Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure Analysis

Amgad Elgowainy, Marianne Mintz and Krishna Reddi – Argonne National Laboratory

Daryl Brown – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Mark Paster – Consultant

May 17, 2012 PD014

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

2012 DOE Hydrogen Program Review

Start: FY 2007 End: Project continuation is

determined annually by DOE

Lack of analysis of H2 infrastructure options and tradeoffs

Cost and efficiency of delivery components

Lack of appropriate models and tools/stove-piped analytical capability

100% DOE funding FY11: $350 k FY12: $325 k

Timeline

Budget

Barriers/Challenges

Argonne National Lab Pacific Northwest National Lab National Renewable Energy Lab

Partners

Overview

2

Relevance Provide platform for comparing alternative component, and

system options to reduce cost of hydrogen delivery Identify cost drivers of current technologies for hydrogen delivery to early market

applications of fuel cells Identify and evaluate benefits of synergies between hydrogen delivery options to

various markets (e.g., forklift market, FCV market) Evaluate role of high-pressure tube-trailers in reducing refueling station capital Evaluate the potential of novel delivery concepts for future market scenarios

Assist in FCT program planning Investigate delivery pathways with potential to achieve cost goals in MYPP Help with defining future funding priorities to achieve targeted performance and

cost goals

Support existing DOE-sponsored tools (e.g., H2A Components, H2A production, MSM, JOBS FC, GREET) Collaborate with model developers and lab partners Collaborate with industry for input and review 3

Create transparent, flexible, user-friendly, spreadsheet-based tool (HDSAM) to examine new technology and options for hydrogen delivery

Provide modeling structure to automatically link and size components into optimized pathways to satisfy requirements of market scenarios, and compute component and system costs, energy and GHG emissions

Collaborate to acquire/review input assumptions, analyze delivery and dispensing options, and review results

Provide thorough QA Internally via partners Externally, via briefings to Tech Teams, early releases to DOE

researchers, industry interaction

Approach

4

MOTIVATION FOR ANALYSIS (problem definition for early markets)

5

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

100 kg/day 200 kg/day 400 kg/day 1000 kg/day

Tota

l Cap

ital I

nves

tmen

t [20

07$] Other Capital

Controls & SafetyDispensersRefrigerationCascadeElectricalCompressor

$6/kg

$5/kg

$4/kg

$3/kg

$2/kg

$1/kg

Stat

ion

Leve

lized

Cos

t [$/

kg]

6

Early markets require high refueling station investment

Underutilization of the capital in early markets compounds the problem The problem is further compounded by the high investment risk (10%30% IRR doubles the station cost contribution)

Investment strategies for early markets must deal with capital underutilization

Move the capital of the major components (i.e., packaging components) to upstream of the refueling station where:

The capital has better utilization (serves multiple markets)

The capital benefits from economies of scale

The risk is distributed between different market segments and applications

7

Compressor43%

Electrical8%

Cascade20%

Refrigeration9%

Dispensers4%

Controls & Safety16%

FY2012 Accomplishments

8

Month/Year Milestone

October 2011 Developed three versions of HDSAM to assess 2005 and 2010 status of technologies, and define cost targets for 2020

November 2011 Evaluate current compression technologies

January 2012 Evaluate different configurations of high pressure tube-trailers and their viability for hydrogen delivery to early markets

March 2012 Develop demand parameters and examine cost of hydrogen refueling for forklift markets

May 2012 Evaluate role of high-pressure tube-trailers in reducing refueling station capital investment

July 2012 Examine impact of liquid hydrogen carriers on delivery and refueling station cost

September 2012 Document and publish analysis and supporting models

CURRENT COMPRESSION TECHNOLOGIES

9

10

Capital cost of station compressor varies with throughput and power

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60kg/hr

vendor1 - 350 barvendor1 - 700 barvendor2 - 350 barvendor2 - 700 barvendor3 - 350 bar (w/o controls)vendor4 - 350 barvendor4 - 700 bar

