pem & alkaline electrolyzers bottom-up manufacturing cost …austinpowereng.com/fuel...
TRANSCRIPT
E4tech Av. Juste-Olivier 2
1006 Lausanne Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 331 1570
[email protected] www.e4tech.com
Austin Power Engineering LLC 1 Cameron ST
Wellesley, MA 02482 USA
www.AUSTINPOWERENG.com
PEM & Alkaline Electrolyzers Bottom-up Manufacturing Cost Analysis
Yong Yang
Austin Power
November 10, 2014
David Hart
E4tech
1 2014 YY/DH
The objective of the study is to understand the cost reduction potential of the main water electrolysis technologies
Introduction Objective
Water electrolysis could become an important part of future stationary energy and transport systems
Where and how it could play a role depends on the cost reduction that could be achieved in moving from a small and unoptimised industry
Detailed modelling can provide insight into both ultimately achievable costs and the impact of certain design choices and technology improvements
2 2014 YY/DH
Water electrolysis could play a significant role in the future energy system, if predicted cost reductions can be realised.
Introduction Market Overview
Roadmap for electrolyser deployment by application. Source: 2014 FCH-JU study on water electrolysis
Data source cost reduction expectations: 2014 FCH-JU study on water electrolysis
Expert ‘predicted’ cost reductions
Consolidated views on rollout potential
3 2014 YY/DH
Today’s electrolyser market is comparatively small, the industry landscape is highly fragmented and no single design dominates
Introduction Market Overview
• Perhaps 4% of global hydrogen supply is
produced via electrolysis
• Larger (> 50 kW) water electrolysis systems
are typically deployed for continuous operation.
Examples are fertilisers and methanol
production, fats & oils, float glass, …
• The industry is highly fragmented, with a few
established players and many start-ups / new
entrants – and cost reduction potential
18%
4%
48%
30%
Coal gasification
Electrolysis
Natural gas reforming
Refinery/Chemical off-gases
18%
4%
48%
30%
Coal gasification
Electrolysis
Natural gas reforming
Refinery/Chemical off-gases
Source: IEA (2007)
18%
4%
48%
30%
Coal gasification
Electrolysis
Natural gas reforming
Refinery/Chemical off-gases
18%
4%
48%
30%
Coal gasification
Electrolysis
Natural gas reforming
Refinery/Chemical off-gases
Source: IEA (2007)
Chemistry Parameter (Examples) Design philosophy options Implications (Examples)
PEM Cell size Small cell versus large cell approach Component material choice, fewer stacks
PEM Cell pressure design Balanced versus unbalanced pressure System control, gas purification
Alkaline Liquid-gas separators Stack-internal versus external Cell material usage efficiency
Alkaline Operational pressure Pressurised versus unpressurised design Cell material choices, gas purification
4 2014 YY/DH
Overview of key performance indicator of state-of-the-art electrolyser technology.
Introduction Technology Overview
Parameter Unit Commercial alkaline Commercial PEM
Stack capacity kW 200 – 4,500 40 – 100
System capacity kW 1,100 – 5,300 100 – 1,200
Specific electricity input (system, nominal
load)
kWh/kgH2 50 – 78 50 – 83
Hydrogen output pressure bar(g) 0.05 – 30 10 – 30
Stack lifetime (continuous operation) hours 60,000 – 90,000 20,000 – 60,000*
System lifetime (continuous operation) years 20 – 30 10 – 30
Current density A/cm² 0.2 – 0.4 1.0 – 2.0
Overload ability %el Currently not more than 20% offered commercially,
though PEM could ultimately have 200% – 300%
Operating temperature °C 60 – 80 50 – 80
Minimum part load %el 20 – 40 5 – 10
Specific electricity input (system, variable
load)
kWh/kgH2 No manufacturer data available. At stack level specific
electricity may reduce by 2 to 5 kWh/kg at 50% of
nominal electric load
Responsiveness (ramp time) %el/second 0.1 – 10 10 – 100
Start-up time cold & pressurised / cold & unpressurised >20 minutes / several
hours
~5 / ~15 minutes
5
Approach Manufacturing Cost Modeling Methodology
This approach has been used successfully for estimating the cost of various technologies for commercial clients and the DOE.
