Integrated Design for Efficient Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen

Final Report Summary - IDEALHY (Integrated Design for Efficient Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen)

Executive Summary:
Liquid hydrogen has much higher energy density than compressed hydrogen, and can thus be transported more efficiently. Liquid hydrogen therefore enables scale-up of a hydrogen-refuelling infrastructure beyond what is possible with compressed hydrogen. A station of similar size to a petrol station would require several deliveries of gaseous hydrogen per day, whereas liquid hydrogen only needs to be delivered once or twice per week. At the station, the hydrogen would be stored in liquid form and compressed, followed by vaporisation just before fuelling the vehicle. The vehicle receives 700 bar gaseous hydrogen, just as with gaseous supplied stations.
Similarly, liquid hydrogen can be more easily transported away from a central production site. A large central electrolysis facility near an offshore wind park, for example, could provide hydrogen to an area of 500km radius rather than 150km for compressed hydrogen, thus improving its economics.
Existing hydrogen liquefaction plants are small in scale and were not constructed with efficiency as a main target. This gives hydrogen liquefaction the reputation of being expensive and energy intensive. It also shows that there is large potential for reduction in energy consumption.
The development of a new liquefaction process in the IDEALHY project has shown that liquefaction of hydrogen can be highly efficient and economically feasible, with full chain energy use lower to that of compressed hydrogen delivery. The project target of 50% reduction in power consumption for hydrogen liquefaction has been achieved by the new process, which uses 6.5 kWh to liquefy a kilogram of hydrogen supplied with an initial pressure of 20bar, compared with typical figures of 12-13kWh/kg for existing plants.
These developments allow the hydrogen vehicle refuelling infrastructure in Europe to expand beyond the initial scale that can be serviced by compressed hydrogen, and enables more excess electricity to be used for mobility.
The IDEALHY project has also developed a road map for further development and demonstration required and recommends locations for a pilot facility.

Project Context and Objectives:
Project context and main objectives
The prospect of hydrogen as a significant component in the future energy portfolio is growing. Hydrogen is regarded as a potentially important contribution to the energy supply in the efforts to curbing global warming and local pollution. From an end-user and societal perspective, user customisation and competitive retail prices are essential prerequisites for the viability of the hydrogen energy chain. In order to achieve this, capital and operational costs must be minimised.
A crucial element remains keeping the energy efficiency high by reducing the parasitic consumption throughout the chain. This applies to all aspects: conversion, conditioning, storage, distribution and end-use.

The IDEALHY project researches, develops and scales up data and designs to produce a generic process design, leading to a strategic plan for a prospective large scale demonstration of efficient hydrogen liquefaction at a scale of 50 t/day and above. This represents a very substantial scale up, of about 20 times compared to proposed and existing hydrogen liquefaction plants that are multiple smaller plants, not using economies of scale very efficiently. Supporting economic and lifecycle assessment of the resulting gains in energy efficiency have be made, together with a whole chain assessment based on near term market requirements.

Throughout the chain, energy density is a critical parameter as this differs considerably between liquid and gaseous form. A pipeline infrastructure is an unlikely option at least in the early stages of an infrastructure expansion. Bulk transportation by truck remains the more likely distribution option from the production site to filling stations. Distribution of liquefied hydrogen (LH2) is competitive with that of compressed gaseous hydrogen. With liquefaction integrated in the hydrogen chain, the central liquefaction plant predominantly drives both cost and power consumption. Thus reducing the overall costs of liquefaction is a vital prerequisite to growing the infrastructure. The aims of IDEALHY are to achieve this by new concepts in liquefaction technology and by integration with other cryogenic processes.

Although liquefaction is a very energy-intensive process, this can be compensated for by reduced downstream energy consumption: truck-transportation capacity of liquid hydrogen is 6–10 times higher than for compressed hydrogen; the retail-side energy requirement is greatly reduced as liquid pumping replaces gaseous compression in the case of high-pressure delivery; increased flexibility of retail-side delivery condition is retained. This enables all forms of storage options in the vehicles; compressed as liquid or a combination of pressurised and refrigerated. This flexibility for the end-user is very important in an emerging market and is illustrated in Figure 1. Furthermore, it is of great importance to emphasise that a distribution chain based on liquid hydrogen will cater for the needs of all types of vehicles, both small and large, and any possible future technologies for storage developed by the different industrial actors.

The transition from current liquid hydrogen LH2 production volumes to meet the demands from industrial customers to an extensive supply of hydrogen as an energy commodity will require liquefiers with considerably larger production capacity than current state of the art. The scale and cost structure of most state-of-the-art liquefiers do not justify extensive utilisation of process integration and energy recovery, which would increase efficiency and correspondingly reduce power consumption. Capacity scaling-up, however, in combination with the imperative requirement of high overall-chain efficiency is likely to shift the liquefier cost structure, impose a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and thus enhance the correlation between cost and energy.

The development of hydrogen liquefaction plants has not evolved to the same degree as for the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, where the sizes of the train have grown very fast over the last years. The train sizes for hydrogen have rather stagnated and decreased. In the USA no new liquid hydrogen production has been added since 1997, even though the consumption has grown with a rate of 9 per cent per year. However, LH2 production capacity is still greater than the demand.
It is widely anticipated that hydrogen will play an important role as a clean fuel in the future. To enable this, massive expansion of the hydrogen production, storage and distribution infrastructure will be needed and without a pipeline network, liquid hydrogen is the most effective way to supply the larger refuelling stations needed from 2020 onwards. Furthermore, liquid hydrogen can be transported over large distances by truck, train or ship, evening out local supply imbalances and thus ensuring that hydrogen is available at the station at all times. To realise the full potential of liquid hydrogen, the liquefaction process has to be scaled-up and its energy consumption reduced significantly, bringing the chain efficiency to the same level as gaseous hydrogen distribution.
IDEALHY is an EU-funded project coordinated by Shell and involving experts from all over Europe and Japan. It aims to prepare for a liquid hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, with the main goal of planning a hydrogen liquefaction plant at a scale of 40-200 tonnes per day, much larger than any currently in operation. Not only that, but the energy consumption will be halved compared to existing plants.

The project also analyses the journey (‘life cycle’) of hydrogen, from the source to the customer, to trace both its efficiency and its carbon footprint. Health and safety (HSSE) considerations have been fully integrated into the project to ensure safe operation – not only of liquefaction, but also along the whole journey. The project will support the commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles and the rollout of a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure in Europe beyond the initial phases, but could also supply hydrogen as a clean burning fuel for other uses.

Participants in IDEALHY include several key liquid hydrogen technology players in Europe, and synergy between their technical and business expertise is further strengthening the project. The partners are Shell Global Solutions, SINTEF, the Technical University of Dresden, Linde Kryotechnik, the University of Loughborough, WEKA, North Energy, and PLANET. In addition Kawasaki Heavy Industries of Japan is an associated partner.

Alongside the development work, it is important to make others aware of the need for liquid hydrogen and progress made within the IDEALHY project. The communication of accurate information about the possibilities – and limitations – of liquid hydrogen forms an integral part of the project.
IDEALHY has come a long way in terms of designing an efficient, large-scale hydrogen liquefaction plant.
Concurrently, talks are also being held with equipment manufacturers to discuss the restrictions and potential of the components needed for such a plant, the biggest of its kind ever built. But again, IDEALHY exudes positivity, benefiting from the expertise of Linde Kryotechnik, as well as components manufacturer WEKA. Indeed, making good connections with other component suppliers is imperative for the project’s future. Not only does IDEALHY have to produce a theoretical flow scheme, but also a design using specific and realistic components so that the technology can be demonstrated at a later stage.
As with the creation of any new process, it is a long voyage from design to implementation, taking into account development, testing, safety assessments, demonstrations and certification. Hazard analysis and risk assessments/mitigation form a significant part of this process, as there are many elements of a liquid hydrogen supply chain, which differ markedly from the gaseous form.
Working on this for IDEALHY are experts from Shell and Loughborough University, who have considerable experience with industrial gas installations.

Challenges And The Future Roadmap
The next steps of the project are as important as those that preceded them. The partners are already discussing how they might progress to a demonstration stage. As yet there are no concrete plans or commitments, but the shared vision is to develop a European hydrogen liquefaction plant capable of producing 50 tonnes of liquid hydrogen per day. This plant would work alongside a hydrogen-manufacturing unit, producing hydrogen from renewable sources and/or natural gas while capturing and sequestering the CO2 produced, in keeping with the low-carbon energy supply initiative. Options for combination with an LNG re-gasification terminal are also under investigation, because of the energy and product integration synergies. Shell has a particular interest in options such as these, as part of its long term integrated gas position.

As the world moves to a new model of energy supply with a shift in focus towards sustainability, IDEALHY is opening up new possibilities for low-carbon energy chains.

The overall IDEALHY objectives are to:

I. Enable the storage and distribution of hydrogen in liquid form by designing a commercial liquefaction process, which uses only half the energy of -and, can be operated at lower cost than existing plants. This means developing a generic process for hydrogen liquefaction whereby energy consumption is reduced from current 12-13 kWh/kg to 6-7 kWh/kg. For a 50 tpd plant this results in a power level reduction from 24 to 12 MW.

II. Prepare a strategic plan for demonstration of efficient hydrogen liquefaction at a scale of up to 200 tonnes per day
The design is based on components that can be manufactured today and a proposal for a near future demonstration plant of around 40-50 tonnes per day will be made.

III. In addition, an important objective is to compare the larger scale process and the liquid hydrogen pathway to alternatives on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and safety implications.

Project context and main objectives
The prospect of hydrogen as a significant component in the future energy portfolio is growing. Hydrogen is regarded as a potentially important contribution to the energy supply in the efforts to curbing global warming and local pollution. From an end-user and societal perspective, user customisation and competitive retail prices are essential prerequisites for the viability of the hydrogen energy chain. In order to achieve this, capital and operational costs must be minimised.
A crucial element remains keeping the energy efficiency high by reducing the parasitic consumption throughout the chain. This applies to all aspects: conversion, conditioning, storage, distribution and end-use.

The IDEALHY project researches, develops and scales up data and designs to produce a generic process design, leading to a strategic plan for a prospective large scale demonstration of efficient hydrogen liquefaction at a scale of 50 t/day and above. This represents a very substantial scale up, of about 20 times compared to proposed and existing hydrogen liquefaction plants that are multiple smaller plants, not using economies of scale very efficiently. Supporting economic and lifecycle assessment of the resulting gains in energy efficiency have be made, together with a whole chain assessment based on near term market requirements.

