Mitg
lied
der H
elm
holtz
-Gem
eins
chaf
t
Future Energy Mix and Mobility
Detlef Stolten [email protected]
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering (IEK-3)
ERTRAC Annual Conference 2017 Brussels
March 8, 2017
𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 2
Unusually Stable Climate Since Last Ice Age
Source: W. Daansgard et al., Nature Vol 363, p. 203 (1993)
(Data from oxygen isotope ratios 18O/16O)
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 3
Basic Requirements for a Future Energy System • In 2050 CO2 emissions based on 1990 shall be reduced by 80-95 % • After the transition period energy should not be more expensive than today • Limited emissions shall be reduced
• Electricity, fuels and heat must be available with high reliability • All energy sectors need to be addressed • Teratogenic, carcinogenic and poisonous substances shall be avoided
Paramount Topics o Storage
• Short term: grid stabilization (pumped hydro, batteries, gas storage etc)
• Long term: compensate for sustainedly low power generation (only gas storage feasible)
o Transportation (from generation to consumption; connecting regions of different climate)
o Compensation of fluctuating renewable input o Spatial restrictions o Handling dichotomy between a very distributed (e.g. household PV) vs. very centralized
system (off-shore wind farms and coastal on-shore wind power generation)
o Interconnecting the energy sectors
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 4
• 2050: 80% reduction goal fully achieved
• 2040: start of market penetration
• 2030: research finalized for 1st generation technology
Development period: unil 2040
Research period: until 2030
⇒ 15 years left for research => TRL 5 and higher
TRL 4 at least
This is not to say research at lower TRL levels is not useful, it will just not contribute to the 2050 goal
Timeline for CO2-Reduction and the Implication of TRL Levels
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 5
Energy sector 37% • Power generation 30% Renewables
Transport (90% petroleum-based) 17% • Passenger vehicles 11% Electricity / hydrogen / PtF • Trucks, buses, trains, ships, airplanes 6% Liquid fuel surrogates (biomass/
CO2-based; hydrogenation) Residential 11% • Residential heating 11% Insulation, heat pumps etc. (electricity covered in power generation)
Industry, trade and commerce 23% • Industry 19% CO2-capture from steel, cement,
ammonia; hydrogen for CO2-use • Trade and commerce 4%
Agriculture and forestry 8% Others 4% Total 100%
Source: Emission Trends for Germany since 1990, Trend Tables: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions in Equivalents, without CO2 from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Umweltbundesamt 2011
Transport-related values: supplemented with Shell LKW Studie – Fakten, Trends und Perspektiven im Straßengüterverkehr bis 2030.
Emissions Remedies (major vectors)
GHG Emissions Shares by Sector in Germany (as of 2010)
Likely
?
??
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 6
Demand
Positive residual energy
Negative residual energy
• Excess Power is inherent to renewable power generation • Compensation is needed for sustained low renewable power input
Extrapolated Renewable Power Profile Based on Real Weater Data in 2010
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 7
Capacity factor = 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐡𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐡
Average power demand for Germany: ~ 60 GW (based on 528 TWh grid electricity)
@ no losses for reconversion considered
Capacity factor
Necessary Power, if just one Technology is applied
Reasonable power mix DE 2050 (DE gov. Installation plans extrapolated)
Reasonable electricity mix DE 2050
Electricity to be converted to H2 (serving 75% of passenger vehicles in DE)
Offshore wind 0.46 120 GW 59 GW 236 TWh
Onshore wind 0.23 230 GW 132 GW 267 TWh
PV 0.12 460 GW 120 GW 126 TWh
Total -------- ---------- 311 GW 629 TWh 101 TWh (2,1 mt H2)
Untimely produced electricity
≈ 200 TWh (to be stored)
CO2 cut Ø 80% 90% (10% power by NG)
54% of passenger cars
Overcapacity in Power is Inherent for Full Renewable Energy Supply
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 8
GW (onshore, offshore & PV peak simultaneously
Electrolysis
Grid Load
Curtailment regime
Electrolysis regime
Power regime
37% of power curtailment sacrifices 2% of energy *
Fill power gaps w/ NG
via CC & GT
Principle of a Renewable Energy Scenario with Hydrogen Hydrogen as an Enabler for Renewable Energy
* modeled for DE based on inflated input of renewables w/ weather data of 2010
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 9
Power to Fuel: Option or Necessity for Heavy Transportation?
