Hydrogen energy chains

Transcription

1 Hydrogen energy chains for H2NET annual meeting 24/06/06 Ben Madden Element energy Jupiter House Station Road Cambridge CB1 2JD tel fax

2 Element Energy were formed in February 2003 from the renewables group at Whitbybird. Strategy and Engineering services for hydrogen and fuel cell projects Innovation in new energy technologies and storage solutions Up to date and non-biased advice Project management and funding cracking the economics is key to a projects success. The company also aims to develop products through joint ventures and spin offs from consultancy activity Middlehaven energy strategy Hydrogen Solar cell CFD simulation

3 Contents Brief review of modelling work carried out to date Questions on the shape of the hydrogen economy DTI strategic framework model Summary of conclusions

4 An energy chain has a number of components which effect cost and CO 2 Primary Energy Source P.E. transmission Energy chain analysis allows us to understand the role of hydrogen in a low carbon economy. Hydrogen based chains can be compared on a like for like basis with conventional chains and potential non-hydrogen futures Transformer technology Energy Currency Energy transmission Additional energy in Service Technology Energy service

5 Most energy chain analyses have been carried out for transport A wide range of energy chain analyses have been carried out considering hydrogen alongside alternatives. Some of the key international analyses: CONCAWE well to tank and tank to wheels studies GM European and North American Well to Wheel Studies Daimler Chrysler analysis for the German Transport Energy Strategy Joan Ogden numerous papers And of particular relevance to the UK: DTI Strategic Framework for Hydrogen in the UK Tripartite study - Fuelling Road Transport Implications for Energy Policy, Eyre et al MARKAL analysis for the Energy White Paper Tyndall centre UK hydrogen futures to 2050

6 The GM study looks at well to tank and tank to wheel energy use

7 Crucially this allows an inclusion of the efficiency of the fuel cell

8 The GM study looks at well to tank and tank to wheel energy use

9 The GM study looks at well to tank and tank to wheel

10 Key conclusions from the GM study Numerous hydrogen energy chains offer reduced GHG emissions Hydrogen therefore has the highest feedstock flexibility Methanol FC vehicles have no real advantage over gasoline ICE Renewable hydrogen chains offer lowest GHG emissions Hydrogen based biomass chains have lowest CO 2 emissions The superior performance of fuel cells in transport is key to justifying the use of hydrogen chains.

11 The GM analysis informs the TES approach to pathways to hydrogen FCVs From Daimler Chrysler and the TES

12 The CONCAWE assesses both cost and CO 2 for a 2010 timeframe Hydrogen chains have some way to go on cost

13 Contents Brief review of modelling work carried out to date Questions on the shape of the hydrogen economy DTI strategic framework model Summary of conclusions

14 A number of key questions arise on the shape of a hydrogen economy Is there a role for hydrogen in a low carbon economy? What is the role of fossil energy prices? How should hydrogen be produced to minimise CO 2 emissions? How do we get there? Is there enough resource? Is hydrogen the best use of the resource (e.g. renewable electricity)? How should the hydrogen be used? Is hydrogen a valid electricity store?

15 Contents Brief review of modelling work carried out to date Questions on the shape of the hydrogen economy DTI strategic framework model Summary of conclusions

16 The DTI model considered a 2030 time horizon The DTI model came out of collaborative work between E4Tech, Eoin Lees Energy and Element Energy To answer the question does hydrogen have a role to play in the UK s low carbon economy, a complex energy chain analysis was devised. Costs and performance projections were used based on industry and literature estimates for cost and performance improvements. Assumptions used were checked for plausibility with a wide grouping and where doubt arose, conservative assumptions were used. Data sources include: Primary Energy MARKAL data primarily + CONCAWE (2003) Transmission costs Ogden (2002) for piped distribution costs and H2 infrastructure costs, PB Power (2003) + Dale et al. (2003) for electricity transmission costs, biomass transport (RCEP 2003) Conversion devices Industry costs for H2 equipment + future projections from numerous literatures sources, (e.g. Ogden (1999,2002)), Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) cost and performance estimates - Dti 2003 End Use MARKAL data where possible, for vehicles MARKAL data modified in line with CONCAWE (2003) results, industry standard projections for stationary fuel cells (e.g. Rolls Royce 2003), SPONS standard building data for boiler equipment etc. Throughout the model, prices are stated in 2002/3 UK.

