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

Title: Hydrogen demand, production, and cost by region to 2050.

Abstract

This report presents an analysis of potential hydrogen (H{sub 2}) demand, production, and cost by region to 2050. The analysis was conducted to (1) address the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) request for regional H{sub 2} cost estimates that will be input to its energy modeling system and (2) identify key regional issues associated with the use of H{sub 2} that need further study. Hydrogen costs may vary substantially by region. Many feedstocks may be used to produce H{sub 2}, and the use of these feedstocks is likely to vary by region. For the same feedstock, regional variation exists in capital and energy costs. Furthermore, delivery costs are likely to vary by region: some regions are more rural than others, and so delivery costs will be higher. However, to date, efforts to comprehensively and consistently estimate future H{sub 2} costs have not yet assessed regional variation in these costs. To develop the regional cost estimates and identify regional issues requiring further study, we developed a H{sub 2} demand scenario (called 'Go Your Own Way' [GYOW]) that reflects fuel cell vehicle (FCV) market success to 2050 and allocated H{sub 2} demand by region and within regions by metropolitan versus non-metropolitan areas. Because we lacked regional resource supply curves to develop our H{sub 2} production estimates, we instead developed regional H{sub 2} production estimates by feedstock by (1) evaluating region-specific resource availability for centralized production of H{sub 2} and (2) estimating the amount of FCV travel in the nonmetropolitan areas of each region that might need to be served by distributed production of H{sub 2}. Using a comprehensive H{sub 2} cost analysis developed by SFA Pacific, Inc., as a starting point, we then developed cost estimates for each H{sub 2} production and delivery method by region and over time (SFA Pacific, Inc. 2002). We assumed technological improvements over time to 2050 and regional variation in energy and capital costs. Although we estimate substantial reductions in H{sub 2} costs over time, our cost estimates are generally higher than the cost goals of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) hydrogen program. The result of our analysis, in particular, demonstrates that there may be substantial variation in H{sub 2} costs between regions: as much as $2.04/gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE) by the time FCVs make up one-half of all light-vehicle sales in the GYOW scenario (2035-2040) and $1.85/GGE by 2050 (excluding Alaska). Given the assumptions we have made, our analysis also shows that there could be as much as a $$4.82/GGE difference in H{sub 2} cost between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas by 2050 (national average). Our national average cost estimate by 2050 is $$3.68/GGE, but the average H{sub 2} cost in metropolitan areas in that year is $2.55/GGE and that in non-metropolitan areas is $$7.37/GGE. For these estimates, we assume that the use of natural gas to produce H{sub 2} is phased out. This phase-out reflects the desire of DOE's Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies (OHFCIT) to eliminate reliance on natural gas for H{sub 2} production. We conducted a sensitivity run in which we allowed natural gas to continue to be used through 2050 for distributed production of H{sub 2} to see what effect changing that assumption had on costs. In effect, natural gas is used for 66% of all distributed production of H{sub 2} in this run. The national average cost is reduced to $$3.10/GGE, and the cost in non-metropolitan areas is reduced from $7.37/GGE to $4.90, thereby reducing the difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas to $$2.35/GGE. Although the cost difference is reduced, it is still substantial. Regional differences are similarly reduced, but they also remain substantial. We also conducted a sensitivity run in which we cut in half our estimate of the cost of distributed production of H{sub 2} from electrolysis (our highest-cost production method). In this run, our national average cost estimate is reduced even further, to $$2.89/GGE, and the cost in nonmetropolitan areas is reduced to $4.01/GGE. Thus, the difference between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is reduced to $1.46/GGE, but it remains substantial. Given that these sensitivity runs demonstrate continued substantial differences between regions and between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, we believe that we have demonstrated the potential for significant differences in H{sub 2} cost between and within regions. We think the potential for these differences needs to be addressed in future H{sub 2} cost analyses. Finally, there are many issues involved in adequately estimating what resources might be used to produce H{sub 2}, how H{sub 2} demand will grow over time, and what H{sub 2} costs will be regionally and nationally.

