The Role of Large Scale Hydrogen, Hyper Closing Seminar, 10/12/2019

Value chain analysis of liquefied hydrogen, ammonia and pipeline for long distance hydrogen transport

Yuki Ishimoto (The Institute of Applied Energy)Mari Voldsund, Petter Nekså, Simon Roussanaly, David Berstad and Stefania Osk Gardarsdottir (SINTEF)

1

Agenda

• Scope and objectives• Long distance transportation using LH2 and ammonia

– Assumptions– Highlights (efficiency, CO2 emissions and cost)

• Pipeline option for a short distance alternative– Assumptions– Highlights (efficiency, CO2 emission and cost)

• Comparison of transport options• Summary

2

Scope and Objectives

• Scope– The whole value chain from hydrogen production to the receiving

terminal including the “Hyper concept”.• Objectives

– To obtain quantitative results of efficiency, CO2 emission and cost– To identify important elements for improving the values chain

performances• Methodologies

– High level analysis (mainly based on aggregated energy intensities of facilities and cost from literature)

– Uncertainty: no existing commercial value chain for utility scale today

3

NH3 chain

LH2 chain

Loading terminal

Seaborne transport

Receiving terminal

Hyper plant(ATR)

Loading terminal

Seaborne transport FCVs

CO2 to storage

CO2 to storage

CO2 CO2

CO2CO2

CO2CO2

CO2Natural gas

Electricity

Northern Norway Rotterdam or Tokyo

Natural gas

Electricity

Power plants

Hyper plant- H2 production (ATR)- Liquefaction

NH3 Plant- H2 production (ATR)- NH3 synthesis- Liquefaction

End-use technology

Receiving terminal and cracking

Schematic diagram of the chains for long distance transport

LH2 prod: 500 t/d90% from NG10% from electrolysis

LH2 tank55,000m3 x 4BOR 0.1%/d

LH2 carrier173,000m3 x 3BOR 0.2%/dBOG for propulsion

LH2 tank50,700m3 x 7BOR 0.1%/d

NH3 prod: 3,180 t/d86% from NG14% from electrolysis

NH3 tank75,000m3 x 2

NH3 carrier85,000 m3 x 4Fuel oil for propulsion

NH3 tank75,000m3 x 3

Note: Terminal and ship data are for the Tokyo case

Delivered from LH2 chain:157,000 t-H2/y (Rotterdam)138,000 t-H2/y (Tokyo)

Delivered from NH3 chain:128,000t-H2/y (both cases)

4

Common assumptions• Seaborne transportation

– Origin: Hammerfest– Destination

• Rotterdam: Short distance case • Tokyo: Long distance case and Northern Sea Route (NSR) case

• Carbon intensity of grid electricity– Supply side (Norway): 16 kg-CO2/MWhel

• 98% from renewable

– Demand side (Continental Europe and Japan): 367 kg-CO2/MWhel• NGCC (conversion efficiency 55%)

• Utilization factor: 90% • Methodology for the analysis

– Hyper plants: Process simulation models– NH3 synthesis: Literature based specific natural gas consumption– Seaborne transportation:

• Analysis duration: 1 year• Analysis time resolution: 1 hour

– Cost data: based on literature

https://www.vesseltracker.com/en/Routing.html

23,407 km

Hammerfest

Tokyo

2,539 km

Rotterdam

Tokyo

Hammerfest

Short and long distance cases

Northern sea route (NSR) case

10,885 km

5

CO2 emissions

• CO2 emissions of the LH2 chain are

6

System efficiency and breakdown of losses

0,64

0,440,59

0,440,55

0,42

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

LH2 NH3 LH2 NH3 LH2 NH3

Rotterdam Tokyo (NSR) Tokyo (Suez)

Loss - Receiving terminal Loss - Ship fuelLoss - Loading terminal Loss - ProductionLoss - Cracking System efficiency

• The LH2 value chain is significantly more efficient than the NH3 chain if NH3 cracking is required.

