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