Throughout the chain, energy density is a critical parameter as this differs considerably between liquid and gaseous form. A pipeline infrastructure an unlikely option at least in the early stages of an infrastructure expansion. Bulk transportation by truck remains the more likely distribution option from the production site to filling stations. Distribution of liquefied hydrogen (LH2) is competitive with that of compressed gaseous hydrogen. With liquefaction integrated in the hydrogen chain, the central liquefaction plant predominantly drives both cost and power consumption. Thus reducing the overall costs of liquefaction is a vital prerequisite to growing the infrastructure. The aims of IDEALHY are to achieve this by new concepts in liquefaction technology and by integration with other cryogenic processes.

Although liquefaction is a very energy-intensive process, this can be compensated for by reduced downstream energy consumption: truck-transportation capacity of liquid hydrogen is 6–10 times higher than for compressed hydrogen; the retail-side energy requirement is greatly reduced as liquid pumping replaces gaseous compression in the case of high-pressure delivery; increased flexibility of retail-side delivery condition is retained. This enables all forms of storage options in the vehicles; compressed as liquid or a combination of pressurised and refrigerated. This flexibility for the end-user is very important in an emerging market and is illustrated in Figure 1. Furthermore, it is of great importance to emphasise that a distribution chain based on liquid hydrogen may comply with the needs of all types of vehicles, both small and large, and possible future technologies for storage developed by the different industrial actors.

Figure 1 Illustration of a flexible distribution chain with liquid hydrogen in parts of the supply chain for transport applications.(see AnnexA)

The transition from current liquid hydrogen LH2 production volumes to meet the demands from industrial customers to an extensive supply of hydrogen as an energy commodity will require liquefiers with considerably larger production capacity than current state of the art. The scale and cost structure of most state-of-the-art liquefiers do not justify extensive utilisation of process integration and energy recovery, which would increase efficiency and correspondingly reduce power consumption. Capacity scaling-up, however, in combination with the imperative requirement of high overall-chain efficiency is likely to shift the liquefier cost structure, impose a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and thus enhance the correlation between cost and energy.

The development of hydrogen liquefaction plants has not evolved to the same degree as for the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, where the sizes of the train have grown very fast over the last years. The train sizes have rather stagnated and decreased. In the USA no new liquid hydrogen production has been added since 1997 even if the consumption has grown with a rate of 9 per cent per year. However, LH2 production capacity is still greater than the demand.
It is widely anticipated that hydrogen will play an important role as a clean fuel in the future. To enable this, massive expansion of the hydrogen production, storage and distribution infrastructure will be needed and without a pipeline network, liquid hydrogen is the most effective way to supply the larger refuelling stations needed from 2020 onwards. Furthermore, liquid hydrogen can be transported over large distances by truck, train or ship, evening out local supply imbalances and thus ensuring that hydrogen is available at the station at all times. To realise the full potential of liquid hydrogen, the liquefaction process has to be scaled-up and its energy consumption reduced significantly, bringing the chain efficiency to the same level as gaseous hydrogen distribution.
IDEALHY is an EU-funded project coordinated by Shell and involving experts from all over Europe and Japan. It aims to prepare for a liquid hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, with the main goal of planning a hydrogen liquefaction plant at a scale of 50-200 tonnes per day, much larger than any currently in operation. Not only that, but the energy consumption will be halved compared to existing plants.

The project also analyses the journey (‘life cycle’) of hydrogen, from the source to the customer, to trace both its efficiency and its carbon footprint. Health and safety (HSSE) considerations have been fully integrated into the project to ensure safe operation – not only of liquefaction, but also along the whole journey. The project will support the commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles and the rollout of a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure in Europe beyond the initial phases, but could also supply hydrogen as a clean burning fuel for other uses.

Participants in IDEALHY include several key liquid hydrogen technology players in Europe, and synergy between their technical and business expertise is further strengthening the project. The partners are Shell Global Solutions, SINTEF, the Technical University of Dresden, Linde Kryotechnik, the University of Loughborough, WEKA, North Energy, and PLANET. In addition Kawasaki Heavy Industries of Japan is an associated partner.

Alongside the development work, it is important to make others aware of the need for liquid hydrogen and progress made within the IDEALHY project. The communication of accurate information about the possibilities – and limitations – of liquid hydrogen forms an integral part of the project.
IDEALHY has come a long way in terms of designing an efficient, large-scale hydrogen liquefaction plant.
Concurrently, talks are also being held with equipment manufacturers to discuss the restrictions and potential of the components needed for such a plant, the biggest of its kind ever built. But again, IDEALHY exudes positivity, benefiting from the expertise of Linde Kryotechnik, as well as components manufacturer WEKA. Indeed, making good connections with other component suppliers is imperative for the project’s future. Not only does IDEALHY have to produce a theoretical flow scheme, but also a design using specific and realistic components so that the technology can be demonstrated at a later stage.
As with the creation of any new process, it is a long voyage from design to implementation, taking into account development, testing, safety assessments, demonstrations and certification. Hazard analysis and risk assessments/mitigation form a significant part of this process, as there are many elements of a liquid hydrogen supply chain, which differ markedly from the gaseous form.
Working on this for IDEALHY are experts from Shell and Loughborough University, who have considerable experience with industrial gas installations.

Challenges And The Future Roadmap
The next steps of the project are as important as those that preceded them. The partners are already discussing how they might progress to a demonstration stage. As yet there are no concrete plans or commitments, but the shared vision is to develop a European hydrogen liquefaction plant capable of producing 50 tonnes of liquid hydrogen per day. This plant would work alongside a hydrogen-manufacturing unit, producing hydrogen from renewable sources and/or natural gas while capturing and sequestering the CO2 produced, in keeping with the low-carbon energy supply initiative. Options for combination with an LNG re-gasification terminal are also under investigation, because of the energy and product integration synergies. Shell has a particular interest in options such as these, as part of its long term integrated gas position.

As the world moves to a new model of energy supply with a shift in focus towards sustainability, IDEALHY is opening up new possibilities for low-carbon energy chains.

The overall IDEALHY objectives are to:

I. Enable the storage and distribution of hydrogen in liquid form by designing a commercial liquefaction process, which uses only half the energy of -and, can be operated at lower cost than existing plants. This means developing a generic process for hydrogen liquefaction whereby energy consumption is reduced from current 12-13 kWh/kg to 6-7 kWh/kg. For a 50 tpd plant this results in a power level reduction from 24 to 12 MW.

II. Prepare a strategic plan for demonstration of efficient hydrogen liquefaction at a scale of up to 200 tonnes per day
The design is based on components that can be manufactured today and a proposal for a near future demonstration plant of around 40-50 tonnes per day will be made.

III. To carry out whole chain assessment and compare the larger scale process and the liquid hydrogen pathway to alternatives on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and safety implications.

Project Results:
The project work packages are shown in Table 1. The main results and foregrounds are described for each Work Package.

Table 1 IDEALHY Work Packages (see AnnexA)
WP1 Technology analysis and conceptual liquefaction process assessment RTD SINTEF
WP2 Component assessment and optimisation of feasible large-scale liquefaction process RTD SINTEF
WP3 Whole chain assessment RTD University of Loughborough
WP4 Dissemination and IPR Management Other PLANET
WP5 Planning and preparation of a large scale demonstration RTD SHELL
WP6 Project Management MGMT SHELL

Work package 1: Technology analysis and conceptual liquefaction process assessment
Task 1.1 Technology overview
In this task a technology overview, as described in the project plan, was established by SINTEF, TUD, Linde and WEKA, with focus on each partners' respective field of expertise. The contributions from each partner were compiled in deliverable report 1.1. Descriptions and evaluation of existing and conceptual liquefaction processes were given with emphasis on key characteristics such as: energy efficiency, number of compressors and expanders, machinery types and efficiencies, capacity, refrigeration cycle types, final expansion and liquefaction process and catalytic converter type.
Furthermore, a first state-of-the-art description for central process units such as compressors, expanders, heat exchangers, coldboxes, cryogenic valves and catalyst material was given.
Based on the key characteristics relevant for IDEALHY of each process, primarily prospective energy efficiency for the liquefier as well as realisation potential for the required process units with respect to efficiency, pressure level, temperature level and capacity, a first screening of processes to further assess in task 1.3 was carried out.
Barriers to higher energy and cost efficiency beyond the state of the art were briefly discussed from an industrial perspective, where an important consideration is that the largest liquefier which could be built in a workshop is around 50 tonnes per day, with the cryogenic cold box being the critical constraint.
Task 1.2 Boundary conditions and duty specification
The process of determining liquefier boundary conditions, for instance feed and product specifications as well as ambient conditions, was initiated shortly after the start of the project, at the first WP1 workshop in December 2011 at TU Dresden. This meeting also started the process of determining a set of process unit performance and efficiency parameters to be used in the more detailed process benchmarking to be carried out in task 1.3.
Project partners Linde, WEKA, Shell and KHI were involved in order to ensure that realistic process and unit parameters conforming to industrial perspectives were specified.
The primary function of the defined boundary conditions was to ensure that the process benchmarking was on a level playing field in task 1.3. As more in-depth process unit assessments would continue throughout task 1.3 and work package 2, later adjustments of boundary conditions and unit performance were expected, as has indeed been the case, e. g. with compressor stage efficiencies following discussions with manufacturers Cryostar and MAN. Although it was formulated that duty specifications up to 200 tonnes per day will be considered later in the project, the workshop constraint of 50 tonnes per day of task 1.1 will nto be neglected in the further work.
A complete overview of the assessment and decisions made in task 1.2 were documented in deliverable report 1.2.
Task 1.3 Pre-selection of concepts, alternative for sub-systems
The partners in IDEALHY project are using different simulation tools in their work, both in-house (TUD) and commercial software (HYSYS and PROII at SINTEF). Before the simulation work of processes selected for benchmarking from task 1.1 could be carried out, it was of high importance to compare the different process simulators and thermodynamic packages used. A reference case was established by Linde and subsequently reproduced in the different simulation tools, and the results were compared and verified.
In addition to the Linde reference case, six other high-efficiency concepts were simulated. A comprehensive benchmarking was carried out and a detailed exergy analysis was performed for each cycle to categorise and allocate exergy losses.
Ambient and cold gas compression
Cold compression of hydrogen flash gas was excluded at an early stage due to infeasibility of such a machine. As cold hydrogen compression would be the more efficient means of handling and re-liquefying hydrogen, and an ejector configuration with Joule-Thompson (J-T) throttling is not desired in a high-efficiency liquefier, it was therefore decided to pursue a once-through concept with saturated or sub-cooled liquid at the expander outlet. Hence, ambient and inter-cooled compressors would likely be the only compressor types applied in the further progress of the project.
For hydrogen pre-compression highest possible pressure is in principle desired in order to avoid high increases is specific heat capacity in the proximity of the critical point. 80 bar was specified as a desirable target, but may be somewhat lowered due to limitations in heat exchanger efficiency. This issue is further elaborated upon in WP2.
Pre-cooling cycles
The impact of different pre-cooling cycles on liquefaction efficiency was thoroughly investigated and the analyses revealed large differences between different concepts. Open liquid nitrogen pre-cooling was by far the least efficient option and was ruled out as an alternative. Among the other concepts investigated, closed nitrogen Claude cycle, helium Brayton cycle, and mixed refrigerant cascade, the latter was considered to be of highest potential efficiency and therefore selected as pre-cooling cycle for the final concept. However, it was decided that the former cold-end temperature level for pre-cooling (80 K) will not be fixed and rather increased to an energy-optimal temperature split between the mixed refrigerant pre-cooling cycle and cryogenic refrigeration cycle. The cold-end temperature level will likely be between 200 and 100 K. In this temperature range a single-stage cycle is possible, which will reduce the complexity and cost of the system.
Cryogenic refrigeration cycles
For cryogenic refrigeration the available process options are much more limited in number than for pre-cooling due to the temperature levels in consideration. The pros and cons of using hydrogen, helium, neon or mixtures of these were discussed and weighed against each other. The use of hydrogen will limit the obtainable cold-end temperature while neon and helium are scarce and expensive resources. Moreover, compression of helium with turbo-compressors is difficult due to very limited stage pressure ratio. However, as the main emphasis will be on OPEX and the fact that helium and neon systems can be hermetically sealed, these two gases were chosen to be the refrigerant of the cryogenic refrigeration cycle. A mixture of helium and neon has most of the required features needed for an efficient cryogenic cycle that at the same time can enable low enough temperatures to generate saturated liquid or possibly very minor fractions of flash gas after final expansion.
Final liquefaction and vapour recovery
A liquid expander was considered to be the best option for high efficiency. Liquid turbo expansion is available technology, but the efficiency assumed in task 1.2 (90%) is probably not feasible, and the actual efficiency will be closer to 80%. Depending on the efficiency of the liquid expander and the inlet pressure, the inlet temperature required for no flash gas to be produced will be somewhere between 25 and 23 K.
There are some uncertainties about which temperatures can be reached with a helium/neon mixture as cryogenic refrigerant, due to possible freeze-out of neon. If later calculations show that it is practically impossible to reach sufficiently low temperatures before the final expander to obtain saturated or sub-cooled liquid at the expander outlet, some flash gas must be accepted. This matter is subject to further investigation in WP2.

WP2 Component assessment and optimisation of feasible large-scale liquefaction process

The work in this work package involved extremely close collaboration between the partners to carry out detailed simulations on different cycles, mixed refrigerants and use of improved components to derive the optimised IDEALHY process. The result is a process that is realistic in that it uses existing components and achieves the project objective of reducing by 50% the energy required for liquefaction.

Following the above work, in which a concept based on mixed-refrigerant pre-cooling and helium/neon Brayton cycle for cryogenic cooling, the detail level of process simulations was increased. The first major task in optimising the process scheme (i.e. minimising power consumption) consisted of determining the energy-optimal temperature cut between pre-cooling (mixed refrigerant) and cryogenic (helium/neon) refrigeration cycles. Process models for both cycles, incorporating the best possible data for components efficiencies etc., were simulated. Three temperature levels, 110 K, 130 K and 150 K, were selected and used in refrigeration cycle simulations, and the power consumption for each cycle calculated. For the mixed-refrigerant cycle, a rigorous optimisation routine was used by SINTEF in which optimum compressor discharge and suction pressures as well as multi-component compositions were determined. Thus, minimum power consumption was found for each of the three temperature levels was found. The mixed-refrigerant power consumption was then added to the corresponding helium/neon cycle power for each temperature. Based on the aggregate power for the two cycles, 130 K was chosen as intermediate temperature level. Due to a very flat energy minimum, further temperature variation below and above 130 K was not necessary in order to proceed with process design.

The principal change in process structure made during WP2 was the abandonment of the once-/straight-through principle decided upon in WP1. Instead of once-through, a flash-gas-producing cycle requiring flash gas re-compression and recycle was conceded. The main reason for this was change was elaborated during the work on a feasible helium/neon compressor train, the most challenging and significant process unit in the new large-scale concept. In order for the suction volume flow to fit with the design possible with a standard frame of one of the compressor vendor involved, the suction pressure had to be increased to a higher level. In order to mitigate this effect a chiller was also included in the process scheme to keep the suction temperature at a lower level, in turn allowing for a slightly lower pressure level that would otherwise be required. To be on the safe side with respect to possible condensation or solidification of neon, and with the elevated low-pressure level in the helium/neon cycle, the cold-side cooling temperature of this cycle was found to about 26.5 K. With a pinch temperature approach of 0.3 K, expansion of hydrogen from 26.8 K in wet expanders were not sufficient to generate sub-cooled liquid, and an estimated 5.5–5.6% flash gas fraction would have to be recompressed and re-liquefied in a smaller loop.

In parallel with process-scheme development, several verification tasks for component performance were carried out. The component verification task consisted of vendor inquiries through a combination of meetings and exchange of specifications, as well as in-house work.

While current liquefiers require valves of up to 35 mm diameter, the dimensions required for the large-scale IDEALHY concept are in the range 350–380 mm. Cryogenic valves conforming to these requirements are currently unavailable on the market and therefore, WEKA tested and developed concepts for valves and fittings of the required dimensions. The conclusions from this design and development work was that new types of larger control valves meeting for elevated pressure and which can be equipped with a state-of-the-art actuator, can be developed and constructed. First prototype testing was successful and further tests results have been encouraging.

For the electrically driven first six stages of the helium/neon compressor train, design iterations were exchanged with MAN Diesel and Turbo (Zürich) and GE Oil and Gas (Firenze). Design proposals were based on already available compressor designs, and efficiency figures from these exchanges were adopted in the main process simulations models. Compander (brake compressors) design was carried out by Cryostar. Although more energy-efficient designs may be obtained with R&D efforts, the verified helium/neon compressor and expander efficiencies were somewhat below expectations. A high-efficiency process concept was still obtainable, and a realistic potential for further efficiency increase lies within R&D of rotating equipment, e.g. by pushing the technology forward with respect to maximum rpm.

A design for the mixed-refrigerant plate-fix heat exchanger was made by SINTEF and subsequently verified and approved by Linde. All other plate-fin heat exchangerdesign and dimensioning were carried out by Linde Kryotechnik. A design challenge for large-scale concept is the high pressure in the hydrogen line – 80 bar whereas state of the art is around 20 bar – limiting possible fin types, which is drastically reduced to a very small number limiting the degree of efficiency optimisation.

The reduced cross section following higher hydrogen pressure has implications also for the catalyst filling procedure. Filling of catalyst was investigated by TU Dresden, and tests with IONEX (ferric oxide) with an average particle size of 0.42 mm showed that there are challenges related to completely filling the high-pressure hydrogen channels with catalyst. However, with sufficient time and by appropriate methods, the filling task can be performed satisfactorily, but further testing is recommended to elaborate filling procedures ensuring equal distribution in real-size dimensions including headers and distributors, as well as catalyst activation. Examples on measures to facilitate the filling procedure are counter-flow nitrogen fluidisation and producing more spherical-shaped particles in order to getting closer to the maximum possible packing density. Other work performed by TU Dresden during and beyond IDEALHY includes testing of alternative catalysts.
Modelling and simulation of the liquefier model has been carried out continuously by SINTEF and TU Dresden. Through the use of different simulation tools, the consistency of simulation results could be verified. With the current process configuration and realistic component efficiencies assumed, the main objective of IDEALHY, nearly 50% reduction in specific liquefaction power, has been reached. The specific power consumption of the final process design is estimated to 6.4 kWh/kgLH2, and this corresponds to 47% reduction.

Figure 2: Optimising the liquefaction process and a new concept for maximum efficiency(see AnnexA)

Cost calculations for the 50 tpd plant design have been performed by Linde and Shell (Deliverable No D2.7).

A detailed technical audit for the final liquefier design was performed by Linde, concluding that the IDEALHY process for a >50 tpd hydrogen liquefier is technically sound and well based on state-of-the-art technology. The fact that all new systems can be developed out of state-of-the-art reliable technology reduces the resulting risks significantly.

A first layout of the total plant was drafted to identify the space and building requirements. A compressor building contains the feed compressor, the mixed refrigerant compressor, the chiller and the three Nelium turbo compressors. The compressor building is equipped with a crane, which helps in the initial installation as well as in later service operations. All components, which work at temperatures below ambient temperature, are housed in a vacuum insulated coldbox. Because of the number and size of the necessary components probably a single coldbox is not sufficient. It is proposed to divide it into two vertical cylindrical coldboxes, each with a diameter of about 4.5 m and a length of about 10 m. The two boxes are connected by a “tunnel”. The dividing temperature between the two boxes is about 80 K.
The liquid product is formed in the colder coldbox at a pressure slightly above the storage pressure and then guided via a vacuum insulated transfer line to the large storage vessel. It is proposed that this storage vessel should be able to storage the product of 1 week of operation, which is equivalent to a volume of 5.000 m3, i.e. a sphere of about 27 m. The distance of this storage vessel to the rest of the plant will be determined by safety considerations.
All ambient temperature lines between the compressors and the coldboxes contain a one-phase fluid, except for the high pressure mixed refrigerant stream. It already contains some liquid after the water cooler and even more liquid after the cooling by the chiller. To avoid two-phase flow in a long line, it is proposed to locate the water cooler and the chiller exchanger for this stream close to the coldbox using a special design that the two-phase flow from a single pipe of the water cooler is flowing directly into a single line of the chiller exchanger, thus avoiding maldistribution or a need for flow redistribution.
Closer investigation of the process showed that the Brayton cycles need a little bit of precooling from the mixed refrigerant cycle to optimize the exergy losses in the cryogenic heat exchangers. And the lower temperature Brayton cycle needs an additional little precooling from the warmer Brayton cycle.

