economic comparison of hydrogen production nuclear … · · 2017-06-16economic comparison of...
TRANSCRIPT
Economic Comparison of Hydrogen Production Nuclear Technique to Renewable Energy Technique
IAEA’s Technical Meeting to
Examine the Techno-Economics of and Opportunities for Non-Electrical Applications of Small and Medium Sized or Modular
Reactors
Vienna, 29-31 May 2017
R. Boudries
1 2
• Hydrogen production
• Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production using nuclear energy
• Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production using solar energy
• Comparison
• Conclusion
Solar Hydrogen Production
Interest in hydrogen stems from:
The big demand for hydrogen as a chemical feedstock in the
industry sector:
Fast increase in hydrogen needs in the refinery sector because of the stringent regulation in the conventional fuel production
Flat glass manufacturing using float glass technique
Petrochemical sector needs (ammonia, ethanol, etc.)
The big interest in developing hydrogen as an energy vector:
Could solve the problem related to the conventional energy source: pollution and the limited resources
Could be used in different sectors: transport, energy , domestic, etc.
Versatility in its use
4
The big in role in the energy transition
Power to Gas
Hydrogen exists in nature mainly in combination with other elements
Must be produced by dissociation
(water, hydrocarbons, etc.)
Hydrogen production:
Process requires:
One form of energy
Conventional electrolysis electricity
Thermo-chemical cycle heat
Two forms of energy
Electricity
Heat
HTSE
HyS cycle
Hydrogen Generation Process
6
Hydrogen Generation Process Energy
Nuclear Energy
Any reactors, providing electrical and/or thermal energy can be coupled
to hydrogen production process.
However, SMR offers clears benefits:
Modular Shorter construction time
Suitable for remote areas Fewer oprerators
Lower investment costs. High availability (≥ 90%).
Hydrogen Generation Process Energy
Solar Energy
Solar: clean and renewable source of energy
Form of Energy Temperature
Solar PV electricity 50 °C
CPV Electricity + heat Depends on the type of
concentrator
Solar parabolic trhough Electricity + heat 300 ° C - 400 °C
Solar central receiver Electricity + heat 800 ° C - 1000 °C
Dish Heat 100 °C
Hydrogen Generation Process Energy
Hybrid Nuclear-Solar System
In hybrid system, nuclear and solar complete each other.
Nuclear helps overcome the intermittency of solar.
Solar helps save on fuel and increase the time for fuel replacement.
Proposed hybrid system
Wind/SMR-HTR
Parabolic trough/SMR-HTR
Central receiver/SMR-HTR
Central receiver/SMR-PWR
DishSMR-HTR
Solar Hydrogen Production
Solar Hydrogen Production Techniques
Four techniques are under consideration for water splitting
Solar PV/electrolysis
Solar CPV/ electrolysis
Solar CSP/electrolysis
Solar CSP/SI
Electricity only
Heat only
Electricity + heat
Electricity + heat
With: Ce: Cost of Electricity production
Celec : Cost of Electrolysis
C = Ce + Celec
CPV- Electrolyzer System: cost of Production
Cost of PV System
Cost of electrolyzer system
)1(
2)1(
536.31
211
i
if
i
iffC
CFn
KC rr
em
r
elelec
Parameters
values
Taxes
0. 015
Indirect cost
0.025
Insurance
0.0025
Discount rate
0.06
Inflation rate
0.007
Fiscal parameters
CPV System
Type of concentration Reflective (mirror)
Cell Technology
Silicon cell Type
Efficiency
Common cell 14%
Advanced 20 %
Type of concentration technology Parabolic trough
Concentration Technology
Size of concentration Medium (20 to 80)
Parameters values
Optical efficiency 85 %
Cell efficiency 14 % -20%
Module efficiency
0.85xcell efficiency
BOS efficiency
85 %
Electrolyzer efficiency
85 %
Temperature effect
75 %
System parameters
Factors
values
BOS area cost ($/m²)
114
BOS power cost ($/Wp)
1.61
Tracking cost ($/m²)
159
Module cost ($/m²)
290
Cells cost ($/m²)
17500
O&M cost
2% of capital cost
PV lifetime
30 years
PV characteristics
Factor Value
Coupling efficiency
0.85
lifetime
20 years
Rated current (mA/cm²)
134
Rated voltage (V)
1.74
Operating current (mA/cm²)
268
Capital cost ($/kW)
800
Electrolyzer characteristics
PV/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost
Hydrogen production cost decreases with increasing PV module efficiency and an increase in irradiance
Decrease in cost by more than 36 % for an irradiance increase by 44 %
0
3
6
9
12
Ad
rar
Ad
rar
An
na
ba
Co
st o
f H
yd
rog
en
($
/kg
)
PV efficiency 14 %
PV efficiency 20 %
An
na
ba
0
1
2
3
4
5
An
na
ba
An
na
ba
Ad
rar
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
PV efficiency 14 %
PV efficiency 20 %
Ad
rar
CPV/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost
Hydrogen production cost decreases with increasing PV module efficiency and increasing irradiance
Decrease in cost by more than 26 % for an irradiance increase by 43 %
CSP/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost
Solar Unit Thermodynamic Unit
Electrolysis Unit
AC/DC converter
Solar unit
Solar unit capital cost
PN
ACCCCCCC OIPCSDrm
sol
)(
Cm : reflector capital cost Cr : receiver capital cost
CCS: concentrator structure cost CD: tracking (drive) system capital cost
CIP: interconnecting pipes capital cost
CO: others capital cost (electronics, foundation, land, etc.)
