ICCT Thinks Inexperienced Hydrogen For Transport Will Have Extra Vitality Than Electrical energy Required To Make It

Join day by day information updates from CleanTechnica on electronic mail. Or observe us on Google Information!

A month in the past the Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation (ICCT) launched a Europe-focused report on the overall price of possession of varied decarbonization pathways for freight trucking. It was deeply flawed, with unrealistically low prices for the hydrogen pathway as they put a number of thumbs on the dimensions. Maybe their analyses of different transportation segments are higher? Sadly, no.

To summarize the hydrogen oddities, the ICCT researchers gave hydrogen benefits of less expensive electrical energy at truck stops than battery electrical automobiles charging in the identical places, a €3 per kilogram subsidy hydrogen with no subsidies for electrical vehicles, anticipated no earnings for hydrogen sellers however earnings for electrical energy sellers to vehicles, better price drops for electrolyzers than batteries, upkeep price enhancements for hydrogen vehicles however none for battery electrical vehicles and extra.

Did these large and unlikely variances make hydrogen cheaper than battery electrical automobiles? No, after all not. Nevertheless it meant that the ICCT made three extraordinary claims.  The primary declare is that manufacturing hydrogen at a refueling station from electrical energy and water could be price aggressive with diesel in 2030. The second declare is that the vitality prices per kilometer will probably be solely 50% greater than utilizing electrical energy in battery electrical automobiles in 2030. The third declare is that hydrogen will probably be solely 10% dearer than utilizing electrical energy in battery electrical vehicles in 2040 on a per kilometer vitality foundation.

These claims require large manipulation of comparative prices in favor of hydrogen and nonetheless resulted in it being uneconomic. However the claims of being price aggressive with diesel quickly and throughout the ballpark of electrical for 2050 are deeply deceptive and inappropriate conclusions. Have been they clear about this large disparity in remedy? No. That one thing was deeply mistaken was apparent from their lead graphical illustration, however it took digging via two reviews and their ‘rebuttal’ to seek out the complete checklist.

As of December twelfth, the unique ICCT submit quietly modified. They re-ran the numbers with the identical artificially low price of electrical energy for battery electrical automobiles (one thing that they don’t require to be superior) however eliminated not one of the different thumbs from the hydrogen aspect. The hole between battery electrical automobiles and hydrogen automobiles elevated considerably, though it’s nonetheless smaller than actuality. And so they modified their conclusions as properly. They’re nonetheless claiming that hydrogen, if given large subsidies, could be cheaper than diesel, however are not claiming that vitality prices for hydrogen and battery electrical are remotely comparable.

They nonetheless have a bunch of thumbs on the dimensions for hydrogen and the report stays weak and non-transparent, however its conclusions aren’t as egregiously and manifestly mistaken and deceptive any extra. So, a little bit of a win. For anybody , the up to date report is right here.

However this led me to surprise. The ICCT’s scope isn’t land transportation, however transportation. I’ve assessed all modes of transportation and printed on them continuously over the previous few years as I discovered what made sense and what didn’t. I’ve checked out hydrogen for aviation and delivery intimately as a part of my analyses of what pathways take advantage of sense.

What does the ICCT should say on the topic? Properly, they’re massive followers of liquid hydrogen it appears.

Let’s begin with delivery as I’ve been publishing a collection on the topic on Forbes up to now couple of weeks. I’ve spent quite a lot of time on the topic, created an built-in projection of all delivery tonnage via 2100 on inland, quick sea and deepwater vessels, talk with consultants and delivery professionals globally, spoke with the pinnacle of the International Centre of Maritime Decarbonization in Singapore about their decarbonization pilots, debated maritime decarbonization in Glasgow for an viewers of maritime engineers and designers and proceed to remain updated on efforts within the discipline. I’ve assessed a failed liquid hydrogen for delivery gas initiative in northern Europe and the price of delivery liquid hydrogen. And I’ve spent a bunch of time taking a look at ports and integrating delivery with ports in order that I perceive how options may work operationally.

