detlef stolten at basf science symposium 2015

Mitg

lied

der H

elm

holtz

-Gem

eins

chaf

t

Large Scale Storage of Hydrogen from Renewables -Opportunities for Mobility and Industry

Detlef [email protected]

Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering (IEK-3)

BASF 150 Years – Science SymposiumLudwigshafenMarch 9, 2015

Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering (IEK-3) 2

Hydrogen Storagein the Context of a Transforming Energy System

This presentation aims at identifying major vectors formass markets and technologies

Results may be different in niche markets


Genetic Eve

Modern CO2 Level Rise is Unmatched in Human History

400 ppm Level: last sustainedly reached 14-20 million years ago, MiddleMiocene, 5-10 °C warmer than today, no Arctic ice cap, sea level 25- 40 m higherA.K.Tripati et al., Science 326, 1394 (2009)DOI: 10.1126/science.1178296Life Expectancy of a baby born today in DE:100 years 2115


Drivers Climate change Energy security Competitiveness Local emissions

Grand Challenges Renewable energy Electro-mobility Efficient central power plants Fossil cogeneration Storage Transmission Interconnect the energy sectors to leverage synergies

Goals 2 degrees climate goal requires ……………. 50% ….by 2050 worldwide G8 goal …………………………………………80% ….by 2050 w/r 1990 Germany to reduce GHG emissions by …….80-95% by 2050 (w/o nuclear)

Future Energy Solutions need to be Game Changers


Energy sector 37%• Power generation 30% 22.5 % Renewables

Transport (90% petroleum-based) 17%• Passenger vehicles 11% 8.3 % Hydrogen / renewable power• Trucks, buses, trains, ships, airplanes 6% 4.5 % Liquid fuel substitutes (biomass/

CO2-based; hydrogenation)Residential 11% • Residential heating 11% 8.3 % Insulation, heat pumps etc.

(electricity in power generation)Industry, trade and commerce 23%• Industry 19% 9.5 % CO2-capture from steel, cement,

ammonia; hydrogen for CO2-use• Trade and commerce 4% 25 % already cleaned-up since 1990

Agriculture and forestry 8% 78.1% clean-up

Others 4%Total 100%

Source: Emission Trends for Germany since 1990, Trend Tables: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions in Equivalents, without CO2 from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Umweltbundesamt 2011

Transport-related values: supplemented with Shell LKW Studie – Fakten, Trends und Perspektiven im Straßengüterverkehr bis 2030.

Emissions Remedies (major vectors)

GHG Emissions Shares by Sector in Germany (2010)


Power Grid Gas Grid

Elektrolysis

H2-Storage

Power Generation HouseholdsTransportationIndustry

Demand

Power to Chem

Power to Gas (H2)

Power to Fuel

Power to Gas (CH4)

Excess Power is Inherent to RenewablePower Generation


• 2050: 80% reduction goal fully achieved

• 2040: start of market penetration

• 2030: research finalized for 1st generation technology

Development period: unil 2040

Research period: until 2030

⇒ 15 years left for research => TRL 5 and higher

TRL 4 at least

This is not to say research at lower TRL levels is not useful,it will just not contribute to the 2050 goal

Timeline for CO2-Reduction and the Implicationof TRL Levels


Intermittant Power Entails Overcapacity


Installed renewable power exceeds power demand on a regularbasis

renewable power needed = capacity factor x average power demand

• Averaged power demand for Germany: ~60GW

• Capacity factor for full renewable power supply

• Onshore wind 4.4

• Offshore wind 2.2@ no losses for reconversion considered

Overcapacity in Power is Inherent forFull Renewable Energy Supply


2020 2030 2040 2050Peak excess power* GWe 22 55 90 125Excess energy* TWhe 2,5 30 100 200Minimum storage size** TWh 0,9 6 12 17

• Wind power will be the predominant renewable source• Amount of excess energy becomes siginificant from 2030 on

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2020 2030 2040 2050

Pro

duce

d el

. [T

Wh e

] PVOnshoreOffshore

Development of Renewables According to Current German Policy


Hydrogen Generation from Electric Power


Alkaline electrolysis

OH-

- +

PEM - electrolysis Solid Oxide Electrolysis

-

H+

+ -

O2-

+

Mature technology <3.6 MW stacks Plants <156 MW Ni catalysts 750 €/kW - 1000€/kW

Development stage < 1 MW in development Pt and Ir as catalysts Simple plant design

€1500@ 2015 € 500@ 2030 (FZJ)

Laboratory stage Very high efficiency Brittle ceramics Hence, slow scale-up Just cost estimations

Options for Water Electrolysis


Hydrogen Storage and Transmission Technology


Storage cycles / a

Relative allowableinvestmentcost / kWh*

Investment cost€/kW

Storage capacityrequirement

Power requirement

Short-term storage

100-1000 100% Batteries(transportation)250-500

GWh some 10 GW

Long-term storage

1- 10 1% 500 - 1000 TWh(1000 GWh)

some 10 GW

* @ comparable specific cost

Disjunction of Power and Energy

Batteries : Power and energy scale linearly with unit sizeHydrogen: Power scales less than energy

Electrolyzers Gas caverns

Peak-shaving vs. Bulk Energy Storage


Depleted oil / gas fields

Aquifers Salt caverns Rock caverns / abandoned

mines

Working volume [scm] 1010 108 107 106

Cushion gas 50 % up to 80 % 20 - 30 % 20 - 30 %

Gas qualityreaction and contaminationwith present gases,microorganism and minerals

saturation with water vapor

Annual cycling cap. only seasonal seasonal & frequentInvest / working vol.‡ [€2014/m3]

0.5 § 0.5 § 0.85 § assumedmuch higher than salt caverns

Invest/ deliverability‡ [€2014/m3/d]

50§ 50 § 8 §

§ for a 100 mcm facility; §§ for a 500 mcm facility; ‡ Chachine et. al.: More underground storage for increased gas consumption. UN/ECE, 2000; costs refer to natural gas storage facility, original value is given in US$2000 and transformed to €2014 including inflation rate

Geologic Gas Storage Facilities


Gasholders

Spherical gas vessels

Ground storage assemblies

Pipe storage facilities

Maximum pressure [bar] 1.01 - 1.5 5 - 20 40 - 1000 20 - 100Geometric volume in [m3]

1 - 40 x103 1 - 50* x103 1 - 100 § 1 - 10 x103

Storage capacity [scm] < 6 x 104 < 3 x105 < 1 x 104 § < 9 x 105

Invest/ storagecapacity ‡ [€/scm] ? 20 - 50 50 - 180 §§ 20 - 50

* Geometric volume decreases with increasing pressure; § cumulative for several tubes; ‡ estimate on basis of literature review,§§ for pressures below 500 bar; pictures from Tietze, et. al.: Near-Surface Bulk Storage of Hydrogen, 3rd ICEPE 2013, Frankfurt

Near-Surface Gas Storage Facilities


Liquid, heterocyclic, aromatic hydrocarbon as carriers Double bindings get temporarily saturated with hydrogen Chemicals: N-ethylcarbazole, toluene and other aromatics Hydrogenation: saturation of aromatic rings with hydrogen Degradation by formation of unintended by-products

Hydrogen storage density: 6 - 8 wt% [1,2]

Transportation cost ≈ 0.2 €/kgH2

via ship (5000 km) [3] Japan seeks produce H2 in Patagonia and transport it home (distance ≈ 20,000 km)

[1] Teichmann, D. et al.: A future energy supply based on Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers. Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 2767-2773[2] Biniwale, R. et al.: Chemical hydrides: A solution to high capacity hydrogen storage and supply. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ., 2008, 33, 360-365[3] Teichmann, D. et. al.: Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers as an efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable hydrogen.Int. J. Hydrogen Energ., 2012, 27, 18118-18132

[2]

Af

Hydrogen use

Electrolysis Hydrogenation

Dehydrogenation

Transportation / StorageLOHC

LOHC + H2

H2

H2

150°C, 70 bar, PMG Catalyst

220°C 1bar, PMG Catalysts

∆hf = -53 kJ/moleH2

Data for N-ethylcarbazole from [3]

Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC)


