National Effort: Planning for introduction of H NorWays 2 - Providing decision support for introduction of Hydrogen in the Norwegian energy system Duration 2006-2008 Total Budget ~ 850 k Links to EU-project HyWays Partners:
Objectives NorWays Main objective: Provide decision support for introduction of Hydrogen as energy carrier in the Norwegian energy system Sub-topics of Norway: Hydrogen in the Norwegian Energy System Identify market segments and regions Regionalized models Suggesting viable pathways and providing well-founded recommendations Establishing a common arena for exchange of knowledge and experience with the aim of reaching consensus between Norwegian stakeholders Outcome: Roadmap Dissemination to authorities Technical papers
Methodology Processing of information: Technical, political, economic Analysis tools: Well-to-wheel MARKAL Regional level Infrastructure analysis Iterative procedure Implications for hydrogen? Early markets Suitable regions
The transportation sector Emissions from Transportation down by 78 %, 14,4 million tons CO 2 equ. within 2050 Low emission path: 50-80 % reduction by 2050, Stabilize CO 2 at around 450 ppmv (ca 550 ppmv CO 2 equiv.), Temp increase ~3-4 o C Source: Commission of Low Emissions, 2006
Options for reduction of GHG emissions More environmentally friendly fuels and energy carriers, like electricity, biofuels and hydrogen More efficient vehicles Power trains with improved fuel/energy utilization (including also hybrid vehicles and all-electric cars) Reduced weight of vehicles Reduction of the transportation Reduction of transportation work in terms of person km, and ton km of transported goods Increased number of passengers per vehicle, public transport, car-pooling etc.
Alternative technologies and fuels for emission reduction Improved efficiency (Existing and new technology) Combustion Hybrid Batteries drive Fuel cells Hybrid vehicles ~ 40% improvement of fuel econonomy, city driving - US: 1% market share 2005 Toyota 61%, Honda 30%, Ford 5%, GM 4% Benefits, California (Air Resource Board): Federal Tax Deduction (US$ 2000) Clean Air Vehicle Stickers > 45 miles/gallon (CNG, H 2 og el-biler) Alternative fuels Ethanol Biodiesel Hydrogen NG/LNG LPG DME Hytan Hytan-fyllestasjon fyllestasjon, Malmø
Transportation Efficiency, tank-to-wheel, EDC 90 % 80 % Elektrisk motor 70 % 1liter petrol=100% Effektivitet Private car Driving 1997 (CCFA) 91% Idling 9% Total amount of Mechanical energy to heat energy 72% 19% Kinetic energy Friction 16% Heat loss 1% cooling system Loss, auxiliarie 47% Heat loss, 2% exhaust Loss, 25% Resistance breakin 11% 5% 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Hybrid Bensinmotor Turtall Brenselcelle Dieselmotor
Hydrogen in the transportation sector: Vehicles Conventional internal combustion engines (ICEs) Otto engines (e.g., BMW, Ford) Wankel engine (Mazda) Hybrid vehicles (with ICEs converted to hydrogen) Hybridization with ICE as only power source (e.g., Toyota Prius) Plug-in hybrids (prototypes coming, e.g., Toyota, GM) Fuel cell vehicles Range extenders (e.g., Th!nk Hydrogen) For lease: 20 000 NOK/month!! HYNOR Weak or no hybridisation (e.g., Opel Zafira HydroGen 3) Strong hybrids (e.g., Toyota FCV and Honda FCX) Toyota Prius Hydrogen Mazda RX8 BMW 7-series
Biofuels Could potentially contribute to significant GHG emission reductions 1st generation: bioethanol, biodiesel from plants 2nd generation: bioethanol, biodiesel, flexible raw material, incl. wood/waste wood/waste -> Norway Challenges: Competition with other applications Domestic utilization of biomass: Domestic biomass resources: ca 14 TWh/year used for buildings/industry (annual growth ~30 TWh/year) Ambitions for increased utilization: Source: Tijmensen et al, 14 TWh/year (Klimameldingen) 20 TWh/year (NVE) 8 TWh/year 25 TWh/year (optimists) Challenges: Not yet commercial Large scale production (2nd gen)
Summary, alternative fuels and technology Biofuel, Hybrid, All-electric, Hydrogen Biofuel, Hybrid <10 ton, Hydrogen Biofuel, Hydrogen? Biofuel, Hybrid, All-electric/trolley, Hydrogen
Emissions from road transport Propulsion technology Vehicle Average age of wrecked cars (2006): 19.7 years Distribution [%] Ca 54% of person km on short trips (< 20 km) 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % 0 % < 1 km 1-1.9 km Source: TØI Fuel 2-2.9 km 3-4.9 km 5-9.9 km Travel distance [km] Drive pattern 10-19.9 km > 20 km Average number of persons in car Average number of persons per car decreases over time 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0-2 km 2-5 km 5-10 km 10-20 km 20-50 km Length of trip [km] 50-100 km > 100 km
Scenarios for emission reduction Scenario A: conventional technologies Large scale, domestic production of biofuel, 20 TWh biomass, reserved for heavy duty vehicles: 2012: FT plant, synthetic diesel, 8TWh biomass 2016: Small scale ethanol production, 4 TWh biomass 2022: FT plant for synthetic diesel, 8TWh Growth in transport demand is assumed according to public forecasts. Maximum number of electric vehicles: 31 % of the car park, corresponding to 1 car for every household with 2 or more cars.
