analyses of hydrogen storage materials and on-board · pdf file · 2014-03-18kurtis...

Analyses of Hydrogen Analyses of Hydrogen Storage Materials and OnStorage Materials and On--

Board SystemsBoard Systems

TIAX LLC15 Acorn Park

Cambridge, MA02140-2390

Tel. 617- 498-6108Fax 617-498-7054

www.TIAXLLC.comReference: D0268

© 2007 TIAX LLC

Hydrogen Delivery Analysis Meeting

May 8, 2007

Stephen LasherKurtis McKenneyYong YangBob RancatoreStefan UnnaschMatt Hooks

This presentation does not contain any proprietary or confidential information

Overview

1SL/042007/D0268 ST32_Lasher_H2 Storage_v1.ppt

Start date: June 2004End date: Sept 200941% Complete

TimelineBarriers addressed

B. CostC. EfficiencyK. System Life Cycle Assessments

Barriers

Total project fundingDOE share = $1.5MNo cost share

FY06 = $275k

FY07 = $300k (plan)

BudgetArgonne and other National Labs

Centers of Excellence and other developers

Tech Teams and other stakeholders

Collaboration

Objectives


This project provides an independent cost assessment of the hydrogen storage technologies being developed for the DOE Grand Challenge.

Technology FocusTechnology FocusObjectiveObjective DescriptionDescription

OverallHelp guide DOE and developers toward promising R&D and commercialization pathways by evaluating the status of the various on-board hydrogen storage technologies on a consistent basis

On-Board Cost Estimate

Estimate Bill-of-Material factory costs for the on-board storage system

• Cryo-compressed

• Liquid H2• AC

20052005 20062006 20072007

Evaluate or develop system-level designs to estimate weight, volume, and bottom-up factory cost for the on-board storage system

• Compressed H2(update)

• Liquid HC*

Evaluate or develop designs and cost inputs to estimate refueling cost and Well-to-Tank energy use and GHG emissions for the fuel chain

• SBH• Liquid HC*• AC*• Sodium Alanate*

• SBH

• Liquid H2(includes Cryo-compressed)

• Compressed H2

• Sodium Alanate

Off-Board Assessment

On-Board Assessment

* Results have not been generated to date. Note that previously analyzed systems will continually be updated based on feedback and new information.

SBH = Sodium Borohydride, HC = Hydrocarbon, AC = Activated Carbon

Approach On-Board Factory Cost Definition


We estimate an OEM factory cost, excluding OEM corporate charges for profit, sales and G&A expenses.

We assume a vertically integrated process for the manufacture of the tank, so no mark-up is included on those componentsRaw materials and BOP components are assumed to be purchased by the OEM and therefore include supplier mark-ups

Directlabor

DirectMaterials

FactoryExpense

GeneralExpense

SalesExpense

Profit

OEMPrice

Fixed Costs • Equipment and Plant Depreciation• Tooling Amortization• Equipment Maintenance• Utilities• Indirect Labor• Cost of capital

Variable Costs • Manufactured Materials• Purchased Materials• Fabrication Labor• Assembly Labor• Indirect Materials

DOE Cost Estimate (Factory Cost)

Corporate Expenses (example) • Research and Development• Sales and Marketing• General & Administration• Warranty• Taxes

Excluded from DOE Cost Estimate

OEM – Original Equipment ManufacturerG&A – General and Administration Expense

Approach On-Board Assessment Overview


The on-board cost and performance assessments are based on detailed technology assessment and bottom-up cost modeling.

TechnologyTechnologyAssessmentAssessment

Cost Model and Cost Model and EstimatesEstimates

Overall ModelOverall ModelRefinementRefinement

• Perform Literature Search

• Outline Assumptions• Develop System Requirements and Design Assumptions

• Obtain Developer Input

• Obtain Developer and Industry Feedback

• Revise Assumptions and Model Inputs

• Perform Sensitivity Analyses (“Best” and “Worst” cases)

• Develop BOM• Specify Manufacturing Processes and Equipment

• Determine Material and Processing Costs

• Develop Bulk Cost Assumptions

Tape Cast

AnodePowder Prep

VacuumPlasmaSpray

ElectrolyteSmall Powder

Prep

ScreenPrint

CathodeSmall Powder

Prep

Sinter in Air1400C Sinter in Air

Formingof

Interconnect

ShearInterconnect

VacuumPlasmaSpray

SlurrySpray

ScreenPrint

Slurry Spray

Slip Cast

Finish Edges

Note: Alternative production processes appear in gray to thebottom of actual production processes assumed

BrazePaint Braze

ontoInterconnect

Blanking /Slicing

QC LeakCheck

Interconnect

Fabrication

Electrolyte CathodeAnode

Stack Assembly

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

TIAX Base Case 5,000 psi 10,000 psi

Syst

em C

ost,

$/kW

h

Assembly &Inspection

BOP

Dehydriding Sub-system

Tank

Media

BOM = Bill of Materials

Approach On-Board Assessment Economic Assumptions


The cost of capital equipment, buildings, labor, utilities, etc. are included in our processing cost assessments.

Variable Cost ElementsMaterialDirect LaborUtility

Operating Fixed CostsTooling & FixturesMaintenanceOverhead LaborCost of Operating Capital

Non-Operating Fixed CostsEquipmentBuildingCost of Non-Operating Capital

Working Capital Including materials, labor, utility, tooling and maintenance costWorking capital period: 3 months

EquipmentBuilding

We assume 100% debt financed with an annual interest rate of 15%, 10-year equipment life, and 25-year building life.

Approach On-Board Cost Estimate Processing


Processing and assembly/inspection costs are derived from an understanding of the detailed process steps and their requirements.

Example: Processing Steps for Compressed TanksExample: Processing Steps for Compressed Tanks

Winding Process Winding Machine

LinerFabrication

PrePreg

Pressureliner

LinerSurface

Gel Coat

CF Winding

•Hoops•Helical•Polar

Cure /Cool down

UltrasonicInspection

GlassFiber

Out LayerWinding

PrePreg

EndDomes

Assembly

PressureTest

DimensionWeight

Inspection

Cure / Cool down

To system

assembly

X-Rayor

ComputedTomograph

y(CT)

Dry air Cleaning

Start

End

LinerFabrication

PrePreg

Pressureliner

LinerSurface

Gel Coat

CF Winding


Cure /Cool down


GlassFiber

Out LayerWinding

PrePreg

EndDomes

Assembly

PressureTest

DimensionWeight

Inspection

Cure / Cool down

To system

assembly

X-Rayor

ComputedTomograph

y(CT)

Dry air Cleaning

LinerFabrication

PrePreg

Pressureliner

LinerSurface

Gel Coat

CF Winding


Cure /Cool down


GlassFiber

Out LayerWinding

PrePreg

EndDomes

Assembly

PressureTest

DimensionWeight

Inspection

Cure / Cool down

To system

assembly

X-Rayor

ComputedTomograph

y(CT)

Dry air Cleaning

Start

End

Tank Material69%

Tank BOP25%

Tank Processing4%

Assembly & Inspection

2%

5,000 psi Storage System Factory Cost 5,000 psi Storage System Factory Cost BreakoutBreakout

Approach On-Board Cost Estimate Overview


The on-board cost estimates are simply based on Bill of Material (BOM) costs plus an assumed processing cost.

Review of Designs/Review of Designs/Component SpecsComponent Specs

BOM and Cost BOM and Cost EstimatesEstimates

BOM and EstimateBOM and EstimateRefinementRefinement

• Perform Literature Search

• Understand System Requirements and Design Assumptions

• Obtain Developer Input

• Develop BOM• Determine Material and Component Costs

• Develop Bulk Cost Assumptions

• Obtain Developer and Industry Feedback

• Revise BOM Assumptions

• Perform Sensitivity Analyses

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

TIAX Base Case 5,000 psi 10,000 psi

Syst

em C

ost,

$/kW

h

Assembly &Inspection

BOP


Tank

Media

Quantity Unit Cost ($/kg)

Unit Cost ($/unit)

Component Cost ($) Source/Comments

Hydrogen 11 LLNL 1 3.00 32 DOE H2 Cost TargetInternal Pressure Vessel 44 LLNL - Al Liner 12 ANL 1 2.5 31 TIAX 2003 cH2 Storage System Cost Assessment - Carbon Fiber Composite 32 TIAX 1 32 1,024 Safety factor = 2.25; Translation strength = 81.5%; T700S PrePreg CF = $20/kg (2005) - SS304 Support 8 ANL/TIAX 3 4.40 35 Estimated based on ANL Tank Schematic; assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Insulation and Vacuum Shell 56 LLNL - SS304 Shell 54 ANL 1 2.9 156 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005) - Insulation 2 LLNL/TIAX 1 50 103 40 layers aluminized Mylar w/ spacer; $0.15/feet^2 based on quote from MPI (2005)Total Vessel & Vac. Shell 119 LLNL 1,382In-Tank Heater 0 LLNL 1 10 10 TIAX 2005 NaBH4 H2 Storage System Cost AssessmentLevel Sensor Box 0 LLNL 1 10 10 TIAX 2005 assumptionValve Box 17 LLNL 1 2.9 49 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Pressure Transmitters 0 LLNL 2 23 46 TIAX 2003 cH2 Storage System Cost AssessmentPressure Gauges 3 LLNL 2 10 20 TIAX 2005 assumptionPressure Regulator 1 LLNL 1 171 171 TIAX 2003 cH2 Storage System Cost AssessmentASME Relief Valve 1 LLNL 1 20 20 TIAX 2003 cH2 Storage System Cost AssessmentCircle Seal Cryogenic Valves 2 LLNL 2 20 40 Assumes similar price as the relief valveNupro Relief Valves 0 LLNL 2 5 10 TIAX 2005 NaAlH4 H2 Storage System Cost AssessmentVent and Fill Valve 2 LLNL 2 91 182 TIAX 2003 cH2 Storage System Cost AssessmentRupture Disc 0 LLNL 2 5 10 TIAX 2005 NaAlH4 H2 Storage System Cost AssessmentLH2 Fill Hose 1 LLNL 1 2.9 3 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Tank Frame 7 LLNL 1 2.9 20 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Heat Exchanger 3 LLNL 1 50 50 TIAX 2005 NaBH4 H2 Storage Cost Study; assumes spiral gas/gas HXNon EP Conduit 1 LLNL 1 18 18 1" conduit coupling quote from Conduit Pipe Products, Co. (2005)Tubing 7 LLNL 1 2.9 20 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Aluminum Plate 2 LLNL 1 2.5 4 Assumes Al = $2.21/kg, TIAX 2003 cH2 Storage System Cost AssessmentWire 5 LLNL 1 8 36 Assumes $8/kg for wire plus insulation; current LME copper price = $7.39/kgGrounding Lugs 0 LLNL 1 2.9 0 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Misc Nuts and Bolts 1 LLNL 1 2.9 3 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Misc Fittings 2 LLNL 1 2.9 5 Assumes SS304 = $2.87/kg (2005)Total For Accessories 55 LLNL 726 Does not include computer, computer stand, electronic boardsTotal 174 2,108 ($/system)

6.29 ($/kWh) w/o processing cost (based on 10.1 kg usable H2Total 8.35 ($/kWh) w/ 50% processing markup on tank costs

Cryo-compressed System Components - 2nd Generation Design

Estimated Weight (kg) Reference

TIAX Assumptions

Processing and assembly/inspection costs are not determined for the cost estimates, so we must rely on developer feedback.


The off-board assessment makes use of existing models to calculate cost and performance for each technology on a consistent basis.

Approach Off-Board Assessment Overview

Process Simulation

Energy requirementsEquipment size/ specs

H2A Model

Equivalent hydrogen selling price

Conceptual Design

System layout and equipment requirements

Capital Cost EstimatesSite Plans

Safety equipment, site prep, land costs

High and low volume equipment costs

Air (POX only)

Nat. Gas

Water

FuelReformer PSA

H2-rich gas

H2-poor gas

CatalyticBurner

HeatColdWater

99.99% pure H2

LowPressureStorage

MediumPressureStorage

HighPressureStorage

Flowcntrlr

Flowcntrlr

Flowcntrlr

Dispenser

To Vehicle

CO2H2O

Compressor with intercoolers

CoolingTower

0

10

20

30

40

50

cH2, CentralNG,

TubeTrailer

cH2, CentralNG, LH2

cH2, CentralNG, Pipeline

cH2, On-siteElectrolyzer,

US Power Mix

cH2, On-siteNG SR

cH2, On-siteNG SR, MHV

Hyd

roge

n C

ost,

$/G

J (L

HV) Margin

TransportationOperation, MaintenanceCapitalEnergy Costs

Includes local fueling station and central plant costs

WTT energy useWTT GHG

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

cH2, natural gas, FCV

Ethanol, corn, FCV

Methanol, natural gas, FCV

Gasoline, petroleum, FCV

Diesel, petroleum, HEV

Gasoline, petroleum, HEV

Diesel, petroleum, ICEV

Gasoline, petroleum, ICEV

Primary Energy (LHV), MJ/mi

Petroleum Other Fossil Fuel Non Fossil Fuel

Tape Cast

AnodePowder Prep

VacuumPlasmaSpray

ElectrolyteSmall Powder

Prep

ScreenPrint

CathodeSmall Powder

Prep

Sinter in Air1400C Sinter in Air

Formingof

Interconnect

ShearInterconnect

VacuumPlasmaSpray

SlurrySpray

ScreenPrint

Slurry Spray

Slip Cast

Finish Edges

Note: Alternative production processes appear in gray to thebottom of actual production processes assumed

BrazePaint Braze

ontoInterconnect

Blanking /Slicing

QC LeakCheck

Interconnect

Fabrication

Electrolyte CathodeAnode

Stack Assembly

Fuel Station Perimeter

Electrolyzer or SMR,High-PressureCompressor

H2 High PressureCascade Storage

System

Gaseous FuelDispensing Islands

Underground Piping with shared conduit

Vent

Building

Covered Fueling Island

CNG High PressureCascade Storage System

Fire Detector

Property of:TIAX LLC

1061 De Anza Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014

Task 5 CNG/Hydrogen Fueling

Site Plan - Fueling Station

Hydrogen and CNG fueling station

SIZE DWG BY DWG NO REV

A Stefan Unnasch B0228 - S0022 1

SCALE 1" = 8 ft 5 Jan 2004 SHEET 1 OF 110 ft

Security FenceNG line in

GREET Model

Approach Off-Board Assessment Steps


The off-board assessment for Sodium Borohydride (SBH) requires evaluation of regeneration, delivery and forecourt technologies.

H2 is supplied “over-the-fence”

May include electrolysis

Today's processes may not recycle all spent material

Spent Material

Carrier

Forecourt

Carrier

Delivery(Terminal and Trucking)

Regeneration

Spent Matl.

Carrier

Spent Matl.

Waste

Transportation of the carrier and spent material in same truckTerminal storage may be required at the regeneration site

May include carrier and spent material storage and dispensing (loading and off-loading)Or compressed hydrogen dispensing

Raw Material

300 psi H2

Electricity

Progress On-Board Cost Estimates System Schematics


Fundamental system requirements and basic schematics were acquired from literature, industry and National Labs.

Activated Carbon (AXActivated Carbon (AX--21)21)

Liquid HLiquid H22 CryoCryo--compressedcompressed

Figure from LLNL, 2006

Figure from ANL, 2006

Figure from Linde

Al liner (AX-21) Al foam

MLVSI Support

Al ShellMLVSICarbon Fiber

In-tank Al Heat Exchanger

Al liner (AX-21) Al foam

MLVSI Support

Al ShellMLVSICarbon Fiber

In-tank Al Heat Exchanger

Progress On-Board Cost Estimates Design Assumptions (AC Example)


For each cost estimate, we relied on system-level design assumptions from literature and discussions with National Labs and developers.

Sub-System Parts List Specifications Basis/Comments

Hydrogen 5.6 kg usable ANL drive-cycle modeling

Activated Carbon (AX-21) 42 kg usable H2/ m3, 300 kg/m3 bulk dens, 2800 m2/g, 0.1 W/m-K

Al foam 2 wt% Al-2024 foam, 2.4 W/m-K

In-tank LN2 Heat ExchangerAl-2024, 9.5 mm OD, 1.2 mm thick

tubes, 0.9 mm thick tube sheets, 107 tubes

ANL AC tank design; similar in style to NaAlH4 in–tank heat exchanger, but functionally used to cool the tank with LN2 during refueling

SS Filters Sintered SS Not mentioned by ANL, assumed necessary (similar to NaAlH4)

Al liner 2 mm Al alloy ANL AC tank design

CF Composite T700S, 60% fiber by vol, 1600 kg/m3, 2.25 SF TIAX assumptions based on previous high-pressure tank designs

CF Composite Layer Thickness 7 mm TIAX netting analysis for 175L, 200 bar, 82% translation strength

MLVSI 10-5 torr vacuum, 1 W heat transfer rate through insulation (~5 W total) ANL AC tank design (same as cryo-compressed tank)

MLVSI Layers 35 Preliminary TIAX estimate based on cryo-compressed tank, adjusted for new tank surface area and temperatures

MLVSI support Composite material Low thermal conductivity material required

Al outer shell 3 mm Al alloy ANL AC tank design

BOP Regulators, valves, fill port, etc 200 bar pressure Assumed same as for cryo-compressed tank, although pressure is

40% lower

Tank

ANL AC modeling for 200 bar, 100 K, and 50 K temp. swingMedia

* Part lists for other systems shown in backup slides

Progress On-Board Cost Estimates Critical Cost Drivers (AC Example)


From BOM cost estimates, we calculated total system costs and identified key sub-systems and cost drivers.

BOP25%

Carbon Fiber23%

Packed Media / H2

Stored23%

Balance of Tank12%

Processing17%

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

All others

MLVSI

Pressure Regulator

Vent and Fill Valve

Process Cost

Activated Carbon (AX-21)

Carbon Fiber Composite

Cost per System

Activated Carbon System Cost, 5.6 kg HActivated Carbon System Cost, 5.6 kg H22 -- $2,900$2,900 Activated Carbon Cost Components Pareto, 5.6 kg HActivated Carbon Cost Components Pareto, 5.6 kg H22

PRELIMINARY

Note: It is not clear what processing cost to use for carbon fiber tanks with MLVSI (e.g., cryo-compressed and activated carbon) but developers comments indicate that processing costs could be somewhere between 10-100% of the tank material costs. We chose 50% for now, but we will be refining this based on further developer discussions.

Critical cost drivers such as carbon fiber, activated carbon, and processing cost will be evaluated in more detail for the AC system.

Progress Off-Board Assessment H2A Carrier Model


The H2A Carrier model was used to allow for direct cost comparison to compressed and liquid H2 fuel options.

Most financial assumptions are maintained from the original H2A Model

New calculation tabs were added as part of the DOE Delivery ProjectRegeneration – calculates material regeneration costs based on capital and operating costs of a central plantTrucking – calculates trucking costs for all novel carriersStorage Terminal – calculates required storage for fresh and spent materialsForecourt – calculates forecourt station costs for fueling vehicles with novel carrier storage

Calculation tabs were populated with inputs based on industry and developer feedback

TIAX made initial estimates consistent with H2A methodologyModel and estimates were reviewed with developersModel inputs and results were updated

Progress Off-Board Assessment Regeneration Process


We evaluated a regeneration process for SBH that reflects existing technology but is not currently being used at the industrial-scale.

275 °C,1 bar

NaBH4

25 °C, 1 bar

B(OCH3)3

350 °C,1 bar

H2O

80 °C,1 bar

H3BO3

MeOH, H2O

25 °C, 1 bar

3 NaOCH3

Mineral Oil

1 Na

3 Na H2O

2 H2

Regeneration Process Schematic for SBH PlantRegeneration Process Schematic for SBH Plant

NaBH4

NaBO2

Inputs

Recycle

Outputs

Legend

H2O, H2, OH-

250 °C, 4.4 bar

4 NaH

97 Wh

NaCl Electrolysis “over the fence”

3 NaOH3/2 H2

1/2 H2SO4

1/2 Na2SO4

Preliminary Results On-Board Cost Estimates Comparison


$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

Cryo-Compressed

LH2 ActivatedCarbon AX-21

SodiumBorohydride

SodiumAlanate

5,000 psi 10,000 psi

Syst

em C

ost,

$/kW

h

Processing

BOP

Water RecoverySub-system

Catalytic Reactor


Tank

Media / H2

10.7 kg LH2Capacity (10.1 kg

Useable1 LH2)

2007 Target ($6/kWh)

~5.6 kg H2Capacity/ Usable

PRELIMINARY


The cryo-compressed and LH2 systems are projected to be cheaper than pressurized-only options; AC will have similar costs to pressurized-only.

Cost Estimates Only Note: 5,000 and 10,000 psia Cases based on: Carlson, E., et al. (TIAX), “Cost Analyses of Fuel Cell Stacks/Systems”, Merit Review, Philadelphia, PA, May 24-27, 2004. Adjusted for <100% carbon fiber translational strength.

Preliminary Results On-Board Cost Estimates Comparison (5.6 kg/H2 Basis)


$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

Cryo-Compressed

LH2 ActivatedCarbon AX-

21

SodiumBorohydride

SodiumAlanate

5,000 psi 10,000 psi

Syst

em C

ost,

$/kW

h

Processing

BOP

Water RecoverySub-system

Catalytic Reactor


Tank

Media / H2

Normalized for 5.6 kg

Usable1 LH2

Cost Estimates Only

~5.6 kg H2Capacity/ Usable

PRELIMINARY



However, the cryo-compressed system is estimated to be just 17% cheaper than a 5,000 psi tank system when normalized for 5.6 kg H2.

Note: 5,000 and 10,000 psia Cases based on: Carlson, E., et al. (TIAX), “Cost Analyses of Fuel Cell Stacks/Systems”, Merit Review, Philadelphia, PA, May 24-27, 2004. Adjusted for <100% carbon fiber translational strength.

Preliminary Results On-Board Cost Estimates Cryo-compressed Sensitivity


Single- and multi-variable sensitivity analyses are used to estimate the dependence and sensitivity of cost on/to the critical cost drivers.

CryoCryo--Compressed Key Variable AssumptionsCompressed Key Variable AssumptionsKey Key Sensitivity Sensitivity ParametersParameters BaseBase--

lineline MinMin MaxMax Comments/SourceComments/Source

CF Composite Cost ($/lb)

14.6

Processing Markup (%)2 50% 10% 100%

Min equivalent to compressed-only tanks; max based on cryo-tank developer comments

Safety Factor 2.25 1.80 3.00

Baseline assumes a typical industry factorMin and max based on Quantum and Dynatek, respectively

CF Translation Strength (%)

81.5% 78% 85%Estimates reported by Quantum for 5,000 psi tanks

SS304 Cost ($/kg) 2.7 2.1 3.1 Baseline from TIAX

(2003) inflated to 2005$

90

170

12.8 25.5

Includes Epoxy (1.27x CF)Baseline from TIAX (2003) inflated to 2005$Min and max based on developer input

Fill Port Cost ($) 90 170

Industry interviews (2003), inflated to 2005$Need to develop bottom up cost for min

Regulator Cost ($) 140 200 Industry interviews

(2003), inflated to 2005$

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

T700S FiberComposite Cost

ProcessingCost

Safety Factor

SS304 Cost

Fill Port Cost

CF TranslationStrength

Insulation Cost

Regulator Cost

CryoCryo--compressed System Singlecompressed System Single--variable variable Sensitivity Analysis (10.7 kg LHSensitivity Analysis (10.7 kg LH22 Capacity)Capacity)

Baseline = $8.35 /kWh

1The processing cost markup is applied to the tank cost. 8.4

1.5

9.9

$/kWh

Mean

Std. Dev.

TIAX Baseline

System Cost

AC System MultiAC System Multi--variable Sensitivity Analysisvariable Sensitivity Analysis

PRELIMINARY$/kWh

Preliminary Results On-Board Cost Estimates LH2 Sensitivity


The processing cost markup uncertainty has the most significant impact on the liquid hydrogen system cost.

LHLH22 System SingleSystem Single--variable Sensitivity variable Sensitivity Analysis (10.7 kg HAnalysis (10.7 kg H22 Capacity)Capacity)

1 Costs per kWh are based on a projected 336 kWh (10.1 kg) “usable”hydrogen assuming 94% drive cycle utilization (ANL). A drive cycle utilization calculation should be performed specifically for the LH2 system.2 The processing cost markup is applied to the tank cost.

System Cost $/kWh

Mean 5.1

0.3Std. Dev.

TIAX Baseline 4.9


Liquid HLiquid H22 Storage Key Variable AssumptionsStorage Key Variable AssumptionsKey Key Sensitivity Sensitivity ParametersParameters BaseBase--

lineline MinMin MaxMax CommentsComments

Processing Markup (%)2 50% 10% 100%

Min equivalent to compressed-only tanks; max based on cryo-tank developer comments

Boil-off Management 320 240 400

TIAX estimate; need to obtain more specific material types/weights from Linde or BMW for bottom up analysis

90

SS304 Cost ($/kg) 2.7 2.1 3.1 Baseline from TIAX

(2003) inflated to 2005$

170



Regulator Cost ($) 140 200 Industry interviews

(2003), inflated to 2005$

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ProcessingCost

SS304 Cost

Fill Port Cost

Boil-OffManagement

InsulationCost

RegulatorCost

$/kWh

Baseline = $4.94/kWh

PRELIMINARY

Preliminary Results On-Board Cost Estimates AC Sensitivity


The AC storage media, carbon fiber and processing cost assumptions show the most significant variability in overall cost.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Processing Cost

CF CompositeCost ($/lbs)

Storage MediaCost ($/lbs)

Safety Factor

Fill Port Cost ($)

Insulation Cost

CF TranslationStrength (%)

$/kWh

AC System SingleAC System Single--variable Sensitivity variable Sensitivity Analysis (5.6 kg HAnalysis (5.6 kg H22 Capacity)Capacity)

Baseline = $15.6 /kWh

AC HAC H22 Storage Key Variable AssumptionsStorage Key Variable AssumptionsKey Key Sensitivity Sensitivity ParametersParameters BaseBase--

lineline MinMin MaxMax CommentsComments

Processing Markup (%)1 50%

14.6

7

2.25

90

81.5%

10% 100%Min equivalent to compressed-only tanks; max based on cryo-tank developer comments

CF Composite Cost ($/lb)

12.8 25.5

Includes Epoxy (1.27x CF)Baseline from TIAX (2003) inflated to 2005$Min and max based on developer input

AC Media Cost ($/lbs) 4 10

Cost estimate from Kansai Coke and Chemical Co DTI (1996), projected for high volume and 2005$


Safety Factor 1.80 3.0

Baseline assumes a typical industry factorMin and max based on Quantum and Dynatek, respectively

CF Translation Strength (%)


78% 85%Estimates reported by Quantum for 5,000 psi tanks

1The processing cost markup is applied to the tank cost. 15.6

1.9

17.3

$/kWh

Mean

Std. Dev.

TIAX Baseline

System Cost


PRELIMINARY

Preliminary Results Off-Board Assessment WTT Comparison


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

cH2 (pipeline) LH2 SBH

Equi

vale

nt H

2 Se

lling

Pric

e, $

/kg

Forecourt

Delivery

Central Plant /Regeneration

Preliminary results indicate that the equivalent H2 price for SBH will be ~2.5 times more expensive than liquid or compressed hydrogen.

HH22 Selling Price Comparison Selling Price Comparison –– Preliminary ResultsPreliminary Results11

PRELIMINARY

1 These results are based on natural gas steam reforming as the sources for the hydrogen. Production and delivery efficiency (LHV) assumptions include: steam reformer = 74%, pipeline power = 3 kWh/kg, liquefier power = 8.6 kWh/kg. Cost assumptions include: 100 km truck delivery from a central plant to the forecourt designed for 1500 kg/day H2, SBH plant = 470 TPD (100 TPD H2 equivalent), Hydrogen plant = 300 TPD.

Preliminary Results Off-Board Assessment WTT Comparison


WTT primary energy inputs for SBH based on “current technology” are even more energy intensive than electrolysis pathways.

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

SBH: Na + H2 Electrolysis, Truck

cH2: On-Site Electrolysis, U.S. Mix

cH2: Central NG SR, LH2

cH2: Central NG SR, TT

cH2: Central NG SR, Pipeline

Gasoline: Petroleum

WTT Energy, J/J fuel (LHV)

Fuel Other Fossil Fuel Petroleum Non Fossil Fuel ““EfficiencyEfficiency””

75%

58%

54%

47%

27%

22%

WTT Energy Comparison WTT Energy Comparison –– Preliminary ResultsPreliminary Results11

PRELIMINARY

1 These results are based on natural gas steam reforming or water electrolysis with grid power as the sources for the hydrogen. Production and delivery efficiency (LHV) assumptions include: steam reformer = 74%, electrolyzer = 70%, pipeline power = 3 kWh/kg, liquefier power = 8.6 kWh/kg.

Future Work FY07


We are in the process of finalizing the AC, cryo-compressed, and LH2on-board results and conducting the off-board assessment.

Finalize results for the on-board cryo-compressed, liquid H2 and AC systems, including:

Solicit additional developer feedback, especially regarding processing costs Develop more detailed cost estimates for key cost variablesEvaluate and compare system weight breakout to ANL and developers estimates

Finalize results for LH2 and SBH and start off-board analyses for liquid HC, alanate and AC systems

Determine WTT energy use and GHG emissions for each fuel chainEstimate “refueling cost” and storage system “ownership cost”Consider vehicle integration impacts

Continue to work with DOE, H2A, other analysis projects, developers, National Labs, and Tech Teams to revise and improve past system models

Summary


We have completed certain aspects of on-board and off-board evaluations for eight hydrogen storage technologies.

Analysis To DateAnalysis To Date cHcH22 AlanateAlanate SBHSBH CryoCryo--compcomp LHLH22 ACAC MgHMgH22

√

√

√

WTT analysis tool1 √Overall

√ ∗

Liquid Liquid HCHC

√ WIP

WIP

√ ∗

WIP

Review developer estimates √ √ √ √

√ ∗

√

√

√ ∗

√ ∗

WIP

Independent performance assessment (wt, vol) √ √ √

On-Board

Review developer estimates √ √

√

√ ∗

Off-Board

√ ∗

Develop process flow diagrams and system energy balances √

Independent performance assessment (energy, GHG) √

Independent cost assessment √

Develop process flow diagrams and system energy balances √ √ √

Independent cost assessment √ √ √

Solicit input on TIAX analysis √ √ WIP

WIPWIPInterim report

= Not part of current SOW= Work in progress

* Preliminary results under review.1 Working with ANL and H2A participants on separate WTT analysis tools. WIP

Acknowledgement


analyses of hydrogen storage materials and on-board · pdf file · 2014-03-18kurtis...

Documents