That Norwegian failed liquid hydrogen for delivery gas resolution was fascinating. It was going to be utilizing Norwegian industrial electrical energy charges, that are very low, and liquifying the hydrogen on the dock for bunkering. My evaluation of life like prices for bunkered liquid hydrogen at that particular web site was that it could be within the vary of US$9,300 per ton. And to be clear, that is the most affordable potential price with out large subsidies with all the facility constructed beside the place ships would bunker, and it has thrown away simply half of the vitality used to create it earlier than it will get anyplace close to a ship.

Is {that a} cheap price? By comparability a ton of diesel averages $500 within the USA. Liquid hydrogen has an vitality density about 2.6 occasions greater by mass, however $9,300 is over 5 occasions as costly per unit of vitality. And it’s not as if gas cells to electrical motors are vastly extra environment friendly than marine diesel motors. They’re each within the 50% effectivity vary, so there are not any financial savings available there.

Then we get into boil off each in ports and at sea. Whereas some LNG ships embrace reliquification for boil off of their large, globular tanks and benefit from it for methane engines, the a lot tinier hydrogen tanks required for gas would boil off much more and the vitality necessities for liquification are a lot greater for hydrogen than methane, making reliquification prohibitive. Switch of liquified hydrogen between bunkering services and ships will concerned boil off leakage as properly.

I can safely say the next issues. Nobody within the delivery business is contemplating liquid hydrogen instead vitality service for maritime freight vessels, with the very restricted exception of organizations exploring delivery liquid hydrogen as an LNG alternative. Liquid hydrogen’s price could be absurd. Hydrogen could be inexperienced, however it will possibly’t be low-cost with out a number of large subsidies like these granted to trucking by the ICCT. The business is taking two artificial fuels — inexperienced methanol and ammonia — critically, particularly the previous, however are realizing this 12 months that the distributors of these merchandise have been telling them interesting lies about future prices.

To be clear, I’ve additionally assessed wind energy help applied sciences and have a perspective that given the plummeting of bulk cargo, the dominance of container delivery that outcomes, the necessities of port integration and the complexity of folding inflexible sails, the one sail energy help know-how that makes a lot sense is autofurling, bow-mounted parafoils. Why? There’s no room for inflexible sails on container ships as a result of containers are stacked excessive on them and inflexible sails should fold with a purpose to not intrude with port cranes as soon as once more making them inconceivable to retrofit to container ships. This is applicable to Magnus impact rotors and sophisticated rigid-wing folding sails like these lately launched with BAR designs.

So think about my shock when I discovered that the ICCT simply printed a US-centric report about liquid hydrogen powered delivery with inflexible wing sails as the middle piece of their evaluation. Pacific North West, Nice Lakes, Pacific and West Coast routes with liquid hydrogen demand approaching 60,000 tons a 12 months.

A gas that nobody within the business is utilizing and applied sciences that don’t make a lot sense. Nevertheless, the declare was retrofitting ageing US vessels that have been already in operation, so I hypothesized they have been bulk carriers that might persist, so maybe the sail facet may be viable. I do maintain making an attempt to provide the ICCT the advantage of the doubt.

The Midnight Solar is a automobile service. That truly makes it an affordable selection for assessing wings. It’s a roll off, roll on (roro) vessel and so they usually have flat roofs with nothing a lot on them. The probability that they’re appropriate for retrofitting with excessive stress and pressure sails is comparatively low as they’re tall, thin-skinned packing containers, however a minimum of it’s not a container ship and we’ll proceed to have important roro site visitors.

Not so the Horizon Reliance. It’s a container ship, so there’s no sane integration of inflexible sails with it that passes the slightest sniff take a look at of helpful integration into ports and operations. Ditto the Mahimahi.

The Badger is a automotive and passenger ferry with important prime deck infrastructure, passenger decks and lifeboats, a really typical configuration for the category. As soon as once more, there’s no room for a brand new sail. A fast scan of the route a minimum of didn’t discover that the ferry goes beneath bridges, a typical function of ports for instance the Port of Vancouver and the Lion’s Gate Bridge, one other sail-related scenario that makes folding them a requirement, not an choice.

