1. 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

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

3. 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 ‘

4. Transportation Statistics: Pennsylvania Versus California

5. 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.)

6. Hydrogen Production and Delivery Pathways

7. 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

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

9. 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.

10. 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?

11. Two Plant Option, Demand Centers 30 Percent Demand Scenario

12. 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.

13. 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.)

14. 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.

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

16. 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?

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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

20. Ample Coal for Entire State Hydrogen Demand50
Miles
Armstrong
Indiana
Washington
50 Miles
Greene
Production of underground bituminous = 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

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

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

23. Contact Information and Acknowledgements
Concurrent Technologies Corporation Resource Dynamics Corporation
Eileen Schmura Paul Lemar Jr., President
(412) 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-FC36-04GO This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United Sates Government.