Authors:
; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
EE
OSTI Identifier:
952408
Report Number(s):
ANL/ESD/05-2
TRN: US200913%%613
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC02-06CH11357
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
ENGLISH
Subject:
02 PETROLEUM; 03 NATURAL GAS; 08 HYDROGEN; 30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION; AVAILABILITY; CAPITAL; CAPITALIZED COST; ELECTROLYSIS; ENERGY ACCOUNTING; FUEL CELLS; GASOLINE; HYDROGEN; MARKET; NATURAL GAS; PRODUCTION; SALES; SENSITIVITY; URBAN AREAS

Citation Formats

Singh, M., Moore, J., Shadis, W., Energy Systems, and TA Engineering, Inc.. Hydrogen demand, production, and cost by region to 2050.. United States: N. p., 2005. Web. doi:10.2172/952408.
Singh, M., Moore, J., Shadis, W., Energy Systems, & TA Engineering, Inc.. Hydrogen demand, production, and cost by region to 2050.. United States. doi:10.2172/952408.
Singh, M., Moore, J., Shadis, W., Energy Systems, and TA Engineering, Inc.. Mon . "Hydrogen demand, production, and cost by region to 2050.". United States. doi:10.2172/952408. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/952408.
@article{osti_952408,
title = {Hydrogen demand, production, and cost by region to 2050.},
author = {Singh, M. and Moore, J. and Shadis, W. and Energy Systems and TA Engineering, Inc.},
abstractNote = {This report presents an analysis of potential hydrogen (H{sub 2}) demand, production, and cost by region to 2050. The analysis was conducted to (1) address the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) request for regional H{sub 2} cost estimates that will be input to its energy modeling system and (2) identify key regional issues associated with the use of H{sub 2} that need further study. Hydrogen costs may vary substantially by region. Many feedstocks may be used to produce H{sub 2}, and the use of these feedstocks is likely to vary by region. For the same feedstock, regional variation exists in capital and energy costs. Furthermore, delivery costs are likely to vary by region: some regions are more rural than others, and so delivery costs will be higher. However, to date, efforts to comprehensively and consistently estimate future H{sub 2} costs have not yet assessed regional variation in these costs. To develop the regional cost estimates and identify regional issues requiring further study, we developed a H{sub 2} demand scenario (called 'Go Your Own Way' [GYOW]) that reflects fuel cell vehicle (FCV) market success to 2050 and allocated H{sub 2} demand by region and within regions by metropolitan versus non-metropolitan areas. Because we lacked regional resource supply curves to develop our H{sub 2} production estimates, we instead developed regional H{sub 2} production estimates by feedstock by (1) evaluating region-specific resource availability for centralized production of H{sub 2} and (2) estimating the amount of FCV travel in the nonmetropolitan areas of each region that might need to be served by distributed production of H{sub 2}. Using a comprehensive H{sub 2} cost analysis developed by SFA Pacific, Inc., as a starting point, we then developed cost estimates for each H{sub 2} production and delivery method by region and over time (SFA Pacific, Inc. 2002). We assumed technological improvements over time to 2050 and regional variation in energy and capital costs. Although we estimate substantial reductions in H{sub 2} costs over time, our cost estimates are generally higher than the cost goals of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) hydrogen program. The result of our analysis, in particular, demonstrates that there may be substantial variation in H{sub 2} costs between regions: as much as $2.04/gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE) by the time FCVs make up one-half of all light-vehicle sales in the GYOW scenario (2035-2040) and $1.85/GGE by 2050 (excluding Alaska). Given the assumptions we have made, our analysis also shows that there could be as much as a $4.82/GGE difference in H{sub 2} cost between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas by 2050 (national average). Our national average cost estimate by 2050 is $3.68/GGE, but the average H{sub 2} cost in metropolitan areas in that year is $2.55/GGE and that in non-metropolitan areas is $7.37/GGE. For these estimates, we assume that the use of natural gas to produce H{sub 2} is phased out. This phase-out reflects the desire of DOE's Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies (OHFCIT) to eliminate reliance on natural gas for H{sub 2} production. We conducted a sensitivity run in which we allowed natural gas to continue to be used through 2050 for distributed production of H{sub 2} to see what effect changing that assumption had on costs. In effect, natural gas is used for 66% of all distributed production of H{sub 2} in this run. The national average cost is reduced to $3.10/GGE, and the cost in non-metropolitan areas is reduced from $7.37/GGE to $4.90, thereby reducing the difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas to $2.35/GGE. Although the cost difference is reduced, it is still