* Refers to nominal transport capacity, peak capacity is 2 x 1200 MWel; § data from Mischner: Zur Berechnung des Druckverlaufs in Gasrohrleitungen, gwf, Jg.: 150, Nr.5, 2009; §§ Müller-Syring: Entwicklung von modularen Konzepten zur Erzeugung, Speicherung undEinspeisung von Wasserstoff und Methan ins Erdgasnetz, DVGW, 2013; ‡ estimate on basis of literature review

380 kV overhead line

Natural gas pipeline §

Hydrogen gas pipeline

Type 4 x 564/72double circuit

DN 1000pin = 90 bar

DN 1000pin = 90 bar

Energy transport capacity 1.2 GWel 16 GWth 12 GWth

Length in km 200 200 200

Investment costin M€/km ‡ 1 - 1.5 1 - 2 1.2 - 3

Power Line and Gas Pipelines Compared


Picture of power poles from Hofman: Technologien zur Stromübertragung, IEH, http://nvonb.bundesnetzagentur.de/netzausbau/Vortrag_Hofmann.pdf

Width of protective strips70 m 57 m 48 m 10 m

Pipeline

Spatial Requirements for Transmission


An Energy Scenario Coupling Power and Transportation


262 GW(onshore, offshore & PV peak simultaneously

84 GWElectrolysis

80 GW Grid Load

Curtailment regime

Electrolysis regime

Power regime

37% of power curtailment sacrifices 2% of energy *

Fill power gapsw/ NG

via CC & GT

* modeled for DE based on inflated input of renewables w/ weather data of 2010

Principle of a Renewable Energy Scenario with HydrogenHydrogen as an Enabler for Renewable Energy


KBB

Onshore Wind Power

Same number of wind mills as of end 2011 (22500 units) Repowering from Ø 1.3 MW to 7,5 MW units => Σ 167 GWAveraged nominal operating hours: 2000 p.a. 1

Photovoltaik 24,8 GW as status of 12/20113, volatitilty considered

Back-up Power

Open gas turbines; combined cycles > 700 operating hours/a Part load considered by 15% reduction on nominal efficiency

Offshore Wind Power 70 GW (potential according to BMU 20112, Fino => 4000 h)

Other Renewables

Constant as of 20104

Excess Energy

Water electrolysis ηLHV = 70 %5; > 1000 operating hoursPipeline transport + storage in salt caverns

Residential Sector 50% savings on natural gas as of 2010

Transpor-tation

Hydrogen for fuel cel cars: cruising range 14900 km/a6, consumption 1kg/100km

Scenario of the Energy System for Germany


1966 GM

Electrovan(H2, AFC)

©GM

2001 Cold start

at -20°C (GM)

2004 Clean Energy

Partnership (D)

©Hyundai

2008

-200

9

MBB-Class F-Cell

GMHydroGen4

HondaFCX Clarity

©Honda©Daimler

©GM

Aromatic membrane-30…95 °C

Small series for demonstration projects

1994 MB NECAR 1

(H2)

©Daimler

60s 70s 80s 1990s 2000s 2010sFuel cell APUs for passenger cars, trucks, train, ships & airplanes

2002 Honda FCX-V4:

1st FCV commercially certified *

2006 HT-PEM

(Volkswagen)* First fuel-cell vehicle certified by the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources

Board (CARB) for commercial useMB: Mercedes-Benz; GM: General MotorsAll cars with PEFC except GM Electrovan with AFC

1999 Honda FCX

V1 (H2)

2012

/ 13 Hyundai ix35 FCEV1st manufact. plant

©Hyundai

2015 Toyota Mirai

2nd series prod.

©Toyota

First FCV

2001 MB NECAR 5.2,

methanol reformer

GM Chevrolet S-10 gasoline reformer

©Daimler

©GM

©Honda

First Fuel Cell Vehicles in Market Introduction Phase


Total amount of electricity produced: 745 TWh

Vertical grid load: 488 TWh

Electricity for hydrogen production: 257 TWh => 5.4 m tons H2

Hydrogen fuel for :• 28 m vehicles• 2 m light duty vehicles• 47,000 buses

Mix of vehicles according to the study GermanHyOther than in GermanHy all vehicles are FC vehicles

Power sector:• Renewable energy based• Natural gas used for furnishing undersupply

745 TWh

Installed power capacity = 3.3 x max. grid powerHarnessed electricity = 1,5 x vertical grid load

15% relative tovertical grid load

(i.e. amount of electricity needed)

Results


Minimum H2 transmission costs as a function of H2 flow andtransport distance

Krieg, D., Konzept und Kosten eines Pipelinesystems zur Versorgung des deutschen Straßenverkehrs mit Wasserstoff, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich Energie & Umwelt 144, Jülich, 2012.