• The results are comparable if NH3 cracking is not required.

• Power and fuel consumption in hydrogen production makes up the largest loss in both the LH2 and NH3 chains.

• Cracking accounts for the second largest loss in the NH3 chain.

• In the Tokyo case, ship fuel makes up a considerable efficiency loss for both chains.

• Transport via the NSR can improve system efficiency due to the shorter distance.

7

Costing of value chains: Assumptions• Cost of hydrogen = Total cost / Delivered hydrogen

• Delivery (t-H2 delivered/y)– LH2 Rotterdam: 157,000– LH2 Tokyo: 138,000– NH3 both cases: 128,000

• Natural gas price: 4.5 EUR/GJ• Electricity price: 38 EUR/MWhel• 25-year lifetime• 3-year construction• 90 % utilization

Total investment (Mil EUR2015) is estimated based mainly on literature.

Cost of Hydrogen

CAPEX

OPEX

Investment

Decommission

Labor

Maintenance

Insurance

Administration

Fuel

Electricity

Chemical & Other Consumables

CO2 trans. and storage

Production Loading terminal Seaborne transport Receiving terminal Cracking Total

LH2Rotterdam 1,846 1,068 (391) 275 (178) 1,473 (540) 4,662

Tokyo 1,846 1,380 (506) 1,318 (851) 1,479 (542) 6,023

NH3Rotterdam 2,616 286 102 294 430 3,728

Tokyo 2,616 286 409 294 430 4,035Numbers in brackets are Low CAPEX case.

8

2.9 2.1 2.1

4.3

2.8

1.3

0.6 0.3

0.3

0.2

1.2

0.5 0.3

0.7

0.5

1.4

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.9

0.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LH2(Conservative)

LH2(Optimistic)

LH2(Optimistic+Low

transportCAPEX)

NH3(Conservative)

NH3(Optimistic)

EUR/

kg-H

2 de

liver

ed

Production Loading terminal Seaborne Receiving terminal Cracking

LH2 NH3

Costing of value chains: Results

• Low cost case– Change production site to Southern

area: Location factor 1.3 –> 1.0– Financial support for introduction

phase: Discount rate 7.5 % -> 1.35 %– Capacity in the receiving terminal is

reduced to 200,000 m3 (~ 25 days).– Utilization rate 90->95%

• Low CAPEX case: Further LH2 transport CAPEX reduction based on similarity with LNG technologies.

2.5 EUR/kg*

* The target is in JPY. Value in EUR/kg may change depending on the exchange rate.

• The cost of both chains are in similar range in the conservative case.

• LH2 related facility cost should be reduced by R&D for transport facility.

Hydrogen cost for the Tokyo case

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Hyd

roge

n co

st (U

SD/k

g-H

2de

liver

ed)

Distance (km)

LH2

NH3

Rotterdam

Tokyo(NSR) Tokyo (Suez)

Hydrogen production only

Distance dependence of hydrogen cost

• LH2: Shorter distance can reduce transport cost

– Reduction of CAPEX– Reduction of BOG leads to

increase of delivered hydrogen amount

– Using NSR can reduce the transport cost of LH2

• NH3: Weaker sensitivity to distance than LH2

– Production cost is dominant in the total cost

Distance dependence of H2 cost in conservative cases

10

Sensitivity analysis of hydrogen costRotterdam case Tokyo case

LH2

NH3

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

CAPEX

NG price

Power price

Discout rate

Project year

Levelized Hydrogen cost (EUR/kg-H2)

NH3 R (ATR)

+20%-20%

+50%-50%

+50%-50%

5% 10%

30 y 20 y

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

CAPEX

NG price

Power price

Discout rate

Project year

Levelized Hydrogen cost (EUR/kg-H2)

NH3 T (ATR)

+20%-20%

+50%-50%

+50%-50%

5% 10%

30 y 20 y

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

CAPEX

NG price

Power price

Discout rate

Project year

Levelized Hydrogen cost (EUR/kg-H2)

+20%-20%

+50%-50%

+50%-50%

5% 10%

30 y 20 y

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

CAPEX

NG price

Power price

Discout rate

Project year

Levelized Hydrogen cost (EUR/kg-H2)

+20%-20%

+50%-50%

+50%-50%

5% 10%

30 y 20 y

11

Short distance pipeline transport• Kårstø to Eemshaven• Flow rate: 500 t/d• Outlet pressure 30 bar• Compressor(s) at Kårstø

– Draupner contains risers and platforms but does not contain any compressor.