The port of Oakland, nevertheless, requires that ships move underneath each the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, clearance 58 meters, but additionally the Golden Gate Bridge, clearance 67 meters, and the assessed routes embrace it. The Mahimahi is a container ship with 5 container above deck stacking, about 13 meters and about the identical once more to the water. The BAR rigid-wing sails by themselves are 37.5 meters. 26 meters plus 37.5 meters is 63.5 meters, so folding them just isn’t an choice however a requirement.

So precisely one of many 4 vessels chosen for the research are remotely appropriate for including inflexible wing sails. Evidently adherence to realism isn’t a requirement for the ICCT.

Regardless, let’s play alongside. They’re projecting important price financial savings from these non-viable gross sales for the price of bunkering the liquid hydrogen. What prices are they utilizing? Apparently they’re utilizing $4,300 per ton for liquid hydrogen, properly underneath half of the perfect case state of affairs with low-cost electrical energy in Norway. That’s odd.

They reference a paper by one other ICCT pair of researchers for the prices, the identical ones who discovered the absurdly low prices of electrolysing hydrogen in Europe at truck stops with an preliminary set of thumbs on the scales. The paper is Present and future price of e-kerosene in the USA and Europe from March 2022. I’ll be returning to aviation in a subsequent piece, however suffice it to say that e-kerosene is artificial kerosene comprised of hydrogen, and as such is all the time dearer than hydrogen.

That paper reveals the price of manufacturing of inexperienced hydrogen to be $4.30 per kilogram in 2020, therefore the $4,300 per ton, which is outstanding in and of itself, however may be considerably extra justifiable than the low-balled prices for hydrogen manufacturing at truck stops. There are some issues value noting.

They’re, as soon as once more, assuming energy buy agreements (PPA) for inexperienced electrical energy with minimal transmission and distribution adders. They’re utilizing the levelized price of electrical energy (LCOE) for renewables as an alternative of precise PPAs, which is considerably defensible however odd. They’re selecting the bottom of photo voltaic or wind for the LCOE. And they’re excluding all compression and liquification prices explicitly. There are not any earnings for anybody on this combine. They’re clear about most of this as properly, making their system boundaries pretty clear.

Nevertheless, shifting ahead their prices per kilogram calculations crumble. In 2020, the electrical energy worth with transmission and distribution is $80 per MWh. For the price of $4,300 per ton, that implies 53.75 MWh per ton, which is throughout the realm of believability with prices of electrolyzers and 95% utilization. It aligns comparatively properly with Lazard’s levelized price of of hydrogen for alkaline electrolysis, excluding just about every thing besides the electrolyzer.

Nevertheless, because the a long time unfold, the price of electrical energy doesn’t drop a lot. In 2030, it’s $77 per MWh however solely $3.1 per kilogram, asserting 40 MWh per kilogram. The upper heating worth of a kilogram of hydrogen is 39.39 per kilogram. Which means electrolysis is approaching 100% environment friendly and there are zero capital prices in 2030.

It will get worse. In 2040, it’s $76 per MWh and $2.3 per kilogram for a miraculous 30 MWh per kilogram, 10% underneath the decrease heating worth of hydrogen of 33.33 kWh. Extra vitality is being created than consumed.. In 2050, a Nobel Prize worthy $72 per MWh leads to $1.6 per kilogram hydrogen, for a very miraculous 22.2 MWh per kilogram, a internet return of fifty% further vitality within the type of hydrogen. None of that is remotely life like on the briefest of glances.

Is any of this explicable from the report? No, it has some most likely unrealistic declines within the prices of electrolyzers and will increase within the efficiencies, however electrolyzers don’t change into free or break the legal guidelines of physics. They aren’t claiming IRA $3 per kilogram subsidies because the distinction as they by no means point out the IRA or subsidies for inexperienced hydrogen. They’re claiming some downstream e-kerosene subsidies, however these are tacked on on the finish of the stream after they miraculously create extra vitality within the type of hydrogen than they eat in electrical energy.

By the way in which, that is all observable at a look. This doesn’t require arcane math abilities or particular information. Their desk of hydrogen prices within the appendix is senseless in relationship to anything within the appendix or report. This report had three authors and two reviewers, and apparently none of them seen that they have been projecting miracles. As with the trucking report, this ought to be deeply embarrassing for each one concerned and for the ICCT.

