CO 2 -lean hydrogen export from Norway to Germany

CO 2 -lean hydrogen export from Norway to Germany H 2 Expo Congress Center Hamburg 22-23 October 2008 Steffen Møller-Holst Ann Mari Svensson SINTEF Christoph Stiller Ulrich Bünger NTNU Kari Aamodt Espegren IFE Partners:

Outline Norway s situation Export of CO 2 -lean hydrogen to central Europe Key assumptions and potentials Energy export chains Energy, GHG emissions, and cost results Uncertainties and qualitative factors Conclusions Hydrogen use in Norway Today Ambitions Tomorrow

Norway - facts you may not know Electricity > 99% from hydropower Huge wind resources Robust and flexible grid for integration of renewable power Transportation Europe s lowest share of public transport High taxation of cars and fuel Strong shipping/marine segment Oil and Natural Gas World s 3rd largest exporter of NG and 5th largest of oil Almost no NG infrastructure Potential for CO 2 storage in North Sea bed Topology & Population 17,000 km coastline 12 inhabitants per km 2 World s 2nd highest GDP per capita Courtesy: RCN

Norway - an energy nation. 3 000 2 500 Bioenergy TWh/year 2 000 1 500 1 000 Hydro- and windpower Natural gas Oil Other use Electricity 500 Transportation - Production Energy use Courtesy: RCN Trond Moengen, June 2004

Key assumptions Compare the export of different feedstock (NG; renewable electricity) from different locations (southern Norway; northern Norway) with the export of hydrogen generated from the feedstock with respect to specific energy use, GHG emissions, and costs Large-scale production facilities and energy delivery (>1 GW H 2 ; may supply H 2 to >1 million vehicles) Assuming H 2 is used as transportation fuel at large scale (timeframe 2020-30) End product: H 2 -delivered to distribution terminal in Hamburg (representing central Europe): Chains from Northern Norway - LH 2, Chains from Southern Norway - CGH 2 (20 MPa) All chains CO 2 -lean (SMR w/ 85% CO 2 capture and storage) Technology data based on HyWays, CONCAWE-EUCAR-JRC, Euro- Quebec-Hydro-H 2 -Pilot Project (maritime LH 2 -transport) All calculations carried out using E3database (LBST)

Purpose: NG (Snøhvit) current production 57 TWh/a Compare energy export options with respect to Energy efficiency Emissions and Costs 2400 km Onshore Wind (Finnmark) Technical potential 163 TWh/a Offshore Wind (Rogaland) Technical potential 4-40 TWh/a NG (e.g. Troll/Kårstø) Current production 300 GWh/a (Troll) 600 km Hamburg

Energy sources in the North -H 2 -delivery Hamburg SMR NG (Snøhvit) Hydrogen Onshore Wind Electricity (Finnmark) Natural gas CO 2 LH 2 GT LNG LH 2 Offshore Wind (Rogaland) NG (e.g. Kårstø) SMR GT NG/H2 pipeline Destination

Energy sources in the South -H 2 -delivery Hamburg Hydrogen Electricity Natural gas CO 2 GH 2 SMR SMR EOR

Primary energy use per kwh H 2 delivered to HH Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC NG => LH2, LH2-Ship NG => LH2, LNG-Ship Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe liquefaction HVDC losses NG liquefaction Lower flow velocity for H2 pipe 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Primary energy use (kwh/kwh H2) Feedstock production Feedstock transport H2 production H2 liquefaction H2 transport H2 compression H2 energy content Hydrogen export chains more or equally efficient as feedstock export

GHG emissions of hydrogen delivered to HH Reference-onsite SMR (w/o CCS) Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC NG => LH2, LH2-Ship NG => LH2, LNG-Ship Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe NG liquefaction Compression to 20 MPa NG compression NG production; emissions from 85% CCS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 CO2 equivalent emissions (g/kwh H2) NG/LNG production Transport NG SMR (85% CO2 captured) Electricity for liquefaction Auxiliary grid electricity Reference All chains reduce GHG emissions significantly against reference

Costs of export equipment (w/o primary energy) Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC NG => LH2, LH2-Ship NG => LH2, LNG-Ship HVDC highest investment Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe H2 pipe more expensive than NG pipe but still no major cost NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Capital and O&M Costs ( /kwh H2) (Feedstock not included) Feedstock transport H2 production H2 liquefaction H2 transport CO2 burden (50 /t) Highest uncertainties for LH2 ship and long HVDC