This plant layout together with the finalized process made it possible to estimate the diameter of all process pipes, the inventory of hydrogen and the refrigerants. And these data were needed for the safety analysis.

For the comparison of the different processes to liquefy hydrogen and the choice of the IDEALHY preferred process only the operation at the design capacity was taken into account. But real plants have to operate often and for extended periods in part load for various reasons including limitations in the available feed or reduced requirements for the product. So we investigated to part-load capacity of the IDEALHY preferred process. It turned out that all subsystems can operate safely and efficiently at capacities down to about 25 % of the design capacity:
• For the volumetric feed compressor one can foresee either a variable speed of the electric motor, and/or it is possible to reduce the number of active cylinders.
• The chiller will probably be equipped with several small compressors in parallel, which can be switched of individually.
• In the mixed refrigerant cycle one can adjust the operating pressure and the composition of the refrigerant.
• For the capacity control of the Brayton cycles one can change the quantity of the refrigerant inventory. With a reduced inventory all pressures will drop, but all pressure ratios will stay about constant. Thus all turbo machines will continue to operate with design volumetric flows and design pressure ratios, i.e. at their design points.
• The capacity of the liquid hydrogen expander can be changed easily, if a reciprocating piston expander is used. If a gas bearing turbine expander is used, it will be necessary to throttle the inlet stream.
The important conclusion is that if the first plant was built for a design capacity of 40 tpd, it could operate even at a part load capacity of 10 tpd with a specific power consumption, which is better than a conventional liquefier designed for such a capacity.
This conclusion is important if we are to build a plant to demonstrate the technology. Originally it was planned to proceed from the IDEALHY theoretical studies directly to demonstration plant with a capacity of 50 (or 40) tpd. The components, which would be needed for such a plant capacity are relative close to existing machines. So if there was to be an urgent commercial need for a plant of such high capacity, one could build such a demonstration plant with relatively little technical risk.
But the IDEALHY partners realized, that the market for a commercial plant of this size is not to be expected within the next five years. So there is time for a more careful step-by-step technical development. Especially component suppliers can be motivated to develop and improve their products. So the partners decided that it would be wise to plan for a development period, in which e.g. three test plants for components could be built and operated:
- One plant for testing components of the hydrogen streams: Feed compressor, ortho-para conversion in heat exchangers, liquid hydrogen expander, flash gas cycle with para hydrogen.
- A second plant for the mixed refrigerant system with the possibility to vary the composition of the refrigerant and to study capacity control with varying pressures and composition.
- A third plant for the optimisation of turbo machinery for the NELIUM Brayton cycles, especially the increase of circumferential speed of such machines with magnetic bearings.

WP3 Whole chain assessment
Task 3.1 Safety assessment

During the first year of the project a literature review was undertaken to identify experimental data on releases of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) and liquefied hydrogen (LH2). Overall there was a dearth of information, particularly related to LH2 releases.
Two HAZIDs (hazard identification) exercises were performed by the partners of the IDEALHY project. The first addressed the transport of LH2 by road tanker to, and its offloading and storage at re-fuelling stations. The second addressed the conversion of GH2 to LH2, its storage and the loading of road tankers at the liquefaction plant. The purpose of the HAZIDs was to identify untoward events that could occur as a result of handling the hazardous materials involved in the proposed new hydrogen liquefaction process developed as the main objective of the IDEALHY project. In addition a review of related incidents involving liquid hydrogen that had been reported in the literature was performed.

Following completion of the HAZIDs and the incident review, analysis of the results was undertaken. The purpose of this analysis was to identify the causes and consequences of the untoward events to provide information that was eventually used to assess the risk of such operations.
Seven causes of incidents were identified and analysis of these causes showed that, overall, design or construction failure, equipment failure or procedural deficiency dominated. These three causes involve the greatest amount of human involvement which may account for the higher proportion of incidents compared with the other causes. The overall analysis of the causes of the untoward events in the HAZIDs was similar to that for the incidents. This suggested that, in general, the HAZIDs reflected reality. An exception was that in the HAZID exercises, the tendency for people not to follow procedures was underestimated.
Five consequences resulting from the incidents were identified. The vast majority of reported incidents resulted in a release, and approximately half of these releases were ignited. All the ignited releases resulted in either a fire or an explosion in equal proportions (sometimes both occurred during the same incident) and in one of the fire cases a BLEVE also occurred. It was not possible to analyse the HAZID results in a similar manner because the range of potential release sizes was too great and it was not possible to determine whether or not ignition would have occurred. However, it was concluded that a similar profile from the untoward events identified in the HAZID might be expected.
The final objective of the project was to assess the risk to which people could be subjected untoward events associated with both the liquefaction and transport activities. Such an assessment is often achieved through Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). In QRA, the frequencies of untoward events are required together with predictions of their consequences. At the current time, the limited operational experience and dearth of experimental data for the development and validation of consequence assessment models makes the estimation of these parameters difficult. Consequently a qualitative approach has been adopted.
The likelihoods of untoward events were estimated using engineering judgement. These untoward events were then grouped into five frequency bands, each band covering two orders of magnitude with the overall range extending from 10-9 to 10-1 untoward events per year. The bands were given titles such as ‘extremely unlikely’ through ‘possible’ to ‘probable’.
The 103 untoward events identified in the two HAZIDs were condensed into 19 generic consequence cases such as GH2 jet fires, LH2 jet fires, LH2 pool fires, gas dispersion and explosion, etc. Within each case a range of release sizes, release conditions were considered. In all a total of 139 consequence assessments were performed. The mathematical models used were of the engineering type and based upon previously developed models for natural gas and other hydrocarbons, but then adapted for hydrogen based on the limited experimental data available. The models for jet and pool fires, accumulation and explosions in confined spaces and BLEVEs were developed by Loughborough University. The Shell FRED suite of models were used for dispersion from jets and pools and the subsequent vapour cloud explosions. Once the magnitude of the consequences had been predicted, their severity in terms of the number of fatalities and/or the level of damage was estimated. This number of fatalities was determined through the adoption of harm criteria and the number of people expected to be in the locality. The harm criteria included the ignition of buildings within which people could shelter as a result of thermal radiation and the collapse of buildings as a result of explosion overpressure. The consequences were then grouped into five severity bands with titles ranging from ‘slight effect, no damage’ to ‘more than 3 fatalities, massive damage’.
The likelihood and severity of the 139 assessments were combined to form two Qualitative Risk Matrices (QRM): one for transport and storage; one for liquefaction and storage.
The frequency of events and the number of fatalities incurred in each event were used to construct two Societal Risk (F/N) curves. The results displayed in the QRMs and the Societal Risk curves show that a higher risk is presented by the road transportation and storage at the refilling station of LH2 than by the liquefaction of GH2 and the storage of LH2 at the production facility. Finally, measures to reduce the likelihood and severity of untoward events at the liquefaction facility, during transport and at the refuelling station were suggested.
In addition the importance of obtaining experimental information of both GH2 and LH2 releases was stressed in order to ensure appropriate consequence assessment models are developed and available.

Task 3.2 Scenario development
The final concept of the demonstration plant to be established towards the end of the IDEALHY project and to be realised in a subsequent project will not only be based on the trade-off between capital and operational expenditure on the one hand and the efficiency of the process on the other hand. The impact on overall energy use and on CO2 emissions along the pathways will also be an input on decisions in this area.

The liquid hydrogen scenario work defines the pathways for hydrogen generation, conditioning, liquefaction, distribution and end use, which is analysed and compared in the life cycle and economic assessment.
These pathways start with the initial source of energy that provides the hydrogen. For the analysis, they are divided into three steps:
• From the energy source via hydrogen generation and conditioning up to entry into the liquefaction plant
• Hydrogen liquefaction
• From the liquefaction plant to utilisation, including transportation by ship (applicable to some pathways) and road tanker, storage at the refuelling station, pressurisation and gasification and refuelling, and finally utilisation in fuel cell powered buses and cars.
The benchmark cases are petrol and diesel, being the standard fuels for road vehicles today. They were introduced in “Baseline Results Report” of this project (Ref. 1). The Baseline Results Report also outlines the life cycle assessment methodology to be employed.
As an alternative to liquid transportation of hydrogen (and further benchmark), gaseous distribution by road trailers is considered as well.
Two types of pathways can be distinguished with respect to size and energy source:
• Liquefaction at intermediate scale (about 50 tonnes per day) when hydrogen generation and liquefaction take place in the demand country or region;
• Liquefaction at large scale (about 500 tonnes per day) when the resource region is distant from the demand country/region, and hydrogen transportation by ship is required.
Energy sources considered for hydrogen generation for the former are surplus wind electricity, and reformation of compressed and of liquefied natural gas (with and without carbon capture and storage; CCS). For the latter, brown coal and compressed natural gas are investigated (including CCS in both cases) as well as concentrated solar power. The overall results are presented in Deliverable report D3-14.

Task 3.3 Life cycle assessment

An analysis has been carried out of 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.
Consequential LCA
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.
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 round-trip delivery distances beyond a certain threshold.
o Depending on the pathway, this distance was between 120 and 150 km.
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).
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 chain-specific.
• All the results for H2 pathways for fuel cell cars have lower total GHG emissions than those for conventional diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars.

