Task n°25 High Temperature Processes (HTP) for Hydrogen Production

1. Task n°25High Temperature Processes (HTP)for Hydrogen Production Paul LUCCHESE (CEA) Executive committee member Sabine POITOU (CEA) Operating Agent of Task 25

2. Task definition The objective of this Task composed by experts is to take part to the implementation of massive hydrogen production taking into account the whole Hydrogen chain. In this project, we consider: • Innovative high temperature hydrogen production processes (HTPs) with no CO2 emission (focus of the project). • Existing H2 production processes (such as alkaline electrolysis or steam reforming), only as reference processes (financial evaluation, technological and industrial deployment). • Hydrogen production process including CO2 sequestration, if this sequestration is a step towards a future innovative process with no CO2 emission or if these process can be considered as transition phase towards zero CO2 emission process. • Families of investigated processes: • - Thermochemical cycles (including pure and hybrid processes) • - Steam electrolysis • - Innovative direct water splitting • About the definition of “high temperature”, the criteria is over 500°C

3. Geothermy Nuclear HT solar Sulfur Iodine cycle   Sulfur Hybrid Cycle   Thermochemical cycles   Other cycles (UT-3, chloride-based cycles, etc.)   Ferrite Redox Cycle - Ceria Redox Cycle  Ce-Cl cycle High Temperature Electrolysis HTE      Alternative processes Water splitting by Plasma High temperature process short review Publication on thermochemical cycles Over 300 cycles already investigated or just suggested + numerous papers at WHEC ‘08

4. Milestones and deliverables: • Subtask A:State of the Art, leader: DLR, Germany. Summary sheets describing every process and respecting the same format and same evaluation grid for all processes. Worldwide mapping and technical review of the high temperature process studies and development (INNOHYP update). • Subtask B:Process evaluation, leader: ENEA, Italy. Description of the tools selected for HTP evaluation, reports on the application of these tools on selected HTPs. • Subtask C:Figures Of Merit & deployment strategy, leadership to be provided. Review of requirements for a deployment approach. Recommendations in terms of demonstration programs, platforms and deployment strategies. Figures Of Merit. • Subtask D:Communication, leader CEA, France. Permanent activity as communication and link with other projects and organisms, database feeding (relevant papers, books and websites).

5. Task 25 schedule:

6. Subtasks A (& D): Summarized process sheets. • Communication sheets: template approved during the last meeting. • Page 1: Process principle. • Page 2: Flowsheets & experimentation or existing prototypes. • Page 3: Heat source, energy field, materials, H2 cost evaluation. • Page 4: Contacts, main initiatives & scientific reference. 1st and 4th pages : non-specialists accessibility. Pages 2 and 3 : for scientists.

7. Subtasks A (& D): Summarized process sheets. 15 flyers. - EHT - I/S cycle • CDNG • HyS cycle • Zn/ZnO cycle • Chloride Family • Metal/Metal oxide • UT-3 thermochemical cycle • HYDROSOL • Plasma thermolysis • Techno-economics methods • Nuclear Heat Energy… • Screening Analysis of Solar • Steam Methane Reforming • Alkaline Electrolysis

8. Subtasks A (& D): Summarized process sheets. 15 flyers. Validated About to be validatedAbout to be finalizedWriting • EHT • I/S cycle • CDNG • HyS cycle • Zn/ZnO cycle • Chloride Family • Metal/Metal oxide • UT-3 thermochemical cycle • HYDROSOL • Plasma Thermolysis • Techno-economics methods • Nuclear Heat Energy… • Screening Analysis of Solar • Steam Methane Reforming • Alkaline Electrolysis Finalization planned for the end of 2009.

