Economic Comparison of Hydrogen Production Nuclear Technique to Renewable Energy Technique

Transcription

1 IAEA s Technical Meeting to Examine the Techno-Economics of and Opportunities for Non- Electrical Applications of Small and Medium Sized or Modular Reactors Vienna, May 2017 Economic Comparison of Hydrogen Production Nuclear Technique to Renewable Energy Technique R. Boudries

2 Hydrogen production Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production using nuclear energy Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production using solar energy Comparison Conclusion 1 2

3 Solar Hydrogen Production

4 Interest in hydrogen stems from: The big demand for hydrogen as a chemical feedstock in the industry sector: Fast increase in hydrogen needs in the refinery sector because of the stringent regulation in the conventional fuel production Flat glass manufacturing using float glass technique Petrochemical sector needs (ammonia, ethanol, etc.) The big interest in developing hydrogen as an energy vector: Could solve the problem related to the conventional energy source: pollution and the limited resources Could be used in different sectors: transport, energy, domestic, etc. Versatility in its use The big in role in the energy transition Power to Gas 4

5 Hydrogen production: Hydrogen exists in nature mainly in combination with other elements Must be produced by dissociation (water, hydrocarbons, etc.)

6 Hydrogen Generation Process Process requires: One form of energy Conventional electrolysis Thermo-chemical cycle electricity heat Two forms of energy HTSE HyS cycle Electricity Heat 6

7 Hydrogen Generation Process Energy Nuclear Energy Any reactors, providing electrical and/or thermal energy can be coupled to hydrogen production process. However, SMR offers clears benefits: Modular Suitable for remote areas Shorter construction time Fewer oprerators Lower investment costs. High availability ( 90%).

8 Hydrogen Generation Process Energy Solar Energy Solar: clean and renewable source of energy Form of Energy Temperature Solar PV electricity 50 C CPV Electricity + heat Depends on the type of concentrator Solar parabolic trhough Electricity + heat 300 C C Solar central receiver Electricity + heat 800 C C Dish Heat 100 C

9 Hydrogen Generation Process Energy Hybrid Nuclear-Solar System In hybrid system, nuclear and solar complete each other. Nuclear helps overcome the intermittency of solar. Solar helps save on fuel and increase the time for fuel replacement. Proposed hybrid system Wind/SMR-HTR Parabolic trough/smr-htr Central receiver/smr-htr Central receiver/smr-pwr DishSMR-HTR

10 Solar Hydrogen Production

11 Solar Hydrogen Production Techniques Four techniques are under consideration for water splitting Solar PV/electrolysis Electricity only Solar CSP/SI Solar CSP/electrolysis Heat only Electricity + heat Solar CPV/ electrolysis Electricity + heat

12 CPV- Electrolyzer System: cost of Production C = C e + C elec With: C e : Cost of Electricity production C elec : Cost of Electrolysis Cost of PV System Cost of electrolyzer system C elec Kel n r C CF em f 1 (1 f 1 ) ir i f 2 2 (1 ir i )

13 Fiscal parameters Parameters values Taxes Indirect cost Insurance Discount rate 0.06 Inflation rate 0.007

14 CPV System Concentration Technology Type of concentration Reflective (mirror) Type of concentration technology Parabolic trough Size of concentration Medium (20 to 80) Cell Technology Type Silicon cell Efficiency Common cell 14% Advanced 20 %

15 System parameters Parameters values Optical efficiency 85 % Cell efficiency 14 % -20% Module efficiency 0.85xcell efficiency BOS efficiency 85 % Electrolyzer efficiency 85 % Temperature effect 75 %

16 PV characteristics Factors values BOS area cost ($/m²) 114 BOS power cost ($/Wp) 1.61 Tracking cost ($/m²) 159 Module cost ($/m²) 290 Cells cost ($/m²) O&M cost PV lifetime 2% of capital cost 30 years

17 Electrolyzer characteristics Factor Value Coupling efficiency 0.85 lifetime 20 years Rated current (ma/cm²) 134 Rated voltage (V) 1.74 Operating current (ma/cm²) 268 Capital cost ($/kw) 800