e
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 10
Combustion engine (bio-fuels) Efficiency: 50 % x 25 % = 13 % (WTT) (TTW) Vehicle cost: Fuel production: Storage & distrib.: ⊕ Operating range: high Resources: limited Soot/NOx emissions: medium
Battery vehicle (renewable electricity) Efficiency: 80 % x 85 % = 68 % (WTT) (TTW) Vehicle cost: Fuel production: ⊕ Storage & distrib.: Operating range: low Resources: sufficient Soot/NOx emissions: none
Fuel cell vehicle (renewable electricity) Efficiency: 63 % x 60 % = 38 % (WTT) (TTW) Vehicle cost: Fuel production: Storage & distrib.: Operating range: medium Resources: sufficient Soot/NOx emissions: none
Combustion engine (CO2-based fuels) Efficiency: 70 % x 50 % x 25 % = 9 % (H2) (plant) (TTW) Vehicle cost: Fuel production: Storage & distrib.: ⊕ Operating range: high Resources: sufficient Soot/NOx emissions: medium
TTW: Tank-to-wheel WTT: Well-to-tank
Passenger car-based transport in 2050
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 11
Power to Fuel concept: Fuels from CO2 and H2
Interconnecting power genration and transport Storage of fluctuating renewable energy Fuels currently considered:
Fischer-Tropsch products (SoA, high investment)
Methanol & DME (SoA for syngas, bridge to chemistry, R&D for direct use of CO2)
Higher alcohols & ethers (R&D, low to medium TRL)
Industrial CO2 sources with 0.4 – 4 Mio t CO2 / (source*a) - reasonable for FT synthesis
No CO2 from coal fired power plants; no option for COP21 goals
Demand: 1.2 mio. t H2 /a & 8.3 mio. t CO2
Estimation for Germany
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 4.0 4.4 4.8
Mio. t / a
Attainable quantities 7.5 % truck diesel 5 % gasoline 5.5 % kerosene
Consumption assumed 2025 19.7 mio. t / a truck diesel 11.7 mio. t/ a gasoline 10.9 mio. t/ a kerosene Source MWV
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 12
2nd Generation Fuels from Biomass
Use of whole plant material No direct competition to food production
by usage of vegetable oils or crops No indirect competition by usage of fertile
soils previously used for food Biomass: residual wood & straw, grass (Miscanthus),
plant oils from algae or jathropha, salt tolerant plants … Process technology:
Hydrogenation of plant oils (commercial) Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (SoA, high investment) Bioliq (R&D, medium to high TRL, bridge to chemistry) Fermentation & biochemical routes (low to medium TRL)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8
Mio. t / a
Estimation for Germany
Attainable quantities: 18 % truck diesel 11 % gasoline 11.5 % kerosene
Consumption assumed 2025 19.7 mio. t / a truck diesel 11.7 mio. t/ a gasoline 10.9 mio. t/ a kerosene Source MWV
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 13
Cost Estimate of Battery Charging Infrastructure for Vehicles 1.0 Data and Assumptions for Germany / initial estimate
1 million BEV 30 million BEV Percentage of private garages 100 % 60 % – 37 % 1)
Public supercharging stations per vehicle 0.25–0.5 0.25–0.5
Number Million units
Cost billion €
Number Million units
Cost billion €
Private charging (garage), 1,000 € each 1.0 1,0 18–11 18–11 Public supercharging stations, 6,500 €2) each 1.6–3.3 19–34 127–221
Grid extension, 700 € each negligible - 38–45 26–32
Total in billion € 2.6–4.3 171–264 1) Data from: BEHRENDS, S.; KOTT, K.: Zuhause in Deutschland - Ausstattung und Wohnsituation privater Haushalte, Ausgabe
2009. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2009. Information used: 63% of households in DE (39,1 mn @ 2009) are equipped with a garage / parking space; thereof 61% are used by the owner
2) Data from: Zweiter Bericht der Nationalen Plattform Elektromobilität. Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität (NPE), Berlin, 2011; Information used: cost for charging station, metering and automated settlement, installation of charging station, connection to electric distribution grid, designation of e-parking space, cost for right of dedicated use (average values, respectively)
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 14
Infrastructure Analysis
Infrastructure of Energy Concept 2.0 Cost Aanalysis [Bn €]
[1] Electrolyzer @ 500 €/kW [2] PV @ 1000 €/kW; wind onshore @ 1400 €/kW; offshore @ 3000/kW; Installed capacities after [3] Robinius, M. (2016): Strom- und Gasmarktdesign zur Versorgung des deutschen Straßenverkehrs mit Wasserstoff. Dissertation RWTH Aachen [4] 42 GW GT + comb. Cycles, 23 GW already in place [5] Zeitreihen zur Entwicklung Erneuerbarer Energien, BMWi, August 2016 [6] Netzentwicklungsplan NEP 2025, BNA
14
366
19 3 20 24
Water electrolyzersRenewable EnergiesHydrogen pipeline gridGas cavernsFueling stationsAdditional NG-power plants
