Hydrogen production and delivery analysis in US markets : cost, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
- 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 Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Science (SC)
- DOE Contract Number:
- DE-AC02-06CH11357
- OSTI ID:
- 1015919
- Report Number(s):
- ANL/ES/CP-60987; TRN: US201112%%59
- Journal Information:
- Conference Proceedings, 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
Similar Records
Projected Cost, Energy Use, and Emissions of Hydrogen Technologies for Fuel Cell Vehicles
Optimizing an Integrated Renewable-Electrolysis System