18 Cost of Hydrogen ($/kg) Annaba Adrar Annaba Adrar PV/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost 12 PV efficiency 14 % PV efficiency 20 % Hydrogen production cost decreases with increasing PV module efficiency and an increase in irradiance Decrease in cost by more than 36 % for an irradiance increase by 44 %

19 Hydrogen cost ($/kg) Adrar Annaba Adrar Annaba CPV/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost 5 PV efficiency 14 % PV efficiency 20 % Hydrogen production cost decreases with increasing PV module efficiency and increasing irradiance Decrease in cost by more than 26 % for an irradiance increase by 43 %

20 CSP/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost Solar Unit Thermodynamic Unit AC/DC converter Electrolysis Unit

21 Solar unit Solar unit capital cost C sol ( C m C r C D C PN CS C IP C O ) A C m : reflector capital cost C CS : concentrator structure cost C IP : interconnecting pipes capital cost C r : receiver capital cost C D : tracking (drive) system capital cost A: reflectors total area C O : others capital cost (electronics, foundation, land, etc.) PN: power plant nominal power

22 Solar field characteristics Solar Unit Parameters Reflector shape values Parabolic trough Incident angle efficiency 87.5 % Optical efficiency 75 % Receiver thermal efficiency 73. % Solar field availability 99.% Piping thermal losses 96.5 % Low insolation losses 99.6 %

23 Solar unit Solar field electricity production characteristics Parameters values Thermal to power plant efficiency 95.0 % Gross steam cycle efficiency 37.5 % Parasitics (1-%auxiliary power consumed by plant) 85. % Plant availability 98 % Solar capacity factor 25 %

24 Solar unit Solar unit economics Components (capital cost) Values ($/m 2 ) Reflector 40 Receiver capital cost 43 Concentrator (structure + erection) 61 Tracking system 13 Interconnecting & header pipes 17 others 60

25 Thermodynamic unit Unit economics (capital cost) C TU C TU C st C SG C EPG C BOS Components (capital cost) Values ($/kw) Structure C st 73 Steam generator C SG 100 Electric power generating system C EPG 367 Balance of system C BOS 213

26 Solar Thermal Power Plant Operation & maintenance (O&M) cost C OM k TU C TU k sol C sol k TU k sol O&M factor for thermodynamic unit 2 % O&M factor for solar unit 2 %

27 Solar Thermal Power Plant Cost of electricity production C e K [(1 k CFP 8760 sol ) C sol SP PN (1 k TU ) C TU ] K CRFe ef CRFe i 1 (1 i) N CFP: power plant capacity factor E out : net yearly electricity production ef: sum of other economic factors such as insurance, tax, etc. i: discount rate N: equipment lifetime

28 Solar Thermal Power Plant Fiscal parameters Parameters values Taxes Indirect cost Insurance Discount rate Inflation rate 0.007

29 Electrolysis unit Electrolyzer characteristics Factor Value Coupling efficiency 0.85 lifetime 20 years Rated current (ma/cm²) 134 Rated voltage (V) 1.74 Operating current (ma/cm²) 268 Capital cost ($/kw) 800 Capacity factor 70 %

30 Cost of hydrogen The cost of hydrogen: C h C ehc C ehe C ehe C n n e e rec C ehc C elec K 8760 n rec e C n rec rec CF

31 Hydrogen cost ($/kg) Adrar Annaba CSP/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost Hydrogen production cost decreases with increasing irradiance Decrease in cost by more than 8 % for an irradiance increase by 43 %

32 Adrar Annaba Adrar Hydrogen cost ($/kg) Annaba Adrar Annaba Comparison of hydrogen cost using solar based techniques 12 9 PV CPV CSP SI ( R. Liberatore et al. 2016) CPV Hydrogen production is the most competitive as it uses on both form of energy: electrical and thermal

