Institute of Transportation Studies ◊ University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue ◊ Davis, California 95616
PHONE: ( 530) 752- 6548 ◊ FAX: ( 530) 752- 6572
WEB: http:// its. ucdavis. edu/
Year 2006 UCD— ITS— RR— 06— 03
An Assessment of the Near- Term Costs of
Hydrogen Refueling Stations and Station Components
Jonathan X. Weinert
Timothy E. Lipman
An Assessment of the Near- Term Costs of
Hydrogen Refueling Stations and Station Components
Final Report
Jonathan X. Weinert and Timothy E. Lipman^
January 13, 2006
UCD- ITS- RR- 06- 03
Hydrogen Pathways Program
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California - Davis
^ Inst. of Transportation Studies
University of California - Berkeley
Report Publication:
Institute of Transportation Studies – Davis
One Shields Ave.
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
http:// www. its. ucdavis. edu/ publication. html
What Will Power the Hydrogen Economy?
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was produced with funding from the Hydrogen Pathways Program at
the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. The authors would like to
thank Joan Ogden, Anthony Eggert, and Stefan Unnasch for their valuable
comments and support of this effort. We also thank the National Science
Foundation for providing support through the IGERT fellowship program.
Finally, we thank the following companies for providing useful data and
information.
Air Products and Chemicals
BOC
BP
Cal State University LA
Chevron Texaco
Clean Energy
Dynetek
FIBA
Fuel Cell Energy
Fueling Technologies Inc.
H2Gen
Harvest Technologies
Hydrogenics
HydroPac
ISE Research
Nippon Oil
PDC Machines
Praxair
Pressure Products Industries
Proton Energy
Quantum Technologies
SCAQMD
Stuart Energy
Toyota
Tiax
Ztek
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CaFCP = California Fuel Cell Partnership
CH4 = methane
CHREC = Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs
CNG = compressed natural gas
CPUC = California Public Utilities Comission
CRF = capital recovery factor
DOE = U. S. Department of Energy
D& I = delivery & installation
DTI = Directed Technologies Inc.
ES = energy station
FCV = fuel cell electric vehicle
ft2 = square foot or feet
GJ = gigajoule or gigajoules
H2A = hydrogen analysis ( group)
H2Hwy = Hydrogen Highway
HD = Heavy- duty ( vehicles)
HHV = higher heating value
HSCM = Hydrogen Station Cost Model
HTFC = High- Temperature Fuel Cell
H2 = hydrogen
ICE = internal- combustion engine
kg = kilogram or kilograms
kW = kilowatt or kilowatts
LD = Light- duty ( vehicles)
m2 = square meter or meters
MCFC = molten carbonate fuel cell
MCF = thousand cubic feet
MM$ = million dollars
MMBTU = million British thermal units
N = years
NAS = National Academy of Sciences
NRC = National Research Council
NREL = National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O& M = operation and maintenance
PAFC = phosphoric acid fuel cell
PEM = proton- exchange membrane
PSA = pressure swing adsorption
psi = pounds per square inch
PV = photovoltaic
PV = production volume ( in tables only)
R& D = research and development
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
scf = standard cubic foot or standard cubic feet
SMR = steam methane reforming
ii i
ABSTRACT
Interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel is growing in California. Plans are underway to
construct a “ Hydrogen Highway” network of stations across the state to stimulate fuel cell
vehicle deployment. One of the key challenges in the planning and financing of this network is
determining the costs of the stations. The purpose of this report is to examine the near- term costs
of building hydrogen stations of various types and sizes.
The costs for seven different station types are analyzed with respect to size, siting factors, and
operating factors. The first section of the report reviews the existing body of knowledge on
hydrogen station costs. In the second section, we present hydrogen station cost data from the
Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC), a database created to organize
and analyze data collected from equipment suppliers, existing stations and literature. The third
section of the report presents the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM), an
engineering/ economic model developed to analyze the cost of stations.
Based on the hydrogen station cost analysis conducted here, we conclude the following:
• Commercial scale hydrogen station costs vary widely, mostly as a function of
station size, and with a range of approximately $ 500,000 to over $ 5 million for
stations that produce and/ or dispense 30 kg/ day to 1,000 kg/ day of hydrogen.
Mobile hydrogen refuelers represent less expensive options for small demand
levels, with lower capital costs of about $ 250,000.
• Existing hydrogen station cost analyses tend to under- estimate true station costs
by assuming high production volume levels for equipment, neglecting station
installation costs, omitting important station operating costs, and assuming
optimistically high capacity factors.
• Station utilization ( i. e. capacity factor) has the most significant impact on
hydrogen price.
• Hydrogen fuel costs can be reduced by siting stations at strategic locations such as
government- owned fleet yards and facilities that use hydrogen for industrial
purposes.
• Hydrogen fuel costs ($/ kg) are higher at small stations ( 10- 30 kg/ day) that are
burdened with high installation costs and low utilization of station infrastructure.
• Energy stations that produce electricity for stationary uses and hydrogen for
vehicles have the potential for low- cost hydrogen due to increased equipment
utilization. Costs of energy stations are uncertain because few have been built.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... v
Summary of Results ............................................................................................................................... ....... v
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ................................ x
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background..................................................................................................................... ......................... 1
1.2 Scope.......................................................................................................................... .............................. 3
1.3 Research Tools and Methodology........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Report Outline........................................................................................................................ ................. 4
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF HYDROGEN FUELING STATION COSTS AND
CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Literature Review Summary.................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Previous Studies of Hydrogen Station and Equipment Costs ............................................................... 7
3.0 SURVEY OF HYDROGEN EQUIPMENT COSTS FROM LITERATURE AND
INDUSTRY....................................................................................................................... ........ 9
3.1 Data Sources........................................................................................................................ .................... 9
3.2 Hydrogen Production..................................................................................................................... ......... 9
3.3 Hydrogen Storage........................................................................................................................ .......... 11
3.4 Hydrogen Compression ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Hydrogen Purification................................................................................................................... ........ 15
3.6 Dispensers..................................................................................................................... ......................... 15
3.7 Electricity Production/ Controls Equipment ......................................................................................... 16
3.8 Station Installation Costs ....................................................................................................................... 17
3.9 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... ............ 20
4.0 HYDROGEN STATION COST ESTIMATES ................................................................... 22
4.1 Station Designs and Assumptions......................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Additional Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 31
4.3 Methodology to Calculate Station Costs .............................................................................................. 33
4.4 Example Station and Levelized Hydrogen Cost Results..................................................................... 40
4.5 Comparison of Model Results............................................................................................................... 45
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 54
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... ....................... 56
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel is growing in California. Plans are underway to
construct a “ Hydrogen Highway” network of stations across the state to stimulate fuel cell
vehicle deployment. One of the key challenges in the planning and financing of this network is
determining the costs of the stations. The purpose of this report is to examine the near- term costs
of building hydrogen stations of various types and sizes.
The costs for seven different station types are analyzed with respect to size, siting factors, and
operating factors. The first section of the report reviews the existing body of knowledge on
hydrogen station costs. In the second section, we present hydrogen station cost data from the
Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC), a database created to organize
and analyze data collected from equipment suppliers, existing stations and literature. The third
section of the report presents the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM), an
engineering/ economic model developed to analyze the cost of stations.
The following section summarizes the cost results for seven types of individual hydrogen fueling
stations. These results are presented in greater depth in the second and third section of the report.
Several conclusions from the analysis are also presented to highlight important lessons in
hydrogen station economics.
Summary of Results
Costs are calculated for seven different station types, listed in Table ES- 1. Station costs are
presented both individually ( by- station) and collectively as a network of stations. They are also
presented under different station siting and vehicle demand scenarios to show their sensitivity to
different assumptions. The baseline capacity factor used throughout the analysis is 47% unless
stated otherwise.
Table ES- 1: Station Types and Sizes
Station Type Capacity Range ( kg/ day)
1. Steam methane reformer 100- 1,000
2. Electrolyzer, using grid or intermittent electricity 30- 100
3. Mobile refueler 10
4. Delivered liquid hydrogen 1,000
5. PEM/ Reformer energy station 1,000
6. High temp. fuel cell energy station 911
7. Pipeline delivered hydrogen station 100
1 This size was selected because the costs provided by Fuel Cell Energy for this type of station are for a 91 kg/ day
unit.
v i
Table ES- 2: Sample Cost Estimates for Ten Hydrogen Refueling Station Types
( All units in $ 1,000 except
$/ kg))
SMR
100
SMR
1000
EL- G
30
EL- PV
30
EL- G
100
MOB
10
LH2
1000
PEME
S 100
HTFC
91
PIPE
100
Hydrogen Equipment $ 318 $ 1,266 $ 147 $ 147 $ 250 $ 163 $ 510 $ 318 $ 365 $ 100
Purifier $ 64 $ 201 $ 0 $ 0 $ 64 $ 20
Storage System $ 197 $ 2,372 $ 51 $ 51 $ 189 $ 1,103 $ 41 $ 136 $ 46
Compressor $ 52 $ 171 $ 28 $ 28 $ 52 $ 219 $ 52 $ 49 $ 76
Dispenser $ 42 $ 127 $ 42 $ 42 $ 42 $ 127 $ 42 $ 42 $ 42
Additional Equipment $ 72 $ 77 $ 67 $ 67 $ 72 $ 10 $ 87 $ 107 $ 123 $ 72
Installation Costs $ 193 $ 300 $ 165 $ 128 $ 229 $ 44 $ 330 $ 193 $ 197 $ 175
Contingency $ 110 $ 621 $ 49 $ 63 $ 89 $ 25 $ 302 $ 131 $ 147 $ 52
Fuel Cell / Photovoltaics $ 90 $ 268 $ 285
Total Capital Investment $ 1,048 $ 5,137 $ 550 $ 616 $ 923 $ 243 $ 2,677 $ 1,216 $ 1,345 $ 583
Hydrogen + Delivery $/ yr $ 5 $ 714 $ 35
Natural gas $/ yr $ 20 $ 197 $ 0 $ 37 $ 107
Electricity $/ yr $ 6 $ 63 $ 43 $ 27 $ 143 $ 19 ($ 38) ($ 201) $ 6
Maint., Labor, Overhead
$/ yr $ 67 $ 196 $ 34 $ 39 $ 60 $ 17 $ 168 $ 76 $ 79 $ 39
Total Operating Cost $/ yr $ 93 $ 456 $ 77 $ 66 $ 203 $ 22 $ 901 $ 76 ($ 16) $ 79
Annualized Cost $/ yr $ 230 $ 1,132 $ 149 $ 147 $ 324 $ 54 $ 1,253 $ 236 $ 161 $ 156
Annualized Cost $/ kg $ 13 $ 6.5 $ 29 $ 28 $ 19 $ 31 $ 7.2 $ 14 $ 4.9 $ 9.0
Capacity kg/ day 100 1000 30 30 100 10 1000 100 91 100
Hydrogen Sales 1000kg/ yr 17.3 173 5.2 5.2 17.3 1.7 173 17.3 33.2 17,324
Key Assumptions: 13% Capital recovery factor Capacity Factor 47% for all except HTFC 100 ( 100% CF)
Installation Costs includes engineering and design, permitting, site development
and safety & haz- ops analysis, installation, delivery, start- up & commissioning
Labor and Overhead costs are maintenance,
rent, labor, insurance, property tax
Additional equipment includes mechanical, electrical, and safety equipment
Pie charts have been created for each station type to illustrate the share each station component
contributes to overall hydrogen cost. The figure below presents the pie chart for a reformer- type
station.
vi i
Figure ES- 1: Reformer Station Costs ( 100kg/ day)
Figure ES- 2 below shows annual station costs for the seven different types of stations analyzed
in this analysis.
Total Installed Cost: $ 1,050,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 230,000/ yr
Hydrogen Cost: $ 13.3/ kg
vi ii
Figure ES- 2: Annual Costs per Station2
To show how these cost estimates compare to those in previous studies, Figure ES- 3 below
compares the HSCM model results for reformer- type stations to results from a recent report by
the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS) that is being widely cited and compared with other
estimate. The figure shows where NAS costs fall between HSCM costs for two production
volume scenarios.
2 The high- temperature fuel cell ( HTFC) energy station shows negative feedstock cost since it actually generates
some revenue through electricity sales. The HTFC net station cost is actually ~$ 160,000/ yr. Note that the HTFC
costs presented in this report are low due to high capacity factor assumptions.
ix
Figure ES- 3: Reformer Station Hydrogen Cost Comparison With NAS Estimates
Costs for a network of stations were evaluated under three demand scenarios. The key
assumptions for the demand scenarios are listed in Table ES- 2.