• Route 1 (Existing pipeline)– 948 km (228 + 620 (subsea) + 60 (onshore and

subsea))• Existing:Statpipe (28”) + Europipe (40”)

– Inlet pressure of Europipe 83 bar at maximum– New bypass at Draupner

• New onshore and subsea pipelines– 50 km and 10 km– 12”

• Route 2 (New pipeline)– 660 km, 18”– Direct path from Kårstø to Eemshaven

Kårstø

Draupner

Route 1(Existing pipeline)

Route 2(New pipeline)

Eemshaven

948 km660 km

Dornum

12

0.74 0.74 0.64

0.44

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Existing New LH2 NH3

Pipeline Ship

Loss (Compressor) Loss(H2 Production)

Loss (Receiving terminal) Loss (Ship fuel)

Loss (Loading terminal) Loss (Production and liquefaction)

Loss (Cracking) System efficiency

Energy efficiency of the pipeline and short distance ship

• The system efficiencies of pipeline cases are almost the same (74%) because compressor power difference is almost negligible.

• The difference between pipeline and ship cases is the liquefier power consumption.

• The system efficiency of the pipeline is higher than ship cases for short distance transport (ca. 1,000 km).

• At longer distances, pipeline efficiency might be reduced due to higher inlet pressure.

Efficiency and losses for transport from Kårstø to Eemshaven

13

13 13 15

72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Existing New LH2 NH3

Pipeline Ship

CO2

inte

nsity

(kg-

CO2/

MW

h th)

Compressor H2 productionFossil fuel Craking and purificationReceiving terminal Seaborne transportLoading terminal Production and liquefaction

CO2 emissions of the pipeline and short distance ship

• Almost all CO2 emissions of the pipeline value chain comes from the hydrogen production plant.

CO2 intensity for transport from Kårstø to Eemshaven

• CO2 emissions from pipeline system are comparable with ones from LH2cases.

14

1.7 2.0

3.8

5.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Existing New LH2 NH3

Pipeline Ship

EUR/

kg-H

2 D

eliv

ered

Production and liquefaction Loading terminalSeaborne Receiving terminalCracking H2 ProductionCompressor Pipeline (Existing)Pipeline (New)

Cost breakdown of the pipeline and short distance ship

• Main cost difference between existing and new pipelines is due to CAPEX

• Main reasons for cost difference from the ship case

– Hydrogen amount delivered: no H2 loss assumed for the pipeline cases

– Liquefaction: liquefiers and NH3synthesis plant

– Transport: terminals and ships

• Hydrogen transport costs using existing and new pipelines are cheaper than using ship in the case of a short distance if destination is fixed.

Delivered hydrogen cost of transport from Kårstø to Eemshaven

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5,000 10,000

Hyd

roge

n co

st (E

UR/

kg-H

2de

liver

ed)

Distance (km)

LH2 NH3 Pipeline (This study) Pipeline (Literature)

Rotterdam

Tokyo(NSR)

Hydrogen production onlyEemshaven

Flexibility and breakeven range between ship and pipeline

• Breakeven range seems to be around a few thousand km.

• The optimum transport technology depends on range and flexibility requirement.

Pros ConsShip • Relatively weak

sensitivity to distance• Flexible destination

• Initial investment required even for short distance

Pipeline • Cheap for short distance

• Cost sensitive to distance

• Fixed destination

Dotted line is for illustrative purpose only

Pipeline cost literature: M. J. Kaiser, Marine Policy, 2017, 147-166

Note: the location factor of production plant and loading terminal in Eemshaven case is lower than other cases because hydrogen production plant is located in Kårstø (Southern area).

