11.6 days. They have also commissioned Ballard power to develop the fuel cell system to power the C-H2, which should be more efficient and possibly faster.
This premise is not economical.If we liquify, we can increase the capacity.Not practical. The concept proposed here is compressed hydrogen. This is the concept I have assessed. Liquefaction of hydrogen is not achievable at industrial scale.Really.
50 hydrogen liquification plants have been made since 1952.
Air Liquide is to build a plant in the western US, and Air products is to build its second liquid hydrogen facility in California.
And Hyosung heavy industries is building the worlds largest liquid hydrogen facility to be completed by 2022.
A typical Suexmax tanker uses about 70 m^3 of diesel per daySuexmax??? What the hell is that?? Its Suezmax!!! So who is the illiterate one now??
The ship proposed is already Suezmax size, did you not see the image? It's f*in massive mate. It cannot be scaled up much due to inherent constraints in the shipping industry.How do you know that? No dimensions have been specified yet for the CH2. All they have said is that it is based on the CNG and shown images of them side by side. They are not too dissimilar in size, as below.
Now the CNG ships details are below-
Suezmax details below-
The CNG ship is 190m long with a 9.4m draft
The Suezmax is 400m long with a 20.1m draft, deadweight 160,000tonnes.
So the CNG is roughly half the size of the Suezmax, that is 210m shorter,( that's right 210!!) and a 10.6 m less draft.
So what were you saying about scaling up the CH2? Its not f..ing huge. Don't get me wrong, its not small, but in terms of the modern tanker, its not that big. 4000 tonnes could be achievable. BTW, Ever Given, the ship recently stuck in the Suez Canal was 400m. long.
Anyway,the whole argument is about the economics of shipping H2 in a compressed form. I believe the CH2 will be a successful tanker and be able to transport our export H2 in an economical fashion, particularly when you factor in we will be making the H2 to power it. No need to convert to ammonia and back either. Capacity wont be an issue and will be able to be scaled up or down as required. Additionally,hydrogen power plants are off the shelf technology these days.
And BTW, this a non binding MOU with GEV picking up the bill. They have to prove to us the CH2 is economical, safe and will fulfil our mission parameters. if it doesn't, we move on...
Suexmax....that's gold!!!.
Oh, and you don't hold PRL???
GLTAH, IMHO...
(20min delay)