Pennsylvania Indigenous Energy Hydrogen Delivery Tradeoff Study NHA Annual Hydrogen Conference 2007 March 20, 2007 San Antonio, TX Hydrogen Regional Infrastructure Program in Pennsylvania Eileen M. Schmura, Concurrent Technologies Corporation Paul L. Lemar, Jr and Paul E. Sheaffer, Resource Dynamics Corporation

Presentation Outline Why Pennsylvania? Phase I results Phase I results refined Phase II analysis to date Next steps Contacts and Acknowledgements

Why Hydrogen and Why Pennsylvania? Energy carrier Produced by numerous fuels Potentially replace petroleum Provides energy security and environmental quality Why Pennsylvania Not just a California issue Philadelphia one of 10 worst ozone attainment counties Allegheny one of 10 worst particulate attainment counties Transportation - major contributors to both pollutants Why not hydrogen now? Costs are substantial, including Cost of fuel and vehicle to consumer Infrastructure investment Technology not ready yet ‘

Transportation Statistics: Pennsylvania Versus California

Phase I Hydrogen Tradeoff Study Objectives Quantify tradeoffs between alternative hydrogen production and delivery approaches using DOE’s H2A model and other analytic methods Investigate commercial and near commercial options Use Pennsylvania as a case study Tradeoff Study Parameters Assess demand at 1%, 10%, and 30% of light duty vehicle miles Lowest delivered hydrogen cost based on life cycle cost analysis PA coal as a feedstock for hydrogen was critical aspect of study Key Tradeoffs Analyzed Feedstocks (natural gas, coal, electricity, biomass) Plant size (distributed vs. central station) Delivery (truck, pipeline, etc.)

Hydrogen Production and Delivery Pathways

Key Tradeoffs Analyzed Plant Size Large central plants, regional central plants, or on-site distributive production Large plants have better production economies but more intensive distribution costs, regional plants lower distribution costs, and on-site production eliminates distribution altogether Feedstock and Technology Options Natural gas versus coal, biomass, electricity or other feedstocks Capital investment as well as operating costs Delivery Methods Compressed truck transport, liquid truck transport, and pipeline delivery were pitted against on-site production

Key Feedstock Inputs for Analysis Note: EIA=Energy Information Administration, PJM=PJM Interconnection, ORNL=Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Impact of Hydrogen Demand on Feedstock Availability Note: Each feedstock evaluated independently. Source: Feedstock data from EIA (2003), except biomass from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1999). Assumptions: Hydrogen production efficiencies from H2A case studies and SFA Pacific (2002) (pipeline transport). Hydrogen demand for electricity includes electrolysis and compression, and for biomass includes feedstock use for drying feedstock input to gasifier.

Summary of Lowest Delivered Costs for Both Carbon Cases May need to introduce you PA map to differentiate between the east and west demarcation Should sequestration be defined in low margin? For distributed production, what is the hydrogen production technology applied? Should ‘Plant Size (kg/day) be left justified like the text in the column? For Central Station, what is the pipeline radius (miles) before delivery is necessary?

Two Plant Option, Demand Centers 30 Percent Demand Scenario

Study Approach Phase II Mirror Phase I approach but look at county specific resources/feedstocks Complete resource assessments Analyze key resources for hydrogen production Reassess delivery implications Develop conclusions Perhaps the Agenda or Outline should be presented before the ‘Approach’ Did you consider a slide for ‘Objectives’? This could cover DOE’s overall objective (goals) for delivery and CTC objectives for this study. This will clue the audience to what you will be presenting early. A slide citing the MYRD&DP and DOE delivery goals (i.e., cost) coupled with how using indigenous resources from PA will provide cheaper hydrogen. Make sure the audience know what you mean by Phase I and Phase II. It does not need to be explicit in the slides, but you definitely need to talk to it. For support, you can cite previous presentations and reports.

Phase II Hydrogen Tradeoff Study Objectives Quantify tradeoffs between alternative hydrogen production and delivery approaches using DOE’s H2A model and other analytic methods Investigate commercial and near commercial options Use Pennsylvania as a case study (I-95 Corridor is a focus of a companion effort) Tradeoff Study Parameters Assess demand at 1%, 10%, and 30% of light duty vehicle miles Analyze lowest delivered hydrogen cost based on life cycle cost Use location-specific (county basis) PA resources as a feedstock for hydrogen Key Tradeoffs Analyzed Feedstocks (coal, coalbed methane, manure, woody biomass) Plant size (distributed vs. central station) Delivery (truck, pipeline, etc.)

Pennsylvania’s Natural Resources for Potential Hydrogen Production Coal Coalbed Methane Natural Gas Electricity Nuclear Renewables Agricultural Resources Corn and soybean crops Livestock manure Herbaceous biomass Forestry & Wood Resources Logging & primary mill residues Secondary mill residues Miscellaneous Resources Municipal solid waste (landfill gas) Restaurant-derived waste grease Residual paper waste Food & Kindred Products Resources Only resources in bold have been analyzed to date.

Conversion Technologies Only paths in bold have been analyzed to date.

Pennsylvania’s Hydrogen Resources Coal could provide 19 times more hydrogen than manure at today’s production Why isn’t coal shown in bar graph for comparison purposes? Can’t read the word hydrogen in table below The ‘2’ on H2 should be subscript Does the K in Kg need to be capitalized in the right column? In the Conversion Factors, what does the middle column represent? Any way to present consistent units for quick comparison?

Impact of Location on Feedstock Pricing Center ‘Statewide Average Price (Phase I)’ Center numbers. Does it make sense that the statewide average for delivery is less than the regional pricing?

Woody Biomass Concentrated in Center of State Away From Demand Centers Warren Potter Elk Lycoming Jefferson Clearfield 50 Miles Juniata 50 Miles Huntington Bedford Franklin Top 10 counties comprise 37 % of resources Top counties are over 100 mi from East/West hydrogen plant locations (50 mile radius important for biomass power generation) Resources based on current production of primary and secondary wood wastes, no harvesting of growing stock Entire State can provide 10% of hydrogen demand Total Gasification

Biogas and Coal Bed Methane Resources are Focused in Southeast 50 Miles 50 Miles Berks Lebanon Bucks Lancaster Franklin York Top 2 counties comprise 22% of resources Lancaster county is about 70 mi from East plant, though 20 mile radius is important for biogas power generation Resources based on digestion of swine and dairy manure (77%) landfill gas production (21%) coal bed methane (2%) no food processing waste or other manure used Entire State can provide 15% hydrogen demand

Ample Coal for Entire State Hydrogen Demand 50 Miles Armstrong Indiana Washington 50 Miles Greene Production of underground bituminous = 2 times the hydrogen needed at 100%, does not count surface mining, other coal or reserves Greene county provides two-thirds of current production, and is 50 mi from West plant, though coal can be transported 100s of miles East Plant remote from major coal reserves, although anthracite mines are closer

Impact of Location on Delivered Hydrogen Cost Note: hydrogen production and delivery costs for 30 percent demand scenario

Next Steps Complete resource assessments Continue production and delivery cost analysis Analyze impacts Develop conclusions

Contact Information and Acknowledgements Concurrent Technologies Corporation Resource Dynamics Corporation Eileen Schmura Paul Lemar Jr., President schmurae@ctc.com pll@rdcnet.com (412) 992-5367 703-356-1300 ext. 204 U. S. Department of Energy Mark Paster Jill Gruber Air Products and Chemical Inc. PA DEP Penn State University Acknowledgement/Disclaimer This material is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FC36-04GO14229. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United Sates Government.