Year 2005 UCD— ITS— RR— 05— 04
A Near- Term Economic Analysis of
Hydrogen Fueling Stations
Jonathan Weinert
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/
i
TITLE PAGE
A Near- term Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Fueling Stations
By
JONATHAN XAVIER WEINERT
B. S. ( University of Michigan) 2000
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY
In the
OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
UCD- ITS- RR- 05- 04
DAVIS
Approved:
Dr. Joan Ogden
Dr. Dan Sperling
Dr. Timothy Lipman
Dr. Marshall Miller
Committee in Charge
2005
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge Joan Ogden for serving as the author’s main advisor, her tireless editing, and many gratious reviews; Anthony Eggert and Stefan Unnasch for their valuable review, feedback, and support on the thesis, Dan Sperling, Tim Lipman, and Marshall Miller for serving on the author’s advisory committee; the National Science Foundation for providing financial support through their IGERT fellowship program; the ITS Hydrogen Pathways Program for additional financial support, and the following companies for providing cost data for CHREC:
Tiax
Air Products
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
Ztek
iii
ABSTRACT
There is growing interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel 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 however in the planning and financing of this network is determining the costs of the stations. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the near- term costs of building stations and answer the fundamental question, ‘ how much would new hydrogen stations cost now?’ The costs for seven different station types are analyzed with respect to size, siting factors, and operating factors. The first chapter of the thesis reviews the existing body of knowledge on hydrogen station costs. In the second chapter, I 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 third chapter of the report presents the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM), an engineering/ economic model also created as part of this thesis, to analyze the cost of stations. In the final chapter of the report, the HSCM model is applied to the case of the proposed California Hydrogen Highway Network to indicate the costs of different hydrogen infrastructure options.
Based on these cost analyses, I conclude the following:
iv
• Existing hydrogen station cost analyses tend to under- estimate true station costs by assuming high production volume levels for equipment, neglecting station installation costs, and omitting important station operating costs.
• 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.
• The Hydrogen Station Cost Model is a flexible tool for analyzing hydrogen station costs for a variety of conditions and assumptions.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x
INTRODUCTION 1
Motivation 1
Background 2
Scope 5
Research Tools & Methodology: 5
Thesis Outline 7
1. LITERATURE REVIEW ON HYDROGEN FUELING STATION COSTS AND CONFIGURATIONS 9
Summary 9
Hydrogen Station & Equipment Cost Report Synopsis 12
2. SURVEY OF HYDROGEN EQUIPMENT COSTS FROM LITERATURE AND INDUSTRY 30
Introduction 30
1. Hydrogen Production 35
2. Hydrogen Storage 43
3. Hydrogen Compression 50 vi
4. Hydrogen Purification 57
5. Dispensers 58
6. Electricity Production/ Controls Equipment 59
7. Station Installation Costs 61
Conclusions 65
3. THE HYDROGEN STATION COST MODEL ( HSCM) 66
Introduction 66
Station Designs and Assumptions 68
Methodology 82
Model Validation 94
4. APPLICATION OF THE HSCM MODEL TO THE CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN HIGHWAY NETWORK 106
Introduction 106
Scenarios 107
Results 113
Individual Station Costs 114
Hydrogen Highway Network Costs 121
Analysis 128
Scenario Analysis 128
Sensitivity Analysis 130
Electrolysis Economics: the Effect of Scale and Electricity Price 133
5. CONCLUSION 136
REFERENCES 141
APPENDICES 144
Appendix A: Summary of Costs for 10 Station Types 145
Appendix B: Station Costs by Type 146
Appendix C: Station Assumptions 156
Appendix D: Hydrogen Highway Assumptions 157
Appendix E: Production Volume and Scaling Adjustments 158
Appendix F: Sources of Industry Cost Data 160
Appendix G: Compressor and Storage Sizing Calculations 161
Appendix H: Line Item Station Costs 165
Appendix I: Scenario Analysis for Various Station Types 167
vii
Appendix J: Hydrogen Highway Executive Order Transcript 169
.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 0- 1: Reformer Station Costs ( 100kg/ day)............................................................... xi
Figure 0- 2: Annual Costs per Station................................................................................ xii
Figure 0- 2: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, NAS............................. xiii
Figure 0- 4: Station Cost Under 3 Siting Scenarios, Station Mix B................................. xiv
Figure 0- 5: H2Hwy Net Cost Range for Demand/ Supply and Siting Scenarios.............. xv
Figure 0- 1: Site Layout for Combined Gasoline/ Liquid Hydrogen Fueling Station.......... 4
Figure 0- 2: CHREC Database Example Form.................................................................... 6
Figure 0- 3: HSCM Structure............................................................................................... 7
Figure 2- 1: CHREC Interface........................................................................................... 33
Figure 2- 2: Summary of Alkaline Electrolyzer Costs from Literature and Industry........ 39
Figure 2- 3: Electrolyzer Costs from Industry Only.......................................................... 39
Figure 2- 4: Steam Methane Reformer Costs.................................................................... 42
Figure 2- 5: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs..................................................... 49
Figure 2- 6: Small Scale Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs ( 0- 100kg)................ 49
Figure 2- 7: Reciprocating Compressor Costs................................................................... 56
Figure 2- 8: Diaphragm Compressor Costs....................................................................... 56
Figure 2- 9: Booster Compressor Costs............................................................................. 57
Figure 3- 1: Reformer Station............................................................................................ 69
Figure 3- 2: Electrolyzer Station........................................................................................ 70
Figure 3- 3: Pipeline Hydrogen Station............................................................................. 70
Figure 3- 4: Energy Station................................................................................................ 71
Figure 3- 5: High- temperature Fuel Cell Energy Station................................................... 72
Figure 3- 6: Liquid Hydrogen Station................................................................................ 74
Figure 3- 7: Mobile Refueler Station................................................................................. 75
Figure 3- 8: Vehicle Demand Profile................................................................................. 76
Figure 3- 9: Integrated hydrogen/ gasoline station layout.................................................. 78
Figure 3- 10: Effect of Production Volume on Equipment Cost....................................... 87
Figure 3- 11: Reformer Cost vs. Size................................................................................. 88
Figure 3- 12: Electrolyzer Cost vs. Size............................................................................ 89
Figure 3- 13: Purifier Cost vs. Size.................................................................................... 89
Figure 3- 14: Compressor Cost vs. Size............................................................................. 90
Figure 3- 15: Storage Cost vs. Size.................................................................................... 90
Figure 3- 16: Hydrogen Cost vs. Station Size for Reformer Station................................. 93
Figure 3- 17: Cost vs. Production Volume for the Reformer Station................................ 94
Figure 3- 18: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, H2Gen Data................ 97
Figure 3- 19: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, NAS.......................... 100
Figure 4- 1: Hydrogen Cost, Scenario B.......................................................................... 115
Figure 4- 2: Hydrogen Cost, Scenario C.......................................................................... 116
Figure 4- 3: Annual Costs per Station: Scenario C.......................................................... 117
Figure 4- 4: Reformer Station Costs ( 100kg/ day)............................................................ 118
viii
Figure 4- 5: Hydrogen Costs for 10 Stations under 3 Scenarios...................................... 119
Figure 4- 6: H2 Cost for 10 Stations ( adjusted scale)...................................................... 119
Figure 4- 7: Annual Station Costs for 10 Stations, 3 Scenarios....................................... 120
Figure 4- 8: Annual Station Costs for 10 Stations ( adjusted scale)................................. 120
Figure 4- 9: Installed Capital Cost for 10 Stations, 3 Scenarios...................................... 121
Figure 4- 10: H2Hwy Net Costs for 3 Scenarios............................................................. 123
Figure 4- 11: Hydrogen Cost for 3 Siting Scenarios, Scenario B Mix............................ 126
Figure 4- 12: H2Hwy Net Cost Range for Demand/ Supply and Siting Scenarios.......... 127
Figure 4- 13: Electrolysis ( 30\ kg/ day) Scenario Analysis............................................... 130
Figure 4- 14: Sensitivity Analysis for Reformer Station ( 1000 kg/ day).......................... 131
Figure 4- 15: The Effect of Capacity Factor on Hydrogen Cost...................................... 132
Figure 4- 16: The Effect of Capacity Factor on Hydrogen Cost...................................... 133
Figure 4- 17: Electrolyzer Station Cost Sensitivity ( 30 kg/ day)...................................... 134
LIST OF TABLES
Table 0- 1: Station Types and Sizes..................................................................................... x
Table 0- 1: Demand Scenario Assumptions...................................................................... xiii
Table 0- 3: Siting Scenario Assumptions.......................................................................... xiv
Table 1- 1: Literature Review Summary for Station & Equipment Costs......................... 10
Table 1- 2: Literature Review Summary for Model Results and Misc.............................. 11
Table 2- 1: Equipment Categories..................................................................................... 30
Table 2- 2: Source Categories............................................................................................ 31
Table 2- 3: Supplementary Cost Data................................................................................ 31
Table 2- 4: Literature Source Summary............................................................................. 33
Table 2- 5: Associated Source Information/ Assumptions................................................. 34
Table 2- 6: Hydrogen Production Equipment Associated Cost Information..................... 36
Table 2- 7: Electrolyzer Costs - Literature........................................................................ 37
Table 2- 8: Alkaline Electrolyzers ( includes Purification) - Industry................................ 38
Table 2- 9: Summary of SMR Costs from Literature........................................................ 40
Table 2- 10: Summary of SMR Costs from Industry......................................................... 41
Table 2- 11: Storage System Associated Cost Information............................................... 43
Table 2- 12: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs from Literature........................... 44
Table 2- 13: Liquid Hydrogen Storage System Costs from Literature.............................. 46
Table 2- 14: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs from Industry............................. 47
Table 2- 15: Compressor Associated Cost Information..................................................... 50
Table 2- 16: Compressor Costs from Literature................................................................ 51
Table 2- 17: Reciprocating Compressor Costs from Industry........................................... 53
Table 2- 18: Diaphragm Compressor Costs from Industry................................................ 53
Table 2- 19: Booster Compressor Costs from Industry..................................................... 54
Table 2- 20: Liquid Pumps................................................................................................ 55
Table 2- 21: Purification Equipment Cost from Literature................................................ 57
Table 2- 22: Purification Equipment Cost from Industry.................................................. 58
Table 2- 23: Hydrogen Dispenser Cost Summary from Literature.................................... 58
ix
Table 2- 24: Hydrogen Dispenser Cost Summary from Industry...................................... 59
Table 2- 25: Electricity Production/ Control Cost Summary from Literature.................... 60
Table 2- 26: Electricity Production/ Control Cost Summary from Stations & Industry.... 61
Table 2- 27: Installation Costs ( by Station)....................................................................... 62
Table 2- 28: Installation Costs ( by Expense)..................................................................... 63
Table 2- 29: Simbeck Estimates for Installation Costs of Hydrogen Stations................... 64
Table 30: Station Installation Cost Comparison............................................................... 64
Table 3- 1: Station Types and Sizes................................................................................... 67
Table 3- 2: Station Equipment........................................................................................... 68
Table 3- 3: Storage and Compressors Sizes By Station Type........................................... 77
Table 3- 4: Model Economic Variables............................................................................. 79
Table 3- 5: Scaling Factors................................................................................................ 84
Table 3- 6: Progress Ratios for Equipment........................................................................ 85
Table 3- 7: Production Volume Assumptions.................................................................... 86
Table 3- 8: Production Volume Assumptions ( Cumulative Units).................................... 87
Table 3- 9: Assumption Comparison................................................................................. 95
Table 3- 10: Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, H2Gen........................................... 97
Table 3- 11: Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, NAS............................................. 100
Table 3- 12: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Electrolysis Station, NAS........................ 102
Table 3- 13: Sensitivity Analysis Parameters.................................................................. 105
Table 4- 1: Scenario Assumptions................................................................................... 109
Table 4- 2: Station Mix Assumptions.............................................................................. 110
Table 4- 3: Criteria for Station Mixes in the Three Scenarios......................................... 111
Table 4- 4: Comparison of Hydrogen Costs to Gasoline Costs....................................... 117
Table 4- 5: H2Hwy Net Economic Assumptions............................................................ 122
Table 4- 6: Hydrogen Cost and Station Network Cost Per Vehicle................................ 124
Table 4- 7: Station Assumptions...................................................................................... 125
Table 4- 8: Siting Scenario Assumptions......................................................................... 126
Table 4- 9: Scenario Assumptions................................................................................... 129
Table 4- 10: Sensitivity Values........................................................................................ 131
Table 4- 11: Electrolyzer Cost vs. Scale.......................................................................... 134
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following summary highlights the results of the thesis. It presents costs for seven types of individual hydrogen fueling stations and the total estimated cost of the California Hydrogen Highway fueling station network. These results and more, along with their assumptions, are presented in great detail in Chapter 3 and 4. 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 0- 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 0- 1: Station Types and Sizes
Station Type
Capacity Range ( kg/ day)
1. Steam methane reformer
100- 1000
2. Electrolyzer, using grid or intermittent electricity
30- 100
3. Mobile refueler
10
4. Delivered liquid hydrogen
1000
5. PEM/ Reformer energy station
1000
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.
xi
Pie charts have been created for each station type to illustrate what costs are considered for each individual station and the amount each cost item contributes to overall hydrogen price. The figure below presents the pie chart for a reformer- type station.
Figure 0- 1: Reformer Station Costs ( 100kg/ day) SMR 100 Station Costs
Contingency
3%
Natural gas
4%
Fixed Operating
Purifier
4%
Storage
Costs32%
Installation Costs13%
System
Compressor
3%
Electricity
costs ( energy
+ demand)
1%
Equipment
5%
Natural
gas
The figure below shows annual station costs for the seven different types of stations
analyzed in this analysis.
reformeDispenser3% Additional
Total Installed Cost: $ 1,050,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 230,000/ yr
Hydrogen Cost: $ 13.3/ kg
xii
Figure 0- 2: Annual Costs per Station2
Annual Costs Per Station: Scenario C-$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 1.0$ 1.2$ 1.4SMR 100SMR 1000EL- G 30EL- PV 30EL- G 100MOB 10LH2 1000PEMES 100HTFC 91PIPE 100Station Cost ( MM$/ yr) Financing ChargeInstalled CapitalCostFixed OperatingCost Feedstock cost
To show how these costs compare to other more well- known studies, Figure 0- 2 compares the HSCM model results for reformer- type stations to results from a repothe National Academy of Science. The figure below shows w
rt by
here NAS costs fall
between HSCM costs for two production volume scenarios.
2 The high- temperature fuel cell ( HTFC) energy station shows negative feedstock cost since it actually
generates some revenue through electricity sales. The HTFC net station cost is actually ~$ 160,000/ yr. Note
that the HTFC costs presented in this report are low due to high capacity factor assumptions.
xiii
Figure 0- 3: Hydrogen Cost Comparison for Reformer Station, NAS Hydrogen Cost Comparison with NAS
$- 0
$ 1.0
$ 2.0
$ 5.0
$ 6.0
$ 7.0
$ 8.0
200 400 600 1000 1200
Size ( kg/ hr)
$ 3.0
$ 4.0
800
HSCM, P= 40
HSCM, PV= 4000
NAS/ NRC Current
NAS/ NRC Future
Costs aluated un e de nari ey
assum and scenarios are listed in Table 0- 1.
Table 0- 2: Demand Scenario Assumptions
for a network of stations were ev
der thre
mand sce
os. The k
ptions for the dem
Scenarios: A B C Total # of Stations 50 250 250
Hydrogen Price to Customer ($/ kg) $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 3.0
LD Vehicles 2,000 10,000 20,000
HD 00
Vehicles 10 100 3
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. Demand scenario B
xiv
( 250 stations, 10,000 vehicles, 24% capacity factor) is used for this case. The
assumptions for each scenario are presented in the table the f
F ost Und r 3 S ena t tion
below
igure.
igure 0- 4: Station C
e
Siting
c
rios, S
a
Mix B
Hy
drogen Cost for 3 Sitin narios
g Sce
with70
Scenario B Sta ix
$ 0
$ 20
$
$
$
$
$
Hydrogen Cost ($/ kg)
tion M
$ 10SMR100SMR1000EL- G 30EL- PV30EL- G100MOB 10LH21000PEMES100HTFC91PIPE100
30
40
50
60
Basecase
Public Fleet Loca
tion
Champion App s
Table 0- 3: Siting Scenario Assumptions
Scenario: Basecase
lic
Fleet
Location
Champion
Applications
Station Assumptions
licationPub
Natural gas ($/ MMBtu) $ 7.00 $ 6.00 $ 5.00 Electricity ($/ kWh) $ 0.10 $ 0.06 $ 0.05
Demand charge ($/ kW/ mth) $ 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 ($/ ft^ 2/ month) $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $-
Contingency 20% 15% 10% Property Tax 1% 1% 1%
The total cost for a network of stations is presented in Figure 0- 5. The three demand
scenarios are combined with three siting scenarios ( e. g. 2010 Retail, Public Fleet,
Champion) for a total of nine data points. This provides an upper and lower bound on the
H2Hwy Network cost estimate for scenarios A, B, and C.
xv
Fig
ure 0- 5: H2Hwy Net Cost Range for Demand/ Supply and Siting Scenarios Net H2Hwy Cost ( MM$/ yr) for Supply/ Demand and Siting Scenarios000
-
15.0
20.00
25.0
30.0
35.00
A B C
5.0010.00Supply/ Demand Scenario
2010 Retail
Public Fleet Location
Champion Applications
The ab
station cos he
HSCM, though applied in this report to California’s Hydrogen Highway Network, is
flexible
Conclusions
The follow
1. te the
olumes
than what industry is experiencing today.
overesults demonstrate the flexibility of the HSCM as a tool for calculating ts under a variety of assumptions and comparing results to other analyses. T
enough to model the construction of hydrogen stations in any region. ing conclusions can be drawn from the report’s analysis: Existing analyses on the economics of hydrogen stations under- estima
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 v
xvi
2. In order to achieve hydrogen costs competitive with current gasolineproduction volumes for stations will need to reach levels in the 1000’ s. This is equivalent to about 6% of gasoline stations in California.
prices,
3. est impact on hydrogen cost.
.
land to
leet vehicle clusters to increase capacity factor.
of equipment scale economies on reducing cost.
6. 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.
7. Mobile refuelers yield the most expensive hydrogen due to their small size
( 10kg/ day) and the high cost to refill them.
3 Capacity factor, or station utilization, has the bigg
Station operators should try to maintain high station utilization in order to achieve low hydrogen cost.
4. The strategic location of stations and vehicles is critical to station economicsThe scenario analysis showed that " Champion Applications" resulted in the lowest cost hydrogen. This involves building stations on state- ownedreduce real- estate costs and installation costs ( easier permitting process), andtaking advantage of f
5. Large stations ( 1000 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 3 This assumes units are made from a single manufacturer.
xvii
8. Energy stations have the potential for lower cost hydrogen due to increased
equipment utilization ( hydrogen is produced for cars and stationary power).
ost uncertain since only a few
n
r
Costs for these station types are the m
PEM/ Reformer energy station have been built and no HTFC energy stations
have yet been built. 9. Station sited near an industrial demand for hydrogen can share the hydrogeuse and thus take advantage of scale- economies and high capacity factors. 10. Pipeline stations have potential for low cost at low flow rates when sited neaexisting pipelines. 1
INTRODUCTION
Motivation
ndustry and government face two key challenges in planning new hydrogen
rtant
s in
he first challenge makes it is difficult to accurately estimate the cost of building new
stations since station costs are highly variable and unpredictable. Actual station costs
budgeted amount, sometimes by multiples. While there are many
ct costs
vide
re different station mixes, operating assumptions, and siting
onditions.
I
infrastructure: 1) the lack of accurate data on current station costs; 2) the need to find cost- effective infrastructure development strategies. These issues are especially impoin California since the state is planning to build a intrastate network of fueling stations ( i. e. the Hydrogen Highway Network). The author addresses both of these problemthis thesis.
T
often exceed the
estimates of the anticipated costs of fueling stations, most analyses to date projebelow what station builders are experiencing today. Furthermore, there is no literature reporting the actual costs of station construction. The second challenge requires a new transparent modeling tool to explore a variety of hydrogen infrastructure deployment scenarios. The tools available today do not prothe ability to explo
c
2
To address the first challenge, the author has created a database to collect and organize cost information on hydrogen station equipment called CHREC ( Compendium of
Hydrog
suppliers, existing stations, and literature.
To address the second challenge, the author has created the Hydrogen Station Cost Model
( HSCM), a odel to determine the costs of several types of
hydrog assumptions. Data from CHREC are the
key inp rison of different
infrastr ns. The model can
be used ucture4.
Background
Hydrogen fueling stations are the building blocks of a hydrogen transportation
infrastr eir primary function is to provide hydrogen fuel for vehicles, this
goal can be achieved in many different ways. For instance, some stations produce
hydrog oduction plants in
quid or gaseous form. Hydrogen can also be produced from a variety of feedstocks,
l waste, wood
clippin
en Refueling Equipment Costs). It collects and organizes data from equipment
n engineering/ economic m
en stations under various conditions and
ut to the HSCM. Its flexible structure also enables compa
ucture deployment strategies in a variety of geographical regio
by governments that are planning to build networks of hydrogen infrastr
ucture. While th
en on- site while others have fuel delivered from centralized pr
li
such as water and electricity, natural gas, or biomass ( e. g. agricultura
gs, etc.).
4 These projects are underway in California, Canada, Iceland, Tasmania, and Norway.
3
Despite tions on station design, most stations contain the following pieces
of hard
1. Hydrogen production equipment ( e. g. electrolyzer, steam reformer) or storage
Storage vessels ( liquid or gaseous)
5. Safety equipment ( e. g. vent stack, fencing, bollards)
7. Electrical equipment ( e. g. control panels, high- voltage connections)
Building stations also require the following 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)
the many varia
ware:
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.
6. Mechanical equipment ( e. g. underground piping, valves)
4
4. Insurance
g
d site preparation. The following figure provides
n example of a hydrogen fueling station co- located with a conventional retail gasoline
Figur
5. Rent It is important for station economic analyses to include all of these costs when evaluatinhydrogen price. Many analyses in the existing body of literature omit some of these, particularly in the areas of permitting an
a
station.
e 0- 1: Site Layout for Combined Gasoline/ Liquid Hydrogen Fueling Station5
5 Diagram provided by Erin Kassoy of Tiax, LLC
5
Scope The HSCM has been applied to specific task of determining the cost of the California
ydrogen Highway ( H2Hwy) Network. As such, the results of the analysis ( presented in
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
Simbeck, Ogden, etc.)?
The following research tools are used to answer the aforementioned questions. These
tools were created by the author for this analysis.
Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC):
he CHREC database is a virtual “ one- stop shop” for information on the costs of
ydrogen refueling stations. This includes capital costs for equipment ( e. g. compressors,
H
Chapter 4) use 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
and the costs estimated by other reports ( NAS,
4. What strategies are available to lower the cost of hydrogen in the near- term? Research Tools & Methodology:
T
h
6
storage tanks), non- capital costs for construction ( e. g. design, permitting), and total
tation costs ( e. g. $/ station, $/ kg).
he CHREC is a tool to compare existing cost estimates, and compare these estimates to
eal cost data. It compiles and organizes cost estimates obtained from a variety of authors
( e. g. Thomas, Ogden, Simbeck) for the major components in a hydrogen refueling
station. It also compiles actual historical cost data from existing stations and vendors
Figure 0- 2: CHREC Database Example Form
s
T
r
( e. g. Air Products, Stuart, H2Gen). All cost data are standardized to 2004 dollars. The following figure shows the CHREC user interface: The Weinert Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM):
The HSCM is a research tool created by the author to analyze the economics of different
types and sizes of hydrogen stations. It also calculates the overall cost of developing a
7
hydrogen station network assuming a vehicle demand and station- type mix.
Technological learning are modeled through progress ratios assumed for various station
com figure shows the key inputs and outputs of this model. The
model and the methodology it follows are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and 4.
Figure 0- 3: HSCM Structure
rom equipment suppliers, existing stations and literature. The
engineering/ econom
stations. In the final chapter of the report, the HSCM m
ponents. The following
Thesis Outline The first chapter of the thesis reviews the existing body of knowledge on hydrogen station costs. In the second chapter, I present hydrogen station cost data in a database, the Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs ( CHREC), created to organize and analyze data collected fEquipment Costs
third chapter of the report presents the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM), an
ic model also created as part of this thesis, to analyze the cost of odel is applied to the case of the ( from CHREC) Installation Costs
Operating Costs
INPUTS Weinert Hydrogen
Station Cost
Model
OUTPUTS
Hydrogen Price ($/ kg)
Annual Station
Cost ( MM$/ yr)
Installed Station
( MM$)
Station AssumptionsCapital Cost Feedstock Costs
8
prop
hydr
osed California Hydrogen Highway Network to indicate the costs of different ogen infrastructure options.
9
1. Literature Review on Hydrogen Fueling Station Costs and
Configurations
Summary
his review analyzes and evaluates available literature on hydrogen equipment costs,
station costs, and energy station configurations. It presents the results, assum
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
Previous analyses have addressed some of
this report. The purpose of t ing 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 my
evaluation of the reviewed reports into three main categories: Hydrogen Station and
Equipm
Station Results/ Misc. The matrix ranks the degree to which they adequately address the
given factors. Factors are ranked according to the degree to which it addresses each of
these factors.
N not addressed a ll;
I ubject is addressed, but a more thorough analysis needs to be
done ( possible due to the author’s use of simplified assumptions, obsolete data,
t
T
ptions,
.
the problems and research questions posed in
he follow
ent Costs Results, Energy Station Model Functions/ Capabilities, and Energy
= none, the subject is
t a
= inadequately, the sc.);
e
10
A ubject is covered w th sufficient b eadth and ccuracy su h that
the results are still relevant and a repeat analysis would be redundant.
Table 1- 1: Literature Review Summary for Station & Equipment Costs
Hydrogen Station and Equipment Costs
= adequately, the s
i
r
a
c
y
e
Capital
Equipment
Non-
Capital
Station Operating
Includes
Cost
Explores
Cost vs.
Capacity
Explores Cost
vs. Production
Volume
Validates
cost data
with
Industry
ar Costs Costs Costs Equations
Source
Primary
Author
02 Cost and Performance Stationary Hydrogen Fueling Applications Myers, Duane B.
Comparison Of
A N I N I A A
0Distributed Hydrogen Fueling C. E.
1 Systems Analysis
Thomas,
( Sandy) I N I A I A I
02 for Hydrogen Pathways- Scoping Analysis Simbeck, Dale Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate
A I A I A? I A
9Survey of the Economics of Padro, 9 Hydrogen Technologies C. E. G. I N N N I A A
9 Costs of Storing and Amos,
8 Transporting Hydrogen Wade A N A N I N A
0
3
Hydrogen Infrastructure for
Transport Sepideh
A Critical Review and Analysis of Publications on the Costs of
I N N N N I A
04 National Academy of Science Report NAS A I A A N A
0
0
Assessment of Hydrogen Fueled
Proton Exchange Membrane
Fuel Cells for Generation and
Kreutz,
Ogden I N A A I I I
11
Cogeneration
9
9
Systems & Hydrogen Airport
Ground Support Equipment Thomas
Analysis of Utility Hydrogen
I N I A A A A
02 Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Energy Station Concepts Lipman I I I N A I I
Table 1- 2: Literature Review Summary for Model Results and Misc.
Model Results and Miscellaneous Factors
Performs sensitivity anayses Technical Info on rational for design Explores effstatio
on key variables
Includes
equipment
Includes
choices
regional
ects of
n
siting
Source
Primary
Author
2002 Comparison Of Applia Myers, Duane B. N
Cost and Performance
Stationary Hydrogen Fueling
A A N 2001 Distributed Hydrogen Fueling Systems Analysis Thomas, C. E. ( Sandy) A A A I 2002 Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate Analysis Simbeck, Dale N N
for Hydrogen Pathways- Scoping
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 Transport Sepideh N N N N
A Critical Review and Analysis of Publications on the Costs of Hydrogen Infrastructure for
12
2004 Report NAS
National Academy of Science A the
eir
e:
t al. ( 2001) “ Distributed Hydrogen Fueling Systems
Hydrogen Station & Equipment Cost Report Synopsis
The following section provides a synopsis of literature containing information oncosts of hydrogen stations and hydrogen equipment. In this section, the author commentson the different approaches used by each author in determining costs and examine thassumptions. The reviewed reports, listed in order of usefulness to this research, includ Dale Simbeck and Elaine Chang ( Jul- 02) “ Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways - Scoping Analysis” Duane B. Myers et al. ( Apr- 02) “ Cost and Performance Comparison of StationaryHydrogen Fueling Appliances”
C. E. ( Sandy) Thomas e
Analysis” 13
Sepideh, S. “ A Critical Review and Analysis of Publications on the Costs of
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.
is useful
ublications covers to present hydrogen cost data for production, storage,
ansport, stationary power, and transportation applications.
Hydrogen Infrastructure for Transport” ( 2004) Amos, W. ( Nov- 98) “ Costs of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen” C. E. G. Padró and V. Putsche ( Sep- 99) “ Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen Technologies”
Simbeck and Chang ( 2002) analyzes the total station costs for several different types of stations through the use of a comprehensive spreadsheet model. Sepideh ( 2004) 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) looksat over 100 p
tr
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
14
is to identify 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 today’s equipment costs? 2. What aspects of hydrogen stations is there limited amount of information on? 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 ( listed in “ Background” section) are neglected?
cost models presented in
ese reports accurately reflect “ reality” for large stations (> 100 kg/ day) at high
n on
t
stimates of actual stations. One reason is that some of the older reports were written
m
ese reports are valid, many use production volume and utilization estimates that are
Evaluation of Sources
The conclusion after reviewing these papers is that most of the
th
production volume levels (> 100 units/ yr). These reports in general lack informationear- term, actual equipment and station costs. None of the literature provides cos
e
before any hydrogen stations were actually built. Some of the equipment cost data fromolder reports under- estimate the true costs experienced in 2004. Very few reports froliterature look at non- capital costs of building stations. Also, there is a limited amount of recent data from equipment manufacturers in literature. While some assumptions in
th
unrealistically high for near term scenarios. 1. Dale Simbeck and Elaine Chang ( Jul- 02) “ Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for
Hydrogen Pathways - Scoping Analysis” SFA Pacific, Mountain View, CA
15
This paper is particularly unique and valuable to understanding hydrogen station
conomics. It provides results from detailed spreadsheets that calculate hydrogen cost
tions.
n,
e
by the chemical gas company Air Products. Their
indings were in relative agreement.
ince
l
ng
of
e
based on several different production technologies, feedstocks, and distribution opThe costs for each option are broken down into capital costs, fixed operating costs, and variable operating costs to determine a unit hydrogen cost ($/ kg). The final hydrogen costs are broken- down further into the sub- costs for production, handling, transmissioand storage. The assumptions made in determining these costs are clearly defined in threport. To support their results, the authors validated their calculations by comparing them with cost estimates made
f
The model created for this analysis is one of the most transparent analyses on hydrogen station costs to date since it includes their calculation spreadsheets in the appendix. Sthe paper covers all the major types of hydrogen production, it allows for more meaningful cost comparisons between production methods since the same assumptionsare used for each production technology. This model was also adopted by the NationaAcademy of Sciences as their tool to analyze hydrogen costs ( after modifications by JimSweeney). Non- Capital Costs: The report makes general assumptions about the costs for General Facilities, EngineeriPermitting & Startup, Contingencies, Working Capital, Land & Misc. It assumes each
16
these categories cost a certain percentage of the total capital equipment cost ( 20%, 10%, 10%, and 5%, respectively). While this may be correct for more established fueling station types, it can be misleading for near- term hydrogen stations. For example, it has
en found that for recently built stations, these costs can exceed the total capital cost of
s differences in costs at different geographical locations, a “ site
ip between cost and equipment production
he sizing scale factor used in this study is valid over a range 100- 10,000
g/ day7. It would be useful to examine the cost of smaller scale hydrogen stations since,
in the near- term, smaller hydrogen generation devices will be implemented.
seful
be
equipment6. To addres
specific” factor is used to increase or decrease the final capital costs of the station. While it is a relatively recent source of cost information, several of the cost figures have been obtained directly from older sources ( e. g. Amos 1998).
The report does not address a relationsh
volume. It also does not provide costs for the low production volume scenario. Its lowest capacity assumption is 480 kg/ day max production, or 723 vehicles ( 103 fill- ups/ day). T
k
The report does not show how costs change as key variables change. It would be uto use this model to perform a sensitivity analyses on important variables to see how they 6 Weinert, J. ( 2004) “ The LAX Hydrogen Fueling Station Development: A Historical, Technical, and
conomic Overview with a Discussion of the Obstacles Encountered and Lessons Learned”, National
Hydrogen Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA.
E
17
affect the overall cost of hydrogen. The National Academy of Science Report ( which uses a modified version of this model) does this analysis however. Besides presenting detailed cost information, the paper also describes the theory, advantages, and disadvantages of different station configurations. Throughout the paper,
e author makes conclusions about the value of different station configuration options.
or example, “ From Table 15, it shows that the lower infrastructure requirements of
t also
ay be better to stick
5000 psi than 10,000 psi.”
its
using three key assumptions: load
ctor, hours at peak surge, and maximum surge fill- up rate. Simbeck assumes a load
ith the assumption that the compressor
utput and the production rate output are identical, yield an estimated station storage
th
F
forecourt production do not compensate for the higher operating costs.” ( p. 24) Istates that “ until composite materials become more economical, it m
to
Storage Sizing The report addresses the relationship between storage volume and production rate andeffect on hydrogen costs. The amount of storage required given a hydrogen demand ( FCV/ day) or production volume ( kg/ day) is calculated
fa
factor of 90% ( amount of time the hydrogen equipment is actually used), the storage system will need to store enough to handle 3 hours of fueling at peak surge ( maximum hydrogen flow rate at a station), and that the peak surge rate is 2 times the average production rate. These three assumptions, along w
o
capacity of 108 kg. ( 90% load factor x 3 hr peak surge x 2 peak surge: avg production ratio x 20 kg/ hr = 108 kg of storage). Though this method simplifies the relationship
18
between storage, hydrogen demand, and hydrogen production rate, it is sufficient for purpose of Simbeck and Chang’s analysis. The HSCM does not adopt this assumption. It uses a method de
the
veloped by Tiax to calculate storage and compressor requirement.
re
pressor. The compressor and production need
operate in synch to prevent low compressor inlet pressure.
CUact = CUo * ( Sizeo / Sizeact)( 1- CSF)
e
Compressor Sizing: The author assumes the compressor output and the hydrogen production rate output aidentical. This is a reasonable assumption for most stations unless there is a buffer storage tank between the reformer and com
to
Relationship between Cost and Size: To appropriately model the effect of size on the cost of the different components, it assumes a cost/ unit and cost/ size factor for each component. The capital cost ( in $/ kg/ day) for these components are calculated using these assumptions and the following formula.
For example, reformers are assumed to cost $ 2.00/ scf/ day based on a 1000 kg/ day reformer. Since this equipment exhibits a 75% cost/ size factor, reducing the size of thunit to 480 kg/ day will increase its unit cost by a factor of ( 1000/ 480) ( 1- 0.75) ~ 1.2 to $ 2.40/ scf/ day
19
This approach is useful because it allows one to calculate unit cost for equipment over a
is
y be misleading however in predicting the cost of equipment for near term
tations when the Sizeo ( 1000 kg/ day) deviates significantly from Sizeact ( 50- 150 kg/ day
ng Appliances” DTI, Arlington, VA
of
eforming systems were studied: 10- atmosphere steam methane reforming
SMR) with pressure- swing adsorption ( PSA) as gas cleanup, 20- atm SMR with metal
nd
ate
gas cleanup technologies, hydrogen compressors, stationary
range of sizes if the unit costs at a given size and its cost/ size factor are known. Thapproach ma
s
for near term stations). 2. Duane B. Myers et al. ( Apr- 02) “ Cost and Performance Comparison Of Stationary Hydrogen Fueli
This report analyzes the cost of small- scale stationary reformers and evaluates different purification, compression, storage, and dispenser technologies. The purpose of this 129- page document is to provide “ a detailed analysis of the cost of providing small- scale stationary hydrogen fueling appliances ( HFA’s) for the on- site production and storagehydrogen from natural gas to fuel hydrogen FCV’s.” Four potential r
(
membrane gas cleanup, 10- atm autothermal reforming ( ATR) with PSA gas cleanup, a20- atm ATR with metal membrane gas cleanup.” The sections of interest in this report are: Refueling applicant hydrogen production rand manufacturing quantity,
20
storage of compressed hydrogen, dispensers, and total cost of SMR based stationary
n
rovides a very comprehensive analysis of the costs of hydrogen refueling
quipment. It is also an excellent source for technical information about steam methane
.
e n the Design for
n by Boothroyd and Dewhurst,
escribed in Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, 2nd edition. These cost
fueling appliances. The author refers to these appliances as the Hydrogen Fueling Appliance ( HFA) The report concludes that small scale steam reformation units producing pure hydrogegas stored at 5,000 psi is the most promising hydrogen supply pathway compared to electrolysis and delivered hydrogen and that SMR is the cheapest method for producing hydrogen from natural gas at small scale. This report p
e
reformer design and operation. It includes technical drawings and explanations of eachsystem involved in the reformation process, including reformate cleanup technologies. One of its most useful features is the bill of materials provided for the reformer systemThe report includes a few estimates of the effect of production volume on cost for compressors and storage, but only for a few different production volume levels.
Th report uses a robust cost estimation methodology based o
Maufacture and Assembly ( DFMA) techniques developed
d
estimates have been entered into CHREC. The costs estimated in this report are lower than the costs calculated from the author’s model ( described later in the report). 21
3. C. E. ( Sandy) Thomas et al. ( 2001) “ Distributed Hydrogen Fueling Systems
nalysis”
pes of
ons for storage tanks and
eformers. These cost estimates are derived from actual vendor manufacturers. The
rt is one of the few that examines the relationship between equipment costs and
roduction volume. It provides cost estimates for the SMR unit at production volumes of
, 100 and 10,000. This is useful in conducting future scenario analysis by calculating
vel
lume analysis also allows comparison of his estimates with estimates from
ther sources since other analyses use a variety of different production volume
The rep
storage, and hydrogen tank overfilling. It also concludes there is no significant cost
advant
load- fo age system cost but concludes there is no
significant cost reduction.
A
The report examines reformer, storage and compressor costs for several different tyequipment. In particular, the authors developed cost correlati
r
operating costs for compressors can be calculated from the equation compression energy over a given time interval. This repo
p
1
how costs may come down as production volumes increase. The author’s multi- leproduction vo
o
assumptions.
ort provides some great technical descriptions about cascade storage, booster
age in using booster over cascade storage. It looks at the operation scenario of llowing the reformer to reduce stor
22
The au ing California and
Alaska
alifornia, a 500- FCV station with a 200- kWe fuel cell generator could sell electricity
on
he report looks at only one fuel cell size ( 200kW) and four different vehicle demand
tes
therefore are low.
It includes a production progress ratio for compressors.
d
n using a cascade system vs. a booster system. It calculates the energy
thors analyze the station costs for different regions, includ
, and show how different energy prices affect the system economics. “ In
C
during six peak hours for 6¢/ kWh and hydrogen at $ 1/ gallon gasoline- equivalent. In Alaska, with lower natural gas prices, on- peak electricity could be sold at 6¢/ kWh and hydrogen at 60¢/ gallon of gasoline- equivalent and still make 10% real, after- tax returninvestment.” It calculates the price of both hydrogen and electricity prices given variousFCV demands. This calculation is useful in locating suitable regions for initial ES deployment
T
scenarios. It analyzes the price of electricity vs. the amount of time the fuel cell operaper day. It assumes one simplified building electricity demand profile ( 6hrs per day during peak daytime period). The estimated costs of hydrogen presented in this report are not realistic for today’s near- term costs of hydrogen for the following reasons: - Natural gas prices are based off 1998 data and
-
- Several of the station installation costs are neglected. The report includes cost equations for storage tanks and reciprocating compressors. It also looks at the trade- off between storage costs vs. reformer, compressor costs, anoperating costs i
23
costs of the reformer and compressor for a 50kg/ day station, however, it does analyze
r Products, BOC, Ford), but not with any of the smaller
ompanies producing equipment for fueling stations today.
author’s
odel.
his report summarizes and analyzes cost data from the most relevant reports on
lude:
a) analysis and comparison of generic costs: hydrogen production equipment,
how operating costs change with reformer and fuel cell size. The costs presented in this report for storage and compression appear to have been validated with industry ( Ai
c
The report presents several graphs showing the relationship between a customers’ cost ofelectricity and the selling price of hydrogen for a customer that owns an energy station. Again, the costs presented in this report are lower than those calculated from the
m
4. Sepideh ( 2003) “ The Costs of Hydrogen Technologies” ( final draft of PhD dissertation)
T
hydrogen cost between 1985 and 2000. The main categories of analysis inc
hydrogen storage equipment, transportation equipment etc. b) analysis and comparison of different hydrogen supply scenarios/ pathways andtheir costs in a particular location
24
c) analysis and comparison of different types of transport fuels for hydrogen vehicles ( hydrogen, methanol, gasoline) and their costs. d) Conclusions reached regarding generic hydrogen infrastructure costs
This report evaluates a large number of sources on costs and determines which ones are
both pipeline
nd truck ( pp. 50s) and storage costs from different reports ( p. 64) The majority of these
y of reports that use different assumptions. She identifies trends in
e cost data based on these normalized numbers and briefly looks at data associated with
or on- site natural
as reformation) in her cost tables ( p. 28). It also presents bar graphs showing the
the most valid and useful. It examines the assumptions used for each report’s cost figuresto understand the differences in results. Specifically, it provides detailed coverage of costs comparisons of compression and dispenser costs, transport costs for
a
data are from three reports: Thomas 1997, Amos 1998, and Berry 1996). The summaryincludes cost information on metal hydride, underground, and liquefied storage. Sepideh uses a special normalized “ Total Cost” factor based on ($ million/ ton/ day) to compare the results of each report. This normalized factor is a useful way of comparing cost data from a variet
th
different production volume assumptions ( p. 26). The report presents some of the key assumptions for each total costs ( f
g
relationship between cost and plant size for all the different estimates. It normalizes the data based on the most common assumptions to present a meaningful comparison between data.
25
The report evaluates the analyzed reports and their data based on “ the clarity and transparency with which the methods and equations used have been described, and
hether all assumptions made have been clearly stated.” This is a useful metric for
vides a thorough analysis of cost data taken from literature from the
0’ s on the costs of hydrogen infrastructure, it does not consider cost data from the past
our years or progress by the most relevant hydrogen equipment companies today ( e. g.
he data on compressor costs are limited. These data are taken from some older reports
APCI).
94-
essure
f the storage.
capital and operating costs associated with
toring and transporting hydrogen. The report mentions some future trends in hydrogen
The
and
w
evaluating the literature. While this paper pro
9
f
Quantum, FTI, PPI, PDC machines, Dynetek, Hydrogenics, H2Gen, Harvest).
T
( Amos, Thomas, and Ogden), and only from a few different companies ( RIX, The data presented on storage costs ( both liquid and gas) are fairly outdated, i. e. 191996. ( p. 74). The way these data are presented doesn’t give information on the pr
o
5. Amos, W. ( Nov- 98) “ Costs of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen” The purpose of this report is to analyze the
s
storage and transportation, but concentrates mostly on current commercial processes. storage techniques considered are liquid hydrogen, compressed gas, metal hydride, 26
underground storage. The modes of transportation examined are liquid hydrogen deliveryby truck, rail, and barge; gaseous hydrogen delivery by truck, rail, and pipeline; and
etal hydride delivery by truck and rail. Amos’ key results are presented in a table
ngs on costs. It
thorough in describing the technology, how it works, the concerns and benefits of
s together cost information from a variety of papers
rom as far back as 1986 on hydrogen technologies and lists the source of each cost
use he drew from several sources, he is able to present a range of costs for
of
his
rime candidates for on- site hydrogen production.
m
summarizing the price of hydrogen from a variety of sources. This report contains many useful tables that summarize the author’s findi
is
different storage methods, and the size ranges of different components. This report is unique in that it pull
f
figure. Beca
each item, and costs for equipment of varying size. The paper is also unique in that is
contains a large amount of operating cost data and information about the efficienciesvarious compressors. Data on merchant hydrogen demand are presented towards the end of the document. Tis helpful in determining markets for energy stations since industries that consume hydrogen may be p
This paper is helpful in considering the storage system design of an energy station. For example, it provides a list of items to consider before choosing a storage option and covers the safety, maintenance and reliability of each option.
27
This paper does not consider how different sub- systems of a fueling station are related ( e. g. how the reformer and storage system will be configured).
Amos gives an extensive description of transport costs, however, this is not as important
in the economic considerations of energy station design since the hydrogen is usually
produced on- site.
6. C. E. G. Padró and V. Putsche ( Sep- 99) “ Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen
Technologies”
Since this paper surveys more than 100 publications on the cost of hydrogen
technologies, it has many references and sources of their cost estimates. It covers
production, storage, transport, stationary power, and transportation applications.
It is helpful because for many of the hydrogen production estimates, the authors give
costs for several different production volumes. It also provides the highs and lows of
different cost estimates. The paper usually cites where the cost number came from, and
comments on the uncertainty of the data.
This paper contains useful charts showing how different factors influence cost. One
shows how the price of H2 drops with the # of vehicles served, which is helpful in
28
drawing conclusions about station sizing. For instance, the curve hits its elbow point at
50 vehicles, indicating a “ minimum demand” for making hydrogen stations economical.
he authors standardize all the cost estimates to equivalent units and to 1998 dollars,
which allows for more meaningful comparison between estimates. Some of the data in
bit outdated since most estimates are from before 1998.
fuel
t.
volume
of these costs based on estimates from
ther industries.
The next chapter ( Chapter 2) 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 chapter. Chapter 3 features the Hydrogen
T
this report are a
There are not many data points for small- scale reformer- based hydrogen production. There is limited data on composite storage tank costs. Cost projections for stationary cell power are overly optimistic. Conclusion There are several studies that evaluate the cost of both hydrogen stations and equipmenAn important item missing from these cost studies is an evaluation of total installed station costs, operating costs, and capital costs that consider near- term productionlevels. While the reports cover equipment costs at different sizes and production volumes, most overlook non- capital costs such as installation, permitting, siting, etc. Simbeck’s spreadsheets make rough estimates
o
29
Station Cost Model ( HSCM) which uses CHREC data to determine the cost of seven
types of hydrogen stations. The final chapter ( Chapter 4) applies the model to analyze
the costs of California’
s proposed Hydrogen Highway Network. 30
2. Survey of Hydrogen Equipment Costs fr e and
Industry
Introduction
The following section presents d
Equip CHREC), an ase created by the author 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
will a draw conclusion
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
survey in Chapter 1). Industry data were gathered by the author from equipment
make he author als station
from o he
follow tables present these su
Table 2- 1: Equipment Categories
om Literatur
ata from the Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Access datab
ment Costs (
ttempt to
s from the cost data. The data are divided into nine
reports ( see literature
rs/ vendors. T
o gathered station data for particular parts of the
the station’s lead contracting
r ( both existing stations and proposed stations). Tbcategories.
Production Equipment Storage Equipment Compressors
31
Dispensers
Purifiers
Electricity Production/ Controls Equipment
Trans
port ( equipment and service)
Hydrogen Costs
Non- Capital Station Costs
Total Station Costs
Table 2- 2: Source Categories
Literature
Equipment Supplier ( estimate)
Equipment Supplier ( actual)
Station builder ( estimate)
Station builder ( actual)
or each cost quote in the above equipment categories, CHREC provides the following
information ( where available):
Table 2- 3: Supplementary Cost Data
Category
F
additional
Description
Cost The cost as presented in the source
Total Cost ($ 2004) Cost converted to 04 dollars using a deflator index
32
Normalized Cost ( e. g.
$ 2004/ kg/ hr) C
ost normalized to equipment capacity
Range
( y of va so,
I u
es/ no) indicates if the data are from a range
lues ( if
se the range midpoint)
$ Year
T termined ( used to convert 4
do
he year the cost was de
to 200
llars) Sourc
eID T ch the data were obtained he source from whi
Page/
fig/ table
T which the data was
di
he page/ figure/ table in the source fromrectly taken
Equip
ment Type Th lysis, SMR, etc.)
e equipment technology ( e. g. electro
Capacity The size/ flow rate of the unit ( usually in kg or kg/
hr) Production Volume
( units
/ yr) T of manufactured units/ yr this cost is based on
he number
General equipment
characteristics ( e. g.
pressure, weight, volume,
temperature, footprint)
Gives information on the key physical characteristics of the
unit. CHREC usually standardizes these to metric units.
Equipment- specific Gives in
characteristics
formation unique to the equipment type ( e. g.
hydrogen purity, # of compression stages, tank material)
Other equipment included in cost Other equipment included in the cost estimate besides the
main piece of equipment ( e. g. valves, piping, controls, etc.)
comments Any additional comments regarding the quote or the source
In this chapter’ ation for
each cost in the tables are included ( due to space constraints). This usually includes
capacity, production volume, 2004 co d cost, source and year. The tables of
cost data for each equipment type can be found in Appendix F.
s summary of cost information, only the most relevant inform
st, normalize
33
The graphical user interface of the CH
Figure 2
REC database is shown below.
- 1: CHREC Interface Sources
m the following sources of literature:
Primary Author Source Year
Data in CHREC are drawn fro
Table 2- 4: Literature Source Summary
Amos, Wade Costs of Storing and Transporting 1998
34
Hydrogen
Myers, Duane B. Stationary Hydrogen Fueling Appliances 2002
Cost and Performance Comparison Of
Ogden, Joan
Small Stationary Reformers for
2002
Review of
Hydrogen Production
Padro, C. E. G.
Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen
Technologies 1999
Simbeck, Dale ping Analysis 2002
Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways- Sco
Tax Policy Services
Young CAN 2003
Group of Ernst &
An Economic Analysis of Various Hydrogen Fuelling Pathways from
Thomas, C. E. ( Sandy) is 2001
Distributed Hydrogen Fueling Systems Analys
A list of the companies that provided data in CHREC is presented in Appendix G. To
protect the confidentiality of the company supplying cost data, equipment costs do not
have associated with
The f hows the a available) for each
sourc
able 2- 5: Asso
a “ source”
them.
ollowing table s
dditional information collected ( where
e.
T
ciated Source Information/ Assumptions
Category
Description
Source
Report name
Primary Author
Report author
35
Secondary Authors
Additional authors
Date ( year xxxx)
Year the report was published or the cost info was
obtained
Comments Any additional information about the report’s origin
Source Category
Classifies the source as either literature, an industry
quote, or part of a station quote
Station type If the cost info pertains to a specific station, this classifies the station according to how it makes/ gets its hydrogen. Continuous flow rate ( design) Station’s hydrogen production/ usage rate ( kg/ day)
Usage pattern ( hrs/ day, days/ wk) Predicted load profile for the station
Annual load factor (%) Predicted load factor of the station
natural gas cost ( co
mmercial) Assumed natural gas price used by the author/ supplier
electricity cost, on- peak ($/ kWh) Assumed electricity price used by the author/ supplier
electricity off- peak ($/ kWh)
cost,
Assumed elect rice used by the autho
ricity p
r/ supplier Other Any addition w CH al info that
ould help the REC user
Add in c
ategory If there should be another category of info, this allows
the user to create one
Add in cate lue gory va
Holds the dat dd- i y
a for the a
n categor
1. Hydrogen Production
The tables below compare co a fr ety ces tro natural
gas re ation t ologies acity du lum ptions for the data
are i d since se are t st im fa t inf cos e following
table shows the additional information collected ( where available) for each hydrogen
production cost quote.
st dat
om a vari
of sour
for elec
lysis and
form
echn
. Cap
and pro
ction vo
e assum
nclude
the
he mo
portant
ctors tha
luence
t. Th
36
Table 2- 6: Hydrogen Production Equipment Associated Cost Information
Cat
egory Description
Cost The cost as presented in the source
Total Cost ($ 200
4) Cost converted using a ndex
to 04 dollars
deflator i
C 4/ kg/ ost ($ 200hr) C malized tion cap
ost nor to producacity range
( yes/ no) indicates if the data are from value
I use the range midpoint)
a range of
s ( if so, Purificat ncluded
ion I
( yes/ no) indicates whether the cost of the purifier is included
in the production eq st.
uipment co
$ Year
The e cost w ed ( u ert to
dolla
year th
as determin
sed to conv
2004
rs) SourceID The source from whi a was obt
ch the dat
ained
Page/ fig/ table
The page/ figure/ table in the source from which the dat
directly taken
a were
Equipme pe
nt Ty The production tech . electr R, et
nology ( e. g
olysis, SM
c.) Feedsto
ck The m edstock
ain fe
of the unit ( e. g. wat
er, n. g.) Capacity The average hydrogen flow rate of the unit
Capacity ( kg/ hr) Capacity standardized to kilograms per hour Production Volume ( units/ yr) The number of manufactured units/ yr this cost is based on
Efficiency Efficiency of the unit HHV/ LHV Indicates whether efficiency is based on LHV or HHV
Operating Pressure Operating pressure of the unit
Footprint ( L x W x H) Footprint of the unit Other equipment included in Other equipment included in the cost estimate besides storage
37
cost tanks,
comments Any additional comments regarding the quote or the source
Electrolysis
The following tables summarize 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.
Table 2- 7: Electrolyzer Costs - Literature
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Prod’n
Vol
( units/ yr) Year
Total Cost
($ 200
Cost
Cost ($/ kW)
Primary
Author
4) ($/ kg/ hr)
20
Not
available
( n/ a/) 2002 $ 1,461,892 $ 74,663 $ 2,241
Simbeck,
Dale
42 n/ a 2002 $ 2,884,043 $ 69,228 $ 2,078
Simbeck,
Dale
4.2 n/ a 2004 $ 196,000 $ 47,252 $ 1,419 Tiax/ DTI
4.2 n/ a 2004 $ 222,000 $ 53,280 $ 1,6008Tiax/ DTI 0.11 100 1997 $ 8,186 $ 72,229 $ 2,169 DTI 0.226 100 1997 $ 11,919 $ 52,583 $ 1,579 DTI
8 $ 1419/ kWH2 out HHV
in for current technology ( 64% efficient electrolyzer LHV) about $ 1600/ kW
38
Table 2- 8: Alkaline Electrolyzers ( includes Purification) - Industry
Capacity
( kg/ hr) 9
Production
Volume
( units/ yr) Year
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr) $/ kW
1.3 1
2004
$ 370,000
$ 274,379
$ 8,
240 2.7 1 2004 $ 450,000 $ 166,852 $ 5,011
5.4 1
2004
$ 670,000
$ 124,212
$ 3,
730 3.43 2 2002 $ 686,044 $ 200,013
$ 6,006
1 2 2002 $ 161,116 $ 161,116 $ 4,
838 1.3 10 2004 $ 250,000 $ 185,391 $ 5,567
2.7 10 2004 $ 310,000 $ 114,943 $ 3,
452 5.4 10 2004 $ 450,000 $ 83,426 $ 2,505
8.33 n/ a 2004 $ 600,000 72,028 $ 2,
163
The tables above show that the electrolyzers reported in the literature are much larger
than the electrolyzers quoted by industry. The economies of scale associated with
building larger units partially accounts for the large difference between the literature and
station costs ($/ kg/ hr).
The following figure plots electrolyzer costs from both literature and industry.
9 1 kg H2/ h = 142 MJ/ 3600 sec ~ 40 kW H2
39
Figure 2- 2: Summary of Alkaline Electrolyzer Costs from Literature and Industry
Electrolyzer Cost Estimates: Literature vs. Industry$ 0
$ 5$ $ 1,
00,0
1,000
500,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,500,000
$ 3,500,000
0 10 2 3
g/ hr
00,000
$ 3,000,000
Literatur
0
040
50
Capacity ( k
)
e
Indust
Figure 2- 3: Electrolyzer Costs from Industry
ry
El
ectrolyzer t Estim ra du
$ 0
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
$ 300,000
$ 400,000
$ 600,000
$ 700,000
800,0
900,0
,000,0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Capacity ( kg/ hr)
Cos
ates: Lite
ture vs. In
stry
$
00
$
00
$ 1
00
Prod Vol = 1
$ 500,000
Literature
Industry
Prod Vol = 10
40
Reformation
arize steam methane reformer ( SMR) cost data from both
literature and industry. Reformers convert 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.
Table 2- 9: Summary of SMR Costs from Literature
The following tables summ
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Prod’n
Vol
( units/ yr)
Purification
Included
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr)
Cost
($/ kW
)
Primary
Author Year
4.8 250
Myers,
No$ 109,632$ 22,888$ 687Duane B. 2002
4.8 250
Myers,
No$ 116,893$ 24,403$ 733Duane B. 2002
19.6 n/ a
imbeck,
No$ 575,659$ 29,400$ 883Dale 2002
S
20.8 1 $ 642,621 $ 30,851 $ 926
Thomas,
Sandy 2001
No
20.8 100 1 $ 315
Thomas,
Sandy 2001
No$ 218,320$ 10,48
41
20.8 10000
Thomas,
Sandy 2001
No$ 74,092$ 3,557$ 107
2 10000 Yes $ 9,342 $ 4,671 $ 140
Thomas,
Sandy 2001
8.3 10000 3
Padro,
C. E. G. 1999
Yes$ 12,025$ 1,444$ 4
16.7 10000
Padro,
Yes$ 16,754$ 1,006$ 30C. E. G. 1999
T ency of these units iciency was
r
Table 2- 10: Summary of SMR Costs from Industry
he effici
varies from 70% to 75%, for some no eff
eported.
Capacity
( kg/ hr
) Prod’n
Vol
( units/ yr)
Purification
Included
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr)
Cost
($/ kW) Year
1.5 Low No 72,0 $ 248,000 $ 7,447 2004
$ 3
00
4.16 400,0 $ 96 $ 2,888 004
Low
No?$ 00
,154
26.25 Low No 0 $ 32 0 $ 20,000,000$ 961 2
04
9 Low No $ 1,116,000 $ 124,000 $ 3,724 2004
1.32 4 Yes $ 295,000 $ 223,485 $ 6,711 2004
5.08 Low 6 56, $ 200
Yes
$ 28
,093$
317
1,691
3
42
20.35 Low Yes $ 840,000 $ 41,278 $ 1,240 2004
33.07 Low Yes 0,0 00
$ 90
00$ 27,215
$ 817 2
4
The following figure plots reformer cost against capacity for both industry and literature:
ure 2- eam M a er C
Fig
4: St
eth
ne Reform
osts10Reformer ( w/ out purification) Cost Estimates: $ 0$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 600,000$ 800,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,200,0000.05.01
0.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Capacity ( kg/ hr)
Literature
Industry
10 Large reformer costs estimates have been excluded from the curve since they distort
the scale
Prod Vo
l = 1
Prod Vol = 100
Prod Vol 0
= 100
43
2. Hydrogen Storage
Hydrogen Storage data collected in CHREC are presented in the following figures and
tables. Table 2- 11 shows the additional information collected ( where available) for each
hydrogen storage cost quote. Hydrogen for stat ica e er in h
pressure gas cylinders made of steel of composites, or as a liquid in special cryogenic
t
Table 2- 11: Storage System Associated Cost Information
Category Description
ions is typ
lly stor
d eith
igh-
anks.
Cost The cost as pres d in e
ente
the sourc
Total Cost ($ 2004) Cost converted to 04 dollars using a deflator ind
ex
Cost ($/ kg) Cost normalized to storage capacity
Range
( yes/ no) indicates if the data are from a range of values ( if so, I use
the range mid
point)
$ Year The year the cost was determined ( used to convert to 2004 dollars)
Source ID The source from which the data were obtained
Page/ fig/ table
The page/ figure/ table in the source from which the data were directly
taken
Capacity
The capacity of the storage system ( SS) ( how much hydrogen it can
e)
stor
Capacity ( kg
) Capacity t
standardized
o kilograms
Tanks (#
)
The numb in the SS
er of tanks 44
Tank Material The material used for the storage tanks
Tank weight The weight of the SS ( without hydroge
n) Total Vo )
lume ( L
Volume o litres ( by water)
f the SS in
Footprint ( L x W x H) Footprint of the SS
State The physical state the hydrogen is stored ( gas, liquid, solid) Pressure Storage pressure
Pressure ( atm) Storage pressure converted to atm units
Pressure ( psi) Storage pressure converted to psi units Location/
configuration
The location of the storage system ( above/ below ground, rooftop,
etc.)
Operation type ( casc/ boost) Indicates whether the system is cascade or booster type design
Cascades Number of cascade banks in the storage system
Production Vo r)
lume ( units/ y
The number of nits/ yr st is ba
manufactured u
this co
sed on Equ t includ st ipmened in co Other equipment in in the co bes ge cludedst estimateides stora
tanks,
Comments
Any additional comments regarding the quote or the source
The following table shows the cost data collected from literature on gaseous storage
systems:
Table 2- 12: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs from Literature
Tank
Material
Pres
sure ( psi)
Capacity
( kg)
Prod’n
Vol
( units/ yr)
Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg)
Pr
imary
Author Year
2057 50 n/ a $ 20,789 $ 415
Simbeck,
Dale 2002
2900 227 n/ a $ 352,168 $ 1,551
Am
Wade 1995
os,
45
5000 ,303
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
250 $ 45
5878 188 $ 126,848 $ 674
Simbeck,
Dale 2002 n/ a
5878 400 9,351 $ 273
Simbeck,
Dale 2002
n/ a $ 10
$ 109,143 $ 2,182
Simbeck,
Dal 20
7936
50 n/ a
e
02 4.5 n/ a $ 4,105 $ 912
Amos,
Wade 1995
$ 512
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
19.2
10000 $ 9,841
200 1 $ 369,879 $ 1,849 C
Th
. E. 2001
omas,
200 100 $ 232,875 $ 1,164
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
200 10000 $ 165,586 $ 827 C. E. 2001
Thomas,
250 n/ a $ 211,075 $ 844
Amos,
Wade 1995
450 n/ a $ 620,033 $ 1,377
Amos,
Wade 1995
1240 n/ a $ 988,769 $ 797
Amos,
Wade 1995
aluminum-composite
3600 3 10 $ 1,153 $ 384
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
composite 6000 20 100 $ 13,559 $ 677 Thomas, 2001
46
( general) C. E.
composite
( general) 6000 20 100 $ 12,833 $ 641
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
composite
( general) 7000 79 n/ a $ 41,665 $ 527
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
composite
( general) 8000 20 100 $ 11,915 $ 595
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
composite
( general) 8000 180 100 $ 208,243 $ 1,156
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
fiber-composite
3500 24 1800 $ 15,382 $ 640
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
fiber-composite
7000 10 250 $ 3,660 $ 365
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
steel
Myers,
6000 10 $ 13,513 Duane B. 2002
steel 7000 1 100 $ 758 $ 757
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
steel 7000 1500 $ 13,513
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
Table 2- 13: Liquid Hydrogen Storage System Costs from Literature
The following table shows the cost data collected from literature on liquid storage systems:
State
Capacity
( kg)
Total Cost
($ 2004) Cost ($/ kg)
Primary
Author $ Year
Liquid 270 $ 142,476 $ 527 Amos, 1995
47
Wade
Liquid 3
Simbeck,
2002
,288 $ 155,000$ 47 Dale
Note the steep scale economi st
roughly the same as the large system though it is an order of magnitude smaller. The next
table shows the cost data collected from industry on gaseous storage systems.
4: Gaseou Storage System Costs from Industry
es with liquid storage systems. The small system has a co
Table 2- 1
s Hydrogen
Capacity
( kg)
Pressure
( psi)
Tank M
aterial
Equipment included in cost Total Cost ($ 2004) Cost ($/ kg) Year
5 5076
com
( general) $ 1,22211 2003
posite
$ 6,016
9 6526
composite
( ge $ 12,439 $ 1,397 2003
neral)
50 5000 ste $ 55,000 $ 1,100 2003
el
50 5000
com
( ge $ 55,000 $ 1,100 2003
posite
neral)
60 6344
aluminum-com
posite $ 102,176 $ 1,702 2003
60 6600 ste 2003
el Mounting $ 72,762 $ 1,212
11 This quote is for tanks only.
48
equipment, valves, and piping
148 6526 ( general)
Manifold,
Panel $ 247,964 $ 1,677 2003
Cylinders, Cyl.
composite Priority Filling
160 6526
composite
( general)
s, C
Manifold,
Priority Filling
Panel $ 302,740 2003
C
ylinder
yl.
$ 1,892
N tion vol assumpti e no ail thi
The following figure shows the difference in storage cost estimates between industry and
literature for gaseous storage systems. The line fit to industry data estim
relationship between cost and size
ote: produc
um
e
ons ar
t av
able for
s data
ates the
49
Figure 2- 5: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Cos
ts Summary of Gaseous Hydrogen Storage Costsy = 1026.8x1.0802R
2 = 0.9806
y =
x1.
R2 = 0.8939 $ 0
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
$ 300,000
0 50 100 150 200 250
Capaci
434.13
0783
$ 50,000
$ 150,000
$ 250,000
$ 350,000$ 400,000
300
ty ( kg)
Industry Literature
Power ( Industry )
Power ( Literature)
The figure below shows just the cost of only the small- scale systems.
Figure 2- 6: Small Scale Gaseous Hydrogen Storage System Costs ( 0- 100kg)
Summary of Hydrogen Storage Costs$ 0$ 25,000$ 50,000$ 75,000$ 100,000$ 125,000$ 150,0000102030405060708090100
Industry Quotes
Literautre ( G
Capa
city ( kg)
aseous)
Station Estimates
50
3. Hydrogen Compressio
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 following table t na ation collected ( where
available) for each hydrogen es uo
Table 2- 15: Compressor Associated Cost Information
Category
n
shows
he additio
l inform
compr
sor cost q
te.
Descripti
on Cost The cost as presented in the source
Total Cost ($ 2004) Cost converted to lars using a deflator index
04 dol
Cost ($/ kg/ hr)
Cost normalized to compressor capacity
range
( yes/ no) indicates if the data are from a range of values ( if so, I use
the range m
idpoint)
Dollar Year
The year th was de ed ( used to convert to 2004 dollars) e cost
termin
SourceiD The sourc ic e ned e from whh the data w
re obtai
Page/ fig number( s)
The page/ f n e hich the data were
dir ak
igure/ table i
the sourc
from w
ectly t
en Capacity The norma of r
l flow rate
the comp
essor Capacity ( kg/ hr) Ca y d t s per hour
pacit
standardize
o kilogram
Type The comp ol ro , diaphragm, etc.)
ressor techn
ogy ( recip
cating
stages (#) of boost time ( min) The numbe s ( o he compressor
r of stage
r boost tim
e) for t
Power ( kW) C sso
ompre
r power Speed ( rpm) A c mo
verage
ompressor
tor operating speed
State Gaseous or liquid
51
Inlet Pressure Pressure at the compressor inlet Outlet Pressure Pressure at the compressor outlet
Outlet Pressure ( psi) Pressure converted to psi
compression ratio Ratio of outlet pressure to inlet pressure
Footprint ( L x W
x H) Footprint of the compressor unit Weight Weight of t
he unit Prod'n Volume ( units/ yr)
The numbe nufact nits/ yr this cost is based on r of ma
ured u
Equipment included in cost Other equ clu o ate besides storage tanks, ipment inded in the c
st estim
Other comments A iti en n ote or the source
ny add
onal comm
ts regardi
g the qu
The tables below summarize co ss sti o ious reports and
industry. Note that most of the quotes contain lim r n on compressor power,
pressure ratio, number of stages, and efficiency, all of which impact cost. Typically,
compressor electrical power is roughly 5- 8% of the energy in the compressed hydrogen. 12
Table 2- 16: Compressor Costs from Literature
mpre
or cost e
mates fr
m var
ited info
matio
Type
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Power
( kW) Outlet
Pressure
( psi)
Prod'n
Volume
( units/ yr)
Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr)
Primary
Author Year
reciprocating 5 7000 10 $ 62,368 $ 12,474
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
reciprocati n/ a $ 26,427 $ 5,285
Myers,
Duane 2002
ng 5
7000
B. reciproca 0 $
Myers,
Duane B. 2002 ting 5 700
n/ a
$ 22,860
4,572 12 Ogden, J. ( 2004), Personal communication.
52
reciprocating 5 0 n/ a $ 21,600 $ 4,320
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
700
reciproc 5 7000 n/ a $ 19,938 $ 3,988
Myers,
Duane B. 2002
ating reciproc 29.31 0 $ 1
Myers,
e B.
ating
113
600
75
24,735
$ 4,256 Duan
2002
Unidentified 2 $ 4,940 $ 2,470
as,
C. E. 2001
n/ a
Thom
Unidentified 2.08 n/ a $ 12,930 $ 6,216 Duane B. 2002
Myers,
Unidentified 9 6000 n/ a $ 79,102 $ 8,789 C. E. 2001
Thomas,
Unidentified 20.65 38 5882 n/ a $ 118,499 $ 5,738 Dale 2002
Simbeck,
Unidentified 20.83 1 $ 99,984 $ 4,800
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
Unidentified 20.83 0 $ 33,961 $ 1,630
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
10
Unidentified 20.83 10000 $ 11,496 $ 552
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
Unidentified 49 6000 / a $ 154,670 $ 3,157
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
n
Unidentified 58 6000 / a $ 193,862 $ 3,342
Thomas,
C. E. 2001
n
Unidentified
Amos,
Wade 1995
250 n/ a $ 241,857 Unidentified 10000 $ 7,214
Padro,
C. E. G. 1998
Unidentified 10000 $ 6,486
Padro,
C. E. G. 1998
53
Table 2- 17: Reciprocating Compressor Costs from Industry
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr)
Dollar
Year
2.59 $ 43,936 $ 16,964 2003
2.59 $ 40,870 $ 15,780 2003
6.5 $ 119,000 $ 18,308 2004
7.63 $ 81,741 $ 10,713 2003
15.26 $ 122,611 $ 8,035 2003
30.53 $ 173,699 $ 5,689 2003
45.8 $ 209,461 $ 4,573 2003
45.8 $ 148,155 $ 3,235 2003
49.61 $ 214,570 $ 4,325 2003
61.06 $ 280,984 $ 4,602 2003
61.06 $ 235,005 $ 3,849 2003
61.06 $ 199,243 $ 3,263 2003
83.96 $ 214,570 $ 2,556 2003
122.13 $ 357,616 $ 2,928 2003
129.77 $ 408,704 $ 3,149 2003
183.2 $ 357,616 $ 1,952 2003
Table 2- 18: Diaphragm Compressor Costs from Industry
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr) Year
54
3.05 $ 62,327 $ 20,435 2003
6.87 $ 64,371 $ 9,370 2003
6.87 $ 62,327 $ 9,072 2003
7.6 $ 195,000 $ 25,658 2004 7.6 $ 125,000 $ 16,447 2004
13.74 $ 64,371 $ 4,685 2003
33.58 $ 91,958 $ 2,738 2003
61.06 $ 245,222 $
4,016 2003
Note that there are large discrepancies in costs from one quote to another since they come
from different manufacturers ( price for 3.05 kg/ hr vs. the 6.87 kg/ hr compressor).
Table 2- 19: Booster Compressor Costs from Industry
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr) Year
0.38 $ 23
,500 $ 61,843 2003
0.45 $ 10,218 $ 22,70
6 2003
1.06 $ 33,718 $ 31,810 2003
1.06 $ 25,54
4 $ 24,098
2003
4.58 $ 43,93
6 $ 9,593
2003
4.58 $ 10,218 $ 2,231 2003 10.68 $ 40,870 $ 3,827 2003 21.37$ 56,197 $ 2,630 2003 22.9$ 71,523 $ 3,123 2003
30.53 $ 86,850 $ 2,845 2003
55
Table 2- 21 presents cost data on liquid hydrogen pumps. Table 2- 20: Liquid Pumps Source
Category
Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Power
( kW)
Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ kg/ hr) Source
Dollar
Year
Industry
( actual)
61 n/ a $ 102,176 $ 1,673 2003
Indust
ry ( actual) 305 n/ a
$ 60,284
$ 197
2003
Industry
( actual) 61
n/ a $ 45,979
$ 753
2003
Literature 42
33.3 $ 259,865
$ 6,238
Simbeck,
Dale 2002
Literature 20
15.7 $ 153,404
$ 7,835
Simbeck,
Dale 2002
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 m aller com
ore clearly depict the relationship for sm
pressors.
56
Figure 2- 7: Reci ocating Co pr sts
pr
m
essor CoSumm
aom
ry of Recipr tin
Hydrogen C pressor Co : ( I
y = 26913x0.5202
$ 150,000
$ 250,000
ocasts
g ndustry)
$ 300,000
$ 200,000
$ 0$ 50,000$ 100,000020406080100Capacity ( kg/ hr) Series1Literature ( low prod. vol) Power ( Series1)
Figure 2- 8: Diaphragm Compressor Costs
Summary of Diaphragm Hydrogen Compressor Costs ( Industry)
$ 300,000
$ 100,0
$ 50,000
$ 0
00
$ 150,000
$ 200,000
$ 250,000
0
r)
0
10
20
304Capacity ( kg/ h
5
060
70
57
Figure 2- 9: Booster Compressor Costs
Summary of Booste
rCompressor Costs ( Industry)
$ 0
$ 10,000
00
0,000
0,000
$ 60,000
0,000
0,000
$ 90,000
0,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ca
4. Hydrogen Purification
Table 2- 22 summarizes cost data from literature on different hydrogen purification
technologies. Since there are so few data points, the information is not put into a figure.
Table 2- 23 show data collected from industry.
$ 20,0
$ 3$ 40,000
$ 5
$ 7
$ 8
$ 10
pacity ( kg/ hr)
Table 2- 21: Purification Equipment Cost from Literature Source
Category Technology
Cap
acity ( kg/ hr) Cost
( 2
004$) Cost
($/ kg
/ hr) Primary Author Year
Li $ $ h
terature 2 2,816 1,335 T
omas, Sandy
2001
Li 4.79 $ 18 ,773 M . 2
terature PSA
,788
$ 3
yers, Duane B
002 Li brane 4.79 $ 25 ,132 M . 2
terature mem
,551
$ 5
yers, Duane B
002 Li 4.79 $ 27,793 $ 5,582 y . 2002
terature PSA
M
ers, Duane B
58
Table 2- 22: Purification Equipment Cost from Industry
Technology ( kg/ hr) ( units/ yr) (%) ( 2004$) ($/ kg/ hr) Year
Capacity Production Volume Purity requirement Cost Cost
PSA 3 99.999 100000 $ 33,333 2004
PSA 9 99.999 200000 $ 22,222 2004 Note the large difference between literature and industry costs for purifiers, nearly an order of magnitude different. One possible reason for this is technological immaturity and hence lack of industry data on PSA purification technology. The model uses the industry estimates in its calculations of purifier cost.
5. Dispensers
he following table summarizes the cost data on different hydrogen dispensers.
Dispensers are used to deliver high- pressure hydrogen to the vehicles storage tank. This
equipment is relatively immature technology, as evidenced by the low number of industry
quotes.
Table 2- 23: ogen Dispenser Cost Summary fro tera
T
Hydr
m Li
ture
Pres
sure
( p
si) Capacity
( kg/ hr)
Produc
tion
Volu
me ( units
/ yr) Dispensers
(#)
Total Cost
($ 2004)
Cost
($/ disp
) Primary Autho
r
2 1 1 $ 5,111 $ 5,1 as, Sandy
0000
11 Thom
1 1 $ 5,424 $ 5,4 o, C. E. G.
0000
24 Padr
20.83 10000 1 $ 9,281 $ 9,281 Thomas, Sandy
20.83 1 $ 27,105 $ 27,105 as, Sandy
100
Thom
20.83 1 1 $ 79,945 $ 79,945 Thomas, Sandy
59
4997 48 0 2 $ 15,592 $ 7,796 Sim eck, Da
b
le
76.33 1 $ 21,517 $ 21,5 rs, D B
250
17 Mye
uane
.
300 1 $ 3 184 $ 31,184 eck,
0
1,
Simb
Dale
Li 00 $ 103,946 $ 51,973 eck,
quid 50
0 2
Simb
Dale
Li 00 2 $ 155,919 $ 77,960 eck,
quid 40
0
Simb
Dale
le 2- 24 ydrogen Dispenser Cost Summary from Industry
Tab
: H
Pres
su
re ( psi)
Capac y
it
( kg/ hr)
Production
Volume
( units/ yr)
Dispenser
s (#) Total
Cost
($ 2004)
Cost ($/ d
isp)
5000 1 .6 0 $ 45,000 45,
197
1
$
000
5000
0.16 $ 20,789 20,
0
1
$
789
5000
0.16 $ 72,762 72,
0
1
$
762
5076
0
1 $ 81,741 81,
$
741 6. Electricity Produ tion/ Controls Equipme
The following tables summarize the cost data
equipm nt. Electricity roduc ion equipment is used to generate electricity on- sire.
Control equipment is used to turn equipment on and off, control valves in the storage
system lines, and ensure the entire system
c
nt
on different electricity production/ controls
e
p
t
operates safely.
60
Tabl icit tr Cost Summ L ur
Power
Total Cost
($ 2004) ($/ kW)
a
th Ye
e 2- 25: Electr
y Production/ Con
ol
ary from
iterat
e
Equipment Type
Prod'n
Vol
( units/ yr)
Cost
Au
Prim
ry
or
ar C n
Gas Turbine 0 0 . E. G 1999
o
mbi
ed Cycle
Padro, C
. Fue e $ 37,912 $ 1,516 . E. G 19
l C
ll_ MCFC
25 10000
Padro, C
.
99 F e _ MCFC $ 486,839 $ 947 . E. G 1999
uel C
ll
250
10000
1,
Padro, C
. F e 3 000 $ 4,837,617 $ 1,488 . E. G 19
uel C
ll_ MCFC
250 10
Padro, C
.
99 Fuel Ce _ MCFC 100000 10000 $ 67,150,259 672 . E. G 1999
ll
$
Padro, C
. Fuel Ce $ 671,503 $ 3,358 . E. G 19
ll_ PAFC
200 100
Padro, C
.
99 F e $ 62,754 $ 8,965 . E 19
uel C
ll_ PEM
7 0
Padro, C
. G.
99 F e $ 28,609 $ 4,087 . E 19
uel C
ll_ PEM
7 0
Padro, C
. G.
99 F e $ 33,962 $ 3,396 . E. G. 19
uel C
ll_ PEM
10 1
Padro, C
99 F e $ ,302 19
uel C
ll_ PEM
10 10000
13,019 $ 1
Padro, C
. E. G.
99 F e 1 $ 79,945 $ 799 , andy 20
uel C
ll_ PEM
100
Thomas
S
01 Fuel Cell_ PEM 100 100 $ 48,727 $ 487 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Fuel Cell_ PEM 100 10000 $ 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 10000 $ 18,352 Thomas, Sandy 2001
Power electronics 0 0 Padro, C. E. G. 1999
61
Table 2- 26: Electricity Prod / Con Summary from Stations & Industry
ype Power
Vol
yr)
Total Cost Cost
($/ kW) ar
uction
trol Cost
Equipment T
Prod'n
( units/
($ 2004)
Primary Author Ye
Control Panel 0 0 03
$ 30,653
20
Control Panel 0 0 $ 54,664 onfidential 2003
C
Fuel Cell_ PAFC 120 0 $ 107,285 $ 894 Confidential 2003
Fuel Cell_ PEM 10 0 $ 25,000 $ 2,500 Nippon Oil 2004
7. Station Installation Costs
The follow rizes data on the non- capital installation costs of various
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). Each station funded by the SCAQMD was required to report the non-capital
costs listed below. The LAX airport hydrogen station by Praxair and BP was one
project in particular which provided a large amount of detailed data on station installation
costs. 13 When one cost estimate included two expense categories, the information is put
in two expense categories columns. 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.
ing table summa
13 Weinert, J. ( 2004)
62
Table 2- 27: 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
Comissioning $ 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
Comissioning $ 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
Station Capital Cost $ 428,500 98%
4
On Site
Electrolysis
3
Labor $ 11,674 1% 2003
4
On Site
Electrolysis
3
Comissioning $ 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
Station Capital Cost $ 1,026,000 29%
5 Delivered LH2
Engineering/ Design
Installatio
n $ 82,354
26%
2003
63
Station Capital Cost $ 312,760
6
Renewable
Electrolysis
Site Preperation Permitting $ 200,000
Table 2- 28: 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 Commissioning $ 36,272 $ 1,163 On Site Electrolysis 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
3 $ 88,745 $ 1,233 2003
On Site Electrolysis Installation 1.3 $ 111,430 $ 3,571 2002 On Site Electrolysis Installation
Average $ 2,402
3 03 On Site Electrolysis Labor $ 11,674 $ 162 20
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 Electrolyzer Site Preparation Permitting $ 200,000 200
Renewable
4
Average $ 1,482
1.3 On Site Electrolysis Training $ 5,109 2003
64
Installation costs are typically calculated as a certain percentage of the capital equipment.
In fact, one industry repre ion costs represent
~ 118% of the station capital cost ( 54% of total station cost). 14 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:
Tabl n C ydrogen Stations
Installatio
Categories
% of
capital
cost
$ ( for on- site 480
kg/ day NG
station)
Typical %
sentative estimates that station installat
e 2- 29: Simbeck Estimates for Installation Cost
osts of H
General Fa
20% $ 230,000 20- 40% typical,
should be low for this
cilities Engineering Permitting &
Startup
10% $ 120,000 10- 20% typical, low
eng after first few
Contingen
10% $ 120,000 10- 20% typical, low
after the first few
cies Working Capital, Land &
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 30: Station Installation Cost Comparison Station Source Installation Cost as percentage of Station Station Type
Capital Cost
Simbeck and Chang 45% Reformer
Chevron Texaco 117% Reformer
Station 3 98% Electrolyzer
14 Chevron- Texaco, “ Hydrogen Infrastructure and Generation”, Information submission for California
Hydrogen Highway working group, July 2004
65
Station 4 29% Electrolyzer
Station 5 26% Liquid Hydrogen As shown in the table, installation costs for stations appear to be highly variable. The
riability is most likely due to site specific factors, although stations 4 and 5 are most
the data on installation costs for these stations is incomplete.
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 m tes of hydrogen equipment.
T d amount of data on the non- capital costs of hydrogen station installation.
O g ( 2 al in are
given as a certain percentage n sts
fo reported in th eck and
high variability ( 26%- 117% of capital costs).
In indus d scaled for size and production
volume for use in the Weinert Hydrogen Station Cost Model.
va
likely artificially low since
Conclusions
ore optimistic in their cost estima
here is a limite
nly Simbeck and Chan
002) quantify the non- capit of equipment capital cost. I
stallation costs whichgeneral, the installation co
r the stations
is chapter bracket Simb
Chang estimates and show
the next chapter, the
try data are normalized an
66
3. The Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM)
This chapter introduces and describes the Hydrogen Station Cost Model ( HSCM). The
HSCM is intended to be a general tool for analyzing hydrogen refueling station
conomics. In Chapter 4, the model is applied to analyze costs for the California
Hydrogen Highway Network.
The HSCM was created to achieve the following two goals:
1. Obtain realistic near term hydrogen station costs
2. Identify important factors that affect station cost and quantify their effect.
This provides insight into the difficult questions surrounding the hydrogen infrastructure
expansion, such as, how many stations, how big, what kind of stations should they be
( e. g. electrolysis vs. reformation), and what specific policies will help drive hydrogen
costs down.
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 levelized hydrogen cost ($/ kg).
Introduction
e
67
The following station types
Table 3- 1: Station Types and Sizes
Station Type Capacity Range
( kg/ day)
are considered in this model:
1. Steam methane reformer 100- 1000
2. Electrolyzer, using grid or intermittent
electricity
30- 100
3. Mobile refueler 10
4. Delivered liquid hydrogen 1000
5. PEM/ Reformer energy station 1000 6.. High temp. fuel cell energy station 9115 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 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.
15 This size was selected because the costs provided by Fuel Cell Energy for this type of station are for a 91
kg/ day unit.
68
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 followinassumptions regarding equipment, site layout, station design, ope
g
ration 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 3- 2: Station Equipment
Station Type Key Technology Additional components
Natural gas reformer Steam methane reformer,
Pressure Swing Adsorption
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 LH Tanker Cryogenic storage tank, 2
Truck 6,250 psi cryo- pump,
Evaporator
Gaseous cascade
storage/ dispensing
69
Mobile refueler Integrated refueler trailer Cascade storage/ dispensing ( no compressor) The following figures show how these components are connected together to createhydrogen station: Figure 3- 1: Reformer Station a
Compressed
hydrogen storage
Natural gas
Wa
Air
Feed water
pump
air blower
reformer ( SMR) &
terBurner Steam methane pressure shift adsorption reactor ( PSA) Natural gas compressor
High- pressure
hydrogen
Exhaust
stack compressor
Reverse osmosis
and deionizer
water purification
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
Waste stream
Reformer Station: For this type of station, the natural gas compressor, blower, and water
pump are integrated with the SMR and PSA as one unit.
70
Figure 3- 2: Electrolyzer Station Reciprocating
12 x 6,250- psi
cylinder cascade
Oxygen exhaust
dispenser
compressed hydrogenAlkalineElectrolyzerstreamCompressedhydrogen
Potable Water
Feed- water
pump
Reversedeionizer waterpurification
gas compressor3,600- psi
osmosis and
Waste
Grid Electricity
stream Electrolyzer Station: This station can use either grid power or renewable electricity to
produce its hydrogen. For this station, we assume either grid electricity or photovoltaic
electricity provides power. We assume the photovoltaics cost $ 3/ W , and the solar
array is sized to provide ~ 17% of the total electricity to make hydrogen when the station
operates at 50% capacity. 16 The rest of the electricity comes from grid power.
Figure 3- 3: Pipeline Hydrogen Station
peakCompressed
hydrogen storageCompressedhydrogendispenser
High- pressure
compressor
Hydrogen
hydrogenpipelineGas meter
16 These assumptions are from TIAX, LLC and are based on an assumed an average insolation of 1 kW/ m2
and $ 3000/ kW capital cost for the photovoltaics system.
71
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 otruck delivery. A hydrogen pipeline already exists between Torrance and Long Beachoffering the opportunity to site s
r
everal stations along this line.
Figure 3- 4: Energy Station
Compressed hydrogen storageNatural gasWaterAirNatural Gas Reformer High- pressure hydrogen compressorH2 PurifierCompressed hydrogen dispenser( 5,000 psi) Exhaust ( CO2) ReformateHydrogenFuel cell stack ElectricityCogen HeatGrid electricityHydrogenRecycled Reformate_
Energy Station: this type of station combines on- site hydrogen fuel production with electricity production using either a fuel cell or H2 ICE. By doing so, the station co-roduces
hydrogen fuel, electricity, and heating/ cooling, yielding three sources of
revenue. 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 a
steady merchant hydrogen demand.
Evaluating the economics of an energy station is a complex due to the many possible
ways to operate the station. For the PEM/ Reformer energy station, we assume the fuel
p
72
cell provides some peak- shaving capability and runs whenever available hydrogen is not
required for vehicle fueling. We also assume er 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. $. 1/ kWh) since it will be used for demand reduction and emergency back- up. For the
d
bsidy of $ 1500/ kW from the California Public Utilities Commission
PUC).
Figure 3- 5: High- temperature Fuel Cell Energy Station
the reform
equipment sizes selected, there will be ample hydrogen available for electricity demanreduction ( peak- shaving) if needed. While there are alternative ways to operate an energystation, we have chosen these assumptions for simplicity. The cost of the fuel cell includes a su
( CCompressed hydrogen storageNatural gasAirHigh- pressure hydrogen compressorH2 PurifierCompressed hydrogen dispenser( 5,000 psi)
Exhaust ( CO2)
ReformateHydrogenMCFC or SOFC Fuel Cell ElectricityCogen HeatGrid electricityRecycled Reformate
_
73
The figure above shows a onsidered in the
analysis, a high- temperature fuel cell ( HTFC) energy station. The main difference
etween the two is that this energy station uses a HTFC instead of a PEMFC. This
for a separate reformer since the fuel cell internally reforms natural
tation operates at a
onstant output with a 100% capacity factor. This assumption is made because it is more
at
ed
0/ kg)
g) it displaces, this specialty station
has the potential of being self- funded from the revenues produced by the sale of
different energy station configuration c
b
eliminates the need
gas into hydrogen. This station was analyzed as a ‘ best- case scenario’, low- cost station option. Optimistic assumptions are made for this station that give it an unfairly low hydrogen cost comparedto the other six station types. The model assumes the HTFC energy s
c
difficult to turn down this equipment and because we also assume there is a steady industrial demand for the hydrogen produced. In both energy stations, the hydrogen demand for power production allows for much higher utilization of the energy stationasset. In the case of high- temp fuel cell energy stations, these stations would be sited 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 bottlhydrogen used at the facility, with a dispensing station available to fuel vehicles when and if needed. “ Since the costs of producing hydrogen using this technology (~$ 5.6is lower than the bottled hydrogen costs (~$ 6- 7.00/ k
74
ele en and heat to the host Although the high- temperature fuel
cell option looks promising economically e of unit has not yet be
tested as an integrated system18. Thus, th sent a
cos
- 6: Liq rogen
ctricity, hydrog
facility.” 17 , this type costs pre
en built and re expected
ed in the report
ts and not field- tested costs.
Figure 3
uid Hyd
Station Liquid Hydrogen PumpCompressed hydrogen storageAmb
ient- airorizer
vap
Compressed
hydrogen
dispenser
Auto- vent pressure
regulatorPressure RDevice ( PR
elief
D)
Exhaust vent
Liquid H en
Storage Tank
of stations use a cryogenic hydrogen pump to
ydrog
Liquid Hydrogen Station: These types
conserve compression energy by pumping a liquid rather than compressing a gas. 17 Torres, S., ( 2004) Fuel Cell Energy Co.
18 According to Fuel Cell Energy, building this type of system involves the integration of two already
commercially available technologies ( fuel cell itself and PSA H2 purification system)
75
Figure 3- 7: Mobile Refueler Station Compressed hydrogen storagedispenserHydrogen Mobile Refuler Mobile Refueler Station: This is the simplest type of station. It consists only of high-pressure
gaseous hydrogen storage and dispenser. If equipped with photovoltaics and a
pletely mobile and self-and
profile used by the DOE’s Hydrogen Analysis group ( H2A) 19. Refueling takes place
during the day, with peaks in the morning and late afternoon/ early evening.
battery, these units require no site connection and can be com
sustaining.
Demand profile for dispensing hydrogen In sizing equipment, it is assumed that the station dispenses hydrogen according to an hourly demand profile shown in the figure below. This is based on the vehicle dem
19 Lasher, S. ( 2004) DOE Hydrogen Analysis Team ( H2A), presentation at the National Hydrogen
Association Annual Conference
76
Figure 3- 8: Vehicle Demand le
ProfiDaily Vehicle Demand Profile
0.0% 2.0% Time of day ( hours) Equipment Sizing
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
1 5 9 13 17 21
and profile above, the compressor and storage equipment are sized to
sized for a capacity of 4.17 kg/ hr. The compressor size must match the production
Based on the dem
be able to a) fuel 40% of the daily- expected vehicle load in 3 hours20 and b) 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 on studies by TIAX LLC ( see Appendix H for complete calculations). 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
20 Lasher, S. ( 2004) “ Forecourt Hydrogen Station Review”, DOE Hydrogen Analysis Team ( H2A),
presentation at the National Hydrogen Association Annual Conference
77
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 lacompressor a
rger
llows for smaller storage and vice- versa. The table below shows the
ompressor and storage size for each station type.
Station Type Capacity
Range
( kg/ day) Storage ( kg)
Compressor
Size ( kg/ hr)
c
Table 3- 3: Storage and Compressors Sizes By Station Type
1. Steam methane reformer 100- 1000 135- 1354 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 1000 667 ( gaseous) 100 5. PEM/ Reformer energy station 100 32 4.2
6. High temp. fuel cell energy 91 96 3.8
station 7. Pipeline delivered hydrogen 100 35 13
station
78
Refueling Station Siting Assumptions The model 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 thH2Hwy Net analysis, the model assumes H
e
ine
ollowing diagram
rovides an example of LH2/ gasoline station layout.
2 stations are integrated into existing gasolstations with 8 dispensers total. Small stations (≤ 100 kg/ d) use one gaseous H2dispenserand large stations ( 1000 kg/ d) use three gaseous H2 dispensers. The f
p
Figure 3- 9: Integrated hydrogen/ gasoline station layout21
21 Diagram provided by Erin Kassoy of Tiax, LLC
79
Additional Assumptions Economic Assumptions: The table below presents the key economic assumptions used in the model. These assumptions can be modified when conducting sensitivity and
enario analyses.
sc
Table 3- 4: Model Economic Variables Natural Gas Price ($/ MMBtu) $ 7.0
Electricity Price ($/ kWh) $ 0.10
Capacity Factor (%) 47%
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%
Energy Prices: The natural gas price is based on the Energy Information Administration’s projected price of $ 7.09/ MCF for California industrial users in 2010. The electricity price is based on a California Energy Commission projection of $ 0.0948/ kWh for California industrial users in 2010. The 50% of labor allocated to fuel sales is based on a Tiax estimate. 22
23
24
22 www. eia. doe. gov/ oiaf/ aeo/ index. html
23 www. energy. ca. gov/ electricity/ rates_ iou_ vs_ muni_ nominal/ industrial. html
24 Personal communication with Stefan Unnasch, August 2004.
80
Capacity Factor is defined as actual average consumption divided by the rated output of
ample, a reformer is sized to be able to produce 100 kg/ day, however,
While other hydrogen cost studies use high capacity factors ( e. g. H2A
uses 70%, NAS uses 90%), 47% is chosen as baseline capacity factor for this analysis.
47% represents what is realistically achievable for hydrogen stations in the near term
have yet
e much lower. 25
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 c actor ( or “ fixed charge
rate”). The formula for calculating this is:
the station. For ex
average hydrogen consumption at the station is 47 kg/ day, yielding a 47% capacity factor. A 47% capacity factor is used throughout the analysis unless specified otherwise. 47% is based on the H2Hwy Team’s demand scenario C which calls for 250 stations and20,000 vehicles.
based on industry experiences with natural gas stations. Few natural gas stationsto achieve a 47% capacity factor, and some stations ar
Equipment Life denotes the useful life of the equipment. It is assumed that at the end of
alculate the capital recovery f
CRF= ROI1
−( 1+ ROI)− N
25 Pratt, M. ( 2004), Personal communication.
81
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
).
d
by the hydrogen
eling equipment. This space allocation included a proportional share of the fueling
ber of dispensers plus additional area for hydrogen
due to
ency is typically a function of capital cost and is therefore represented in the
model as a percentage of total capital equipm nt costs. We assume a value of 10% based
on conversations with refueling station developers. 27
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
( N
Real Estate Cost includes costs associated with the use of buildings and the land occupieby the station. We assumed a real estate cost value of $ 0.5/ ft2/ mo. 26 These costs include the rental cost of the land, retail outlet, landscaping and upkeep for the facility. These real estate costs were allocated to be proportional to the space occupied
fu
station site depending on the num
storage or production equipment. This cost allocation can also factor in an offset retail sales ( food, beverages, etc.) if co- located at a gasoline station. Contingency includes unexpected costs that arise during the station construction process. Conting
e
26 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).
27 This assumption was vetted with representatives from Chevron Texaco, Oct 2004.
82
hy is o
es g locati
Methodology
C
Station costs are calculated by determining the size and type of equipment needed for a
iven station, estimating this equipment’s cost using data from industry, and estimating
eps
drogen stations co- located at an extimates for other station sitin
ting gasoline station. One could useons.
ther
alculating Station Cost:
g
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 stwere employed: 1. Industrial Cost Data Collection: Suppliers of hydrogen equipment provided data on the capital, installation, and operating
osts of their equipment. See Appendix F: “ Industry Cost Data” for these data and
r
ation components ( e. g. safety equipment, mechanical/ piping) were provided by Tiax
LLC.
2. Cost Data Adjustment for Size and Pro Vo
c
Appendix G: “ Sources” for the list of companies that contributed information. These data are compiled in the CHREC database presented in Chapter 2. Costs for mino
st
duction
lume: 83
In this step, cost data for units of differen d p on vo e normalized
and aggregated. Because the costs collected from industry represented a wide variety of
sizes and production volum 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 ssion o ment costs vs. size data. Dispenser cost data, since
indep iz averaged. Thes ta are pr ted in
Scale Adjustment
Data collected from size based on the ten station sizes
selec exam rmers were scaled to 4.17 and 41.7 kg/ hr to correspond to
the 100 kg/ day and 1000 kg/ day station sizes. The formula used to scale each industry
cost e is:
t size an
roducti
lumes ar
es, the data were scaled to a uniform
a regre
f the equip
endent of s
e, are simply
e da
esen
Chapt
er 2.
industry were scaled to a uniform
ted. For
ple, the refo
estimat
Costf=
Costi×SizefSizeiScalingFactor Where “ f” designates the size and cost of the scaled equipment in kg/ day and $,
respectively, and “ i” designates the original estimate.
The elow pr sents the scaling factors assu d for eac ajor piece of equipment.
table b
e
me
h m
84
Table 3- 5: Scaling Factors
Scaling
e over which
scaling factor valid
Eqmt siz
Equipment Factors28( kg/ hr)
Reformer 0.6 ~ 1129
Electrolyzer 0.46 0.05- 0.12
Purifier 0.5 ~ 11
Scaling fa rage and comp itting the data.
Appendix E shows the results of the scaling adjustment for production and purification
equip ng factor electrolyzers concurs with the scaling factor obtained
empirically by the author based on industrial quotes for electrolyzers of various size. The
author obtained a value of 0.44 based on equipment from 1- 5.4 kg/ hr.
Production Volume Adjustment
To ca uction from oduction volum incr , pro ss r ar
estimated for the equipment. The equipment is clustered into 3 categories to reflect its
maturity ( as of 2004) and potential for cost reduction. Each cluster has an associated
progress ratio. The table below shows the clusters categories and their assumed progress
ratios:
ctors for sto
ressors are derived by curve- f
ment. The scali
for
lculate cost red
pr
e
ease
gre
atios
e
28 Thomas, S. E., ( 1997) “ Hyd dicates 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.
29 I assume reformer and purifier scaling factors are valid over a station size range of 100- 1000kg/ day
rogen Infrastructure Report”, p. E- 5. Thomas in
85
Table 3- 6: Progress Ratios for Equipment
Cluster Equipment Progress
ratio30
1. Nascent technology, “ one- of”
production volume levels
Reformers, electrolyzers, purifiers,
fuel cells
0.85
2. Mature equipment,
predominantly used for H2
stations
Compressor, dispenser, mobile
refueler, non- capital station
construction costs
0.90
3. Mature equipment, high Prod
Vol levels
Storage 0.95
Different progress ratios were selected since the equipment in each cluster is at different
levels of maturity and production volume today. For instance, an increase in ASME
storage vessel production will have a negligible effect on price since they are already
produced in volume and ly, only a limited
amount of small scale reformers have yet been built, thus there is a higher potential for
cost reduction with this eq se differences into
consideration.
The following table shows the production volume assumptions and calculated discount
factors for each piece of equipment using an assumed future production volume.
have been so for many years. Alternative
uipment. The progress ratios take the
30 ibid. p. F- 3. Not all equipment was given a progress ratio in this report. The author denoted a progress
ratio for a reformer ( 0.85), PSA ( 0.85), H2 compressor ( 0.85), H2 Storage ( 0.95) and dispensers ( 0.85). I
increased the compressor and dispenser PR to 0.90 since production of these units has increased since the
time of the original study ( 1997).
86
Table 3- 7: Production Volume Assumptions
Equipment Type
Current
Cumul.
Prod Vol.
( units)
Future
Cumul.
Prod Vol.
( units)
Progress
Ratio
( Learning
Factors)
Prod Vol
Discount
Factor
Reformer
SMR, Pressurized, 10
atm 4 24 0.85 0.77