Integrated Design for Demonstration of Efficient
Liquefaction of Hydrogen (IDEALHY)
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
Joint Undertaking (FCH JU)
Grant Agreement Number 278177
Deliverable Number:
Deliverable D3.17
Title:
Techno-Economic Analysis and
Comparison Report
Authors:
N. D. Mortimer, C. Hatto, O. Mwabonje
and J. H. R. Rix
Submitted Date:
12 December 2013
Due Date:
30 September 2013
Report Classification:
PU
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Deliverable
Contractual delivery date
30 September 2013
Actual delivery date
12 December 2013
Deliverable Number
D3.17
Deliverable Name
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison
Report
Internal document ID
IDEALHY_WP3_D3.17_V4_NM
Nature
Public Report
Approvals
Name
Organisation
Date
WP Leader
Coordinator
Alice Elliott
Shell
17th December 2013
Disclaimer
Despite the care that was taken while preparing this document the following disclaimer
applies: The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty
is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof employs
the information at his/her sole risk and liability. The document reflects only the authors’
views. The FCH JU and the European Union are not liable for any use that may be made
of the information contained therein.
Page 2
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Publishable Summary
This report documents results from life cycle analysis (LCA) work carried out as part of
the IDEALHY project. Excel workbooks were generated which carry out all the
necessary calculations for full well-to-wheel analysis of a range of hydrogen supply,
distribution and utilisation options.
Two different protocols were employed; consequential life cycle analysis, which includes
manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning of all equipment concerned, and the EU
Renewable Energy Directive (RED) methodology, which excludes plant and equipment
manufacture. The principal outputs given are total primary energy inputs, total
greenhouse gas emissions and total internal costs (excluding taxes and subsidies). Given
IDEALHY’s focus on hydrogen liquefaction, emphasis was placed on comparison of
hydrogen chains with liquid and with compressed hydrogen delivery.
Key results include:

In many cases, supply chains using liquid hydrogen have lower total primary
energy use and lower total GHG emissions than those using GH2 (consequential
LCA)
All the results for H2 pathways for fuel cell cars have lower total GHG emissions
than those for conventional diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars, whether using
consequential LCA or the RED protocol
Round-trip delivery distance is an important variable in determining whether
liquid or compressed hydrogen is the better energy vector
o Beyond a threshold of 120-150 km (depending on details of the supply
chain), liquefied hydrogen has lower primary energy use
o With the same proviso, beyond 240-260 km LH2 gives lower GHG
emissions


Calculations of internal costs using consequential LCA mirror the early stage of
commercial development of fuel cell vehicles; all energy chains involving hydrogen have
higher costs (in €/km) than conventional fossil vehicles. This is primarily a consequence
of the relatively high prices of fuel cell vehicles at the moment, and is most pronounced
for fuel cell buses, where prices of FC drivetrains are several times their conventional
equivalents.
Key words:
Life cycle assessment of hydrogen pathways; economic assessment of hydrogen pathways
Page 3
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.
Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2.
Life Cycle and Economic Assessment ............................................................................. 2
Workbooks ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.
Assessment Procedures .................................................................................................. 3
2.2.
Basic Workbook Features ................................................................................................ 4
2.3.
Summary of Final Workbooks .......................................................................................... 4
Complete Pathways ................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.
Assembling Pathways ...................................................................................................... 5
3.2.
Conventional Road Transport with Petrol and Diesel from Crude Oil .............................. 5
3.3.
Fuel Cell Road Transport with Hydrogen ......................................................................... 6
3.3.1.
Hydrogen from Steam Reforming of Natural Gas .................................................... 6
3.3.2.
Hydrogen from Gasification of Brown Coal .............................................................. 9
3.3.3.
Hydrogen from Wind Power with Electrolysis .......................................................... 9
3.3.4.
Hydrogen from Solar Power with Electrolysis ........................................................ 10
Comparative Results .............................................................................................................. 11
4.1.
Primary Energy Inputs .................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1.
Primary Energy Inputs for Natural Gas Steam Reforming Hydrogen Pathways ... 11
4.1.2.
Primary Energy Inputs for Brown Coal Gasification Hydrogen Pathways ............. 18
4.1.3.
Primary Energy Inputs for Wind Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways ............. 20
4.1.4.
Primary Energy Inputs for Solar Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways ............. 24
4.1.5.
Primary Energy Inputs and Fuel Delivery Distances .............................................. 28
4.2.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Renewable Energy Directive Methodology ............ 29
4.2.1.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Natural Gas Steam Reforming Hydrogen
Pathways (RED Methodology) .............................................................................................. 29
4.2.2.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Brown Coal Gasification Hydrogen Pathways
(RED Methodology) ............................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wind Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways
(RED Methodology) ............................................................................................................... 33
4.2.4.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Solar Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways
(RED Methodology) ............................................................................................................... 34
4.3.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Consequential Life Cycle Assessment Methodology
35
4.3.1.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Natural Gas Steam Reforming Hydrogen
Pathways (Consequential LCA Methodology) ....................................................................... 35
4.3.2.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Brown Coal Gasification Hydrogen Pathways
(Consequential LCA Methodology) ....................................................................................... 42
4.3.3.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wind Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways
(Consequential LCA Methodology) ....................................................................................... 44
Page 4
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.3.4.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Solar Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways
(Consequential LCA Methodology) ....................................................................................... 48
4.3.5.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Delivery Distances (Consequential
LCA Methodology) ................................................................................................................. 52
4.4.
Internal Economic Costs ................................................................................................ 53
4.4.1.
Total Internal Costs for Natural Gas Steam Reforming H2 Pathways ................... 53
4.4.2.
Total Internal Costs for Brown Coal Gasification Hydrogen Pathways .................. 60
4.4.3.
Total Internal Costs for Wind Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways.................. 62
4.4.4.
Total Internal Costs for Solar Power Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways ................. 66
4.4.5.
Total Internal Costs and Fuel Delivery Distances .................................................. 70
5.
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 72
6.
References ............................................................................................................................. 74
Page 5
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
1. Introduction
1.1. Aims and Objectives
The aims of the IDEALHY Project, which is supported by the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) under Grant Agreement No. 278177 with funding from the
European Commission (EC), are:



to reduce, substantially, the specific energy consumption of hydrogen (H2)
liquefaction,
to optimise a generic process design for efficient H2 liquefaction based on scaled
up data, and
to prepare a strategic plan for a prospective demonstration of efficient H2
liquefaction at a scale of up to 200 tonnes of H2 per day.
In addition to technical viability, these aims are being pursued within the context of
whole chain assessment which includes scenario development, safety assessment, and life
cycle and economic assessment, and the dissemination of results from the project.
The project is divided into six work packages (WPs) which have specific objectives:






1
Within WP1, to apply a number of innovations to existing H2 liquefaction process
technologies, and to “screen” by intensive modelling of the effect of each of the
innovations in combination, so as to determine the most promising options to go
forward for optimisation (WP2),
Within WP2, to take the outputs from WP1, and to carry out detailed and intensive
modelling of the various plant configurations showing promise, to perform
optimisation studies and to produce an optimised process for H2 liquefaction,
Within WP3, to carry out a whole chain assessment, including scenario
development for liquid H2 (LH2) usage, hazard and risk assessment, and life cycle
and economic assessment, to determine the impact of supplying and distributing
significant volumes of LH2 to a refuelling infrastructure,
Within WP4, to disseminate results mainly to an expert stakeholder community,
technical/scientific stakeholders and relevant decision-makers at various levels,
and to provide relevant advice and manage on intellectual property rights issues,
Within WP5, to develop a robust plan for a large-scale demonstration, at a later
date, of the efficient H2 liquefaction process, and to design a procedure and
protocol for organising the demonstration, including consideration of safety
issues, potential locations, “upstream” aspects, such as consideration of H2
supplies, and “downstream “factors such as nearby markets and end-user facilities,
and
Within WP6, to provide overall management of the project in accordance with the
EC contract and the Consortium Agreement.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
1.2. Life Cycle and Economic Assessment
Life cycle and economic assessment has been undertaken in Task 3.3 within WP3 of the
IDEALHY Project. The objectives of Task 3.3 were:

to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts and economic costs and
benefits of all relevant pathways for the supply, from selected sources, and
delivery of LH2 to fuelling stations and its subsequent use in suitable road
passenger vehicles relative to current pathways based on crude oil from
conventional sources, compressed gaseous H2 and LH2 from existing liquefaction
processes.
The specific environmental impacts of this assessment were:

primary energy inputs, chiefly in the form of energy from depletable resources,
such as fossil and nuclear fuels, but extended, where necessary, to include
renewable sources of energy, and
prominent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
The economic costs addressed by this assessment consisted of:

internal costs, in €, which exclude taxes and financial incentives.
These assessments were performed by means of MS Excel workbooks which have a
standardised structure and format to accommodate necessary functionality (for
investigating the effect of key parameters) and transparency (by documenting all
assumptions and sources of data). In relation to the assessment of GHG emissions,
methodologies were adopted which are intended to accommodate regulation, as set out in
the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) of the EC (Ref 1), and policy analysis, as
reflected by the requirements of the European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD)
within the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) of the official
European Life Cycle Assessment Platform (Refs. 2 to 5), as well as the FC-HyGuide
(Refs. 6 to 8).
Task 3.3 was divided into five Sub-Tasks that are composed of the following:




