Supplementary Information for · Web viewEstimates for the global hydrogen market vary from 255-725...

Supplementary Information forFuture cost and performance of water electrolysis: An expert elicitation studyO. Schmidt1,2*, A. Gambhir1, I. Staffell2, A. Hawkes3, J. Nelson1 and S. Few1

1Imperial College London, Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK. 2Imperial College London, Centre for Environmental Policy, 13-15 Princes Gardens, London SW7 2AZ, UK.3Imperial College London, Department of Chemical Engineering, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.*e-mail: [email protected]

Expert Elicitation Protocol as used in elicitations

Expert Elicitation on Electrolysis – Background InformationIntroduction The Grantham Institute and Energy Futures Laboratory at Imperial College London

are investigating the potential role of different electricity storage technologies in future low-carbon electricity systems.

As part of this research, we are interested in the development of electrolysis costs, performance and environmental impact by 2030.

This will enable us to consider the potential role of electrolysis in combination with hydrogen or methane storage to balance intermittent renewable electricity sources chiefly for grid scale applications (e.g. 10 MW).

We are seeking the views of experts in electrolysis technologies on:o The potential sources of cost reduction and performance improvement to 2030;o The potential scale of cost reduction and performance improvement.

Background to expert elicitations Expert elicitations use structured discussions with experts in a particular field to

elicit estimates (often median and extreme values) around uncertain variables; A potential shortcoming of eliciting expert views is the presence of heuristics and

biases. The three most common types are:o Overconfidence – An overconfident assessment typically produces ranges that

are too narrow.o Anchoring – This describes the tendency to rely too heavily on a first piece of

information (the “anchor”), and adjust relatively conservatively from this when making probabilistic decisions, rather than fully considering factors which may influence a quantity of interest.

o Availability – This describes the heuristic procedure of making a decision according to the ease with which one can imagine an event occurring, which may for example bias judgements towards recent trends or events.

Experienced researchers who have undertaken many elicitations recommend that, in order to counter such heuristics and biases, it is worth: o providing detailed background information on the field in question,o asking experts to first state ranges for their estimates before estimating a median

value, o asking experts to justify their estimates, o asking experts to consider circumstances in which estimated values may lie at or

outside extreme ranges, and revise estimates if necessary / appropriate.

A note on Percentile EstimatesIn this elicitation we explore extreme values by asking for 10th and 90th percentile estimates. The 90th percentile estimate, X, is the point at which the expert believes there is a

90% chance that the “true” value is less than X, and a 10% chance that it is greater than X.

The 10th percentile estimate, Y, is the point at which the expert believes there is a 10% chance that the “true” value is less than Y, and a 90% chance that it is greater than Y.

Background on Electrolysis TechnologyThe following context is intended to ensure experts are aware of current information on electrolysis, regarding technology performance and potential improvements, current and projected costs, environmental footprint and potential future market.

1 Technology Overview

Water electrolysis can be performed with three different technologies: Alkaline electrolysis (Alkaline) Proton Exchange Membrane electrolysis (PEM) Solid Oxide electrolysis cells (SOEC)

Alkaline PEM SOEC

Figure 1 – Alkaline, PEM and solid oxide electrolysis cells [Steinmüller, 2014]

All three technologies differ in chemistry, cell characteristics, operation parameters and development stage. The parameters are summarized in the table below.

Table 1 – Main characteristics [Smolinka, 2011& 2014], [Kilner, 2012], [planSOEC, 2011], [Lehner, 2014]

Alkaline PEM SOEC1

Electrolyte Aq. potassium hydroxide (20-40 wt.% KOH)

Acidic, solid ionomer membrane (Nafion)

Yttria Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ)2

Cathode Ni or Ni-plated steel Pt and Pt-Pd, C-fibre Ni/YSZAnode Ni or Co RuO2, IrO2, Porous Ti LSM/YSZCurrent density(A/cm2) 0.2 – 0.4 0.6 – 2.0 0.2 – 2.0Cell voltage (V) 1.8 – 2.4 1.8 – 2.2 0.95 – 1.3Cell efficiency3 (%)Specific energy (kWh/Nm3)