Table ES- 2: Demand Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Parameter
A B C
Total # of Stations 50 250 250
Hydrogen Price to Customer ($/ kg) $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00
LD Vehicles 2,000 10,000 20,000
HD Vehicles 10 100 300
Rated Capacity of Stations ( kg/ yr) 2,496,509 7,580,685 7,580,685
Total Hydrogen Produced/ yr ( kg/ yr) 459,289 2,027,025 3,755,114
Capacity Factor (%) 16% 24% 47%
The figure below shows how station costs decrease under three siting scenarios: 1) Basecase, 2)
Public Fleet Location, and 3) Champion Applications. The assumptions for each scenario are
presented in the table below the figure, and reflect different assumptions about energy prices and
other key inputs. Demand scenario B ( 250 stations, 10,000 vehicles, 24% capacity factor) is used
for this case.
x
Figure ES- 4: Station Cost Under 3 Siting Scenarios, Station Mix B
Table ES- 3: Siting Scenario Assumptions
Scenario
Station Assumptions
Basecase P u b l i c F l e e t Location Champion Applications
Natural gas ($/ MMBtu) $ 7.00 $ 6.00 $ 5.00
Electricity ($/ kWh) $ 0.10 $ 0.06 $ 0.05
Demand charge ($/ kW/ mo.) $ 13 $ 13 $ 13
Capacity Factor 24% 34% 44%
After- tax rate of return 10% 8% 6%
Recovery period in years 15 15 15
% of labor allocated to fuel sales 50% 30% 20%
Real Estate Cost ($/ ft2/ mo.) $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.00
Contingency 20% 15% 10%
Property Tax 1% 1% 1%
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis conducted here:
1. Commercial scale hydrogen station costs vary widely, mostly as a function of
station size, and with a range of approximately $ 500,000 to over $ 5 million for
stations that produce and/ or dispense 30 kg/ day to 1,000 kg/ day of hydrogen.
Mobile hydrogen refuelers represent less expensive options for small demand
levels, with lower capital costs of about $ 250,000.
2. Existing analyses on the economics of hydrogen stations under- estimate the costs
of building hydrogen stations in the near- term. They often omit important
x i
installation costs such as permitting and site development, and overlook operating
costs such as liability insurance and maintenance. Many analyses also use
equipment costs associated with higher production volumes than what industry is
experiencing today.
3. In order to achieve hydrogen costs competitive with gasoline prices of around
$ 2.00 per gallon, production volumes for key station components will need to
reach levels of 1,000 or more units per year. This is equivalent to about 6% of
gasoline stations in California.
4. Capacity factor, or station utilization, has the biggest impact on hydrogen cost.
Station operators should try to maintain high station utilization in order to achieve
low hydrogen cost.
5. The strategic location of stations and vehicles is critical to station economics. The
scenario analysis showed that " Champion Applications" resulted in the lowest
cost hydrogen. This involves building stations on state- owned land to reduce real-estate
costs and installation costs ( easier permitting process), and taking
advantage of fleet vehicle clusters to increase capacity factor.
6. Large stations (~ 1,000 kg/ day) like the reformer station and liquid hydrogen
station exhibit the lowest costs since they are able to spread their installation and
capital costs over a large volume of hydrogen sales. These large stations also
show the result of equipment scale economies on reducing cost.
7. Electrolyzer refueling stations yield high hydrogen costs due to low throughput
( 30- 100 kg/ day) and high electrolyzer capital costs at small scale. At low capacity
factors (< 30%), capital costs dominate and thus electricity price does not
substantially affect hydrogen cost.
8. Mobile refuelers yield the most expensive hydrogen due to their small size
(~ 10kg/ day) and the high cost to refill them.
9. Energy stations have the potential for lower cost hydrogen due to increased
equipment utilization ( hydrogen is produced for cars and stationary power). Costs
for these station types are the most uncertain since only a few PEM/ reformer
energy station have been built and no high- temperature fuel cell energy stations
have yet been built.
10. Station sited near an industrial demand for hydrogen can share the hydrogen use
and thus take advantage of scale- economies and high capacity factors.
11. Pipeline stations have potential for low cost at low flow rates when sited near
existing pipelines.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Industry and government face three key challenges in planning new hydrogen infrastructure: 1)
identifying appropriate locations for refueling stations; 2) the lack of accurate data on current
station costs; and 3) the need to find cost- effective infrastructure development strategies. These
issues are especially important in California since the state is planning to build an intrastate
network of fueling stations ( i. e., the “ California Hydrogen Highway Network”). We particularly
address the second of these challenges in this report, but the findings are relevant to addressing
the third challenge as well.
The variability in hydrogen station costs makes it is difficult to accurately estimate the cost of
building new stations. Actual station costs have in some cases greatly exceeded the budgeted
amount. While there are many estimates of the anticipated costs of fueling stations, most
analyses to date project costs below what station builders are experiencing today. Furthermore,
there are few public reports of the actual costs of station construction.
Addressing the challenges of hydrogen infrastructure cost assessment requires a transparent
modeling tool to explore a variety of hydrogen infrastructure deployment scenarios. Most of the
tools available today do not provide the ability to explore different station mixes, operating
assumptions, and siting conditions.
In this analysis we use the Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC) to
compile and analyze hydrogen station component costs. It collects and organizes data from
equipment suppliers, existing stations, and literature on hydrogen station costs.
We then use the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM), an engineering/ economic spreadsheet
model, to determine the costs of several types of hydrogen stations under various conditions and
assumptions. Data from CHREC are the key input to the HSCM. Its flexible structure also
enables comparison of different infrastructure deployment strategies in a variety of geographical
regions.
1.1 Background
Hydrogen fueling stations are the building blocks of a hydrogen transportation infrastructure.
While their primary function is to provide hydrogen fuel for vehicles, this goal can be achieved
in many different ways. For instance, some stations produce hydrogen on- site while others have
fuel delivered from centralized production plants in liquid or gaseous form. Hydrogen can be
produced from a variety of feedstocks, such as water and electricity, natural gas, or biomass ( e. g.
agricultural waste, wood clippings, etc.).
Despite the many variations on station design, most stations contain the following pieces of
hardware:
1. Hydrogen production equipment ( e. g. electrolyzer, steam reformer) ( if
hydrogen is produced on- site)
2
2. Purification system: purifies gas to acceptable vehicle standard
3. Compressor: compresses gas to achieve high- pressure 5,000 psi fueling and
minimize storage volume
4. Storage vessels ( liquid or gaseous)
5. Safety equipment ( e. g. vent stack, fencing, bollards)
6. Mechanical equipment ( e. g. underground piping, valves)
7. Electrical equipment ( e. g. control panels, high- voltage connections)
Station construction also require the following primary siting, permitting, and installation tasks:
1. Engineering and design
2. Site preparation
3. Permitting
4. Installation
5. Commissioning ( i. e. ensuring the station works properly)
Operating stations typically incur the following recurring expenses:
1. Equipment maintenance
2. Labor ( station operator)
3. Feedstock costs ( e. g. natural gas, electricity)
4. Insurance
5. Rent
It is important for station economic analyses to include all of these costs when evaluating
hydrogen production costs and sales prices. Many analyses in the existing body of literature omit
some of these, particularly in the areas of permitting and site preparation. The following figure
provides an example of a hydrogen fueling station co- located with a conventional retail gasoline
station.
3
Figure 1- 1: Site Layout for Combined Gasoline/ Liquid Hydrogen Fueling Station3
1.2 Scope
The HSCM was originally created to calculate the cost of the California Hydrogen Highway
( H2Hwy) Network. As such, the analysis uses inputs and assumptions generated by the H2Hwy
Blueprint Panel. The analysis, while California specific, can be applied to other geographical
areas interested in hydrogen infrastructure expansion.
This report answers the following research questions:
1. What are the near term ( 2005- 2010) costs of hydrogen fueling stations?
2. What is at the source of the variability and unpredictability of station costs?
3. What accounts for the differences between the calculated costs of this study
and the costs estimated by other reports ( NAS, Simbeck, Ogden, etc.)?
4. What strategies are available to lower the cost of hydrogen in the near- term?
1.3 Research Tools and Methodology
The following research and analysis tools are used to answer the aforementioned questions.
These tools were created by Jonathan Weinert as part of his Master’s Thesis ( see Weinert, 2005).
3 Diagram provided by Erin Kassoy of Tiax, LLC
4
Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC):
The CHREC database stores data on the costs of hydrogen refueling stations. This includes
capital costs for equipment ( e. g. compressors, storage tanks), non- capital costs for construction
( e. g. design, permitting), and total station costs ( e. g. $/ station, $/ kg).
The CHREC is a tool to compare existing cost estimates from the literature, and to compare
these estimates to “ real world” cost data. It compiles and organizes cost estimates obtained from
a variety of authors ( e. g. Thomas, Ogden, Simbeck) for the major components in a hydrogen
refueling station. It also compiles actual historical cost data from existing stations and vendors
( e. g. Air Products, Stuart, H2Gen). All cost data are standardized to year 2004 dollars.
The Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM):
The HSCM analyzes the economics of different types and sizes of hydrogen stations.
Technological learning is modeled through progress ratios assumed for various station
components. The following figure shows the key inputs and outputs of this model. The model
and the methodology it follows are discussed in more detail throughout the report.
Figure 1- 2: HSCM Structure
1.4 Report Outline
The second section of the report summarizes the existing body of knowledge on hydrogen station
costs. In the third section, we present hydrogen station cost data in a database, the Compendium
of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC), created to organize and analyze data
collected from equipment suppliers, existing stations and literature. The fourth section presents
the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM), an engineering/ economic model also created as part
of this thesis, to analyze the cost of stations. Finally, section five presents key conclusions.
Equipment Costs
( from CHREC)
Installation Costs
Operating Costs
INPUTS
Weinert
Hydrogen
Station Cost
Model
OUTPUTS
Station Assumptions
Hydrogen Price
($/ kg)
Annual Station
Cost ( MM$/ yr)
Installed Station
Capital Cost
( MM$)
Feedstock Costs
5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF HYDROGEN FUELING STATION COSTS AND
CONFIGURATIONS
This review analyzes and evaluates available literature on hydrogen equipment costs, station
costs, and energy station configurations. It presents the results, assumptions, strengths, and the
limitations of each relevant source. It is meant to provide a summary on the current state of
understanding for hydrogen fueling station costs and the relationship between cost and fueling
station configuration.
2.1 Literature Review Summary
Previous analyses have addressed some of the problems and research questions posed in this
report. The purpose of the following literature review is to determine which results from these
reports can be used in this analysis, which results need to be re- analyzed, and which research
questions are not addressed at all.
The following tables summarize our evaluation of the reviewed reports into two main categories:
Hydrogen Station and Equipment Costs and Model Features. The matrix ranks the degree to
which they adequately address the given factors, using the following scale:
N = none, the subject is not addressed at all;
I = inadequately, the subject is addressed, but a more thorough analysis needs to be done
( possible due to the author’s use of simplified assumptions, obsolete data, etc.);
A = adequately, the subject is covered with sufficient breadth and accuracy such that the
results are still relevant and a repeat analysis would be redundant.
6
Table 2- 1: Literature Review Summary for Station and Equipment Costs
Hydrogen Station and Equipment Costs
yea
r
Capital
Equipment
Costs
Non-
Capital
Station
Costs
Operating
Costs
Includes
Cost
Equations
Explores
Cost vs.
Capacity
Explores Cost
vs. Production
Volume
Validates
cost data
with
Industry
Source
Primary
Author
02
Cost and Performance
Comparison Of
Stationary Hydrogen Fueling
Applications
Myers,
Duane B. A N I N I A A
01
Distributed Hydrogen Fueling
Systems Analysis
Thomas,
C. E.
( Sandy) I N I A I A I
02
Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate
for Hydrogen Pathways- Scoping
Analysis
Simbeck,
Dale A I A I A I A
99
Survey of the Economics of
Hydrogen Technologies
Padro,
C. E. G. I N N N I A A
98
Costs of Storing and
Transporting Hydrogen
Amos,
Wade A N A N I N A
03
A Critical Review and Analysis
of Publications on the Costs of
Hydrogen Infrastructure for
Transport Sepideh I N N N N I A
04
National Academy of Science
Report NAS A I A A N A
00
Assessment of Hydrogen Fueled
Proton Exchange Membrane
Fuel Cells for Generation and
Cogeneration
Kreutz,
Ogden I N A A I I I
99
Analysis of Utility Hydrogen
Systems & Hydrogen Airport
Ground Support Equipment Thomas I N I A A A A
02
Economic Analysis of Hydrogen
Energy Station Concepts Lipman I I I N A I I
7
Table 2- 2: Literature Review Summary for Model Features
Model Features
Performs
sensitivity anayses
on key variables
Includes
technical Info
on equipment
Includes
rational for
design
choices
Explores
regional
effects of
station
siting
Source
Primary
Author
2002
Cost and Performance
Comparison Of
Stationary Hydrogen Fueling
Appliances Myers, Duane B. N A A N
2001
Distributed Hydrogen Fueling
Systems Analysis
Thomas, C. E.