9. Subtask B: Process evaluation. Goal: Proposition of an assessment methodology to estimate the potential of new pathways of hydrogen production (R&D step) compared to mature processes (industrial step). Multi-Criteria Mapping Bibliographic review of techno-economics recent studies. 5 different studies carried out between 2005 and 2007: • 2 studies “so-called” interactive • MCM UKSHEC(UK) • MCDM (USA) • 3 studies “so-called” directive • INNOHYP (Europe and Australia) • Factor Of Merit (UK) • Sustainability General Index (Portugal) Hydrogen scenarios Hydrogen processes (or chain)

10. Subtask B: Process evaluation. Interactive study : UKSHEC : 6 visionsdescribing the UK energy system H2 has become the main fuel for transport (1-4) and energy service (1-6) (W. McDowall and M. Eames, Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 4611-4626.) Central Pipeline Forecourt Reforming Liquid Hydrogen Electricity store Ubiquitous Hydrogen Synthetic Liquid Fuel 15 Experts coming from different specialities have to “score” twice (optimistic and pessimistic ways) every vision and have to give relative weights to macro-criteria.

11. Subtask B: Process evaluation. Criteria and weighting Definition of criteria under the following broad headings : * Environmental * Economic * Social * Energy * security * Other 98 criteria – depend on the expert background • CO2 emissions • air quality • Toxicity • Visual impact • Regional impacts • Biodiversity • Non-carbon pollution • Utilization of available resources • … • Flexibility • Health and safety • Radioactive waste • Scale of tech. deployment • Quality of supply • …

12. Subtask B: Process evaluation. Weightings by institutional background. Bars are the lowest and highest weights given by participant. Environmental weight > social weight

13. Subtask B: Process evaluation. Mean (dark blue) and Extreme (light blue) weighted scores by institutional background. • Uncertainties on the final classification • (long term scenarios) • The most sustainable is “Electricity store". • The least one is the “Forecourt reforming” (GHG risks and gas dependence). • The most contentious is “central pipeline” (nuclear power, C sequestration and viability of a centralised pipeline).

14. INNOHYP(Europe and Australia) (Innohyp CA – final report. 2007. Rapport Innohyp CA-FR-CEA-07/05) FOM = P FOMi High energy density group Low energy density group i Subtask B: Process evaluation. directive study • Hydrogen production processes + energy source (+ final use) • Criteria : mainly economics and environment • Evaluation : for each criterion or overall indicator Factor Of Merit(UK) (B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809-819)

15. Subtask B: Process evaluation. Conclusions Different visions obtained from different methods can lead to divergent decisions. Interactive methods: hydrogen scenario ≠ directive methods : hydrogen production • Criteria : • Depends on who carries out the study • Equilibrium between the criteria … Once the criteria are identified, there are 2 possibilities : • Evaluate the systems according to the criteria and stop there : mapping of the system performances. No global classification (the “best process” does not exist. Solution is “mix”) • Normalize criteria and evaluate global indicator = classification of the processes (qualitative level) The calculation of a weighted sum (linear combination) could be interesting : Study of the impact of the weights (sensitivity study) Necessity of using uniform tools to get an unified methodology (or most uniform as possible) to evaluate HTPs.

16. Subtasks C & D • Subtask C  HTP R&D and future industrial deployment: No industrial subtask leader identified : HTP’s deployment feasibility not advanced enough … • reshaping toward institutional large scaled platforms projects such as: • DOE-INL: Next Generation Nuclear Plant • Japan’s HTTR • European agreement SUSHYPRO • to be validated and completed during 3rd task 25 OM • The aim : Hydrogen for which industrial, with what kind of process, what is the objective schedule? • Subtask D  Communication: • www-prodh2-task25.cea.fr : Common documentation base. The database is open for all members (today 170 relevant documents). • Twin organization of HycycleS and Task 25 IEA HIA 3rd OM.

17. 3rd Official Meeting will hold at Cadarache, (France), the 4th and 5thof next June. Actually, 23 participants coming from 9 countries are registered. • A : Validation of 5 new flyers (out of 15) and discussions of each paper by two workshops. Presentation of the INNOHYP update proposal. • B : To validate a methodology of capital cost evaluation, four very simple components (distillation column, pump, compressor, heat exchanger) have been defined by CEA for a crossed cost evaluation (CEA, ENEA, DLR and SANDIA). The results are planned to be discussed during the next meeting. Proposal of development of a techno-economic evaluation methodology (generic, robust) that would take into account the multi-technology aspect, the different states of development of the processes, and the environmental constraints. • Oral presentations on USA’s solar H2 generation research projects (Sandia), techno-economics (ENEA) and materials (TKK, OUTOTEC).

