Overview of Water Electrolysis and Renewable Hydrogen Activities in the US DOE Portfolio

Transcription

1 Overview of Water Electrolysis and Renewable Hydrogen Activities in the US DOE Portfolio Erika Sutherland U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Program Washington, DC, USA Electrolysis Symposium Copenhagen, Denmark May 10 th, 2012

2 Fuel Cell Technologies Program (FCT) FCT s Mission The mission of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program is to enable the widespread commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies through: basic and applied research technology development and demonstration Addressing institutional and market challenges Key Goals: Develop hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for: 1. Early markets (e.g., stationary power, forklifts, portable power) 2. Mid-term markets (e.g., residential CHP, auxiliary power, buses and fleet vehicles ) 3. Longer-term markets, (including mainstream transportation, with focus on passenger cars) Source: US DOE 10/2010- Program Plan An integrated strategic plan for the research, development, and demonstration activities of DOE s Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program

3 Program Structure The Program is an integrated effort, structured to address all the key challenges and obstacles facing widespread commercialization. Nearly 300 projects currently funded at companies, national labs, and universities/institutes FY12 EERE H 2 and Fuel Cells Budget: $104M 3

4 EERE H 2 & Fuel Cells Budgets Appropriations (FY 11 FY 12) and Budget Request (FY 13) Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies The Committee recognizes the progress and achievements of the Fuel Cell Technologies program. The program has met or exceeded all benchmarks, and has made significant progress in decreasing costs and increasing efficiency and durability of fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems. Funding ($ in thousands) Key Activity FY 2011 Allocation FY 2012 Appropriation FY 2013 Request Fuel Cell Systems R&D 41,916 44,812 38,000 Hydrogen Fuel R&D 32,122 34,812 27,000 Technology Validation 8,988 9,000 5,000 FY 2013 House Mark $82 M Market Transformation 0 3,000 0 Safety, Codes & Standards 6,901 7,000 5,000 Education Systems Analysis 3,000 3,000 3,000 Manufacturing R&D 2,920 2,000 2,000 FY 2013 Senate Mark $104 M Total $95,847 $103,624 $80,000 Notes: Hydrogen Fuel R&D includes Hydrogen Production & Delivery R&D and Hydrogen Storage R&D. FY11, FY12 include SBIR/STTR funds to be transferred to the Science Appropriation; prior years exclude this funding In FY 2013, the Program plans to leverage activities in other EERE Programs (e.g., Advanced Manufacturing and Vehicle Technologies in key areas), subject to appropriations.

5 Current Program Structure The Program is an integrated effort, structured to address the key challenges and obstacles facing widespread commercialization. Hydrogen Fuel R&D: Focuses on enabling the production of low-cost hydrogen from diverse renewable pathways and addressing key challenges to hydrogen delivery and storage 5

6 Goals & Objectives Develop technologies to produce hydrogen from clean, domestic resources at a delivered and dispensed cost of $2-$4/gge H 2 by

7 ($/gallon gasoline equivalent [gge], untaxed) Challenges: Production The hydrogen threshold cost ($2-$4/gge dispensed) is a key driver of Hydrogen Production R&D. Projected High-Volume Cost of Hydrogen Production 1 Status (production costs only, not including delivery or dispensing) Distributed Production (near term) Electrolysis Feedstock variability: $ $0.08 per kwh Bio-Derived Liquids Feedstock variability: $ $3.00 per gallon ethanol Natural Gas Reforming 3 Feedstock variability: $ $10.00 per MMBtu Central Production (longer term) Electrolysis Feedstock variability: $ $0.08 per kwh Biomass Gasification Feedstock variability: $40- $120 per dry short ton Notes: [1] Cost ranges for each pathway are shown in 2007 dollars, based on projections from H2A analyses, reflecting variability in major feedstock pricing and a bounded range for capital cost estimates. Costs shown do not include delivery and dispensing costs. Projections of costs assume N th -plant construction, distributed station capacities of 1,500 kg/day, and centralized station capacities of 50,000 kg/day. [2] The Hydrogen Production Threshold Cost of <$2/gge reflects the Production apportionment (Record 12001, in preparation) of the 2010-revised Hydrogen Production and Delivery Cost Threshold of $2-4/gge (Record 11002, Hydrogen Threshold Cost Calculation, 2011, ). [3] DOE funding of natural gas reforming projects was completed in 2009 due to achievement of the threshold cost. Incremental improvements will continue to be made by industry. $10 $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 $10 $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 H 2 Production Portion of Threshold Cost 2 : < $2/gge $2 H $1 2 Production Portion of Threshold Cost 2 : < $2/gge $

