Mark Paster Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Production of Hydrogen October, 2003 U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Production Programs

Environment & Air Quality We seek a future in which the principal "energy carriers" are hydrogen and electricity, eventually generated using technologies that do not emit any pollutants or carbon dioxide. Renewable and nuclear energy sources and carbon capture and sequestration combined with more efficient, clean fuel cell engines will improve local air quality as greenhouse gas emissions decline.

U.S. Energy Dependence is Driven By Transportation US Oil Use for Transportation Two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for transportation America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes, that is expected to grow to 68% by Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline or diesel.

-CAFE increases include light trucks -Beyond 2020, EIA data extrapolated Million barrels per day Projected Actual Domestic Production U.S. DOT Proposal 20% CAFE Increase (=28.8 mpg) Transportation Oil Use 40% CAFE Increase (=33.6 mpg) 60% CAFE Increase (=38.4 mpg) Plus ANWR (Ref. EIA SR/O&G/ , and USGS Report 98-34) A Bold New Approach is Required Even an immediate 60 percent increase in CAFE standards and new production from a 10 billion barrel (recoverable) oil field in ANWR will not close the gap between transportation demand and domestic production.

U.S Energy-Linked Emissions as Percentage of Total Emissions

. Distributed Generation Transportation Biomass Water Hydro Wind Solar Geothermal Coal Nuclear Natural Gas Oil With Carbon Sequestration HIGH EFFICIENCY & RELIABILITY ZERO/NEAR ZERO EMISSIONS Why Hydrogen? It’s abundant, clean, efficient, and can be derived from diverse domestic resources.

"Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. "A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car producing only water, not exhaust fumes. "With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. "Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." President George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union Address January 28, 2003 President Bush Launches the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

Freedom from foreign petroleum dependence Freedom from pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions Freedom for Americans to drive where they want, when they want, in the vehicle of their choice Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently On January 9, 2002, Energy Secretary Abraham announced the FreedomCAR Partnership President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Complements FreedomCAR

Hydrogen Infrastructure and Fuel Cell Technologies put on an Accelerated Schedule  President Bush commits a total $1.7 billion over first 5 years:  $1.2 billion for hydrogen and fuel cells RD&D ($720 million in new money)  $0.5 billion for hybrid and vehicle technologies RD&D  Accelerated, parallel track enables industry commercialization decision by Fuel Cell Vehicles in the Showroom and Hydrogen at Fueling Stations by 2020

“The vision of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy is that a participating country’s consumers will have the practical option of purchasing a competitively priced hydrogen powered vehicle, and be able to refuel it near their homes and places of work, by 2020.”- Secretary Abraham International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy US will share information and coordinate with major research partners in Japan, the EU and globally Hydrogen Roadmaps will be developed for India, China and Brazil US will host a Ministerial Meeting in November 2003 for the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy

Timeline

Planning & Goals NEP lays out President’s long-term objectives DOE and industry determine challenges and paths forward

Identifies the “challenges” and “path forward” to realizing vision of a Hydrogen Economy  System Integration  Production  Delivery  Storage  Conversion  Applications  Education and Outreach Secretary Spencer Abraham released November 15, 2002 The Roadmap

The President’s FY04 Budget Request for FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives OrganizationMillion $ Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program (EERE) FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program (EERE) 91.1 Office of Fossil Energy (FE)11.5 Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) 4.0 Department of Transportation (RSPA)0.7 Total272.8 President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy has formed an Interagency Hydrogen Research and Development Task Force

Proposed Management Structure Hydrogen Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) DOE Hydrogen Policy Group Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EE) Fossil Energy (FE) Nuclear Energy (NE) Science Management, Budget & Evaluation Policy & International Affairs Applications Project Delivery Project Production Project Project Mgmt (Field) Program Mgmt (Headquarters) Chief Engineer Chief Analyst Interagency Task Force DOE Hydrogen Program Manager Hydrogen Matrix Group FE, NE (Co-located with EERE) National LaboratoriesIndustry Project Implementation (Contractor) Universities Systems Integration And Analyses Safety & Codes/ Standards Project Education Project Conversion Project Storage Project Assistant Secretary for EERE/ Principal Deputy for EERE DAS for Technology Development DAS for Business Administration Delivery Manager Storage Manager Production Manager Applications Manager Conversion Manager Safety & Codes/ Standards Manager Education Manager Secretary Under Secretary

Develop and validate fuel cells and hydrogen production, delivery, and storage technologies for transportation and stationary applications. −Dramatically reduce dependence on foreign oil. −Promote the use of diverse, domestic, and sustainable energy sources. −Reduce carbon and criteria emissions from energy production and consumption −Increase the reliability and efficiency of electricity production by utilizing distributed fuel cells Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program

Hydrogen Production DELIVERY FUEL CELLS STORAGE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION CODES & STANDARDS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / ANALYSES SAFETY EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Economy

Hydrogen Production Goal and Objectives Objectives for 2010 By 2010: Reduce the cost of distributed production of hydrogen from natural gas and/or liquid fuels to $1.50/gallon gasoline equivalent ($1.50/kg) delivered, untaxed, at the pump [without carbon sequestration]; By 2010: Develop and verify technology to supply purified hydrogen from biomass at $2.60/kg at the plant gate. The objective is to be competitive with gasoline by By 2010: Develop and verify renewable integrated hydrogen production with water electrolysis at a hydrogen cost of $2.50/kg with electrolyser capital of $300/kW and 73% system efficiency. Goal : Research and develop low cost, highly efficient hydrogen production technologies from diverse, domestic sources, including fossil, nuclear, and renewable sources.

