Hydrogen modelling in TIMES – a summary of the inputs, outputs, and best practice RES
0 likes237 views
The document provides an overview of hydrogen modeling within the TIMES framework, emphasizing the diverse options for hydrogen production, delivery, and use across various sectors. It highlights the varying purity and pressure requirements for different applications, as well as the financial implications of production and delivery technologies. Best practices in hydrogen modeling are outlined, advocating for comprehensive representation of end-use sectors and consistent methodologies for cost assessments.
Hydrogen modelling in TIMES – a summary of the inputs, outputs, and best practice RES
- 1. Hydrogen modelling in TIMES – a summary of the inputs, outputs, and best practice RES Paul Dodds 17 December 2020, ETSAP Semi-annual Workshop, Teams UCL Energy Institute
- 2. Hydrogen Reference Energy System • Many production and delivery options (not all are shown here) • Uses across end-use sectors • Centralised or decentralised • Pressure requirements vary between transport and other sectors • Purity requirements vary between fuel cells and combustion • Complements and competes with electrification Staffell et al. (2019) The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system 20 bar 80 bar 850 bar 2 bar 0.075 bar 99.97% 99.9% 98% Pressure Purity
- 3. Representation of hydrogen energy systems in existing models, including strengths and weaknesses
- 4. Hydrogen RES choices – mobility end-uses ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Hydrogen use in road transport? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90% Hydrogen use in rail transport? No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No 30% Hydrogen use in shipping? No No No No No Yes No No No No 10% Hydrogen use in aviation? Yes No No No No No No No No No 10%
- 5. Hydrogen RES choices – pressure and purity ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Hydrogen compression costs? No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 78% Hydrogen purification costs? No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No 33%
- 6. Hydrogen RES choices – stationary end-uses ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Hydrogen use in industry as a feedstock? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes 40% Hydrogen use in industry decarbonisation? No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 60% Hydrogen use for Direct Reduced Iron (DRI)? No No No Yes No 20% Hydrogen use for synthetic jet fuel? No Yes No No Yes 40% Hydrogen use for other synthetic liquid fuels? No Yes No No Yes 40% Hydrogen use in the dairy industry? No Yes No No No 20% Hydrogen use for building heat? No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 50% Hydrogen for electricity generation? No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 70%
- 7. Hydrogen RES choices – supply side ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Hydrogen production plants? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Decentralised hydrogen production? Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 90% Hydrogen delivery routes? Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 80% Power-to-gas? No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 80% Hydrogen storage? No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 70%
- 8. Hydrogen RES choices – existing gas networks* * Note that some countries have very limited or no natural gas networks ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Injection of small amounts of hydrogen into gas flows? Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No 60% Maximum injection rate? 15% 2% 4% 3% 7.2% 6% Conversion of existing gas networks to deliver hydrogen? No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No 30%
- 9. Hydrogen RES choices – delivery technologies ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Liquefaction No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No 40% Transmission pipeline HP Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No 50% Distribution pipeline HP No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No 40% Distribution pipeline LP No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No 30% Building pipes LP No No No No No No Yes No No No 10% Road tanker Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No 60% Liquid H2 refuelling station No No No No No No Yes No Yes No 20% Gas H2 refuelling station No No No No No No Yes No Yes No 20% Gas H2 HRS onsite prod No No No No No No Yes No No No 10% Gas field storage No No No No No No Yes No No No 10% Salt cavern storage No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No 30%
- 10. Hydrogen RES choices – production technologies ETSAP-TIAM TIMESPanEU JMRTJapan TIMES_VTT STEM_CH TIMES-Norway UKTIMES IrishTIMES TIMES_PT EnOp-TIMES Biomass Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 70% Biomass CCS Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No 40% Coal Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No 50% Coal CCS Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No 50% Waste No No No No No No Yes Yes No No 20% Waste CCS No No No No No No Yes No No No 10% Gas SMR Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 70% Gas SMR CCS Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No 60% Electrolysis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 90%
- 11. Conclusions from the model structure comparison • The level of modelling detail for hydrogen technologies varies widely between models. • Most models contain a basic set of technologies (electrolysis; hydrogen for transport), while some more exotic technologies are considered in very few models. Some technologies can usefully be further disaggregated (e.g. PEM, Alkaline and SOFC electrolysers). • There is much diversity in the modelling of delivery technologies. • Many models enable hydrogen to be used across several sectors. However, for transport, few models consider potential uses in rail, aviation and shipping. • More exotic technologies such as direct reduced iron, power-to-liquids and power-to-milk are starting to be added to models. • Hydrogen-based energy carriers such as ammonia are not generally considered.
