Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) - Concept evaluation and technoeconomics

Transcription

1 Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) - Concept evaluation and technoeconomics Markus Hurskainen & Janne Kärki VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd Seminar on the Finnish needs and research highlights on hydrogen - focus on liquid LOHC batteries and hydrogen legislation Innopoli 1, Espoo, October 7 th 2018 Contact: firstname.surname@vtt.fi VTT beyond the obvious

2 Contents Main characteristics of the LOHC concept Case study: Logistics of by-product hydrogen VTT beyond the obvious 2

3 LOHC concept characteristics Strengths Distribution and storage compatible with existing infrastructure Safety No storage loss: suitable to long-term storage High storage density compared to compressed gas Releases almost pure hydrogen stream with no major by-products VTT beyond the obvious 3

4 LOHC concept characteristics Weaknesses Releasing hydrogen requires a lot of medium temp ( C) heat ~30% of the hydrogen would have to be burned H 2 is released using heat Hydrogen Dehydrogenation (endothermic, low p, high T) 27% Heat Compound able to bind H 2 But binding of hydrogen releases the same amount of heat although at lower temperature (~150 C) Utilisation is important Dehydrogenation is carried out at only slightly elevated pressures (1-5 bar) High compression demand e.g. for mobility Compound carrying H 2 H 2 is binded which releases heat Hydrogenation (exothermic, high p, lower T) 100% Hydrogen 27% Heat VTT beyond the obvious 4 Percentages are for dibenzyltoluene (DBT) corresponding to reaction enthalpy of ±65 kj/mol H 2

5 Applications for the LOHC concept? LOHC concept is essentially a means to enable efficient transport and/or storage of hydrogen What creates the need to transport hydrogen? Hydrogen formed as an unavoidable by-product OR Centralized production elsewhere more feasible VTT beyond the obvious 5

6 Applications for the LOHC concept? Applications which require hydrogen as a raw material / a reactant were seen more favourable compared to conversion to electricity There is no market for long-term energy storage yet and there is not enough shorter term variance in electricity prices either Almost pure H 2 is released as opposed to some other H 2 carriers (e.g. NH 3, SNG) In future, electricity storage (especially in off-grid solutions) or use in transport sector will become relevant VTT beyond the obvious 6

7 Case 1 Logistics of by-product hydrogen VTT beyond the obvious 7

8 Rationale (1/2) Figure courtesy of Kemira Due to extensive pulp industry, high amounts of electrolytic by-product hydrogen is generated in Finland (~ t/a, ~770 GWh, ~100 MW) Due to the lack of cost-effective transport means, part of the hydrogen is just vented and part is used in low-value applications (energy) while at the same time hydrogen is generated using fossil raw materials elsewhere LOHC could enable feasible transport of byproduct H 2 to substitute fossil-based H VTT beyond the obvious 8

9 Rationale (2/2) One marked advantage is the possibility to utilise the heat released in hydrogenation in NaOH/chlorate plant to avoid the burning of hydrogen for energy H 2 is released using heat 100% Hydrogen Dehydrogenation (endothermic, low p, high T) 27% Heat Compound able to bind H 2 Heat is required e.g. for Concentration of NaOH solution Drying, dissolving and precipitation of chlorate District heating H 2 is binded which releases heat Compound carrying H 2 Hydrogenation (exothermic, high p, low T) 27% Heat Percentages are for dibenzyltoluene (DBT) corresponding to reaction enthalpy of ±65 kj/mol H 2 Hydrogen VTT beyond the obvious 9 100%

10 Case 1 description Purpose was to compare LOHC (dibenzyltoluene) delivery chain to 1) the current logistic option (200 bar steel bottle containers) and 2) an advanced 350 bar composite cylinder containers in point-to-point delivery from a chlor-alkali/chlorate plant to industrial customers Two different hydrogen demands (2.5 & 10 MW H 2 = 1800 & 7200 kg H2 /day) and three transport distances (50, 150, 300 km one-way) Comparison to on-site water electrolysis VTT beyond the obvious 10

11 Hydrogen supply chains H 2 source Heat is utilized at the NaOH/chlorate plant decreasing the need to burn hydrogen for energy purposes Dehydrogenation Hydrogenation 1) LOHC Part of the hydrogen is burned to release the hydrogen from LOHC H 2 consumer 2.5 or 10 MW H2,LHV demand NaClO 3 NaOH Purified byproduct H 2 Price of hydrogen or purification were not considered Compr 2) GH2 a) 200 bar steel b) 350 bar composite Three different transport distances: 50, 150 and 300 km (one-way) Delivery as liquid hydrogen was excluded as the scale of by-product H 2 is too low 3) On-site electrolysis

