290 likes | 421 Views
Prospects for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. Dolf Gielen Giorgio Simbolotti IEW, Kyoto, 5-7 July 2005. Key points. Hydrogen may play a significant role by 2050 This will require R&D successes and cost reduction FCV cost constitute a key issue for a hydrogen transition
E N D
Prospects for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Dolf Gielen Giorgio Simbolotti IEW, Kyoto, 5-7 July 2005
Key points • Hydrogen may play a significant role by 2050 • This will require R&D successes and cost reduction • FCV cost constitute a key issue for a hydrogen transition • The environmental & supply security benefits could be substantial, but require policies and technology advance • Competing options may also play a key role
Presentation Overview • Technology input data • Baseline scenarios • Sensitivity analysis • Observations
Technology types • Production • Centralized • Decentralized • Distribution • Refueling stations • Vehicles • Fuel cell • On-board storage
Production cost 35 30 25 20 H2 production cost [USD/GJ] 15 10 5 0 Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized Decentralized Decentralized Natural gas Electrolysis Natural gas Natural gas Coal Nuclear Solar Biomass No CCS CO2-free No CCS CCS CCS S/I cycle S/I cycle Gasification electricity
H2 production • Comparison on GJ-basis is deceptive, as FCV efficiency is 2.5 times current ICE efficiency • H2 can be supplied at 15-20 USD/GJ (2020-2030) • Fuel cost (ex tax)/km about the same as current gasoline vehicles
Distribution and refueling cost • Distribution (pipeline/LH2) adds 2 USD/GJ delivered • Liquefaction: 7-10 USD/GJ H2 delivered • Refuelling station cost 3-6 USD/GJ H2 delivered (incl. pressurization, excl. decentralized production cost)
Hydrogen vehicles • Engines • Hydrogen hybrids • Hydrogen FCVs • On-board storage • Gaseous 700 bar • Gaseous 350 bar • Liquid • Metal hydrides • Other
Fuel cells • Present cost 2000 USD/kW • <50 USD/kW needed • Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC) • Current technology: Nafion membrane, Pt/C catalyst • Significant cost reduction possible (mass production), but less than 100 USD/kW seems not likely with current materials • New catalyst alloys needed, or HT-membranes • New materials may offer cost reduction potential
Future Cost Structure (2020)50% higher power density, 10 times cheaper membranes, more than 50,000 cars/y (engines) This is still too costly !!!
H2 onboard storage • Gaseous 700 Bar seems the technology of choice for cars (350 bar for buses &vans) • 4-5 kg storage needed/car (450-500 km) • Present cost: 3300 USD/kg • Present mass production: 400-500 USD/kg • Assumed 150 USD/kg by 2025 • Pressurization (1-800 bar) takes 14% energy content (GJe/GJ H2) (assumed 10%, higher starting pressure) • Other storage systems may succeed, but they are still far away from commercialization
Structure of the analysis, so far • Based on IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (MARKAL) model • BASE scenario: no CO2 policies • GLO50 scenario: CO2 policies plus reasonable assumptions for H2/FC • Sensitivity analysis: individual parameter variations for GLO50
Assumptions GLO50 (+range) • 50 USD/t CO2 incentive (0-100 USD/t) • Fuel cell system 65 USD/kW (65-105) • Same kW for ICE and FCV (80-100%) • Oil price 2030 29 USD/bbl, slowly rising (29-35 USD/bbl) (WEO 2004) • Biomass potential rising to 200 EJ/yr by 2050 (100-200 EJ) • No transition issues (infrastructure transition considered yes/no) • Discount rates transport 3-12% (3-18%) • Alternative fuel taxes rise to 75% of gasoline tax (75-100%)
70 60 50 [Gt CO2/yr] Base 40 GLO50 30 Statistics 20 10 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 CO2 emissions: 50 USD/t CO2 = Emissions Stabilization
200 ETP results 180 Total oil products Hydrogen 160 CNG 140 Methanol/DME 120 FT fuels coal FT fuels natural gas 100 [EJ/yr] Other biofuels 80 Ethanol 60 FT fuels biomass Refinery products non- 40 conventional oil Refinery products conventional oil 20 0 2002 GLO50, 2050 WEO RS 2030 WBCSD 2050 BASE, 2050 (HDR) GLO50, 2050 (HDR) Transport fuels
Key insights • No CO2 policy: more than a doubling in fuel use; 2/3 oil products; 1/3 alternative fuels • CO2 policy: 1/3 oil products, 1/3 biofuels, 1/10 H2; 30% efficiency gains • 1/10 hydrogen replaces 2 times as much oil products (27% H2 FCV by 2050)
BASE GLO50 Transport CO2 emissions(WTW) -50% in 2050 but still rising 20 15 [Gt CO2/yr] 10 5 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Key emission reductions • Globally 32 Gt CO2 reduction in 2050 • Transport (WTW) 8.5 Gt CO2 reduction in 2050: • Biofuels: 1.5 Gt • CCS: 2 Gt (alternative fuels production) (+1.9 Gt H2 production) • Substitution effect H2 use: 1 Gt due to H2 use • Efficiency: 4 Gt (including 1 Gt due to H2 use) • Total 2 Gt due to H2 use
18 16 14 12 10 Other [EJ/yr] Decentralized natural gas 8 Centralized natural gas + CCS 6 FutureGen 4 2 0 2030 2030 2050 2050 GLO50 GLO50CHE GLO50 GLO50CHE H2 Production with & w/o transitionThe technology path is a key issue
Prospects for electrolysis • Electricity becomes virtually CO2-free at relatively low CO2 price levels • A trade-off between diurnal electricity prices and H2 storage cost • So far diurnal H2 storage not considered • May reduce production cost by 3 USD/GJ H2 • So far no reliable data for efficiency & cost of advanced electrolysis
Need for secure, alternative transportation fuels beyond 2030 (supply argument) • CO2 policies (reduction/stabilization) also imply oil substitution (environmental argument) • Non-conventional oil, FT-synfuels, CNG have limited transition problems, but no substantial CO2 benefits • Efficiency, biofuels have limited transition problems, offer substantial CO2 benefits but limited potential • The H2 option requires R&D breakthroughs and cost reduction, transition will take decades; but holds potential for substantial benefits • The main challenge is the affordable FCV • Buses, delivery vans, H2 hybrids as a transition strategy • Overall benefits of having H2/FC: 4% lower GHG emissions, 7% less oil use