Scenario A Commission of Low Emissions - is it at all possible? Share of new cars 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Electric cars Hybrid cars Conv. cars 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year
Scenario A Commission of Low Emissions - is it at all possible? 100 % Car pool 80 % 60 % 40 % Electric cars Hybrid vehicles (fossil) Conv. cars 20 % 0 % 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year
Scenario A 14 Commission of Low Emissions - is it at all possible? Mt CO2 equiv pa 12 10 8 6 4 Reference path Bio+hybrid+electric Low emission path Bio + Plug-in hybrid 2 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year 2040 2050 2060
Summary, results (scenario A) 62 % coverage of fuel for heavy duty vehicles from domestic biofuel (20 TWh) Corresponding emission reduction (biofuel) is 2.2 Mton CO 2 equiv per year 20 TWh biomass for residential heating replace 15 TWh of electricity, reduction of 12 Mton CO 2 equiv per year, electric vehicles (Scandinavia) Electric vehicles (31% of all cars), 24 % of the total vehicle km travelled, consumption of 2.2 TWh, emission reduction amounts to 2.2 Mton CO 2 equiv per year.
Scenario B: Extensive introduction of hydrogen In addition to the assumptions introduced for Scenario A, the following is assumed: Extensive introduction of hydrogen vehicles from 2020. In 2030-2035, all new cars purchased will be either hydrogen vehicles, or electric vehicles. => Zero emission road transportation in 2050.
Scenario B Commission of Low Emissions - is it at all possible? Share of new cars 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Hydrogen cars Electric cars Hybrid cars Conventional cars 0.2 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year
Scenario B 100 % Commission of Low Emissions - is it at all possible? Car pool 80 % 60 % 40 % Hydrogen Electric Hybrid Conventional 20 % 0 % 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year
Commission of Low Emissions - is it at all possible? Scenario B 14 12 Mt CO2 equiv pa 10 8 6 4 2 Reference path Bio+hybrid+el+H2 (ely) Bio+hybrid+el+H2(NG,CCS) Low emission path Other mobile sources Lack of biofuel for heavy vehicles 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year
Further implications, Scenario B Introduction of hydrogen reduction of 4.5-5 Mton CO 2 equiv Power for hydrogen to FC vehicles (2050) 12 TWh annually. NG to hydrogen (incl. CCS) for H2 ICE hybrid vehicles (2050) 17 TWh NG (LHV). By gasification of 20 TWh biomass to hydrogen reduction of 6.2 Mton CO 2 equiv per year in FC car 3.8 Mton CO 2 equiv per year in a ICE H2 hybrid vehicle
MARKAL: Energy demand - transport sector 6 TWh 5 4 3 2 1 0 2005 2050 2005 2050 2005 2050 Ship Trucks Railway Machinery Fleet vehicles Car - urban Car - rural Bus - local Bus - long distance Oslo Telemark Rogaland
MARKAL:Modeling hydrogen infrastructure El Electrolysis Pre comb. plant El Heat Bio Biomass gasification Gas tank storage NatGas NatGas Prod of el + H2 SMR Gas tube trailer + Compression H2 Filling Station Transp. (ICE/FC) NatGas SMR w CO2 capture El Electrolysis H2 H2 as by-product NatGas SMR
MARKAL: Hydrogen production costs are in the range 340-830 NOK/MWh (IEA: 200-600 NOK/MWh) Local elec.rural -small (385-412) Local electrolysis (385-412) Reforming w CCS (221-489) Reforming- small (221-489) Reforming (221-489) Central electrolysis (540) 2050 2020 Central electrolysis (385-412) Biomass gasification (341) Biomass gasifification (160) Hydrogen by-product 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Numbers in brackets are prices on raw materials (NOK/MWh for bio, NGS, el)
MARKAL: Modeling transport alternatives Urban areas Rural areas Diesel Gasoline E85 Diesel Hybrid Gasoline Hybrid E85 Hybrid Diesel Gasoline E85 Electric Plug-in hybrid Plug-in hybrid H2 ICE H2 FC NG ICE H2 Hybrid FC Hybrid NG Hybrid H2 ICE H2 FC NG ICE
Scenarios 1. BASE 2. No use of CNG in transport sector 3. 75 % reduction of CO 2 emission by 2050 ---------------------- 4. No Hydrogen production from biomass gasification
