Hydrogen production and delivery analysis in US markets : cost, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

Conference · Thu Jan 01 04:00:00 EST 2009 · Conference Proceedings

OSTI ID:1015919

Mintz, M; Gillette, J; Elgowainy, A ^[1]

---

1. Decision and Information Sciences

Hydrogen production cost conclusions are: (1) Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) is the least-cost production option at current natural gas prices and for initial hydrogen vehicle penetration rates, at high production rates, SMR may not be the least-cost option; (2) Unlike coal and nuclear technologies, the cost of natural gas feedstock is the largest contributor to SMR production cost; (3) Coal- and nuclear-based hydrogen production have significant penalties at small production rates (and benefits at large rates); (4) Nuclear production of hydrogen is likely to have large economies of scale, but because fixed O&M costs are uncertain, the magnitude of these effects may be understated; and (5) Given H2A default assumptions for fuel prices, process efficiencies and labor costs, nuclear-based hydrogen is likely to be more expensive to produce than coal-based hydrogen. Carbon taxes and caps can narrow the gap. Hydrogen delivery cost conclusions are: (1) For smaller urban markets, compressed gas delivery appears most economic, although cost inputs for high-pressure gas trucks are uncertain; (2) For larger urban markets, pipeline delivery is least costly; (3) Distance from hydrogen production plant to city gate may change relative costs (all results shown assume 100 km); (4) Pipeline costs may be reduced with system 'rationalization', primarily reductions in service pipeline mileage; and (5) Liquefier and pipeline capital costs are a hurdle, particularly at small market sizes. Some energy and greenhouse gas Observations: (1) Energy use (per kg of H2) declines slightly with increasing production or delivery rate for most components (unless energy efficiency varies appreciably with scale, e.g., liquefaction); (2) Energy use is a strong function of production technology and delivery mode; (3) GHG emissions reflect the energy efficiency and carbon content of each component in a production-delivery pathway; (4) Coal and natural gas production pathways have high energy consumption and significant GHG emissions (in the absence of carbon caps, taxes or sequestration); (5) Nuclear pathway is most favorable from energy use and GHG emissions perspective; (6) GH2 Truck and Pipeline delivery have much lower energy use and GHG emissions than LH2 Truck delivery; and (7) For LH2 Truck delivery, the liquefier accounts for most of the energy and GHG emissions.

• Research Organization: Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
• Sponsoring Organization: SC
• DOE Contract Number: AC02-06CH11357
• OSTI ID: 1015919
• Report Number(s): ANL/ES/CP-60987
• Conference Information: Journal Name: Conference Proceedings
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: ENGLISH

Related Subjects

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT
03 NATURAL GAS
08 HYDROGEN
CAPITALIZED COST
CARBON
COAL
DESALINATION
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
GREENHOUSE GASES
HYDROGEN
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
METHANE
NATURAL GAS
NUCLEAR POWER
PIPELINES
PRICES
PRODUCTION
SEAWATER
STEAM
TAXES
VAPOR CONDENSERS