2
Sub-Task T3.3.1: Baseline Workbook Development involving the preparation of a
standard workbook that represents current transportation pathways based on the
production and refining of crude oil, and the use of petrol and diesel in
conventional cars and buses, providing results in the form of total primary energy
consumption, total GHG emissions, and total internal economic costs per vehicle
kilometre (which this report documents).
Sub-Task T3.3.2: Liquid Hydrogen Pathway Specification involving
establishment of the agreed details of specific pathways for the production of H2,
its liquefaction, tanker transport, re-gasification at the fuelling station, and its
utilisation by suitable cars and buses.
Sub-Task T3.3.3 Hydrogen Production and Utilisation Workbook Development
involving the preparation of standard workbooks, based on the outcomes of SubTask 3.3.2, for the production of H2 and its subsequent utilisation in fuel cell cars
and buses.
Sub-Task T3.3.4 Hydrogen Liquefaction Workbook Development involving the
preparation of standard workbooks, incorporating simplified models, based on the
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)

outcomes of Task 3.3.2 and relevant results from WP2 and WP5, of chosen
options for H2 liquefaction.
Sub-Task T3.3.5 Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison involving
preparation of a report containing illustrative results, in the form of net primary
energy savings, net GHG emissions savings and relative economic costs/benefits,
of H2 production, liquefaction and utilisation pathways compared with
conventional transportation pathways utilising crude oil, and transportation
pathways utilising compressed H2 and LH2 derived from existing liquefaction
processes, based on the outcomes of Sub-Tasks 3.3.1 to 3.3.4.
2. Workbooks
2.1. Assessment Procedures
The assessment procedures incorporated in the MS Excel workbooks for the IDEALHY
Project have been detailed previously (Ref. 9). These reflect the main focus of the
assessment which is the evaluation of total GHG emissions associated with the production
and utilisation of H2. In particular, the workbooks incorporate assessment procedures
which are consistent with the EC Renewable Energy Directive (Ref. 1) for regulatory
purposes and with consequential LCA for policy analysis purposes. The essential features
for the EC RED methodology are:


Exclusion of total GHG emissions associated with the construction, maintenance
and decommissioning of plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles.
Co-product allocation based on energy content.
Where relevant (in situations where biomass is a feedstock), exclusion or
inclusion of total GHG emissions associated with indirect land use change (iLUC)
depending on the possible introduction of “iLUC factors” by the EC.
The essential features for policy analysis with consequential LCA are:



Inclusion of total GHG emissions associated with the construction, maintenance
and decommissioning of plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles.
Co-product allocation based on substitution credits although this presents
significant practical challenges due to the need to model the complete and global
consequences of product displacement.
Where relevant (in situations where biomass is a feedstock), inclusion of total
GHG emissions associated with iLUC, if possible, although necessary global
modelling is another major practical challenge with no broadly agreed approach
and estimates at the moment.
Additionally, the MS Excel workbooks provide clear specification of the goal and scope
of the evaluation, as required by the ELCD and the FC-HyGuide. The methodologies for
calculating GHG emissions can be fairly easily extended to the evaluation of total
primary energy inputs. However, estimation of internal economic costs follows financial
accounting rules albeit applied in a quite unsophisticated manner for current purposes. It
should be noted that the results generated by the MS Excel workbooks also depend on
certain critical assumptions including the following considerations:

3
Primary energy is defined as an indicator of energy resource depletion and, as
such incorporates the energy contained in fossil and nuclear sources. However, it
is possible to determine the energy provided by renewable sources when these are
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)

the main feedstocks for H2 production. Currently, this has to be done by
performing separate calculations based on information generated by the relevant
MS Excel workbooks.
Estimated emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O can be converted to equivalent (eq.)
CO2 by means of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs). Values of GWPs depend
on the chosen time horizon under consideration. Additionally, these values are
subject to revision from time-to-time by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) as scientific understanding improves. In the context of LCA, the
GWPs adopted are governed by the choice of methodology. Currently, the RED
specifies GWPs of 23 kg eq. CO2/kg CH4 and 296 kg eq. CO2/kg N2O for a 100
year time horizon based on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Ref. 10). More
recent equivalent GWPs of 25 kg eq. CO2/kg CH4 and 298 kg eq. CO2/kg N2O are
given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Ref. 11).
The internal economic cost estimates generated by the MS Excel workbooks are in € for
2012. These results are intended to reflect economic evaluation across the European
Union (EU). However, the limitations of this are recognised and results should only be
considered as approximations. This is because, apart from inherent extrapolation across
27 Member States with different internal economic conditions, it has also been necessary
to incorporate cost data from countries outside the EU and for years other than 2012.
Hence, it has been necessary to apply inflation indices and exchange rates which
introduce their own uncertainties.
2.2. Basic Workbook Features
Each MS Excel workbook has a standard structure, consisting of a series of worksheets,
which has been described and presented previously (Ref. 9). In particular, the main
elements of this structure are an Input worksheet which enables the values of specified
parameters to be altered, a Unit Flow worksheet which provides a visual presentation of
the process chain represented by the workbook, individual Process Stage worksheets
where detailed calculations are performed, and Summary worksheets which present the
results. By adopting this structure, which has been used by North Energy Associates Ltd
in numerous other projects, it is possible to ensure that the workbooks accommodate
necessary functionality to model the effects of variations in specified parameters and
contain adequate transparency to promote confidence in the subsequent results.
2.3. Summary of Final Workbooks
The final versions of the MS Excel workbooks for the IDEALHY Project can be
summarised as follows:




4
IDEALHY - Oil-based Road Transport v12.xlxs for the extraction, transportation
and refining of crude oil and the distribution, delivery and consumption of petrol
and diesel fuels in conventional cars and buses,
IDEALHY - Natural Gas Steam Reforming v05.xlxs for the production of H2
from natural gas by means of steam reforming,
IDEALHY - Brown Coal Gasification v14.xlxs for the production of H2 from
brown coal by means of gasification,
IDEALHY - Wind Power Electrolysis v13.xlxs for the production of H2 from
surplus electricity from offshore wind power by means of electrolysis,
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)

IDEALHY - Solar Power Electrolysis v09.xlxs for the production of H2 from
electricity from concentrated solar power by means of electrolysis,
 IDEALHY - Hydrogen Liquefaction v15.xlxs for the liquefaction of H2 using
conventional and advanced technologies,
 IDEALHY - Liquid Hydrogen Delivery v06.xlxs for the delivery of H2 to
refuelling stations by LH2 tanker.
 IDEALHY - Compressed Hydrogen Delivery v06.xlxs for the delivery of H2 to
refuelling stations by compressed gaseous H2 tanker, and
 IDEALHY - Hydrogen Utilisation v05.xlxs for use of hydrogen in fuel cell buses
and cars.
3. Complete Pathways
3.1. Assembling Pathways
Although only 4 sources of H2, 2 means of delivering H2 fuel and 2 types of H2 fuel cell
vehicle are covered by the workbooks developed in the IDEALHY Project, a considerable
variety of combinations of H2 pathways can be generated when they are assembled from
these individual components. Hence, a simple way of referencing possible pathways was
devised to assist with their identification. This consisted of using “Case Codes” and their
compositions are documented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. Additionally, simple workbooks
were devised to produce results for complete pathways based on results obtained from the
individual workbooks referred to in Section 2.3. Two types of pathway workbooks were
developed:


IDEALHY – Hydrogen Pathways CLCA v01.xlxs which derives results,
consisting of total primary energy inputs, CO2 emissions, CH4 emissions, N2O
emissions and total GHG emissions using the consequential LCA methodology,
and total internal costs for complete pathways, indicated by Case Codes, and
IDEALHY – Hydrogen Pathways RED v01.xlxs which mainly derives results for
total GHG emissions for complete pathways, indicated by Case Codes, using the
EC RED methodology.
It should be noted that, when assembling pathways that end with the provision of
transport, assumed fuel consumption rates for relevant vehicles have associated effects on
the contributions of all the components of the pathways and, hence, on the final results for
the pathways. During the course of finalising this work in the IDEALHY Project, new
information became available on the H2 fuel consumption of fuel cell buses and this was
incorporated in this analysis and subsequent results. In particular, the default value for
fuel cell buses was reduced from 22.63 kg H2/100 km to 8.50 kg H2/100 km in the H2
utilisation workbook which was revised to IDEALHY - Hydrogen Utilisation v05.xlxs
after preparation of IDEALHY Deliverable D3.15 (Ref. 12). Additionally, those pathways
involving LH2 fuel delivery incorporate results from the IDEALHY - Hydrogen
Liquefaction v15.xlxs workbook which is described elsewhere (Ref. 13).
3.2. Conventional Road Transport with Petrol and Diesel from Crude Oil
The main features of the baseline cases for conventional road transport using relevant
fuels derived from crude oil are summarised in Table 1.
5
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 1
Summary of Baseline Cases for Conventional Road Transport with Petrol and Diesel from
Crude Oil
Case
Code
ODB
Main Features of Pathway
Notes
Conventional Bus Using
Diesel from Crude Oil
ODC
Conventional Car Using
Diesel from Crude Oil
OPC
Conventional Car Using
Petrol from Crude Oil
Based on current North Sea oil production, transport
by pipeline and ship, refining in the EU and use in a
diesel bus with a default fuel consumption of
38.7 l/100 km
Based on current North Sea oil production, transport
by pipeline and ship, refining in the EU and use in a
diesel car with a default fuel consumption of
4.2 l/100 km
Based on current North Sea oil production, transport
by pipeline and ship, refining in the EU and use in a
petrol car with a default fuel consumption of
5.9 l/100 km
3.3.
Fuel Cell Road Transport with Hydrogen
The Case Codes for H2 pathways are elaborated by their main features in Sections 3.3.1 to
3.3.4.
3.3.1.
Hydrogen from Steam Reforming of Natural Gas
The main features for pathways involving the production of H2 from natural gas by steam
reforming are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. In particular, these features specify the
source of the natural gas, the means of its transportation from this source to the steam
reformer, whether carbon capture and storage (CCS) is used in connection with the steam
reformer, the source of electricity used in specified parts of the H2 pathway, and the type
of fuel cell vehicle under consideration. Table 2 relates to H2 pathways based on
compressed H2 (GH2) fuel delivery and Table 3 refers to H2 pathways with LH2 fuel
delivery.
6
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 2
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Compressed Delivery of Hydrogen
from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming
Case Code
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GNOCC1
GNCCC1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GROCC1
GROCC2
GRCCC1
GRCCC2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
GQOCC1
GQOCC2
GQCCC1
GQCCC2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
7
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gas Means of
Transport(a)
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Steam
Reformer
Without CCS
With CCS(c)
Without CCS
With CCS(c)
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Source of
Electricity(b)
Norway 2009
Grid
Norway 2009
Grid
Norway 2009
Grid
Norway 2009
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
Type of Fuel
Cell Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Car
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Car
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 3
Case
Code
GNOLB1
GNCLB1
GNOLC1
GNCLC1
GROLB1
GROLB2
GRCLB1
GRCLB2
GROLC1
GROLC2
GRCLC1
GRCLC2
GQOLB1
GQOLB2
GQCLB1
GQCLB2
GQOLC1
GQOLC2
GQCLC1
GQCLC2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
8
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Liquefied Delivery of Hydrogen
from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gas Means of
Transport(a)
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
Offshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Onshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Offshore Gas
Steam
Reformer
Without CCS
With CCS(c)
Without CCS
With CCS(c)
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Without CCS
Without CCS
With CCS
With CCS
Source of
Electricity(b)
Norway 2009
Grid
Norway 2009
Grid
Norway 2009
Grid
Norway 2009
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
EU-27 2009
Grid
EU-27 2030
Grid
Type of Fuel
Cell Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Car
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Car
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
3.3.2. Hydrogen from Gasification of Brown Coal
The main features of the H2 pathways, specified by Case Codes, based on the production
of H2 from brown coal by gasification are summarised in Table 4. These features consist
of the source of brown coal (only Australia is considered here), whether CCS is used in
connection with the gasifier, the sources of electricity used for brown coal production, for
H2 liquefaction and for the H2 refuelling station, and the type of fuel cell vehicle under
consideration. It will be noted that it has been assumed that the brown coal gasifier would
be located in Australia and that H2 would only be shipped elsewhere in liquid rather than
compressed gas form.
Table 4
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Liquefied Delivery of Hydrogen
from Brown Coal by Gasification
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Coal Gasifier
CAOLB1
Australia
Without CCS
CACLB1
Australia
With CCS
CAOLC1
Australia
Without CCS
CACLC1
Australia
With CCS
Note
(a)
Sources of Electricity
For Coal
For Refuelling
Production and
Station
H2 Liquefaction
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009
Grid
Grid
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009
Grid(a)
Grid
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009
Grid
Grid
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009
Grid(a)
Grid
Type of
Fuel Cell
Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Also source of electricity for carbon capture and storage system operation.
3.3.3.
Hydrogen from Wind Power with Electrolysis
Tables 5 and 6 summarises the main features of the H2 pathways, with their appropriate
Case Codes, involving the use of H2 derived from offshore wind power by electrolysis.
The main features consist of the type of wind power (only offshore), whether salt cavern
storage is used (assumed to be always the case), the source of electricity used for H2
compression for salt cavern storage, for H2 drying, for either compression or liquefaction
for H2 fuel delivery, and for the H2 refuelling station, and the type of fuel cell vehicle
under consideration. H2 pathways involving GH2 fuel delivery are addressed in Table 5
and those based on LH2 fuel delivery are covered in Table 6.
9
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 5
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Compressed Delivery of Hydrogen
from Wind Power by Electrolysis
Case
Code
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC3
Note
(a)
Sources of Electricity(a)
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
Type of Fuel
Cell Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage, drying, compression of hydrogen
for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 6
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Liquefied Delivery of Hydrogen
from Wind Power by Electrolysis
Case
Code
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Wind Salt Cavern Storage
Power
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Wind Salt Cavern Storage
Power
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Offshore
With Storage
Sources of Electricity(a)
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
Type of Fuel
Cell Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage, drying, liquefaction of hydrogen
for delivery and refuelling station.
3.3.4.
Hydrogen from Solar Power with Electrolysis
The main features of the H2 pathways, specified by Case Codes, based on the production
of H2 from solar power towers by electrolysis are given in Tables 7 and 8. These features
consist of the type of solar power (solar power towers are considered here), the source of
electricity used for H2 drying, for compression or liquefaction for H2 fuel delivery and for
the H2 refuelling station, and the type of fuel cell vehicle under consideration. Table 7
refers to H2 pathways involving GH2 fuel delivery and Table 8 relates to those based on
LH2 fuel delivery.
10
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 7
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Compressed Delivery of Hydrogen
from Solar Power by Electrolysis
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
SCC1
SCC2
SCC2
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Table 8
Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Summary of Cases for Fuel Cell Road Transport Using Liquefied Delivery of Hydrogen
from Solar Power by Electrolysis
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
SLC1
SLC2
SLC2
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2030 Grid
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Type of Fuel Cell
Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Type of Fuel Cell
Vehicle
Bus
Bus
Bus
Car
Car
Car
Source of electricity for compression for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
4. Comparative Results
4.1. Primary Energy Inputs
4.1.1. Primary Energy Inputs for Natural Gas Steam Reforming
Hydrogen Pathways
Tables 9 to 12 present average estimates of total primary energy inputs to H2 pathways
based on H2 production from natural gas by steam reforming. These results have been
derived from the latest versions of the IDEALHY Project workbooks using, in general,
default values for parameters, apart from those changed to represent the specified details
of given Case Codes. It should be noted that the assumed round trip distance for
delivering H2 fuel from the steam reformer to the refuelling station has assumed to be 100
km. In the case of GH2 fuel delivery, diesel-fuelled steel tube trailers are selected for use.
LH2 delivery tankers are also assumed to be diesel-fuelled.
It will be seen that total primary energy inputs to H2 pathways based on fuel cell buses,
with either GH2 or LH2 fuel delivery are similar to, or higher than that of a conventional
bus using diesel from crude oil. In contrast, the total energy inputs to all H2 pathways
11
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
involving cars are lower than those of conventional cars using diesel or petrol from crude
oil.
Table 9
Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code
ODB
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
12
Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
(d)
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Total Primary
Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
20.5
23.7
25.2
30.6
29.8
32.1
31.2
28.9
28.1
30.6
29.6
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 10 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code
ODC
OPC
GNOCC1
GNCCC1
GROCC1
GROCC2
GRCCC1
GRCCC2
GQOCC1
GQOCC2
GQCCC1
GQCCC2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
13
Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Total Primary
Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
5.53
6.12
2.68
2.84
3.449
3.37
3.63
3.52
3.285
3.176
3.458
3.415
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 11 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODB
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
GNOLB1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCLB1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROLB1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROLB2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLB1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
(d)
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLB2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOLB1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOLB2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCLB1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCLB2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
14
Total Primary
Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
20.5
23.7
25.2
34.7
32.5
36.3
33.9
33.1
30.8
34.8
32.3
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 12 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODC
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
OPC
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
GNOLC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCLC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROLC1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROLC2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLC1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GRCLC2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOLC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOLC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCLC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCLC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Total Primary
Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
5.53
6.12
2.67
2.84
3.92
3.67
4.09
3.82
3.73
3.48
3.93
3.65
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Contributions to total primary energy inputs of H2 pathways from H2 production, H2
compression or liquefaction (depending on Case Code), H2 fuel delivery, H2 refuelling
and H2 utilisation in fuel cell vehicles are presented in Figures 1 to 4. It should be noted
that the contributions from H2 utilisation in fuel cell vehicles is due to vehicle
manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning. Figures 1 to 4 indicate that this
contribution and that of H2 production dominate estimated total primary energy inputs.
15
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 1 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
30
35
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 2 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOCC1
GNCCC1
GROCC1
GROCC2
GRCCC1
GRCCC2
GQOCC1
GQOCC2
GQCCC1
GQCCC2
0.0
16
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
3.5
Hydrogen Delivery
4.0
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 3 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOLB1
GNCLB1
GROLB1
GROLB2
GRCLB1
GRCLB2
GQOLB1
GQOLB2
GQCLB1
GQCLB2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
35
40
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 4 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOLC1
GNCLC1
GROLC1
GROLC2
GRCLC1
GRCLC2
GQOLC1
GQOLC2
GQCLC1
GQCLC2
0.0
17
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
Hydrogen Delivery
5.0
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.1.2. Primary Energy Inputs for Brown Coal Gasification Hydrogen
Pathways
Tables 13 to 14 present average estimates of total primary energy inputs to H2 pathways
based on H2 production from brown coal by gasification. These results have been derived
from the latest versions of the IDEALHY Project workbooks using, in general, default
values for parameters, apart from those changed to represent the specified details of given
Case Codes. It has been assumed that brown coal would be gasified in Australia, liquefied
using Australian grid electricity and shipped to the EU over a round trip distance of
41,155 km (full outward, empty return). As with the estimated primary energy inputs for
H2 pathways based on natural gas steam reforming, the totals for fuel cell buses are higher
than those for conventional buses suing diesel from crude oil, whilst totals for fuel cell
cars are lower than their conventional diesel- and petrol-fuelled counterparts.
Table 13 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Coal
ODB
CAOLB1
CACLB1
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Australia
Without CCS Australia 2009 Grid
Australia
With CCS
Australia 2009
Grid(a)
Note
(a)
Sources of Electricity
For Coal Production For Refuelling
and H2 Liquefaction Station
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2009 Grid
Total
Primary
Energy
Inputs
(MJ/km)
20.5
33.9
37.3
Also source of electricity for carbon capture and storage system operation.
Table 14 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Coal
ODC
OPC
CAOLC1
CACLC1
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Australia
Without CCS Australia 2009 Grid
Australia
With CCS
Australia 2009
Grid(a)
Note
(a)
Sources of Electricity
For Coal Production For Refuelling
and H2 Liquefaction
Station
ER-27 2009 Grid
ER-27 2009 Grid
Total
Primary
Energy
Inputs
(MJ/km)
5.53
6.12
3.83
4.22
Also source of electricity for carbon capture and storage system operation.
Contributions to total primary energy inputs of H2 pathways from H2 production, H2
liquefaction, H2 fuel delivery, H2 refuelling, and H2 utilisation in fuel cell vehicles are
presented in Figures 5 and 6. It should be noted that the contributions from H2 utilisation
in fuel cell vehicles is due to vehicle manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning. It
18
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
can be seen from Figures 5 and 6 that this contribution and that of H2 production
dominate estimated total primary energy inputs.
Figure 5 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
CAOLB1
CACLB1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
35
40
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 6 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
CAOLC1
CACLC1
0.0
19
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
Hydrogen Delivery
5.0
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.1.3.
Primary Energy Inputs for Wind Power Electrolysis
Hydrogen Pathways
Tables 15 to 18 present average estimates of total primary energy inputs to H2 pathways
based on H2 production from offshore wind power by electrolysis. These results have
been derived from the latest versions of the IDEALHY Project workbooks using default
values for parameters. These results show that, apart from one instance (WSCB1), the
total primary energy inputs to these H2 pathways are less than that for conventional buses
and car using diesel and/or petrol derived from crude oil.
Table 15 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODB
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Primary Energy
Inputs
(MJ/km)
20.5
22.2
14.2
12.8
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 16 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC2
Note
(a)
20
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Primary Energy
Inputs
(MJ/km)
5.53
6.12
2.51
2.08
1.44
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 17 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODB
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Primary Energy
Inputs
(MJ/km)
20.5
18.6
16.6
13.2
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 18 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC2
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Primary Energy
Inputs
(MJ/km)
5.53
6.12
2.10
1.87
1.48
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Figures 7 to 10 illustrate the contributions to total primary energy inputs of H2 pathways
based on H2 derived from offshore wind power by electrolysis from H2 production, H2
compression or liquefaction (depending on Case Code), H2 fuel delivery, H2 refuelling
and H2 utilisation in fuel cell vehicles. In all instances, apart from Case Codes WSCB1,
WSCC1, WSLB1 and WSLC1, the contribution from H2 utilisation, which is mainly due
to vehicle construction, maintenance and decommissioning, dominates total primary
energy inputs. With Case Codes WSCB1, WSCC1, WSLB1 and WSLC1, there are also
significant relative contributions from H2 compression and liquefaction, as appropriate.
This is because of the relatively high primary energy multiplier for EU-27 grid electricity
in 2009 which is assumed for these particular Case Codes.
21
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 7 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
0
5
10
15
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
20
25
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 8 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC3
0.0
22
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.5
Hydrogen Delivery
3.0
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 9 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
0
5
10
15
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
20
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 10 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC3
0.0
23
0.5
1.0
1.5
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.0
Hydrogen Delivery
2.5
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.1.4.
Primary Energy Inputs for Solar Power Electrolysis
Hydrogen Pathways
Tables 19 to 22 summarise average estimates of total primary energy inputs to H2
pathways based on H2 production from solar tower power by electrolysis. These results
have been derived from the latest versions of the IDEALHY Project workbooks using
default values for parameters. These results show that, apart from two instances (SLB1
and SLB2), the total primary energy inputs to these H2 pathways are less than that for
conventional buses and car using diesel and/or petrol derived from crude oil.
Table 19 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Primary Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
ODB
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
20.5
18.9
18.4
17.7
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 20 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Primary Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
ODC
OPC
SCC1
SCC2
SCC2
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
5.53
6.12
2.14
2.13
2.00
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 21 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Primary Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
ODB
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
20.5
23.1
21.2
18.0
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
24
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 22 Estimated Average Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Primary Energy Inputs
(MJ/km)
ODC
OPC
SLC1
SLC2
SLC2
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
5.53
6.12
2.60
2.39
2.03
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
The contributions to total primary energy inputs of these H2 pathways, consisting of H2
production, H2 compression or liquefaction (depending on Case Code), H2 fuel delivery,
H2 refuelling, and H2 utilisation in fuel cell vehicles are illustrated in Figures 11 to 14. It
is apparent from Figures 11 to 14 that the most significant contributions to total primary
energy inputs for these H2 pathways are H2 production and H2 utilisation, consisting
mainly of fuel cell vehicle manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning. However, as
shown in Figures 13 and 14, primary energy contributions from H2 liquefaction are also
for Case Codes SLB1, SLB2, SLC1 and SLC2, in which EU-27 grid electricity in 2009
and 2030 are used.
25
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 11 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
0
5
10
15
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
20
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 12 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
0.0
26
0.5
1.0
1.5
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.0
Hydrogen Delivery
2.5
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 13 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
0
5
10
15
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
20
25
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 14 Contributions to Total Primary Energy Inputs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SLC1
SLC2
SLC3
0.0
27
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.5
Hydrogen Delivery
3.0
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.1.5.
Primary Energy Inputs and Fuel Delivery Distances
Given the considerable functionality incorporated in the IDEALHY workbooks, it is
possible to explore the effects of variations in a wide range of parameters. Since one of
the main reasons for interest in H2 liquefaction is to reduce H2 fuel delivery costs, it is
instructive to examine the effect of round trip distance on total primary energy inputs for
a sample of H2 pathways using either GH2 or LH2 delivery. The results are shown in
Figures 15 and 16 for selected H2 pathways for fuel cell buses and cars, respectively.
These results indicate that, as expected, total primary energy inputs for H2 pathways using
GH2 delivery increase more markedly with delivery distance than those using LH2
delivery. For the selected H2 pathways, it would appear that LH2 delivery is more suitable
than GH2 delivery over round trip distances greater than between about 100 and 150 km.
Figure 15 Variation of Total Primary Energy Inputs with Delivery Distance for Fuel Cell Buses
Using Compressed and Liquefied Fuel Delivery to Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA
Methodology
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
28
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Round Trip Delivery Distance (km)
GNCCB1
GNCLB1
SCB3
SLB3
WSCB3
WSLB3
800
900
1000
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 16 Variation of Total Primary Energy Inputs with Delivery Distance for Fuel Cell Cars Using
Compressed and Liquefied Fuel Delivery to Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA
Methodology
Total Primary Energy Input (MJ/km)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Round Trip Delivery Distance (km)
GNCCC1
GNCLC1
SCC3
SLC3
WSCC3
WSLC3
800
900
1000
4.2. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Renewable Energy Directive
Methodology
4.2.1.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Natural Gas Steam
Reforming Hydrogen Pathways (RED Methodology)
Estimated total GHG emissions associated with H2 pathways can be derived using the
RED methodology using IDEALHY Project workbooks. This enables subsequent results
to be compared with the current fossil fuel comparator in the RED and the ultimate net
GHG emissions saving target which is 60% of this fossil fuel comparator (Ref. 1). In
order to undertake relevant comparison, it is necessary to determine the total GHG
emission of hydrogen as a fuel available for use rather than as part of a complete H2
pathway resulting in providing road transport over a 1 km distance. This means that H2
utilisation is excluded from the calculations, as documented in IDEALHY – Hydrogen
Pathways RED v01.xlxs. It is recognised that the net GHG emissions savings targets
within the RED have been devised for biofuels and bioliquids rather than hydrogen, and
that higher energy efficiencies of fuel cells relative to conventional internal combustion
engines are not taken into account in the RED. However, it was considered that the
application of the RED methodology to total GHG emissions associated with H2