62 – 824.2 – 5.9

67 – 824.2 – 5.5

95 (105)4 3.7 (3.3)4

Cell area (m2) <4 <0.03 <0.01Operating Temp. (°C) 60 – 80 50 – 80 700 – 900Operating Pressure (bar) <30 <200 <8Production Rate (Nm3/h) <760 <30 <3System efficiency3 (%)Specific energy (kWh/Nm3)

51 – 79 4.5 – 7.0

47 – 794.5 – 7.5

-

Gas purity (%) >99.8 99.999 -Lower dyn. range (%) 20 - 40 0 - 10 -System Response Low dynamics Rapid response (<1s) -Cold-start time (min.) 15 <15 >60Stack Lifetime (h) <90,000 <20,000 <8,000Maturity State-of-the-art Demonstration R&D

1-Due to early R&D stage many cell and operating parameters not yet sufficiently analysed2-Zirconia-dioxide (ZrO2) with 8mol% yttrium-oxide (Y2O3)

3-Based on HHV of Hydrogen (H2)4-Excluding required heat energy (only kWhel)

Co-electrolysis Research has shown the technical feasibility and high initial performance of syngas production of SOECs by feeding CO2 and water to electrolysis cells [Jensen, 2007]. This facilitates both energy storage and the production of energy carriers, beyond electricity and hydrogen, by sustainable energy sources [Kilner, 2012].

Reversible systemsThe possibility of reverse operation, i.e. fuel cell mode, enables conversion and storage of energy through the congruent production of electricity, hydrogen and (for SOECs) syngas [Kilner, 2012]. Losses in efficiency and lifetime stem from the reduced activity and faster degradation of materials that were optimized for one operation mode and suffer in the different thermodynamic environments of the other. Thus, major research needs are [Soloveichik, 2014]:

cost-effective bi-functional electrocatalysts, especially for oxygen cathode ion-exchange membranes with high conductivity and stability optimized stack and BoP for water & heat management in both operation modes

General requirements in intermittent operation Operation at lower dynamic range: Avoid diffusion of alien gas to product gas

impacting gas purity Dynamic Operation: Optimize dynamic behaviour of system components

(pumps, regulators, separators); avoid thermic cycling Shut-down/Stand-by: Minimize events of shut-down (thermic cycling); enable

energy efficient temperature maintenance and pressure maintenance

Table 2 describes the potential current challenges for each electrolysis technology under intermittent conditions.

Table 2 - Potential issues with fluctuating power input [Smolinka, 2011]

Alkaline PEM SOECOperation at lower dynamic range

Diffusion of product gases, leading to low gas purity and potential safety shut-down at 2% H2 in O2 (Oxyhydrogen reaction)

Fouling of anode due to higher H2 mobility/ concentration

No major impact No major impact

Dynamic operation (load jumps)

Time constants of system components (e.g. pump, pressure regulator, product gas separator) higher than for cell stack

No major impact Potential temperature changes in stack lead to micro-cracks in ceramic cell, reducing lifetime

Shut-down

Diffusion of product gases, leading to low gas purity and necessitating cleaning process (e.g. with inert gas) at restart

Mechanic stress due to thermic cycling at shut-down and restart

Diffusion of product gases and recombination to H2O at electrodes leads to pressure difference in cells and mechanic stress

Mechanic stress due to thermic cycling at shut-

Mechanic stress due to thermic cycling at

down and restart shut-down and restart

2 Potential for innovation

The available literature suggests that potential technical improvements for electrolysis are focused on cell chemistries/materials and membrane and electrode design to achieve performance improvements over various dimensions, i.e. efficiency, lifetime, flexibility. A range of possible improvements in electrolysis systems are described, and their projected impact on technical characteristics quantified, in Table 3.