18. Switzerland: • PSI: D. Gstoehl. • Greece: • APTL: C. Agrafiotis, A. Konstantopoulos, G. Karagiannakis. • Spain: • CSIC: R. Moliner, I. Suelves. • USA: • Sandia National Lab : G. Kolb. • United Kingdom: • USFD: Ray Allen • France: • CEA: S. Poitou, C. Mansilla, T. Gilardi, J.C. Robin, X. Lefebvre, F. Le Naour • Finland: • TKK: A. Lokkiluoto. • OUTOTEC: I. Kojo. • Germany: • DLR: C. Sattler, M. Roeb, D. Graf. • OUTOTEC: K. H. Kleifges. • Italy: • ENEA: A. Giaconia, R. Liberatore, P. Tarquini.

19. 2009 and beyond actions: General - Finalize the last sheets on process description. - Synthesis and final report : Update of INNOHYP report: the process review and the inventory of the national project on hydrogen production. • Redaction of the annual and semi-annual reports. Subtask A Subtask B • Development of a techno-economic evaluation methodology that would take into account the multi-technology aspect, the different states of development of the processes, and the environmental constraints. • As a result of the next OM cost crossed-evaluation  proposal of a methodology (depending on the different states of development of the processes) to assess the unit investment cost. Subtask C • - If validated : compare the vision of institution developing large scaled platforms projects (Hydrogen for which industrial, what kind of process, which schedule) Subtask D • Fill the database eDOC (170 relevant documents for the moment) • Preparation of the next meetings (in Zaragoza (Spain) next fall).

20. Many thanks for your attention

24. E. Yüzügüllü and J.P. Deason, Energy Policy (2007) 452-460. SENTECH (USA) An interactive multicriteria decision-aiding tool to facilitate convergence of decision maker opinions (MCDM). • 3 phases • Decision maker identification • Twelve individuals representing different organisms with divergent interests have participated to this study. • Hydrogen production • Energy researchers • Oil & gas companies • Environmental organizations • Financial companies • Government • Utilities • Motor industry

25. Identification of the knowledge acquisition method (Delphi’s method). • Anonymous interaction and share of judgements between decision makers. • Statistic organization of the information obtained and re-dispatching to decision makers. • Second (third, etc. until reaching a predefined stop rule - not specified in the article) judgement of decision makers. • Development of an objectives hierarchy and choice of criteria. Four main criteria : - Environmental impacts, - Economic impacts, - Energetic security, - Social impacts. Definition of second, third, etc. levels of the objectives hierarchy.

26. Objectives hierarchy after 3 rounds of iterations.

27. B.C.R. Ewan and R.W.K Allen, Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809-819. University of Sheffield (UK) A figure of merit assessment. Assessment of fourteen primary energy sources/HTPs systems 4 measures considered with regards to the different pathways to H2 production. • CO2 emission reduction • Land use implications • Primary energy availability • H2 production costs Calculation of the numbers of merit corresponding to every process.

28. Estimation of the characteristic thermal, electrical conversions, capture efficiencies. Calculation of the CO2 emission reduction for both primary energy source and processes (55kg/GJ produced by natural gas). Estimation of the power density by primary energy source and the conv. efficiency. Calculation of the required area per MW of generated H2. Estimation of the power availability limitation. Ability of the energy carrier (or source) to produce power at the required level. Estimation of the Hydrogen production cost. Process and material contributions, CO2 capture, cost of electricity…

29. Rate of hydrogen prod. per km² FOM2 = Maximum value within group 55 kg/GJ FOM1 = Residual CO2 emission kg/GJ Max. collected power available nat. boundary Max. value within group FOM3 = FOM4 = Total nat. average power req. Cost of H2 production per tonne

30. FOM = P FOMi i High energy density group Low energy density group