pathways would be instructive.
29
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Subsequently, estimated total GHG emissions associated with the H2 pathways based on
H2 production from natural gas by steam reforming and GH2 and LH2 delivery are
summarised in Tables 23 and 24, respectively. These results indicate that only H2
pathways with Case Codes GNCCB1, GNCCC1, GNCLB1 and GNCLC1 would net
GHG emissions savings of at least 60% be achieved. This occurs in these particular
instances because natural gas steam reforming is undertaken with CCS and “low carbon”
Norwegian grid electricity for 2009 is used throughout these H2 pathways. Whilst a
number of other pathways providing H2 from the steam reforming of natural gas have
lower estimated total GHG emissions than the fossil fuel comparator (RED1), these
cannot achieve the 60% net GHG emissions saving target (RED2).
30
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 23 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from
Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: RED Methodology
Case Code
RED1
RED2
GNOCB1/
GNOCC1
GNCCB1
GNCCC1
GROCB1/
GROCC1
GROCB2/
GROCC2
GRCCB1/
GRCCC1
GRCCB2/
GRCCC2
GQOCB1/
GQOCC1
GQOCB2/
GQOCC2
GQCCB1/
GQCCC1
GQCCB2/
GQCCC2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
31
Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Gas
Transport(a)
Steam
Reformer
Source of
Electricity(b)
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel comparator
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009
Offshore
CCS
Grid
Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009
Offshore
CCS(c)
Grid
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009
Onshore
CCS
Grid
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030
Onshore
CCS
Grid
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009
Onshore
CCS(d)
Grid
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030
Onshore
CCS(d)
Grid
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009
Offshore
CCS
Grid
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030
Offshore
CCS
Grid
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009
Offshore
CCS(d)
Grid
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030
Offshore
CCS(d)
Grid
Gas
Total
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq.
CO2/MJ)
0.0838
0.0335
0.0755
0.0319
0.1001
0.0969
0.0634
0.0599
0.0951
0.0919
0.0580
0.0544
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
kg
CO2
eq /
km
0.0367
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 24 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from
Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations:
RED Methodology
Case Code
RED1
RED2
GNOLB1/
GNOLC1
GNCLB1
GNCLC1
GROLB1/
GROLC1
GROLB2/
GROLC2
GRCLB1/
GRCLC1
GRCLB2/
GRCLC2
GQOLB1/
GQOLC1
GQOLB2/
GQOLC2
GQCLB1/
GQCLC1
GQCLB2/
GQCLC2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gas
Means of
Steam
Source of
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel comparator
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009
Offshore Gas
CCS
Grid
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009
Offshore Gas
CCS(c)
Grid
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009
Onshore Gas
CCS
Grid
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030
Onshore Gas
CCS
Grid
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009
Onshore Gas
CCS(d)
Grid
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030
Onshore Gas
CCS(d)
Grid
Qatari Offshore LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009
Gas
CCS
Grid
Qatari Offshore LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030
Gas
CCS
Grid
Qatari Offshore LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009
Gas
CCS(d)
Grid
Qatari Offshore LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030
Gas
CCS(d)
Grid
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/MJ)
0.0838
0.0335
0.0722
0.0288
0.1102
0.1054
0.0737
0.0686
0.1053
0.1004
0.0684
0.0631
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
4.2.2.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Brown Coal
Gasification Hydrogen Pathways (RED Methodology)
Total GHG emissions associated with the provision of H2 from brown coal by gasification
and LH2 delivery, estimated using the RED methodology, are presented in Table 25. This
demonstrates that these H2 pathways cannot achieve lower total GHG emissions than 60%
net savings on the fossil fuel comparator (RED2) nor than the fossil fuel comparator
(RED1). This is largely because of the use of “high carbon” Australian grid electricity in
brown coal production and H2 liquefaction.
32
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 25 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from Brown
Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations: RED
Methodology
Case Code
RED1
RED2
CAOLB1/
CAOLC1
CACLB1/
CACLC1
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Sources of Electricity
Coal
For Coal
For Refuelling
Production and H2
Station
Liquefaction
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel comparator
Australia
Without
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009
CCS
Grid
Grid
Australia
With CCS
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009
Grid(a)
Grid
Total
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/MJ)
0.0838
0.0335
0.2938
0.1213
Also source of electricity for carbon capture and storage system operation.
4.2.3.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wind Power
Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways (RED Methodology)
Tables 26 and 27 present the estimated total GHG emissions for the provision of H2 from
offshore wind power by electrolysis with GH2 and LH2 fuel delivery, respectively. These
results, obtained using the RED methodology, indicate that all H2 pathways from wind
power considered here achieve more than 60% net GHG emissions savings for H2 fuel.
Table 26 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from Wind
Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations: RED
Methodology
Case
Code
RED1
RED2
WSCB1/
WSCC1
WSCB2/
WSCC2
WSCB3/
WSCC3
Note
(a)
33
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern Storage
Sources of Electricity(a)
Wind
Power
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel comparator
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/MJ)
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
0.0097
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
0.0039
0.0838
0.0335
0.0130
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 27 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from Wind
Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations: RED
Methodology
Case
Code
RED1
RED2
WSLB1/
WSLC1
WSLB2/
WSLC2
WSLB3/
WSLC3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern Storage Sources of Electricity(a)
Wind
Power
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel comparator
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/MJ)
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
0.0182
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
0.0004
0.0838
0.0335
0.0226
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
4.2.4. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Solar Power Electrolysis
Hydrogen Pathways (RED Methodology)
Total GHG emissions for the provision of H2 from solar power towers by electrolysis
with GH2 and LH2 fuel delivery, estimated using the RED methodology, are summarised
in Tables 28 and 29, respectively. These results show that all H2 pathways from solar
power considered here achieve more than 60% net GHG emissions savings for H2 fuel.
Table 28 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from Solar
Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations: RED
Methodology
Case Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
RED1
RED2
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel
comparator
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
SCB1/SCC1
SCB2/SCC2
SCB3/SCC3
Note
(a)
34
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/MJ)
0.0838
0.0335
0.0103
0.0079
0.0039
Source of electricity for compression for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 29 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Hydrogen Produced from Solar
Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations: RED
Methodology
Case Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
RED1
RED2
Fossil fuel comparator
60% net GHG emissions saving on fossil fuel
comparator
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
SLB1/SCC1
SLB2/SLC2
SLB3/SLC3
Note
(a)
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/MJ)
0.0838
0.0335
0.0211
0.0170
0.0004
Source of electricity for compression for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
4.3. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Consequential Life Cycle
Assessment Methodology
4.3.1. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Natural Gas Steam
Reforming Hydrogen Pathways (Consequential LCA
Methodology)
Tables 30 to 33 present average total primary energy inputs to H2 pathways based on H2
production from natural gas by steam reforming, calculated with the consequential LCA
methodology. These results have been derived from the latest versions of the IDEALHY
Project workbooks using, in general, default values for parameters, apart from those
changed to represent the specified details of given Case Codes. It should be noted that the
assumed round trip distance for delivering H2 fuel from the steam reformer to the
refuelling station has assumed to be 100 km. In the case of GH2 fuel delivery, dieselfuelled steel tube trailers are selected for use. LH2 delivery tankers are also assumed to be
diesel-fuelled.
Table 30 indicates that total GHG emissions for fuel cell buses with GH2 delivery are
marginally lower than those for conventional diesel-fuelled buses only in H2 pathways
where CCS is used (GNCCB1, GRCCB1, GRCCB2, GQCCB1 and GQCCB2). However,
as shown in Table 32, there are only two H2 pathways (GNCLBI and GQCLB2), both of
which incorporate CCS, that result in total GHG emissions for fuel cell buses with LH2
delivery lower than conventional diesel-fuelled buses. In contrast, Tables 31 and 33
demonstrate that total GHG emissions for fuel cell cars with all H2 pathways are lower
than those for diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.
Contributions to total GHG emissions, derived with consequential LCA methodology, for
H2 pathways from H2 production, H2 compression or liquefaction (depending on Case
Code), H2 fuel delivery, H2 refuelling and H2 utilisation in fuel cell vehicles are presented
in Figures 17 to 20. As with total primary energy inputs, the main contributions to total
GHG emissions are H2 production and H2 utilisation, consisting of fuel cell vehicle
manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning. All other contributions to total GHG
emissions for the H2 pathways incorporating GH2 are relatively small in Figures 17 and
35
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
18. However, the contributions to total GHG emissions from H2 liquefaction for all H2
pathways incorporating LH2 delivery and using natural gas from Russia and Qatar are
clearly more noticeable.
Table 30 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code
ODB
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
36
Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
(d)
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
1.488
1.075
1.788
1.747
1.381
1.328
1.718
1.673
1.317
1.260
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 31 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code
ODC
OPC
GNOCC1
GNCCC1
GROCC1
GROCC2
GRCCC1
GRCCC2
GQOCC1
GQOCC2
GQCCC1
GQCCC2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
37
Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.168
0.120
0.201
0.196
0.155
0.149
0.194
0.188
0.148
0.145
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 32 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODB
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
GNOLB1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCLB1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROLB1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROLB2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLB1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
(d)
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLB2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOLB1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOLB2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCLB1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCLB2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
38
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
1.493
1.082
1.992
1.868
1.587
1.451
1.992
1.794
1.522
1.383
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 33 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODC
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
OPC
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
GNOLC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCLC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROLC1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROLC2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLC1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GRCLC2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOLC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOLC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCLC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCLC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
39
Total Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.167
0.121
0.224
0.210
0.178
0.163
0.216
0.202
0.171
0.155
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 17 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 18 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOCC1
GNCCC1