Table 3 – Development potential for electrolysis systems [Smolinka, 2011 & 2014], [Kilner, 2012], [Carmo 2013], [Minfang, 2014], [Steinmüller, 2014], [planSOEC, 2011]

Specifications 2011 2020 2030 Development

AlkalineCurrent density(A/cm2) 0.2 – 0.4 <0.6 <0.8 New catalysts, improved electrode

design, membrane with less resistanceCell voltage (V) 1.8 – 2.4 1.8 – 2.2 1.7 – 2.1 see above

Cell efficiency (%)Spec. energy (kWh/ Nm3)

62-82 4.2-5.9

67-82 4.2-5.5

67-87 4.1-5.5

see above

Cell area (m2) <4 <4 <4

Operating Temp. (°C) 60 – 80 60 – 80 60 – 90

Operating Pressure (bar) <30 60 60 Better sealing concepts; mechanically stable membrane

Production Rate (Nm3/h) <760 <1000 <1500

Specific energy (kWh/ Nm3)

4.5 – 7.0 4.4 – 6.0 4.3 – 5.7 Reduced energy demand of system components

Lower dyn. range (%) 20 – 40 10 – 20 10 – 20 Improved electrolyte flows and process concepts

Stack Lifetime (h) <90,000 <90,000 <90,000

PEM Reduced catalyst loading/ replacement of noble catalysts

Current density (A/cm2) 0.6 – 2.0 1.0 – 2.5 1.5 – 3.0 New catalysts, improved electrode design, membrane with less resistance

Cell voltage (V) 1.8 – 2.2 1.7 – 2.0 1.6 – 1.8 see above

Cell efficiency (%)Spec. energy (kWh/ Nm3)

67-824.2-5.6

74-87 4.1-5.0

82-93 3.9-4.3

see above

Cell area (m2) <0.03 <0.13 <0.50

Operating Temp. (°C) 50 – 80 60 – 90 60 – 90

Operating Pressure (bar) <30 60 <100 Mechanically stable membrane

Production Rate (Nm3/h) <30 <120 <500

Specific energy (kWh/ Nm3)

4.5 – 7.5 4.3 – 5.5 4.1 – 4.8 Reduced energy demand of system components

Lower dyn. range (%) 0 – 10 0 – 5 0 – 5

Stack Lifetime (h) <20,000 <50,000 <60,000 Stable, long-life electrodes and stable membrane (mechanical and chemical)

Specifications 2011 Long-term DevelopmentSOEC Adapted electrodes/ electrolyte for SOEC;

Durable and highly active catalysts; Thermal cycling stability

Current density (A/cm2) 0.2 – 2.0 >2.0 Electrode stability at high current densitiesCell voltage (V) 0.95 – 1.3Cell efficiency (%)Spec. energy (kWh/Nm3)

953.7

>95<3.7

Improved operating conditions and materials

Cell area (m2) <0.01Operating Temp. (°C) 800-1,000 550-800 Improved materials (LaGaO3 or CeO2)Operating Pressure (bar) < 8Stack size (Nm3/h) < 3Cold-start time (min.) >60Stack Lifetime (h) <8,000 >8,000 Improved electrode microstructure, More

active and durable catalysts/materials

3 Technology Cost

Alkaline & PEM - current [Bertuccioli, 2014] identifies current investment costs of 1,000 – 1,200 €/kW for alkaline and 1,900 – 2,300 €/kW for PEM electrolysis systems. This appears to be in line with the investment cost curve as a function of stack size by [Steinmüller, 2014] (Fig. 2) for medium-sized atmospheric alkaline systems (100-300 Nm3/h) and large-scale PEM systems (30-40 Nm3/h). Figure 3 and 4 display the cost breakdown for alkaline and PEM systems on a system and cell stack level.

Alkaline PEM

Figure 2 – Investment costs for alkaline (left) and PEM (right) electrolysis systems [Steinmüller, 2014], based on actual selling prices of manufacturers

Figure 3 - Indicative system cost breakdown for alkaline electrolysis systems [Bertuccioli, 2014]

Figure 4 - Indicative cost breakdown for PEM electrolyser systems [Bertuccioli, 2014]

SOEC - current SOEC electrolysis cells are still in the R&D phase. The literature suggests they might become available in 2015-2020 for approximately 2,000 €/kW [Bertuccioli, 2014]. Bertuccioli also states, that there appears to be significant uncertainty whether this technology will become commercially available at all.