8 Challenges and Priorities FCT is focused on addressing the near to long term challenges Challenges for production from electrolysis Near to Mid-Term: Electricity costs Capital equipment costs Integration with renewables Forecourt compression, storage and dispensing (CSD) Long-Term: Electricity costs Capital equipment costs Operation and maintenance Pipeline Infrastructure Prioritization of R&D investments for maximum impact 8

9 Current FCT Electrolysis R&D Portfolio Funded projects are focused on addressing the challenges Company/Lab Project Description Company/Lab Project Description Proton OnSite Capital cost reduction Low Cost Large Scale PEM Electrolysis for Renewable Energy Storage High Performance, Low Cost Hydrogen Generation Hydrogen by Wire - Home refueling system PEM Electrolyzer Incorporating an Advanced Low Cost Membrane Avalence Compression Costs Grid Integration NREL High-Capacity, High Pressure Electrolysis System Wind Electrolysis Analysis Performance testing Giner, Inc. Unitized Design for Home Refueling Appliance for Hydrogen Generation to 5,000 psi Electricity costs 9

10 Cost Reduction: Stack design Giner, Inc. and Proton OnSite have demonstrated ~90% PEM stack capital cost reduction since 2001 using optimized designs 3M nanostructured thin film electrode Reduction of noble metals with catalyst optimization: 50% loading reduction on anode >90% reduction on cathode Historical capital cost reduction Demonstrated 90% stack capital cost reduction using optimized designs (Proton, Giner): Optimized catalysts, membranes, bipolar plates and gas diffusion layers (GDL) Reduced cell- and stack- part count Designed electrolyzer cell model for more accurate performance prediction 90% cost reduction of the MEAs by fabricating chemically etched supports 10

11 Cost as a % of baseline Risk NRE Cost Cost Reduction: Design Improvements Proton OnSite s optimized flow field design is projected to have a 40% cost savings in the stack. Eliminated cost MEA 41% Flow fields and separators Labor Balance of cell 9% 5% 10% 23% 11% Balance of stack Flowfield cost contribution reduced from 54% to 23% of the total stack cost To meet the threshold costs the further cost reductions need to be made. 11

12 $/kw cost as percentage of baseline Cost Reduction: Scale-up Economies of scale are realized in the electrolyzer balance of plant (BOP) components as the Kg/day plant size increases. Proton OnSite has created a 50,000 kg/day plant conceptual design optimized for cost reduction increases the accuracy of cost projections for centralized hydrogen production from electrolysis 120% BOP Cost 100% 80% Validated cost Projected cost 60% 40% 20% 0% Kg/day System Capacity (kg H 2 /day) 12

13 Potential (Volts) Electricity Cost: Efficiency Improvements Giner, Inc. and Proton OnSite have increased the efficiency from 69% to 74% since 2008 and continue to improve upon it Technology Progression Baseline, 50C Advanced Oxygen Catalyst, 50C Advanced membrane, 80C Advanced cell design, 80C % LHV 75% LHV Stack Performance Average cell voltage of 1500 ma/cm² & 80 C High Stack voltage efficiency 74% 1500 ma/cm²; Voltage variations due to minor differences in membrane thicknesses Current Density (A/cm2) To meet the threshold costs the efficiency must continue to increase to 76% at 1500 ma/cm 2 or greater. 13

14 Compression Costs: Generation at 5,000+ psi There is a trade off between production pressure and efficiency Membrane thickness (mils) Membrane thickness (mils) The efficiency at 5,000 psig is expected to be less than the 300 psig system. The actual efficiency loss is to be evaluated with these systems. 14

15 Renewable Integration: Production from Wind Current DOE threshold costs can be met in some locations using electrolysis to produce hydrogen from wind Significance of Results Wind incentives amounting to $0.02/kWh result in a $~1/kg H₂ cost reduction. These incentives allow some sites to meet DOE targets. Interactive tool allows users to provide input to the analysis and see updated results immediately. Users can: Explore the effects of the four different balance scenarios; cost or power with & without the purchase of peak summer electricity. Compare H₂ costs with DOE targets. See the effects of wind power incentives on H₂ costs. Add compression, storage, and dispensing costs. See the effects of local topography. See what s at the site with Google Street View. Does not meet cost target Meets cost target; Smaller is cheaper Mountains degrade the wind resource increasing H₂ costs by $1.5/kg. Street view showing wind turbines at a site. 15

