Batteries and Hydrogen A Comparative Analysis of Infrastructure Costs

Transcription

1 Batteries and Hydrogen A Comparative Analysis of Infrastructure Costs APRIL 23, 2018 Technical Forum, Group Exhibit Hydrogen + Fuel Cells + Batteries, Hannover JOCHEN LINSSEN, THOMAS GRUBE, MARTIN ROBINIUS, MARKUS REUSS, PETER STENZEL, KONSTANTINOS SYRANIDIS, DETLEF STOLTEN th.grube@fz-juelich.de Institute for Electrochemical Process Engineering (IEK-3)

2 IEK-3 at a Glance Staff 115 Persons (w/o trainees, guests, student assistants) 7 Scientists with Professor degree 34 Scientists 25 PhD candidates working at IEK-3 5 PhD candidates working at industrial enterprises 32 Student assistants Major Facilities Lectures: Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stolten Principles and Technology of Fuel Cells Examination of basic physical and chemical principles Process engineering and systems technology Systems analysis studies Lectures: Univ.-Prof. Dr. ner. nat. Lehnert Modeling in Electrochemical Process Engineering Mathematical systems description Outline of modeling approaches Description of processes in porous structures 1

3 Who we are Process and Systems Analysis (VSA) Head of Department: Dr.-Ing. Martin Robinius Renewable Energies, and Storage Areas of Expertise VSA: Infrastructures Transport Residental Sector Industry 20 Scientists Energy System Analysis CCS/CCU 2

4 Motivation CO 2 emissions for Germany in 2015 (total: 762 Mt) Others 2 % Transport Residential Power sector Industry/ commerce CO 2 emission reduction per sector 1990 to % 45% 34% 22% 2% Transport sector essential for reaching the ambitious climate protection goals Electric drivetrains key elements of low carbon, clean and energy-efficient transport based on renewable energy Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) require new energy supply infrastructures Research Question What are costs, energy demands and emissions of an infrastructure capable of supplying hundred thousand or several million vehicles with hydrogen or electricity? 3

5 Approach Meta-analysis of existing infrastructure scenario studies Hydrogen Production Electric Vehicle Penetration In depth scenario analysis of infrastructure designs, Case Study for Germany Number of in million Consistent scenario framework Market penetration scenario Ramp up Mass market with different vehicle penetration Renewable electricity and demand Electricity generation and grid Spatially and temporally resolved models for generation, conversion, transport and distribution Analysis of investment, costs, efficiencies and emissions 4

6 Status Quo of Infrastructure Hydrogen Fueling Approx. 6,500 FCEV sold ( ) Worldwide: 213 public hydrogen fueling station (HRS) in operation by end of 2016: Japan (44%), USA (17%), Germany (13%) Germany: network of 43 HRS; 37 HRS under construction or planned (04/18) target: 400 HRS before 2023 Pipeline systems for hydrogen transport concentrated for chemical uses of hydrogen Existing Hydrogen Pipelines (by ) USA 2,608 km Europe 1,598 km of which in Germany 340 km Rest of world 337 km Roadmap for hydrogen refueling stations in Germany [12] World total 4,542 km Sources: [9], [10], [14], [15] 5

7 Status Quo of Infrastructure Electric charging In 2016, total BEV and PHEV stock was about 2 million worldwide, largely concentrated in China (32 %), followed by the United States (28 %) [16] Dynamic rollout of slow and fast charging worldwide Leading countries by end of 2016 China, the United States and the Netherlands For fast charging options (Modes 3 & 4) highest absolute number and fastest build-up in China Sources: [16] Number of public chargers Number of public chargers 240 in thousand in thousand Mode 2 (< 22 kw) Fast chargers (> 22 kw) Sweden Canada Norway UK France Germany Japan Others Netherlands USA China Sweden Canada Norway UK France Germany Japan Others Netherlands USA China 6

8 Applied Model Portfolio Transportation networks Renewables Biomass H 2 supply Refinery & processing Power flow Gas storage Gas grid BEV charging Transportation H 2 demand /MWh Nuclear Lignite Residual load Hard Coal Wind, solar, hydro Gas - CCGT Installed Capacity [GW] Unit dispatch Oil - CCGT Gas- ST Frequency [h] 600 Oil-ST Gas- OCGT H 2 generation Conventional power plants Electrical storage Heat storage Salt cavern Electrical load District heating H 2 -Grid Electrical grid Share of CO 2 emissions in reference integrated steel mill Industry Process analysis Residential Service & commercial Drivetrain simulation Districts & residential Concerted application 7

9 Hydrogen Infrastructure Model Number of FCEV Number of fueling stations Investigated pathways Scenario selection Preprocessing geospatial data Selection of fueling stations Hydrogen production Hydrogen demand Candidate grid (Highway grid) Fueling station locations Geospatial database Optimize grid/route network Technology database Hydrogen supply chain model Hydrogen costs Energy demand Derive results 8

10 Hydrogen Supply Pathways 9

11 Total Cumulative Investment Hydrogen Infrastructure 10

12 Number of BEV and Charging Points OvN.M1+M2: Home and on-street chargers (Mode 1 and 2); Publc.M3: Public convenience chargers (Mode 3); City.M4: quick chargers in cities (Mode 4); Mtwy.M4: Quick chargers along motorways (Mode 4) Number of overnight chargers (Mode 1 & 2) increases with BEV number but with decreasing ratio: 1 by 1 in the first two scenarios (all BEV have an overnight charging option) 1 by 2 in the last scenario (only 58 % of all BEV have an overnight charging option) The ratio of BEV per Mode 4 charger increases due to decreasing charging frequency caused by higher driving range (battery capacity) 11

13 Total and Specific Investment Charging Infrastructure 1,000,000 Total invest, [million ] 100,000 10,000 1, ,834 50,538 Invest per BEV [ ] 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 3,112 2,834 2, million BEV 1 million BEV 20 million BEV 12

14 Cumulative Investment Infrastructure Roll-Out Hydrogen more expensive during the transition period to renewable electricity-based generation High market penetration: battery charging needs more investment than hydrogen fueling Investment of both infrastructures low compared to other infrastructures Investment [ billion] Renewable electricity generation scenario 374 Electric grid enhancement plan Federal transport infrastructure plan Hydrogen fueling infrastructure 40 Electric charging infrastructure 51 13

15 Comparison of Mobility Costs vehicle purchase and operation costs excluded For small vehicle fleets, i.e. 0.1 million cars, BEV fuel costs are significantly lower compared to FCEVs. Increase for hydrogen between 1 and 3 million cars results of switching to exclusive utilization of renewable energy for hydrogen production via electrolysis Mobility costs per kilometer are roughly same in the high market penetration scenario at 4.5 ct/km for electric charging and 4.6 ct/km the lower efficiency of the hydrogen pathway is offset by lower surplus electricity costs. 14

16 CO 2 Emissions & Electricity Demand Efficiency of charging infrastructure is higher, but limited in flexibility and use of surplus electricity Fueling infrastructure for hydrogen with inherent seasonal storage option Low specific CO 2 emissions for both options in high penetration scenarios with advantage for hydrogen, well below the EU emission target after 2020: 95 g CO2 /km 15

17 Conclusions Hydrogen and controlled charging key to integration of renewable electricity in transportation Complementary development of both infrastructures maximize energy efficiency, optimize the use of renewable energy and minimize CO 2 emissions Hydrogen infrastructure roll-out for transportation sector enables further large-scale applications in other sectors Need for further research Modeling of BEV charging requires in depth analysis: high uncertainties regarding number of chargers, siting and impact of fast charging on electric distribution grid Analysis of new trends in mobility: vehicle ownership concepts, autonomous driving Integrated analysis of infrastructures and energy systems to identify win-win situations 16

18 Meta Analysis Selection criteria of scenario studies Focus on Germany (broader context studies for EU, worldwide) and quantitative results Parameters: number of hydrogen fueling stations and charging points, cumulative investment for infrastructure set-up Total number of scanned literature sources: 79 Selected studies for meta analysis: 25 (12 hydrogen and 13 electric charging) Lessons learned of the meta analysis Mostly aggregated results and, in many cases without provision of techno-economic assumptions Lack of information in literature of important infrastructure parameters, e.g., hydrogen pipeline length, number of trucks for hydrogen transport no meta-analysis possible Regarding electric charging studies: lack of studies concerning high xev penetration scenarios, investment for infrastructure build-up, demand for fast-charging and impacts on the distribution grid 17

19 Full Report Available: Project team: Martin Robinius, Jochen Linßen, Thomas Grube, Markus Reuß, Peter Stenzel, Konstantinos Syranidis, Patrick Kuckertz and Detlef Stolten Funded by 18