They seem to claim that assumptions associated to the prices are based mostly on an earlier report by a third-party advisor however totally funded and underneath the supervision of the ICCT, Evaluation of Hydrogen Manufacturing Prices from Electrolysis: United States and Europe. That research, nevertheless, comes out with a reasonably cheap median price of hydrogen of $8.81 per kilogram in 2020, and even with important price reductions in just about each aspect, nonetheless near $6 in 2050, about 5 occasions what the referencing research consists of. That’s with minimal steadiness of plant, however consists of compression for injection in a transmission pipeline, so it’s manufactured price firstly of the product’s journey, not distributed price with earnings. Clearly that report bought it pretty proper, however the report that depends on it for some assumptions bought it utterly mistaken.

What does this imply for the maritime delivery research? Properly, to start out with, the price of $4,300 which they use for liquified hydrogen is lacking large prices. $4,300 is the associated fee on the electrolysis facility with no steadiness of plant, and there are 27 parts in a plant with out liquification. The liquification capital prices are very excessive, and liquification takes a 3rd of the vitality within the hydrogen to carry out. There are not any distribution prices which for hydrogen are a really massive part of the associated fee. As a reminder of the ratios, a kilogram of hydrogen manufactured from pure fuel with out carbon seize within the USA or Europe prices $1 to $2 per kilogram to make, and prices $17 to $35 to purchase at a hydrogen refueling station. That’s why over 85% of hydrogen consumed right this moment is manufactured at level of use.

After which everybody concerned on this requires a revenue.

Let’s make one other comparability. The Norwegian facility was probably going to be receiving electrical energy on the plant at native industrial charges of US$58 per MWh. That is 80% of the perfect electrical energy prices that the ICCT assumes in 2050, but they arrive at hydrogen prices in 2020 which might be lower than half of the probably price in Norway for liquid hydrogen, and hydrogen prices in 2050 which might be a fifth of the Norwegian best possible case prices.

Even at their low ball $4,300 per kilogram including all of parts for compression, liquification and earnings would end in precise liquid hydrogen prices across the identical as that utterly economically non-viable liquid hydrogen in Norway, $9,300. So the ICCT is as soon as once more massively low-balling the prices for maritime delivery, one thing which is, once more, utterly unrealistic.

Is that this the one report with unrealistic marine hydrogen prices? No, after all not.

Scaling U.S. zero-emission delivery: Potential hydrogen demand at Aleutian Islands ports makes use of a price of $4.06 per kilogram in 2020 {dollars}, as soon as once more with none steadiness of plant, liquification or earnings. Papers assessing China to USA delivery hall liquid hydrogen infrastructure and viability don’t even trouble to calculate any prices, a really odd sort of viability evaluation certainly. One other odd sail plus liquid hydrogen research which a minimum of solely used sails on bulk carriers didn’t trouble to quantify the price of liquid hydrogen in any respect, though it did worth fossil bunker gas.

All of that is to say that the ICCT’s over give attention to hydrogen and lack of ability to get its precise prices for transportation remotely appropriate cross over from trucking to maritime transportation, the place in addition they mix it with utterly non-pragmatic sail decisions. They clearly over depend on inside hydrogen price modeling which is flawed in and of itself, after which don’t trouble so as to add prices for steadiness of plant, compression, liquification, distribution and earnings for anyone concerned.

Up to now, none of their hydrogen associated reviews for floor or marine transportation stand as much as scrutiny. They vastly understate the precise prices of hydrogen as a transportation gas, and it’s systemic throughout the group. Subsequent I’ll take a look at aviation, and admittedly I anticipate to be disillusioned there as properly.

As soon as once more, the ICCT’s express imaginative and prescient is coverage and know-how technique and prioritization steering round decarbonization of technique. By messing up so badly and persistently on hydrogen prices, they’re failing of their mission and inflicting energetic delays and confusion in life like decarbonization coverage. It’s unclear why this state of affairs has arisen, however they actually need to deal with it to regain any credibility.