skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

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

Abstract

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 withmore » 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.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. Decision and Information Sciences
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC)
OSTI Identifier:
1015919
Report Number(s):
ANL/ES/CP-60987
Journal ID: 0074-1884; TRN: US201112%%59
DOE Contract Number:  
DE-AC02-06CH11357
Resource Type:
Conference
Journal Name:
Conference Proceedings
Additional Journal Information:
Conference: International Conferernce on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications; Apr. 16, 2007 - Apr. 19, 2007; Oarai, Japan
Publisher:
Proc., IAEA : Austria, pp. 366-370
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
ENGLISH
Subject:
03 NATURAL GAS; 08 HYDROGEN; 01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT; 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

Citation Formats

Mintz, M, Gillette, J, Elgowainy, A, and ES). Hydrogen production and delivery analysis in US markets : cost, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.. United States: N. p., 2009. Web.
Mintz, M, Gillette, J, Elgowainy, A, & ES). Hydrogen production and delivery analysis in US markets : cost, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.. United States.
Mintz, M, Gillette, J, Elgowainy, A, and ES). Thu . "Hydrogen production and delivery analysis in US markets : cost, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.". United States.
@article{osti_1015919,
title = {Hydrogen production and delivery analysis in US markets : cost, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.},
author = {Mintz, M and Gillette, J and Elgowainy, A and ES)},
abstractNote = {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.},
doi = {},
journal = {Conference Proceedings},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2009},
month = {1}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share: