Материал: The_Future_of_Hydrogen-IEA-2020

IEA. All rights reserved.

(Chapter 2). The key variables affecting the economics of production via electrolysis and natural gas with CCUS are natural gas and electricity prices (Figure 42).

Figure 42. Variation of ammonia and methanol production costs with fuel price in the long-term

Notes: The levelised cost includes the cost of CAPEX on core process equipment, fixed OPEX, fuel and feedstock costs, and the cost of capturing, transporting and storing CO2. Best practice energy performance is assumed for natural gas-based routes. Electrolyser CAPEX range = USD 455–894/kWe. Electrolyser efficiency range = 64–74% on an LHV basis. More information on the assumptions is available at www.iea.org/hydrogen2019.

Source: IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

At low electricity prices, electrolysis is the best option for producing low-carbon ammonia and methanol, but natural gas with CCUS is more competitive at higher electricity prices.

Electrolysis becomes competitive with natural gas with CCUS at electricity prices in the range of USD 15–50/MWh for ammonia and in the range of USD 10–65/MWh for methanol, on the assumption of gas prices of USD 3–10/MBtu.31 In order to compete with natural gas without CCUS at these gas prices, however, electricity prices would need to drop to USD 10–40/MWh for ammonia and USD 5–50/MWh for methanol.

While the upper end of these cost-competitive electricity price ranges show promise for alternative pathways, the economics in most regions are such that policy support is likely to be

31 This assumes that electrolyser CAPEX declines by 50% and efficiency increases by 15%, with no corresponding improvement in the efficiency of natural gas conversion or CCUS.

PAGE | 107

IEA. All rights reserved.

required in the short to medium term if low-carbon forms of production are to take off. Policy measures could stimulate demand for low-carbon hydrogen in the chemical sector and thus stimulate investment in a cleaner supply of hydrogen. These measures could include the use of certificates, public procurement or portfolio standards to create market value for chemicals produced via low-carbon process routes. In the case of methanol produced as a fuel or fuel additive, this could include the use of fuel specifications or fuel standards (Box 8). Governments could also use standards to support ammonia produced with lower CO2 intensity. In the near term, initial projects that take on value chain and market risks to invest in CCUS or electrolysis hydrogen for chemical production are likely to need some direct government support. The support should be aimed at managing these risks and extending the benefits of cost sharing to other facilities in industrial clusters.

Hydrogen in iron and steel production

DRI is a method for producing steel from iron ore. This process constitutes the fourth-largest single source of hydrogen demand today (4 MtH2/yr, or around 3% of total hydrogen used in both pure and mixed forms), after oil refining, ammonia and methanol. Based on current trends, global steel demand is set to increase by around 6% by 2030, with demand for infrastructure and a growing population in developing regions compensating for declines elsewhere.

Like the chemical sector, the iron and steel sector produces a large quantity of hydrogen mixed with other gases as a by-product (e.g. coke oven gas), some of which is consumed within the sector and some of which is distributed for use elsewhere. Virtually all of this hydrogen is generated from coal and other fossil fuels. To reduce emissions, efforts are underway to test steel production using hydrogen as the key reduction agent (as opposed to carbon monoxide derived from fossil fuels), with the first commercial-scale designs expected in the 2030s. In the meantime, low-carbon hydrogen could be blended into existing processes that are currently based on natural gas and coal to lower their overall CO2 intensity.

How does the iron and steel sector use hydrogen today?

More than three-quarters of global steel demand today is met using primary production methods that convert iron ore to steel, as opposed to the secondary production route, which utilises limited supplies of recycled scrap steel (Figure 43).32 The two main primary production routes already involve some production and consumption of hydrogen.

The blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route accounts for about 90% of primary steel production globally. It produces hydrogen as a by-product of coal use. This hydrogen, contained in so-called “works-arising gases” (WAG), is produced in a mixture with other gases such as carbon monoxide.33 WAG is used for various purposes on site, but also transferred for use in other sectors including power generation and, in China, methanol production. The portion utilised within the iron and steel sector is estimated at 9 MtH2/yr today, or around 20% of the global use of hydrogen in mixed forms (i.e. not as pure hydrogen).

