Hydrogen Distribution Infrastructure - Jefferson Lab | Jefferson Lab
Transcript of Hydrogen Distribution Infrastructure - Jefferson Lab | Jefferson Lab
Hydrogen Distribution Infrastructure
Marianne Mintz, Stephen Folga, John Molburg and Jerry Gillette
Jefferson Laboratory Fuel Cells WorkshopNovember 12, 2002
Topics
Infrastructure components and “well-to-pump”modeling approachAssumptions and component cost analyses in CHAIN model“Well-to-pump” costs of hydrogen vs. gasoline by pathway and “build out” Conclusions
Components of “Well-to-Pump” CostsFeedstock acquisition
Crude oilNatural gasUraniumCoal
Feedstock transport and storage Processing
Petroleum refiningHydrogen productionCoal, natural gas or uranium processing
Product distribution and storage PipelinesCompressor stations
Dispensing and retailing
Define Pathways
Resource Extraction
Transport and Distribution
Processing Storage
Fuel EfficiencyDispensing
Vehicle Fleet
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Stock Adjustment and Infrastructure Models Estimate Pathway Costs
IMPACTT,VISION or
Other
Estimate Size of Facilities
Capital and O&M Costs
Economies of Scale
Empirical Cost Equations
Add & Replace Facilities to Meet Demand
Work Backward from Fuel Demand
Assume Standard Sizes for Equipment
Modules
Learning Curves
Physical & Economic Life
Efficiencies of Pathway Stages
Estimate Fuel Demand
CHAIN
Infrastructure Costs Are Estimated for Four H2 “Well-To-Pump” Pathways
NA Natural
Gas Extraction
NG
Purification
NG Transmission
NG Storage NG
Distribution
DecentralizedH2 Production
Coal Extraction
Coal Preparation Coal
Transport
H2Transmission
Uranium Extraction
Fuel Preparation
ThermochemicalWater Splitting
CoalGasification
Steam MethaneReforming
H2 Transmission
H2Distribution Hydrogen
Fueling
Station
NG-Based Pathways Require Additional Natural Gas Transmission Lines
The US has an extensive in-place NG transmission infrastructure …..
And a Track Record of Continually And a Track Record of Continually Expanding Transmission CapacityExpanding Transmission Capacity
New pipelinesNew pipelines
Additional compressionAdditional compression
LoopingLooping
All of the aboveAll of the above
Since the MidSince the Mid--1990’s Transmission 1990’s Transmission Capacity Has Grown > 4 Capacity Has Grown > 4 BcfBcf/d Each Yr/d Each Yr
4,030
2,574
6,542
8,460
12,350
5,613
1,875
1,725
6,210
6,350
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Mill
ion
cf/d
Source: EIA 2001
According to EIA, Nearly $5 According to EIA, Nearly $5 blnbln Was Was Spent on Pipeline Expansion in 2000 Spent on Pipeline Expansion in 2000
1996 1997 1998 1999 20000
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
552
1,397(Preliminary)
2,124
4,876
Mill
ion
Proposed
(Estimated)
Completed
2,380
Source: EIA 2001
Expansion Reflects Shifts in the Structure of the Industry and Its Resource Base
Increased production in deep-water Gulf of Mexico and in western and offshore eastern CanadaReduced production in mature provincesShippers seeking greater access to alternate sources of supplyProducers seeking greater access to non-traditional markets (market integration)Increased use for power generation with resulting shifts in seasonal demand patterns
Unit Cost of Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines Is a Function of Diameter
y = 52981xR2 = 0.9534
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
0 10 20 30 40
Inches
$/mile
NG-Based Pathways Require Underground Storage
At the end of 1998 there w ere 410 underground natural At the end of 1998 there w ere 410 underground natural gas storage sites in the U.S.gas storage sites in the U.S.
W ith 76W ith 76 BcfBcf per day of W ithdrawal per day of W ithdrawal Capability and 3,933Capability and 3,933 BcfBcf of W orking of W orking
Gas CapacityGas Capacity
The Cost of Underground Storage Varies by Type and Capacity
• Capital cost of underground storage is a function of working gas capacity (projects with 2001-04 completion, 1999$)
• Working gas capacity per field: 5 x 109 scf
• Unit O&M cost: $0.224 per 103 scf delivered (Young Storage Field, CO)
y = 2746.7xR2 = 0.6947
$0$20,000,000$40,000,000$60,000,000$80,000,000
$100,000,000$120,000,000$140,000,000$160,000,000$180,000,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Working Gas Capacity (MMcf)
Steam Methane Reforming Has Large Economies of Scale
y = 5157200x0.58342
R2 = 0.905
$1,000,000
$10,000,000
$100,000,000
1,000,000,000
0 1 10 100 1,000
Ton/day
$
Conceptual Illustration of Pipeline Loop Supporting Local Hydrogen Delivery
Hydrogen Production
Transmission Pipeline
Distribution Main
Refueling Stations
Hydrogen Distribution Assumptionsfor Centralized H2 Production
Ca Assumes 180 refueling stations, a service pipeline unit length of 15 miles, and 3
stations per service pipeline.
900 a3$400,000H2 Service Pipeline Connecting H2Refueling Stations with Pipeline Ring
15712$1,000,000H2 Distribution Pipeline Ring
10012$1,000,000H2 Transmission Pipeline Connecting Pipeline Ring with H2Production Plant
Length (mi)
Diameter (in)
Unit Cost($/mi)Component
Annualized H2 Cost Declines with Scale and Investment Amortization
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
$/gge
Decentralized SMR
Centralized SMR
Nuclear
More Costly Production and Distribution Increase H2 “Well-To-Pump” Cost Relative to Gasoline
Crude oil represents 61%, distribution 10%, and refining 21% of gasoline cost (for $28/bbl crude)H2 production accounts for >60% of cost in nuclear path; ~25% in centralized NG path Distribution accounts for ~25% of H2 cost in nuclear and centralized NG paths Costs decline over time as infrastructure is “built out” and amortized
2030
2015 $/gge$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00
Gasoline
Centralized NG
Nuclear
DecentralizedNG
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00
Gasoline
Centralized NG
Nuclear
Decentralized NGFeedstockFeedstock transpProcessingDistributionDispensing
Some Conclusions:With current technologies, on a well-to-pump basis, unit cost of hydrogen is likely to be 2-3 times gasoline. To offset this, mpge of H2-fueled LDVs must be at least an equal factor better than comparable vehicles.H2 transport and production are the largest components of all paths examined, hence appropriate focus for cost reduction.“Bi-” fuels, engines and distribution networks offer potential cost reductions, especially in the transition.