Hydrogen Refueling Analysis of Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty ... · − Fill rate (1.8, 3.6, 7.2 kg/min) −...
Transcript of Hydrogen Refueling Analysis of Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty ... · − Fill rate (1.8, 3.6, 7.2 kg/min) −...
Hydrogen Refueling Analysis of Fuel Cell
Heavy-Duty Vehicles Fleet
Amgad Elgowainy
Argonne National Laboratory
International H2 Infrastructure Workshop
Boston, MA
September 11-12, 2018
Motivation and Objective
2
● Hydrogen fueling cost for heavy duty vehicles is different from light duty vehicles With respect to fueling pressure, fill amount, fill rate, fill strategy, precooling
requirement, etc.
Evaluate impacts of key market, technical, and economic parameters on refueling cost [$/kgH2] of heavy-duty fuel cell (FC) vehicles
Evaluate fuel cell bus fleet as a surrogate for other M/HDVs
$/kgH2??
Parameters to evaluate
3
Market parameters:− Fleet size (10, 30, 50, 100 buses)
− Hydrogen supply (20 bar gaseous, liquid tanker, tube trailer)
− Market penetration (production volume of refueling components, i.e., low, med, high)
Technical parameters:− Refueling pressure (350 bar and 700 bar)
− Tank type (III, IV)
− Dispensed amount per vehicle (20 kg, 35 kg)
− Fill rate (1.8, 3.6, 7.2 kg/min)
− Fill strategy (back-to-back, staggered, number of dispensers)
− SAE TIR specifies fueling process rates and limits (not a protocol)
Financial parameters:− 10% IRR
− 20-year project life
Parameters in red color are defaults for parametric analysis
Approach: Develop a refueling model for FC HDV
fleet
4
Systematically examines impact of various parameters
Heavy-Duty Refueling Station Analysis
Model (HDRSAM)
https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=hdrsam
5
Capital
HDRSAM Model Outputs
HDRSAM characterizes the economics of a user-defined station
Time to break
even
Contribution of Station
Components to H2 Cost
Station Levelized Cost Contributions to Levelized Cost
$/kg_H2 O&M Energy
Cumulative Cash Flow
Time to break
even
Refueling configuration options for gaseous H2 supply
6
*variable area control device
Refueling configuration options with LH2 delivery
7
Cryo-compressed (OPTION 3)
Evaluate precooling requirement for various vehicle tank
types, fill pressures and refueling rates
8
Simulated tank fills with H2SCOPE Model
Type III and Type IV (350 bar and 700 bar)
Simulated various refueling rates (1.8, 3.6, and 7.2 kg/min)
Solved physical laws to track mass, temperature, and pressure
Determine precooling requirement
Bus Onboard Storage System (350 bar, Type III)
Storage System Capacity [kg] 40
Number of Tanks 8Tank Capacity [kg] 5Initial tank pressure [MPa] 5
Geometry
Outer Diameter [in] 17.74Thickness [in] 1.78Length [in] 88.7Volume [L] 208
Type III tanks do not require precooling at all fill rates
9
Type III, 40oC presoak, 25oC ambient, 350 bar
7.2 kg/min fill rate
Tank Type Fueling Rate [kg/min] Required Temperature at Dispenser [oC]
III (350 bar)1.8 No precooling required
3.6 No precooling required
7.2 No precooling required
IV (350 bar)1.8 No precooling for 350 bar
3.6 20oC for 350 bar
7.2 5oC for 350 bar
Cost estimates for sourcing H2 to refueling station
(near-term)
10
Cost of liquid H2 delivered to refueling station (3.5-4 MT payload), 100-500 miles transportation distance:
$6-8/kg_H2
Cost of onsite water-electrolysis H2 production (@ $1000/kW) + compression:
$7-10/kg_H2
Cost of onsite SMR H2 production + compression:
$3-4/kg_H2
Steady operation desirable
Additional storage cost may be required
H2 production/transportation costs are additional to refueling cost
Compression and pumping dominate refueling cost
11
Faster fills require higher capacity equipment and result in higher cost Liquid stations can handle faster fills with less cost increase
[kg/min]
Fleet Size: 30 busesFill Amount: 35 kg350 bar, Type III tanksBack-to-back, one dispenser
(Pumping)20 bar supply
$3M
$5.3M
$8M
$3.6M$3.8M
$2.3M$2.7M
$1.8M $1.5M
Total capital investment
~12 hrs
~6 hrs
~3 hrs Total fleet fueling time
Additional H2 liquefaction capacity will be needed to serve a
growing market
12
Region Liquefaction Capacity(MT/day)
California 30
Louisiana 70
Indiana 30
New York 40
Alabama 30
Ontario 30
Quebec 27
Tennessee 6
Total 263
Staggered fueling can reduce fueling cost vs. back-to-back
fills
13
One dispenser One dispenser
Staggered refueling may be restricted by bus operation schedule
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
Leve
lized
Ref
uel
ing
Co
st [
$/k
g_H
2]
Gaseous Station Liquid Station Cryo-compressed
4-bus/h Staggered
4-bus/h Staggered
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Staggered 4-bus Staggered 2-bus Back-to-back
Back-to-Back Staggered Back-to-Back Staggered Back-to-Back Staggered
Nu
mb
er
of b
use
s
[hr] Fleet Size: 30 busesFill Amount: 35 kg
2-bus/h Staggered 2-bus/h
Staggered
(20 bar supply)
Impact of fleet size (demand) on refueling
14
Strong economies of scale with fleet size (daily demand) fueling cost can drop to ~$1/kgH2 with large fleet size
Liquid station, in general, provides a lower cost option
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
10 30 50 100 10 30 50 100 10 30 50 100
Leve
lized
Ref
uel
ing
Co
st [
$/k
g_H
2]
Two dispensers
Two dispensers
Two dispensers
Gaseous Station Liquid Station Cryo-compressed
# of buses
Fill Amount: 35 kgFill Rate: 3.6 kg/min350 bar, Type III Tank
20 bar supply
Summary
15
Lower refueling cost of HDV fleet compared to refueling LDVs
Faster fills require higher capacity equipment and result in higher fueling cost
Back-to-back fills increase fueling cost with higher fill rates, while staggered fueling reduces fueling cost, even at higher fill rates
Liquid station, in general, provides a lower cost option for HDV fleet refueling compared to gaseous stations (cost of H2 source is additional and vary by source)
Additional liquefaction capacity needs to be built
Strong economies of scale can be realized with fleet size and fill amount (impacting station demand/capacity)
~$1/kg_H2 station cost for 100 FC bus fleet with today equipment cost
Type IV tanks do not appreciably increase fueling cost compared to type III tanks
Future cryo-compressed tanks offer similar or lower refueling cost compared to gaseous refueling
Acknowledgments
16
This project has been fully supported by U.S. DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO). We are grateful for the support and guidance of FCTO Director, Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Analysis Program manager, Fred Joseck, Delivery Program manager Neha Rustagi, and Technology Acceleration manager Jason Marcinkoski
Thank You!!!
Free access to techno-economic models and publications
is available at:
https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=hdrsam
Free access to environmental life cycle analysis models
and publications is available at:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/