32The remaining demand is met by re-melting steel scrap in an electric arc furnace (EAF). Besides the BF-BOF and DRI-EAF routes, there are other routes currently used for primary steel production, such as the smelt reduction process (in combination with a BOF) and the outdated open hearth furnace route. Together these other routes account for around 1% of primary production.

33Coke oven gas typically contains in the range of 39% to 65% hydrogen by volume, whereas blast furnace gas contains in the range of 1% to 5% (European Commission, 2000). BOF gas is another component of WAG, containing 2% to 10% hydrogen by volume.

PAGE | 108

IEA. All rights reserved.

The direct reduction of iron-electric arc furnace (DRI-EAF) route accounts for 7% of primary steel production globally. It uses a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide as a reducing agent. The hydrogen is produced in dedicated facilities, not as a by-product. Around threequarters of it is produced using natural gas (reforming) and the rest using coal (gasification). It accounts for around 4 MtH2/yr in 2018, or 10% of the use of hydrogen consumed in mixed forms globally.34

Figure 43. Hydrogen consumption and production in the iron and steel sector today

H2 9 MtH2/yr (by-product)

1 809 Mt/yr total steel production in 2018

Other

Notes: Steel quantities estimated based on recent data from the sources below and stated in Mt/yr. Associated hydrogen consumption and production from IEA estimates based on energy statistics and a specific hydrogen requirement for the DRI-EAF route of 43 kgH2/t of DRI. The 4 MtH2/yr consumed in the DRI-EAF route are used as a reduction agent, whereas the 9 MtH2/yr consumed in the BF-BOF route (and associated processes on integrated sites) are mostly combusted.

Source: World Steel Association (2018), Steel Statistical Yearbook 2018. World Steel Association (2019), “World Crude Steel Production - Summary”.

Today the iron and steel sector accounts for 4 MtH2/yr of dedicated hydrogen production. Of the

14 MtH2/yr it produces as a by-product in hydrogen-containing gases, it consumes roughly 9 MtH2/yr, with the remainder exported for use in other sectors.

Potential for future hydrogen demand for iron and steel

Without policy intervention, demand for dedicated hydrogen production in steel-making is expected to grow from the current level of 4 MtH2/yr roughly in line with the gas-based DRIEAF route (Figure 44).35 While the gas-based DRI-EAF can be more energy-intensive than the BF-BOF route, it uses simpler and slightly less capital-intensive equipment.36 It tends to be deployed in regions with low natural gas prices (e.g. the Middle East) or low coal prices (e.g. India).

34Hydrogen requirements for all DRI-EAF processes considered in this publication are estimates based on personal communication with representatives from Voestalpine and other iron and steel sector experts.

35The future use of the hydrogen contained in by-product WAG will continue to be closely integrated with BF-BOF operation. As such it is not a use of hydrogen that could provide a source of demand for alternative hydrogen supplies, such as electrolytic hydrogen or fossil fuels with CCUS.

36There are other important differences between these routes. In the BF-BOF route, raw material preparation is typically done on site (e.g. agglomeration, lime production), and the process is more flexible in the grades of ore it can accept. The granulated slag produced from the BF-BOF route tends to be of greater utility as a by-product than that produced in the DRI-EAF route. Both routes tend to use some scrap alongside iron ore, but the DRI-EAF tends to use more than the BF-BOF. The energy intensity comparison between the two routes is highly sensitive to site-specific conditions, such as the extent of process integration.

PAGE | 109

IEA. All rights reserved.

MtH2/yr

75

60

45

30

15

0

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Share of secondary produciton

Sensitivity of specific hydrogen requirement

Hydrogen demand

Share of secondary production

PAGE | 110

IEA. All rights reserved.