Technology
Assessment
Manufacturing
Cost Model
Scenario
Analyses
Verification &
Validation
• Literature research • Definition of system and component diagrams • Size components • Develop bill-of-materials (BOM)
• Define system value chain • Quote off-shelve parts and materials • Select materials • Develop processes • Assembly bottom-up cost model •Develop baseline costs
• Technology scenarios • Sensitivity analysis • Economies of Scale • Supply chain & manufacturing system optimization • Life cycle cost analysis
• Cost model internal verification reviews • Discussion with technical developers • Presentations to project and industrial partners • Audition by independent reviewers
Membrane
8.0%
Stack
Conditioning
2.7%
Seal
8.4%
Balance of Stack
2.4%
Bipolar Plate
26.1%
GDL
5.1%
Electrode
41.0%
Stack Assembly
6.3%
2014 YY/DH
Anode Ink
Anode Side
Catalyst Layer
Membrane
Processes
Cathode Side
Catalyst Layer
Cathode Ink
Hot Press
Lamination
Purchased GDL
Purchased GDL
Pt
Pt
Nafion®
Ionomer
99.9% 98.5%
99.9% 98.5%
99% 98.5%
100% 98.5%99% 98.5%
99% 98.5%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
3-Year TCO 5-Year TCO 10-Year TCO 15-Year TCO
To
tal
Co
st
of
Ow
ers
hip
($
)
PEMFC Plug Hybrid Vehicle
Full Battery Electric Vehicle
6
Combining performance and cost model will easily generate cost results, even when varying the design inputs.
2014 YY/DH
Process Simulation
Energy requirements
Equipment size/ specs
Product Costs
Product cost (capital,
O&M, etc.)
Conceptual Design
System layout and
equipment requirements
Capital Cost Estimates Site Plans
Safety equipment, site
prep, land costs
High and low volume
equipment costs
Air (POX only)
Nat. Gas
Water
Fuel
Reformer PSA
H2-rich gas
H2-poor gas
Catalytic
Burner
HeatCold
Water
99.99% pure H2
Low
Pressure
Storage
Medium
Pressure
Storage
High
Pressure
Storage
Flow
cntrlr
Flow
cntrlrFlow
cntrlr
Dispenser
To Vehicle
CO2
H2O
Compressor with intercoolers
Cooling
Tower
Process cost
Material cost
Tape Cast
Anode
Powder Prep
Vacuum
Plasma
Spray
Electrolyte
Small Powder
Prep
Screen
Cathode
Small Powder
Prep
Sinter in Air
1400CSinter in Air
Forming
of
Interconnect
Shear
Interconnect
Vacuum
Plasma
Spray
Slurry
Spray
Screen
Slurry Spray
Slip Cast
Finish Edges
Note: Alternative production processes appear in gray to the
bottom of actual production processes assumed
Braze
Paint Braze
onto
Interconnect
Blanking /
Slicing
QC Leak
Check
Interconnect
Fabrication
Electrolyte CathodeAnode
Stack Assembly
Fuel Station Perimeter
Electrolyzer or SMR,
High-Pressure
Compressor
H2 High Pressure
Cascade Storage
System
Gaseous Fuel
Dispensing Islands
Underground Piping with shared conduit
Vent
Building
Covered Fueling Island
CNG High Pressure
Cascade Storage System
Fire Detector
Walls with minimum fire rating of 2 hours
Wall openings (doors & windows)
Building intake vents
Adjoining property that can be built on
Public sidewalks, parked vehicles
Streets
Railroad tracks
Other flammable gas storage
5 ft
25 ft
50 ft
10 ft
15 ft
10 ft
15 ft
10 ft
Minimum set-back distances for hydrogen and/or natural gas
storage (more stringent gas noted if relevant)
Property of:
TIAX LLC
1061 De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Task 5 CNG/Hydrogen Fueling
Site Plan - Fueling Station
Hydrogen and CNG fueling station
SIZE DWG BY DWG NO REV
A Stefan Unnasch B0228 - S0022 1
SCALE 1" = 8 ft 5 Jan 2004 SHEET 1 OF 110 ft
Security FenceNG line in
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
Process Cost Calcs
Material
Process
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
Lapp
ing
CM
P
Wet
ther
mal
Oxida
tion
Spin
Coa
ting
Wet
Etc
hing
SiO
2
DC S
putte
ring
Ni
RF S
putte
ring
E
Spin
Coa
ting
Stepp
er
DC S
putte
ring
Ag
Stripp
ing
Spin
Coa
ting
Stepp
er
Dry
Etc
hing
SiO
2
DRIE
Si
Wet
Etc
hing
SiO
2
Dry
Etc
hing
NI
Wafe
r C
ost
($)
Approach Manufacturing Cost Modeling Methodology
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
3-Year TCO 5-Year TCO 10-Year TCO 15-Year TCO
To
tal
Co
st
of
Ow
ers
hip
($
)
PEMFC Plug Hybrid Vehicle
Full Battery Electric Vehicle
7
Austin Power Engineering’s manufacturing cost models can be used to determine a fully loaded selling price to consumers at high or low volumes.
