Документ: The_Future_of_Hydrogen-IEA-2020, страницы 81-85

The Future of Hydrogen

Chapter 3: Storage, transmission and distribution of hydrogen

Total cost of delivering and storing hydrogen

The full cost of hydrogen delivery to end users must take into account all possible stages of the supply chain. The different hydrogen carriers and modes of transport have very different conversion, transmission, distribution, storage and reconversion costs. While one option may be cheaper for a specific part of the value chain, this may be offset by higher costs in another part of the chain. The various technologies involved are also at different degrees of maturity and so have very different future cost reduction potentials. There may be scope for synergies between energy, heat and storage requirements. For example, if the specific value chain in question has higher energy requirements at the export terminal than at the import terminal (e.g. liquid hydrogen), this could improve the relative cost and emission dynamics compared with the reverse case (e.g. LOHCs).

The overall cost of delivering hydrogen will vary according to the infrastructure available in the exporting and importing countries, transmission and distribution distances, the method of transport, and end-use demand. Despite the many uncertainties around most of these cost components, IEA analysis suggests that for inland transmission and distribution, hydrogen gas is the cheaper option for distances below around 3 500 km (Figure 29). Above this distance, ammonia pipelines would be the cheaper option. Comparing transport using pipelines and ships, transmission and distribution of hydrogen gas by pipeline is cheaper for distances below around 1 500 km. Above this distance, LOHC and ammonia transport by ship, which are broadly similar in terms of their full costs, become the cheaper delivery options. The transport and use of ammonia or some LOHCs may, however, give rise to potential safety and public acceptance issues, which could limit their application in some situations.

Figure 29. Full cost of hydrogen delivery to the industrial sector by pipeline or by ship in 2030 for different transmission distances

USD/kgH

8

6

4

2

0

			Pipeline					Ship
					USD/kgH	8
					USD/kgH	6
						6
						4
						2
0	1 000	2 000	3 000	4 000	5 000	0
0	1 000	2 000	3 000	4 000	5 000	0	1 000	2 000	3 000	4 000	5 000
					km						km
				Hydrogen		LOHC	Ammonia

Notes: Hydrogen production cost = USD 3/kgH2; assumes distribution of 100 tpd in a pipeline to an end-use site 50 km from the receiving terminal. More information on the assumptions is available at www.iea.org/hydrogen2019.

Delivering hydrogen to the industrial sector is cheaper by pipeline for transmission distances below 1 500 km; above this distance LOHC and ammonia are cheaper options.

PAGE | 81

The Future of Hydrogen

Chapter 3: Storage, transmission and distribution of hydrogen

IEA analysis indicates that in the future it may be cheaper in a number of instances to import hydrogen than to produce it domestically. For example, Japan currently imports around 90% of its energy needs and, as its Basic Hydrogen Strategy shows, it views hydrogen as a source of energy diversification, emissions reduction and industrial leadership. IEA estimates that, for Japan’s industrial sector in 2030, importing electrolytic hydrogen from Australia (around USD 5.5/kgH2) will be cheaper than domestic production (USD 6.5/kgH2) (Figure 30). This assumes the production of hydrogen in Australia using combined installations of electrolysers, solar plants and wind farms in a region with high solar and wind resources (Chapter 2) and the subsequent export of this hydrogen to the point of use in Japan as ammonia or LOHC. The total cost of transporting the hydrogen from Australia to Japan (including conversion and reconversion) would be just over USD 1.5/kgH2, equivalent to USD 45 per MWh. Ammonia would be even more attractive if it could be used directly by the end consumer, thereby avoiding the additional costs of reconverting it back into hydrogen.

The cheapest source of hydrogen would, however, still be substantially more expensive than natural gas. In 2030 the imported natural gas price in Japan is projected to be USD 10/MBtu, equivalent to around USD 1.2/kgH2. Although the actual cost differential may be slightly smaller than it looks because some hydrogen end-use devices may have a higher efficiency than natural gas devices, further cost reductions would be needed to improve the competitiveness of hydrogen against natural gas systems.

Figure 30. Cost of delivering hydrogen or ammonia produced via electrolysis from Australia to an industrial customer in Japan in 2030

USD/kgH

8

Distribution

6

Reconversion

Transmission

4

Import/export

terminals

2

Conversion

0

Hydrogen

Ammonia

Hydrogen

LOHC

Ammonia

Production

Domestic

Import from Australia

Notes: Assumes distribution of 100 tpd in a pipeline to an end-use site 50 km from the receiving terminal. Storage costs are included in the cost of import and export terminals. More information on the assumptions is available at www.iea.org/hydrogen2019.

Source: IEA analysis based on IAE (2019), “Economical Evaluation and Characteristic Analyses for Energy Carrier Systems” and Reuß (2017), “Seasonal storage and alternative carriers: A flexible hydrogen supply chain model”. All rights reserved.

The cost of transport from Australia to Japan could represent between 30% and 45% of the full cost of hydrogen; yet imports of electrolytic hydrogen could still be cheaper than domestic production.

Imports of hydrogen produced from renewable electricity appear to make sense for a number of other possible trade routes too. If ammonia could be used by the end user without the need for reconversion back to hydrogen, then imports would be even cheaper. For example, the cost of

PAGE | 82

The Future of Hydrogen

Chapter 3: Storage, transmission and distribution of hydrogen

importing ammonia from electrolytic hydrogen produced in North Africa into Europe could be cheaper than producing it in Europe (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Comparison of delivered hydrogen costs for domestically produced and imported hydrogen for selected trade routes in 2030

		Natural gas with CCUS		8	Renewable electricity
USD/kgH	8		USD/kgH
	8
	6			6
	6			6
	4			4
	4			4
	2			2
	2			2
	0			0
	0			0

Australia–

Middle East–

Russia–

Australia–

Middle East–

North Africa–

Japan

EU

Japan

EU

Domestic hydrogen

Domestic ammonia

Imported ammonia

Reconversion cost

Note: “Domestic” cost is the full cost of hydrogen production and distribution in the importing country (i.e. Japan or the European Union). All costs assume 50 km distribution to a large industrial facility. More information on the assumptions is available at www.iea.org/hydrogen2019.

Hydrogen imports could be cheaper than domestic production for a number of countries, especially if ammonia can be used by the final customer without the need for reconversion back into hydrogen.

However, for many other possible trade routes, the relatively high cost of hydrogen transmission and distribution means that it will generally be cheaper to produce hydrogen domestically rather than import it. This is because the cost of transport will outweigh differences in the cost of electricity production from renewable sources, or differences in natural gas prices and the cost of CCUS. In Europe, for example, domestic production of lowcarbon hydrogen from natural gas equipped with CCUS is likely to be cheaper for industry and power applications than importing low-carbon hydrogen from Russia. Even so, some countries with constrained CO2 storage or limited untapped renewable resources may still see low-carbon hydrogen imports as worthwhile because of the contribution they make to diversifying their energy systems and reducing their CO2 emissions.

In the transport sector, centralised reconversion of LOHC or ammonia to produce hydrogen, for example at an import terminal, is generally much cheaper than reconversion at the point of final use, for example at a filling station. However, this needs to be balanced against the higher cost of distributing hydrogen as a liquid or gas.

For hydrogen produced in North Africa and transported to Europe, it is likely to be cheapest to ship the hydrogen as ammonia or LOHC, with the cheapest option for subsequent distribution to a 1 tpd refuelling station22 depending on the distances involved. For ammonia, if the

22 This is approximately the size of large hydrogen refuelling stations considered under the Hydrogen Mobility Initiative in Germany.

PAGE | 83

The Future of Hydrogen

Chapter 3: Storage, transmission and distribution of hydrogen

distribution distance is below 100 km, then the cheapest option is likely to be to reconvert the ammonia as soon as it has been imported and to distribute the resultant hydrogen using compressed hydrogen gas trucks. If the distribution distance is greater than 100 km, then it is likely to be cheaper to distribute the ammonia in trucks and reconvert them to produce hydrogen at the refuelling station. For LOHC, centralised reconversion is cheaper for distribution distances up to 500 km.

A distribution distance of 100 km would result in a delivered hydrogen price (before tax and margins) between USD 7.5/kgH2 and USD 9/kgH2 (Figure 32). Taking into account the higher conversion efficiency of fuel cells compared to internal combustion engines, this would be equivalent to between USD 1.1 and 1.3 per litre of gasoline; this is under current prices at the pump in Europe of around USD 1.4 per litre, although these are prices after taxes.

If existing pipeline infrastructure can be used for hydrogen, the cost of transmission and distribution would be much lower. For example, it is estimated that the cost to convert the gas network of the United Kingdom to supply pure hydrogen to buildings would be around USD 0.6/kgH2 (CCC, 2018). Given the lower energy density of hydrogen, additional storage capacity would also be required to meet heat demand, which would add a further USD 0.5/kgH2. In this case, the total cost of hydrogen imported from North Africa and delivered to buildings in the European Union would be around USD 4.5/kgH2 (USD 135/MWh) for hydrogen produced from natural gas with CCUS, or USD 6/kgH2 (USD 180/MWh) for electrolytic hydrogen.