- 12. Comparison of hydrogen production investment costs 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 Biomass Biomass CCS Coal Coal CCS Gas SMR centralised Gas SMR decentralised Gas SMR CCS Electrolysis centralised Electrolysis decentralised Investmentcost(€/kW)
- 13. Comparison of hydrogen production energy conversion efficiencies 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 Biomass Biomass CCS Coal Coal CCS Gas SMR centralised Gas SMR decentralised Gas SMR CCS Electrolysis centralised Electrolysis decentralised Hydrogenproductionefficiency
- 14. Comparison of hydrogen delivery investment costs 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 Liquefaction centralised Transmission pipeline HP Distribution pipeline HP Distribution pipeline LP Investmentcost(€/kW)
- 15. Total hydrogen production in each scenario (PJ) 2020 2030 2040 2050 ETSAP-TIAM_scen1_GBL 2171 5503 21600 31090 ETSAP-TIAM_scen2_GBL 4342 11006 43201 62180 JMRT_scen1_Japan 0 250 332 1065 JMRT_scen2_Japan 0 227 374 1272 uk_times_scen1_uk 5 35 358 837 uk_times_scen2_uk 13 94 1202 2529 TIMES-Norway_scen1_all 0 2 4 19 TIMES-Norway_scen2_all 0 2 11 58 TIMES-Norway_scen3_all 0 9 20 62 STEM_scen1_CH 0 8 17 39 STEM_scen2_CH 0 16 31 65 Irish_TIMES_scen1_IE 0 0 3 21 Irish_TIMES_scen2_IE 0 0 17 39 TIMES-PT_scen1_PT 10 22 57 105 TIMES-PT_scen2_PT 10 22 64 182 TIMES-PT_scen3_PT 10 21 53 99
- 16. Hydrogen production per capita in 2050 Population GJ/capita Optimal GJ/capita HighH2 Global ETSAP-TIAM 7600 4.1 8.2 Japan 126 8.5 10.1 UK TIMES 67 12.5 37.7 TIMES-Norway 5.4 3.5 11.4 Switzerland 8.6 4.5 7.5 Irish TIMES 4.9 4.3 8.0 TIMES-Portugal 10 10.7 18.2
- 17. Normalised total hydrogen production in the optimal case 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2020 2030 2040 2050 ETSAP-TIAM JMRT UK TIMES TIMES-Norway STEM Irish TIMES TIMES-PT
- 18. Fraction of hydrogen production from electrolysers in the optimal case 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2020 2030 2040 2050 ETSAP-TIAM JMRT UK TIMES TIMES-Norway STEM Irish TIMES TIMES-PT
- 19. Fraction of hydrogen from each production route in 2050 ETSAP- TIAM JMRT UK TIMES TIMES- Norway STEM Irish TIMES TIMES-PT Biomass 10% 0% Biomass CCS 29% Coal 14% Waste CCS 1% Gas SMR 46% 0% Gas SMR CCS 99% 24% Decentralised electrolysis 100% 3% Centralised electrolysis 30% 47% Alkaline electrolyser 82% 1% PEM electrolyser 100% 96% Hydrogen from Refinery 6% Hydrogen from Iron and Steel Making 12% Number of options used 4 3 2 1 5 1 3
- 20. Hydrogen consumption by sector in 2050 ETSAP-TIAM JMRT UK TIMES TIMES- Norway STEM Irish TIMES TIMES-PT Average Agriculture 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Services 0% 55% 12% 0% 3% 0% 1% 10% Industry 39% 0% 65% 52% 6% 0% 38% 29% Residential 0% 39% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% Transport 61% 6% 2% 48% 52% 100% 44% 45% Process 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 14% 4% Electricity 0% 0% 16% 0% 27% 0% 0% 6%
- 21. Hydrogen consumption in the transport sector in 2050 ETSAP- TIAM JMRT UK TIMES TIMES- Norway STEM Irish TIMES TIMES-PT Average Cars 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 21% 2-wheel and 3-wheel bikes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Light goods vehicles 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 1% Heavy goods vehicles 4% 0% 0% 100% 38% 100% 4% 35% Buses 0% 0% 15% 0% 4% 0% 96% 16% Trains 0% 0% 76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% Ships 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Aviation 96% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14%
- 22. Best-practice hydrogen RES Not all hydrogen is equal • Gas or liquid. • Gas pressure ranges from 0.075 bar to 850 bar. • Purity ranges from 75% to 99.99%. • Natural gas/hydrogen mixed fuel • Hydrogen-rich compounds (methane; ammonia; methanol; liquid-organic hydrogen compounds). • Purity and compression requirements vary between end-uses. • Impurities can enter the hydrogen supply in the infrastructure system. • Modelling hydrogen storage needs is a challenge. • Modelling “typical” infrastructure is a geographical challenge. Fully-detailed hydrogen RES Typical RES ETSAP-TIAM
- 23. Traditional approach to modelling a hydrogen energy system
- 24. 2030 2040 20502020 UCL Spatial Hydrogen Infrastructure Planning model (SHIPMod) 25 Hydrogen demand supplied 10-year time periods Annual temporal resolution
- 25. Systems are much messier in practice…
- 26. My views on best-practice hydrogen modelling principles 1. Breadth of the hydrogen system: 1. A range of potential end-uses across several sectors, particularly non-car transport and industry. 2. Production from fossil fuels and electricity. 3. Hydrogen-derived fuels, including ammonia and synthetic jet fuel. 4. International trade of gaseous and liquefied hydrogen, and ammonia. 2. Model balance: hydrogen production costs should use a consistent methodology with electricity generation costs. Delivery infrastructure should similarly be modelled for both hydrogen and alternatives. 3. The RES design should reflect the likely use of hydrogen and geography of the region – for example, will it be centralised or decentralised? 4. Represent the limitations of infrastructure in the early stages of hydrogen take-up, whether through lumpy investments or constraints. Base these on the relative cost of infrastructure compared to the rest of the hydrogen RES through the transition.
- 27. New TIAM RES