co2-lean hydrogen export from norway to germany

CO2-lean hydrogen export from Norway to Germany

H2ExpoCongress Center Hamburg

22-23 October 2008

Christoph StillerUlrich Bünger

NTNUKari Aamodt Espegren

IFE

Steffen Møller-HolstAnn Mari Svensson

SINTEF

Partners:

OutlineNorway’s situationExport of CO2-lean hydrogen to central Europe

– Key assumptions and potentials– Energy export chains– Energy, GHG emissions, and cost results– Uncertainties and qualitative factors– Conclusions

Hydrogen use in Norway– Today– Ambitions– Tomorrow

Courtesy: RCN

Norway - facts you may not know

Electricity> 99% from hydropowerHuge wind resourcesRobust and flexible grid forintegration of renewablepower

Oil and Natural GasWorld’s 3rd largest exporterof NG and 5th largest of oilAlmost no NG infrastructurePotential for CO2 storage in North Sea bed

TransportationEurope’s lowest share of publictransportHigh taxation of cars and fuelStrong shipping/marinesegment

Topology & Population17,000 km coastline12 inhabitants per km2

World‘s 2nd highest GDP per capita

Courtesy: RCN

TWh/

year

-

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

Production Energy use

Bioenergy

Hydro- and windpower

Natural gas

Oil

Other use

Electricity

Transportation

Norway - an energy nation…….

Trond Moengen, June 2004

Key assumptionsCompare the export of different feedstock (NG; renewable electricity) from different locations (southern Norway; northern Norway) with the export of hydrogen generated from the feedstock with respect to specific energy use, GHG emissions, and costsLarge-scale production facilities and energy delivery (>1 GW H2; may supply H2 to >1 million vehicles)

– Assuming H2 is used as transportation fuel at large scale (timeframe 2020-30)

End product: H2-delivered to distribution terminal in Hamburg (representing central Europe):

Chains from Northern Norway - LH2, Chains from Southern Norway - CGH2 (20 MPa)

All chains CO2-lean (SMR w/ 85% CO2 capture and storage)Technology data based on HyWays, CONCAWE-EUCAR-JRC, Euro-Quebec-Hydro-H2-Pilot Project (maritime LH2-transport)All calculations carried out using E3database (LBST)

Purpose:Compare energyexport optionswith respect to

Energy efficiencyEmissions andCosts

NG (Snøhvit) current production 57 TWh/a Onshore Wind (Finnmark)

Technical potential 163 TWh/a

NG (e.g. Troll/Kårstø)Current production 300 GWh/a (Troll)

Offshore Wind (Rogaland)Technical potential 4-40 TWh/a

Hamburg

2400

km

600 km

Destination

NG (e.g. Kårstø)

Offshore Wind (Rogaland)

NG (Snøhvit)

Onshore Wind (Finnmark)

NG/H2 pipeline

LH2

LNG

LH2

NaturalNatural gasgas

SMR

GT

SMR

GT

LH2

Energy sources in the North - H2-delivery Hamburg

ElectricityElectricityHydrogenHydrogen

COCO22

GH2

SMR

Energy sources in the South - H2-delivery Hamburg

EOR

NaturalNatural gasgasElectricityElectricityHydrogenHydrogen

COCO22

SMR

Primary energy use per kWh H2 delivered to HH

NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe

NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe

Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC

Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe

NG => LH2, LNG-Ship

NG => LH2, LH2-Ship

Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC

Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship

Feedstock production Feedstock transport H2 production H2 liquefactionH2 transport H2 compression H2 energy content

0 0.5 1 1.5 2Primary energy use (kWh/kWh H2)

liquefaction

NG lique-faction

HVDC losses

Lower flow velocityfor H2 pipe

⇒ Hydrogen export chains more or equally efficient as feedstock export

GHG emissions of hydrogen delivered to HH

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe

NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe



NG => LH2, LNG-Ship

NG => LH2, LH2-Ship



Reference-onsite SMR (w/o CCS)

CO2 equivalent emissions (g/kWh H2)

NG/LNG production Transport NG SMR (85% CO2 captured)Electricity for liquefaction Auxiliary grid electricity Reference

NG production; emissionsfrom 85% CCSNG lique-

faction

Compression to 20 MPa

NG compression

⇒ All chains reduce GHG emissions significantly against reference

Costs of export equipment (w/o primary energy)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe

NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe



NG => LH2, LNG-Ship

NG => LH2, LH2-Ship



Capital and O&M Costs (€/kWh H2) (Feedstock not included)

Feedstock transport H2 production H2 liquefaction

H2 transport CO2 burden (50 €/t)

HVDC highestinvestment

H2 pipe more expensive than NG pipe but still no major cost

⇒ Highest uncertainties for LH2 ship and long HVDC

Specific costs of hydrogen delivered to Hamburg over cost of feedstock

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

Feedstock cost (€/kWh) Norway

Prod

uct c

ost (

€/kW

h) G

erm

any 1a - NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe

1b - NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe2a - Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC2b - Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe3a - NG => LH2, LNG-Ship3b - NG => LH2, LH2-Ship4a - Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC4b - Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship1a - NG, NG-Pipe2a - Wind offsh., HVDC3a - NG, LNG-Ship4a - Wind onsh. HVDC

Assumed German NG market price

Energy cost assumptions for this workBreak even range with today'sconventional fuels

Transmission to shore

NG pipeline and H2 pipeline similar

Wind-H2 pipeline slightly cheaper than HVDC

LNG cheaper than LH2-ship

Wind-LH2 ship significantlycheaper than long HVDC

⇒ All hydrogen options except wind-HVDC seem competitive with today’s conventional fuels (untaxed) on a per-km basis (grey shaded area)

⇒ Pipelines from south are inexpensive, but pipelines from North (distance x 4) would have significant recompression losses

Uncertainties / Qualitative factorsOption Use of Norwegian

expertiseFeedstock flexibility End-use flexibility Environmental impact/

land area use

1a - NG => CGH2, NG-Pipe

NG, pipeline only NG feedstock; pipeline may be convertible to hydrogen

direct use of NG (CO2!), stationary electricity or transportation H2

sea bed pipelines; compression station

1b - NG => CGH2, H2-Pipe

NG, pipeline, CCS piped H2 can come from any primary energy

stationary use inefficient; only transportation


2a - Wind offsh. => CGH2, HVDC

few process steps in Norway

transmitted electricity can come from any primary energy

stationary electricity or transportation H2

sea bed cables; head stations

2b - Wind offsh. => CGH2, H2-Pipe

electrolysis, pipeline piped H2 can come from any primary energy



3a - NG => LH2, LNG-Ship

NG, operation of process steps

only NG can be feedstock direct use of NG (CO2!), stationary electricity or transportation H2

few ship sailings; no sea bed/overhead installations

3b - NG => LH2, LH2-Ship

NG, CCS, operation of process steps

shipped LH2 can come from any primary energy


few ship sailings; no sea bed/overhead installations

4a - Wind onsh. => LH2, HVDC

few process steps in Norway

transmitted electricity can come from any primary energy

stationary electricity or transportation H2

sea bed cables; overhead lines; head stations; onshore wind

4b - Wind onsh. => LH2, LH2-Ship

electrolysis, operation of process steps

shipped LH2 can come from any primary energy


few ship sailings; no sea bed/overhead installations; onshore wind

⇒ Hydrogen pathways have higher feedstock flexibility but lower end-use flexibility⇒ Hydrogen pathways increase use of Norwegian industrial and R&D expertise

Conclusions

Norway’s large potential of stranded wind energy, NG, and CO2storage can be utilised by producing and exporting hydrogen Assuming a market for hydrogen as transportation fuel, export ofhydrogen (via pipeline or LH2-ship) appears economically interesting against HVDCExport of hydrogen from NG appears slightly more expensive than NG export, but more efficient (if hydrogen is the end product)Hydrogen export offers higher flexibility of feedstock and is compatible with Norway’s industrial and research expertise (offshore & process engineering, electrolysis)Feedstock export offers higher flexibility of end-use

⇒ Results used for the GermanHy study “Where will the hydrogen come from?”

Grenland

Stavanger

Hydrogen availability 2008

Source: HyNor

Norway’s ambitions to CO2 reduction

Source: The Norwegian Commission on Low Emissions [NOU 2006:18]

-75 % CO2 emissions in transportation required until 2050

Estimated share of vehicles (car pool)

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Year

Car

poo

l HydrogenElectricHybridConventional

⇒ 100% hydrogen and electric cars among new sales by 2045⇒ Hydrogen and electricity purely from CO2-free and lean sources⇒ Also reductions in goods transport and maritime sector will be required

Hydrogen demandResults, regional deployment

Hydrogen demandResults, local deployment (example)

Hydrogen Demand and Supply - 2010

1,000 cars total 0.05% of fleet

ElectrolysisBy-productBiomass-to-H2NG-SMR


1,100,000 cars total 45.1% of fleet


AcknowledgementThe NorWays project is co-funded by the participating industry:

and

We thank all project participants for their support in carrying out the present study.

http://www.ntnu.no/norways

[email protected]

co2-lean hydrogen export from norway to germany

Documents