PEM & Alkaline - projected The literature [Steinmüller, 2014; Smolinka 2011; Bertuccioli 2014] suggests that future cost reductions will be based on three major parallel developments:

Technology innovation Volume increase/ mass production Supply chain development

Bertuccioli projects future costs for Alkaline and PEM systems based upon a review of published literature, presentations, US DoE progress reports, manufacturer data sheets and original data gathered from manufacturers. These projections are summarised in Figure 6.

Figure 5 - Cost reduction trend lines for alkaline and PEM electrolysers [Bertuccioli, 2014]

[Schoots, 2008] reports a learning curve for alkaline electrolysis systems for the period 1940-2007 with a learning rate of 18 ± 13% (meaning costs decrease by this value with each doubling in production). In a report on the role of electric vehicles in Europe, a learning rate for electrolysis of 7% was assumed [McKinsey, 2010]. SOEC - projected Available cost projections for SOEC electrolysis cells are less detailed and specific due to the early stage of this technology and the less predictable cost development.

Table 4 – Studies on costs of SOEC modules/systems and related technologies

Technology Date Price Method SourceSOFC modules 2007 200–1,600 $/kW

APR = 5-500 MWCost analysis and production up-scale

DOE/NETL, 2007

SOEC modules Long-term 100 $/kW APR = 500 MW

Application of DOE/NETL figures to SOEC modules

planSOEC, 2011

SOEC system Long-term 250-300 $/kWAPR = 500 MW

SOEC system costs 2.5-3.0x higher than for modules

planSOEC, 2011

SOEC system 2020-2030 1000 €/kW APR = not specified

Stakeholder interviews Bertuccioli, 2014

SOEC system 2030+ 300 €/kWAPR = not specified

Stakeholder interviews Bertuccioli, 2014

SOEC system 2015 3,200 €/kW (150kW) APR = 100 systems

Bottom-up engineering assessment

Reytier, 2015

SOEC system 2015+ 1,400 €/kW (150kW)APR = mass production

Evaluation of improvement potentials

Reytier, 2015

APR – Annual Production Rate

Table 5 provides an overview of the projected costs for all three electrolysis systems.

Table 5 – Summary of projected costs for electrolysis systems [Bertuccioli, 2014; planSOEC, 2011; Reytier, 2015]

Alkaline PEM SOEC2020 370 – 900 €/kW 700 – 1,300 €/kW 1,000 – 3,200 €/kW2030 370 – 800 €/kW 250 – 1,270 €/kW 300 – 1,400 €/kW

4 Environmental impact

A limited number of studies investigate the environmental impact of electrolysis, namely resource consumption and emissions of electrolysis system production.

[Spath, 2004] identify the average resource consumption for a wind/electrolysis system (construction of 3 x 50kW wind turbines, 150 kW alkaline electrolysis system, steel tank storage). The wind turbines consume the largest amount of resources, followed by the storage facility and then the electrolysis system.

Table 6 - Average resource consumption for wind/ electrolysis system [Spath, 2004]

Resource Total (g/ kgH2) Wind Turbine Storage Electrolysis Coal 214.7 67.6% 26.7% 5.6%Iron 212.2 46.2% 30% 5.9%Iron scrap 174.2 52.7% 39.6% 7.7%Limestone 366.6 96.4% 3.3% 0.3%Natural gas 16.2 72% 12.6% 15.4%Oil 48.3 76.2% 10.7% 13.1%

[Spath, 2004] also analyse the emissions of this wind/electrolysis system. According to their analysis 0.04 kgCO2eq/kgH2 can be allocated to the production and operation of the electrolysis system, compared to 0.93 kgCO2eq/kgH2 for wind turbines and storage tank.

A review of 21 Life Cycle Assessment studies of hydrogen production via electrolysis, shows that the results initially found by [Spath, 2004] are “presented in all studies” and the environmental impact from electrolysis systems is “quite small” [Bhandari, 2013]. The review acknowledges the lack of understanding of the environmental impact contribution for the different electrolysis technologies and its components.

5 Current electrolysis market and potential future role in energy storage

Estimates for the global hydrogen market vary from 255-725 bn Nm3 [Fredonia, 2010], [Persistance, 2013], [IEA, 2007]. Only about 4% is produced via electrolysis. This would mean that the installed global electrolysis capacity ranges between 7-20 GW (assuming: 6 kWhel/Nm3, continuous production), which is roughly in line with [Schoots, 2008], who reports 7.5-13 GW installed in 2008. With an average lifetime of 90,000 hours, the annual market for electrolysis systems could lie between 0.7-1.3 GW.

In an energy storage context, commonly referred to as “power-to-gas”, electrolysis systems store renewable power as hydrogen that can be used for re-electrification, heat generation, transportation or as industrial feedstock. Figure 7 shows an international analysis of power-to-gas pilot projects and the increase in number and size [Gahleitner, 2013]. There was an increased piloting of PEM systems between 2002 and 2008, but alkaline systems appear to continue to dominate.

Figure 6 – Total installed power per electrolysis type in realized power-to-gas pilot pojects [Gahleitner, 2013]

Stakeholders of the electrolysis industry expect a strong development of installed electrolysis system up to a cumulative installation of 5GW by 2030, also due to an increase in storage applications [Bertuccioli, 2014].

Figure 7 - Stakeholder views of the expected development of electrolysis applications [Bertuccioli, 2014]

A study on the role of energy storage in the UK power system shows that by 2030 the installed capacity of bulk storage could range between 1.8-14.9 GW (4.1 GW at 150£/ kW.yr) and 1.7-14.8 GW (4.6 GW at 200£/kW.yr) for distributed storage, depending on its costs [Strbac, 2012]. The study considers all applications leading to potential savings in generation capacity, interconnection, transmission and distribution.

References

[Bhandari, 2013] Bhandari, R. et al., 2013. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis - a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, pp.151–163.

[Bertuccoli, 2014] Bertuccioli et al., L., 2014. Study on development of water electrolysis in the EU, Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking.

[Carmo, 2013] Carmo, M. et al., 2013. A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(12), pp.4901–4934.

[Fredonia, 2010] Group, T.F., 2013. World Hydrogen Market. Freedonia, p.331 pages.

[Gahleitner, 2013] Gahleitner, G., 2013. Hydrogen from renewable electricity: An international review of power-to-gas pilot plants for stationary applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(5), pp. 2039-2061.

[IEA, 2007] https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/essentials5.pdf [Accessed: 02.11.2015]

[Kilner, 2012] Kilner, A., Skinner, S. J., Irvine, J. C., and Edwards, P., 2012. Functional materials for sustainable energy applications. Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy: Number 35.

[Lehner, 2014] Lehner et al., M., 2014. Power-to-gas: technology and business models, Springer International Publishing, New York.

[McKinsey, 2010] A portfolio of powertrains for Europe: a fact-based analysis. The role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles. http://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Power_trains_for_Europe_0.pdf [Accessed: 01.12.2015]

[Minfang, 2014] Minfang, H., Hui, F. & Peng, S., 2014. H2O/CO2 co-electrolysis in solid oxide electrolysis cells. Energy Environ. Sci., 7(12), pp.4018–4022.

[NETL/DOE, 2007] https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/research/coal/energy%20systems/fuel%20cells/JT-Manufacturing-Study-Report-070522.pdf [Accessed: 02.11.2015]

[Persistance, 2013] Persistence Market Research, 2013. Global Hydrogen Market.

[planSOEC, 2011] planSOEC project, May 2011. R&D and commercialization roadmap for SOEC electrolysis R&D of SOEC stacks with improved durability; Richter, A., Pedersen, C., Mogensen, M., Jensen, S., Sloth, M., Chen, M., Nielsen, J. Topsoe Fuel Cell A/S; RISØ DTU; H2 Logic A/S.

[Reytier, 2015] Reytier, M. et al., 2015. Stack performances in high temperature steam electrolysis and co-electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(35), pp.11370–11377.

[Schoots, 2008] Schoots, K. et al., 2008. Learning curves for hydrogen production technology: An assessment of observed cost reductions. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,33(11), pp.2630–2645.

[Smolinka, 2011] Smolinka, T. et al., 2011. NOW-Studie "Stand und Entwicklungspotenzial der Wasserelektrolyse zur Herstellung von Wasserstoff aus regenerativen Energien"; Kurzfassung des Abschlussberichts, Fraunhofer ISE; FCBAT.

[Smolinka, 2014] http://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2%20Water%20Electrolysis%20Status%20and%20Potential%20for%20Development.pdf [Accessed: 30.10.2015]

[Soloveichik, 2014] Soloveichik, G., 2014. Regenerative Fuel Cells for Energy Storage. Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 102, No. 6, June 2014.

[Spath, 2004] Spath, P.L. & Mann, M.K., 2004. Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind / Electrolysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

[Steinmüller, 2014] Steinmüller, H. (Johannes Kepler Universität Linz), 2014. Power to Gas – eine Systemanalyse. Markt- und Technologiescouting und –analyse Endbericht. 2014. [German]

[Strbac, 2012] Strbac, G., 2012. Strategic Assessment of the Role and Value of Energy Storage Systems in the UK Low Carbon Energy Future. Report for Carbon Trust.

Expert Elicitation on Electrolysis – Elicitation Questions

To minimize the overconfidence bias, we remind you to reason in the following way:1. Use a pencil and eraser, rather than pen, so that you may revise your answers as

necessary.2. Think of the highest possible value and the lowest possible value. This is your

total estimate range.3. For each technology, provide the 90th percentile estimate of the characteristics in

question.4. Ask yourself if there are any circumstances that would result in a value higher or

lower than the value that you have reported. If so, please revise your estimate.5. For each technology, provide the 10th percentile estimate of the characteristics in

question.6. Ask yourself if there are any circumstances that would result in a value higher or

lower than the value that you have reported. If so, please revise your estimate.7. Having set your 10th and 90th percentile estimates, please provide your 50th

percentile (i.e. median) estimate, or best estimate.

Example of filled in percentile estimate:

Electrolysis system specification

We would ask you to base your answers on the electrolysis system that would best meet specifications for a grid-scale application, i.e. size ~10 MW, pressure 20 – 30bar. Based on IEA estimates, this could be the following applications and usage profile:

Applications Load Following Arbitrage Seasonal Storage

Usage Profile Charge duration: Minutes - Months Response time: >1sec Lifetime: 60,000 – 90,000 hours Operation: Intermittent

A. Electrolysis system cost (€/kW)

In eliciting future costs, we would like to ask you to consider cost reductions as a result of:

1) Technical improvements from R&D (only)2) Technical improvements from R&D + manufacturing scale-up

subject to the scenarios:A. 1x current R&D fundingB. 2x current R&D fundingC. 10x current R&D funding

and for: 2020 2030

1) Technical Improvements from R&D (only)

Assuming deployment of electrolysis systems to remain at current scale: Which technology do you consider to best meet the requirements outlined

above? Is there a difference between 2020 and 2030? What are the most likely technical improvements for this technology? What impact would such improvements have on cost of each technology?

Technology - 2020: …

Technical improvements: … … … … …

Note: Any currency possible (€/$/£)

R&D funding x1, 2020 (in €/kW):

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Please indicate your level of confidence in answering this question:

⎕ very low ⎕ low ⎕ strong ⎕ very strong


Technical improvements: … … … … …


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |



2) Technical Improvements from R&D + Manufacturing Scale-up

Assuming deployment of electrolysis systems increases with demand: Which technology do you consider to best meet the requirements outlined

above? Is there a difference between 2020 and 2030? What are the most likely manufacturing improvements for this technology? What impact would such improvements have on cost of each technology?


