Analysis of Ontario's hydrogen economy demands from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Analysis of Ontario’s hydrogen economy demands from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles Hui Liu a, Ali Almansoori b,*, Michael Fowler a, Ali Elkamel a a b

Chemical Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 Department of Chemical Engineering, The Petroleum Institute, P.O. Box 2533, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

article info

abstract

Article history:

The ‘Hydrogen Economy’ is a proposed system where hydrogen is produced from carbon

Received 15 December 2011

dioxide free energy sources and is used as an alternative fuel for transportation. The

Received in revised form

utilization of hydrogen to power fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) can significantly decrease air

29 February 2012

pollutants and greenhouse gases emission from the transportation sector. In order to build

Accepted 8 March 2012

the future hydrogen economy, there must be a significant development in the hydrogen

Available online 30 March 2012

infrastructure, and huge investments will be needed for the development of hydrogen production, storage, and distribution technologies. This paper focuses on the analysis of

Keywords:

hydrogen demand from hydrogen FCVs in Ontario, Canada, and the related cost of

Hydrogen economy

hydrogen. Three potential hydrogen demand scenarios over a long period of time were

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

projected to estimate hydrogen FCVs market penetration, and the costs associated with the

Hydrogen demand scenarios

hydrogen production, storage and distribution were also calculated. A sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis

was implemented to investigate the uncertainties of some parameters on the design of the

Hydrogen cost

future hydrogen infrastructure. It was found that the cost of hydrogen is very sensitive to

Ontario

electricity price, but other factors such as water price, energy efficiency of electrolysis, and plant life have insignificant impact on the total cost of hydrogen produced. Copyright ª 2012, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

There is an increasing need for alternative fuels to meet the increasing global energy demand, improve current urban air quality, and reduce impacts on the global climate change [1]. According to Statistics Canada [2], energy demand in Canada has increased from 7385 PJ in 2003e7643 PJ in 2006, which is an increase of 3%. In a similar trend, the global energy demand was projected to increase by over 60% by 2030 [3]. As reported by Ball et al. [4], about 18% of the global energy demand will be consumed by the transportation sector. Also, the transportation sector will account for 20% of the increment of energy demand by 2030. The automobiles are responsible for

the large amount of air pollutant emissions, and these air pollutants mainly consist of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and particulate matter (PM). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency [5], approximately 75% of CO emissions were contributed by highway vehicles and non-road mobile sources, and nearly 50% of VOC were emitted from highway vehicles. Among these pollutants, NOx and VOCs react with each other to form the ground-level ozone, a major part of smog [6]. These air pollutants deteriorated urban air quality and threaten human health. Scientific studies show that air pollutants can cause serious health problems such as aggravation of respirator,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ971 2 607 5583; fax: þ971 2 607 5200. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Almansoori). 0360-3199/$ e see front matter Copyright ª 2012, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.029

8906

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

cardiovascular diseases, pneumonia, and cancers. Additionally, as outlined by the studies [7,8], the exposures to PM can lead to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In Ontario, over 1700 deaths a year were attributed to be a result of poor urban air quality [9]. Moreover, a recent study by Dougherty et al. [10] showed that the emissions of greenhouse gas from automobiles also contributed to the climate change and global warming. To overcome the future energy and environmental concerns, hydrogen, as a clean energy carrier [11e14], has a great potential to replace the existing fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Hydrogen can also be used as an energy storage medium that can easily facilitate the implementation of intermittent renewable power sources such as wind or solar energy [15]. The renewable energy can be applied to generate hydrogen in the electrolyzers, and then hydrogen is delivered to the end-users through various transportation technologies. An attractive way of energy delivery is high voltage direct current electricity (HVDC). However a comprehensive study by Leighty et al. [16] indicated that the HVDC technology is preferable for a small scale of energy delivery. In addition, the application of this technology is highly restricted by the local power transmission grid. Thus, the method of delivering hydrogen gas via pipeline or cryogenic trucks is more attractive; thus pipeline and cryogenic transportation have been adopted in this study. For end-use applications, considering the rapid technological progress on the onboard hydrogen vehicles, hydrogen can also be utilized on the FCVs. This would result in zero-emission of air pollutants and provide much higher energy efficiency than internal combustion vehicles [17]. Due to the advantages of hydrogen FCVs, the main automakers have already launched their FCV projects and developed a few fuel cell models, such as Hydrogen3 from GM,

Focus FCV from Ford, FCHV-5 from Toyota, and FCX model from Honda [18]. In recent years, GM and Honda have made some progress on FCV technology. GM presented its latest FCV model, Equinox Fuel Cell, and announced over 100 FCVs in onroad trials. In 2008, Honda officially announced the lease program of the newest fuel cell model, FCX Clarity, and planed to lease 200 FCVs in the first three years. In Canada, BC Transit is implementing a program to operate a 20-hydrogen hybrid fuel cell bus fleet in Whistler for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games [19]. Such initiatives are a clear indication that hydrogen FCVs are moving toward market penetration. The development of hydrogen FCVs market highly relies on the extension of hydrogen production and infrastructure facilities and requires enormous investment. Thus, a clear understanding about the trend of hydrogen FCVs market and the ongoing costs of hydrogen production, storage, and distribution become crucial for developing hydrogen economy. In this paper, three scenarios are developed to describe the growth trend of future hydrogen FCVs market and the hydrogen demand from FCVs. Based on the projected hydrogen demand, this paper also estimates the cost of hydrogen production, storage, and distribution are then estimated. This exercise can be used as a tool and guide for setting a timeline for developing hydrogen economy.

2.

Hydrogen demand for hydrogen FCVs in Ontario

In this section, three scenarios will be developed for the hydrogen FCVs market in Ontario, and the hydrogen demand for all of the projected number of FCVs will be estimated. The flowchart of hydrogen demand estimation model is shown in Fig. 1. The total amount of hydrogen demand is calculated by multiplying hydrogen demand of FCVs with the number of hydrogen FCVs in Ontario. The estimate of hydrogen demand

H2 Demand of one FCV

The Number of FCVs H2 FCVs Sale Percentage in the market (%, FCVs/Cars )

GM Equinox H2 FCV Model

H2 FCVs Onboard Storage Capacity

The number of Annual New Car Sale (Cars/year)

The number of Annual FCVs Sale (FCVs/year)

H2 FCVs Running Distance

Annual Car Travel Mileage (km/car year)

Vehicle Lifetime

H2 Demand of one FCV (kg H2/car year)

The accumulated number of FCVs

The Total H2 Demand of FCVs (kg H2/year)

Fig. 1 e Flow Chart of hydrogen demand estimation model.

8907

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

for a FCV is based on the specification data of GM Equinox hydrogen FCV model, while the number of FCVs is calculated from the projections of hydrogen FCVs, which are estimated by the three scenarios.

2.1.

The number of FCVs in the future Ontario market

In the work of DOE (the US Department of Energy) by Green et al. [20], three transition scenarios were established to estimate the market development of hydrogen FCVs in the United States. Based on the market projections by Green et al. as shown in Table 1, this work assumes that the growth of hydrogen FCVs market in Ontario follows the same trend and market expectations for hydrogen FCVs in 2015, 2025, and 2050. Based on these assumptions, the projected FCVs market in Ontario’s is determined and the three different scenarios are developed to describe the growth of FCVs market from 2015 to 2050. The year of 2015 is considered as the time when hydrogen FCVs enter automobile market, while the year of 2025 is the time when hydrogen FCVs start growing rapidly. The year of 2050 is assumed to be the time when hydrogen FCVs dominate car market and essentially all FCVs are fueled by hydrogen. Scenario 1, 2 and 3 represent conservative, moderate and optimistic expectations of hydrogen FCV market development, respectively. The study by Collantes [21] has proved that the logistic model can be applied to describe hydrogen FCVs market development. The Logistic model is defined as follows: PFCV ¼

1 1 þ exp½  ðaFCV þ bFCV ðt  t0 ÞÞ

(1)

where PFCV is new hydrogen FCVs market share (%),aFCV and bFCV are the coefficients of logistic models, t0 is the year when hydrogen FCVs enter new vehicle market, which is assumed to be 2015 for Ontario, and t is time (year). The logistic model was applied to estimate the trend of hydrogen FCVs future development in Ontario. Based on the market share assumptions in Table 1, the coefficient of aFCV and bFCV were solved, and the values of these two coefficients were shown in Table 2. Once the coefficients were obtained, the values were substituted into Eq. (1) to estimate the trend of hydrogen FCVs in Ontario for each scenario. Thus, the number of annual car sales was then calculated as follows: NFCV ¼ PFCV  Nnew car sale

(2)

where NFCV is the number of new hydrogen FCVs sold each year, and Nnew car sale is the number of new vehicles sold each year in Ontario.

Market Share (Scenario 1) Market Share (Scenario 2) Market Share (Scenario 3)

Coefficient Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

2015

2025

2050

0 0 0

4% 5% 15%

91% 95% 95%

aFCV

bFCV

R2

5.4025 5.3225 3.7206

0.2205 0.2363 0.1936

0.9999609 0.9999578 0.9988047

In order to solve for NFCV, the value of N new car sale needs to be estimated. Based on the historical data of the number of new vehicle sale in Ontario from 1968 to 2007 [22], through a linear regression on the historical data and assuming that the future market of new car sale follows the same trend of the historical data, the number of new car sale in Ontario from 2015 to 2050 is estimated by the following equation: Nnew car sale ¼ 1:211  107 þ 6353t

(3)

The total number of hydrogen FCVs can be calculated as follows: Ni ¼ Naccumulation  Ndisposed car

(4)

where Naccumulation is the total number of hydrogen FCVs sold from the 1st year to the ith year, Ndisposed car is the number of hydrogen FCVs disposed (i.e. stopped working) from the 1st year to ith year, and Ni is the total number of hydrogen FCVs running on road in the year, i. Assuming that Ndisposed car is equivalent to the number of hydrogen FCVs which are out of vehicle lifetime, Eq. (4) is then transformed as follows: Ni ¼ Naccumulation  Nout of vehicle lifetime

(5)

where Nout of vehicle lifetime is the total number of hydrogen FCVs beyond vehicle lifetime. Nout of vehicle lifetime can be estimated to be the cumulative number of hydrogen FCVs sold from the 1st year to the year of “i-lifetime”. For example, if the vehicle lifetime is 10 year, and then Nout of vehicle lifetime will be the cumulative number of hydrogen FCVs sold from the 10th year to i-10th year. The lifetime of vehicles is estimated as: LT ¼

LM D

(6)

where LT is the average lifetime of vehicles in Ontario (year), LM is the average lifetime mileage of vehicles in Ontario (km), and D is the average annual travel distance of vehicles in Ontario (km/year). According to Lu’s work [23], the lifetime mileage of a passenger car was estimated to be 152,000 miles. If this number is assumed to be the value of LM, then, the value of D is calculated as follows: D¼

Table 1 e Hydrogen FCVs market development assumption. Year

Table 2 e logistic model coefficients.

TDtotal Nregistered vehicles

(7)

where TDtotal is the total estimated travel distance of all vehicles in Ontario each year (km), and Nregistered vehicles is the number of registered vehicles in Ontario (vehicle). Thus, the total number of hydrogen FCVs running on the road, Ni, was obtained by applying Eqs (5)e(7).

8908

2.2.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

Hydrogen demand from all hydrogen FCVs in Ontario

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the total hydrogen demand of hydrogen FCVs in Ontario can be calculated by multiplying fuel consumption per vehicle by the total number of hydrogen FCVs. At this stage of our work, it should be noted that this analysis can be extended and adapted to accommodate, plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Early market PHEVs are expected to have gasoline ICE or diesel range extenders. Over time (e.g. assuming in this model starting at 2015) the range extender power source in vehicles will become hydrogen fuel cells. This model will be of good utility through assuming PHEV fully commercialized, and simply there will be less demand from each PHEV vehicle, as a limited amount of travel mileage will be achieved with the battery under charge depleting mode. Currently there is still no fully commercialized hydrogen FCVs in the market yet, but a relatively successful FCV demonstration model can be taken as a reference case, such as GM Equinox FCV, which has been tested on a 100-fleet scale. Fuel economy of this model is shown in Table 3 [24]. Regarding GM Equinox FCV as a standard FCV, the fuel economy of Equinox FCV is then assumed to be the average fuel consumption of a FCV. Therefore, the annual hydrogen consumption per hydrogen FCV is calculated as: HYFCVs ¼ HFCVs  D

(8)

where HYFCVs is the average hydrogen demand of a hydrogen FCV in a year (kg H2/FCV. Year), and HFCVs is the fuel economy of a FCV. Accordingly, the total hydrogen demand from hydrogen FCVs in Ontario is then calculated as follows: HTFCVs ¼ HYFCVs  Ni

(9)

where HTFCVs is the hydrogen demand from all hydrogen FCVs.

3.

Hydrogen cost

In this section, the economic estimates for hydrogen production, storage and distribution were conducted to investigate hydrogen cost based on the estimated hydrogen demand for hydrogen FCVs in Ontario. There are a number of methods to produce hydrogen. These methods include steam reforming of methane (SMR), water electrolysis, high temperature electrolysis, and thermochemical cycle hydrogen production [25]. The selections of hydrogen production technology and distribution methods are specific to each region, taking into consideration of regional limitations and energy generation capacity [26]. In Ontario, for instance, there is a policy decision

Table 3 e Equinox FCV specification sheet. Vehicle Style

Fuel Storage Type

Fuel Storage Capacity (kg)

Operating Range (km)

Front-wheel drive SUV

Carbon fiber fuel tank, compressed hydrogen gas

4.2

320

to eliminate energy production from coal in order to address climate change concerns. Therefore, hydrogen from coal is not assumed in this work, but others have considered coal as a mean of generating hydrogen [27,28]. In Ontario, approximately 50% of power comes from nuclear and 25% from renewable energy resources with specific goals to increase renewable energy generation. Steam reforming of methane is the most common process to produce hydrogen in large scale production, but it is not taken into account in this paper as well, due to a large amount of carbon dioxide being generated as a by-product, and in the future there will be expected increases in natural gas price which will make SMR less competitive. Theoretically, high temperature electrolysis and thermochemical cycle do not produce any pollutant or greenhouse gas directly. The efficiencies of high temperature electrolysis and thermochemical cycles are projected to reach up to 53% and 45% respectively [29,30], but these two methods are still at the phase of research, not fully applicable at this time. Once these technologies advance beyond the research stage, future analysis should certainly take these technologies into account [31]. Therefore, centralized water electrolysis is regarded as a “green” option and is selected as a method of hydrogen generation. Note that during the transition to a fuel hydrogen economy, distributed hydrogen production by siting electrolysers is likely to be applied to meet the demand rather than centralized production [32]. The estimation of hydrogen cost from distributed electrolysis stations has been studied by Jacobson et al. [11], and the cost of hydrogen product using wind-electrolysis is projected to be 3.01e7.43 dollar/kg H2, assuming that the electrolyzer efficiency is in the range of 0.43e0.46. However, Jacobson’s model did not consider time variation over a long time horizon. The study also neglects the projection for the transition and development of hydrogen FCVs market. Since the study only focused on the distributed hydrogen production, the distribution or transportation of hydrogen product was not discussed. As mentioned earlier, our paper is to estimate the cost of hydrogen product by large-scale centralized production. Therefore, the cost from all of the parts including hydrogen production, storage, distribution or transportation will be included. Fig. 2 demonstrates the flowchart of centralized hydrogen production and distribution analysis.

3.1.

Cost of water electrolysis hydrogen production

A preliminary economic analysis is carried out to estimate the cost of hydrogen production via water electrolysis. The production cost includes operating cost and depreciation of capital investment. The operating cost includes the cost of water, electricity, labor and labor related costs, while the depreciation of capital investment consists of the costs of purchased equipment, piping, electrical, instrumentation and other auxiliary costs. Thus, the total cost of electrolysis hydrogen production can be estimated by the equation below: TCP ¼ CPelectricity þ CPwater þ CPlabor and related þ CPdepreciation

(10)

where TCP is the total cost of electrolysis hydrogen generation ($/kg H2), CPelectricity is the unit cost of power consumption of

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

and the cost of other parts such as piping, electrical works, instrumentation, etc. (Detailed items are listed in Table A.1). For the centralized water electrolysis plant, electrolyzers are the main equipments. The price of electrolyzer production unit is shown in Table A.1, but considering future technology development and economy of scale, the price will decrease to an affordable level as a large number of electrolyzers are utilized in the centralized hydrogen production plant. Taking this into account, progress ratio equations [35] are introduced to simulate the process of price being decreased.

Hydrogen Demand from Hydrogen FCVs in Ontario

Centralized Water Electrolysis Production

Hydrogen Storage Liquid Hydrogen Tank Farm

Hydrogen Gas Tank Farm

Hydrogen Transportation and Distribution Cryogenic Liquid Truck Transporation




Hydrogen gas pipeline distribution

SC ¼ SC0

Hydrogen Refueling station

electrolysis ($/kg H2), CPwater is the unit cost of water consumption of electrolysis ($/kg H2), CPlabor and related is the unit cost of labor and related parts ($/kg H2), and CPdepreciation is the unit depreciation of capital investment ($/kg H2). The water consumption can be estimated by the equation below: Fhydrogen  Mwater Mhydrogen  Econversion

(11)

where Wconsumption is the water consumption by water electrolysis (kg H2O/h), Fhydrogen is the flow rate of hydrogen output (kg H2/h), Mwater is molecular weight of water (kg H2O/mol), Mhydrogen is molecular weight of hydrogen (kg H2/mol), and Econversion is the conversion efficiency of water to hydrogen (%). The power consumption is calculated by the following equation: Econsumption ¼

Hheating value  Fhydrogen Eenergy

Noperator  Soperator Fhydrogen

Original Plant Cost  Salvage Value Plant LifeðyearÞ

(15)

(16)

where C is the cumulative capacity, SC is the unit cost with cumulative capacity C, b is a learning index (constant), C0 is the initial cumulative capacity, SC0 is the initial unit cost with initial cumulative capacity, and Pr is the progress ratio. For this work, the cumulative capacity is defined as the total number of electrolyzer hydrogen generation station, while the initial cumulative capacity C0 is set to 1. The cost of an electrolyzer generation station, SC0, and the value of progress ratio, Pr, are shown in Table A.1. The total capital investment of other parts of the hydrogen production plant can be estimated using the factor method [36]. In this method, the cost factor of the main equipment is 1.0, while the cost factors of other parts of a plant are fractions of 1.0. The values of factors for other parts are listed in Table A.1, and the total capital investment of the hydrogen production plant is calculated as follows: CItotal ¼ Cmain equipment $

X

fi

(17)

where CItotal is the total capital investment, Cmain equipment is the cost of main equipment, and f is the cost factor.

3.2.

(13)

where Lcost is the labor cost ($/kg H2), Noperator is the number of operators at a shift (operator), and Soperator is wages of operators ($/h. operator). The depreciation of total capital investment can be estimated by a straight line method [34], as shown below: Depreciation ¼

b

(12)

where Econsumption is the electricity consumption of water electrolysis (kW), Hheating values is high heating value of hydrogen, 39 kWh/kg H2 [33], Eenergy is the energy efficiency of water electrolysis (%). Assuming 4 operators at a shift, the total cost of labor can be calculated as follows: Lcost ¼

C C0

Pr ¼ 2b

Fig. 2 e Flowchart of hydrogen cost analysis.

Wconsumption ¼

8909

(14)

In this paper, “Salvage value” is set to zero and the value of plant lifetime is displayed in Table A.1 in the Appendix. “Original plant cost” can be calculated as the amount of the total capital investment. The total capital investment of a production plant includes the purchase of main equipment

Cost of compressed hydrogen gas storage

In order to obtain a high storage density, hydrogen gas is generally compressed at high pressure before it is stored in a tank. Therefore, the main equipments for hydrogen gas storage are high pressure compressors and storage tanks, and the total cost of hydrogen gas storage is the sum of operating cost of hydrogen compression, and the depreciation of capital investment of compression & storage equipments and other auxiliary parts. Since hydrogen compression consumes a significant amount of power and cooling water, the cost of these two consumptions then become the major parts of operating cost for hydrogen gas storage. Given that hydrogen storage tank farm is usually integrated with production site and since both production and storage facilities are always operated together, the labor cost for hydrogen gas storage will not be considered separately in this analysis. Thus, the total cost of gaseous hydrogen storage is computed as follows: TCSgas ¼ CGSelectricity þ CGScooling water þ CGSdepreciation

(18)

where TCSgas is the total cost of gaseous hydrogen storage per unit mass of hydrogen gas ($/kg H2), CGSelectricity is the cost of

8910

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

energy consumption by the compression per unit mass of hydrogen gas ($/kg H2), CGScooling water is the unit cost of cooling water consumption by the compression per unit mass of hydrogen gas ($/kg H2), and CGSdepreciation is the depreciation of capital investment of hydrogen gas storage per unit mass of hydrogen gas ($/kg H2). The power and cooling water consumptions of hydrogen compressor are calculated by the following equations [37]:

Ecompr

2
3 p ln 6 p 0 7 7 ¼ Flow$ComPower$6 4
p1 5 ln p0

(19)

where Ecompr is the power consumption of high pressure hydrogen compressors, Flow is the flow rate of hydrogen gas, ComPower is the power consumption of hydrogen compressor at the reference pressure, p0 is atmospheric pressure, p1 is the reference pressure, and p is the operating pressure of compressors used in the plant.

(20)

where Cooling is the cooling water consumption of high pressure hydrogen compressors, and CompCool is the reference value of cooling water consumption. The capital cost of hydrogen compressors and tanks are computed as follows [37]: Ecompr ComCap ¼ðCompCost$ComSizeÞ$ CompSize
CpExp p  p1

CompExp

ð21Þ

where ComCap is the capital cost of high pressure hydrogen compressors, CompCost is the reference cost of hydrogen compressor per unit power consumption, ComSize is the reference compressor power, ComSize is the assumed exponent of compressor size, and CpExp is the assumed exponent of compressor pressure. 1TankExp TankPress C BStorage$ p C TankCap ¼ðTankCost$TankSizeÞ$B A @ TankSize 0





TPExp p TankPress

Cost of liquid hydrogen storage

In addition to hydrogen gas storage, hydrogen can also be liquefied and be stored as a liquid. Hydrogen liquefiers and cryogenic storage tanks are the main equipments for liquid hydrogen storage, and the cost of liquid hydrogen storage mainly consists of operating cost of liquefaction process and depreciable capital investment of liquid hydrogen storage. The power consumption, cooling water consumption, and labor cost are the major parts of operation cost. As with hydrogen storage and for the same reason described earlier, the labor cost is not taken into consideration for hydrogen liquid storage. Thus, the total cost of hydrogen liquid storage is estimated as: TCSgas ¼ CGSelectricity þ CGScooling water þ CGSdepreciation

ð22Þ

where TankCap is the capital cost of hydrogen storage tanks, Tank Cost is the reference cost of hydrogen gas tank per unit gas volume, Tank Size is the reference volume of hydrogen gas tank, Storage is the design volume of hydrogen gas tank at the pressure, p, TankPress is the reference pressure of gas tank, TankExp is the exponent of tank size, and TPExp is the exponent of gas tank pressure. The total capital investment of gaseous storage is estimated by the factor method and the values of factors are shown in Table A.2. The depreciation of capital investment is calculated by the straight line method as mentioned earlier for the calculation of cost of water electrolysis hydrogen production.

(23)

The energy and cooling water consumptions are calculated by the following equations [37]: Energy ¼ Flow$LiqPower

2
3 p ln 6 p0 7 6 Cooling ¼ Flow$CompCool$4
7 p1 5 ln p0




3.3.

(24)

where Energy is the power consumption of hydrogen liquefiers, and LiqPower is the power consumption of liquefier per unit mass of liquid hydrogen. Cooling ¼ Flow$LiqCool

(25)

where Cooling is the cooling water consumption of hydrogen liquefier, and LiqCool is the cooling water consumption per unit mass of liquid hydrogen. LiqExp
Flow LiqCap ¼ ðLiqCost$LiqSizeÞ LiqSize

(26)

where LiqCap is the capital cost of hydrogen liquefiers, LiqCost is the cost of liquefier per unit mass of liquid hydrogen, LiqSize is the reference production capacity of liquefier, and LiqExp is the exponent of liquefier size. DewarExp
Storage Storage Cap ¼ ðStorageCost$StorageSizeÞ Storage Size (27) where StorageCap is the capital cost of liquid hydrogen tanks, StorageCost is the cost of liquefier per unit mass of liquid hydrogen, StorageSize is the reference size of liquid hydrogen tank, and DewarExp is the exponent of hydrogen liquefier size. Same as the calculation for hydrogen gas storage, the total investment of liquid hydrogen storage is calculated by the factor method, and the factor values are listed in Table A.3. The depreciable capital investment is also estimated by the straight line method.

3.4. Cost of hydrogen gas pipeline distribution and hydrogen liquid transportation Pipeline distribution is the most common way to deliver hydrogen gas. The cost of pipeline distribution is mainly from the capital investment for the pipeline construction, and no operating cost is considered. A research by Parker [38] has found that the construction cost of pipeline are in four categories: materials, labor, right of way, and miscellaneous costs that include the costs of surveying, engineering, supervision,

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

8911

contingencies, allowances, overhead, and filling. Accordingly, an equation was derived for the cost of pipeline construction as follows [38]:   H2 Pipeline Cost ¼ 0:9597D2 þ 492:06D þ 418790 $L þ 378750 (28) where H2Pipeline Cost is the capital cost of hydrogen pipeline, D is the diameter of hydrogen pipeline, and L is the length of pipeline. In this work, liquid hydrogen is assumed to be transported by cryogenic tanker trucks. The cost of liquid hydrogen is mainly from labor, fuel, and cryogenic tanker truck purchase. It is calculated by the following equations: Labor Cost ¼ Transport Hours  Drive Wage

(29)

Fuel Cost ¼ Diesel Oil Price  Truck Mileage

(30)

Truck Cap ¼ Truck Number  ðCab Price þ Trailer Price þ Under Carriage PriceÞ

(31)

where Truck Cap is the capital cost of transportation trucks. The detailed parameters for hydrogen gas and liquid gas delivery are shown in Tables A.2 and A.3.

4.

Results and Discussions

Using the model describe in Section 2, the total number of onroad hydrogen FCVs during the period of 2015e2050 in Ontario were estimated. According to the model, the number of hydrogen FCVs is very small during the period of 2015e2025 as the FCVs just enter the market, but when the market penetration begins after the year of 2025, the number of hydrogen FCVs starts to grow rapidly, and reach the highest level in 2050. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the hydrogen demand of FCVs follow the same trend as the number of hydrogen FCVs. The hydrogen demand remains low during the period of 2015e2025, and after 2025 the hydrogen demand rises quickly and finally reaches the highest level in 2050. Based on the projection of hydrogen demands for FCVs in Ontario, the cost of hydrogen was estimated for three scenarios. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, for scenario 1 (conservative scenario), the initial costs of both of hydrogen gas and

Fig. 3 e The projection of hydrogen demand from on-road FCVs in Ontario.

Fig. 4 e Cost of hydrogen gas.

liquid are high (more than 8 dollars/kg) in 2016 because the hydrogen demand is low due to small number of on-road FCVs. However, the cost of hydrogen falls sharply as the number of hydrogen FCVs and hydrogen demand start to increase, and then the cost of hydrogen drops to less than 4 dollars/kg H2 in 2024 and 2034 for hydrogen gas and hydrogen liquid in all of the three scenarios, respectively. The cost of hydrogen continues to decrease slowly until 2050, and the cost of hydrogen is a little more than 3 dollars/kg for both of hydrogen gas and liquid. It is observed that the cost of hydrogen product decrease when the scale of hydrogen production increases, but on the other hand, it also shows that when the production scale increases to some level, the impact of production scale will become very small, and all of the costs of hydrogen gas or liquid from the three scenarios become almost identical. A comparison between the cost of hydrogen gas and liquid was also conducted. As shown in Fig. 6, the initial cost of hydrogen gas is higher than hydrogen liquid, but when the hydrogen production increases, the cost of hydrogen gas decreases more quickly, and it becomes lower than liquid hydrogen. It is because at the initial stage the capital investment for hydrogen pipeline construction is huge, and then the depreciation from this part is huge as well. However, when the hydrogen production increases, the depreciation will decrease dramatically, and then the total cost of hydrogen will also decreases sharply. On the other hand, the cost of hydrogen

Fig. 5 e Cost of hydrogen liquid.

8912

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

report by Jacobson et al. [11], this part can be about 0.29e1.80 dollar/gallon. Thus, considering this external cost, the price of gasoline can further increase to 4.38e5.28 dollar/gallon. Note that the calculation of gallon-gasoline-equivalent for the hydrogen product is based on the assumptions that the hydrogen is utilized on FCVs and the efficiency of gasoline vehicles is 0.16. Also, the initial investment for a transition to hydrogen economy will be enormous.

5.

Fig. 6 e Cost of hydrogen gas versus hydrogen liquid (Scenario 1).

Sensitivity analysis

This section investigates the effect of uncertainties of certain parameters on the design of the future hydrogen infrastructure. The studied parameters include price of electricity, price of water, energy efficiency of water electrolysis, and plant life.

5.1. liquid decreases as the hydrogen production scale increases, but, since hydrogen liquefaction consumes a large amount of energy and cooling water during the processes of storage and transportation, the cost decrease for hydrogen liquid is much smaller than hydrogen gas, and then the cost of hydrogen liquid become higher than hydrogen gas after the year of 2016. This trend can also been seen in Fig. 7. In Scenario 1, the cost of hydrogen gas storage and pipeline distribution is initially higher than the cost of hydrogen liquid storage and transportation, but when the production demand and production scale increases, the cost of storage and distribution for hydrogen gas decrease quickly and become much lower than hydrogen liquid. The similar trends are also observed in Scenarios 2 and 3. Comparing the two scenarios, it can be seen that pipeline distribution is preferable for large scale hydrogen production, while cryogenic truck transportation is suitable for small scale hydrogen production. As mentioned earlier, hydrogen can be a potential replacement of fossil fuel, but the cost of hydrogen product is always an issue for a fully developed hydrogen economy. However according our model, it was found that even during the beginning period of the conservative scenario (2016, Scenario 1), the price of hydrogen product by electrolysis is still competitive, compared with the current gasoline price, 3.5 dollar/gallon. It must be remembered that the cost of hydrogen for Scenario 1 is 8.48 and 8.17 dollar/kg H2 or 3.07 and 2.95 dollar/gallon-gasoline-equivalent for hydrogen gas and liquid, respectively. The beneficial externality of hydrogen product (positive impacts on health and environment) is not included in this study, while as shown in the

Fig. 7 e Cost of hydrogen storage and delivery.

Price of electricity

As show in Fig. 8, the cost of hydrogen is highly sensitive to price of electricity. Taking scenario 1 and hydrogen demand for 2016 as an example, when the price of electricity increases from 5 cents/kWh to 7 cents/kWh, the cost of gaseous hydrogen increases from 8.48 $/kg to 9.67 $/kg, Moreover, another 2 cents of electricity price increment makes cost of gaseous hydrogen become 10.85 $/kg. The similar trends are also observed in other years, 2020e2050, and it means that the increase of hydrogen production scale cannot diminish the impact of electricity price. It is because electricity is the main energy source for water electrolysis production and hydrogen gas compression. When electricity price increases, the costs of production and storage will also increase, and it will then cause the final cost of hydrogen gas to increase. As shown in Fig. 9, a significant impact on the cost of hydrogen liquid is also observed and is even bigger than hydrogen gas. The main reason is that hydrogen liquefaction consumes much more energy for hydrogen liquid storage than hydrogen gas storage, and then, a slight increase of electricity price can generate bigger impact on the final cost of hydrogen liquid than hydrogen gas.

5.2.

Price of water

Water is the reactant for water electrolysis reaction, thus, the impact of water price is also investigated by using different

Fig. 8 e Impact of electricity price for hydrogen gas.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

Fig. 9 e Impact of electricity price for hydrogen liquid.

8913

Fig. 11 e Impact of energy efficiency for hydrogen gas (Scenario 1).

prices, 1.19, 1.29, and 1.39 dollar/kg. As shown in Fig. 10, the price of water has insignificant impact on the cost of hydrogen. The variations of water price do not make any big difference on the cost of hydrogen, whether it is liquid or compressed gas hydrogen. This is mainly because of the low price of water, over 1 dollar per cubic meter. However, it must be noted that in the future when hydrogen demand becomes significant, the price of water may increase dramatically, and then the cost of hydrogen will increase considerably.

5.3.

Energy efficiency

The energy efficiency of electrolysis plays an important role in electrolysis. In order to examine the impact of this factor, the energy efficiency is varied from 70% to 79%. As shown in Fig. 11, 3%-increase of energy efficiency causes about 0.1$decrease on the cost of hydrogen gas for scenario 1, and the similar trends are also found in Scenarios 2 and 3 for both of hydrogen gas and liquid products. Thus, the impact of energy efficiency is moderate and is not as significant as the price of electricity.

5.4.

Plant life

The influence of plant life is also examined by using different values, 20, 30, and 40 years. As shown in Fig. 12, short lifetime of plant will generate large value of capital investment depreciation. The impact of plant lifetime is obvious in the

Fig. 10 e Impact of water price for hydrogen gas.

Fig. 12 e Impact of plant life of hydrogen gas.

early period when hydrogen production scale is small. However, when production scale is large enough, the impact of lifetime on the cost of hydrogen becomes negligible.

6.

Conclusion

In this paper, a logistic model was applied to represent fuel cell vehicle market penetration in Ontario. Based on the future market expectations, three scenarios (Scenario 1, 2, and 3) were developed to demonstrate the conservative, moderate and optimistic FCVs market development, respectively. The number of FCVs and the corresponding hydrogen demand were estimated by the logistic model. Based on the projected hydrogen demand, the costs of hydrogen production via centralized water electrolysis, hydrogen storage and distribution were investigated. By comparing the costs of hydrogen gas and liquid, it is concluded that pipeline distribution is preferable for large scale hydrogen gas production, whilst truck transportation is favorable for small scale hydrogen liquid production. Additionally, using Scenario 1(i.e. conservative case) as a base case, the analysis also shows that:  The cost of hydrogen via compressed gas pipeline is 3.27 $/ kg in 2050, while the cost of hydrogen via cryogenic truck transportation is 3.74 $/kg.

8914

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

 The total amount of hydrogen production demand from the fleet of light duty hydrogen vehicles is about 1.92  109 kg/ year in 2050. Assuming that hydrogen production is wholly from water electrolysis and production capacity matches hydrogen demand exactly, the power consumption from hydrogen production will be about 12,140 MW and 13,900 MW for gaseous and liquefied hydrogen respectively, which are about 36% and 41% of the current Ontario’s installed power generation capacity, 33,770 MW [39].  In 2025, the cost of hydrogen starts to level off at 3.88 $/kg and 4.42 $/kg for gaseous and liquefied hydrogen, respectively, and this is the time when large scale centralized hydrogen project would be mostly required. The sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the impacts of some important model parameters such as electricity and water prices, energy efficiency of water electrolysis, and plant life. It is found that the price of electricity has a significant impact on the cost of hydrogen product, and a small increase of electricity price can increase the final cost of hydrogen product noticeably. The impact of energy efficiency is proved to be moderate by varying the efficiency from 70 to 79%. The sensitivity analysis also shows that the influences of water price and plant life are minor for the cost of hydrogen product, and no significant impact is observed by varying these two factors. However, if a full shift from conventional energy to hydrogen economy occurs [13], the price of electricity and water may increase dramatically due to huge consumption from all of energy sectors, and the impact from water price may also become significant. Accordingly, the projected cost of hydrogen may be higher than the projected value in this paper.

Appendix

Table A.1 e Central water electrolysis hydrogen production assumptions.

Conversion efficiency (water to hydrogen) Energy efficiency (electricity to hydrogen) Price of electricity (CAD/kWh) Price of water (CAD/1000 L) Plant life (year) Electrolyzer cell stack lifetime (year) Progress ratio of electrolyzer hydrogen generation station Price of electrolyzer hydrogen generation station (USD) Capacity of electrolyzer hydrogen generation station unit (kg H2/h, unit) The number of shift operators (operators/shift)

Parameters of Water Electrolysis Production Wage of operator (CAD/h) Labor related cost (% labor cost) Plant operating day Inflation rate (%) Currency exchange rate (USD/CAD) Leakage rate of hydrogen system Depreciable Capital Investment Parameter [36] Piping (% of purchased equipment cost) Electrical (% of purchased equipment cost) Instrumentation (% of purchased equipment cost) Foundation (% of purchased equipment cost) Insulation (% of purchased equipment cost) Painting, fireproofing and safety (% of purchased equipment cost) Yard Improvement Environmental Building (% of purchased equipment cost) Land (% of purchased equipment cost) Utility Facility (% of purchased equipment cost)

Assumption 35 60 365 2.6 0.845423 0.02

0.42 0.12 0.22 0.1 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.52 0.05 0.52

The operation cost and capital investment for hydrogen gas storage and pipeline distribution are calculated by Eqs (18)e(22). The main operating parameters and the values of factors for capital investment estimate are listed in Table A.2.

Table A.2 e Parameters of gaseous hydrogen storage and distribution [36,37].

The cost of electrolysis production is calculated by Eqs (10)e(17), and the main parameters of electrolysis production as well as the factors used in the factor method are shown in Table A. These factors include factors of piping, electrical, instrumentation, foundation, insulation, painting, etc.

Parameters of Water Electrolysis Production

Table A.1 e (continued )

Assumption 0.8 [40] 0.73 [40] 0.05 1.29 [41] 30 10 [40] 0.85 [42] 880,662 [42] 4.17 4

Parameters of Hydrogen Gas Storage and Distribution Operating pressure of hydrogen compressors, P (bar) Base size of hydrogen compressor, CompSize(kW) Size exponent of hydrogen compressor, CompExp Pressure exponent of hydrogen compressor, CpExp Base pressure of hydrogen compressor, P1 (bar) Atmospheric pressure, P0 (bar) Base power consumption of hydrogen compressor, ComPower (kWh/kg H2) Base cooling water consumption of hydrogen compressors, CompCool (gallon/kg H2) Base capital cost of hydrogen compressors, CompCost(USD/kW) Cost of cooling water (USD/1000gallon) Hydrogen storage time (hr) Hydrogen storage pressure, P (bar) Base tank cost, Tank Cost (USD/kg H2) Base tank size, Tank Size (kg H2/tank) Base pressure of hydrogen storage tanks, TankPress(bar) Size exponent of storage tanks, TankExp Pressure exponent of storage tanks, TPExp Capital Investment Parameter of gas tank farm Piping (% of purchased equipment cost) Electrical (% of purchased equipment cost) Instrumentation (% of purchased equipment cost)

Values 350 4000 0.8 0.18 200 1 2.2 13.23 1000 0.07 24 350 1323 227 200 0.75 0.44 0.42 0.12 0.22

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

references

Table A.2 e (continued ) Parameters of Hydrogen Gas Storage and Distribution

Values

Foundation (% of purchased equipment cost) Insulation (% of purchased equipment cost) Painting, fireproofing and safety (% of purchased equipment cost) Building (% of purchased equipment cost)

0.1 0.05 0.06 0.05

For liquid hydrogen storage and transportation, the operating cost is calculated by Eqs (24),(25),(29) and (30), while the capital investment is estimated by Eqs (26), (27) and (31). All of the required parameters and the values of factors used in factor method are shown in Table A.3.

Table A.3 e Parameters of liquid hydrogen storage and cryogenic truck transportation [36,37]. Parameters of Liquid Hydrogen Storage and Transportation Unit power consumption of hydrogen liquefiers, LiqPower (kWh/kg H2) Unit cooling water consumption of hydrogen liquefiers, LiqCool (gallon/kg H2) Base size of hydrogen liquefiers, LiqSize (kg H2/h) Unit Cost of liquefiers, LiqCost (USD, h/kg H2) Base size of liquid hydrogen storage, StorageSize (kg H2) Unit cost of liquid hydrogen storage, StorageCost (USD/kg H2) Boil-off rate of liquid hydrogen storage (%) Size exponent of hydrogen liquefiers, LiqExp Size exponent of hydrogen storage tanks, DewarExp Depreciable capital investment factors of liquid hydrogen storage Piping (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Electrical (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Instrumentation (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Foundation (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Insulation (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Painting, fireproof, painting (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Building (% of purchased storage equipment cost) Cost of a liquid hydrogen truck trailer, Trailer Price (USD) Cost of a liquid hydrogen truck undercarriage, UnderPrice (USD) Cost of a liquid hydrogen truck cab, CabPrice (USD) Size of liquid hydrogen truck trailer (kg H2) lifetime of trailer and undercarriage (year) lifetime of cab (year) Transportation distance (km) Hydrogen boil-off rate (%) Price of truck fuel (USD/gallon) Fuel economy of truck (km/gallon) Driver wage (USD/h) Truck availability (h/d) Truck speed (km/h) Load time (h) Unload time (h)

8915

Assumption 9.921 165.34 453.6 44092 45.36 441 0.1 0.65 0.71

0.42 0.12 0.22 0.1 0.05 0.06 0.05 350000 60000 90000 4082 10 15 200 0.3 2.45 9.656 30 24 80 1 1

[1] Lin Z, Chen CW, Ogden J, Fan Y. The least-cost hydrogen for southern California. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33: 3009e14. [2] Canada Statistics. Energy supply and demand. statistics Canada, Table 128e0009, Catalogue No: 57-003-x; 2007. [3] Kamarudin SK, Daud WRW, Yaakub Z, Misron Z, Anuar W. Synthesis and optimization of future hydrogen energy infrastructure planning in Peninsular Malaysia. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:2077e88. [4] Ball M, Wietschel M. The future of hydrogen e opportunities and challenges. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;34:615e27. [5] Environmental Protection Agency. Office of air quality planning and standards, air quality assessment division. National air quality status and trends through 2007. North Carolina: Research Triangle Park; 2008. [6] Environmental Canada. Cars, Trucks, Vans and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). http://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp? lang¼En&n¼EC8E75D0-1 [accessed 22.02.12]. [7] Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease. An update to the scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation 2010;121:2331e78. [8] Li N, Xia T, Andre EN. The role of oxidative stress in ambient particulate matter-induced lung diseases and its implications in the toxicity of engineered nanoparticles. Free Radic Bio Med 2008;44:1689e99. [9] Ontario Medical Association. Illness Cost of Air Pollution (ICAP) [accessed on 18.03.09], http://www.oma.org/Health/ Smog/report/icap05a.asp; 2005. [10] Dougherty W, Kartha S, Rajan C, Lazarus M, Baillie A, Runkle B, et al. Greenhouse gas reduction benefits and costs of a large-scale transition to hydrogen in the USA. Energy Policy 2008;37:56e67. [11] Jacobson MZ, Colella WG, Golden DM. Cleaning the air and improving health with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Science 2005;308:1901e5. [12] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA. Providing all global energy with wind, water and solar power, Part I: technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energ Policy 2011;39:1154e69. [13] Colella WG, Jacobson MZ, Golden DM. Switching to a U.S. hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fleet: the resultant change in emissions, energy use, and global warming gases. J Power Sources 2005;150:150e81. [14] Stephens-Romero S, Carreras-Sospedra M, Brouwer J, Dabdub D, Sumuelsen S. Determining air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:9022e9. [15] Taljan G, Fowler M, Carnizares C, Verbic G. Hydrogen storage for mixed wind-nuclear power plants in context of a hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33: 4463e75. [16] Leighty WC, O’Hashi K, Asahi H, Benoit J, Kieth G. Large renewables-hydrogen energy systems: gathering and transmission pipelines for windpower and other diffuse, dispersed sources. World Gas Conference 2003, Tokyo; June 1e5, 2003. [17] Campanari S, Manzolini G, lglesia FGDL. Energy analysis of electric vehicles using batteries or fuel cells through well-towheel driving cycle simulations. J Power Sources 2008;186: 464e71. [18] U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel cell vehicle world survey 2003. Washington DC; 2004. [19] Hydrogen & Fuel cells Canada. Canada’s hydrogen þ fuel cell industry, capabilities guide 2008. Hydrogen & fuel cells Canada. Vancouver: British Columbia; 2008.

8916

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 8 9 0 5 e8 9 1 6

[20] Greene DL, Leiby PN, Bowman D. Integrated analysis of market transformation scenarios with HyTrans. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 2007. [21] Collantes GO. Incorporating stakeholders’ perspectives into models of new technology diffusion: the case of fuel-cell vehicles. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 2007;74:267e80. [22] Canada Statistics. Table 079-0003-New motor vehicle sales, Canada, province and territories, monthly. Statistics Canada, Table 079-003; 2008. [23] Lu S. Vehicle survivability and travel mileage schedules. Report No: DOT HS 809952. Washington DC: Department of Transportation; 2006. [24] General Motors Corporation. Equinox fuel cell vehicle specifications, http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/ fuel_cells/fact_sheets/equinox.html [accessed on 02.03.09]. [25] Chui F, Elkamel A, Fowler M. An integrated decision support framework for the assessment and analysis of hydrogen production pathways. Energy Fuel 2006;20(1):346e52. [26] Lin Z, Ogden J, Fan Y, Chen CW. The fuel-travel-back approach to hydrogen station siting. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:3096e101. [27] Nils J, Yang C, Ogden J. A GIS-based assessment of coal-based hydrogen infrastructure deployment in the state of Ohio. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:5287e303. [28] Strachan N, Balta-Ozkan N, Joffe D, McGeevor K, Hughes N. Soft-linking energy systems and GIS models to investigate spatial hydrogen infrastructure development in a low-carbon UK energy system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:642e57. [29] Fujiwara S, Kasai S, Yamauchi H, Yamada K, Makino S, Matsunaga K, et al. Hydrogen production by high temperature electrolysis with nuclear reactor. Prog Nucl Energy 2008;50:422e6. [30] Elder R, Allen R. Nuclear heat for hydrogen production: coupling a very high/high temperature reactor to a hydrogen production plant. Prog Nucl Energy 2009;51:500e25. [31] Naterer G, Suppiah S, Lewis M, Gabriel K, Dincer I, Rosen MA, Fowler M. Recent Canadian advances in nuclear-based

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36] [37] [38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

hydrogen production and the thermochemical Cu-Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:2901e17. Committee on Alternatives and strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use. National Research Council, and National Academy of Engineering. The hydrogen economy: opportunities, costs, barriers, and R & D needs. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. Bossel U. Well to well studies, heating values and the energy conservation principle; 2003. Morgenacherstrasse 2F: European Fuel Cell Forum. Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2007. Seebregts AJ, Kram T, Schaeffer GJ, Bos AJM. Modelling technological progress in a MARKAL model for Western Europe including clusters of technologies. ECN report: ECN-RX-99-028; France: Paris; 1999. Garrett DE. Chemical engineering economics. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1989. Amos WA. Costs of storing and transporting hydrogen. Colorado: National renewable energy laboratory; 1998. Parker N. Using natural gas transmission pipeline costs to estimate hydrogen pipeline costs. California: institute of transportation studies. Davis: University of California; 2004. Ontario Power Authority. Ontario’s integrated power system Plan: the road map for Ontario’s electricity future. Toronto: Ontario Power Authority; 2007. Ivy J. Summary of electrolytic hydrogen production, milestone completion report. Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2004. Canada Environment. 2008 municipal water pricing report, municipal water pricing: 2004 statistics; 2008. Environment Canada, Cat. No.: En14e6/2008E. Weinert J. A near-term economic analysis of hydrogen fueling stations. California: institute of transportation studies. Davis: University of California; 2005.