Specific costs of hydrogen delivered to Hamburg over cost of feedstock Product cost ( /kwh) Germany 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 LNG cheaper 0.1 than LH2-ship 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 Wind-LH2 ship significantly cheaper than long HVDC Transmission to shore Wind-H2 pipeline slightly cheaper than HVDC NG pipeline and H2 pipeline similar Assumed German NG market price 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Feedstock cost ( /kwh) Norway 1a - NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe 1b - NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe 2a - Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC 2b - Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe 3a - NG => LH2, LNG-Ship 3b - NG => LH2, LH2-Ship 4a - Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC 4b - Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship 1a - NG, NG-Pipe 2a - Wind offsh., HVDC 3a - NG, LNG-Ship 4a - Wind onsh. HVDC Energy cost assumptions for this work Break even range with today's conventional fuels All hydrogen options except wind-hvdc seem competitive with today s conventional fuels (untaxed) on a per-km basis (grey shaded area) Pipelines from south are inexpensive, but pipelines from North (distance x 4) would have significant recompression losses

Uncertainties / Qualitative factors Option 1a - NG => CGH 2, NG-Pipe 1b - NG => CGH 2, H 2 -Pipe 2a - Wind offsh. => CGH 2, HVDC 2b - Wind offsh. => CGH 2, H 2 -Pipe 3a - NG => LH 2, LNG-Ship 3b - NG => LH 2, LH 2 -Ship Use of Norwegian expertise NG, pipeline NG, pipeline, CCS few process steps in Norway electrolysis, pipeline NG, operation of process steps NG, CCS, operation of process steps Feedstock flexibility End-use flexibility Environmental impact/ land area use only NG feedstock; pipeline may be convertible to hydrogen piped H 2 can come from any primary energy transmitted electricity can come from any primary energy piped H 2 can come from any primary energy direct use of NG (CO 2!), stationary electricity or transportation H 2 stationary use inefficient; only transportation stationary electricity or transportation H 2 stationary use inefficient; only transportation only NG can be feedstock direct use of NG (CO 2!), stationary electricity or transportation H 2 shipped LH 2 can come from any primary energy stationary use inefficient; only transportation sea bed pipelines; compression station sea bed pipelines; compression station sea bed cables; head stations sea bed pipelines; compression station few ship sailings; no sea bed/overhead installations few ship sailings; no sea bed/overhead installations 4a - Wind onsh. => LH 2, HVDC few process steps in Norway transmitted electricity can come from any primary energy stationary electricity or transportation H 2 sea bed cables; overhead lines; head stations; onshore wind 4b - Wind onsh. => LH 2, LH 2 -Ship electrolysis, operation of process steps shipped LH 2 can come from any primary energy stationary use inefficient; only transportation few ship sailings; no sea bed/overhead installations; onshore wind Hydrogen pathways have higher feedstock flexibility but lower end-use flexibility Hydrogen pathways increase use of Norwegian industrial and R&D expertise

Conclusions Norway s large potential of stranded wind energy, NG, and CO 2 storage can be utilised by producing and exporting hydrogen Assuming a market for hydrogen as transportation fuel, export of hydrogen (via pipeline or LH2-ship) appears economically interesting against HVDC Export of hydrogen from NG appears slightly more expensive than NG export, but more efficient (if hydrogen is the end product) Hydrogen export offers higher flexibility of feedstock and is compatible with Norway s industrial and research expertise (offshore & process engineering, electrolysis) Feedstock export offers higher flexibility of end-use Results used for the GermanHy study Where will the hydrogen come from?

Hydrogen availability 2008 Stavanger Source: HyNor Grenland

Norway s ambitions to CO 2 reduction -75 % CO 2 emissions in transportation required until 2050 Source: The Norwegian Commission on Low Emissions [NOU 2006:18]

Estimated share of vehicles (car pool) 100 % Car pool 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0 % 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year Hydrogen Electric Hybrid Conventional 100% hydrogen and electric cars among new sales by 2045 Hydrogen and electricity purely from CO 2 -free and lean sources Also reductions in goods transport and maritime sector will be required

Hydrogen demand Results, regional deployment

Hydrogen demand Results, local deployment (example)

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2010 1,000 cars total 0.05% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2015 6,000 cars total 0.3% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2020 11,000 cars total 0.5% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2025 110,000 cars total 4.8% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2030 350,000 cars total 14.8% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2035 710,000 cars total 29.2% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2040 1,100,000 cars total 45.1% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2045 1,500,000 cars total 60.6% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2050 1,750,000 cars total 69.7% of fleet Electrolysis By-product Biomass-to-H 2 NG-SMR

Acknowledgement The NorWays project is co-funded by the participating industry: and We thank all project participants for their support in carrying out the present study.

http://www.ntnu.no/norways stiller@lbst.de