GROCC1
GROCC2
GRCCC1
GRCCC2
GQOCC1
GQOCC2
GQCCC1
GQCCC2
0.00
40
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.25
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 19 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOLB1
GNCLB1
GROLB1
GROLB2
GRCLB1
GRCLB2
GQOLB1
GQOLB2
GQCLB1
GQCLB2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.5
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 20 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
GNOLC1
GNCLC1
GROLC1
GROLC2
GRCLC1
GRCLC2
GQOLC1
GQOLC2
GQCLC1
GQCLC2
0.00
41
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.25
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.3.2.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Brown Coal
Gasification Hydrogen Pathways (Consequential LCA
Methodology)
Total GHG emissions, estimated with consequential LCA methodology, for fuel cell
buses and cars using H2 fuel from Australian brown coal gasification and liquefaction
with delivery to the EU are shown in Tables 34 and 35, respectively. As indicated in
Table 34, fuel cell buses using these H2 pathways have higher total GHG emissions than
those of conventional buses using diesel from crude oil. In contrast, fuel cell cars using
H2 from Australian brown coal gasification with CCS (CACLC1) have lower total GHG
emissions than those of either diesel- or petrol-fuelled cars.
Table 34 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODB
CAOLB1
CACLB1
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Sources of Electricity
Coal
For Coal
For Refuelling
Production and H2
Station
Liquefaction
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Australia
Without
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009 Grid
CCS
Grid
Australia
With
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009 Grid
CCS
Grid(a)
Total
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
3.775
2.040
Also source of electricity for carbon capture and storage system operation.
Table 35 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
CAOLC1
CACLC1
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Sources of Electricity
Coal
For Coal Production
and H2 Liquefaction
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Australia
Without
Australia 2009 Grid
CCS
Australia
With
Australia 2009
CCS
Grid(a)
For Refuelling
Station
ER-27 2009
Grid
ER-27 2009
Grid
Total
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.425
0.229
Also source of electricity for carbon capture and storage system operation.
Contributions to total GHG emissions associated with fuel cell buses and cars using H2
from Australian brown coal gasification are shown in Figures 20 and 21, respectively. As
might be expected, the largest contributions are from H2 production for gasification
without CCS (CAOLB1 and CAOLC1), and this reduces significantly with CCS
(CACLC1 and CACLC1).
42
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 21 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
CAOLB1
CACLB1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 22 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
CAOLC1
CACLC1
0.00
43
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.50
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.3.3.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wind Power
Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways (Consequential LCA
Methodology)
Derived by means of consequential LCA methodology, estimates total GHG emissions
associated with fuel cell buses and cars using H2 fuel from offshore wind power by
electrolysis are summarised in Tables 36 to 39. These show varying degrees of reductions
in total GHG emissions relative to those of conventional diesel-fuelled buses and dieseland petrol-fuelled cars. In general, the reductions in total GHG emissions are relatively
marginal for fuel cell buses, as presented in Tables 36 and 38, whilst those for fuel cell
cars are more significant (Tables 37 and 39).
Table 36 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODB
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
0.996
0.973
0.907
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 37 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC2
Note
(a)
44
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.111
0.109
0.101
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 38 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODB
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
1.191
1.078
0.927
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 39 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC2
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.134
0.121
0.104
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Contributions to total GHG emissions for fuel cell buses and cars using H2 fuel from wind
power by electrolysis are illustrated in Figures 23 to 26. For all the H2 pathways in
Figures 23 to 26, the contributions from H2 utilisation, consisting of fuel cell vehicle
manufacture, maintenance and decommissioning, dominate total GHG emissions. The
total GHG emissions for H2 production are relatively small. The significance of total
GHG emissions associated with H2 liquefaction is apparent in Figures 25 and 26,
although this varies depending on the assumed source of electricity.
45
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 23 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
1.20
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 24 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC3
0.00
46
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.12
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 25 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
1.4
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 26 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC3
0.00
47
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.16
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.3.4.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Solar Power
Electrolysis Hydrogen Pathways (Consequential LCA
Methodology)
Total GHG emissions, estimated using consequential LCA methodology, for fuel cell
buses and cars fuelled by H2 from solar power towers by electrolysis with GH2 and LH2
fuel delivery are presented in Tables 40 to 43. It will be seen in Tables 40 and 43 that
total GHG emissions for fuel cell buses are higher than those from conventional buses
fuelled by diesel derived from crude oil. In contrast, total GHG emissions for fuel cell
cars, given in Tables 41 and 43, are lower than those for diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.
Table 40 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
1.839
1.808
1.776
ODB
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 41 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.207
0.203
0.200
ODC
OPC
SCC1
SCC2
SCC2
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 42 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
ODB
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
48
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
1.415
2.037
1.931
1.792
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 43 Estimated Average Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of Electricity(a)
Total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(kg eq. CO2/km)
0.390
0.409
0.229
0.217
0.201
ODC
OPC
SLC1
SLC2
SLC2
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Contributions to total GHG emissions associated with fuel cell buses and cars using H2
produced from solar power by electrolysis, using GH2 and LH2 fuel delivery are shown in
Figures 27 to 30. For all the H2 pathways illustrated, the dominance of H2 production in
contributions to total GHG emissions is apparent. The main reason for this is the GHG
emissions associated with the manufacture and construction of solar power towers
relative to their utilisation in terms of electricity and H2 production. This depends on the
level of insolation available and the scale of each solar power tower. In this regard, it
should be noted that the default value of insolation was 2,850 h/a and that for the rating of
a solar power tower was assumed to be 10 MW in the IDEALHY - Solar Power
Electrolysis v09.xlxs workbook.
49
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 27 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 28 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to
Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
0.00
50
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.25
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 29 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
2.5
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 30 Contributions to Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen
Produced from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations: Consequential LCA Methodology
SLC1
SLC2
SLC3
0.00
51
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
Hydrogen Delivery
0.25
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.3.5.
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Delivery
Distances (Consequential LCA Methodology)
Variations of total GHG emissions associated with fuel cell buses and cars with GH2 and
LH2 fuel delivery distances are presented in Figures 31 and 32 for selected H2 pathways
using consequential LCA methodology. As with variations for total primary energy
inputs, these demonstrate the strong influence of round trip distance on total GHG
emissions for H2 pathways incorporating GH2 delivery. In relation to total GHG
emissions and for the selected H2 pathways, LH2 fuel delivery can be seen as being more
suitable for transportation for round trip distances greater than between about 120 and
150 km.
Figure 31 Variation of Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Delivery Distance for Fuel Cell Buses
Using Compressed and Liquefied Fuel Delivery to Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA
Methodology
Total GHG Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0
52
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Round Trip Delivery Distance (km)
GNCCB1
GNCLB1
SCB3
SLB3
WSCB3
WSLB3
800
900
1000
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 32 Variation of Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Delivery Distance for Fuel Cell Cars
Using Compressed and Liquefied Fuel Delivery to Refuelling Stations: Consequential LCA
Methodology
Total GHG Emissions (kg eq. CO2/km)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Round Trip Delivery Distance (km)
GNCCC1
GNCLC1
SCC3
SLC3
WSCC3
WSLC3
800
900
1000
4.4. Internal Economic Costs
4.4.1. Total Internal Costs for Natural Gas Steam Reforming
Hydrogen Pathways
Unlike the evaluation of total primary energy inputs and total GHG emissions using the
IDEALHY workbooks, the assessment of total internal costs is less sophisticated due,
mainly, to the lack of economic data at very details levels for H2 pathways. Hence, the
results for total internal costs generated by the IDEALHY workbooks should be regarded
as indicative rather than definitive. In particular, their most suitable application is in
comparisons between H2 pathways.
Estimated total internal costs for fuel cell buses and cars using H2 produced from natural
gas by steam reforming are given in Tables 44 to 47. These show that total internal costs
for these H2 pathways are considerably higher than the total internal costs of conventional
buses fuelled by diesel and conventional cars fuelled by diesel and petrol. The actual
pathways of the supply of H2 for these fuel cell vehicles do not exert a strong influence
over total internal costs. This is reinforced by Figures 33 to 36 which illustrate the
contributions to total internal costs. In particular, it will be noted that the dominant
contribution is from utilisation which consists mainly of vehicle manufacture and
operation.
53
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 44 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling
Stations
Case Code
ODB
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
54
Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
(d)
Offshore
CCS
Gas
Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Total Internal
Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.898
3.863
3.872
3.804
3.817
3.817
3.829
3.894
3.098
3.900
3.914
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 45 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling
Stations
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODC
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
OPC
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
GNOCC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCCC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROCC1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROCC2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCCC1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GRCCC2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOCC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOCC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCCC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCCC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
55
Total Internal
Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.166
0.170
0.231
0.250
0.226
0.227
0.227
0.229
0.236
0.237
0.236
0.238
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, compression of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 46 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODB
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
GNOLB1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCLB1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROLB1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROLB2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLB1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
(d)