17 A complex energy analysis tool was constructed Stages in the model Primary Energy Source P.E. transmission Transformer technology Energy Currency Energy transmission Service Technology Energy service Example components at each stage natural gas electrical grid SMR electricity electrical grid vehicle transport petroleum gas grid gasification natural gas gas grid generator illumination wind electricity solar PV biomass petroleum pipeline delivery truck electrolysis pyrolysis petroleum hydrogen biofuels petroleum pipeline delivery truck light bulb heater CHP engine heat etc Example inputs to and outputs from the model energy generation price kg CO 2 /kwh availability transmission costs efficiency equivalent carbon intensity kg CO 2 /kwh transformation costs efficiency equivalent carbon intensity kg CO 2 /kwh energy currency cost equivalent carbon intensity kg CO 2 /kwh transmission costs efficiency equivalent carbon intensity kg CO 2 /kwh cost of energy to end use sector efficiency equivalent carbon intensity kg CO 2 /kwh eg cost per km equivalent carbon intensity kg CO 2 /kwh well to wheel efficiency

18 On CO 2 grounds hydrogen has a clear role in transport Conventional passenger car CO 2 emitted per vehicle km (Passenger Cars, 2030) Bio-fuels Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.Gasol.30 Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.FT - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Non-H2 chains SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.LC.Ethan - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Grid.fuel.30 - Null - Elec.Gen.30 - Elec.T+D - Car.Batt.Elec.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - Null - NG.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.CNG.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2.30 Biomass H2 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2-Hyb.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.H2 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Sequestration Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.+Seq - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.H H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR+Seq.La - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Natural gas Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Wind.on.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Wind Nuc.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Grid.30 - Elec.T. - PEM.Elect.30 - Disp.H2 - Car.FC.H2.30 Nuclear kgco 2 /km

19 By 2030, numerous chains are cost competitive Life cycle energy cost per vehicle km* (Passenger Cars, 2030) Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.Gasol.30 Non-H2 chains Bio-fuels Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.FT - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.LC.Ethan - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Grid.fuel.30 - Null - Elec.Gen.30 - Elec.T+D - Car.Batt.Elec.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - Null - NG.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.CNG.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2.30 Biomass H2 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2-Hyb.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.H2 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Sequestration Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.+Seq - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.H H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR+Seq.La - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Natural gas Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Wind.on.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Wind Nuc.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Primary Energy cost PE transport Currency production Secondary transport End use Grid.30 - Elec.T. - PEM.Elect.30 - Disp.H2 - Car.FC.H2.30 Nuclear Cost per vehicle km ( /km)

20 The two analyses can be combined to give a useful graphic, which illustrates potential transitions Fraction of CO2 saved, relative to base case Comparison of the Cost of CO2 saving with relative size of saving (Passenger Cars 2030) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Nat.Gas IC 0% Biomass Ethanol NatGas + CCS NatGas Wind FT Diesel Nuclear Coal + CCS Gasoline hybrid battery Nat.Gas to IC-H 2 -Hybrid 275/tonne CO 2 avoided Coal to H 2 401/tonne CO 2 avoided Additional cost ( /tonne of CO2 avoided), relative to the base case Grid.30 - Elec.T. - PEM.Elect.30 - Disp.H2 - Car.FC.H2.30 Nuc.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Wind.on.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR+Seq.La - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.H H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.+Seq - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.H2 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2-Hyb.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - Null - NG.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.CNG.30 Grid.fuel.30 - Null - Elec.Gen.30 - Elec.T+D - Car.Batt.Elec.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.LC.Ethan - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.FT - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.Gasol.30

21 Doubling oil price from $25 to $50, makes the hydrogen options even more favourable Fraction of CO2 saved, relative to base case Comparison of the Cost of CO2 saving with relative size of saving (Passenger Cars 2030) 120% Nat.Gas IC Biomass NatGas + CCS NatGas 100% Ethanol 80% 60% 40% 20% Coal to H 2 /tonne CO 2 avoided IC-H 2 -Hybrid 0% Wind FT Diesel Nuclear Coal + CCS Gasoline hybrid battery Grid.30 - Elec.T. - PEM.Elect.30 - Disp.H2 - Car.FC.H2.30 Nuc.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Wind.on.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR+Seq.La - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.H H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.+Seq - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.H2 - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.FC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2-Hyb.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.H2.30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - Null - NG.T&D.100km.La - Car.IC.CNG.30 Grid.fuel.30 - Null - Elec.Gen.30 - Elec.T+D - Car.Batt.Elec.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.LC.Ethan - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas.FT - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.hybrid.30 Gasol.30 - Null - Null - Disp. - Car.IC.Gasol.30-20% Additional cost ( /tonne of CO2 avoided), relative to the base case

22 So, hydrogen has a role in a low carbon economy as a provider of transport fuel, from a number of sources Six options are identified for providing low cost carbon saving for transport (ideally with FCVs) Biomass Renewable electricity Nuclear electricity Natural gas as a transition and moving towards sequestration Coal requires sequestration Novel hydrogen production technologies could break through to deliver very low cost hydrogen. All such technologies use low cost, carbon neutral feedstocks. The reason that hydrogen makes sense for transport is that the fuel allows more efficient vehicle end uses and improves flexibility of supply. If batteries breakthrough, this will no longer be the case (considered unlikely).

