This community is in archive. Visit community.xprize.org for the current XPRIZE Community.
Testing fuel quality, performance, and safety
Eti
Posts: 107 XPRIZE
in Prize Design
In this evolving competition design, teams will demonstrate a green fuel lifecycle that is sustainable, cost-effective, and efficient at scale — thus delivering green fuels that can decarbonize the hardest-to-abate sectors of the modern economy, providing the developing world with access to clean energy, and facilitating a transition to full electrification.
What in its composition must a fuel be tested for before being transferred to its destination and consumed?
What key parameters should the fuel analysis cover to evaluate fuel quality, estimate performance, efficiency, and other interactions throughout the lifecycle (incl. any emissions that result from conversion processes)?
Is there a globally recognized testing framework or standards that can be applied to a wide variety of green fuels (including carbon-based and nitrogen-based fuels)?
Is there a testing lab you'd recommend us to speak with?
What in its composition must a fuel be tested for before being transferred to its destination and consumed?
What key parameters should the fuel analysis cover to evaluate fuel quality, estimate performance, efficiency, and other interactions throughout the lifecycle (incl. any emissions that result from conversion processes)?
Is there a globally recognized testing framework or standards that can be applied to a wide variety of green fuels (including carbon-based and nitrogen-based fuels)?
Is there a testing lab you'd recommend us to speak with?
1
Comments
In terms of ammonia, there isn't any standard yet. Actually, we are working with the Ammonia Energy Association to set up the first standard for the fuel. Similarly, many other fuels that are still in development have not standard. This goes back to the questions of "how pure? what application? method of storage? etc.". Companies working with ammonia are trying to follow some ISO standards for some conventional impurities, but apart from that there is still a long way to go.
In the case of our Green Hydrogen production system we used TUV who selected to choose Soda water which contains CO2 Gas, but we allowed them to choose whatever quality of water they wanted. The result was our Green Hydrogen was 98.5% pure and we consumed all the CO2 in the Soda water as well. The remaining 1.5% was minerals from our Catalyst which was filtered out when the gas was released into containers for TUV's detailed examination. So not only can we produce Green Hydrogen with our Catalyst but we can consume CO2 at the same time. However, we have not tested the limits of how much CO2 can be consumed each time. In all our own previous test that we carried out, the purity of the hydrogen was always in excess of 99% and when the H2 was burnt in a hydrogen adapted internal combustion engine the only emission was Clean Drinkable Water.
Thank you @rayw , who would you recommend speaking to at TUV to learn more? if you prefer, you can also email me eti.shechtman@xprize.org
People often overlook this fact. It is a consequence of the high temperature of combustion and the presence of nitrogen and oxygen in air - rather than the fuel itself.
So an XPRIZE challenge might be wise to consider the merits of combustion (given the associated pollution challenge) versus using a fuel cell (with no pollutant emissions). Of course nothing is perfect and different life-cycle impacts might arise from the manufacture or end of life processing of fuel cell components - depending on the specific technologies, chemicals and resource derivation. [Personally, I think a push to end most combustion processes might be a good strategy.]
There are methods to control the quantity of emissions from combustion, but this might be at the expense of another factor (e.g. efficiency, or some life-cycle impact).
@carlbozzuto Thank you for your insightful comments; we are currently researching and shortlisting the target end-uses and conversion technologies; generally thinking to benchmark to diesel to enable demonstration of all functions (combustion, heat generation and electrification) per the hard-abate-sector most associated with each and the relevant, dominant conversion technology. This is the approach at a high level, and any feedback is much appreciated. I'll also prepare a post with more detail and notify you. Best, Eti
This is a really interesting point, and one I have not heard considered. I know there are standards for car fuel, however a more encompassing standard to measure green fuels should be explored in more context, assuming nothing else exists. I believe it is important to encompass the whole lifecycle taking account of embodied impacts. This is when you can really inform change, as it is pointless to make one part of the process efficient when there could be inefficiency within the embodied supply of the product. A cradle to grave evaluation should be considered as part of any framework.
I used to work for the Building Research Establishment (BRE.co.uk) where they have some of the world testing experts. Energy efficiency, testing and life cycle analysis of products and processes is something they excel at, so I would definitely consult with them on this topic. I can make introductions to the individuals who would be able to identify a robust measurement framework in this area as they work across all industry sectors.
I was on CertifHy Work Group 1, which established the world's first Guarantees of Origin (GoO) for low-carbon, green hydrogen in the EU. And I have recently suggested to Australian non-profits that they align their green hydrogen certification with CertifHy's GoO. Otherwise, the EU might refuse to buy any blue or green Australian hydrogen.
@akb We were actually considering how to best address it -- account for the importance of the transition to clean, renewable energy (acknowledging that a lot of the existing infrastructure/conversion tech is often slow to change), but help promote a future of electrification. One approach was to demonstrate all use cases but evaluate (score) differently. Do you see value in this? or, do you other ideas?
It's a complex and challenging subject for sure :-) Complete life-cycle evaluations are very challenging (and subject to significant levels of uncertainty). I'm sure the XPRIZE team will do a good job of the evaluation. Coming at this from the other end (the simple end) there's a few high level factors that we might want to consider:
Perhaps outside the technical remit of an XPRIZE, there's also other factors that determine the rate of adoption, such as support (e.g. enabling laws, grants, taxes, consumer preference), investment and marketing / promotion. So prizes for a range of promising (technical) solutions might be relevant. This would allow governments and companies a set of potential solutions to chose from, based on their own unique circumstances. I envisage that a range of products, systems and infrastructure might feature in the overall solution. e.g. Global Renewable Energy Network.
Ideally, we might want to apply the same evaluation criteria to all proposed solutions. However, it might [?] be possible to simplify the complex evaluations by having different categories of prizes that only evaluate the most likely (anticipated) relevant factors for each category. [I'm pondering if this is feasible. One potential limitation of the category approach is evaluating a radical innovation, or breakthrough, that doesn't fall into any of the anticipated categories.]