500 kg/day station

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0KW

vendor1 - 350 bar

vendor1 - 700 bar

vendor2 - 350 bar

vendor2 - 700 bar

vendor3 - 350 bar (w/o controls)

note power limitation

20 bar @ inlet

20 bar @ inlet

sing

le u

nit q

uote

s $[

2007

] si

ngle

uni

t quo

tes

$[20

07]

100 kg/day station

compressor throughput [kg/hr]

compressor power [kW]

350 bar 700 bar

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Pump power

compressor power

Pump power

compressor power

Pow

er [k

W]

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

Pump cost

Compressorcost

Pump cost

Compressorcost

Capi

tal C

ost $

[200

7] g p y ( yp

11

Compressors are more costly with greater variability and power requirements than pumps

350 bar 700 bar

Power α ʃ (∆P/ρ)

100 kg/hr capacity (typical for 1000 kg/day station)

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Pres

sure

[psi

]

Tem

pera

ture

[o C]

∆Massin [kg]12

Hydrogen compression poses additional challenges

In addition to high capital and power requirements, fast fills will result in significant heat build up cooling may be needed

Adiabatic Filling

25oC fill

-40oC fill

13

In summary: compression at refueling station poses four major challenges

1. High compression capital cost per unit of hydrogen throughput

2. Underutilization of the compression capital in early markets

3. High compression power demand (electrical upgrades)

4. Limited fill rate unless significant cooling is provided

HIGH PRESSURE TUBE-TRAILERS

14

Tube-trailer configurations impact capacity and cost

15

Evaluated cost implications of different tube trailer configurations:

Fill pressure (wall thickness)

Tube diameter

Number of tubes

Tube material (i.e., steel vs. composite)

Considering the following constraints:

Use ISO container (8’ x 8’ x 40’)

Weight limit of 80,000 lbs, height limit 13.5’

Empty trailer + Cab weight ~ 30,000 lbs

Material properties

ASME pressure vessel codes

Higher pressure results in lower volume utilization

16

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

2700 3700 5000 6250 7500

% V

olum

e U

tiliz

atio

n

Pressure (psi)

Composite

Steel

Cost of tubes increases with hydrogen load at given pressure

17

24in, 16 tubes

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

$450,000 $500,000 $550,000 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000

Hydr

ogen

Loa

d (k

g)

Tubes Cost ($)

NxN

NxN-1

Example shown for 3600 psi (250 bar) in composite tubes

Cost of Tubes

Near linear increase in cost with H2 load, but up to a limit

High-pressure tube-trailers require light-weight material (to stay below 50,000 lbs)

18

30in,9 tubes, $1280k24in, 16 tubes, $1280k

24in, 16 tubes, $1070k

24in, 16 tubes, $840k

24in, 16 tubes, $650k

20in, 9 tubes, $245k 26in, 4 tubes, $245k20in, 5 tubes, $240k 24in, 3 tubes, $250k 22in, 3 tubes, $250k

140 190 240 290 340 390 440 490 540

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Pressure [bar]

Hyd

roge

n Lo

ad (k

g)

Pressure (psi)

Tube-Trailers, Length 40 ft

Composite

Steel

Lincoln Composite (42in, 4 tubes)

Lincoln Composite (42in, 4 tubes)

HYDROGEN TRUCKING OPTIONS

19

Pipeline delivery is not a likely option for the demand levels in early markets

20

Evaporator

Pump LH2 Storage

Compressor

Refrigeration (-40oC)

High-Pressure Cascade

LH Terminal

GH Terminal

Liquefier

Liquefier

$800k

$300k-$1m

4000 kg

250-1000 kg

Loading in 2 hr

Loading in 6 hr Delivery every few days

Delivery every few weeks

Liquid delivery has advantages over gaseous delivery

21

LH2 GH2

Station capital investment

More favorable (with sizable demand)

Less favorable (high compressor/cascade capital)