16 Electricity Grid Renewable Integration: H 2 for Energy Storage Electrolyzers can be used to stabilize the grid from power fluctuations and to create hydrogen for energy storage and other applications Wind Generator Fuel Cell, Internal Combustion, Steam Turbine Oxygen Storage Natural Gas Infrastructure Hydrogen Storage Value Added Applications Vehicle Fuel Fertilizer NH 3 Emergency BuP FC Solar Electrolyzer Geothermal Ramp up & Ramp-down capability for Grid stabilization 1 MW for 60s of H 2 storage No H 2 storage 16

17 Stack Current (A) Stack Current (A) Renewable integration: Durability Stacks performance analyzed while coupled to renewable power for >5,000 hours, decay in efficiency observed 150 Stack current profile corresponding to simulated wind power input Stack A Stack C Stack B 0 14:15 14:16 14:16 14:16 14:17 14:17 14:17 Time 0 Mode Cumulative Hours Average Decay µv / cell-hr Variable 11.6 Variable 10.5 Constant 8.9 Hours 5474 *NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 17

18 High temperature electrolysis work Performing electrolysis at high temperatures decreases the activation energy required, however durability improvements are needed A 4kW bench scale system (left below) has been used for development work at Idaho National Lab funded by DOE s Nuclear Energy Program Results of long-term 1000-hr SOEC durability test performed at MSRI, <3%/khr degradation compared to the <0.5%/khr target High pressure performance needs to be shown (right above) to reach the next level of technology readiness 18

19 Potential (Volts) Summary Significant gains in Efficiency, Production rate, Cost and Production Pressure have been made in the last decade Projected stack cost for high volume production reduced by ~90% Hydrogen production capacities have increased by 10x Efficiency increased approximately 20% Hydrogen production pressures have increased by 10x From psid up to 5,000 psid % LHV 75% LHV Technology Progression Baseline, 50C Advanced Oxygen Catalyst, 50C Advanced membrane, 80C Advanced cell design, 80C Current Density (A/cm2) 19

20 Remaining Challenges The remaining challenges are to combine the improvements Decrease the manufacturing cost by reducing the labor required Improve the production rate and efficiency at high pressure production H 2 H H 2 2 H 2 H 2 Increase the active area of the stacks Improve the efficiency of the balance of plant components η e Improve durability when integrated with renewables Lifetime 20

21 For More Information Erika Sutherland DOE EERE Fuel Cell Technologies Program DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program: See: Project and Portfolio Progress Reports: See: Multi-Year RD&D Plan (being updated) See: H2A H2 Production Cost Projection Tool: See: HDSAM H2 Delivery Cost Projection Tool: See: 21

22 Well-to-Wheels CO 2 Analysis Analysis by Argonne National Lab, DOE Vehicle Technologies Program, and FCT Program shows benefits from a portfolio of options Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gases Emissions H 2 from Natural Gas Even FCEVs fueled by H 2 from distributed NG can result in a >50% reduction in GHG emissions from today s vehicles. Use of H 2 from NG decouples carbon from energy use i.e., it allows carbon to be managed at point of production vs at the tailpipe. Grams CO 2 -equivalent per mile Even greater emissions reductions are possible as hydrogen from renewables enter the market. Notes: For a projected state of technologies in Ultra-low carbon renewable electricity includes wind, solar, etc. Does not include the lifecycle effects of vehicle manufacturing and infrastructure construction/decommissioning. Analysis & Assumptions at: 22

23 Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Analysis Analysis by Argonne National Lab, DOE Vehicle Technologies Program, and FCT Program shows benefits from a portfolio of options. Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Energy Use H 2 from Natural Gas FCEVs fueled by H 2 from distributed natural gas can almost completely eliminate petroleum use. Btu of petroleum per mile Notes: For a projected state of technologies in Ultra-low carbon renewable electricity includes wind, solar, etc. Does not include the life-cycle effects of vehicle manufacturing and infrastructure construction/decommissioning. Analysis & Assumptions at: 23