Hydrogen Refueling Analysis of Fuel Cell

Heavy-Duty Vehicles Fleet

Amgad Elgowainy

Argonne National Laboratory

International H2 Infrastructure Workshop

Boston, MA

September 11-12, 2018

Motivation and Objective

2

● Hydrogen fueling cost for heavy duty vehicles is different from light duty vehicles With respect to fueling pressure, fill amount, fill rate, fill strategy, precooling

requirement, etc.

Evaluate impacts of key market, technical, and economic parameters on refueling cost [$/kgH2] of heavy-duty fuel cell (FC) vehicles

Evaluate fuel cell bus fleet as a surrogate for other M/HDVs

$/kgH2??

Parameters to evaluate

3

Market parameters:− Fleet size (10, 30, 50, 100 buses)

− Hydrogen supply (20 bar gaseous, liquid tanker, tube trailer)

− Market penetration (production volume of refueling components, i.e., low, med, high)

Technical parameters:− Refueling pressure (350 bar and 700 bar)

− Tank type (III, IV)

− Dispensed amount per vehicle (20 kg, 35 kg)

− Fill rate (1.8, 3.6, 7.2 kg/min)

− Fill strategy (back-to-back, staggered, number of dispensers)

− SAE TIR specifies fueling process rates and limits (not a protocol)

Financial parameters:− 10% IRR

− 20-year project life

Parameters in red color are defaults for parametric analysis

Approach: Develop a refueling model for FC HDV

fleet

4

Systematically examines impact of various parameters

Heavy-Duty Refueling Station Analysis

Model (HDRSAM)

https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=hdrsam

5

Capital

HDRSAM Model Outputs

HDRSAM characterizes the economics of a user-defined station

Time to break

even

Contribution of Station

Components to H2 Cost

Station Levelized Cost Contributions to Levelized Cost

$/kg_H2 O&M Energy

Cumulative Cash Flow

Time to break

even

Refueling configuration options for gaseous H2 supply

6

*variable area control device

Refueling configuration options with LH2 delivery

7

Cryo-compressed (OPTION 3)

Evaluate precooling requirement for various vehicle tank

types, fill pressures and refueling rates

8

Simulated tank fills with H2SCOPE Model

Type III and Type IV (350 bar and 700 bar)

Simulated various refueling rates (1.8, 3.6, and 7.2 kg/min)

Solved physical laws to track mass, temperature, and pressure

Determine precooling requirement

Bus Onboard Storage System (350 bar, Type III)

Storage System Capacity [kg] 40

Number of Tanks 8Tank Capacity [kg] 5Initial tank pressure [MPa] 5

Geometry

Outer Diameter [in] 17.74Thickness [in] 1.78Length [in] 88.7Volume [L] 208

Type III tanks do not require precooling at all fill rates

9

Type III, 40oC presoak, 25oC ambient, 350 bar

7.2 kg/min fill rate

Tank Type Fueling Rate [kg/min] Required Temperature at Dispenser [oC]

III (350 bar)1.8 No precooling required

3.6 No precooling required

7.2 No precooling required

IV (350 bar)1.8 No precooling for 350 bar

3.6 20oC for 350 bar

7.2 5oC for 350 bar

Cost estimates for sourcing H2 to refueling station

(near-term)

10

Cost of liquid H2 delivered to refueling station (3.5-4 MT payload), 100-500 miles transportation distance:

$6-8/kg_H2

Cost of onsite water-electrolysis H2 production (@ $1000/kW) + compression:

$7-10/kg_H2

Cost of onsite SMR H2 production + compression:

$3-4/kg_H2

Steady operation desirable

Additional storage cost may be required

H2 production/transportation costs are additional to refueling cost

Compression and pumping dominate refueling cost

11

Faster fills require higher capacity equipment and result in higher cost Liquid stations can handle faster fills with less cost increase

[kg/min]

Fleet Size: 30 busesFill Amount: 35 kg350 bar, Type III tanksBack-to-back, one dispenser

(Pumping)20 bar supply

$3M

$5.3M

$8M

$3.6M$3.8M

$2.3M$2.7M

$1.8M $1.5M

Total capital investment

~12 hrs

~6 hrs

~3 hrs Total fleet fueling time

Additional H2 liquefaction capacity will be needed to serve a

growing market

12

Region Liquefaction Capacity(MT/day)

California 30

Louisiana 70

Indiana 30

New York 40

Alabama 30

Ontario 30

Quebec 27

Tennessee 6

Total 263

Staggered fueling can reduce fueling cost vs. back-to-back

fills

13

One dispenser One dispenser

Staggered refueling may be restricted by bus operation schedule

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

Leve

lized

Ref

uel

ing

Co

st [

$/k

g_H

2]

Gaseous Station Liquid Station Cryo-compressed

4-bus/h Staggered

4-bus/h Staggered

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Staggered 4-bus Staggered 2-bus Back-to-back

Back-to-Back Staggered Back-to-Back Staggered Back-to-Back Staggered

Nu

mb

er

of b

use

s

[hr] Fleet Size: 30 busesFill Amount: 35 kg

2-bus/h Staggered 2-bus/h

Staggered

(20 bar supply)

Impact of fleet size (demand) on refueling

14

Strong economies of scale with fleet size (daily demand) fueling cost can drop to ~$1/kgH2 with large fleet size

Liquid station, in general, provides a lower cost option

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

10 30 50 100 10 30 50 100 10 30 50 100

Leve

lized

Ref

uel

ing

Co

st [

$/k

g_H

2]

Two dispensers

Two dispensers

Two dispensers

Gaseous Station Liquid Station Cryo-compressed

# of buses

Fill Amount: 35 kgFill Rate: 3.6 kg/min350 bar, Type III Tank

20 bar supply

Summary

15

Lower refueling cost of HDV fleet compared to refueling LDVs

Faster fills require higher capacity equipment and result in higher fueling cost

Back-to-back fills increase fueling cost with higher fill rates, while staggered fueling reduces fueling cost, even at higher fill rates

Liquid station, in general, provides a lower cost option for HDV fleet refueling compared to gaseous stations (cost of H2 source is additional and vary by source)

Additional liquefaction capacity needs to be built

Strong economies of scale can be realized with fleet size and fill amount (impacting station demand/capacity)

~$1/kg_H2 station cost for 100 FC bus fleet with today equipment cost

Type IV tanks do not appreciably increase fueling cost compared to type III tanks

Future cryo-compressed tanks offer similar or lower refueling cost compared to gaseous refueling

Acknowledgments

16

This project has been fully supported by U.S. DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO). We are grateful for the support and guidance of FCTO Director, Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Analysis Program manager, Fred Joseck, Delivery Program manager Neha Rustagi, and Technology Acceleration manager Jason Marcinkoski

Thank You!!!

aelgowainy@anl.gov

Free access to techno-economic models and publications

is available at:

https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=hdrsam

Free access to environmental life cycle analysis models

and publications is available at:

https://greet.es.anl.gov/