H2A Delivery: Enhanced Models, New Results Marianne Mintz,* Matthew Ringer,† Jerry Gillette,* Amgad Elgowainy,* Daryl Brown‡ National Hydrogen Association San Antonio March 22, 2007 *Argonne National Laboratory † National Renewable Energy Laboratory ‡ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Outline of Presentation Model description Key features Pathways Delivery costs by mode for a range of market demands 50,000 – 5,000,000 population, 15-75% market penetration Cost type (capital, energy, other operating) Function (storage/conditioning, transport, forecourt) Major capital cost Conclusions Next steps

Features of Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM) Incorporate common building blocks from USDOE’s H2A project: Delivery Components and Forecourt models Discounted cash flow analysis Common financial assumptions and fuel properties Flexible, easy to use tool: Programmed as series of Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheets Runs with either H2A defaults or user inputs User-friendly interface (GUI) to quickly and easily define scenarios of interest Posted on USDOE website (www.hydrogen.energy.gov) with Users Guide Technical support by USDOE EERE help desk Automatically link and size components into pathways Provide structure for efficiently examining new technologies, alternative delivery pathways and packaging options Provides “snap shot” of delivery cost resulting from input assumptions. Not a transition model.

Overview of HDSAM Scenario Definition Components & Other Sub-Models Results Trans/Distribution Mode

HDSAM 1.0 Estimates Delivery Cost for 3 Pathways Version1.0 characterizes components for 3 pathways with delivery by a single mode. Loading, conditioning and storage are at or adjacent to the plant Compressed H2 (CH) Truck H2 Production 3 or 7 kpsi 100 or 1500 kg/d Liquid Hydrogen (LH) Truck H2 Production 100 or 1500 kg/d H2 Production Gaseous H2 Pipeline 100 or 1500 kg/d

GUI Simplifies User-Selection of Market Type and Size, Penetration and Delivery Mode

Scenario & Results Tabs (Illustration = 50% Penetration, LH2 Truck, Indianapolis)

Pooled Results Show Sensitivity to Market Size Cost drops rapidly with increasing market size, up to about 100 tpd Scale matters for pipeline and liquid delivery, less so for compressed gas truck High pressure gaseous truck may be attractive for smaller markets

Because Delivery Is Capital Intensive High pressure gas truck is somewhat less capital intensive at low demand All modes are comparable at higher demand

Energy Is a Smaller But Significant Cost for All Modes, Especially Liquid Trucks

Operating & Maintenance Costs Decline Less with Market Size, Especially for Labor-Intensive Modes

By Function, Storage & Conditioning Represent the Bulk of Delivery Cost Liquefier costs may not drop beyond 200 tpd

Truck Costs Are Flat Regardless of Market Size; Pipeline Costs Mirror Capital Costs

With a Single Size, Forecourt Costs Are Flat

Each Mode Has a Major Capital Cost Challenge, Particularly for Small Markets Liquefier Pipeline Gas Terminal

Conclusions For smaller urban markets, compressed gas delivery appears most economic, although high-pressure cost inputs are uncertain For larger urban markets, pipeline delivery is least costly Distance from central plant to city gate may change relative costs (all results shown assume 100 km) Pipeline costs may be reduced with system “rationalization”, primarily reductions in service mileage Forecourt costs may be reduced with larger stations and storage optimization Liquefier and pipeline capital costs are a hurdle, particularly at small market sizes

Improvements Underway for HDSAM 2.0 Energy efficiencies and CO2 emissions Revised cost equations (compressor, pipeline, liquefier, storage tubes) Enhanced forecourt representation: variable capacity, revised demand profile, storage requirement and footprint, compressor operation Revised terminal representation and compressor operation Revised representation of pathways to permit storage optimization and better consideration of required capacity Mixed demands/markets (e.g., combined urban & interstate demand, multiple urban areas) Additional pathways (e.g., hydrogen carriers) Plan to complete Version 2.0 by end of 2007

Typical Gas Station Fueling Profile: Friday Peak, 1 Typical Gas Station Fueling Profile: Friday Peak, 1.07:1 Daily Variation, and 2:1 Hourly Variation 14.5% increase 2 peaks @ 8 am & 3 pm almost no cars over night Sun M T W Th F Sat 12.0% 2 peaks @ 8 am & 3 pm almost no cars over night 1 peak @ noon almost no cars over night Also seasonal variation! Winter need is 70% and 90% of summer in the US North and South, respectively.

Revised Cost Equations Better Reflect Effects of Scale, Location and Technology

HDSAM 2.0 Will Add Pipeline+CGT, Pipeline+LHT, Liquid Carrier, and Alternative Storage Pathways Pipeline + CG Truck Liquid H2 Gaseous H2 H2 Production Gaseous Terminal 3 or 7kpsi Forecourt Up to 6000 kg/d Pipeline + LH Truck H2 Production Gaseous Liquid H2 Forecourt Liquid Terminal Up to 6000 kg/d Liquid Carrier Forecourt Liquid Carrier Truck Carrier Production

Gas Technology Institute This work has benefited from the efforts of many individuals representing the following organizations: Nexant, Inc. TIAX, Inc. Chevron Air Liquide Gas Technology Institute US DOE Thank You All! Marianne Mintz mmintz@anl.gov