Periodic Reporting for period 2 - NPHyCo (Nuclear Powered Hydrogen Cogenenaration, NPHyCo)
Reporting period: 2024-03-01 to 2025-02-28
The EU aims to be climate-neutral by 2050. Hydrogen, in particular low-carbon hydrogen, is believed to play a significant role in achieving this goal. NPHyCo addresses this need by investigating realistic scenarios for large scale low-carbon hydrogen production in plants linked to Nuclear Power Plants.
The goal of the NPHyCo project is to demonstrate concepts and prepare the project design of a pilot plant that can become operational in a short-term horizon. The ideas should prove that nuclear H2 cogeneration is technically and economically feasible and attractive compared to other equivalent H2 production types (blue, green, turquoise).
Suitable NPP models and electrolyser technologies has been evaluated regarding their technical feasibility in terms of integration. The corresponding technology scouting has been summarised in practical decision matrixes (see Deliverable D5.1) guidelines, and checklists.
The goal of the NPHyCo project is to demonstrate concepts and prepare the project design of a pilot plant that can become operational in a short-term horizon. The ideas should prove that nuclear H2 cogeneration is technically and economically feasible and attractive compared to other equivalent H2 production types (blue, green, turquoise).
Suitable NPP models and electrolyser technologies has been evaluated regarding their technical feasibility in terms of integration. The corresponding technology scouting has been summarised in practical decision matrixes (see Deliverable D5.1) guidelines, and checklists.
Main achievements:
D1.1(Project frame of references report),D1.2 (Scenario Definition) finalized
D2.1(Analysis of viable interfaces within NPP environment for H2 co-generation),D2.2(Impact Assessment Report) D2.3(Requirements that need to be fulfilled by NPP to allow H2 cogeneration), D2.4(Requirements that need to be fulfilled by H2 plant to be coupled to an NPP) finalized
D3.1(Techno-economic costs models to be included in the Business Plan), D3.2(Techno-economic incomes models to be included in the Business Plan) and D3.3(KPIs and assessments on nuclear H2 economic feasibility compared with other types of H2 to be included in the Business Plan)D3.4(NPHyCo Business Plan) finalized
D4.1(Evaluation of guides and regulations, licensing processes and typical timelines relevant for nuclear H2 cogeneration in the UE), D4.2(Safety cases for the three levels of integration and critical design parameters) D4.4(Roadmap for HPP and NPP coupling) finalized
D5.1(Decision matrix for pilot plants), D5.2 (Mapping of suitable locations) D5.3(Conceptual planning of pilot) finalized but the poor feedback from operating plants limits the possibilities for location mapping as well. Mapping was performed for all loactions for which sufficient data were available
D6.1 D6.2 D6.3 finalized
D7.1D7.2D7.3 D7.4 finalized
The basic assumptions from the project proposal were confirmed in RP1 (it is feasible, and it is paying back under specific circumstances). We experienced a more difficult access to information and a reduced set of operators engaged (poor contribution from the operators that demanded a lot of time). Nevertheless, the team has found a way to find the information so there was not a significant delay in future activities. The team has carried on all the analyses and showed that this is feasible and beneficial in the long term.
D1.1(Project frame of references report),D1.2 (Scenario Definition) finalized
D2.1(Analysis of viable interfaces within NPP environment for H2 co-generation),D2.2(Impact Assessment Report) D2.3(Requirements that need to be fulfilled by NPP to allow H2 cogeneration), D2.4(Requirements that need to be fulfilled by H2 plant to be coupled to an NPP) finalized
D3.1(Techno-economic costs models to be included in the Business Plan), D3.2(Techno-economic incomes models to be included in the Business Plan) and D3.3(KPIs and assessments on nuclear H2 economic feasibility compared with other types of H2 to be included in the Business Plan)D3.4(NPHyCo Business Plan) finalized
D4.1(Evaluation of guides and regulations, licensing processes and typical timelines relevant for nuclear H2 cogeneration in the UE), D4.2(Safety cases for the three levels of integration and critical design parameters) D4.4(Roadmap for HPP and NPP coupling) finalized
D5.1(Decision matrix for pilot plants), D5.2 (Mapping of suitable locations) D5.3(Conceptual planning of pilot) finalized but the poor feedback from operating plants limits the possibilities for location mapping as well. Mapping was performed for all loactions for which sufficient data were available
D6.1 D6.2 D6.3 finalized
D7.1D7.2D7.3 D7.4 finalized
The basic assumptions from the project proposal were confirmed in RP1 (it is feasible, and it is paying back under specific circumstances). We experienced a more difficult access to information and a reduced set of operators engaged (poor contribution from the operators that demanded a lot of time). Nevertheless, the team has found a way to find the information so there was not a significant delay in future activities. The team has carried on all the analyses and showed that this is feasible and beneficial in the long term.
main outcomes of NPHyCo:
• Safety is not a showstopping issue in the coupling of an HPP to a NPP. The current regulations ensure that in the lay-out, safe distances have to be maintained and that incidents or accidents in either one of the installations will not lead to any significant or unacceptable effect in the other installation. Since this can be shown and justified, getting a license for the HPP-NPP coupling is feasible.
• From a technical point of view, it is possible to couple hydrogen production to a nuclear power plant. There are various technical solutions that can ensure safety and that comply with all regulations and guidelines.
• The determining factors for coupling/no coupling are the financial/economic factors. The electricity price (LCOE) determines for approximately 80% the cost price of hydrogen (LCOH) produced by low temperature electrolysis like PEM/ AEL.
• Due to higher cost of high temperature electrolysis installations, l the LCOH of HTE is mainly determined by the CAPEX and less by the electricity cost.
• The possible reduction in LCOH by sharing systems with the NPP is therefore limited and, in most cases, sharing will be limited to direct electricity supply.
• The distribution costs of hydrogen form a substantial part of the LCOHD (approx. 30-35%), meaning that locations for the HPP near hydrogen off-takers are preferred to minimize distribution costs.
• Production costs for pink hydrogen can be competitive on the long term (2050) but will need government intervention on the short term to be competitive with grey hydrogen.
• Nuclear hydrogen is the only option to meet security of supply, non-CO2 emission, no price fluctuations, sufficient high production rates +at promising costs.
• Existing NPPs will face increasingly periods with very low market electricity prices, even below their LCOE. Having the flexibility at these periods to dedicate part of their capacity to hydrogen production can increase the overall profitability of the NPP.
• Future developments of electrolysers like high temperature electrolysers and dedicated combinations of electrolysers with (small modular and/or high temperature) nuclear reactors using both electricity and heat have the potential to further decrease the LCOH. Governmental support for these developments will be highly effective in speeding up these developments and support the energy transition towards net zero emissions.
• Safety is not a showstopping issue in the coupling of an HPP to a NPP. The current regulations ensure that in the lay-out, safe distances have to be maintained and that incidents or accidents in either one of the installations will not lead to any significant or unacceptable effect in the other installation. Since this can be shown and justified, getting a license for the HPP-NPP coupling is feasible.
• From a technical point of view, it is possible to couple hydrogen production to a nuclear power plant. There are various technical solutions that can ensure safety and that comply with all regulations and guidelines.
• The determining factors for coupling/no coupling are the financial/economic factors. The electricity price (LCOE) determines for approximately 80% the cost price of hydrogen (LCOH) produced by low temperature electrolysis like PEM/ AEL.
• Due to higher cost of high temperature electrolysis installations, l the LCOH of HTE is mainly determined by the CAPEX and less by the electricity cost.
• The possible reduction in LCOH by sharing systems with the NPP is therefore limited and, in most cases, sharing will be limited to direct electricity supply.
• The distribution costs of hydrogen form a substantial part of the LCOHD (approx. 30-35%), meaning that locations for the HPP near hydrogen off-takers are preferred to minimize distribution costs.
• Production costs for pink hydrogen can be competitive on the long term (2050) but will need government intervention on the short term to be competitive with grey hydrogen.
• Nuclear hydrogen is the only option to meet security of supply, non-CO2 emission, no price fluctuations, sufficient high production rates +at promising costs.
• Existing NPPs will face increasingly periods with very low market electricity prices, even below their LCOE. Having the flexibility at these periods to dedicate part of their capacity to hydrogen production can increase the overall profitability of the NPP.
• Future developments of electrolysers like high temperature electrolysers and dedicated combinations of electrolysers with (small modular and/or high temperature) nuclear reactors using both electricity and heat have the potential to further decrease the LCOH. Governmental support for these developments will be highly effective in speeding up these developments and support the energy transition towards net zero emissions.