12 LOHC concept assumptions Dibenzyltoluene based (H0-DBT/H18-DBT) H 2 storage density 6.2 wt% 100% degree of (de)hydrogenation Reaction enthalpy ±65 kj/mol H2 50 bar hydrogenation Degradation 0.1% per cycle DBT price 4 /kg For LOHC reactors, there is very high uncertainty regarding CAPEX we used two estimations to give us a range Fixed O&M 4% of CAPEX Reus et al. Applied Energy 200 (2017), pp Eypasch et al. Applied Energy 185 (2017), pp

13 Trucking related assumptions Truck LOHC tanker trailer ( l) ~40 t loads, 24/7 delivery GH 2 trailer (2x 200 bar steel bottle ISO20 containers) Advanced GH 2 trailer (ISO40 HC 350 bar composite) Investment cost 180 k 140 k [1] 530 k [1] 420 k [1] Depreciation period 1.5 Mkm / 8 years 15 years 15 years 15 years O&M 0.1 /km 4% of CAPEX 2% of CAPEX 2% of CAPEX Net H 2 payload 2000 kg 400 kg 900 kg Unloading & loading (LOHC) Drop-off & pick-up (GH 2 ) Diesel consumption 45 l / 100 km Diesel price (VAT0%) 1.05 /l Avg. speed (excl. unloading km/h & loading) ( km) Driver employment cost (incl. indirect costs) 45 k /a Truck availability 80% 2 h (total for a trip) [2] 2 h (total for a trip) [2] 2 h (total for a trip) [2] VTT beyond the obvious [1] Quotations from suppliers & VTT estimation for rolling platforms 13 [2] Teichmann et al. 2012

14 Results Total delivery costs With low CAPEX estimation, LOHC and composite GH2 equally competitive for km while 300 km favours LOHC Max value of purified hydrogen On-site electrolysis 60 /MWh 50 /MWh 40 /MWh With high CAPEX estimation, composite GH2 is the most feasible LOHC delivery cost do not increase markedly with transport distance On-site H 2 generation costs are higher, leaving margin to pay for the hydrogen raw material to the H 2 producer but are highly dependent on the electricity price

15 Results Cost breakdowns MW H 2 (1800 kg/day) & 150 km 2.5 MW & 150 km Trucking In the LOHC delivery chain the costs are mainly related to hydrogen processing while for GH2 chains trucking costs dominate Processing* VTT beyond the obvious 15 *compression, hydrogenation, dehydrogenation, site costs

16 Results Number of trucks and trailers 2.5 MW H 2 (1800 kg/day*) 50 km 150 km 300 km LOHC 200 bar steel 350 bar composite VTT beyond the obvious 16 For LOHC ~2600 kg/day as ~30% needs to be burned to release hydrogen

17 Results Number of trucks and trailers - 10 MW H 2 (7200 kg/day*) 50 km 150 km 300 km LOHC 200 bar steel 350 bar composite For LOHC ~10300 kg/day as ~30% needs to be burned to release hydrogen 17

18 Conclusions LOHC seems to be a viable option for transporting by-product hydrogen from chlorate/chlor-alkali plants when the distances are >100 km if the reactor CAPEX are at the lower-end of the literature estimates In cases where there would be medium temp waste-heat available at the hydrogen consuming site, LOHC economics would improve markedly LOHC could also enable storing more hydrogen at relatively minor additional cost delivery schedule could be more flexible and it would be possible to prepare for the maintenance and unscheduled breaks Although the amount of by-product H 2 is finite, its transportation could be the low-hanging fruit for the LOHC concept to enter the market VTT beyond the obvious 18

19 Thanks! VTT beyond the obvious 19

20 Literature Eypasch, M., Schimpe, M., Kanwar, A., Hartmann, T., Herzog, S., Frank, T. & Hamacher, T. (2017). Modelbased techno-economic evaluation of an electricity storage system based on Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers, Applied Energy 185, pp FCHJU. (2017). Early business cases for H2 in energy storage and more broadly power to H2 applications, Final Report, Fuel cells and hydrogen joint undertaking, P2H-BC/4NT/ /000/03. NREL. (2010). Hydrogen Delivery Component Model - Version 2.2, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Reus, M., Grube, T., Robinius, M., Preuster, P., Wasserscheid, P. & Stolten, D. (2017). Seasonal storage and alternative carriers - A flexible hydrogen supply chain model, Applied Energy 200 (2017), pp Teichmann, D., Arlt, W. & Wasserscheid, P. (2012). Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers as an efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable energy, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 37, Issue 23, pp VTT beyond the obvious 20