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLB2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOLB1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOLB2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCLB1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCLB2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
56
Total Internal
Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.898
4.707
4.730
4.555
4.684
4.589
4.717
4.794
4.926
4.809
4.941
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 47 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling
Stations
Case Code Main Features of Pathway
Source of
Means of
Steam
Source of
Gas
Transport(a)
Reformer
Electricity(b)
ODC
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
OPC
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
GNOLC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
Without
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GNCLC1 Norwegian
Pipeline
With
Norway 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(c)
Gas
GROLC1 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GROLC2 Russian
Pipeline
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS
Gas
GRCLC1 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GRCLC2 Russian
Pipeline
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Onshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQOLC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQOLC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
Without
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS
Gas
GQCLC1 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
GQCLC2 Qatari
LNG Ship
With
EU-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
CCS(d)
Gas
Notes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
57
Total Internal
Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.166
0.170
0.244
0.250
0.237
0.243
0.239
0.244
0.248
0.253
0.248
0.254
Means of transport of natural gas from source to steam reformer in EU.
Source of electricity for use in steam reformer, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and
refuelling station.
Carbon capture and storage from natural gas processing as well as steam reformer.
Carbon capture and storage from steam reformer only.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 33 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
GNOCB1
GNCCB1
GROCB1
GROCB2
GRCCB1
GRCCB2
GQOCB1
GQOCB2
GQCCB1
GQCCB2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 34 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
GNOCB1
GNCCC1
GROCC1
GROCC2
GRCCC1
GRCCC2
GQOCC1
GQOCC2
GQCCC1
GQCCC2
0.0
58
0.1
0.1
0.2
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.2
Hydrogen Delivery
0.3
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 35 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
GNOLB1
GNCLB1
GROLB1
GROLB2
GRCLB1
GRCLB2
GQOLB1
GQOLB2
GQCLB1
GQCLB2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 36 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Natural Gas by Steam Reforming and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
GNOLC1
GNCLC1
GROLC1
GROLC2
GRCLC1
GRCLC2
GQOLC1
GQOLC2
GQCLC1
GQCLC2
0.00
59
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.25
Hydrogen Delivery
0.30
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.4.2.
Total Internal Costs for Brown Coal Gasification
Hydrogen Pathways
Tables 48 and 49 provide the estimated total internal costs for fuel cell buses and cars,
respectively, using H2 produced from Australian brown coal by gasification and with LH2
delivery. In both instances, these costs are higher than the total internal costs of
conventional diesel-fuelled buses, and diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.
Table 48 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODB
CAOLB1
CACLB1
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Sources of Electricity
Coal
For Coal
For Refuelling Station
Production
and
Liquefaction
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Australia
Without
Australia
ER-27 2009 Grid
CCS
2009 Grid
Australia
With
Australia
ER-27 2009 Grid
CCS
2009 Grid(a)
Total Internal
Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.898
4.761
4.981
Also for carbon capture and storage system operation.
Table 49 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
CAOLC1
CACLC1
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Source of Gasifier
Sources of Electricity
Coal
For Coal
For Refuelling
Production and H2
Station
Liquefaction
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Australia
Without
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009 Grid
CCS
Grid
Australia
With
Australia 2009
ER-27 2009 Grid
CCS
Grid(a)
Total Internal
Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.166
0.170
0.246
0.256
Also for carbon capture and storage system operation.
The contributions to total internal costs for fuel cell buses and cars using H2 from brown
coal by gasification and with LH2 delivery are shown in Figures 37 and 38, respectively.
As with the results given previously for fuel cell buses and cars using H2 from natural gas
by steam reforming, the dominant contribution to total internal costs is H2 utilisation
consisting of vehicle manufacture and operation.
60
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 37 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
CAOLB1
CACLB1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 38 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Brown Coal by Gasification and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
CAOLC1
CACLC1
0.00
61
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.25
Hydrogen Delivery
0.30
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.4.3.
Total Internal Costs for Wind Power Electrolysis
Hydrogen Pathways
The estimated total internal costs of fuel cell buses and cars using H2 from offshore wind
power by electrolysis and GH2 and LH2 delivery are summarised in Tables 50 to 53.
These indicate higher total internal costs than those for conventional diesel-fuelled buses
and conventional diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.
Table 50 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODB
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.898
4.001
4.019
3.985
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 51 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC2
Note
(a)
.
62
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.166
0.170
0.247
0.248
0.246
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 52 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODB
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.898
5.050
5.173
5.010
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 53 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC2
Note
(a)
Main Features of Pathway
Type of
Salt Cavern
Sources of
Wind
Storage
Electricity(a)
Power
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2009 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
ER-27 2030 Grid
Offshore
With Storage
Wind Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.166
0.170
0.258
0.264
0.246
Source of electricity for compression for salt cavern storage (where relevant), drying,
liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Contributions to total internal costs of fuel cell buses and cars using H2 fuel from wind
power by electrolysis and with GH2 and LH2 delivery are illustrated in Figures 39 to 42.
As previously, the dominant contribution to total internal costs is H2 utilisation consisting
of fuel cell vehicle manufacture and operation.
63
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 39 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
WSCB1
WSCB2
WSCB3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 40 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
WSCC1
WSCC2
WSCC3
0.00
64
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.25
Hydrogen Delivery
0.30
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 41 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
WSLB1
WSLB2
WSLB3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 42 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Wind Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
WSLC1
WSLC2
WSLC3
0.00
65
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.25
Hydrogen Delivery
0.30
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.4.4.
Total Internal Costs for Solar Power Electrolysis
Hydrogen Pathways
Tables 54 to 57 show the estimated total internal costs of fuel cell buses and cars using H2
produced from solar power towers with electrolysis and with GH2 and LH2 delivery. As
with the other H2 pathways examined here, these results demonstrate that these costs are
higher than the total internal costs of conventional buses using diesel and conventional
cars using diesel and petrol.
Table 54 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
ODB
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
Sources of
Electricity(a)
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
0.898
4.284
4.290
4.275
Table 55 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
ODC
OPC
SCC1
SCC2
SCC2
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Sources of
Electricity(a)
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
0.166
0.170
0.279
0.281
0.279
Note
(a) Source of electricity for drying, compression of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
Table 55 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced
from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
ODB
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
Sources of
Electricity(a)
Conventional Bus Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
66
0.898
5.813
5.929
5.781
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Table 56 Estimated Average Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced
from Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
Case
Code
Main Features of Pathway
Type of Solar Power
Total Internal Costs
(€ 2012/km)
ODC
OPC
SLC1
SLC2
SLC2
Sources of
Electricity(a)
Conventional Car Using Diesel from Crude Oil
Conventional Car Using Petrol from Crude Oil
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2009 Grid
Solar Power Tower
ER-27 2030 Grid
Solar Power Tower
Wind Power
Note
(a)
Source of electricity for drying, liquefaction of hydrogen for delivery and refuelling station.
0.166
0.170
0.291
0.296
0.289
Contributions to total internal costs of fuel cell buses and cars using H2 from solar power
by electrolysis and with GH2 and LH2 fuel delivery are illustrated in Figures 43 to 46. It
can be seen again that the dominant contribution to estimated total internal costs is H2
utilisation consisting of fuel cell vehicle manufacture and operation.
67
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 43 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
SCB1
SCB2
SCB3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 44 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Compressed Fuel to Refuelling Stations
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
0.00
68
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Compression
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.25
Hydrogen Delivery
0.30
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 45 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Buses Using Hydrogen Produced from
Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
SLB1
SLB2
SLB3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
4.0
5.0
Hydrogen Delivery
Figure 46 Contributions to Total Internal Costs for Fuel Cell Cars Using Hydrogen Produced from
Solar Power by Electrolysis and Delivered as Liquefied Fuel to Refuelling Stations
SLC1
SLC2
SLC3
0.00
69
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Liquefaction
Hydrogen Refuelling
Hydrogen Utilisation
0.30
Hydrogen Delivery
0.35
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
4.4.5.
Total Internal Costs and Fuel Delivery Distances
Variations of estimated total internal costs for fuel cell buses and cars with GH2 and LH2
fuel delivery distances are presented in Figures 47 and 48, respectively, for selected H2
pathways. As with variations for total primary energy inputs and total GHG emissions,
these demonstrate the strong influence of round trip distance on total GHG emissions for
H2 pathways incorporating GH2 delivery. In terms of total internal costs for these selected
H2 pathways, LH2 fuel delivery can be seen as being more suitable for transportation for
round trip distances greater than about 250 for fuel cell buses, and between about 240 and
260 km for fuel cell cars.
Figure 47 Variation of Total Internal Costs with Delivery Distance for Fuel Cell Buses Using
Compressed and Liquefied Fuel Delivery to Refuelling Stations
6
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
70
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Round Trip Delivery Distance (km)
800
900
GNCCB1
GNCLB1
SCB3
SLB3
WSCB3
WSLB3
1000
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
Figure 48 Variation of Total Internal Costs with Delivery Distance for Fuel Cell Cars Using
Compressed and Liquefied Fuel Delivery to Refuelling Stations
0.40
Total Internal Costs (€/km)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
71
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Round Trip Delivery Distance (km)
800
900
GNCCC1
GNCLC1
SCC3
SLC3
WSCC3
WSLC3
1000
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
5. Conclusions
This report has analysed the life cycle emissions and costs from a wide range of hydrogen
supply chains, using two distinct methodologies (RED and consequential LCA), and
compared the outcomes with a fossil fuel benchmark based on diesel cars and buses. The
large number of variables in each chain and the volume of data involved mean that
drawing unambiguous conclusions was not always straightforward. Nonetheless, some
clear messages have come out of the workbook analysis, and these are outlined here.
5.1. Consequential LCA
5.1.1. Total primary energy inputs