Hydrogen Production Objectives (cont’d) Develop advanced renewable photolytic hydrogen generation technologies. –By 2015: Demonstrate direct photoelectrochemical water splitting with a plant-gate hydrogen production cost of $5/kg –By 2015: Demonstrate an engineering-scale photobiological system which produces hydrogen at a plant-gate cost of $10/kg. The long term objective for these production routes is to be competitive with gasoline. By 2015: Research and develop high and ultra-high temperature thermochemical water splitting processes to convert hydrogen from high temperature heat sources (nuclear,solar, other) with a projected cost competitive with gasoline.

Hydrogen Delivery DELIVERY FUEL CELLS STORAGE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION CODES & STANDARDS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / ANALYSES SAFETY EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Economy

Liquid H 2 & Chem. Carriers Develop hydrogen fuel delivery technologies that enable the introduction and long-term viability of hydrogen as an energy carrier for transportation and stationary power. Hydrogen Delivery: Goal Gaseous Pipeline Truck Hydrides Liquid H 2 - Pipeline - Truck - Rail Other Carriers Onsite reforming

Delivery Objectives By 2006, define a cost effective and energy efficient fuel delivery infrastructure for the introduction and long-term use of hydrogen for transportation and stationary power. By 2015, develop enabling technologies to reduce the cost of hydrogen fuel delivery from the point of production to the point of use in vehicles or stationary power units to <$1.00/kg in total.

Hydrogen Storage DELIVERY FUEL CELLS STORAGE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION CODES & STANDARDS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / ANALYSES SAFETY EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Economy

On-Board Storage Systems High Pressure Tanks Liquid Hydrogen Reversible Metal Hydrides Chemical Hydrides Carbon Structures Other

Hydrogen Storage Technical Goal & Objectives Objectives – Develop and verify: On-board hydrogen storage systems achieving:  1.5 kWh/kg (4.5 wt%), 1.2 kWh/L, and $6/kWh by 2005  2 kWh/kg (6 wt%), 1.5 kWh/L, and $4/kWh by 2010  3 kWh/kg (9 wt%), 2.7 kWh/L, and $2/kWh by 2015 Low cost, off-board hydrogen storage systems, as required for hydrogen infrastructure needs to support transportation, stationary and portable power markets by Vehicle interface technologies for fueling on-board hydrogen storage systems by Goal : Develop and demonstrate viable hydrogen storage technologies for transportation and stationary applications.

Fuel Cells Hydrogen Storage DELIVERY FUEL CELLS STORAGE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION CODES & STANDARDS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / ANALYSES SAFETY EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Economy

Fuel Cells Technical Goals & Objectives Objectives Develop a 60% efficient, durable, direct hydrogen fuel cell power system for transportation at a cost of $45/kW (including hydrogen storage) by Develop a 45% efficient reformer ‑ based fuel cell power system for transportation operating on clean hydrocarbon or alcohol based fuel that meets emissions standards, a start ‑ up time of 30 seconds, and a projected manufactured cost of $45/kW by Develop a distributed generation PEM fuel cell system operating on natural gas or propane that achieves 40% electrical efficiency and 40,000 hours durability at $750/kW by Develop a fuel cell system for consumer electronics with an energy density of 1,000 W-h/L by Develop a fuel cell system for auxiliary power units (1-3kW) with a specific power of 150 W/kg and a power density of 150 W/L by Goal : Develop and demonstrate fuel cell power system technologies for transportation, stationary, and portable applications.

Cross-cutting Functions Technology Validation, Education, Codes and Standards, Safety DELIVERY FUEL CELLS STORAGE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION CODES & STANDARDS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / ANALYSES SAFETY EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Economy

Coal –Supply: 5,780 Quads recoverable reserves –Process options: central production from gasification –Cost: Current: $ /kg Projected: $ /kg –Requires sequestration and near-zero other emissions Production Feedstock/Process Options

Natural Gas –Supply: 188 Quads proven reserves Currently importing 15% of our needs –Process Options Central Reforming −Cost: Current: $ /kg Projected: $0.40-$0.90/kg −Requires sequestration −Lowest cost current route Distributed Reforming −Cost: Current: $4.00-$6.00/kg Projected: $1.50-$3.00/kg −Lowest cost current route for delivered hydrogen −Very sensitive to NG price −GHG emissions unavoidable

