Final Report Summary - HYWAYS-IPHE (Benchmarking of the European Hydrogen Energy Roadmap HyWays with International Partners)
The HYWAYS-IPHE project compared road-mapping and systems analysis activities in Europe and the USA, two major IPHE partners, and planned to get other IPHE partner countries with road-mapping activities in the field of hydrogen engaged in discussions and exchanges of experience between the regions as well as implementing institutional and personal exchanges in this field the under the patronage of IPHE.
The project was structured in three main work packages (WP2, WP3 and WP4) which were timely phased.
In WP2, model methodologies, modelling assumptions for E3database in Europe and for H2A and GREET in the US are being compared during months 1 through 12. Benchmarking runs of the models have been performed. The objective of this work package was to benchmark the different methodological approaches and generic data input for energy pathway analyses of the United States (US) and the European Union to identify the major differences and need for further developments.
The work package yielded some important results. Generally, the results with respect to costs, energy use and emissions are similar from both sides. Some significant techno-economic differences could be found (e.g. biomass gasification efficiency, m-pipeline configuration).Different modelling philosophies for economic analysis was observed (micro- versus macroeconomic). Regional differences became visible (fuel economy, taxes).The energy price forecasts used by the DOE and in HYWAYS differ significantly. Based on the found differences in approaches and results, a list of recommendations for model reviews and updates has been compiled which is available in the WP2 report (found at http://www.hywaysiphe.org online).
In WP3, running from months 10 through 18, a comparison of further models and approaches was performed, among others taking into account infrastructure / resource analysis, macrosystems models, in-depth technology analysis / assessment, and stakeholder consultation in road-mapping processes. The objective of this work package was to extend the comparison of models and approaches started in WP2 to identify the major differences and to develop a concept for further model improvements and process improvements for stakeholder integration.
In both regions, stakeholders hold a strong although different input into the programmes. Existing models used to analyse regional infrastructure build-up scenarios were mapped with respect to objectives, spatial detail, spatial extent and data handling. An extensive toolbox is available, however lacking models with imperfect foresight and detailed global interactions.
Energy system models were similar but the prices assumed exogenously for fossil energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal) were much higher in the European model than the endogenous US price estimates. In addition, the European model was constrained in choice of primary energy according to stakeholder input leading to high diversity, while the US model was not constrained. Employment effects were modelled similarly in both regions. Also vehicle costs are comparable, however based on different assumptions on components and cost reduction.
In WP4, active between months 16 and 24, the jointly developed understanding on modelling techniques and approaches as well as on stakeholder interactions was presented to and exchanged with other IPHE member countries in workshops. The implementation of institutional and personal exchange under the patronage of IPHE was one of the expected outcomes of this work package. The objective of this work package was to disseminate the results of the project to a wider group of experts, and to collect their feedback and gain insights in road-mapping activities in other countries.
A methodology has been developed for benchmarking of hydrogen energy pathway analysis tools comprising techno-economic comparison of hydrogen production plants and delivery scenarios, and well-to-tank energy use and emissions. The methodology was used to compare the US DOE models H2A Production, HDSAM and GREET with the E3database model developed by LBST which was used in major European hydrogen analysis activities. The economic comparison comprises original cases of the pathways (with all financial parameters as used by original analyses with the respective tools), and financially harmonised cases (where all financial parameters, i.e. interest rate, taxes, inflation, etc., have been assimilated).
Using this methodology, existing cases can be compared on several levels; differences in assumptions and results for specific components of the energy pathways can be spotted as well as differences in overall costs and financial framework. The methodology could be used for further comparison of modelling tools supporting hydrogen energy road-mapping of other world regions to the US/EU ones in order to investigate how the assumptions there correlate. This may improve understanding of the different roadmaps and differences between them.
The project was structured in three main work packages (WP2, WP3 and WP4) which were timely phased.
In WP2, model methodologies, modelling assumptions for E3database in Europe and for H2A and GREET in the US are being compared during months 1 through 12. Benchmarking runs of the models have been performed. The objective of this work package was to benchmark the different methodological approaches and generic data input for energy pathway analyses of the United States (US) and the European Union to identify the major differences and need for further developments.
The work package yielded some important results. Generally, the results with respect to costs, energy use and emissions are similar from both sides. Some significant techno-economic differences could be found (e.g. biomass gasification efficiency, m-pipeline configuration).Different modelling philosophies for economic analysis was observed (micro- versus macroeconomic). Regional differences became visible (fuel economy, taxes).The energy price forecasts used by the DOE and in HYWAYS differ significantly. Based on the found differences in approaches and results, a list of recommendations for model reviews and updates has been compiled which is available in the WP2 report (found at http://www.hywaysiphe.org online).
In WP3, running from months 10 through 18, a comparison of further models and approaches was performed, among others taking into account infrastructure / resource analysis, macrosystems models, in-depth technology analysis / assessment, and stakeholder consultation in road-mapping processes. The objective of this work package was to extend the comparison of models and approaches started in WP2 to identify the major differences and to develop a concept for further model improvements and process improvements for stakeholder integration.
In both regions, stakeholders hold a strong although different input into the programmes. Existing models used to analyse regional infrastructure build-up scenarios were mapped with respect to objectives, spatial detail, spatial extent and data handling. An extensive toolbox is available, however lacking models with imperfect foresight and detailed global interactions.
Energy system models were similar but the prices assumed exogenously for fossil energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal) were much higher in the European model than the endogenous US price estimates. In addition, the European model was constrained in choice of primary energy according to stakeholder input leading to high diversity, while the US model was not constrained. Employment effects were modelled similarly in both regions. Also vehicle costs are comparable, however based on different assumptions on components and cost reduction.
In WP4, active between months 16 and 24, the jointly developed understanding on modelling techniques and approaches as well as on stakeholder interactions was presented to and exchanged with other IPHE member countries in workshops. The implementation of institutional and personal exchange under the patronage of IPHE was one of the expected outcomes of this work package. The objective of this work package was to disseminate the results of the project to a wider group of experts, and to collect their feedback and gain insights in road-mapping activities in other countries.
A methodology has been developed for benchmarking of hydrogen energy pathway analysis tools comprising techno-economic comparison of hydrogen production plants and delivery scenarios, and well-to-tank energy use and emissions. The methodology was used to compare the US DOE models H2A Production, HDSAM and GREET with the E3database model developed by LBST which was used in major European hydrogen analysis activities. The economic comparison comprises original cases of the pathways (with all financial parameters as used by original analyses with the respective tools), and financially harmonised cases (where all financial parameters, i.e. interest rate, taxes, inflation, etc., have been assimilated).
Using this methodology, existing cases can be compared on several levels; differences in assumptions and results for specific components of the energy pathways can be spotted as well as differences in overall costs and financial framework. The methodology could be used for further comparison of modelling tools supporting hydrogen energy road-mapping of other world regions to the US/EU ones in order to investigate how the assumptions there correlate. This may improve understanding of the different roadmaps and differences between them.