33 Nuclear Hydrogen Production

34 Nuclear hydrogen production-case Study Economic Analysis of Nuclear hydrogen production Using HEEP Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4 Reactor type APWR APWR 1000 HTGR -co HTGR Process type CE CE HTSE/SI HTSE/SI Capacity factor 93% 90% 90% 90% Construction period 5 years 3 years 3 years 3 years

35 Fiscal parameters Discount rate 6 % Inflation rate 1 % Equity to Debt ratio 70:30 Interest on borrowings 6 % Tax rate 1.5 % Depreciation period 20 years Planning Operating life Cooling before decommissioning Decommissioning period 40 years 2 years 10 years 35

36 Conventional electrolysis Nuclear Power Plant -SMR (NPP) Electricity Hydrogen Generation Plant (HGP) H 2 O + Energy H 2 + ½ O 2 Energy H 2 O Electrolyzer H 2 O 2

37 Nuclear Power Plant Data Case-1 Case-2 Reactor type APWR APWR (AP1000) Rated power capacity 719 MWe 1117 MWe Number of units 2 2 Capital investment ($10 6 /unit) Annual O&M cost ( % of capital cost) Annual fuel cost ($ 10 6 ) Decommissioning cost (% of capital cost) 2.8% 2.8%

38 Hydrogen Generation Plant Data Process type CE CE Hydrogen production (10 6 kg/year) Capital cost ($ 10 6 /unit ) Number of units 1 1 Annual O&M expenses (percent of capital cost) 4 4 Demineralised water consumption (109 l/year) Decommissioning cost (percent of capital cost) 10 10

39 Hydrogen cost ($/kg) 14,4 tons/hour 28,8 tons/hour Conventional electrolysis: hydrogen production cost There is a reduction in the hydrogen production cost as the production rate goes up. There is a decrease of more than 28 % as the production rate doubles

40 Hydrogen cost fraction ($/kg) 28,8 tons/hour 14,4 tons/hour 14,4 tons/hour 28,8 tons/hour Conventional electrolysis: fractional cost ,7% NPP HGP 88% G The cost related to the nuclear power plant dominates the cost of hydrogen production However, this cost drops with the increase in hydrogen production rate

41 High Temperature Process Two different sources for the needed energy External electricity source CONVENTIONAL SMR (NPP) Heat Intermediate Heat Heat Exchanger Hydrogen Generation Plant (HGP) COGERATION SMR (NPP) Heat Electricity Intermediate Heat Heat Exchanger Hydrogen Generation Plant (HGP)

42 Energie (Wh/mole) Heat High Temperature Process: HTSE vaporizes the water and brings it to the electrolysis temperature NPP Electricity steam electrolysis grid 1 : Theoretically: Water electrolysis 75 E H G T S 60 H 45 G 30 Real case: we have to add losses E H / 15 e T S Temperature ( C) 42

43 H 2 O High Temperature Process: SI Heat for process operation NPP Electricity for non process operation grid ~900 o C H 2 SO > SO 2 + H 2 O + 1/2 O 2 O 2 H 2 SO 4 Regeneration SO 2 + I 2 + 2H 2 O ~ > H 2 SO 4 + o C 2HI SO 2 & H 2 O I 2 regeneration HI ~400 o C H2 2HI > H 2 + I 2

44 High Temperature Process: no-cogeneration case Nuclear Power Plant Data HTSE SI Reactor type HTGR HTGR Thermal rating (MWth/unit) Heat for H2 plant (MWth/unit) Electricity rating (Mwe/unit) 0 0 Nombre of units 2 2 Initial fuel load (kg/unit) Annual fuel feed (kg/unit) Capital cost (10 6 $/unit) Capital cost fraction for electricity generating 0 0 infrastructure (%) Fuel cost ($/kg) O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) Decommissioning cost ( in % of capital cost

45 High Temperature Process: no-cogeneration case Hydrogen Generation Plant Data Process type HTSE SI Hydrogen generation per unit (10 6 kg/year) Heat consumption (MWth/unit ) Electricity required (MWe/unit ) Number of units 1 1 Capital cost (10 6 $) Other O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) Decommissioning costs (in % of capital cost) Temperature 850 C 900 C