( Sandy) A A A I
2002
Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate
for Hydrogen Pathways- Scoping
Analysis Simbeck, Dale N N A I
1999
Survey of the Economics of
Hydrogen Technologies Padro, C. E. G. N N N N
1998
Costs of Storing and Transporting
Hydrogen Amos, Wade N A A N
2003
A Critical Review and Analysis of
Publications on the Costs of
Hydrogen Infrastructure for
Transport Sepideh N N N N
2004
National Academy of Science
Report NAS A
2.2 Previous Studies of Hydrogen Station and Equipment Costs
The following section provides brief summary of literature containing information on the costs
of hydrogen stations and hydrogen equipment. These studies include those by Simbeck and
Chang ( 2002), Meyers et al. ( 2002), Thomas et al. ( 2001), Sepideh ( 2004), Amos ( 1998), and
Padro and Pusche ( 1999). The general scope and overall findings of these studies are presented
here. For a more detailed review of the assumptions and approaches used in these studies, see
Weinert ( 2005).
Some reports look primarily at the pieces of equipment individually while others examine their
costs in the context of a station. Some discuss how equipment costs relate to production volume
and capacity. These reports are useful in determining the cost of hydrogen at different types of
stations.
Simbeck and Chang ( 2002) analyze the total station costs for several different types of stations
through the use of a comprehensive spreadsheet model. Sepideh ( 2004) is useful in evaluating
data from several reports on hydrogen equipment costs. Myers ( 2002) provides an in depth
analyses of reformer, compressor, and storage equipment costs. Amos ( 1998) is most useful in
determining storage costs. Padro and Putsche ( 1999) looks at over 100 publications covers to
present hydrogen cost data for production, storage, transport, stationary power, and
transportation applications.
The purpose of this section is to determine where there is sufficient knowledge on hydrogen and
energy station costs and where this knowledge is limited. Another purpose is to identify
8
particularly useful cost data and cost models to input into CHREC. The questions asked in the
review of these reports are:
1. Do the cost models and data accurately reflect current equipment costs and/ or
contain state- of- the art forecasts?
2. For what aspects of hydrogen stations costs are there limited amounts of
information?
3. Are the assumptions used to determine costs valid appropriate for near- term
station designs ( e. g. size, capacity factor)?
4. What station costs items are neglected?
The conclusion after reviewing these papers is that most of the cost models presented in these
reports focus on relatively large stations (> 100 kg/ day) at high production volume levels (> 100
units/ yr). These reports in general lack information on near- term, actual equipment and station
costs. None of the literature provides cost estimates of actual stations. One reason for this is that
some of the older reports were written before any hydrogen stations were actually built. Some of
the equipment cost data from older reports under- estimate the true costs experienced in circa
2004. Very few reports from literature look at non- capital costs of building stations. Also, there
are limited amounts of recent data from equipment manufacturers in the literature. While some
assumptions in these reports are valid, many use production volume and utilization estimates that
are unrealistically high for near- term scenarios.
2.3 Conclusions
There are several studies that evaluate the cost of both hydrogen stations and equipment. An
important area missing from these cost studies is an evaluation of total installed station costs,
operating costs, and capital costs that consider near- term production volume levels. While the
reports cover equipment costs at different sizes and production volumes, most overlook non-capital
costs such as installation, permitting, siting, and so on. Simbeck and Chang’s ( 2002)
spreadsheets make rough estimates of these costs based on estimates from other industries.
The next section of the report compares the cost data obtained from the above literature to data
gathered from industry. These data are organized and analyzed using the CHREC, which will be
described in detail in the next section.
9
3.0 SURVEY OF HYDROGEN EQUIPMENT COSTS FROM LITERATURE AND
INDUSTRY
The following section presents data from the Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment
Costs ( CHREC), a database used to collect and organize station equipment cost information from
both literature and industry. Each section is devoted to a different equipment category of the
database. The final section draws conclusions from the cost data. The data are divided into nine
categories based on the main equipment typically included in a station.
The data are also broken down into three source categories based on the source of the cost
information: literature, industry, or station. Literature data were gathered from reports ( see
previous section). Industry data were gathered from equipment makers/ vendors.
3.1 Data Sources
Data presented in CHREC are drawn from various sources in the technical literature and from
quotes supplied by industry. The primary literature sources are shown in Table 3- 1 below.
Table 3- 1: Literature Source Summary
Primary Author Source Year
Amos, Wade Costs of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen 1998
Myers, Duane B.
Cost and Performance Comparison Of
Stationary Hydrogen Fueling Appliances 2002
Ogden, Joan
Review of Small Stationary Reformers for Hydrogen
Production 2002
Padro, C. E. G. Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen Technologies 1999
Simbeck, Dale
Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways-
Scoping Analysis 2002
Tax Policy Services Group of Ernst
& Young
An Economic Analysis of Various Hydrogen Fuelling
Pathways from CAN 2003
Thomas, C. E. ( Sandy) Distributed Hydrogen Fueling Systems Analysis 2001
A list of the companies that provided industry data for the CHREC is provided in the
acknowledgements section at the beginning of this report. To protect the confidentiality of the
company supplying cost data, equipment costs do not have a “ source” associated with them.
3.2 Hydrogen Production
The tables below compare cost data from a variety of sources for electrolysis and natural gas
reformation technologies. Capacity and production volume assumptions for the data are included
since these are the most important factors that influence cost.
10
Electrolysis
The following figure summarizes electrolyzer cost data from literature and industry.
Electrolyzers convert water and electricity into hydrogen and oxygen ( vented) and are typically
used for small stations that desire on- site hydrogen production capability. Note these electrolyzer
costs include purification. The following figure plots electrolyzer costs from both literature and
industry, as a function of capacity in kilograms per hour.
Figure 3- 1: Summary of Alkaline Electrolyzer Costs from Literature and Industry
In general, electrolyzer costs reported in literature are much lower than the electrolyzers quoted
by industry. The economies of scale associated with higher production volumes partially
accounts for the large differences between the literature and station costs.
Reformation
The following tables summarize steam methane reformer ( SMR) cost data from both literature
and industry. Reformers convert methane ( or natural gas) and water into hydrogen and carbon
dioxide. This equipment is typically used for stations that have a large demand for hydrogen
(> 150 kg/ day) and that desire on- site production capability. The following figure plots reformer
cost against capacity for both industry and literature, again showing that industry estimates tend
to exceed those reported in the literature.
Prod Vol = 10
Prod Vol = 1
11
Figure 3- 2: Steam Methane Reformer Costs4
3.3 Hydrogen Storage
Hydrogen Storage data collected in CHREC are presented in the following figures. Hydrogen for
stations is typically stored either in high- pressure gas cylinders made of steel of composites, or as
a liquid in special cryogenic tanks.
The following figure shows the difference in storage cost estimates between industry and
literature for gaseous storage systems. The line fit to industry data estimates the relationship
between cost and size.
4 Large reformer costs estimates have been excluded from the curve since they distort the scale.
Prod Vol = 1
Prod Vol = 100
Prod Vol = 1000
12
Figure 3- 3: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs
Figure 3- 4 below shows just the cost of only the small- scale systems.
Figure 3- 4: Small- Scale Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs ( 0- 100 kg)
13
3.4 Hydrogen Compression
This section summarizes the cost data of hydrogen compression technologies from a variety of
sources. Compressors turn the low- pressure hydrogen emitted from electrolyzers and reformers
into high- pressure hydrogen to enable high- pressure vehicle fill- ups. The tables below
summarize compressor cost estimates from various reports and industry. Note that most of the
quotes contain limited information on compressor power, pressure ratio, number of stages, and
efficiency, all of which impact cost. Typically, compressor electrical power is roughly 5- 8% of
the energy in the compressed hydrogen. 5 The following figures show the relationship between
compressor cost and size for different compressor types from a variety of sources. The second
figure uses a smaller capacity scale to more clearly depict the relationship for smaller “ booster”
compressors.
Figure 3- 5: Reciprocating Compressor Costs
5 Ogden, J. ( 2004), Personal communication.
14
Figure 3- 6: Diaphragm Compressor Costs
Figure 3- 7: Booster Compressor Costs
15
3.5 Hydrogen Purification
Table 3- 2 summarizes cost data from literature on different hydrogen purification technologies.
Most of these estimates are for pressure- swing adsorption ( PSA) systems. Table 3- 3 shows data
collected from industry on these same types of technologies.
Table 3- 2: Purification Equipment Cost from Literature
Source
Category Technology
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Cost
( 2004$)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr) Primary Author Year
Literature 2 $ 2,816 $ 1,335 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Literature PSA 4.79 $ 18,788 $ 3,773 Myers, Duane B. 2002
Literature Membrane 4.79 $ 25,551 $ 5,132 Myers, Duane B. 2002
Literature PSA 4.79 $ 27,793 $ 5,582 Myers, Duane B. 2002
Table 3- 3: Purification Equipment Cost from Industry
Technology
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Production
Volume
( units/ yr)
Purity
requirement
(%)
Cost
( 2004$)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr) Year
PSA 3 99.999 $ 100,000 $ 33,333 2004
PSA 9 99.999 $ 200,000 $ 22,222 2004
There is nearly an order of magnitude difference between literature and industry costs for
purifiers. One possible reason for this is technological immaturity and hence lack of industry
data on PSA purification technology.
3.6 Dispensers
Dispensers are used to deliver high- pressure hydrogen to the vehicles storage tank. The
following table summarizes the cost data on different hydrogen dispensers. This hydrogen
dispensing equipment is relatively immature technology, as evidenced by the low number of
industry quotes.
16
Table 3- 4: Hydrogen Dispenser Cost Summary from Literature
Capacity
( kg/ hr) Pressure ( psi)
Production
Volume
( units/ yr)
Dispensers
(#)
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ disp) Primary Author
2 10,000 1 $ 5,111 $ 5,111 Thomas, Sandy
10,000 1 $ 5,424 $ 5,424 Padro, C. E. G.
20.83 10,000 1 $ 9,281 $ 9,281 Thomas, Sandy
20.83 100 1 $ 27,105 $ 27,105 Thomas, Sandy
20.83 1 1 $ 79,945 $ 79,945 Thomas, Sandy
48 4,997 None reported 2 $ 15,592 $ 7,796 Simbeck, Dale
76.33 250 1 $ 21,517 $ 21,517 Myers, Duane B.
300 None reported 1 $ 31,184 $ 31,184 Simbeck, Dale
5,000 Liquid None reported 2 $ 103,946 $ 51,973 Simbeck, Dale
4,000 Liquid None reported 2 $ 155,919 $ 77,960 Simbeck, Dale
Table 3- 5: Hydrogen Dispenser Cost Summary from Industry
Pressure ( psi)
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Production
Volume
( units/ yr) Dispensers (#)
Total Cost
($ 2004) Cost ($/ disp)
5,000 1197.6 None reported 1 $ 45,000 $ 45,000
5,000 0.16 None reported 1 $ 20,789 $ 20,789
5,000 0.16 None reported 1 $ 72,762 $ 72,762
5,076 None reported 1 $ 81,741 $ 81,741
3.7 Electricity Production/ Controls Equipment
Electricity production equipment is used to generate electricity on- site. These systems can be of
interest to hydrogen stations that co- produce electricity using some of the hydrogen at the station
( also known as “ hydrogen energy stations”).
Control equipment is used to turn equipment on and off, control valves in the storage system
lines, and ensure the entire system operates safely. The following tables summarize the cost data
on different electricity production/ controls equipment.
17
Table 3- 6: Electricity Production/ Control Cost Summary from Literature
Equipment Type
Power
( kW)
Prod.