Figure 32. Cost of electrolytic hydrogen imports from North Africa supplied to a hydrogen refuelling station in Europe in 2030

Centralised reconversion

Decentralised reconversion

USD/kgH

10		10
8		8
6		6
4		4
2		2
0		0
Liquid	LOHC	Ammonia
hydrogen

		Refuelling station
		Reconversion
		Distribution
		Transmission
		Import/export
		terminals
		Conversion
		Production cost
Liquid	LOHC	Ammonia
hydrogen

Note: Assumes a distribution distance of 100 km. More information on the assumptions is available at www.iea.org/hydrogen2019.

Source: IEA analysis based on IAE (2019), “Economical Evaluation and Characteristic Analyses for Energy Carrier Systems”

Delivering hydrogen to European refuelling stations in 2030 is likely to cost USD 7.5–9/kgH2. The choice of centralised or decentralised reconversion depends on distribution distance.

PAGE | 84

The Future of Hydrogen

Chapter 3: Storage, transmission and distribution of hydrogen

References

Aakko-Saksaa, P. T. et al. (2018), “Liquid organic hydrogen carriers for transportation and storing of renewable energy – Review and discussion”, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 396, pp. 803–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.04.011.

Abbott, D. J., J. P. Bowers and S. R. James, “The impact of natural gas composition variations on the operation of gas turbines for power generation”, The Future of Gas Turbine Technology 6th International Conference, 17–18 October 2012, Brussels, Belgium, https://gasgov-mst-files.s3.eu- west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/ggf/Impact%20of%20Natural%20Gas%20Composition%20- %20Paper_0.pdf (accessed 5 April 2019).

Altfeld, K. and D. Pinchbeck (2013), “Admissible hydrogen concentrations in natural gas systems”, Gas Energy, www.gas-for-energy.com/products/2013-admissible-hydrogen-concentrations-in-natural- gas-systems-1/.

Bartels, J.R. (2008), “A feasibility study of implementing an Ammonia Economy”, Iowa State University, https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2119&context=etd.

Brown, T. (2017), “Round-trip efficiency of ammonia as a renewable energy transportation media”, Ammonia Energy, www.ammoniaenergy.org/round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable- energy-transportation-media/.

Bünger, U. et al., (2014). “Power-to-Gas (PtG) in transport: Status quo and perspectives for development”, Report to the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI), Germany.

CCC (Committee on Climate Change) (2018), “Analysis of alternative UK heat decarbonisation pathways (Imperial), Supporting data”, www.theccc.org.uk/publication/analysis-of-alternative-uk-heat- decarbonisation-pathways/.

Dodds, P. and P. Ekins (2013), “A portfolio of powertrains for the UK: an energy systems analysis”,

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 39, Issue 26, pp. 13941–53.

Dolci, F., et al. (2019), “Incentives and legal barriers for Power-to-Hydrogen pathways: An international snapshot”, International Journal of Hydrogen, doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.045.

DNV GL (2017), “Verkenning Waterstofinfrastructuur”(Reconnaissance hydrogen infrastructure), OGNL.151886, Rev. 2, www.topsectorenergie.nl/sites/default/files/uploads/TKI%20Gas/publicaties/DNVGL%20rapport% 20verkenning%20waterstofinfrastructuur_rev2.pdf

Eurogas (2018), “Eurogas discussion paper for the gas package (2020)”, Position Paper No. 18PP309, https://eurogas.org/website/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18PP309-Eurogas-discussion-paper-for- 2020-gas-package-October-2018.pdf (accessed 5 April 2019).

ECS (European Committee for Standardization) (2015), “European standard: Gas infrastructure – Quality of gas – Group H”, https://standards.globalspec.com/std/10009928/din-en-16726.

Giddey, S. et al. (2017), “Ammonia as a renewable energy transportation media”, ACS Sust. Chem. Eng., Vol. 5, Issue 11, pp. 10231–39, doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02219.

H21 (2018), H21 North of England, H21, Northern Gas Networks, Equinor and Cadent, www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/h21-noe/H21-NoE-26Nov18-v1.0.pdf.

Haeseldonckx, D. and W. D’haeseleer (2007), “The use of the natural-gas pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen transport in a changing market structure”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, Issues 10-11, pp. 1381–6.

PAGE | 85

Материал: The_Future_of_Hydrogen-IEA-2020

Смотрите также: