2010 – 2025 Scenario and Infrastructure AnalysisSig Gronich

Technology Validation/Scenario Analysis Manager

Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure TechnologiesEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

Presented to

Hydrogen Technical Advisory CommitteeJanuary 9, 2007

2

Related NAS Recommendations and EPACT Provision

NAS Recommendation from 2004 Hydrogen Economy Report“DOE should map out and evaluate a transition plan consistent with developing the infrastructure and hydrogen resources necessary to support the committee's hydrogen vehicle penetration scenario oranother similar demand scenario.”

“DOE's policy analysis should be strengthened with respect to thehydrogen economy, and the role of government in supporting and facilitating industry investments to bring a transition to the hydrogen economy needs to be better understood.”

EPACT ProvisionEPACT section 811 requires a report from the Secretary to Congress on measures to support the transition to a hydrogen economy, including those related to producing and deploying hydrogen fueled vehicles and infrastructure.

3

Responding to the National Academies’ Recommendations

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar26 9-10 13

2006 2007

DOE Hydrogen TransitionAnalysis Workshop

Workshop: 2010 – 2025 Scenario Analysis for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and Infrastructure

Fuel Cell Seminar: Public Dissemination of Information

Scenario Analysis Report to the NAS

Scenario Analysis Workshop

Over 60 participants from Energy and Automotive Industries, Federal and State Governments, National

Laboratories and Academia at each meeting

4

5,000 hours FC durability300+ mile range$2.50/gge at pump

2010-2025 Scenario Analyses

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

R&D to Meet Targets

Lighthouse Valid.

Policy Actions

Technology Readiness based on lab results and high-pressure storage

2,000 hours FC durability250 mile range$3/gge H2 at pump

Production vehicles

Cold Start

Infrastructure, Vehicle

Learning Demo 1Gen 1 Gen 2

Learning Demo 2Gen 3 Gen 4

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

Alternative Scenario

3,500 hours durability

Production vehicles based on road tests and integrated fuel network

5,000 hours FC durability300+ mile range$2.50/gge at pump

Learning Demo 2Gen 3 Gen 4

Cur

rent

DO

E Pr

ogra

mPr

opos

ed F

utur

e O

ptio

ns

5

Market Penetration Scenarios Considered in DOE Analyses

Transition Analysis Workshops addressed three scenarios –NAS (scenario 3) and two that are more conservative.

Scenario 1: Hundreds to thousands of vehicles per year by 2012 and by 2018 tens of thousands of vehicles per year. This option is expected to lead to a market penetration of 2.0 million FCVs by 2025.

Scenario 2: Thousands of FCVs by 2012, tens of thousands by 2015 and hundreds of thousands by 2018. This option is expected to lead to a market penetration of 5.0 million FCVs by 2025.

Scenario 3: Thousands of FCVs by 2012, and millions by 2021 such that market penetration is 10 million by 2025. (NRC scenario)

These scenarios are provided for transition analyses as recommended by the National Research Council to evaluate the transition phase and do not represent any specific policy recommendation.

6

HEV Sales Compared to Scenarios for FCV Vehicle Market Penetration

Scenarios 1 and 2 are consistent with current and projected HEV penetration rates

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Year

Ann

ual V

ehic

le S

ales

(tho

usan

ds) Scenario 1

HEV +15 yearsScenario 2Scenario 3HEVs +12 years

7

Infrastructure Necessary to Support Vehicle Penetration - Nationwide (2012-2025)1

1500 kg/day Distributed Steam Methane Reforming Stations

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Year

2012-2020 1500 kg/day Stations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Ye a r

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

• Blown-Up View of the 2012 through 2020 Time Period

Hydrogen Demand

1-Based on NREL and ORNL Analyses

8

Recommendation from Scenario Analysis Meeting

Drive Distance

Population % Population (2000 Census LA Urbanized Area and Vicinity)

1 Mile 677,000 4%

2 Mile 2,651,000 14%

3 Mile 5,586,000 30%

Scenario 1 – 2018

Scenario 2 & 3 – 2015

9

64.92 Mgal/day

39.36 Mgal/day

81.90 Mgal/day

80.88 Mgal/day

119.32 Mgal/day

10

Cost Sharing and Subsidies, Scenario 1, Fuel Cell Success

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2010 2015 2020 2025

Billi

ons

of 2

004

Dol

lars

/Yr

Scenario1 Station Infr.Scenario1 Fuel SubsidyScenario1 Vehicles

Annual Costs of Cost Sharing and Fuel Subsidy

Prior LegislationEPACT 2005 Section 805 - Programs- H2 Supply (50/50 cost share) SAFETEA-LU (DOT) – Ethanol Tax Credit ($0.50/gal.) provided for hydrogenEPACT 2005 Section 808 – Demonstrations (50/50 cost share)

Cost Sharing and Subsidies, Scenario 2, Fuel Cell Success

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2010 2015 2020 2025

Billi

ons

of 2

004

Dolla

rs/Y

r

Scenario2 Station Infr.Scenario2 Fuel SubsidyScenario2 Vehicles

Cost Sharing and Subsidies, Scenario 3, Fuel Cell Success

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2010 2015 2020 2025

Bill

ions

of 2

004

Dol

lars

/Yr

Scenario3 Station Infr.Scenario3 Fuel SubsidyScenario3 Vehicles

11

Infrastructure Analysis

Infrastructure Impact Analysis

• Hydrogen supply/ demand

• Resource demand

• Infrastructure requirements

• Constraints and limitations

• Others (CO2 sequestration)

Infrastructure Requirements

• Pipelines

• Railroads

• Electrical systems

• Land availability

• Offsites (sewer systems, etc.)

ScenarioAnalysis

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Year

Ann

ual V

ehic

le S

ales

(tho

usan

ds) Scenario 1

HEV +15 yearsScenario 2Scenario 3HEVs +12 years

Resource Demand (includes feedstocks and utilities)

• Supply/Cost Impact

• Resource availability

• Impact on hydrogen product cost

Hydrogen supply/ demand

•Regional demand assessment

• Hydrogen supply cost

12

Summary

In response to the NRC recommendation, several scenarios have been proposed for analysis of the possible impact and cost. A report will be presented to the NRC in March 2007 for their further analysis and assessment in compliance with EPACT (section 1825).

The analysis is meant to identify possible scenarios for establishing hydrogen infrastructure during the FCV market introduction.

Industry involvement and feedback is an integral part in the development of an inclusive set of scenarios to be analyzed.

Market conditions/economics and policy actions will determine how the hydrogen market evolves.

13

Acknowledgements

David Greene and Paul Leiby of Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Margo Melendez and Anelia Milbrandt of National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Brian James and Julie Perez of Directed Technologies, Inc.

14

Additional Information

15

TRANSITION STRATEGIES

Focus on near-term nascent hydrogen economy

Stage 1:

•Forecourt

•Cluster or network from mid-size plant

•Use existing infrastructure

•Investigate liquid delivery systemsStage 2:

•Nascent interconnect systemThese scenarios are provided for transition analyses as recommended by the National Research Council to evaluate the transition phase and do not represent any specific policy recommendation.

16

Delivery Costs

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

C-NG SMR C-NG SMR C-NG SMR C-NG SMR C-NG SMR

GT HPGT CryoGT LT PL

Cos

t [$/

kg]

Production Terminal Delivery

280 kg Trailer 2100 kg Trailer

657 kg Trailer 4142 kg Trailer

30 miles beyond city edge

17

Total Pathway Costs

30 miles beyond city edge

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

C-NGSMR

C-NGSMR

C-NGSMR

C-NGSMR

C-NGSMR

FC LGSMR

FC LGSMR

GT HPGT CryoGT LT PL (LOW) (HIGH)

0.1 TPD 1.5 TPD 1.5 TPD 1.5 TPD 1.5 TPD 1.5 TPD 1.5 TPD

Cos

t [$/

kg]

Production Terminal Delivery Dispensing

Total Cost: $8.81

Total Cost: $2.44

Total Cost: $3.18

Total Cost: $2.42

Total Cost: $3.31

18

Possible Regional DeploymentStrategy (NREL Analysis)

Infrastructure Analysis for LA regionInfrastructure Analysis for LA region1,500 kg/day hydrogen refueling station requires about 255,000 cu. ft. per day of natural gas.Such a hydrogen refueling station would be considered a large gas load for a local gas distribution company – roughly equivalent to the ave. load of:

1,200 homes, or 150 commercial customers, orOne 1,800 kW power plant

If a new service line is required to supply the natural gas to the distributed reformer, the hydrogen cost will increase by $0.1 -$0.2/gge.Land for distributed hydrogen facilities is scarce.

Source: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.

Resource Demand Analysis

19

Natural Gas Supply, Demand and Reserves

Sources:U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2004.

Natural gas (42 million metric tons per year) needed to produce 13 13 million metric tons of million metric tons of hydrogenhydrogen to fuel 49 49 million vehiclesmillion vehicles 430 330 4

1500 1580 130

42

Notes:• Reserves as of January 1, 2005.• Production and consumption data are expressed as dry gas.

20

Actual and Projected U.S. HEV Sales

*Data through 2006 From hybridcars.com May 16, 2006

**Data beyond 2006 from JD Power and Associates HEV Outlook

9 20 35 4888

206

281316

350

458

565

673

780

887

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

Ann

ual V

ehic

le S

ales

(tho

usan

ds) HEV sales (actual)*

HEV sales (projected)**

21

Infrastructure Necessary to Support Vehicle Penetration - Nationwide (2012-2025)

1500 kg/day Distributed Steam Methane Reforming Stations

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Year

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

22

In addition to more stations overall, Scenario 3 gives a greater role to cities other than NY and

LA.

Estimated Station Deployment, Scenario 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Ref

uelin

g St

atio

ns

Rest of USALANYCRest of PacificRest of Northeast Estimated Station Deployment, Scenario 3

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Ref

uelin

g St

atio

ns

Rest of USALARest of NortheastNYCRest of PacificEstimated Station Deployment, Scenario 2

-100100300500700900

110013001500

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Ref

uelin

g St

atio

ns

Rest of USALANYCRest of NortheastRest of Pacific