Direct Labor
Direct Materials
Factory Expense
General Expense
Sales Expense
Profit
Consumer
Selling Price
Fixed Costs
• Equipment and Plant
Depreciation
• Tooling Amortization
• Equipment Maintenance
• Utilities
• Building
• Indirect Labor
• Cost of capital
• Overhead Labor
Variable Costs
• Manufactured Materials
• Purchased Materials
• Fabrication Labor
• Assembly Labor
• Indirect Materials
Corporate Expenses
• Research and Development
• Sales and Marketing
• General & Administration
• Warranty
• Taxes
Approach Manufacturing Cost Structure
Manufacturing
Cost
We assume 100% financing with an annual discount rate of 10%, a 10-year equipment life, a 25-year building life, and three months working capital. 2012 YY
Our cost assessment includes four systems which are a current alkaline system, a future alkaline system, a current PEM system, and a future PEM system.
Approach Scope
8 2014 YY/DH
Future Alkaline
System Future PEM System
Current Alkaline
System
Current PEM
System
Alkaline PEM
Future
Current
9
Alkaline systems are assumed to have the following system and stack designs in the different scenarios.
Alkaline System
2014 YY/DH
Alkaline Unit Small Cell
Current
Large Cell
Future
System size kW 1,000 4,000
Stack size kW 250 2,000
Stacks per system 4 2
System Pressure Barg 15 15
H2 Purity % 99.999% 99.999%
Active cell area cm² 3,125 12,500
Cell voltage V 1.75 1.75
Active area / total cell area
(Gas/liquid separation) %
25
(internal)
85
(external)
Current density A/cm² 0.4 0.8
Membrane material polyantimonic acid / polysulfone Zirfon
Anode / cathode material Ni foam (plus Ni(OH)2) / Ni mesh Ni foam (plus Ni(OH)2) / Ni mesh
Conductive porous layer Ni foam Ni foam
Cell frame material PPO Polymer SS316
Annual Production Volume 12 MW 1.2 GW
10
Example detail: Alkaline electrolyzer stacks repeat components section view
Alkaline System Stacks
2014 YY/DH
Anode conductive layer
Anode
Membrane
Cathode
Cathode conductive layer
Bipolar plate
Cell frame
Cell Gasket
Repeat cell components
Based on patent information and other data
Anode conductive layer
Anode
Membrane
Cathode
Cathode conductive layer
Bipolar plate
Cell frame
Cell Gasket
Repeat cell components
Current Internal Gas/Liquid
Separation Electrolyzer
Future external Gas/Liquid
Separation Electrolyzer
11
Current alkaline electrolyzer stack costs approximately $435/kW and future alkaline electrolyzer stack costs about $101/kW.
Alkaline System Stack Costs
2014 YY/DH
Current Alkaline Stack Cost $435/kW Future Alkaline Stack Cost $101/kW
10%
4%
17%
4%
7%
15%
19%
8%
4%
3%
3% 0%
3% 3%Anode
Anode foam
Electrolyte
Cathode foam
Cathode
Cell Frame
Bipolar Plates
Gaskets
End Plates
Current Collector
Insulator
Frame
Tie Bolts
Final Assy
9%
5%
18%
5%
6%28%
17%
3%
1%1%
1% 0% 2%
4%Anode
Anode foam
Electrolyte
Cathode foam
Cathode
Cell Frame
Bipolar Plates
Gaskets
End Plates
Current Collector
Insulator
Frame
Tie Bolts
Final Assy
12
Current alkaline electrolyzer system costs about $1,072/kW and future alkaline electrolyzer system costs about $494/kW.
Alkaline System System Costs
2014 YY/DH
Current Alkaline System Cost $1,072/kW Future Alkaline System Cost $494/kW
41%
33%
5%
5%
7%
1%3%
1%1%
3%Stack
HV power supply module
System control unit
De-oxygen unit
Dryer unit
Electrolyte cooling unit
Chiller
Water treatment unit
Gas & water loops
Others & Assembly, Test
21%
50%
1%
7%
11%
1%4%
1% 2% 2%
Stack
HV power supply module
System control unit
De-oxygen unit
Dryer unit
Electrolyte cooling unit
Chiller
Water treatment unit
Gas & water loops
Others & Assembly, Test
13
In Alkaline stacks, higher current densities are key to reducing costs, but all options are subject to fundamental limits.
Alkaline System Cost Analysis
2014 YY/DH
Cost contributors Pathways to cost reduction Identified limits
Cell frame, bipolar
plate, membrane,
electrodes
Increase current density and
reduce materials use through
innovative component design and
advanced electrode materials
Industry reports 0.8 to 1.0 A/cm² as
a long term target. Limitation is
acceptable efficiency at high
currents. (Current density today: 0.4
A/cm²)
Cell frame Reduce material use through
large cell concepts with a better
ratio between active area and
frame area
Mechanical stability of cell
components, depending on stack
pressure level
Gas/liquid separation Reduce the amount of frame
material required through use of
external gas separators
Increase active area from ~25% to
~75% of frame area. Manifold area
as limiting factor.
Cell frames made of
(expensive)
machined SS316 with
polymer coating
Replace by (cheaper) injection
moulded polypropylene, though
mechanical stability at pressure
may be limited
Mechanical stability of
polypropylene
14
PEM systems have the characteristics below:
PEM System
2014 YY/DH
PEM Unit Small Cell
Current
Large Cell
Future
System size kW 180 4,000
Stack size kW 60 1,000
Stacks per system 3 4
System Pressure Barg 15 15
H2 Purity % 99.999% 99.999%
Active cell area cm² 210 1,905
Active area / total cell area % 75 75
Current density A/cm² 1.5 2.5
Membrane material Nafion 200µm Nafion 200µm
Catalyst loading mg/cm² 4.0 Pt 0.1 Pt, 0.3 Ir
Conductive porous layer Ti foam Ti foam
Screen pack plates Three layer Ti mesh Function replaced by flow field
plates
Bipolar plate Ti foil SS316 with Ti coating
Cell frame material Ti SS316
Annual Production Volume 3 MW 1.2 GW
15
Current PEM electrolyzer stack costs approximately $1,144/kW and future PEM electrolyzer stack costs about $87/kW.
PEM System Stack Costs
2014 YY/DH
Current PEM Stack Cost $1,144/kW Future PEM Stack Cost $87/kW
7%
10%
10%
3%
6%
16%3%
3%3%
21%
1% 3%
0%
0%2% 13%
Anode
Electrolyte
Cathode
MEA Gasket
Conductive Porous Plate
Screen Pack
Pressure Pad Separator Plate
Pressure Pad
Cell Separator Plate
Cell Frame
Gaskets
End Plates
Current Collector
Insulator
Tie Bolts
Final Assy, Conditioning, Test
2%
18%
1%
1%
27%
0%
4%3%
17%
17%
1%3%
1%
1%1%
3%
Anode
Electrolyte
Cathode
MEA Gasket
Conductive Porous Plate
Screen Pack
Pressure Pad Separator Plate
Pressure Pad
Cell Separator Plate
Cell Frame
Gaskets
End Plates
Current Collector
Insulator
Tie Bolts
Final Assy, Conditioning, Test
16
Current PEM electrolyzer system costs about $2,013/kW and future PEM electrolyzer system costs about $441/kW.
PEM System System Costs
2014 YY/DH
Current PEM System Cost $2,013/kW Future PEM System Cost $441/kW
57%
17%
11%
2%
2%
4%3%
4%
Stack
HV power supply module
System control unit
Feed water treatment
Chiller
Dryer
Gas & water loops
Others & Assembly, Test
20%
56%
2%
1%4%
13%
2%
2%
Stack
HV power supply module
System control unit
Feed water treatment
Chiller
Dryer
Gas & water loops
Others & Assembly, Test
17
PEM cost reduction opportunities are strongly related to the reduced use of titanium, though other components contribute.
PEM System Cost Analysis
2014 YY/DH
Cost contributors Pathways to cost reduction Identified limits
Components made of
titanium
(cell frame, screen pack,
porous plate)
Reduce use of titanium in
components, e.g. make cell
frames of steel plus coatings
instead of full machined titanium;
Make bi-polar plates of steel plus
titanium coating instead of full
titanium.
Increase current density.
Titanium (high material and
processing cost)
expected to remain as the
material of choice for ‘acidic’
electrolysers
Electrode catalysts Material changes using
advanced catalyst support
structures, mixed metal oxides
and nano-structured catalysts.
Precious metal cost and
catalyst activity for acceptable
efficiency. Goals are:
- 0.3mg/cm² Iridium - Anode
- 0.1mg/cm² Pt - Cathode
Supplied membrane High volume orders and/or
dedicated production
Costly fluorine chemistry in
Nafion production
18
‘Expert-predicted’ cost reductions seem plausible and could make electrolysis much more competitive
Conclusions
2014 YY/DH
• Alkaline cost reduction is quite sensitive to volume production and
increased current density
• PEM routes to cost reduction include volume production, system scale-up,
reduction of expensive materials, and increased current density
• PEM is less mature so future cost is sensitive to a number of uncertain
technology development assumptions
• BoP costs (mainly power supply) start to dominate at high production
volumes
• Cost reduction and increased deployment will have to go hand-in-hand for
the industry to achieve aggressive targets
• Other technology may be interesting to analyse, for example SOEC
19
Thank You!
2014 YY/DH
Contact: Yong Yang Austin Power Engineering LLC
1 Cameron St Wellesley MA 02482
USA
Tel: +1 978-263-0397 [email protected]
www.austinpowereng.com
Contact: David Hart E4tech
Av. Juste-Olivier 2 1006 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 331 1570 [email protected]
www.e4tech.com