16

Summary• We studied value chain analysis of long-distance hydrogen transport

using LH2 and NH3 for both regional and global markets.• The LH2 chain is more energy efficient than the NH3 chain. • The LH2 chain is greener than the NH3 chain in terms of CO2 emission

from the chain.• The hydrogen costs of both chains are similar for transport to Tokyo.• It is cheaper to deliver LH2 to Rotterdam compared to NH3. • Hydrogen transport cost using pipeline is cheaper than using ship in the

case of a short distance if destination is fixed.• The optimum transport technology (pipeline vs ship) depends on range

and flexibility requirement.

17

Acknowledgements

This publication is based on results from the research project Hyper, performed under the ENERGIX programme. The authors acknowledge the following parties for financial support: Equinor, Shell, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Linde Kryotechnik, Mitsubishi Corporation, Nel Hydrogen, Gassco and the Research Council of Norway (255107/E20).

18

Backup slides

19

Schematic diagram of the Pipeline model

• H2 production– Liquefiers removed from Hyper adv plant (electricity and CAPEX)

• Compressor– Reciprocating, from 20 bar to pipeline inlet pressure

• Pipeline– Existing pipeline: 61.2 bar (12’’)– New pipeline: 73.7 bar (18’’)– No H2 loss (leak) during transport

• Platform at Draupner– New by-pass is installed.

Platform(New bypass)

Kårstø

Dornum

Draupner

New pipeline case

Existing pipeline case

Statpipe (28”) Europipe (40”)

New pipeline (18”)

Compressor 1

H2 production with CCS

Compressor 2

Eemshaven

Power station(30 bar)

Onshore pipeline (12’’)

500t/d

ElectricityElectricityNatural gas

Electricity

20

Energy balance of LH2 chain for power plant

• Energy efficiency– = (Output hydrogen + final stock)/ (Input resources + electricity + Initial stock) – Rotterdam 0.64, Tokyo 0.55

• Major energy loss– Production and liquefaction 34%– Seaborne transport 11% (Tokyo case)

Input to Hyper adv plant = 100

Shipfuel 2.7 in Rotterdam case

Hyper plant Loading terminal Seaborne transport Receiving terminalPrimary energy Demand

Note: the values are the total of flows into the node.

Production loss, CO2capture and compression

Seaborne transportation loss (utilized for propulsion)

* A part of exergy in LH2 is recovered in H2 compression in HRS.

21

Energy balance of NH3 chain for power plant

• Energy efficiency– = (Output hydrogen + final stock)/ (Input resources + electricity + Initial stock) – Rotterdam 0.44, Tokyo 0.42

• Major energy loss– NH3 synthesis 41%– NH3 cracking, purification 12%– Seaborne transport 9%

Input to NH3 synthesis = 100NH3 Synthesis

Cracking Purification

Demand

Note: the values are the total of flows into the node.

NH3 synthesis loss, CO2capture and compression

Seaborne transportation loss

NH3 cracking and purification

Loading terminal Seaborne transport Receiving terminalPrimary energy NH3 Cracking

Value chain analysis of liquefied hydrogen, ammonia and pipeline for long distance hydrogen transportAgendaScope and ObjectivesSchematic diagram of the chains for long distance transportCommon assumptionsCO2 emissionsSystem efficiency and breakdown of lossesCosting of value chains: AssumptionsCosting of value chains: ResultsDistance dependence of hydrogen costSensitivity analysis of hydrogen costShort distance pipeline transportEnergy efficiency of the pipeline and short distance shipCO2 emissions of the pipeline and short distance shipCost breakdown of the pipeline and short distance shipFlexibility and breakeven range between ship and pipelineSummaryAcknowledgementsBackup slidesSchematic diagram of the Pipeline modelEnergy balance of LH2 chain for power plantEnergy balance of NH3 chain for power plant