WP4 Dissemination

Since the results of IDEALHY are of relevance mainly to an expert community, technical and scientific stakeholders, and relevant decision makers in this domain were the main target. However, the wider implications of the IDEALHY findings could be expected to be of interest also for a broader audience. According activities were thus foreseen towards the end of project.
Development of a detailed dissemination plan
At the time of proposal writing, not all elements of the dissemination activities could be planned in full detail. For example, the starting date of IDEALHY would determine the relevant events for disseminating the final project results, anticipated to become available during the last 4 to 6 months of the project. Therefore, a detailed dissemination plan was developed at the start beginning of the project, and discussed and finalised at the first consortium meeting. The plan was co-ordinated with the FCH JU Programme Office and reviewed at project mid-term.
The dissemination plan turned out to be helpful in keeping track of progress in terms of making IDEALHY known and concerning the need for adjustments with respect to relevant activities.
General dissemination
The key items for general dissemination purposes were:
• A project logo to generate recognition value,
• A flyer providing key information on the project (outline, steps and expected results) and making stakeholders aware of the IDEALHY website for obtaining more detail and keeping up to date with project progress. The flyer was distributed by all partners at various occasions, such as using it as handout in face-to-face talks and putting it on display at networking event, fairs and conferences.
• The IDEALHY website for informing interested parties about the project objectives and advancement. The site structure was kept simple (Figure 3). The “Publications” section was regularly updated with new reports from the project (either entire docu¬ments or public summaries) and with presentations, posters and papers (Figure 4).
• A set of slides containing standard information on the project (similar to the flyer and the website), in order to harmonise the image of the project that was conveyed and to reduce the effort for individual partners to generate presentations.
Given the expert topic character of the project, the website attracted substantial interest, see Figure 5. From the beginning of 2013 the number of monthly unique visitors was more than 230 on average and the number of downloads about 450.
The dissemination toolkit comprising the above items provided a sound basis for diffusing the IDEALHY approach and outcomes.

Figure 3: IDEALHY web site (see AnnexA)

Figure 4 Top end of the “Publications” section of the IDEALHY website. (see AnnexA)

Figure 5 Number of monthly unique visitors and downloads from the IDEALHY website (see AnnexA)

WP5 Planning and preparation of a large-scale demonstration

In work package 1 of the IDEALHY project, existing and proposed processes for hydrogen liquefaction at large scale (>50 tonnes per day) were benchmarked via detailed simulations. The most promising concept was developed further in work package 2 (WP2), working within the same boundary conditions but optimising the process for the lowest possible energy consumption. The investment cost was also a consideration, meaning that the amount and complexity of equipment was kept to a minimum where efficiency would not be compromised.
In parallel with the WP2 work, discussions were held with equipment manufacturers (OEMs) relating to component availability. Since some items will be required at an unprecedentedly large scale, and some turbomachinery with unusually high circumferential speed, close liaison with OEMs is crucial if the right equipment is to be available for plant construction at a later date.
This report summarises the liquefaction process selected and developed in WP1 and WP2, which uses two successive Brayton cycles with a common compressor train. The refrigerant is a helium/neon mixture selected for optimum compressibility and refrigeration efficiency. The pre-cooling to 130K uses a mixed refrigerant, and this MR cycle provides additional cooling needed for the two Brayton cycles. The flash gas is re-liquefied in a final stage via reheating, compression (piston compressors), cooling and throttling back.
This section describes how this technology could be demonstrated and at what scale; the scale selected for a demonstration plant is 40 tonnes per day (tpd). This is a compromise, in that a minimum size is required in order effectively to test all the novel technical aspects, while an upper limit to the capacity is imposed by the need to develop the infrastructure and market for the liquid hydrogen produced. At the same time close involvement of the OEMs is essential to ensure that the novel components required are designed, tested and brought to market within the appropriate timescale. This is a non-negligible issue given the conservatism of the manufacturers and the lead time for component development, and the selected approach bears this in mind.
It is proposed that before a complete plant is assembled, three (or more) separate test stands will be assembled and used by (consortia of) equipment manufacturers in order to test different sections of the liquefaction process, and draft outlines of these test stands are given. In the short term (three to four years) large sections of the liquefaction process could then be tested in a research (rather than commercial) environment, while plans for a full-scale (40 tpd) demonstration plant are made. This approach would substantially de-risk a commercial demonstration plant for both equipment manufacturers and plant operators, and need not cause excessive costs.
Possible locations for a 40 tpd demonstration plant are assessed considering the current absence of a bulk market for (liquid) hydrogen, the development needed before a large liquefaction plant can be commercially viable and the location of parties potentially interested in such a collaboration. The conclusion is that Norway presents the most advantages as a location for a demonstration plant; the reasoning behind this is outlined and some possible sites in Norway discussed.

When considering possible sites for building a 40-50 tpd hydrogen liquefaction plant, there is a number of factors which must be taken into consideration. This chapter describes the reasoning used to narrow down the possibilities for a plant location, and concludes with two potential sites which are examined in more detail.
To begin with, the plant size itself is a compromise. A minimum size is required in order effectively to test all novel technical aspects, while an upper limit to the plant capacity is imposed by the need to develop an infrastructure and market for the liquid hydrogen produced. While the plant size initially chosen was a capacity of 50 tpd, capable of being efficiently operated down to 25% or 30% of capacity (12.5 – 15 tpd) in the early years while the market is building up, the final conclusion drawn in the section above was that the required efficiency can also be achieved in a 40 tpd plant running at 25% of capacity (10 tpd).
The aim is that the liquefaction plant will be self-supporting in operation, although (depending on market developments) it is unlikely to recover the full capital expenditure from construction during its lifetime.
Hydrogen supply and market
The demonstration liquefaction plant must have both a reliable supply of hydrogen and a ready market. Within the framework of IDEALHY, the supply chains considered for life cycle analysis (LCA) were divided into those in the demand country/region and those distant from the demand country/region. Given that the most developed market for hydrogen is in Europe, the most logical location for a demonstration plant is in this region where transport to market is relatively straightforward.
Hydrogen supply
The supply chains in the demand country/region included in the IDEALHY LCA are:
• Electrolysis with surplus wind electricity;
• Reformation of compressed or liquefied natural gas (with and without carbon capture and storage; CCS).
These and any other options which would increase the chances of success for a demonstration plant in the European region will be favoured when making choices for the hydrogen supply. In particular this means taking advantage of any planned (or existing) sources of hydrogen which may fall outside these two categories. Additionally, CCS will be included in any hydrogen supply chains based on natural gas, as hydrogen based on non-carbon-captured fossil fuels fails to give the greenhouse gas advantage required by hydrogen vehicle manufacturers.
There are currently no existing renewable or low-carbon hydrogen plants in Europe of a sufficiently large scale available to supply a 10 tpd liquefier. In Germany there are some plans for new hydrogen plants (e.g. 10MW electrolyser at Brunsbüttel at the mouth of the Elbe) but at present these too are not at the required scale.
When planning the liquefaction demonstration, therefore, a location with a potential hydrogen supply either from natural gas reforming or from water electrolysis must be chosen. It is also of interest to integrate the hydrogen supply with the liquefaction, because of potential efficiency advantages of integrating the two processes.
Obviously the hydrogen for the demonstration plant could be supplied from more than one source. This is of particular relevance to hydrogen supply from renewable electricity, which is by its nature intermittent. It must therefore be combined with a backup supply of hydrogen from a reliable source, because the low temperatures involved in hydrogen liquefaction mean that non-continuous operation brings a large efficiency penalty.
Hydrogen market
H2Mobility
In Europe the most rapidly developing market is currently in Germany, where the H2Mobility project plans for a full hydrogen infrastructure to support a growing market in hydrogen vehicles. The UK has a comparable broad-based partnership, UKH2Mobility, and most recently (July 2013) France Mobilité Hydrogène has been launched, but these are at a much earlier stage of development. While there are numerous individual projects related to various aspects of hydrogen technology all over Europe, none approaches these country-wide initiatives in scope and none will have a comparable impact on the market for hydrogen.
Given a successful launch to H2Mobility in Germany and growth as predicted, it is intended that a network of approx. 1,000 hydrogen refuelling stations will be built during the period to 2030, providing hydrogen to a fleet comprising approx. 1.8 million fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) by 2030. This fleet would consume 184,000 tonnes per year of hydrogen. The scenarios envisage that in 2020, existing excess capacity and by-product H2 will provide 60% of the supply, and that by 2030 this will have fallen to 40%. This means that 110kt per year (ktpa) of hydrogen, or 301 tpd, will be required from other sources in 2030. Water electrolysis is expected to make up the vast majority of this balance.
None of the H2Mobility predictions to 2030 so far includes liquid hydrogen explicitly. Beyond 2030 (or earlier, depending on the progress of other initiatives), however, when refuelling stations scale up and require larger volumes of hydrogen, transporting hydrogen in liquid form will bring efficiency and cost advantages.
Hydrogen fuel cell buses
Considerable development of the liquid hydrogen market is required to generate sufficient certainty about the take-off of liquid hydrogen from a 40-50 tpd demonstration plant. Beyond the car fleet envisaged by H2Mobility, bus travel is a growth area for hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure, and could offer an attractive short-to-medium-term market for relatively large quantities of liquid hydrogen, while the fleet of hydrogen cars is building up. Although it is envisaged that buses themselves will carry tanks of compressed hydrogen rather than liquid, the large amounts of hydrogen consumed by a fleet of buses render a liquid hydrogen supply chain potentially more attractive than one based on compressed hydrogen. Furthermore, the decision-making process relating to the drivetrain choice for buses is steered by a different set of interests and priorities from those dictating uptake of fuel cell cars, rendering change in this sphere potentially more rapid than in private cars.
A study of urban buses by McKinsey (‘Urban buses: alternative powertrains for Europe’, McKinsey, December 2012) has confirmed that fuel cell buses can be a valid and cost-effective option for reducing city emissions. The low-carbon city transport initiatives (often arising from aspirations at a local governance level (rather than at national level) to reduce transport emissions) already using hydrogen fuel cell buses go some way towards bearing out this supposition. Figure 6 illustrates European fuel cell bus projects ongoing as at October 2012, and at the time of writing there is a large number of comparable initiatives in Europe under discussion.

Figure 6: Bus initiatives in Europe (see AnnexA)

Preliminary calculations as to the numbers of cars and buses which could potentially be supplied from a 40 tpd hydrogen liquefaction plant running at 25% capacity (10 tpd output) are given in Table 3 (see AnnexA). Assumptions made about the ratio of local to remote consumption of the hydrogen produced are listed, and two alternatives are given for the distribution of hydrogen between buses and cars. It illustrates that the output of such a plant is at a scale compatible with anticipated developments in the European hydrogen market.

Table 3: Potential distribution of hydrogen from a 40 tpd liquefaction plant working at 25% of capacity (see AnnexA).

The numbers in the FCEV car fleet envisaged in the H2Mobility scenarios for Germany are given for comparison, showing how a demonstration liquefaction plant at this scale has a good fit with the anticipated growth of the Europe-wide hydrogen distribution infrastructure. Close collaboration with bus manufacturers and with related low-carbon initiatives will be crucial to the success of a functional commercial hydrogen liquefaction plant.
Transport of hydrogen to market
In addition to being (relatively) close to a (future) market for hydrogen, the demonstration plant must be at a location from where hydrogen can readily be transported by road or by ship. In the IDEALHY scenarios, only transport methods already in existence are considered for the demonstration plant, namely using isocontainers transported either by lorry (land) or ship (sea or inland waterways). A coastal location would also be advantageous given that both pipeline natural gas and large amounts of renewable power are available in Europe primarily in offshore (and often remote) locations. This renders sea transport of the hydrogen to market crucial.
Despite the long-distance potential of ocean transport in principle, in practice the boil-off losses from isocontainers during loading, shipping and offloading place a limit on the advisable shipping distance if losses are to be kept at an acceptable (under 1%) level. Preliminary assessments of anticipated losses indicate that a transit threshold of 750km by sea could be appropriate as a realistic cut-off in assessment of potential locations. Longer distances may also be feasible but would require more detailed study.
Potential for carbon capture and storage
As mentioned above, for a clean hydrogen supply to the demonstration plant, CCS is essential if the hydrogen source is of fossil origin. CCS projects in Europe, however, generally struggle with a planning and permitting environment which is not (yet) particularly supportive of CCS, and onshore projects in particular frequently face considerable opposition. There is also appreciable technical, market and first mover risk associated with CCS projects at present.
In choosing a location, therefore, the local appetite for CCS could prove the deciding factor.
Other location issues
A hydrogen liquefaction plant (including hydrogen supply) forms a large industrial facility and as such has requirements common to other such plants. These are listed below, together with other factors which would favour a location.
• sufficient space
• appropriate permits to operate, including readiness of (local) government to cooperate
• proximity to other industry and/or to an existing hydrogen source
• proximity to related technical facilities
• presence of (related) hydrogen initiatives
• appetite of country/region for hydrogen technology / initiatives in general

Justification of a commercial test plant
As reasoned earlier, a non-commercial alternative exists to a commercial demonstration plant. Despite the business risk entailed in building a commercial demonstration plant, however, it is the opinion of the IDEALHY consortium that this approach is more advisable than the non-commercial option, provided that a test stand stage is included as described in section
A non-commercial demonstration plant (no net output) would require a comparable financial investment to a commercial plant without the potential for income from commercial operation, or from future expansion to operation at full capacity once a market is developed.
Countries under consideration
Considering European locations in the light of the factors outlined above, two principal options spring to mind.
Germany
Germany is an obvious candidate because of its leading position (through H2Mobility) in the development of a hydrogen infrastructure and market. It does not, however, have clear options for supply of large amounts of hydrogen, as it lacks major fossil resources, and although it has high proportions of renewable power, this alone (as discussed in 0 above) is not sufficient for reliable hydrogen supply on a large scale.
Norway
In Norway, a large number of aspects favourable to a demonstration hydrogen liquefaction plant combine, namely:
• Sufficiently abundant (offshore) natural gas (NG) reserves
• NG pipeline infrastructure to a number of onshore terminals
• Experience with operation of (offshore) CCS and reasonably open attitude to new CCS installations
• Innovative attitude with respect to new developments in the field of energy (e.g. LNG ferries)
• Other hydrogen initiatives already under way (also see section 0)
• Proximity to largest future H2 market (Germany)
o accessible for UK as/when UKH2Mobility project begins and market grows
o major ports e.g. Rotterdam (NL) also accessible

Norway
Market context
Norway is a country with a forward-looking energy outlook perhaps surprising given its position as one of the world’s larger oil and gas exporters. In 2004 a governmental hydrogen programme was set up with the following overarching goals:
• Production of hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture, at a cost that is competitive with petrol or diesel, for use in Europe;
• Early introduction of hydrogen vehicles in Norway;
• Development of internationally-leading competence in hydrogen storage, with competitive products and services;
• Development of a ‘hydrogen technology industry’, comprising: participation of Norwegian companies in international supply chains for hydrogen technology; the supply of hydrogen refuelling stations using electrolysis; competence in the use of fuel cells on ships; and R&D of an international standard in fields related to hydrogen.
Beyond hydrogen alone, the Norwegian government is extremely interested in clean energy provision. The Energi21 strategy (led by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy) defined an R&D framework relating to stationary energy production/consumption and CCS, and it identified six technology areas as priorities in 2008. These are:
• Solar cells (industrial development in the supply chain for the export market);
• Offshore wind power (industrial development and use of domestic resources);
• Use of domestic resources to provide grid balancing services to the European market;
• CCS technology to safeguard the future economic value of Norwegian gas resources;
• Flexible energy systems: smart grid operation and the integration of renewable sources;
• Technology for the use of waste heat and conversion of low-grade heat to electricity.
The nation made further ambitious CO2 pledges in 2009, aiming to cut emissions by 30% (from 1990 levels) in 2020 and to be carbon neutral by 2050. Although a third of these reductions may be made via Norwegian investments in low-carbon projects elsewhere, the majority will be in domestic emissions.
Since Norway already relies on renewable resources (principally hydropower) for over 97% of its electricity , the bulk of the CO2 reduction must be met by the transport sector. Furthermore, emphasis is placed on long-term sustainable (low-carbon) utilisation of the country’s gas resources, with considerable emphasis on CCS development and implementation.
The government’s ambition is to have 50,000 zero emission vehicles on the road by 2018. The population distribution and driving patterns in Norway mean that there are practical constraints on the number of cars in the fleet which could be powered by grid electricity, and biofuels also have limited availability . The strong implication is that hydrogen will play a key role in Norway’s future transport infrastructure, not only on the road but also in ferries and ships.
Together with city bus initiatives planned, this means that there is an appreciable future domestic market for bulk (liquid) hydrogen.
Possible sites in Norway – details
Along the coast of Norway there are various natural gas pipeline terminals, at most of which there are gas processing plants of some kind. This section lists coastal sites initially identified as possible sites for a demonstration hydrogen liquefaction plant.
Note that a site’s inclusion in this list does not presuppose plans on the part of the owner or operator to build such a hydrogen liquefaction plant.
Kårstø and Risavika
• At Kårstø: Gas processing plant operated by Statoil; 420MW gas-fired power plant commissioned in 2007 with plans for full-scale CCS (1.2Mt annually) never completed
• At Risavika: Site operated by Skangass: 0.3Mtpa LNG plant processing gas by pipeline from Kårstø; further gas testing infrastructure still present
Kollsnes
• Gas processing plant site operated by Statoil
• LNG and CNG plant operated by Gasnor (now owned by Shell)
Nyhamna
Gas processing plant operated by Shell, treating gas from the Ormen Lange field before transfer by subsea pipeline to Easington in the UK.
Tjeldbergodden
• Gas receiving terminal operated by Statoil
• Also methanol production (900Mtpa) and air separation units
Grenland/Porsgrunn/Hærøya area
• Large industrial park owned by Statoil with wide variety of company premises
• Statoil R&D/technology centre at Porsgrunn
• By-product industrial pipeline hydrogen supplying HRS, now being upgraded to 700bar
• Small-scale sustainable H2 production (NEL alkaline electrolyser combined with renewable power
Mongstad
• Gas receiving site operated by Statoil, using pipeline gas from Kollsnes
o Combined heat and power plant under construction; 280MWe / 350MWth
• CO2 technology centre, a joint venture (JV) between the Norwegian government, Shell, Sasol and Statoil
o Extraction and capture of post-combustion CO2 from natural gas
Sleipner
• Offshore field operated by Statoil (gas processed at Kollsnes)
o Captures 1Mt CO2/year in offshore CCS
Hammerfest / Snøhvit
• 4.2Mtpa LNG production site operated by Statoil
o Operational problems dogging LNG production
o Very remote site (north of Arctic Circle), so distribution cumbersome and expensive

Summary achievements

The following milestones were met during the project
1) A detailed review of eight existing liquefaction plants and a similar number of literature concepts has been carried out and published, comparing these on the same basis and boundary conditions.
2) A single liquefaction concept was developed and optimized, using the expertise in the consortium and elements from the best concepts in literature. For this concept the use of available technology was emphasized.
3) Component manufacturers have been consulted and have assisted with design and performance data towards improved components such as heat exchangers with integrated o-p conversion catalysts, and high efficiency turbo-compressors. Discussions with equipment manufactures indicate that the IDEALHY plant can be built with equipment that is currently available or can be adapted from available technology.
4) New larger-scale cryogenic valves, required for the process at this scale, have been designed as part of the project and are now being tested.
5) Lifecycle and HSE analyses have compared the liquid hydrogen chain with alternatives like compressed hydrogen. Lifecycle assessments for the liquefaction process show potentially favourable scenarios in locations where renewable electricity is used in the process. Further work is required to provide detailed assessments of GHG emissions associated with the process before introduction of liquid hydrogen at scale.
6) Further efficiency improvements have been investigated and can be achieved by integrating hydrogen liquefaction with other processes. Due to the modular approach of the IDEALHY process LNG re-gasification can be used to replace the initial cooling step of the liquefaction process, further reducing energy consumption.
7) The IDEALHY process is designed with the demonstration aspect in mind and can run at 25% of its maximum capacity, while still having better efficiency than existing plants.
8) A strategic plan for demonstration of efficient hydrogen liquefaction at a range of 40-200 tonnes/day, hitherto unrealized, has been developed in IDEALHY. The strategic plan has been devised with the objective of subsequently building a 40-50-tonne/day-demonstration plant in a follow-up phase. This will require substantial investment; as part of the project activities, potential partners are being sought, as well as identifying suitable locations where there is a market outlet for the hydrogen.
9) Widespread dissemination of the project results has been achieved by making public most of the project deliverables, and by numerous presentations and publications.

The main risks for further development of the liquid hydrogen pathway are

1. The initial lack of consumers of liquid hydrogen, which makes it more difficult to demonstrate the IDEALHY process at the right scale (hence the part load operation capability). It is suggested to align demonstration of hydrogen liquefaction with, for example, a large scale bus demonstration.
2. The still significant capital investment required to build a (demonstration) plant. IDEALHY will propose ways to phase the cost of the investment for demonstration.

Potential Impact:
Potential Impact
In addressing the potential impact of introducing widespread hydrogen supply infrastructure, the political, economic and environmental aspects in the context of current targets have to be addressed.
Energy supplies: Declining petroleum resources, increased demand for petroleum by emerging economies, and political and environmental concerns about fossil fuels are driving our society to search for new sources of transport fuels. Oil and gas reserves are unevenly distributed around the globe, with the largest reserves situated in politically or economically insecure regions such as the Middle East and Russia. North Sea oil and gas fields have already been exploited beyond their peak, leaving Europe dependent on non-EU countries for future supply. Currently, the EU is the world’s largest importer of oil and gas and the level of imports are projected to rise over the next quarter-century. This dependency on raw materials for transport fuel makes the EU vulnerable to the price variations, and this vulnerability has been significantly proven during the past few years with the dramatic increase of the crude oil price.

Global warming: The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2 is a top priority and there is a concerted movement towards gradual decarbonisation of transport and there is broad support for regulations to help achieve these reductions. The European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan has identified fuel cells and hydrogen among the technologies needed for Europe to achieve the targets for 2020 – 20 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; 20 % share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix; and 20 % reduction in primary energy use – as well as to achieve the long-term vision for 2050 towards decarbonisation.

Hydrogen and Competitiveness of European industry: Hydrogen is widely considered to have a strong potential for use in future energy systems, meeting climate change, air quality, and energy security goals when hydrogen production is based on renewable energy or fossil fuels in connection with future carbon capture and storage options. Hydrogen technology is well established in industry and further commercialisation for vehicles and stationary uses is expected in the next few years. However, the need for cost reduction, demonstration, and infrastructure development mean that mass markets are unlikely before 2016. Nevertheless, a coordinated research and demonstration now and a clear strategy to enable future infrastructure and market development is clearly a priority.
Europe, next to the US and Japan, is market leader in hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Europe’s SME’s, especially in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells have demonstrated their ability to develop new products even in these times of financial instability.

The build-up of a basic hydrogen-refuelling infrastructure is an essential challenge for the short to mid-term as it has to be in place at the beginning of the commercial introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Economically, the challenge is not as big as it might appear. In the European Union including the new accession states (EU-25) some 100,000 refuelling stations supply fuels to road transport . About 20 % of these, or 20,000 stations, should be equipped with hydrogen dispensers before fuel cell vehicles are brought to the mass market. Assuming investment costs of 1.3 MEuro per station sums up to 26 billion Euro for a basic refuelling infrastructure. For the case of Germany as an example, this would require an initial investment of some 3.12 billion Euro for some 2,400 refuelling stations. This one-off investment is slightly higher than the amount of money invested in the new installation of wind energy converters in Germany in 2001 when 2,660 MW wind power have been newly installed. Depending on the crude oil prices on the world market, hydrogen produced from natural gas and even renewable hydrogen from biomass can become cost competitive. Hydrogen from wind energy can come close to competitiveness at high historic prices of crude oil.

Societal Impacts
There are a number of important social impacts that derive from the outcomes of the IDEALHY project:
• Potential source of high value employment in design, manufacture, supply and maintenance
• Contributes to the scientific and technical basis for approved codes and standards
• Contributes to public acceptance of hydrogen as an energy carrier
• Will lead to more durable, reliable cleaner, safer and cost-efficient products
• Improves quality of life by reducing environmental problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels

For hydrogen to take on a major role in the transport industry vehicle manufacturers, fuel suppliers and governments will need to work together. In Europe partnerships such as the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative and the German H2 Mobility initiative, are preparing the way. Ensuring efficient low-cost distribution of hydrogen is a primary requirement to make the establishment of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel a success, and therefore provide the transition towards low carbon vehicles.
The IDEALHY project is really part of a larger effort to introduce large numbers of hydrogen fuelled vehicles within the EU and thereby achieve early markets for the technology. A key issue is development of efficient supply chains for hydrogen fuelling. Efficient hydrogen liquefaction enables transport of CO2-free energy in the form of hydrogen across the globe in liquid hydrogen ships. Hydrogen can take over this role from oil and gas. Hydrogen produced from solar energy in southern Europe or from excess wind energy in northern Europe may be shipped to countries with no such resources, like Japan. Similarly, fossil resources may be used to produce energy in places where carbon sequestration is an option, while the useful energy is transported to the users in liquid hydrogen form. On a global scale this will increase the efficiency of energy use and enable other parts of the world to use carbon-free energy.

The activities within IDEALHY are integrated and linked together so as to contribute to achieving the desired overall impact of starting up manufacture of significant numbers of hydrogen fuelled vehicles and the essential supporting hydrogen infrastructure. The outcomes of the IDEALHY project provide the means to achieve, in the short term, high-efficiency large scale liquefaction capacity on Europe, IDEALHY will help to develop efficient H2 supply chains, and contribute to the accelerated growth of clean, hydrogen-fuelled vehicles. In the longer term, this will impact favourably on security of energy supply for EU, on the targets for CO2 reduction, and provide opportunities for employment and wealth creation in the EU.
The overall impact on energy efficiency, CO2 reduction and costs has been assessed by a well-to-wheel assessment, and IDEALHY has developed a roadmap to efficient liquefaction and cheaper supplies of liquid hydrogen, pathways to achieving the lowest carbon footprint, and a plan for growing the hydrogen refueling infrastructure. A key parameter is the source of the hydrogen, since emission impacts are highly dependent on the feedstocks and the methods for hydrogen production, and IDEALHY has identified specific locations and scenarios where the costs and emissions can be minimised.
Extensive infrastructure for production, storage and distribution is a prerequisite for H2 to become a significant energy carrier in the energy portfolio. For a larger metropolitan area with 100 000–200 000 hydrogen vehicles the automotive consumption rate will be in the magnitude of 100 t/d . Comparing this with for example, the 4.4 t/d production rate in the Ingolstadt plant, it is obvious that considerably larger plants would be needed within this scenario. Hydrogen distribution costs affect the end-use. Hence, large production rates and high efficiency would be desired characteristics for future LH2 plants. This is a vital requirement if we are to achieve production and distribution processes that can meet 10-20 % of the hydrogen demand for energy applications from carbon-free or lean energy sources by 2015. This requires that key technologies have to be ready for demonstration and commercialisation in the short term.
IDEALHY addresses this key requirement by designing and preparing a large scale plant and demonstration plan for developing larger scale supplies and supplying many more fuelling stations than at present, thus enabling fuelling of much large numbers of vehicles than currently.
Impact on speed of market development
Development of a complete hydrogen supply infrastructure at this point in time is premature.
Hydrogen and fuel cell research and demonstration are still at the development stage. The solutions to current technical issues and bottlenecks, such as better fuel cell performance and hydrogen on-board storage, may have a considerable impact on the choice of the technologies for hydrogen production, distribution and refuelling.
Nevertheless establishing a larger capacity hydrogen distribution, coupled with promised roll-out of fuel cell vehicles over the next five years will promote early markets in hydrogen fuelling. The cost of developing such a hydrogen-refuelling infrastructure is (relatively) modest. As hydrogen vehicles are fuelled like conventional vehicles, establishing a fuelling infrastructure consists of adding hydrogen dispensing systems to existing stations and developing means of transport and delivery to these stations, as has been done for previously introduced alternative fuels (such as LPG or CNG). As far as production is concerned, hydrogen is already produced in large quantities from natural gas for mature industrial activities such as chemicals manufacture and refining.
The commitment of the industry could be influenced by policy. The key industrial stakeholders (car manufacturers, refineries and fuel providers, infrastructure providers, fleet managers) will invest in a new technology only if the future market prospects are clear. By addressing the issue of increasing efficiency and reducing costs of production of liquid hydrogen, the outcomes of IDEALHY can accelerate infrastructure development and hence encourage growth and investment in clean transport.
Impact on roll-out of hydrogen infrastructure
To serve the same amount of cars as an average conventional (liquid) fuel station in Europe, a station would have to sell around 1500kg of hydrogen per day. The current state of the art (gaseous truck distribution) leads to the following problems that would make these stations based on gaseous truck distribution impossible:
It would mean at least 3 to 5 deliveries per day, which has significant impacts on the operation of the station regarding safety, available space, all interfering with the day to day operation of the station to an extent that fuel suppliers do not consider acceptable. A liquid truck could deliver these stations every other day.
The footprint of gaseous storage vessels would be so large that existing station in cities would not be able to accommodate hydrogen refueling. This is aggravated by the fact that, especially in Germany, stations cannot be supplied on every day due to regulations that trucks are not allowed to drive on holidays and in the weekend. Therefore a 3 day storage requirement needs to be kept on-site of the station. 4500kg storage would be possible with liquid hydrogen, but virtually impossible with gaseous hydrogen.
Gaseous hydrogen on a station needs to be compressed to 850 bar before refueling. With gaseous storage this required large gas compressors that would resemble industrial compressors at this size. Compression of a liquid can be done with much smaller cryo-pumps, reducing cost and footprint requirement. The IDEALHY plans for a large scale, economic hydrogen liquefaction facility, is already attracting interest and will boost the market development of hydrogen for transport applications and consequently of the related needed infrastructure.
Impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions
The energy and transportation sectors face growing global demand. Reducing carbon emissions is ba priority and a challenge. The reduction of GHG emissions has a direct impact on economic development, one of the most recent being the report published by Sir Nicholas Stern , special adviser appointed to the UK government. Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5 % of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) each year but rising to 20 % if more dramatic predictions come to pass. Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path and away from current fossil fuel based technologies could eventually benefit the world economy by $2.5 trillion a year. By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at least $500 billion a year.
The advantages of hydrogen as a transport fuel, and the use of fuel cell vehicles are well documented. For transport, hydrogen can be burned in an internal combustion engine (ICE), in the same way as petrol or natural gas. BMW currently uses this technology to power a fleet of demonstration vehicles. This produces water as the main by-product, but also small amounts of oxides of nitrogen, an air pollutant. Dual fuel ICE vehicles have been produced to run on both hydrogen and petrol. Hydrogen can also be used to power fuel cell vehicles.
Using hydrogen in fuel cells is more efficient than combustion, with efficiencies of up to 45 %, compared with up to 25 % for a dual fuel ICE. Therefore a fuel cell car could travel over twice as far as a dual fuel ICE car on the same amount of hydrogen. Hydrogen ICE and fuel cell cars are currently at the demonstration stage. There are still issues of cost, reliability and lifetime, such that fuel cell cars are not expected to reach mass markets until well beyond 2015. As there is considerable experience with ICEs, some consider that they may be important in the interim.
In terms of CO2 emissions, the source of the hydrogen is the overriding factor, and many studies have been carried out to compare respective technologies and their overall emissions. Compared to conventional gasoline vehicles, the engine CO2 emissions for a hydrogen fuelled vehicle (the hydrogen made be electrolysis using off shore wind power) are eliminated.

Greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen fuel cell cars are 15-25 % of the values for advanced conventional cars in case hydrogen is produced from renewable energies . The major contribution stems from car manufacturing, while fuel production and supply infrastructure has a minor contribution. Producing hydrogen from natural gas for use in fuel cell cars allows to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 % compared to advanced conventional cars.
This is due to the higher efficiency of fuel cell cars and the lower carbon content of natural gas compared to gasoline/ diesel, and partly compensated by the energy losses in natural gas reforming.

In carrying out the IDEALHY project, the availability of hydrogen is expanded, use of hydrogen in ICEs and fuel cells accelerated and there is a faster progress towards the targeted emissions reduction from transport.
Other essential components of the IDEALHY project are market studies and assessments on the adoption of hydrogen as a transport fuel, together with economic and lifecycle analyses. These will identify optimal routes to implementation and so speed up and increase the scope for fossil fuel substitution. The major industrial partners are involved in these studies and once optimal process options are identified, an effective exploitation strategy can be adopted which also takes into account the impact on reducing GHG.
Obtaining process energy from LNG operations and improving efficiency by intensification and thermal integration within the liquefaction plant will convert more of the resource carbon to liquid fuel and reduce the equivalent fossil carbon emissions from substituted conventionally refined, fossil derived, products
Impact on other emissions
Internal combustion engines (both conventional and hybrid drives) will continue to have some on-road emissions. Although emission control technologies such as on-board diagnosis systems can reduce the likelihood of vehicles that have high emissions rates due to on-road deterioration of engine performance and emission control devices, they cannot eliminate the so-called “high emitters.” Consequently, widespread use of fuel cell vehicles, because they are zero-emission vehicles and have no on-road emission deterioration, could be expected to have a measurable effect on reducing the pollutants that are directly linked to health problems: nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter produced by light-duty vehicles. Although hydrogen production from certain feedstocks will generate some pollutants, emissions from stationary sources such as hydrogen production plants are easier to control and monitor than are deterioration in emissions control on vehicles. So, as a summary, by supplying the means to boost the replacement of fossil fuels by hydrogen in the transport market, IDEALHY bow has the technology to reduce significantly the emissions other than carbon dioxide.
New Business Development and Economic competitiveness in IDEALHY
The transformation to a Hydrogen Economy will serve at least two major objectives in the international area. First, reduction in oil imports, with the attendant increase in energy independence, is a clear EU goal to which hydrogen will contribute. Second, if EU companies are able to forge a lead in hydrogen technologies, global competitiveness of the EU will be fostered.

According to recent estimates , the investment cost of the hydrogen refuelling infrastructure can be estimated at 1700 € per vehicle in 2020, decreasing to 1000 € per vehicle with increasing fuelling capacity usage.
This cost is not significantly higher than that of a BEV recharging infrastructure1 (despite much shorter “recharging” times for FCEV’s). The cost of the hydrogen fuel at the dispenser will be determined mostly by the primary energy source and the means used to transport the hydrogen to the points of fuelling (an alternative being to produce the hydrogen on the site of dispensing). Overall, the cost for the end-user of using hydrogen as a fuel is not expected to be significantly higher than the cost of using gasoline:

Table 4: Estimated fuel costs (Annex A)

Development and sales of energy systems are a major component of wealth creation, from vehicles to complete power stations, creating substantial employment and export opportunities, especially for the industrialized nations. European leadership in hydrogen and fuel cells will play a key role in creating high quality employment opportunities, from strategic R&D to production and craftsmen.

In the US and Japan, hydrogen and fuel cells are considered to be core technologies for the 21st century, important for economic prosperity. There is strong investment and industrial activity in the hydrogen and fuel cell arena in these countries, driving the transition to hydrogen – independently of Europe.
The message is clear: if Europe wants to compete and become a leading world player, it must intensify its efforts and create a favourable business development environment. IDEALHY has played its part in providing developments that will be key for this ambition, through the promotion of early growth of a hydrogen supply chain to foster early markets.

Dissemination and use of foreground

Liaison with stakeholders
Right from the start, the intention of the IDEALHY Consortium was to ensure maximum dissemination of the activities and outputs of the project. Hence all the technical deliverables were categorised as Public and appear on the project website. In addition, there were concerted efforts to present and publish the results as much as possible, the partners achieved a significant mnumber of presentations and publications for such a relatively small, short-term project.

Expert stakeholders were addressed in a targeted and pro-active manner. This was accomplished via face-to-face conversations in networks, working groups and institutions that the project partners are members of or affiliated with.
Parties on the international level include:
• New Energy World IG,
• N.ERGHY
• Task 28 “Large-scale Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure” of the IEA Hydrogen Implementing Agreement,
• The European Hydrogen Association,
• The European Association for Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Electro-mobility in European, and
• The Hydrogen Bus Alliance.
On national level, institutions that were informed about the project comprise:
• The Norwegian Hydrogen Council,
• UK H2 Mobility,
• The London Hydrogen Partnership,
• The British Midland Hydrogen Forum,
• Hydropole, Switzerland,
• NOW / National Innovation Programme for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology, Germany,
• H2 Mobility, Germany,
• The Clean Energy Partnership, Germany,
• The German Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association, and
• U.S. DRIVE (Department of Energy).
Contacts to other FCH JU projects were focussed on ongoing demonstration activities of road vehicles and their refuelling infrastructures, namely:
• CHIC,
• High V.LO-City
• HyTransit,
• TyTEC, and
• SWARM.

Through these activities, significant interest in IDEALHY has been raised, mirrored in the number visitors to the website and the frequent downloads, as mentioned.
Part of the technical work consisted in contacting manufacturers of components in order to obtain their view on the envisaged liquefaction process design, in respect to the (future) availability of appropriate equipment for realising a plant based on this process. This made another group of stakeholders, outside a “hydrogen and fuel cells inner circle” aware of the new developments at an early stage.
One of the slight drawbacks in having a very intense 2 year project is that some of the most significant results come at the end of the project, is that. Thus despite positive feedback from stakeholders and interested parties, it was not possible to obtain “slots” for giving presentations at networking events without the final results in hand. For this reason, also the idea was dropped to hold workshop-like meetings with stakeholder groups in order to deepen the exchange of information and to further the technical and strategic impact of IDEALHY. Instead the final results were presented at the
- Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Nordic Countries 2013, Oslo, 30 October – 1 November 2013,
- 20th Symposium Renewable Energy and Hydrogen Technology, Stralsund,
7 – 9 November 2013 (presentation and paper),
• FCH JU Review Days, Brussels, 11 – 12 November 2013 (poster).

Liaison with stakeholders included contributions to conferences and representation at fairs from the beginning of the project:
• 8th International Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Expo, Tokyo, 29 February – 2 March 2012,
• EU Sustainable Energy Week, 21 June 2012 (presentation),
• ICEC24-ICMC2012, Fukuoka, 14 – 18 May 2012,
• WHEC, Toronto, 3 – 7 June 2012 (three posters, two presentation and one paper),
• IIR Cryogenics 2012 Conference, Dresden, 11 – 14 Sept 2012 (two presentations and two papers),
• FCH JU Review Days, Brussels, 28 – 29 November 2012 (presentation),
• 9th International Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Expo, Tokyo, 27 February – 1 March 2013
• Hydrogen in the Economy, Brussels, 26 April 2013,
• CEC-ICMC 2013, Anchorage, 17 – 21 June 2013 (presentation and paper),
• 4th European PEFC & H2 Forum, Lucerne, 2 – 5 July 2013(presentation and paper),
• 5th International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Brussels, 9 – 11 September 2013 (presentation and paper)
• Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Nordic Countries 2013, Oslo, 30 October – 1 November 2013 (presentation and summarising 8-page flyer),
• 20th Symposium Renewable Energy and Hydrogen Technology, Stralsund,
7 – 9 November 2013 (presentation and paper),
• FCH JU Review Days, Brussels, 11 – 12 November 2013 (poster).

Most of the posters, presentations and papers were made available on the IDEALHY website.
A feature article was placed in the International Innovation Magazine in Issue 17 of its “Energy Special”, published in December 2012 (also available on the website).

Dissemination continues beyond the formal completion of the project:
• An article for the peer-reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is in preparation.
• An article in “Hzwei”, a leading quarterly magazine on hydrogen, fuel cells and electric mobility in Germany has been scheduled for the January 2014 issue.
• The project website is going to remain active for the time being, so that the project flyer, reports, conference papers etc. stay available.

Exploitation of foreground

The intention of the IDEALHY Consortium all along (together with the FCH JU) was to openly publish the main results of the project, in order to garner increased interest and attract key stakeholders for future activities. This has been the case, and nearly all the deliverables are classified as Public, and as detailed above, there has been a concerted effort by the partners to publish and present results at appropriate meetings and conferences.
In the second half of the project, the partners by Shell have been discussing the possibilities of continuing development of the process with the aim of building a large-scale plant to demonstrate the benefits of the technology. Given the magnitude of the investment which will be involved, such a plant needs be commercial in operation, even if the original CAPEX is supported by subsidies and/or grants. This requires extensive technical and commercial de-risking to ensure the economic feasibility of the plant. Following completion of the project, the partners are engaged in negotiations to secure continuation of the work (in the form of progress towards a demonstration plant), either individually, in partnership with existing consortium members or involving unrelated third parties. This is progressing in tandem with active market development.

List of Websites:
http://www.idealhy.eu

Contact address:
Dr Alice Elliott
Shell Global Solutions International B.V.
C23 2E01, Carel van Bylandtlaan 23, 2596 HR, Den Haag, the Netherlands
( Office / Mobile +31 6 55123393
Email: alice.elliott@shell.com
Internet: www.shell.com/globalsolutions

Final Report Summary - IDEALHY (Integrated Design for Efficient Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen)

Compartir esta página

Descargar