46 High Temperature Process: cogeneration case Nuclear Power Plant Data HTSE Reactor type HTGR -co HTGR -co Thermal rating (MWth/unit) Heat for H2 plant (MWth/unit) Electricity rating (Mwe/unit) Nombre of units 2 2 Initial fuel load (kg/unit) Annual fuel feed (kg/unit) Capital cost (10 6 $/unit) Capital cost fraction for electricity generating infrastructure (%) Fuel cost ($/kg) O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) Decommissioning cost ( in % of capital cost SI

47 High Temperature Process: cogeneration case Hydrogen Generation Plant Data Process type HTSE -co SI co Hydrogen generation per unit (10 6 kg/year) Heat consumption (MWth/unit ) Electricity required (MWe/unit ) Number of units 1 1 Capital cost (10 6 $) Other O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) Decommissioning costs (in % of capital cost) Temperature 850 C 900 C

48 Hydrogen cost ($/kg) conventional Cogeneration conventional Cogeneration High Temperature Process: Hydrogen cost 3 HTSE SI Hydrogen production cost using cogeneration system is lower than hydrogen production cost using conventional system Reduction of about 8 % for HTSE Reduction of about 10 % for SI

49 conventional Hydrogen cost ($/kg) Cogeneration Cogeneration conventional High Temperature Process: SI fractional hydrogen cost 1,8 74 % 1,5 NPP HGP 1,2 60 % 0,9 0,6 0,3 0, Hydrogen production cost is dominated by the cost related to the nuclear power plant cost. G However the cost related to the nuclear power plant decreases as cogeneration is used

50 High Temperature Process: HTSE fractional hydrogen cost Hydrogen cost fractional ($/kg) conventional Cogeneration conventional Cogeneration 2,5 90 % cost related to NPP cost related to HGP 2,0 1,5 77% 1,0 0,5 0, Hydrogen production cost G is dominated by the cost related to the nuclear power plant cost. However the cost related to the nuclear power plant decreases as cogeneration is used The fractional cost related to nuclear power plant cost is more important In HTSE case than in SI case

51 Comparison of nuclear based hydrogen cost techniques Hydrogen cost ($/kg) 14,4 tons/hour 28,8 tons/hour conventional cogeneration conventional cogeneration 4 water electrolysis high temperature steam electrolysis sulfur cyle Hydrogen production by thermo-chemical Sulfur cycle is the most viable technique Cogeneration reduces the hydrogen production cost Increasing the production rates decreases also the hydrogen production cost

52 Comparison between Nuclear based hydrogen cost and solar based hydrogen cost

53 Technologies under consideration Solar-based technologies PV-electrolysis system CPV-electrolysis system CSP (parabolic trough) electrolysis system CSP- SI system Nuclear-based technologies APWR Electrolysis system HTGR Sulfur cycle system HTGR Electrolysis system HTGR HTSE HTGR-cogeneration Sulfur cycle system HTGR- cogeneration HTSE

54 low rate high rate conv cogen conv cogen Adrar Hydrogen cost ($/kg) Adrar Annaba Annaba Adrar Annaba Nuvclear CE Nuclear HTSE Nuclear Sulfur cycle solar PV Solar CPV Solar CSP Solar SI* * Liberatore et al 2016 Nuclear-based techniques of hydrogen production are more competitive than solar-based techniques of hydrogen production Hydrogen generated using nuclear sulfure cycle is about 5 times cheaper than hydrogen produced using solar PV

55 Conclusion

56 Conclusion Hydrogen produced using nuclear-based techniques is much less expensive than hydrogen produced using solar- based techniques Cogeneration allows the reduction of hydrogen cost. Solar based HTSE hydrogen production is at almost the same cost as nuclear based HTSE hydrogen productionhowever, the introduction of solar reduces drastically the emission of CO 2.

57 Work is underway : To determine the effect of cogeneration on the cost of hydrogen production using solar driven processes Techno-economic studies of solar-nuclear hybrid systems

58 Thank you for your attention