substantial. Regional differences are similarly reduced, but they also remain substantial. We also conducted a sensitivity run in which we cut in half our estimate of the cost of distributed production of H{sub 2} from electrolysis (our highest-cost production method). In this run, our national average cost estimate is reduced even further, to $2.89/GGE, and the cost in nonmetropolitan areas is reduced to $4.01/GGE. Thus, the difference between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is reduced to $1.46/GGE, but it remains substantial. Given that these sensitivity runs demonstrate continued substantial differences between regions and between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, we believe that we have demonstrated the potential for significant differences in H{sub 2} cost between and within regions. We think the potential for these differences needs to be addressed in future H{sub 2} cost analyses. Finally, there are many issues involved in adequately estimating what resources might be used to produce H{sub 2}, how H{sub 2} demand will grow over time, and what H{sub 2} costs will be regionally and nationally.},
doi = {10.2172/952408},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Oct 31 00:00:00 EST 2005},
month = {Mon Oct 31 00:00:00 EST 2005}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • This report is one of a series stemming from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Demand Response and Energy Storage Integration Study. This study is a multi-national-laboratory effort to assess the potential value of demand response (DR) and energy storage to electricity systems with different penetration levels of variable renewable resources and to improve our understanding of associatedmarkets and institutions. This report implements DR resources in the commercial production cost model PLEXOS.
  • As the vehicle population in China increases, oil consumption and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions associated with on-road transportation are rising dramatically. During this study, we developed a methodology to project trends in the growth of the vehicle population, oil demand, and CO{sub 2} emissions associated with on-road transportation in China. By using this methodology, we projected--separately--the number of highway vehicles, motorcycles, and rural vehicles in China through 2050. We used three scenarios of highway vehicle growth (high-, mid-, and low-growth) to reflect patterns of motor vehicle growth that have occurred in different parts of the world (i.e., Europe andmore » Asia). All are essentially business-as-usual scenarios in that almost none of the countries we examined has made concerted efforts to manage vehicle growth or to offer serious alternative transportation means to satisfy people's mobility needs. With this caveat, our projections showed that by 2030, China could have more highway vehicles than the United States has today, and by 2035, it could have the largest number of highway vehicles in the world. By 2050, China could have 486-662 million highway vehicles, 44 million motorcycles, and 28 million rural vehicles. These numbers, which assume essentially unmanaged vehicle growth, would result in potentially disastrous effects on the urban infrastructure, resources, and other social and ecological aspects of life in China. We designed three fuel economy scenarios, from conservative to aggressive, on the basis of current policy efforts and expectations of near-future policies in China and in developed countries. It should be noted that these current and near-future policies have not taken into consideration the significant potential for further fuel economy improvements offered by advanced technologies such as electric drive technologies (e.g., hybrid electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles). By using vehicle growth projections and potential vehicle fuel economy, we projected that China's on-road vehicles could consume approximately 614-1016 million metric tons of oil per year (12.4-20.6 million barrels per day) and could emit 1.9-3.2 billion metric tons of CO{sub 2} per year in 2050, which will put tremendous pressure on the balance of the Chinese and world oil supply and demand and could have significant implications on climate change. Our analysis shows that, while improvements in vehicle fuel economy are crucial for reducing transportation energy use, containing the growth of the vehicle population could have an even more profound effect on oil use and CO{sub 2} emissions. This benefit is in addition to other societal and environmental benefits--such as reduced congestion, land use, and urban air pollution--that will result from containing vehicle population growth. Developing public transportation systems for personal travel and rail and other modes for freight transportation will be important for containing the growth of motor vehicles in China. Although the population of passenger cars will far exceed that of all truck types in China in the future, our analysis shows that oil use by and CO{sub 2} emissions from the Chinese truck fleet will be far larger than those related to