MARKAL: Hydrogen production in Rogaland (TWh) 2.5 2 TWh 1.5 1 0.5 Local Electrolysis, rural Local Electrolysis Central Electrolysis H2 from biomass gasification, small 0 BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R 2020 2035 2050
MARKAL: Fuel use in cars - Rogaland 2 1.8 TWh 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Hydrogen, rural Hydrogen Natural Gas, rural Natural Gas Electricity Ethanol Gasoline+ethanol Gasoline Diesel 0.2 0 BASE BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R 2005 2020 2035 2050
Infrastructure model Must answer several questions: Where to build what? How big, how much to invest? In which order? When to produce how much? What are the costs? Two models Detailed model of Telemark Coarse model of Norway
Infrastructure Models Common technology database (Production/Transport/Refuelling) Common demand allocation (Fueling station sharp) IØT (MN, AT) MILP model (global view, exact method) Perfect foresight NPV maximization Global optimum reached (optimality gap) EPT (CS) Sequential, heuristic model (trial and error method) Myopic (short-term optimization; greedy) Minimization of cost at each time step Global optimum probably not reached (but will reality reach it?) Benefit: Comparing results from different methods Where models agree: Robust results Where they are different: Due to myopic/perfect foresigh
geographic presentation
Forced conditions Municipalities (local traffic): 2010: Oslo 2015: Trondheim, Bergen, Stavanger 2025: Tromsø Roads (long-distance traffic): 2010: Oslo-Stavanger (HyNor project) 2025: Oslo-Bergen, Oslo-Trondheim, Bergen-Stavanger 2040: Trondheim-Tromsø
Local private H2 car penetration in supplied regions 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Average Regions supplied from 2010 Regions supplied from 2015 Regions supplied from 2020 Regions supplied from 2025 Regions supplied from 2030 Regions supplied from 2035 Regions supplied from 2040 Regions supplied from 2045 Regions supplied from 2050 0% 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Base case 2030
Base case 2040
Base case 2050
Model formulation Capacitated facility location with local production transportation investments multiperiod Multi commodity flow (Gas, Elect., NG, Diesel) Computational demanding (mixed integer linear programming) data intensive: lot of input data, distances, technologies, available amount of raw materials, costs and prices lot of output data, demand for visualisation
MARKAL: Fuel use in cars - Oslo 1.8 1.6 TWh 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Hydrogen Natural Gas Electricity Ethanol Gasoline+Etanol Gasoline Diesel 0 BASE BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R 2005 2020 2035 2050
MARKAL: Fuel use in cars - Telemark 1.2 TWh 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Hydrogen, rural Hydrogen Natural Gas, rural Natural Gas Electricity Ethanol Gasoline+Ethanol Gasoline Diesel 0 BASE BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG- TRAN CO2-R 2005 2020 2035 2050
2nd generation biodiesel Synthetic biodiesel: ca 40% conversion efficiency from wood Source: Concawe
MARKAL:Hydrogen production in Oslo (TWh) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 H2 from biomass gasification, small 0.4 0.2 0 BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R NO_BIOH2 BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R NO_BIOH2 BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R NO_BIOH2 BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R NO_BIOH2 TWh 2035 2040 2045 2050
MARKAL: Hydrogen production in Telemark (TWh) 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 TWh 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R BASE CNG-TRAN CO2-R Central Electrolysis H2 by-product from industry 2025 2030 2040 2050
16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Eletrolysis Bio gasification Bio gasification, CO-prod, H2 + El Reforming Reforming, small Reforming w CCS Eletrolysis Eletrolysis, small Reforming Reforming, small Hydrogen production investment cost Mill NOK/GW Central Local 2005 2020 2035 2050