1. 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

2. 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

3. 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 ( 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.

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

5. 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

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

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

8. 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

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

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

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

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

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

14. With a Single Size, Forecourt Costs Are Flat

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 8 am & 3 pm
almost no cars over night
Sun M T W Th F
Sat
12.0%
2 8 am & 3 pm
almost no cars over night
1 noon
almost no cars over night
Also seasonal variation! Winter need is 70% and 90% of summer in the US North and South, respectively.

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

20. 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

21. 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