Volume
( units/ yr)
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kW) Primary Author Year
Fuel Cell_ MCFC 25 10,000 $ 37,912 $ 1,516 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ MCFC 250 10,000 $ 486,839 $ 1,947 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ MCFC 3,250 10,000 $ 4,837,617 $ 1,488 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ MCFC 100,000 10,000 $ 67,150,259 $ 672 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ PAFC 200 100 $ 671,503 $ 3,358 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ PEM 7 0 $ 62,754 $ 8,965 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ PEM 7 0 $ 28,609 $ 4,087 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ PEM 10 1 $ 33,962 $ 3,396 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ PEM 10 10,000 $ 13,019 $ 1,302 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
Fuel Cell_ PEM 100 1 $ 79,945 $ 799 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Fuel Cell_ PEM 100 100 $ 48,727 $ 487 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Fuel Cell_ PEM 100 10,000 $ 29,742 $ 297 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Power electronics 0 1 $ 74,566 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Power electronics 0 100 $ 37,020 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Power electronics 0 10,000 $ 18,352 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Table 3- 7: Electricity Production/ Control Cost Summary from Stations and Industry
Equipment Type
Power
( kW)
Prod.
Volume
( units/ yr)
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kW) Primary Author Year
Control Panel 0 0 $ 30,653 2003
Control Panel 0 0 $ 54,664 Confidential 2003
Fuel Cell_ PAFC 120 0 $ 107,285 $ 894 Confidential 2003
Fuel Cell_ PEM 10 0 $ 25,000 $ 2,500 Nippon Oil 2004
3.8 Station Installation Costs
This section contains data on the costs of installing hydrogen stations. These data were collected
by reviewing reports and records from several station construction projects funded by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). The first table below organizes the data by
station to show the various installation expenses for various types of stations. The second shows
the data organized by expense to show how the expenses varied from station to station. When
18
one cost estimate includes two expense categories, the information is put in two expense
categories columns.
Table 3- 8: Installation Costs ( by Station)
Station Station type
Station Size
( kg/ hr) Expense 1 Expense 2
Cost
($ 2004)
% of cap.
Cost Year
1 On Site Electrolysis 1.3 Training $ 5,109 2003
1 On Site Electrolysis 1.3 Permitting $ 15,326 2003
1 On Site Electrolysis 1.3 Engineering/ Design $ 17,370 2003
1 On Site Electrolysis 1.3 Site Preparation $ 34,740 2003
1 On Site Electrolysis 1.3 Commissioning $ 36,272 2003
2 On Site Electrolysis Site Preparation $ 117,502 2003
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Permitting $ 10,395 2% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Delivery $ 12,474 3% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 O& M ( non- fuel) $ 13,513 3% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Safety/ HazOps $ 31,184 7% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Commissioning $ 49,478 12% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Labor $ 51,973 12% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Engineering/ Design Permitting $ 69,644 16% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Site Preparation $ 72,243 17% 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis 1 Installation $ 111,430 26% 2002
Total Capital Cost
$ 428,500
98%
4 On Site Electrolysis 3 Labor $ 11,674 1% 2003
4 On Site Electrolysis 3 Commissioning $ 17,868 2% 2003
4 On Site Electrolysis 3 Permitting $ 45,979 4% 2003
4 On Site Electrolysis 3 O& M ( non- fuel) $ 64,371 6% 2003
4 On Site Electrolysis 3 Site Preparation $ 73,185 7% 2003
4 On Site Electrolysis 3 Installation $ 88,745 9% 2003
Total Capital Cost
$ 1,026,000
29%
5 Delivered LH2 Engineering/ Design Installation $ 82,354 26% 2003
Total Capital Cost
$ 312,760
6
Renewable
Electrolysis
Site Preparation Permitting $ 200,000
19
Table 3- 9: Installation Costs ( by Expense)
Station
size
( kg/ hr) Station type Expense 1 Expense 2 Cost ($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ day)
Year
3 On Site Electrolysis Commissioning $ 17,868 $ 248 2003
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Commissioning $ 36,272 $ 1,163 2003
1 On Site Electrolysis Commissioning $ 49,478 $ 2,062 2002
Average $ 1,157
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Delivery $ 12,474 $ 400 2002
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Engineering/ Design $ 17,370 $ 557 2003
3 On Site Electrolysis Engineering/ Design Permitting $ 69,644 $ 967 2002
n/ a Delivered LH2 Engineering/ Design Installation $ 82,354 2003
Average $ 712
3 On Site Electrolysis Installation $ 88,745 $ 1,233 2003
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Installation $ 111,430 $ 3,571 2002
Average $ 2,402
3 On Site Electrolysis Labor $ 11,674 $ 162 2003
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Labor $ 51,973 $ 1,666 2002
Average $ 914
1.3 On Site Electrolysis O& M ( non- fuel) $ 13,513 $ 433 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis O& M ( non- fuel) $ 64,371 $ 894 2003
Average $ 664
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Permitting $ 10,395 $ 333 2002
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Permitting $ 15,326 $ 491 2003
3 On Site Electrolysis Permitting $ 45,979 $ 639 2003
Average $ 488
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Safety/ HazOps $ 31,184 $ 999 2002
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Site Preparation $ 34,740 $ 1,113 2003
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Site Preparation $ 72,243 $ 2,315 2002
3 On Site Electrolysis Site Preparation $ 73,185 $ 1,016 2003
n/ a On Site Electrolysis Site Preparation $ 117,502 2003
n/ a
Renewable
Electrolyzer Site Preparation Permitting $ 200,000 2004
Average $ 1,482
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Training $ 5,109 2003
Installation costs are typically calculated as a certain percentage of the capital equipment. In fact,
one industry representative estimates that station installation costs represent ~ 118% of the station
capital cost ( 54% of total station cost). 6 The report by NAS/ NRC uses the following percentages
based on what is typically experienced in the fuels industry and comments on how these values
may differ for hydrogen stations.
6 Chevron- Texaco, “ Hydrogen Infrastructure and Generation,” Information submission for California Hydrogen
Highway working group, July 2004
20
Table 3- 10: Estimates Used in NAS/ NRC Study for Installation Costs of Hydrogen Stations
Installation Cost
Category
% of Capital
Cost
Cost ( for on- site 480
kg/ day NG station)
Typical %
General Facilities 20% $ 230,000 20- 40% typical, should
be low for this
Engineering, Permitting,
and Startup
10% $ 120,000 10- 20% typical, low
eng after first few
Contingencies 10% $ 120,000 10- 20% typical, low
after the first few
Working Capital, Land
and Misc.
5% $ 60,000 5- 10% typical, high
land costs for this
Total 45%
The non- capital installation costs presented in the rows above are for an on- site 480 kg/ day
natural gas reformation station. The table below shows how these numbers compare to industrial
data.
Table 3- 11: Station Installation Cost Comparison
Source Installation Cost as
percentage of
Station Capital Cost
Station Type
Simbeck and Chang 45% Reformer
Chevron Texaco 117% Reformer
SCAQMD Station 3 98% Electrolyzer
SCAQMD Station 4 29% Electrolyzer
SCAQMD Station 5 26% Liquid Hydrogen
As shown in the table, installation costs for stations appear to be highly variable. The variability
is most likely due to site- specific factors, although SCAQMD stations 4 and 5 are most likely
artificially low since the data on installation costs for these stations is incomplete.
3.9 Conclusions
Data have been collected from a variety of literature and industry sources. This information has
been organized into the CHREC database for means of comparison. In general, literature data are
more optimistic in their cost estimates of hydrogen equipment. There are limited data on the non-
21
capital costs of hydrogen station installation. Only Simbeck and Chang ( 2002) quantify the non-capital
installation costs, which in that case are given as a certain percentage of equipment
capital costs. In general, the installation costs for the stations reported in this chapter bracket
Simbeck and Chang estimates and show high variability ( 26%- 117% of capital costs). In the next
section, the industry data are normalized and scaled for size and production volume for use with
the HSCM spreadsheet model.
22
4.0 HYDROGEN STATION COST ESTIMATES
This section introduces and describes the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM) and presents
model results for various types and sizes of hydrogen stations in the near term.
The HSCM is intended to be a general tool for analyzing hydrogen refueling station economics.
It was created to achieve the following two goals:
1. Obtain realistic near term hydrogen station costs
2. Identify important factors that affect station costs and quantify their impacts on
overall station costs.
This provides insight into the difficult questions surrounding the hydrogen infrastructure
expansion, including trade- offs between how many stations, how large they are, what kind of
stations they are ( e. g. electrolysis vs. reformation), and what specific policies will help drive the
costs of delivered hydrogen.
The HSCM calculates hydrogen station costs for seven different station types over a range of
sizes. For each station type, the HSCM sizes the required equipment according to the design
rules described below. It then computes the total installed station capital cost ($), operation and
maintenance costs ($/ year) and the levelized hydrogen cost ($/ kg).
The following station types are considered in this model:
Table 4- 1: Station Types and Sizes
Station Type Capacity Range
( kg/ day)
1. Steam methane reformer 100- 1,000
2. Electrolyzer, using grid or intermittent
electricity
30- 100
3. Mobile refueler 10
4. Delivered liquid hydrogen 1,000
5. PEM/ Reformer energy station 1,000
6. High temp. fuel cell energy station 917
7. Pipeline delivered hydrogen station 100
To put these station sizes in perspective, one kg of hydrogen has about the same energy content
as one gallon of gasoline. A hydrogen fuelling station that delivers 100 kg of hydrogen per day
delivers enough energy in a gasoline equivalency to fuel about 5 gasoline SUV’s, 10 gasoline
7This size was selected because the costs provided by Fuel Cell Energy for this type of station are for a 91 kg/ day
unit.
23
hybrids or 20 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ( each carrying 5 kg of hydrogen) per day. Today’s
typical gasoline stations serve several hundred cars per day.
4.1 Station Designs and Assumptions
Hydrogen stations have a great degree of flexibility in design ( e. g. onsite production vs.
delivered hydrogen, compressor type, storage pressure). The model makes the following
assumptions regarding equipment, site layout, station design, operation and cost.
Equipment Assumptions:
The stations store hydrogen at 6,250 psi to serve fuel vehicles with 5,000 psi on- board vehicle
storage. The model assumes the stations will use the following equipment:
Table 4- 2: Station Equipment
Station Type Key Technology Additional components
Natural gas reformer Steam methane reformer,
purifier
Electrolyzer Alkaline electrolyzer
Pipeline delivery of
hydrogen
Purifier
Energy station ( ES) Fuel cell, reformer, shift reactor
( for high temp ES), purifier
Reciprocating- piston
compressor ( 6,250 psi),
cascade storage/ dispensing
Delivered liquid hydrogen
tanker truck
Cryogenic storage tank, 6,250
psi cryo- pump, evaporator
Gaseous cascade
storage/ dispensing
Mobile refueler Integrated refueler trailer Cascade storage/ dispensing
( no compressor)
The following figures show how these components are connected together to create a hydrogen
station.
24
Figure 4- 1: Reformer Station
Compressed
hydrogen storage
Natural gas
Water
Air
Feed water
pump
Burner
air blower
Steam methane
reformer ( SMR) &
pressure shift
adsorption reactor
( PSA)
Natural gas
compressor
High- pressure
hydrogen
compressor
Exhaust
stack
Reverse osmosis
and deionizer
water purification
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
Waste stream
Reformer Station: For this type of station, shown in Figure 4- 1, the natural gas compressor,
blower, and water pump are integrated with the SMR and PSA as one unit.
Figure 4- 2: Electrolyzer Station
TITLE
Richmond Hydrogen Fueling
Station
DRAWN BY
Jonathan Weinert
DESCRIPTION
Alkaline Electrolysis Hydrogen
Production
DATE
7/ 26/ 2003
Reciprocating
gas compressor
12 x 6,250- psi
compressed hydrogen
cylinder cascade
Alkaline
Electrolyzer
Oxygen exhaust
stream
3,600- psi
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
Potable Water
Feed- water
pump
Reverse
osmosis and
deionizer water
purification
Waste
stream
Grid Electricity
Electrolyzer Station: This station type can use either grid power or a dedicated renewable
electricity source ( or combination of the two) to produce hydrogen using water as a feedstock.
For this station type, we assume that either grid electricity or solar photovoltaic ( PV) electricity
25
provides power. We assume the PV system costs $ 3/ Wpeak, ( based on significant subsidies
available in California, and that the PV array is sized to provide ~ 17% of the total electricity to
make hydrogen when the station operates at 50% capacity. 8
Figure 4- 3: Pipeline Hydrogen Station
TITLE
Generic Hydrogen Fueling
Station Design
DRAWN BY
Jonathan Weinert
DESCRIPTION
GHG Delivery - Tube trailer
DATE
7/ 26/ 2003
Compressed
hydrogen storage
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
High- pressure
hydrogen
compressor
Hydrogen
pipeline
Gas meter
Pipeline Station: Stations built near an existing hydrogen pipeline have the advantage of a
reliable low- cost source of hydrogen and eliminate the need for on- site production or truck
delivery. A hydrogen pipeline already exists between Torrance and Long Beach in Southern
California, with the opportunity to site several stations along the pipeline.