20 Back-Up 19

21 References [7] IEA: Energy Technology Perspectives Pathways to a Clean Energy System. International Energy Agency - OECD: Paris, ISBN [9] HyARC: Hydrogen Data Book. Hydrogen Analysis Reserach Center, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory & Department of Energy, access date: [10] Adolf, J.; Balzer, C.; Louis, J.; Schabla, U.; Fischedick, M.; Arnold, K.; Pastowski, A.; Schüwer, D.: Shell Wasserstoff-Studie - Energie der Zukunft? Nachhaltige Mobilität durch Brennstoffzelle und H Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Hamburg, access date: [12] MOBILITY, H.: H2-Stations. Aktualisierungsdatum: H2 MOBILITY. [14] Linde Gas, Der sauberste Energieträger, den es je gab. Hydrogen Solutions von Linde Gas, Linde AG, Höllriegelskreuth, [15] Wild, J.; Freymann, R.; Zenner, M.: Wasserstoff - Schlüssel zu weltweit nachhaltiger Energiewirtschaft - Beispiele aus Nordrhein- Westfalen von der Produktion zur Anwendung. EnergieRegion.NRW - Netzwerk Brennstoffzelle und Wasserstoff c/o Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Mittelstand und Energie des Landes Nordrhein-Westfahlen, 12/ [16] IEA: Global EV Outlook International Energy Agency - OECD, Paris, access date: [24] Robinius, M.: Strom- und Gasmarktdesign zur Versorgung des deutschen Straßenverkehrs mit Wasserstoff. RWTH Aachen, Institut für elektrochemische Verfahrenstechnik, Dissertation [26] Seydel, P.: Entwicklung und Bewertung einer langfristigen regionalen Strategie zum Aufbau einer Wasserstoffinfrastruktur - aus Basis der Modellverknüpfung eines Geografischen Informationssystems und eines Energiesystemmodells. In: (2008). [27] BMVBS; NOW: GermanHy - Woher kommt der Wasserstoff in Deutschland bis 2050? Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS), access date: [30] McKinsey & Co.: A Portfolio of Powertrains for Europe: a Fact Based Analysis The Role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-in- Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles. McKinsey & Co., [ [45] BDEW: Aktualisierung und Fortführung der Studie "Die zukünftige Elektromobilitätsinfrastruktur gestalten". Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.v. (BDEW), Berlin, [47] Grube, T.; Linke, A.; Xu, D.; Robinius, M.; Stolten, D.: Kosten von Ladeinfrastrukturen für Batteriefahrzeuge in Deutschland. In proceedings: 10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung Wien, 2017, Vienna, , TU Wien,

22 Meta Analysis Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Vehicle Specific Cumulative Investment Cumulative infrastructre investment per FCEV [ ] thousand Germany Europe Worldwide million million Number of FCEVs Cumulative investment differs significantly due to different assumptions e.g. consideration of power plant investment or number of fueling stations Seydel, P., 2008* GermanHy, 2009* Mc Kinsey, 2010 IEA, 2012 Robinius, M., 2015 *: Including investment for power plants for upstream electricity production McKinsey EU&CH&NO, IEA - worldwide Specific cumulative investment per FCEV in the range of 2,000 to 4,000 per FCEV Expected decreasing specific investment per FCEV with increasing FCEV stock (due to learning curve and economy of scale) is not observed 21

23 Meta Analysis Electric Charging Infrastructure Vehicle-specific Cumulative Investment Specific investment in charging infrastructure per BEV [ ] 6 thousand Germany BDEW, 2013 McKinsey, 2010 Grube, T., 2017 (moderate) Grube, T., 2017 (strong) Europe investment for 1 public/semipublic normal & fast charging, private 0 million charging not included Number of BEVs For small BEV stocks: cumulative infrastructure investment per BEV is approx. 500 per BEV Highest specific investment per BEV occur in the 30 million BEV scenario by Grube et al. investment for additional grid reinforcements considered and high number of charging points (on-street and additional fast charging) 22

24 Infrastructure Designs Ramp up Mass market 0.1 million 3 million 10 million 20 million cable length 1,800 km 28,000 km 180,000 km BEV transformer 6,100 55, ,000 slow chargers 3.7 kw 2.8 million 6.5 million kw fast chargers 150 kw 81, , kw storage capacity electrolysis H 2 2 TWh 3 GW 5 TWh 10 TWh 10 GW 19 GW FCV truck trailer ,500 3,000 pipeline 12,000 km 12,000 km 12,000 km fueling 400 1,500 3,800 7,000 23

25 Highlights Motivation Transport sector essential for reaching the ambitious climate protection goals Electric drivetrains key elements of renewably-based, clean and energy-efficient transport Research question and approach What are costs, energy demands and emissions of an infrastructure capable of supplying hundred thousand or several million vehicles with hydrogen or electricity? In depth scenario analysis of infrastructure designs, case study for Germany Spatially and temporally resolved models for generation, conversion, transport and distribution Conclusion Hydrogen and controlled charging key to integration of renewable electricity in transportation Complementary development of both infrastructures maximize energy efficiency, optimize the use of renewable energy and minimize CO 2 emissions Hydrogen infrastructure roll-out for transportation sector enables further large-scale applications in other sectors 24

26 Timeline for CO 2 -Reduction and the Implication of TRL Levels 2050: 80% reduction goal fully achieved 2040: start of market penetration 2030: research finalized for 1st generation technology Development period: until 2040 Research period: until years left for research => TRL 5 and higher TRL 4 at least This is not to say research at lower TRL levels is not useful, it will just not contribute to the 2050 goal 25

27 Assumed Electricity Scenario RES power [GW TWh]: onshore: ; offshore: ; PV: 55 47; hydro: 6 21; bio: 7 44; fossil: Further assumptions: grid electricity: 528 TWh; imports: 28 TWh; exports: 45 TWh; pos. residual: natural gas Share of RES electricity generation: 78 % Total curtailment (including future grid): 266 TWh Power flow analysis of transmission: 523 nodes and 802 edges Total installed capacities and technical parameters of fossil power plants in the scenario. Total capacity [GW] [52] Average efficiency Fuel price [ /MWh] [56] Specific emission factors [t CO2 /MWh] O&M cost [ /MWh] [59] Average Marginal cost [ /MWh] [58] Lignite Hard coal Natural gas Oil Electricity price scenario for households and industrial consumers (excluding taxes and levies) [79]. Annual consumption of electricity Electricity price [ ct/kwh] households < 5 MWh industrial consumption < 20 MWh MWh < industrial consumption < 500 MWh MWh < industrial consumption < MWh MWh < industrial consumption < MWh MWh < industrial consumption < MWh MWh < industrial consumption < MWh 6.00

28 Transportation Scenario Total energy consumption per scenario for BEVs and FCEVs. Scenario Annual mileage Specific electricity consumption Ref75 Ref100 BEV Total electricity consumption Ref75 Specific hydrogen consumption FCEV Total hydrogen consumption [# of vehicles] [km/year] [kwh/100 km] [GWh/year] [kg H 2 /100 km] [1000 t/year] 100,000 14, ,000,000 14, ,000,000 14, ,800* ,820 *losses of charging and electric grid not included

29 Hydrogen Production Scenario Total demand [kt/a] SMR [kt/a] Byproduct CAE [kt/a] Electrolysis [kt/a] 0.1 million FCEV , million FCEV million FCEV Techno-economic electrolysis parameters [24, 29, 85]. Pressure Out [bar] 30 Invest [ /kw] 516 a Water Demand [m³/kg] 0.01 Depreciation Period [years] 10 Electricity Demand [kwh/kg] 47.6 O&M (Operation and Maintenance) [1/year] 3 % a Electrolysis-specific investment 6 % learning rate Techno-economic parameters for hydrogen conversion technologies. unit Compressor [102] Liquefaction [103] Investment I 0 [million ] Capacity C 0 1 [kw] 50 [t/day] Scaling factor α [-] ,66 Depreciation Period [years] O&M [1/year] 4 % 8 % Electricity Demand [kwh/kg H2 ] variable 6.78 Losses 0.5 % 1.65 %

30 Fueling Stations Scenario # of fueling stations Ø station capacity [kg/day] Ø capacity utilization Ø investment per station [ ] a 0.1 million FCEV % 999,000 1 million FCEV % 1,460, million FCEV % 2,240,000 a Fueling station investment is calculated based on a scaling factor of 0.7 and a 6% learning rate [1]. Base case: 400 fueling stations à 212 kg/day capacity at 600,000 investment cost + 30% installation cost. [2] No differentiation between liquid or gaseous supplied hydrogen fueling stations; onsite-production not considered Performance specification of different hydrogen fueling station sizes based on H2 MOBILITY [99]. Size of hydrogen fueling station XS S M L Number of fueling positions Maximum number of fueling processes per day Maximum hydrogen throughput per day [kg/day] [1] Melaina, M. and M. Penev (2013). Hydrogen Station Cost Estimates - Comparing HSCC Results with other recent Estimates, NREL. [2] Bonhoff, K. (2016). Supporting market ramp-up of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. World hydrogen energy conference 2016, Zaragoza.

31 Cost Assumptions Electric charging Component investment Scenario 0.1 million BEV 1 million BEV 20 million BEV Chargers Home charger M1+M2 /unit Overnight street charger M1+M2 /unit (Semi-) public charger M3 /unit Public charger M4 /unit 39,000 45,480 66,000 Motorway charger M4 /unit 39,000 45,480 66,000 Energy management systems (EMS) EMS, large city /unit 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 EMS, medium-sized town /unit 250, , ,000 EMS, small town /unit 250, , ,000 EMS, rural municipality /unit 250, , ,000 Transformers Controllable distribution grid transformer /unit 22,000 22,000 22,000 Electric lines, city Medium-voltage overhead lines /km 15,000 15,000 15,000 Medium-voltage undergrounding /km 80,000 80,000 80,000 Low-voltage undergrounding /km 68,500 68,500 68,500 Electric lines, Motorway Medium-voltage undergrounding /km 80,000 80,000 80,000 Low-voltage undergrounding /km 68,500 68,500 68,500 30

32 Assumed Electricity Scenario Assessment based on municipal level and hourly resolution of grid load/ RES feed-in Power- Sector RES power [GW TWh]: onshore: ; offshore: ; PV: 55 47; hydro: 6 21; bio: 7 44; fossil: Further assumptions: grid electricity: 528 TWh; imports: 28 TWh; exports: 45 TWh; pos. residual: natural gas Negative residual energy (Surplus) Share of RES electricity generation: 78 % Total curtailment (including future grid): 266 TWh Residual energy [MWh/km²] Positive residual energy Power flow analysis based on 523 nodes and 802 edges

33 Transportation Scenario Scenario FCEV Hydrogen consumption [1000 t/year]* BEV Electricity Consumption [TWh/year]* 100, ,000, ,000, *based on an annual mileage of 14,000 km [1] and 0.65 kg H2/(100 km), respective 11 kwh/(100 km) [2] 100,000 vehicles 1 million vehicles Vehicle distribution methodology: 1. Startup in metropolitan region first 2. Delayed start-up in neighbouring counties 3. Latest start-up in urban areas 20 million vehicles [1] Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (2015). "Verkehr in Zahlen 2014/2015." [2] Grube, T. (2014). Potentiale des Strommanagements zur Reduzierung des spezifischen Energiebedarfs von Pkw, Jülich, TU Berlin. 216: IX, 255 pp.

34 Hydrogen Production Scenario Conventional production: Spread over germany low distribution distances Electrolysis: Total demand [kt/a] Mainly next to the north sea high distribution distances SMR [kt/a] Byproduct CAE [kt/a] Electrolysis 0.1 million FCEV , million FCEV [kt/a] 20 million FCEV

35 Fueling Stations Scenario # of fueling stations Ø station capacity [kg/day] Ø capacity utilization Ø investment per station 0.1 million FCEV % 999,000 1 million FCEV % 1,460, million FCEV % 2,240,000 a Fueling station investment is calculated based on a scaling factor of 0.7 and a 6% learning rate [1]. Base case: 400 fueling stations à 212 kg/day capacity at 600,000 investment cost + 30% installation cost. [2] No differentiation between liquid or gaseous supplied hydrogen fueling stations; onsite-production not considered [ ] a [1] Melaina, M. and M. Penev (2013). Hydrogen Station Cost Estimates - Comparing HSCC Results with other recent Estimates, NREL. [2] Bonhoff, K. (2016). Supporting market ramp-up Institute of for hydrogen Electrochemical and fuel Process cell technologies. Engineering World IEK-3 hydrogen energy conference 2016, Zaragoza.

36 Cost Assumptions Electric Charging Component investment Scenario 0.1 million BEV 1 million BEV 20 million BEV Chargers Home charger M1+M2 /unit Overnight street charger M1+M2 /unit (Semi-) public charger M3 /unit Public charger M4 /unit 39,000 45,480 66,000 Motorway charger M4 /unit 39,000 45,480 66,000 Energy management systems (EMS) EMS, large city /unit 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 EMS, medium-sized town /unit 250, , ,000 EMS, small town /unit 250, , ,000 EMS, rural municipality /unit 250, , ,000 Transformers Controllable distribution grid transformer /unit 22,000 22,000 22,000 Electric lines, city Medium-voltage overhead lines /km 15,000 15,000 15,000 Medium-voltage undergrounding /km 80,000 80,000 80,000 Low-voltage undergrounding /km 68,500 68,500 68,500 Electric lines, Motorway Medium-voltage undergrounding /km 80,000 80,000 80, Low-voltage undergrounding /km 68,500 68,500 68,500