Production Feedstock/Process Options Biomass –Supply 6-10 Quads/yr. currently possible Could be much more with biotech advancements –Feedstock Cost and Infrastructure are Key Issues –Central Production Process Options Gasification –Cost: Current $2.00-$4.00/kgProjected: $1.00-$3.00/kg Fermentation –Relatively unexplored Anaerobic Fermentation Methane Hydrogen –Agriculture, MSW or industrial sites –Existing biomass “collection” infrastructure –Co-Gen power and hydrogen possible –Sensitive to scale of operations and required distribution infrastructure Production Feedstock/Process Options

Biomass –Central/Distributed Process Options Trades hydrogen delivery costs for liquid carrier costs plus reforming Fermentation Ethanol Hydrogen –Fungible transition from ethanol fuel –Cost ?? Gasification Syngas Methanol (Ethanol) Hydrogen Pyrolysis Bio-Oil Hydrogen Sugar Hydrogenation Sugar Polyols (e.g., Sorbitol) Hydrogen

Water: Electrolysis –Distributed and central production –Requires non-GHG emitting clean power: wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil with sequestration –Supply: Essentially unlimited Need purified water Production Feedstock/Process Options

Distributed Electrolysis –Cost: Current: $4.00-$8.00/kg Projected: $ /kg –Electricity cost is the driver/controlling –Eliminates hydrogen delivery costs and infrastructure Central Electrolysis –Cost: need better analysis –Enables more efficient use of intermittent renewables –Enables more efficient use of off peak power availability –High temperature steam electrolysis may be more efficient –Requires hydrogen delivery

Production Feedstock/Process Options Water: Photolytic Production –Supply: Unlimited –Central Production Utilizing Photosynthetic Organisms (Algae) Cost: Current ~$200/kg Projected: <$5.00/kg Requires breakthroughs in biotechnology and systems engineering Land area requirements or ocean operations –Central or Distributed Direct Photoelectrochemical Production Cost: Current: N/AProjected: <$3.00/kg Requires breakthroughs in materials Intermittent: diurnal cycle The ultimate system if successful: renewable, unlimited, simple

Production Feedstock/Process Options High Temperature Thermochemical Water Splitting –Process Options High temperature ( C) central production utilizing advanced nuclear energy heat source (or other source) and S-I or CaBr (or other) cycles Ultra-high temperature ( C) water splitting chemical cycles utilizing concentrated solar energy Direct water splitting –Unproven Chemical Cycles –Materials Issues Production Feedstock/Process Options

Summary Route $/kg Current $/kg Projected %EE WTP 1 GHG WTW Reduc. 1,2 Coal: Central Gasification $ $ _ High W/Sequest. Coal: C/D Gasification/Reforming ___Low-Medium NG: Central Reforming $ $ %61% NG: Distributed Reforming $ $ %High Biomass: Central Gasification $ $1.00-$3.00_High Biomass: Central Fermentation ___High Biomass: Central Ferm./Methane/Hydrogen ___High Biomass: C/D Gasification/Methanol or Ethanol/Hydrogen ___High Biomass: C/D Pyrolysis ___High Biomass: C/D Ferm./Ethanol/Hydrogen _<$ % Total 92% Fossil 98% Biomass: C/D Sugar Hydrogenation/Polyols/Hydrogen ___High Summary

Route $/kg Current $/kg Projected % EE WTP 1 GHG WTW Reduc. 1,2 Water: Electrolysis: Distributed $ $ % Grid 68% Renew. (22%) Grid ~100% Renew. Water: Electrolysis: Central _ _ Low: Grid High: Renew. Water: Central Photolytic: Organisms (e.g. algae) ~$200<$5.00 _ High Water: Central or Distributed Photolytic: Photoelectrochemical _<$3.00 _ High Water: Central HT Splitting Chemical Cycles _<$2.00 _ High Water: Central U-HT Splitting Chemical Cycles __ _ High Water: Direct Water Splitting __ _ High Summary 1.The estimates, except for the distributed water electrolysis case using renewable electricity, are from “Guidance for Transportation Technologies: Fuel Choice for Fuel Cell Vehicles, Final Report prepared by Arthur D. Little for U.S. Department of Energy, February 6, 2002, The distributed water electrolysis estimates are from Wang, M., “Fuel Choices for Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Well-to Wheels Energy and Emissions Impacts,” Journal of Power Sources, 112(1): , October GHG well-to-wheels reduction is the reduction of GHG emissions as compared to the emissions from standard/today’s gasoline ICE.

Production Strategies/Creating Options −Multiple feedstocks −End Game Coal with sequestration Renewable feedstocks: biomass and derivatives, water Renewable/non-carbon emitting energy use: biomass, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal Central and distributed production are likely −Transition Distributed production (NG, electrolysis, biomass derivatives) Brownfield central production expansions Greenfield central production as risk is reduced

−Distributed: NG, Liquids (including biomass derivatives), Electrolysis −Central NG, Coal and Biomass −Renewable Power: Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal −Central Coal with Sequestration −Photolytic: Photoelectrochemical, Photosynthetic organisms −Thermochemical Water Splitting Nuclear, Solar, Other Short Term Long Term Potential Scenarios