[1]
[2] [3]
[3]
[3] [4]
(simplified)
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 15
Installed Capacities and Electricity Supply of German Energy Scenarios achieving ≥80% CO2 Reduction across all Energy Sectors***
General Trends: Higher expectations of future el. demand Higher expectations of PV capacities
* Energiewende; ** Fossil Fuels; *** compared to 1990
2009
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
Publ
ishe
d [y
ear]
1.500 1.200 900 600 300 0 300 600 900
Sektorkopplung, HTW Berlin (2040, 100% RE)
SZEN-16 KLIMA 2050, BEE eV. (2050, 95% RE)
Energiesystem 2050, Fraunhofer ISE (2050, 80% RE)
Status Quo 2015
Strommarktmodell 2050, IEK-3 (2050, 80% RE)
Klimaschutzszenario 2050, Öko-Institut (2050, 95% RE)
Geschäftsmodell EW*, Fraunhofer IWES (2050, 80% RE)
Trendszenario 2050, Prognos (2050, 80% RE)
Szenario 2011 A, Energy Trans / DLR (2050, 80% RE)
Energieziel 2050, UBA (2050, 100% RE)
Leitszenario 2009, BMU (2050, 80% RE)
Electricity Supply [TWh/year] | Installed Capacities [GW]
Sum Import Others (FF**, Other RE, Storage Cap.)Geothermics Hydropower BioenergyWind (Offshore) Wind (Onshore) Photovoltaics
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 16
8,9 8,4 10,5
3,41,3
3,03,3
0,7
1,51,9
0,4
0,9
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Wind power(5,9 ct/kWh)Elektrolysis
H2 at pump(appreciable cost)
Gasoline(70 ct/l)
Natural gas(2,5 ct/kWh)
Wind power(5,9 ct/kWh)ElectrolysisGrid feed-in
Wind power(5,9 ct/kWh)ElectrolysisMethanation
Cost
of h
ydro
gen,
ct€/k
Wh
OPEXInterest costDepreciation costEnergy costH2 appreciable costGasoline/NG, pre tax
22(0,7 kg/100km)
17,5
16*(1,0 kg/100km)
8.0
2.5
10,8
15,9
CAPEX via depreciation of investment plus interest 10 a for electrolysers and other production devices 40 a for transmission grid 20 a for distribution grid and refueling stations Interest rate 8.0 % p.a.
Other Assumptions: 2.9 million tH2/a from renewable power via electrolysis Electrolysis: η = 70 %LHV, 28 GW; investment cost 500 €/kW Methanation: η = 80 %LHV
• Appreciable cost @ half the specific fuel consumption
[1] Energy Concept 2.0
Hydrogen for Transportation Hydrogen or Methane to be Fed into Gas Grid
Cost Comparison of Power to Gas Options –Hydrogen for Transportation with a Dedicated Hydrogen Infrastructure is Economically Reasonable
Pre-tax V2.0
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 17
Comparison of the Energy Pathway for H2 and CH4 as Fuels
Cost is cumulative * including storage C.H2 Compressed hydrogen, 700 bar SNG Compressed natural gas FCV Fuel cell vehicle) ICV Internal combustion engine vehicle NG Natural gas
Vehicle (ICV)
Vehicle (FCV)
NG-Grid*
H2-Grid* H2
Elektrolysis 𝜂 = 70%
Methanation 𝜂 = 80% NG 109 km
13 ct/km
196 km 6,6 ct/km e- Elektrolysis
𝜂 = 70%
H2
H2
CH4 CNG- Pump
C.H2- Pump
0,50 kWh/km
0,33 kWh/km
CNG
C.H2
93 kWh
e-
98 kWh 69 kWh 15 ct/kWh
55 kWh 23 ct/kWh
55 kWh 24 ct/kWh
55 kWh 25 ct/kWh
65 kWh 15 ct/kWh
65 kWh 18 ct/kWh
65 kWh 20 ct/kWh
2 kWh
5 kWh 2 kWh
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 18
Conclusions • Direct use of power has the highest efficiency and is to be preferred, if possible. • Direct hydrogen pathways with fuel cells are second most efficient. • Hydrogen generation from „excess power“ delivers a notable grid service. • Owing to the inherently high quantities of excess power of renewable concepts „excess power“
is to be treated as a valuable good. There is no such thing as a low or negative power price if the system is adjusted appropriately.
• All PtF concepts use hydrogen; the less oxygen in carbon precursors the higher the efficiency. • Renewable hydrogen is most cost effective in transportation, substituting liquid fuels • Methanation economically is no option • Distribution infrastructure for fuels including H2 amounts to about 20% max. of the
investment cost incl. generation; distribution infrastructure issue is currently overrated. • Battery and fuel cells are much better in efficiency than bio-fuel and power to fuel concepts • Battery infrastructure is cheap at low market penetration; hydrogen infrastructure is much
more cost effective than battery infrastructure at high market penetration. • Renewable energy is (getting) competitive. • The moderate efficiency of the combustion engine makes alternate liquid fuel concepts expensive.
Renewable Transportation has a bright future if the right choices are being made timely
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 19
The Team
Dr. Martin Robinius Prof. Dr. Detlef Stolten
Dr. Thomas Grube
Dr. Peter Markewitz
Prof. Dr. Ralf Peters
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering IEK-3 20
Thank You for Your Attention! [email protected]
