Suchergebnisse

Green hydrogen will be an essential part of the future 100% sustainable energy and industry system. Up to one-third of the required solar and wind electricity would eventually be used for water electrolysis to produce hydrogen, increasing the cumulative electrolyzer capacity to about 17 TWel by 2050. The key method applied in this research is a learning curve approach for the key technologies, i.e., solar photovoltaics (PV) and water electrolyzers, and levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). Sensitivities for the hydrogen demand and various input parameters are considered. Electrolyzer capital expenditure (CAPEX) for a large utility-scale system is expected to decrease from the current 400 €/kWel to 240 €/kWel by 2030 and to 80 €/kWel by 2050. With the continuing solar PV cost decrease, this will lead to an LCOH decrease from the current 31–81 €/MWhH2,LHV (1.0–2.7 €/kgH2) to 20–54 €/MWhH2,LHV (0.7–1.8 €/kgH2) by 2030 and 10–27 €/MWhH2,LHV (0.3–0.9 €/kgH2) by 2050, depending on the location. The share of PV electricity cost in the LCOH will increase from the current 63% to 74% by 2050. ; This study was made under the framework of the European Technology and Innovation Platform for Photovoltaics (ETIP PV). Open access of this study has been supported by the ETIP PV Secretariat which works in the framework of the ETIP PV-SEC II project. The project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 825669. A.J.-W. works at the European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy. The views expressed are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

The UK government implements carbon price floor to provide long-term incentive to invest in low-carbon technology, thus, fossil-fuel power plants have to face increasing carbon price. This report addresses the effect of carbon price floor on the levelised cost of gas-fired generation technolo-gy through the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) approach with the estimation of carbon price floor. Finally, the comparison of levelised cost of electricity for all generation technology in the UK will be shown and discussed.

Zusammenfassend stellen die deutschen und europäischen Wasserstoffstrategien hohe und ambitionierte Zielvorgaben, die grundsätzlich als erreichbar angesehen werden können. Die Realisierung der dafür notwendigen hohen Investitionen hängt jedoch stark von den rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen sowie den Standortfaktoren der Anlage ab. Erfolgsversprechend für die Anlagenplanung ist ein Ansatz, bei dem der zeitliche und räumliche Strombezug sowie die Wasserstoffverwendung von Beginn mitgedacht werden. Die daraus möglichen Kostenersparnisse haben das Potential, Wasserstoff gegenüber derzeit sehr kostengünstigen grauem Wasserstoff für die Industrie wettbewerbsfähig zu machen. Aus Sicht der CO2-Vermeidungskosten stellt Wasserstoff derzeit keine Konkurrenz zu beispielsweise Biodiesel dar – bietet perspektivisch jedoch umfangreichere Anwendungs-möglichkeiten und könnte sich somit in anderen Bereichen als kostengünstigste Klimaschutzmaßnahme durchsetzen. Darüber hinaus sind für das Erreichen dieser Ziele die in diesem Beitrag genannten Hemmnisse durch rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen zwingend abzubauen. Vor allem eine grundlegende Reform der Stromnebenkosten ist dringend nötig. Dies eröffnet umfangreiche Potentiale für eine wettbewerbsfähige Produktion von Wasserstoff. Für eine wirkliche integrierte Energiewende muss darüber hinaus Power-to-Gas grundsätzlich als Verbindungstechnologie definiert werden und nicht als Letztverbraucher. Weitere Stellschrauben sind Nutzung von Green PPAs und die Anerkennung des Emissionsminderungseffekts von grünem Wasserstoff im Rahmen der Treib-hausgasquotenverpflichtung. Wasserstoffimporte, beispielsweise aus sonnen- und windreichen Regionen außerhalb Europas, wo erneuerbare Stromentstehungskosten von bereits 2 €-ct/kWh möglich sind, werden trotz Transports wirtschaftlich attraktiv sein und langfristig einen bedeutenden Anteil der Wasserstofflieferung und damit einer zukünftigen Wasserstoffwirtschaft darstellen. Für eine langfristig gesicherte und nachhaltige internationale Versorgung wird bereits am Anfang von Wasserstoff-Partnerschaften erstens die Energiesituation eines Lieferlandes und die Vermeidung von Konkurrenzsituationen zwischen Wasserstoffelektrolyse und lokaler Stromversorgung zu berücksichtigen sein. Zweitens sind zu große Abhängigkeiten von einzelnen Ländern und deren politischen Risiken, wie bei der heutigen Erdölbeschaffung, zu vermeiden. Die aktuelle Förderung der heimischen Herstellung von Wasserstoff ist trotzdem richtig und wichtig, denn sie dient der technischen Weiterentwicklung und der Verringerung von interna-tionalen Lieferrisiken- und Abhängigkeiten.

It's not going so well for climate alarmists in
Louisiana at the other end of the continuum, either.

While one strand of alarmism focuses on a ruthless
propagation of non-fossil fuel-based sources for energy, no matter the costs or
inconvenience, another seeks to mitigate fossil fuel outputs, such as carbon
and methane, by circumventing or diverting production of these in the energy
production process. Two such tools in pursuit of the latter are hydrogen and
carbon capture and sequestration.

Hydrogen can be used as a method to carry another
fuel or by itself, burning without natural carbon dioxide or methane release
unless the process of its production – it rarely exists in nature purely, so otherwise
it has to be detached from some other elements like from oxygen in water – causes
this. CCS works around processing release by collecting it before atmospheric
emission, in making hydrogen or straight combustion.

Louisiana alarmists like Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards
recently have seen setbacks in renewable energy production possibilities in the
state such as offshore
wind, but have continued to pin their hopes on hydrogen and CCS. Inflaming
this has been a decision by Air Products, with his administration's approval,
to open a hydrogen production facility in Ascension Parish and employ CCS on it
for storage under Lake Maurepas in Livingston Parish.

Because of extreme
inefficiency in producing hydrogen and high
expense inherent to CCS, the whole idea is riotously expensive, and to date
Louisiana government has wisely merely set up regulatory frameworks for these
without any subsidization. Unfortunately, the mania of catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming has saturated Washington Democrats, who when they
had power in all majoritarian branches passed measure that do provide federal
subsidies which apparently is good enough for Air Products.

It could be worse. Last month, the state with two
others learned they lost
out on a joint
bid that could have received up to $1.25 billion dollars to supplement hydrogen
production. That infrastructure won't happen, but at least taxpayers dodged a
bullet: part of the deal would have required the states to put up an amount equal
to the grant.

But even if Louisiana isn't wasting taxpayer
dollars on something that should stand or fall in the private sector without government
intervention, there's still a safety issue, which prompted the formation of a
special legislative committee to study the issue which
met this week. Livingston Parish residents are particularly uneasy about
the Air Products plan, which will run carbon dioxide out and about in a series
of pipes that if something went wrong could replicate a disaster
almost two years ago in Satartia, MS that sent dozens to hospital with carbon
dioxide poisoning, the aftereffects of which still plague some victims.

Even some climate alarmists don't like hydrogen
and CCS, together or separately. Purists say the production or transport of hydrogen
with fossil fuels allows for carbon release which they are convinced will doom
the planet, so dire is the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere
and predicted to be belched out.

If the private sector wants to throw money in
Louisiana at these technologies, the state should let it but not aid it with
tax dollars. Instead, it should expand upon recent legislation to grant more
oversight for safety and benefits to local governments over CCS encapsulated in
Act 378
passed this year. And, it should finish
off the rulemaking process to gain greater state control over regulating
the kinds of wells (Class VI) used in the CCS process, or taking "primacy" over
the federal government. Misplaced panic over phantom CAGW shouldn't waste tax
dollars, create unsafe condition, or run roughshod over local concerns.

Interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel is growing in California. Plans are underway to construct a "Hydrogen Highway" network of stations across the state to stimulate fuel cell vehicle deployment. One of the key challenges in the planning and financing of this network is determining the costs of the stations. The purpose of this report is to examine the near-term costs of building hydrogen stations of various types and sizes. The costs for seven different station types are analyzed with respect to size, siting factors, and operating factors. The first section of the report reviews the existing body of knowledge on hydrogen station costs. In the second section, we present hydrogen station cost data from the Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs (CHREC), a database created to organize and analyze data collected from equipment suppliers, existing stations and literature. The third section of the report presents the Hydrogen Station Cost Model (HSCM), an engineering/economic model developed to analyze the cost of stations. Based on the hydrogen station cost analysis conducted here, we conclude the following: * Commercial scale hydrogen station costs vary widely, mostly as a function of station size, and with a range of approximately $500,000 to over $5 million for stations that produce and/or dispense 30 kg/day to 1,000 kg/day of hydrogen. Mobile hydrogen refuelers represent less expensive options for small demand levels, with lower capital costs of about $250,000. * Existing hydrogen station cost analyses tend to under-estimate true station costs by assuming high production volume levels for equipment, neglecting station installation costs, omitting important station operating costs, and assuming optimistically high capacity factors. * Station utilization (i.e. capacity factor) has the most significant impact on hydrogen price. * Hydrogen fuel costs can be reduced by siting stations at strategic locations such as government-owned fleet yards and facilities that use hydrogen for industrial purposes. * Hydrogen fuel costs ($/kg) are higher at small stations (10-30 kg/day) that are burdened with high installation costs and low utilization of station infrastructure. * Energy stations that produce electricity for stationary uses and hydrogen for vehicles have the potential for low-cost hydrogen due to increased equipment utilization. Costs of energy stations are uncertain because few have been built.

Interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel is growing in California. Plans are underway to construct a "Hydrogen Highway" network of stations across the state to stimulate fuel cell vehicle deployment. One of the key challenges in the planning and financing of this network is determining the costs of the stations. The purpose of this report is to examine the near-term costs of building hydrogen stations of various types and sizes. The costs for seven different station types are analyzed with respect to size, siting factors, and operating factors. The first section of the report reviews the existing body of knowledge on hydrogen station costs. In the second section, we present hydrogen station cost data from the Compendium of Hydrogen Refueling Equipment Costs (CHREC), a database created to organize and analyze data collected from equipment suppliers, existing stations and literature. The third section of the report presents the Hydrogen Station Cost Model (HSCM), an engineering/economic model developed to analyze the cost of stations. Based on the hydrogen station cost analysis conducted here, we conclude the following: • Commercial scale hydrogen station costs vary widely, mostly as a function of station size, and with a range of approximately $500,000 to over $5 million for stations that produce and/or dispense 30 kg/day to 1,000 kg/day of hydrogen. Mobile hydrogen refuelers represent less expensive options for small demand levels, with lower capital costs of about $250,000. • Existing hydrogen station cost analyses tend to under-estimate true station costs by assuming high production volume levels for equipment, neglecting station installation costs, omitting important station operating costs, and assuming optimistically high capacity factors. • Station utilization (i.e. capacity factor) has the most significant impact on hydrogen price. • Hydrogen fuel costs can be reduced by siting stations at strategic locations such as government-owned fleet yards and facilities that use hydrogen for industrial purposes. • Hydrogen fuel costs ($/kg) are higher at small stations (10-30 kg/day) that are burdened with high installation costs and low utilization of station infrastructure. • Energy stations that produce electricity for stationary uses and hydrogen for vehicles have the potential for low-cost hydrogen due to increased equipment utilization. Costs of energy stations are uncertain because few have been built.

Science, technology and politics agree: hydrogen will be the energy carrier of the future. It will replace fossil fuels based on a sufficient supply from sustainable energy. Since the possibilities of storing and transporting hydrogen play a decisive role here, the so-called LOHC (Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers) can be used as carrier materials. LOHC carrier materials can reversibly absorb hydrogen, store it without loss and release it again when needed. Since little or no pressure is required, normal containers or tanks can be used. The volume or mass-related energy densities can reach around a quarter of liquid fossil fuels. This paper is to give an introduction to the field of hydrogen storage and usage of those LOHC, in particular. The developments of the last ten years have been related to the storage and transport of hydrogen with LOHC. These are crucial to meet the future demand for energy carriers e.g. for mobile applications. For this purpose, all transport systems are under consideration as well as the decentralized supply of rural areas with low technological penetration, e.g. regions of Western Africa which are often characterized by a lack of energy supply. Hydrogen bound in LOHC can provide a hazard-free alternative for distribution. The paper provides an overview of the conversion forms as well as the chemical carrier materials. Dibenzyltoluene as well as N-ethylcarbazole - as examples for LOHC - are discussed as well as chemical hydrogen storage materials like ammonia boranes as alternatives to LOHC.