23 For both heat and electricity generation there are better ways to use the initial energy resource Comparison of the Cost of CO2 saving with relative size of saving (Domestic electricity 2030) 120% Grid.30 - Elec.T. - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 SRC + CCS to FC Nuc.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 Fraction of CO2 saved, relative to base case Wind.on.30 - Null - PEM.Elect.30 - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR.La. - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2) % H2 chains Wind, nuclear 80% and SRC combustion direct to the 60% grid 40% Nat.Gas.30 - Null - SMR+Seq.La - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.H H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 Coal.30 - Null - Coal.Gas.+Seq - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 SRC.30 - Null - Bio.SRC.Gas.H2 - H2.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(H2).30 Lowestcost costchains chainscapable Lowest capable of delivering low of delivering low CO2 do COinvolve 2 do nothinvolve H2 not SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rd - Bio.SRC.Gas+Seq.H2 H2.T&Dlo.100km.La - FC.gen.(H2).30 Nat.Gas.30 - Null - Null - NG.T&Dlo.100km.La FC.gen.(NG).30 2 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rail - Bio.SRC.Com.Elec - Elec.T+D Mains electricity use Coal + CCS to FC 330/ tonne CO2 SRC.30 - Biocrop.Rail - Bio.SRC.Gas.Elec - Elec.T+D Mains electricity use Wind.on.30 - Elec.T&D - Null - Null - Mains electricity use Wind.on.30 - Wind.T&D.30 - Null - Null - Mains electricity use 20% Nuc.30 - Elec.T&D - Null - Null - Mains electricity use Grid.fuel.30 - Null - Elec.Gen.30 - Elec.T+D - Mains electricity use 0% Additional cost ( / tonne of CO2 avoided), relative to the base case 200

24 Except for niche locations, the role for hydrogen in both and heat an power generation will be limited Generation of electricity from hydrogen leads to thermodynamic losses which are avoided if the primary energy source is used directly for electricity production using a different technology The model shows that similar conclusions apply on a larger community scale (inc CHP). Fuel cells fed directly from low cost feedstocks (natural gas, biogas etc.) could have a major role due to their higher efficiency of conversion than conventional electricity generators. Electricity generation from hydrogen is only likely to be relevant in niche applications: Small portable applications where competition is with batteries Premium power applications, where fast response time of H2 fuel cells is desired Remote communities using hydrogen as the principle energy vector.

25 In 2005, it is true to say that using renewable electricity on the grid saves more carbon that generating hydrogen Wind to grid Wind to H2 transport When compared with grid electricity, CO 2 savings are lower if renewable electricity is used to make H 2 as a transport fuel (2005) ELECTRICITY HEAT TRANSPORT

26 But by 2030, with a decarbonised grid, offsetting transport fuel makes a greater carbon saving than using it for the grid (2030) Wind to grid When compared with grid electricity, CO 2 savings are slightly higher if renewable electricity is used to make H 2 as a transport fuel (2030) ELECTRICITY HEAT TRANSPORT Wind to H2 transport Note: battery vehicles!

27 The resource required for 20% FCV penetration is considerable but not impossible assisted by likely diversity of routes to hydrogen The table below estimates the new Primary Energy resource needed for 20% FCVs: Annual requirement Billion vehicle km (2030) GWh of H 2 required annually Number of 5MW wind turbines, or Number of 1GW Nuclear stations, or Global sustainability World markets ,400 19,200 2,219 2, Notes This represents GW. Oxera forecasts UK capacity of 22 GW in This represents GW. Current nuclear capacity is 14.9 GW, the largest station is 1.3 GW Million tonnes of dry SRC biomass, or This represents million ha. Current UK set-aside land is ~0.68 million ha. Million tonnes of coal, or Natural gas (as a % of 2003 UK consumption) 3.9% 5.2% This is 12 16% of the current usage of coal in UK power stations (53.7 million tonnes in 2003)

28 Contents Brief review of modelling work carried out to date Questions on the shape of the hydrogen economy DTI strategic framework model Summary of conclusions

29 Energy chain analysis allows us to make conclusions about hydrogen Is there a role for hydrogen in a low carbon economy? Yes especially for transport What is the role of fossil energy prices? Oil cost increases to $50 per barrel should make hydrogen cost competitive by 2030 How should hydrogen be produced to minimise CO 2 emissions? Six different routes deserve continued attention How do we get there? Transition via fossil fuel derived H 2 and hybrid ICE s will save CO 2 throughout the transition

30 By 2030, there is a clear role for hydrogen mainly in transport How should the hydrogen be used? Electricity and heating applications seem limited to niches Is hydrogen a valid electricity store? Numerous other technologies have better round trip efficiencies Is hydrogen the best use of the resource (e.g. renewable electricity)? Yes, by 2030 (with a decarbonised grid, due to inefficiencies of transportation Is there enough resource? Yes, helped by diversity of potential sources, however effort will be required to ensure sufficient penetration