Yang, C. and J. Ogden, Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2007. 32(2): p. 268-286

0 10

20

30

40

50 1008

090

70

60 100

300500

$0

$1.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

Tran

spor

t Cos

t[$

/kg H

2]

Liquidvia Truck

Gasvia Pipeline

Gas via Truck

Options for Hydrogen


Hydrogen production: 5.4 million t/a

Max power over 1000 h: 84 GW

Storage capacity required at constant discharge:0.8 m tons

9 bn scm

27 TWhLHV

Storage capacity 60 day reserve 90 TWh

Storage capacity until 2040 40 TWhregularly over weeks and months; DB research, Josef Auer, January 31, 2012 (Pumped Hydro Power in Germany: 0.04 TWhe)Existing NG-storage in Germany:

• 20.8 bn scmthereof salt dome caverns: • 8.1 bn scm (in use)• 12.9 bn scm (in planning/construction phase)Source: Sedlacek, R: Untertage-Gasspeicherung in Deutschland;

Erdöl, Erdgas, Kohle 125, Nr.11, 2009, S.412–426.

Infrastructure: Electrolysis & Large Scale Storage


Additional gas and combined cycle power plants

Electrolyzers (84 GW)

Rock salt caverns 150 x 750,000 scm

Fueling stations (9800)

Investment in bn €

Overview of Costfor a Renewable Hydrogen Infrastructure for Transportation


CAPEX via depreciation of investment plus interest 10 a for electrolysers and other production devices 40 a for transmission grid 20 a for distribution grid Interest rate 8 % p.a.

Other Assumptions: 5.4 million tH2/a from renewable power via electrolysis Electrolysis: η = 70 %LHV, 84 GW; investment cost 500

€/kW Methanation: η = 80 %LHV Grid fee for power transmission: 1.4 ct/kWhe [1]* Appreciable cost @ half the specific fuel consumption

[1] EWI (2010): Energiekosten in Deutschland - Entwicklungen, Ursachen und internationaler Vergleich (Projekt 43/09); Endbericht für das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie. Frontier Economics/EWI, 2010.

Hydrogen for Transportation Hydrogen or Methane to be Fed into Gas Grid W/o back-up power plants Including grid cost Curtailment of 25% of peak power; ΔW = -

2 %

Cost Comparison of Power to Gas Options – Pre-tax


• Catalysts, particularly Ir substitute, and materials for electrolyzers• Cheaper carbon fibers or other fibers for hydrogen tanks for vehicles

high tensile strength / high Young‘s modulus• Fuel cell catalysts with low Pt-loading; e.g. core-shell structures• Gas separatrion membranes

• Bio-to-liquid & power-to-fuel processes• Power to chem: methanol production• Fine chemicals made out of CO2

Opportunities for the (Chemical) Industry


• A fully renewable energy supply entails overcapacity in installed power and hence “excess power”

• 80% of CO2 reduction requires interconnection of the energy sectors

• Hydrogen as fuel for automotives

• Hydrogenation steps in liquid fuel production from biomass and CO2

• Conversion of excess power to hydrogen and storage thereof is feasible on the scale needed (TWh)

• Over long distances mass transportation of gas is more effective than that ofelectricity

• Fuel cell vehicles are being introduced to the market by asian automakers

• Hydrogen as an automotive fuel is cost effective other than feed-in to the gas gridor reconversion to electricity

Conclusions


The Team

Dr. Thomas Grube

Vanessa Tietze Martin Robinius

Dr. Sebastian Schiebahn

Sebastian Luhr

Prof. Dr. Detlef Stolten Dr. Dr. Li Zhao


Thank You for Your Attention!

[email protected]@fz-juelich.de

detlef stolten at basf science symposium 2015

Science

gas ch4excess power

energy sectors

power generationindustry

research period

greenhouse gas ghg emissions

gas h2power

ammonia hydrogen

hydrogen storagein