GHG emissions Less favorable (high liquefaction GHG)

More favorable

Delivery logistics More favorable Less favorable

Other issues Boiloff rate Cooling to -40oC

Can benefit from surplus liquefaction capacity

Tube trailers eliminate need for onsite storage

Evaporation

Pumping

LH2 Storage

700 bar Dispensing

$300k-$500k

$50k-$300k

$100k

Compression

High-Pressure Cascade 700 bar Dispensing

Refrigeration (-40oC)

$300k-$1m

$150k-$300k

$100k-$150k

HYDROGEN REFUELING FORKLIFT MARKETS

22

Forklifts refueling demand reflects operating parameters

23

Operational Parameters Class I/II Class III

On-board storage 1.5 kg 0.8 kg

On-board fill pressure 350 bar 350 bar

Fuel consumption 0.3 kg/hop 0.05 kg/hop

Refueling time 2 min 1 min

Hours of operation per shift 6 6

Number of forklifts from each class

Number of shifts per day

Calculate daily demand of hydrogen and size refueling equipment

Evaporator

Pump

LH2 Storage

2-3 deliveries per month

4000 kg

4500-15000 gallons

Recovery Compressor

Forklift refueling cost estimates suggest opportunities and constraints

24

150 kg/day 300 kg/day

Total installed capital $850k $1.3m

Other Capital (including site preparation) $200k $400k

Cost contribution of refueling $2.5/kgH2 $2/kgH2

Monthly Lease of installed equipment (recover investment in 7 years) $15,000 $20,000

Monthly Lease of installed equipment (recover investment in 10 years) $10,000 $15,000

What we have learned: Hydrogen is available and can be delivered at a cost of ~$6/kg Current technology prefers the handling of volume deliveries in liquid form Business case exists for demand volumes > 150 kg/day Desired delivery frequency ~ 2-3 deliveries/month Lease of the installed equipment is a preferred option Some redundancy is built in to hedge against delivery disruption

Forklifts and FCVs have different refueling needs

25

Forklifts FCVs

Incumbent technology Battery Gasoline ICE

Operation range per fill 4-6 hr 350-400 mi

Fill pressure 350 bar 700 bar

Fill rate ~1 kg/min 1.67 kg/min (cooling required)

Demand profile Fairly flat High peak/average ratio

Utilization of capital High (similar to fleet operation) Low in early markets

High-pressure tube-trailers can play an important role in reducing refueling

stations capital investment and improve utilization in early FCV markets

GH2 Terminal p

Booster

Future Work

26

Evaluate advanced compression technologies and novel compression concepts Liquid ionic compressors, thermal compressors, electrochemical

compression

Examine issues related to liquid delivery options Boiloff rates, venting vs. recovery, liquefaction energy and GHG emissions

Evaluate storage technology options and new concepts e.g., pre-stressed steel/concrete composite tanks for bulk storage

Evaluate impact of chemical storage options on delivery cost and refueling cost

Relevance: Provide platform to evaluate hydrogen delivery (in $, energy and GHG emissions), estimate impact of alternative conditioning, distribution, storage and refueling options; incorporate advanced options as data become available; assist Hydrogen Program in target setting. Approach: Develop models of hydrogen delivery components and systems to quantify costs and analyze alternative technologies and operating strategies. Collaborations: Active partnership among ANL, PNNL and NREL, plus regular interaction with Fuel Pathways and Delivery Tech Teams, DOE researchers and industry analysts. Technical accomplishments and progress: – Evaluated current compression technologies – Evaluated configurations high pressure tube-trailers – Developed demand and cost estimates of hydrogen refueling in forklift markets – Evaluating role of high-pressure tube-trailers in reducing refueling station capital investment

Future Research: Examine new concepts and technology options for refueling station cost reduction (advanced compression and storage, and carrier options), revise/update data, and respond to Tech Team recommendations.

Project Summary

Amgad Elgowainy aelgowainy@anl.gov Project PD14

27