Figure 4- 4: Energy Station
Compressed
hydrogen
storage
Natural gas
Water
Air
Natural Gas
Reformer
High - pressure
hydrogen
compressor
H2 Purifier
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
( 5,000 psi)
Exhaust
( CO2)
Reformate
Hydrogen
Fuel cell
stack Electricity
Cogen Heat
Grid electricity
Hydrogen
Recycled
Reformate
_
8 These assumptions are from TIAX, LLC and are based on an assumed an average insolation of 1 kW/ m2 and
$ 3,000/ kW capital cost for the photovoltaics system.
26
Energy Station: This type of station combines on- site hydrogen fuel production with electricity
production using either a fuel cell or hydrogen combustion engine “ gen- set.” By doing so, the
station co- produces hydrogen fuel, electricity, and heating/ cooling, yielding three value streams.
This type of station is best sited at a facility with large or premium ( uninterruptible) electricity
loads, such as a hospital, or manufacturing facilities with requirements for hydrogen for
production processes.
Evaluating the economics of an energy station is a complex due to the many possible ways to
design and operate the station. For the PEM/ Reformer energy station, we assume the fuel cell
provides some peak- shaving capability and runs whenever available hydrogen is not required for
vehicle fueling. We also assume the reformer runs at 100% capacity factor and that any
hydrogen not sold to vehicles is converted into electricity and heat for the building. The fuel cell
is sized to be able to process all excess hydrogen from the reformer when hydrogen demand for
vehicles is at its lowest. If there are relatively few vehicles using the station, the fuel cells runs a
greater fraction of the time.
We assume the electricity produced by the fuel cell sells at a 25% premium ($ 0.125/ kWh vs.
$ 0.10/ kWh) since it will be used for demand reduction and emergency backup. For the
equipment sizes selected, there will be ample hydrogen available for electricity demand
reduction ( peak- shaving) if needed. While there are alternative ways to operate an energy station,
we have chosen these assumptions for simplicity. The cost of the fuel cell includes a subsidy of
$ 1,500/ kW from the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC).
Figure 4- 5: High- temperature Fuel Cell Energy Station
Compressed
hydrogen
storage
Natural gas
Air
High - pressure
hydrogen
compressor
H2 Purifier
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
( 5,000 psi)
Exhaust
( CO2)
Reformate
Hydrogen
MCFC or
SOFC
Fuel Cell
Electricity
Cogen Heat
Grid electricity
Recycled Reformate
_
The figure above shows a different energy station configuration considered in the analysis, a
high- temperature fuel cell ( HTFC) energy station. The main difference between the two is that
this energy station uses a HTFC instead of a low temperature PEM fuel cell system. This
27
eliminates the need for a separate reformer since the fuel cell internally reforms natural gas into
hydrogen.
The model assumes the HTFC energy station operates at a constant output with a 100% capacity
factor. This assumption is made because it is more difficult to turn down this equipment and
because we also assume there is a steady industrial demand for the hydrogen produced. Note
that this assumption artificially deflates hydrogen price for this station option under low vehicle
capacity factors.
In both energy stations, the hydrogen demand for power production allows for much higher
utilization of the energy station asset. In the case of high- temp fuel cell energy stations, these
stations would be sited at either commercial and/ or industrial locations with an existing industrial
hydrogen demand. The hydrogen generated by the energy station would be used primarily to
displace bottled hydrogen used at the facility, with a dispensing station available to fuel vehicles
when and if needed. As one industry representative notes, “ since the costs of producing hydrogen
using this technology (~$ 5.60/ kg) is lower than the bottled hydrogen costs (~$ 6.00- 7.00/ kg) it
displaces, this specialty station has the potential of being self- funded from the revenues produced
by the sale of electricity, hydrogen and heat to the host facility.” 9 Although the high- temperature
fuel cell option looks promising economically, this type of unit has not yet been built and tested
as an integrated system. 10 Thus, the costs presented in the report are expected costs and not
field- tested costs.
Figure 4- 6: Liquid Hydrogen Station
Liquid Hydrogen Pump
Compressed
hydrogen storage
Ambient- air
vaporizer
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
Auto- vent
pressure
regulator
Pressure Relief
Device ( PRD)
Exhaust vent
Liquid Hydrogen
Storage Tank
9 Torres, S., ( 2004) Fuel Cell Energy Co.
10 According to Fuel Cell Energy, building this type of system involves the integration of two already commercially
available technologies ( the fuel cell itself and a PSA hydrogen purification system)
28
Liquid Hydrogen Station: These types of stations dispense delivered liquid hydrogen and use a
cryogenic hydrogen pump to conserve energy by pumping a liquid rather than compressing a
gas.
Figure 4- 7: Mobile Refueler Station
Compressed
hydrogen storage
dispenser
Hydrogen Mobile Refuler
Mobile Refueler Station: This is the simplest type of station. It consists only of high- pressure
gaseous hydrogen storage and dispenser, mounted into a mobile trailer. The refuelers are towed
to and from hydrogen production facilities so that the hydrogen tank can be refilled when
needed. If equipped with a solar PV system and a battery, these units require no site connection
and can be completely mobile and self- sustaining.
Demand Profile for Dispensing Hydrogen
In sizing equipment, we assume that the station dispenses hydrogen according to an hourly
demand profile shown in the figure below. This is based on the vehicle demand profile used by
the DOE’s Hydrogen Analysis group ( H2A) 11. Refueling takes place during the day, with peaks
in the morning and late afternoon/ early evening.
11 Lasher, S. ( 2004) DOE Hydrogen Analysis Team ( H2A), presentation at the National Hydrogen Association
Annual Conference
29
Figure 4- 8: Vehicle Demand Profile
Equipment Sizing
Based on the demand profile above, the compressor and storage equipment are sized to be able
to: 1) fuel 40% of the daily- expected vehicle load in 3 hours12 and 2) store the output of the
production equipment overnight since reformers must operate continuously. We use rules for
sizing compressors and storage systems for hydrogen stations based primarily on studies by
TIAX LLC. 13
The production systems for stations with on- site generation are sized assuming a constant
hydrogen output rate. For example, a system that required 100 kg/ day of vehicle fuel is sized for
a capacity of 4.17 kg/ hr. The compressor size must match the production equipment capacity
since there is no storage buffer between these two systems. The storage system must be large
enough to store hydrogen generated throughout the night while still meeting daily vehicle
demand.
For stations with delivered hydrogen, there is more flexibility in choosing compressor size.
However, there is a trade- off between compressor and storage size. Using a larger compressor
allows for smaller storage and vice- versa. The table below shows the compressor and storage
size for each station type.
12 Lasher, S. ( 2004) “ Forecourt Hydrogen Station Review”, DOE Hydrogen Analysis Team ( H2A), presentation at
the National Hydrogen Association Annual Conference
13 Unnasch, S. ( 2004) TIAX LLC proprietary spreadsheet model and personal communications.
30
Table 4- 3: Storage and Compressors Sizes By Station Type
Station Type Capacity Range
( kg/ day) Storage ( kg)
Compressor
Size ( kg/ hr)
1. Steam methane reformer 100- 1,000 135- 1,354 4.2- 42
2. Electrolyzer, using grid or
intermittent electricity
30- 100 39- 130 1.3- 4.2
3. Mobile refueler 10 75 n/ a
4. Delivered liquid hydrogen 1,000 667 100
5. PEM/ Reformer energy station 100 32 4.2
6. High temp. fuel cell energy station 91 96 3.8
7. Pipeline delivered hydrogen station 100 35 13
Refueling Station Siting Assumptions
The HSCM can take into account several options for siting a station ( e. g. co- locate with gasoline
station, bus- yard, or office building with vehicle fleet). For the purposes of this analysis, we
assume that H2 stations are integrated into existing gasoline stations with 8 dispensers total.
Small stations (≤ 100 kg/ d) use one H2 dispenser and large stations ( 1,000 kg/ d) use three H2
dispensers. The following diagram provides an example of a liquid H2 and gasoline station
layout.
31
Figure 4- 9: Integrated Hydrogen/ Gasoline Station Layout14
4.2 Additional Assumptions
The table below presents the key economic assumptions used in the model. These assumptions
can be modified when conducting sensitivity and scenario analyses.
Table 4- 4: Model Economic Variables
Parameter Value
Natural Gas Price ($/ MMBtu) $ 7.00
Electricity Price ($/ kWh) $ 0.10
Capacity Factor (%) 70%
Equipment Life 15 yrs
Return on Investment 10%
% of labor allocated to fuel sales 50%
Real Estate Cost ($/ ft^ 2/ month) $ 0.50
Contingency (% of total capital cost) 10%
14 Diagram provided by Erin Kassoy of Tiax, LLC.
32
The Natural Gas Price is based on the Energy Information Administration’s projected price of
$ 7.09/ MCF for California industrial users in 2010.15 The electricity price is based on a
California Energy Commission projection of $ 0.0948/ kWh for California industrial users in
2010.16 The 50% of labor allocated to fuel sales is based on a Tiax estimate. 17
Capacity Factor is defined as actual average consumption divided by the rated output of the
station. For example, a reformer is sized to be able to produce 100 kg/ day, however, average
hydrogen consumption at the station is 70 kg/ day, yielding a 70% capacity factor. A 70%
capacity factor is based on a similar assumption for hydrogen stations by the DOE Hydrogen
Analysis Group ( H2A) 18 and is similar to average gasoline station capacity factors today.
Equipment Life denotes the useful life of the equipment. It is assumed that at the end of N years,
the equipment has no salvage value. N is also the recovery period of the investment.
Return on Investment is the assumed interest rate on the borrowed capital for installation and
equipment. It takes into account the opportunity cost of the borrowed capital. ROI and
Equipment life is used to calculate the capital recovery factor ( or “ fixed charge rate”). The
formula for calculating this is:
!
CRF =
ROI
1 " ( 1+ ROI) " N
When calculating the levelized cost of the station ($/ yr), the capital cost of the station is
amortized over 15 years with 10% return on investment ( ROI) based on 15- year plant life ( N).
Real Estate Cost includes costs associated with the use of buildings and the land occupied by the
station. We assumed a real estate cost value of $ 0.50/ ft2/ mo. 19 These costs include the rental cost
of the land and retail outlet, landscaping, and upkeep of the facility. These real estate costs were
allocated to be proportional to the space occupied by the hydrogen fueling equipment. This
space allocation included a proportional share of the fueling station site depending on the number
of dispensers plus additional area for hydrogen storage or production equipment.
Contingency includes unexpected costs that arise during the station construction process.
Contingency is typically a function of capital cost and is therefore represented in the model as a
percentage of total capital equipment costs. We assume a value of 10% based on conversations
with refueling station developers. 20
15 www. eia. doe. gov/ oiaf/ aeo/ index. html
16 www. energy. ca. gov/ electricity/ rates_ iou_ vs_ muni_ nominal/ industrial. html
17 Personal communication with Stefan Unnasch, Tiax LLC, August 2004.
18 Lasher, S. ( 2004)
19 This value is comparable to the cost allocated to fuel sales in the CAFCP Scenario Study. Knight, R., Unnasch, S.
et al., " Bringing Fuel Cell Vehicles to Market: Scenarios and Challenges with Fuel Alternatives," Bevilacqua,
Knight for California Fuel Cell Partnership, October 2001. A similar apporach is used by the DOE H2A group ( See
‘ Lasher, S.’ reference).
20 This assumption was “ vetted” with representatives from ChevronTexaco in October 2004.
33
Station Labor Cost is divided between hydrogen, gasoline, and non- fuel sales using a factor of
1/ 8 or 3/ 8 ( depending on small or large station). This is appropriate for hydrogen stations co-located
at an existing gasoline station. One could use other estimates for other station siting
locations.
We calculated station costs under the following three scenarios to determine how hydrogen cost
is affected when several key assumptions change at once: 1) Base case 2010 Retail Station: this
scenario describes the average station 2) Public Fleet Location: this scenario involves siting the
station at a public fleet vehicle site such as a bus yard or near a pool of government vehicles.
This will enable higher capacity factors since the location ensure a more reliable demand. It may
also be able to achieve a lower utility rate through incentives and industrial classification. 3)
Champion Application: this scenario leverages state- owned land and public- private partnerships
between gov’t and industry to reduce costs further.
Table 4- 5: Siting Scenario Assumptions
Scenario
Station Assumptions
Basecase P u b l i c F l e e t Location Champion Applications
Natural gas ($/ MMBtu) $ 7.00 $ 6.00 $ 5.00
Electricity ($/ kWh) $ 0.10 $ 0.06 $ 0.05
Demand charge ($/ kW/ mo.) $ 13 $ 13 $ 13
Capacity Factor 24% 34% 44%
After- tax rate of return 10% 8% 6%
Recovery period in years 15 15 15
% of labor allocated to fuel sales 50% 30% 20%
Real Estate Cost ($/ ft2/ mo.) $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.00
Contingency 20% 15% 10%
Property Tax 1% 1% 1%
4.3 Methodology to Calculate Station Costs
Station costs are calculated by determining the size and type of equipment needed for a given
station, estimating this equipment’s cost using data from industry, and estimating how much it
will cost to install and operate this equipment.
To determine the cost of the seven different station types listed above, the following steps were
employed:
1. Industrial Cost Data Collection:
Suppliers of hydrogen equipment provided data on the capital, installation, and operating costs of
their equipment. These data are compiled in the CHREC database presented in Section 3. Costs
for minor station components ( e. g. safety equipment, mechanical/ piping) were provided by Tiax
LLC.
34
2. Cost Data Adjustment for Size and Production Volume:
In this step, cost data for units of different size and production volumes are normalized and
aggregated. Because the costs collected from industry represented a wide variety of sizes and
production volumes, the data were scaled to a uniform size and production volume level based
on assumed scaling factors and progress ratios. Since there was a larger amount of data available
on storage and compressors, these costs are determined from a regression of the equipment costs
vs. size data. Dispenser cost data, since independent of size, are simply averaged. These data
are presented in Section 3.
Scale Adjustment
Data collected from industry were scaled to a uniform size based on the ten station sizes selected.
For example, the reformers were scaled to 4.17 and 41.7 kg/ hr to correspond to the 100 kg/ day
and 1,000 kg/ day station sizes. The formula used to scale each industry cost estimate is:
!
Cost f = Cost i "
Size f
Size i
ScalingFactor
Where “ f” designates the size and cost of the scaled equipment in kg/ day and $,
respectively, and “ i” designates the original estimate.
The table below presents the scaling factors assumed for each major piece of equipment.
Table 4- 6: Scaling Factors
Equipment Scaling Factors21 Size over which scaling factor valid
( kg/ hr)
Reformer 0.6 ~ 11
Electrolyzer 0.46 0.05- 0.12
Purifier 0.5 ~ 11
Scaling factors for storage and compressors are derived by curve- fitting the data. See Weinert
( 2005) for more details.
Production Volume Adjustment
To calculate cost reduction from production volume increase, progress ratios are estimated for
the equipment. The technologies are clustered into 3 categories to reflect its maturity ( as of 2005)
and potential for cost reduction. Each cluster has an associated progress ratio. Table 4- 7 below
shows the clusters categories and their assumed progress ratios.
21 Thomas, S. E., ( 1997) “ Hydrogen Infrastructure Report”, p. E- 5. Thomas indicates that scaling factor values were
chosen intuitively based on an assessment of how component cost may vary with size. He notes that higher scaling
values may be appropriate.
35
Table 4- 7: Progress Ratios for Equipment
Technological Maturity Equipment Progress
ratio22
1. Nascent technology, low production
volume levels
Reformers, electrolyzers, purifiers, fuel
cells
0.85
2. Reasonably mature technology,
predominantly used for H2 stations
Compressor, dispenser, mobile refueler,
non- capital station construction costs
0.90
3. Mature technology, relatively high
production volume levels
Storage 0.95
The following table shows the production volume assumptions and calculated discount factors
for each piece of equipment using an assumed future production volume.
Table 4- 7: Production Volume Assumptions
Equipment Type Current
Cumul.
Prod Vol.
( units)
Future
Cumul.
Prod Vol.
( units)
Progress
Ratio
Prod Vol
Discount
Factor
Reformer SMR, Pressurized,
10 atm
4 24 0.85 0.77
Electrolyzer Alkaline 10 114 0.85 0.68
Purifier Pressure Swing
Absorption
10 79 0.85 0.73
Compressor Reciprocating 100 280 0.90 0.91
Storage 6,250 psi carbon steel
tanks, cascade system,
avg vessel size 1.5 m3
300 926 0.95 0.95
Dispenser CAFCP protocol 17 215 0.90 0.77
Fuel Cell PEM/ MCFC 5 32 0.85 0.76
Mobile Refueler Includes storage,
compressor, and
dispenser
10 80 0.90 0.81
Liquid Hydrogen
Equipment
Includes Dewar and
Vaporizer
5 12 0.90 0.93
Station
Construction
( non- capital
Costs)
15 265 0.9 0.74
22 The manufacturing progress ratio is a measure of the decline in product manufacturing costs with increased
cumulative production over time. A 0.85 or 85% progress ratio means that the costs of manufacturing fall 15% with
each doubling of cumulative production ( so higher progress ratios reflect slower progress in lowering costs).
Progress ratios are typically in the 0.75 to 0.95 range ( Dutton and Thomas, 1984; Ghemawat, 1985).. We
conservatively assume relatively high progress ratio values and higher values for more mature technologies, based
on evidence that progress ratios can increase over time for particular products. See Lipman and Sperling ( 2000) for
more on applying manufacturing progress ratios or “ experience curves” to transportation technologies.
36
The figure below shows how the costs of various pieces of equipment change for different
scenarios.
Figure 4- 10: Effect of Production Volume on Equipment Cost
Note: Liquid hydrogen ( LH2) equipment includes the storage tank and vaporizer.
The following graphs show the relationship between cost ($/ kg/ hr) and size for fueling station
equipment under three cumulative levels of production.
37
Figure 4- 11: Reformer Cost vs. Size
Figure 4- 12: Electrolyzer Cost vs. Size
38
Figure 4- 13: Purifier Cost vs. Size
Figure 4- 14: Compressor Cost vs. Size
39
Figure 4- 15: Storage Cost vs. Size
Figure 4- 15 indicates that storage appears to get more expensive on a per kilogram basis as
capacity increases. The cost curve based on original manufacturer data has a positive exponent
( Cost in $/ kg = 1,026 x Size1.08). One possible explanation for this is that the cost quotes for
small systems just included the cost of the tanks, while the quotes for larger systems included
total system expenses like piping and controls. This could artificially bias a higher cost for
larger systems.
3. Application of Adjusted Costs in Model
Once the aggregated price for each piece of equipment is calculated, it is then used in the model.
Aggregated price refers to the price of a component calculated by scaling each cost quote to a
uniform size and production volume, then taking the average value of these scaled quotes.
The list below shows the various station costs that are added together to determine the total
levelized cost of hydrogen:
Equipment Costs:
1. Hydrogen production equipment ( e. g. electrolyzer, steam reformer) or
storage equipment ( if delivered)
2. Purifier: purifies gas to acceptable vehicle standard
3. Compressor: compresses gas to achieve high- pressure 5,000 psi fueling
and minimize storage volume
4. Storage vessels ( liquid or gaseous)
5. Safety equipment ( e. g. vent stack, fencing, bollards)
6. Mechanical equipment ( e. g. underground piping, valves)
40
7. Electrical equipment ( e. g. control panels, high- voltage connections)
Installation Costs:
1. Engineering and Design
2. Site preparation
3. Permitting
4. Installation
5. Commissioning ( i. e. ensuring the station works properly)
6. Contingency
Operating Costs:
1. Feedstock Costs ( natural gas, electricity)
2. Equipment Maintenance
3. Labor ( station operator)
4. Real Estate
5. Insurance
The operating cost for the PEM Fuel Cell/ Reformer energy station is determined by subtracting
the electricity revenue from the feedstock costs.
4.4 Example Station and Levelized Hydrogen Cost Results
The model can be used to determine total station costs and levelized hydrogen costs over a range
of capacities. Figure 4- 16 shows the cost of hydrogen at a reformer- type station between 100 and
900 kg/ day. We assume that 10 stations have been built for this example. 23
23 Figures 4- 16 and 4- 17 demonstrate the functional capabilities of the model. The results ($/ kg) should be
referenced with caution because they are dependent on assumptions that are not mentioned. See the station cost
estimates in Appendix A for more details.
41
Figure 4- 16: Hydrogen Cost vs. Station Size for Reformer Station
The next figure shows how the model can be used to calculate the effects of production volume
on hydrogen cost. As expected, the price of hydrogen decreases with production volume for a
given station type.
42
Figure 4- 17: Cost vs. Production Volume for the Reformer Station
Table 4- 8 below presents near- term cost results for ten example station types, as calculated by
the HSCM. Appendix A presents a more detailed table of these results.
Table 4- 8: Sample Cost Estimates for Ten Hydrogen Refueling Station Types ( in thousands
of $)
All units in $ 1,000 except
$/ kg
SMR
100
SMR
1000
EL- G
30
EL- PV
30
EL- G
100
MOB
10
LH2
1000
PEME
S 100
HTFC
91
PIPE
100
Hydrogen Equipment $ 318 $ 1,266 $ 147 $ 147 $ 250 $ 163 $ 510 $ 318 $ 365 $ 100
Purifier $ 64 $ 201 $ 0 $ 0 $ 64 $ 20
Storage System $ 197 $ 2,372 $ 51 $ 51 $ 189 $ 1,103 $ 41 $ 136 $ 46
Compressor $ 52 $ 171 $ 28 $ 28 $ 52 $ 219 $ 52 $ 49 $ 76
Dispenser $ 42 $ 127 $ 42 $ 42 $ 42 $ 127 $ 42 $ 42 $ 42
Additional Equipment $ 72 $ 77 $ 67 $ 67 $ 72 $ 10 $ 87 $ 107 $ 123 $ 72
Installation Costs $ 193 $ 300 $ 165 $ 128 $ 229 $ 44 $ 330 $ 193 $ 197 $ 175
Contingency $ 110 $ 621 $ 49 $ 63 $ 89 $ 25 $ 302 $ 131 $ 147 $ 52
Fuel Cell / Photovoltaics $ 90 $ 268 $ 285
Total Capital Investment $ 1,048 $ 5,137 $ 550 $ 616 $ 923 $ 243 $ 2,677 $ 1,216 $ 1,345 $ 583
Hydrogen + Delivery $/ yr $ 5 $ 714 $ 35
Natural gas $/ yr $ 20 $ 197 $ 0 $ 37 $ 107
Electricity $/ yr $ 6 $ 63 $ 43 $ 27 $ 143 $ 19 ($ 38) ($ 201) $ 6
Maint., Labor, Overhead
$/ yr $ 67 $ 196 $ 34 $ 39 $ 60 $ 17 $ 168 $ 76 $ 79 $ 39
Total Operating Cost $/ yr $ 93 $ 456 $ 77 $ 66 $ 203 $ 22 $ 901 $ 76 ($ 16) $ 79
Annualized Cost $/ yr $ 230 $ 1,130 $ 149 $ 147 $ 324 $ 54 $ 1,250 $ 236 $ 161 $ 156
Annualized Cost $/ kg $ 13 $ 6.5 $ 29 $ 28 $ 19 $ 31 $ 7.2 $ 14 $ 4.9 $ 9.0
Capacity kg/ day 100 1000 30 30 100 10 1000 100 91 100
Hydrogen Sales 1000kg/ yr 17.3 173 5.2 5.2 17.3 1.7 173 17.3 33.2 17,324
Key Assumptions: 13% Capital recovery factor Capacity Factor 47% for all except HTFC 100 ( 100% CF)
Prod Vol Increase from Today’s Present Volume ( factor increase)
Hydrogen Price vs. Production Volume ( SMR Station)
43
Installation Costs includes engineering and design, permitting, site development
and safety & haz- ops analysis, installation, delivery, start- up & commissioning
Labor and Overhead costs are maintenance,
rent, labor, insurance, property tax
Additional equipment includes mechanical, electrical, and safety equipment
Figures 4- 18 through 4- 21 show sample results for various station types and sizes, including the
effects of varying assumptions for the “ Basecase” case, the “ Public Fleet Location” case, and the
Champion applications” case. These results are based on capacity factors of 24% ( basecase),
34% ( public fleet location), and 44% ( champion application), along with additional assumptions
discussed above and shown in Table X.
Figure 4- 18: Cost Estimates for 100 kg/ day Reformer Station
44
Figure 4- 19: Cost Estimates for 30 kg/ day Electrolysis Station
Figure 4- 20: Cost Estimates for 10 kg/ day Mobile Refueler
45
Figure 4- 21: Cost Estimates for 1,000 kg/ day Liquid Hydrogen Station
4.5 Comparison of Model Results
To assess and compare the results of the HSCM, the authors compared assumptions and results
from other studies on hydrogen station costs. First, the assumptions used in this model were
compared to the assumptions used in other reports such as those by NAS/ NRC, 24 Tiax25, the
H2A gropup, 26 and General Motors. 27 An example of this comparison is provided in Table 4- 9
below.
24 National Academy of Sciences/ National Research Council ( 2004).
25 Unnasch, S. and Powars, C., ( 2004) “ Requirements for Combining Natural Gas and Hydrogen Fueling”, Tiax
LLC, Consultant Report for the California Energy Commission.
26 Lasher, S. ( 2004), “ H2A Forecourt Hydrogen Station Cost Analysis”, Presentation at the National Hydrogen
Asociation Conference, Los Angeles CA.
27 Ludwig Bolkow Systemtechnik, ( 2002) “ GM Well- to- Wheels Analysis of Energy Use and Greenshouse Gas
emissions of Advanced Fuel/ Vehicle Systems”, www. lbst. de/ gm- wtw.
46
Table 4- 9: Comparison of Assumptions
Parameter Study On- site NG
Reformation
Electrolysis
This study 3.0 60.0
Lasher/ ADL 3.41 53.45
GM/ LBST 2.16 53.84
Total Electric Consumption
( kWh/ kg)
Simbeck/ SFA Pacific
2.19 54.8
This study 1.35 -
Lasher/ ADL 1.32 -
Natural Gas Consumption ( J/ J)
Simbeck/ SFA Pacific 1.43 -
Model Comparison
To show how the analysis compares against other hydrogen station cost analyses, the HSCM
model results are compared with results from studies by H2Gen28 and the National Academy of
Sciences29 for an on- site reformer station. In general, costs estimated by the HSCM are higher
than those in other studies since the other studies typically assumed mass production of
components and low installation costs, while we assume lower production volumes and higher
installation costs. In this comparison, we modified our assumptions ( where possible) to match
the assumptions used in the other two studies. Tables 4- 10 and 4- 11 and Figures 4- 22 and 4- 23
show the assumptions and results for this comparison. Since NAS presents both current and
future costs, we present results using two different production volume levels ( 40 and 4,000 units)
to represent near- term and future scenarios.
H2Gen vs. HSCM: Results from the HSCM are first compared with H2Gen costs for an on- site
reformer- type station. These results are shown in the figure and table below.
28 Thomas, C. E. ( 2004) The numbers in the study were emailed to Weinert by Sandy Thomas directly.
29 National Academy of Sciences/ National Research Council ( 2004).
47
Figure 4- 22: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, H2Gen Data
Figure 4- 22 shows that the results are comparable only when the HSCM is adjusted for a
cumulative production volume of 4,000 units. The large H2Gen unit has lower estimated costs
than even the HSCM “ 4,000th unit” cost for a similar size reformer station. The table below
provides a more detailed look at this comparison.
PV= 40
Cost ($/ kg)
48
Table 4- 10: Cost Comparison for Reformer Station With H2Gen Estimates
HSCM ( 2010)
H2Gen
HGM- 2000 HGM- 10000
SMR Capacity ( kg/ day) 113 565 113 565
Capacity Factor 47% 47% 47 47
Annual Capital Recovery Factor 13.15% 13.15% 13.15 13.15
Natural Gas Cost ($/ MMBTU, HHV) 7 7 7 7
Electricity Cost ( cents/ kWh) 10 10 10 10
Production Volume ( cumulative units) 40 40 not reported not reported
Storage Capacity ( kg) 153 765 50 250
Production Efficiency ( reformer, %) 70% 70%
Capital Cost $ 750,862 $ 2,435,765 $ 435,000 $ 737,000
Delivery and Installation Cost $ 328,585 $ 653,295 $ 21,500 $ 25,500
Hydrogen Cost
Natural Gas Cost ($/ kg) $ 1.1 $ 1.1 $ 1.1 $ 1.2
Electricity Cost ($/ kg) $ 0.4 $ 0.4 $ 0.4 $ 0.4
O& M ($/ kg) $ 3.4 $ 1.3 $ 2.6 $ 0.5
Capital Charge ($/ kg) $ 5.1 $ 3.3 $ 3.8 $ 1.00
Delivery and Installation Cost ($/ kg) $ 2.2 $ 0.9 $ 0.2 $ 0.03
Total Hydrogen Cost ($/ kg) $ 12.3 $ 7.0 $ 8.0 $ 3.1
The biggest discrepancy between the HSCM and H2Gen estimates is in the delivery and
installation ( D& I) costs. In the HSCM model, D& I costs are over an order of magnitude higher
than H2Gen’s estimates. We collected data on D& I costs from several recently built stations and
thus believe they are more indicative of true near- term costs. While some think these costs will
decline as more stations are built, experience in the natural gas fueling industry does not support
this notion. 30 Costs have remained high because the station technology continues to evolve ( e. g.
higher pressure equipment) along with an evolving set of codes and standards. These evolutions
require new equipment and new designs. New station designs and a lack of uniform codes and
standards make siting and permitting costs higher than expected. Since a similar evolution in
station design is expected with today’s hydrogen stations, the authors assume high D& I costs and
a conservative progress ratio ( 0.9) for these costs over time.
Capital costs are also considerably higher in the HSCM. This is due in part to the larger
hydrogen storage capacity used in the HSCM stations vs. H2Gen stations. The authors assume
153 kg are needed vs. H2Gen’s assumption of 50kg for a 113 kg/ day station. H2Gen’s estimates
for capital costs are also lower than the NAS model. Feedstock costs are similar throughout all
studies.
30 Personal communications with Mitchell Pratt of Clean Energy and Roger Conyers of IMW Industries Ltd.
49
NAS vs. HSCM: The results from the HSCM are compared against the results from the NAS
report, again for on- site reformer- type stations. Figure 4- 23 shows where NAS costs fall in
relation to HSCM costs for two production volume scenarios. Table 4- 11 compares the HSCM to
NAS results for reformer station costs.
Figure 4- 23: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, NAS
50
Table 4- 11: Cost Comparison for Reformer Station With NAS Results
HSCM
Current
HSCM
Future NAS- current31 NAS- future32
SMR 480 SMR 480 Onsite SMR Onsite SMR
SMR Capacity ( kg/ day) 480 480 480 480
Capacity Factor (%) 90 90 90 90
Annual Capital Recovery
Factor (%) 14 14 14 14
Natural Gas Cost
($/ MMBTU, HHV) $ 6.50 $ 6.50 $ 6.50 $ 6.50
Electricity Cost ($/ kWh) $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07
Production Volume 40 4,000
Storage Capacity 650 650 108 108
Production Efficiency (%) 70% 75% 70% 75%
Total Capital Cost $ 2,144,847 $ 1,224,094 $ 1,276,000 $ 660,000
Reformer $ 743,080 $ 273,106 $ 990,000 $ 528,000
Compressor $ 101,310 $ 52,668 $ 154,000 $ 33,000
Storage $ 1,005,165 $ 729,464 $ 121,000 $ 88,000
Dispenser $ 87,270 $ 45,369 $ 22,000 $ 11,000
Delivery and Installation
Cost $ 596,000 $ 234,168 $ 572,000 $ 297,000
Hydrogen Cost
Natural Gas Cost ($/ kg) $ 1.1 $ 1.0 1.37 1.17
Electricity Cost ($/ kg) $ 0.2 $ 0.2 0.15 0.12
O& M ($/ kg) $ 0.8 $ 0.5 0.35 0.18
Capital Charge ($/ kg) $ 1.9 $ 1.1 $ 1.14 $ 0.59
Delivery and Installation
Cost ($/ kg) $ 0.5 $ 0.2 $ 0.52 $ 0.26
Total Hydrogen Cost
($/ kg) $ 4.5 $ 3.0 $ 3.5 $ 2.3
Capital costs calculated by the HSCM are higher than results from both the current and future
NAS model for the near term case. The biggest reason for the larger capital costs in the HSCM is
that we assume that a much larger hydrogen storage capacity is required ( 650 kg vs. 108 kg for a
480 kg/ day station). The reason HSCM’s estimated storage capacity is much higher is that it
accounts for the storage required for storing reformer output in addition to storage for fueling
vehicles.
The NAS model does not account for “ lulls” in the vehicle at the station during nighttime, and
therefore assumes that vehicles are theoretically drawing fuel from the station 24 hrs/ day. Our
model assumes that there are two peak fueling periods each day, and essentially zero fueling
occurring at night. This pattern of fueling requires extra storage capacity to store the output of
31 NAS, p. E- 35.
32 NAS, p. E- 36.
51
the reformer. Because of this high storage capacity estimate, the high cost of storage dominates.
The HSCM actually assumes a lower reformer and compressor cost, and thehe D& I costs from
both models are quite similar in the near term cases. The HSCM also assumes two dispensers
are needed for a 480 kg/ day station whereas the NAS model assumes one. Operations and
maintenance ( O& M) costs from NAS are lower than both HSCM and H2Gen.
The table below presents a comparison in results for the costs of an electrolysis station using two
different models.
Table 4- 12: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Electrolysis Station With NAS Estimates
HSCM
HSCM
NAS Model
v. 3
NAS Model
v. 3
Current Future Current Future
Electrolyzer Capacity ( kg/ day) 100 100 480 480
Capacity Factor (%) 90 90 90 90
Annual Capital Recovery Factor (%) 14 14 14 14
Electricity Cost ($/ kWh) $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07
Production History ( cumulative units) 40 4000
Storage Capacity ( kg) 149 149 108 108
Production Efficiency ( kWh/ kg
includes compressor) 54.8 50.2 54.8 50.2
Capital Costs $ 593,748 $ 340,609 $ 1,760,000 $ 396,000
Hydrogen Equipment $ 256,448 $ 94,253 $ 1,287,000 $ 143,000
Storage System $ 176,768 $ 128,283 $ 176,000 $ 33,000
Compressor $ 44,799 $ 23,290 $ 275,000 $ 209,000
Dispenser $ 43,635 $ 22,684 $ 22,000 $ 11,000
Delivery and Installation Cost $ 340,059 $ 155,932 $ 774,000 $ 181,500
Hydrogen Cost
Natural Gas Cost ($/ kg) $- $- $- $-
Electricity Cost ($/ kg) $ 4.9 $ 4.5 $ 3.8 $ 3.3
O& M ($/ kg) $ 1.8 $ 1.4 $ 0.5 $ 0.1
Capital Charge ($/ kg) $ 2.5 $ 1.4 $ 1.6 $ 0.4
Delivery and Installation Charge
($/ kg) $ 1.4 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.2
Total H2 Cost ($/ kg) $ 10.7 $ 8.0 $ 6.6 $ 3.9
The NAS model analyzes a much bigger electrolyzer ( 480 versus 100 kg/ day); hence the results
cannot be directly compared. A larger electrolyzer results in cheaper hydrogen cost per kg of
output since electrolyzers have a significant scaling factor ( estimated at about 0.46). Similar to
the reformer station comparison, the hydrogen costs from the HSCM for electrolysis stations are
larger than results from the NAS model. Electricity cost is higher in the HSCM because it
accounts for the demand charge ($/ kW) due to the higher peak load caused by the electrolyzer.
Again, part of the higher capital cost can be attributed to the larger storage capacity assumed by
52
the HSCM. O& M costs are higher in the HSCM since they include insurance, real estate,
property tax, and labor costs, none of which are included in the NAS model.
The comparison analysis with these two previous studies demonstrates the flexibility in the
HSCM. The assumptions in the HSCM were easily modified to allow a meaningful comparison
between the studies. The assumptions can also be modified for modeling station costs in other
geographical areas as well.
The comparative analysis shows at a production volume level of 4,000 units, small- scale
reformer- type stations achieve the costs reported from the H2Gen report. This corresponds to a
demand of ~ 250,000 vehicles. 33 At a production volume of ~ 400, NAS hydrogen costs match
HSCM hydrogen costs ( 25,000 vehicles).