Chinese passenger cars because trucks are very use intensive (more vehicle miles traveled per year) and energy intensive (lower fuel economy). Unfortunately, the potential for improving fuel economy and reducing air pollutant emissions for trucks has not been fully explored; such efforts are needed. Considering the rapid depletion of the world's oil reserve, the heightened global interest in addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and the geopolitical complications of global oil supply and demand, the study results suggest that unmanaged vehicle growth and limited improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency will lead to an unsustainable and unstable transportation system in China. In other words, while our projections do not definitively indicate what will happen in the Chinese transportation sector by 2050, they do demonstrate that by allowing uncontained growth in the number of motor vehicles and pursuing only incremental improvements in fuel economy, China may face severe consequences in terms of oil use and CO{sub 2} emissions. Many argue that China--and, in fact, the world--will not be able to accommodate such uncontained vehicle growth. The potential problems related to transportation energy use and CO{sub 2} emissions in China are, indeed, global problems; solving these problems will require international collaboration.« less
  • This paper describes the development of end-use electricity projections and load curves that were developed for the Renewable Electricity (RE) Futures Study (hereafter RE Futures), which explored the prospect of higher percentages (30% - 90%) of total electricity generation that could be supplied by renewable sources in the United States. As input to RE Futures, two projections of electricity demand were produced representing reasonable upper and lower bounds of electricity demand out to 2050. The electric sector models used in RE Futures required underlying load profiles, so RE Futures also produced load profile data in two formats: 8760 hourly datamore » for the year 2050 for the GridView model, and in 2-year increments for 17 time slices as input to the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model. The process for developing demand projections and load profiles involved three steps: discussion regarding the scenario approach and general assumptions, literature reviews to determine readily available data, and development of the demand curves and load profiles.« less
  • The historical growth of the demand for electrical power, the trends in selection of power plant fuels by geographic distribution, projections of power demand growth into the twenty-first century, and the potential impacts on national air quality resulting from the various alternatives of fuel usage are explored. In particular, power plants scheduled for construction from mid-1971 onward are surveyed to provide a basis for estimating the impact of national emission standards for sulfur dioxide on the electrical generating industry. Total installed power capacity will increase from about 320,000 MW in 1970 to about 1,000,000 MW in 1990, about 1,500,000 inmore » 2000, and 5,200,000 in 2050. Fossil fuels supplied about 83% of utility power in 1970. Fossil-fuel use will decrease to about 50% in 2000 and to about 11% in 2050, while nuclear power will increase from the present 3% to about 45% in 2000 and to about 88% in 2050. Barring any major unforeseen developments, such as cataclysm, catastrophe, or revolutionary scientific discovery, there appears to be reasonable certainty that national electrical power demands and supplies will approximate the growth curves delineated. (auth)« less
  • In the context of future power system requirements for additional flexibility, demand response (DR) is an attractive potential resource. Its proponents widely laud its prospective benefits, which include enabling higher penetrations of variable renewable generation at lower cost than alternative storage technologies, and improving economic efficiency. In practice, DR from the commercial and residential sectors is largely an emerging, not a mature, resource, and its actual costs and benefits need to be studied to determine promising combinations of physical DR resource, enabling controls and communications, power system characteristics, regulatory environments, market structures, and business models. The work described in thismore » report focuses on the enablement of such analysis from the production cost modeling perspective. In particular, we contribute a bottom-up methodology for modeling load-shifting DR in production cost models. The resulting model is sufficiently detailed to reflect the physical characteristics and constraints of the underlying flexible load, and includes the possibility of capturing diurnal and seasonal variations in the resource. Nonetheless, the model is of low complexity and thus suitable for inclusion in conventional unit commitment and market clearing algorithms. The ability to simulate DR as an operational resource on a power system over a year facilitates an assessment of its time-varying value to the power system.« less