These are as much as 50% lower for fuel cell cars using hydrogen from fossil
supply chains (both liquid and compressed), than for fossil internal combustion
engine (ICE) cars.
o The converse is true – conventional technology uses slightly less energy –
when the end use is in fuel cell buses.

In many cases, supply chains using liquid hydrogen have lower total primary
energy use than those using GH2.
Chains using hydrogen from renewable energy and electrolysis consume less
energy than the fossil alternatives for both buses and cars, except in one case:
offshore wind with today’s grid makeup.
The main contribution to total energy use in all these pathways is the utilisation
itself, with hydrogen production less influential.


5.1.2. Greenhouse gases

All the results for H2 pathways for fuel cell cars have lower total GHG emissions
than those for conventional diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.

GHG emissions mirror primary energy use, meaning that in many cases, supply
chains using liquid hydrogen have lower total GHG emissions than those using
GH2.
The situation with buses is complex:

o For buses using hydrogen from natural gas, the GHG emissions for buses
are only lower than those for conventional diesel-fuelled buses when CCS
is used with steam reforming; without CCS or with hydrogen from brown
coal, emissions are higher
o Buses using hydrogen from wind power have lower GHG emissions than
the conventional route, while this is not the case for those using hydrogen
from solar power.

Variation in GHG emissions with delivery distance showed that GH2 pathways
were more sensitive to distance than those with LH2.
o This means that the benefits of liquid hydrogen became apparent at roundtrip delivery distances beyond a certain threshold.
o Depending on the pathway, this distance was between 120 and 150 km.
72
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
5.1.3. Total internal costs


Total internal costs for the hydrogen energy chains analysed are currently all
higher than the conventional benchmark.
o This is a consequence of the current (relatively) high price for fuel cell
vehicles, since the majority of these costs comes from H2 utilisation, which
comprises mainly vehicle manufacture and operation.
o Total costs of an ICE car (in €/km) are 60-70% of those of a FC car, while
FC buses are 3-4 times more expensive than conventional buses, reflecting
the early stage of commercial manufacture of FC buses compared with
cars.
As for GHG emissions, costs were sensitive to delivery distance:
o LH2 pathways showed lower costs with round-trip delivery distances
beyond 240 - 260 km (depending on the pathway).
5.2. Renewable Energy Directive (RED) protocol
The results discussed in this section are based on the EU’s RED method of analysis. This
technique takes the supply chain only as far as delivery to the vehicle (excluding the
utilisation step), thus meaning that it does not take into account the higher efficiency of
fuel cells relative to ICEs in road vehicles. The final utilisation step was therefore
calculated following the methodology described elsewhere in the report.



All the hydrogen supply chains analysed use appreciably less primary energy than
the fossil baseline.
o Worst performer: SMR of Russian onshore NG with pipeline and CCS to
FC car: 3.31 MJ/km; compare fossil baseline 6.12 MJ/km
o Best performer: solar power tower and electrolysis via liquefaction to FC
car: 0.007 MJ/km
Liquid out-performs compressed hydrogen in some cases but this is supply chainspecific.
All the results for H2 pathways for fuel cell cars have lower total GHG emissions
than those for conventional diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.
The IDEALHY Project was supported by the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
(FCH JU) under Grant Agreement No. 278177 with funding from the European
Commission.
73
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
References
1.
“Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April
2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and
Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC” European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium, 5 June 2009.
2.
“European Life Cycle Assessment Platform” Institute for the Environment and
Sustainability, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy,
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment, accessed 30 March 2012.
3.
“International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General
Guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Provisions and Action Steps” First Edition,
EUR24708, Luxembourg, March 2010.
4.
“International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General
Guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed Guidance” First Edition, EUR24708,
Luxembourg, March 2010.
5.
“International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – Specific
Guide for Life Cycle Inventory Data Sets” First Edition, EUR24708, Luxembourg, March
2010.
6.
“FC-HyGuide: Guidance Document for Performing LCAs on Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Technologies – Guidance Document for Performing LCA on Hydrogen
Production Systems” by A. Lozanovski, O. Schuller and M. Faltenbacher, 2011-09-30
Final, 30 September 2011.
7.
“FC-HyGuide: Guidance Document for Performing LCAs on Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Technologies – Guidance Document for Performing LCA on Fuel Cells” by P.
Masoni and A. Zamagni, 2011-09-30 Final, 30 September 2011.
8.
“FC-HyGuide: Guidance Document for Performing LCAs on Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Technologies – Critical Review Statement and Response Summary – Review
According to the ILCD-Handbook and ISO 14040 and ISO 14044” by P. Fullana i
Palmer, M Finkbeiner and M. Bode, 2011-09-30 Final, 30 September 2011.
9.
“Integrated Design for Demonstration of Efficient Liquefaction of Hydrogen
(IDEALHY): Deliverable D3.13 - Baseline Results Report” by N. D. Mortimer, O.
Mwabonje and J. H. R. Rix, North Energy Associates Ltd., Sheffield, United Kingdom, 6
April 2012.
10.
“Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis; Contribution of Working Group 1 to
the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2001,
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessment-reports.php.
11.
“Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report: Fourth Assessment Report” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/ar-syn.pdf
12.
“Integrated Design for Demonstration of Efficient Liquefaction of Hydrogen
(IDEALHY): Deliverable D3.15 – Hydrogen Production and Utilisation Report” by N. D.
Mortimer, C. Hatto, O. Mwabonje and J. H. R. Rix, North Energy Associates Ltd.,
Sheffield, United Kingdom, 14 November 2013.
74
Grant Agreement No. 278177
Techno-Economic Analysis and Comparison (D3.17)
13.
“Integrated Design for Demonstration of Efficient Liquefaction of Hydrogen
(IDEALHY): Deliverable D3.14 – Liquid Hydrogen Pathway Report” by K. Stolzenburg
and R. Mubbala, PLANET – Planungsgruppe Energie und Technik GbR, Oldenburg,
Germany, 17 November 2013.
75