Costs are likely to decrease differently for different station types due to a variety of unknown
factors. The potential for technology breakthroughs in small- scale reformation is arguably higher
than for small- scale electrolyzers since the latter equipment is more mature. The feedstock price
for reformer- type stations ( natural gas), however, is more volatile and will only continue to
increase.
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the six important station assumptions to determine their
effect on overall hydrogen cost. The table below shows the high and low values used for each
variable in the sensitivity analysis.
Table 4- 13: Sensitivity Analysis Parameters
Basecase Optimistic Pessimistic
Natural Gas Price ($/ MMBtu) $ 7.0 $ 4.9 $ 9.1
Electricity Price ($/ kWh) $ 0.10 $ 0.07 $ 0.13
Capacity Factor (%) 24% 31% 17%
Return on Investment 10% 7.0% 13%
Real Estate Cost ($/ ft2/ month) $ 0.50 $ 0.35 $ 0.65
Contingency (% of Total Installed Capital
Cost) 20% 14% 26%
33 Assumes the average vehicle consumes 0.82 kg/ day of hydrogen, stations operate at 50% capacity factor, and all
vehicles are served by 100 kg/ day reformer type stations. This last assumption is not realistic, but is made for
simplicity.
53
Figure 4- 24: Reformer Station Costs ( 100kg/ day)
54
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
In this report we have reviewed the existing body of literature on hydrogen fueling station costs
and documented our efforts to develop our own “ best guess” estimates of near term costs for
hydrogen stations of various types. Based on this analysis, we make the following conclusions:
1. Commercial scale hydrogen station costs vary widely, mostly as a function of
station size, and with a range of approximately $ 500,000 to over $ 5 million for
stations that produce and/ or dispense 30 kg/ day to 1,000 kg/ day of hydrogen.
Mobile hydrogen refuelers represent less expensive options for small demand
levels, with lower capital costs of about $ 250,000.
2. Existing analyses on the economics of hydrogen stations under- estimate the costs
of building hydrogen stations in the near- term. They often omit important
installation costs such as permitting and site development, and overlook operating
costs such as liability insurance and maintenance. Many analyses also use
equipment costs associated with higher production volumes than what industry is
experiencing today.
3. In order to achieve hydrogen costs competitive with gasoline prices of around
$ 2.00 per gallon, production volumes for key station components will need to
reach levels of 1,000 or more units per year. 34 This is equivalent to about 6% of
gasoline stations in California
4. Capacity factor, or station utilization, has the biggest impact on hydrogen cost.
Station operators should try to maintain high station utilization in order to achieve
low hydrogen cost.
5. The strategic location of stations and vehicles is critical to station economics. The
scenario analysis showed that " Champion Applications" resulted in the lowest
cost hydrogen. This involves building stations on state- owned land to reduce real-estate
costs and installation costs ( easier permitting process), and taking
advantage of fleet vehicle clusters to increase capacity factor.
6. Large stations of 1,000 kg/ day or more exhibit the lowest costs since they are able
to spread their installation and capital costs over a large volume of hydrogen
sales. These large stations also show the result of equipment scale economies on
reducing cost.
7. Electrolyzer refueling stations yield high hydrogen costs due to low throughput
( 30- 100 kg/ day) and high electrolyzer capital costs at small scale. At low capacity
factors (< 30%), capital costs dominate and thus electricity price does not
substantially affect hydrogen cost.
8. Mobile refuelers yield the most expensive hydrogen due to their small size
( 10kg/ day) and the high cost to refill them.
34 For a single manufacturer.
55
9. Energy stations have the potential for lower cost hydrogen due to increased
equipment utilization ( hydrogen is produced for cars and stationary power). Costs
for these station types are the most uncertain since only a few PEM/ Reformer
energy station have been built and no HTFC energy stations have yet been built.
10. Station sited near an industrial demand for hydrogen can share the hydrogen use
and thus take advantage of scale- economies and high capacity factors.
11. Pipeline stations have potential for low cost at low flow rates when sited near
existing pipelines.
12. The HSCM is a flexible tool for comparing different analyses on hydrogen station
cost. This tool was used to compare the results of H2Gen and the NAS report by
using their assumptions and identifying where the results differed.
At present, hydrogen station costs are higher than reported in the available literature. Our
analysis shows that this is due to equipment costs that are often higher than reported in the
literature, as well as additional costs associated with siting, permitting, and commissioning that
are often underestimated or ignored. We expect these costs to fall as more stations are
constructed over the next several years, but we also expect the pace of cost reduction in station
construction to be relatively slow.
56
REFERENCES
Amos, W. ( 1998) “ Costs of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen,” NREL, Golden, CO,
November.
J. M. Dutton and A. Thomas ( 1984) “ Treating Progress Functions as a Managerial Opportunity,”
Academy of Management Review 9( 2): 235- 247.
P. Ghemawat ( 1985) “ Building strategy on the experience curve,” Harvard Business Review
March- April, 1985: 143- 149.
Ianucci, J. J, J. M. Eyer, S. A. Horgan, and S. M. Schoenung ( 1998) “ Economic and Technical
Analysis of Distributed Utility Benefits for Hydrogen Refueling Stations,” Distributed Utility
Associates, Livermore, CA.
Kreutz, T. G. and J. M. Ogden ( 2000) “ Assessment of Hydrogen Fueled Proton Exchange
Membrane Fuel Cells for Generation and Cogeneration,” Center for Energy and Environmental
Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Lipman, T. E., J. L. Edwards, and D. M. Kammen ( 2004) “ Fuel Cell System Economics:
Comparing the Costs of Generating Power with Stationary and Motor Vehicle PEM Fuel Cell
Systems,” Energy Policy 32( 1): 101- 125.
Lipman, T. E., J. L. Edwards, and D. M. Kammen ( 2002) “ Economic Analysis of Hydrogen
Energy Station Concepts: Are “ H2E- Stations” a Key Link to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
Infrastructure?” Energy Development and Technology Working Paper Series, EDT- 003,
University of California Energy Institute ( UCEI), November.
Lipman, T. E. and D. Sperling ( 2000) “ Forecasting the Costs of Automotive PEM Fuel Cells
Using Bounded Manufacturing Progress Functions,” Proceedings of the IEA International
Workshop on Experience Curves for Policy Making – The Case of Energy Technologies,
Stuttgart, Germany, May 10- 11, 1999, Edited by C- O Wene, A. Voss, and T. Fried, April, pp.
135- 150.
Melaina, M. ( 2003) “ Initiating hydrogen infrastructures: preliminary analysis of a sufficient
number of initial hydrogen stations in the US,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy28:
743- 755.
Myers, D. B., G. D. Ariff, B. D. James, J. S. Lettow, C. E. Thomas, and R. C. Kuhn ( 2002) “ Cost
and Performance Comparison Of Stationary Hydrogen Fueling Appliances” DTI, Arlington, VA,
April.
National Academy of Science/ National Research Council ( 2004) “ The Hydrogen Economy:
Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R& D Needs”, National Academies Press,
http:// www. nap. edu.
57
Padró, C. E. G. and V. Putsche, ( 1999) “ Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen Technologies,”
NREL, Golden, CO, September.
Powars, C. et al, ( Tiax LLC) ( 2004), “ Hydrogen Fueling Station Guidelines”, Consultant report
prepared for the California Energy Commission.
Raman, V. ( 2001), “ Research and Development of a PEM Fuel Cell, Hydrogen Reformer, and
Vehicle Refueling Facility”, Proceedings of the 2002 DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Air
Products and Chemicals Inc.
Rastler, D. ( 2000) “ Challenges for fuel cells as stationary power resource in the evolving energy
enterprise”, Journal of Power Sources 86: 34- 39.
Sepideh, S. ( 2003) “ The Costs of Hydrogen Technologies” ( final draft of PhD Dissertation
Thesis), Personal communication, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Simbeck, D. and E. Chang ( 2002) “ Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways -
Scoping Analysis” SFA Pacific, Mountain View, CA, July.
Thomas, C. E., J. P. Reardon, F. D. Lomax, J. Pinyan and I. F. Kuhn ( 2001) “ Distributed Hydrogen
Fueling Systems Analysis,” DTI, Arlington, VA.
Unnasch, S. ( 2002) “ Energy Stations for Federal Buildings,” Proceedings of the 2002 U. S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/ CP- 610- 32405.
Venkatesh, S. et al, ( Tiax LLC) ( 2004), “ Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for Hydrogen
Fueling Options”, Consultant report prepared for the California Energy Commission.
Weinert, J. ( 2005) “ A Near- Term Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Fueling Stations,” Master’s
Thesis, UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, UCD- ITS- RR- 05- 06.
58
Appendix A: Summary of Cost Estimates for 10 Station Types
All units in $ 1,000
except $/ kg SMR 100 SMR 1000 EL- G 30 EL- PV 30 EL- G 100 MOB 10 LH2 1000
PEMES
100 HTFC 91 PIPE 100
Hydrogen Equipment $ 318 $ 1,266 $ 147 $ 147 $ 250 $ 163 $ 510 $ 318 $ 365 $ 100
Purifier $ 64 $ 201 $ 0 $ 0 $ 64 $ 20
Storage System $ 197 $ 2,372 $ 51 $ 51 $ 189 $ 1,103 $ 41 $ 136 $ 46
Compressor $ 52 $ 171 $ 28 $ 28 $ 52 $ 219 $ 52 $ 49 $ 76
Dispenser $ 42 $ 127 $ 42 $ 42 $ 42 $ 127 $ 42 $ 42 $ 42
Additional Equipment $ 72 $ 77 $ 67 $ 67 $ 72 $ 10 $ 87 $ 107 $ 123 $ 72
Installation Costs $ 193 $ 300 $ 165 $ 128 $ 229 $ 44 $ 330 $ 193 $ 197 $ 175
Contingency $ 110 $ 621 $ 49 $ 63 $ 89 $ 25 $ 302 $ 131 $ 147 $ 52
Fuel Cell /
Photovoltaics $ 90 $ 268 $ 285
Total Investment $ 1,048 $ 5,137 $ 550 $ 616 $ 923 $ 243 $ 2,677 $ 1,216 $ 1,345 $ 583
Hydrogen $/ yr $ 4 $ 714 $ 35
Delivery $ 1
Natural gas $/ yr $ 20 $ 197 $ 0 $ 37 $ 107
Electricity $/ yr $ 6 $ 63 $ 43 $ 27 $ 143 $ 19 ($ 38) ($ 201) $ 6
Maint., Labor,
Overhead $/ yr $ 67 $ 196 $ 34 $ 39 $ 60 $ 17 $ 168 $ 76 $ 79 $ 39
Total Operating Cost $ 93 $ 456 $ 77 $ 66 $ 203 $ 22 $ 901 $ 76 ($ 16) $ 79
Annualized Cost $ 230 $ 1,132 $ 149 $ 147 $ 324 $ 54 $ 1,253 $ 236 $ 161 $ 156
Annualized Cost/ kg $ 13 $ 6.5 $ 29 $ 28 $ 19 $ 31 $ 7.2 $ 14 $ 4.9 $ 9.0
Capacity kg/ day 100 1000 30 30 100 10 1000 100 91 100
Capacity Utilization 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 100% 47%
Hydrogen Sales kg/ yr 17,324 173,242 5,197 5,197 17,324 1,732 173,242 17,324 33,215 17,324
Natural Gas Cost/ kg $ 1.1 $ 1.1 $- $- $- $- $- $ 2.2 $ 3.2 $-
Electricity Cost/ kg $ 0.4 $ 0.4 $ 8.3 $ 5.2 $ 8.3 $- $ 0.1 ($ 2.2) ($ 6.0) $ 0.4
Fixed Operating/ kg $ 3.8 $ 1.1 $ 6.5 $ 7.5 $ 3.4 $ 12.8 $ 5.1 $ 4.4 $ 2.4 $ 4.2
Capital Charge / kg $ 5.7 $ 3.2 $ 8.5 $ 10.8 $ 4.6 $ 13.1 $ 1.6 $ 6.8 $ 4.0 $ 2.7
Delivery and Installation
Charge / kg $ 2.3 $ 0.7 $ 5.4 $ 4.8 $ 2.4 $ 5.3 $ 0.5 $ 2.5 $ 1.4 $ 1.7
Key Assumptions: 13% Capital recovery factor Additional equipment includes mechanical, electrical, and safety equipment
Assumes a scenario of 20,000 vehicles and 250 stations sited in 2010 Labor and Overhead costs are maintenance, rent, labor, insurance, property tax
Installation Costs includes engineering and design, permitting, site development and safety & haz- ops analysis, installation, delivery, start- up & commissioning