Manufacturing improvements: … … … … …

Note: Any currency possible (€/$/£)


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |




Manufacturing improvements: … … … … …


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,00

0

1,05

0

1,10

0

1,15

0

1,20

0

1,25

0

1,30

0

1,35

0

1,40

0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |



B. Lifetime (hours)

For the electrolysis system that best meets the requirements outlined above, we would like to ask you to consider potential lifetime improvements for:

2020 2030

and subject to the scenarios:A. 1x current R&D fundingB. 2x current R&D fundingC. 10x current R&D funding

Lifetime improvements - 2020: … … … … …

R&D funding x1, 2020 (in hours):

20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

55,0

00

60,0

00

65,0

00

70,0

00

75,0

00

80,0

00

85,0

00

90,0

00

95,0

00

100,

000

105,

000

110,

000

115,

000

120,

000

125,

000

130,

000

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

55,0

00

60,0

00

65,0

00

70,0

00

75,0

00

80,0

00

85,0

00

90,0

00

95,0

00

100,

000

105,

000

110,

000

115,

000

120,

000

125,

000

130,

000

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

55,0

00

60,0

00

65,0

00

70,0

00

75,0

00

80,0

00

85,0

00

90,0

00

95,0

00

100,

000

105,

000

110,

000

115,

000

120,

000

125,

000

130,

000

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |



Lifetime improvements - 2030: … … … … …


20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

55,0

00

60,0

00

65,0

00

70,0

00

75,0

00

80,0

00

85,0

00

90,0

00

95,0

00

100,

000

105,

000

110,

000

115,

000

120,

000

125,

000

130,

000

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

55,0

00

60,0

00

65,0

00

70,0

00

75,0

00

80,0

00

85,0

00

90,0

00

95,0

00

100,

000

105,

000

110,

000

115,

000

120,

000

125,

000

130,

000

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

55,0

00

60,0

00

65,0

00

70,0

00

75,0

00

80,0

00

85,0

00

90,0

00

95,0

00

100,

000

105,

000

110,

000

115,

000

120,

000

125,

000

130,

000

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |



C. System Efficiency (kWhen/Nm3H2)

For the complete electrolysis system that best meets the requirements outlined above, we would like to ask you to consider potential efficiency improvements for:

2020 2030

and subject to the scenarios:D. 1x current R&D fundingE. 2x current R&D fundingF. 10x current R&D funding

Efficiency improvements - 2020: … … … … …

R&D funding x1, 2020 (in kWhen/Nm3H2 or %efficiency, HHV):

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

104% 98

%

93%

89%

84%

80%

77%

74%

71%

68%

66%

63%

61%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

51%


3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

104% 98

%

93%

89%

84%

80%

77%

74%

71%

68%

66%

63%

61%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

51%


3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

104% 98

%

93%

89%

84%

80%

77%

74%

71%

68%

66%

63%

61%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

51%



Efficiency improvements - 2030: … … … … …


3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

104% 98

%

93%

89%

84%

80%

77%

74%

71%

68%

66%

63%

61%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

51%


3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

104% 98

%

93%

89%

84%

80%

77%

74%

71%

68%

66%

63%

61%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

51%


3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

104% 98

%

93%

89%

84%

80%

77%

74%

71%

68%

66%

63%

61%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

51%



D. Embedded Emissions (kgCO2eq/kgH2)

For the complete electrolysis system that best meets the requirements outlined above, we would like to ask you to consider the embedded emissions in electrolysis system production and operation (assuming electricity input with a carbon footprint of zero).

Embedded emissions reduction: … … … … …

2020 (in kgCO2 / kgH2):

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

2030 (in kgCO2 / kgH2):

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Hig

her

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |



Other environmental impactsAre you aware of any specific adverse environmental impacts of the manufacture / use / disposal of electrolysis systems? If so, please state these below.

Are you aware of any technical improvements or changes to materials which could reduce such environmental impacts? If so, please state these below.

Supplementary Information for · Web viewEstimates for the global hydrogen market vary from 255-725...

Documents

Transcript of Supplementary Information for · Web viewEstimates for the global hydrogen market vary from 255-725...