A: reflectors total area
PN: power plant nominal power
Parameters values
Reflector shape Parabolic trough
Incident angle efficiency 87.5 %
Optical efficiency
75 %
Receiver thermal efficiency 73. %
Solar field availability 99.%
Piping thermal losses 96.5 %
Low insolation losses 99.6 %
Solar field characteristics
Solar Unit
Parameters values
Thermal to power plant efficiency 95.0 %
Gross steam cycle efficiency 37.5 %
Parasitics
(1-%auxiliary power consumed by plant)
85. %
Plant availability
98 %
Solar capacity factor 25 %
Solar unit
Solar field electricity production characteristics
Components (capital cost) Values ($/m2)
Reflector 40
Receiver capital cost 43
Concentrator (structure + erection) 61
Tracking system 13
Interconnecting & header pipes 17
others 60
Solar unit
Solar unit economics
Thermodynamic unit
Unit economics (capital cost)
Components (capital cost) Values ($/kW)
Structure Cst 73
Steam generator CSG 100
Electric power generating system CEPG 367
Balance of system CBOS 213
CTU
BOSEPGSGstTU CCCCC
Solar Thermal Power Plant
Operation & maintenance (O&M) cost
solsolTUTUOM CkCkC
O&M factor for thermodynamic unit
2 %
O&M factor for solar unit
2 %
TUk
solk
Solar Thermal Power Plant
Cost of electricity production
])1()1[(8760
TUTUsolsole CkPN
SPCk
CFP
KC
efCRFeK Ni
iCRFe
)1(1
CFP: power plant capacity factor
Eout: net yearly electricity production
ef: sum of other economic factors such as insurance, tax, etc.
i: discount rate N: equipment lifetime
Parameters
values
Taxes
0. 015
Indirect cost
0.025
Insurance
0.0025
Discount rate
0.061
Inflation rate
0.007
Fiscal parameters
Solar Thermal Power Plant
Factor Value
Coupling efficiency
0.85
lifetime
20 years
Rated current (mA/cm²)
134
Rated voltage (V)
1.74
Operating current (mA/cm²)
268
Capital cost ($/kW)
800
Capacity factor 70 %
Electrolyzer characteristics
Electrolysis unit
CFnn
CKCC
rece
recrecelecehc
8760
Cost of hydrogen
eheehch CCC
The cost of hydrogen:
rece
eehe
nn
CC
CSP/Electrolysis Hydrogen Production cost
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ad
rar An
na
ba
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
Hydrogen production cost decreases with increasing irradiance
Decrease in cost by more than 8 % for an irradiance increase by 43 %
Comparison of hydrogen cost using solar based techniques
0
3
6
9
12
An
na
ba
An
na
ba
Ad
rar
Ad
rar
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
) PV
CPV
CSP
SI ( R. Liberatore et al. 2016) A
dra
r
An
na
ba
CPV Hydrogen production is the most competitive as it uses on both form of energy: electrical and thermal
Nuclear Hydrogen Production
Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Reactor type APWR APWR
1000
HTGR -co HTGR
Process type CE CE HTSE/SI HTSE/SI
Capacity factor 93% 90% 90% 90%
Construction period 5 years 3 years 3 years 3 years
Economic Analysis of Nuclear hydrogen production Using HEEP
Nuclear hydrogen production-Case Study
Fiscal parameters
Planning
Operating life 40 years
Cooling before decommissioning 2 years
Decommissioning period 10 years
Discount rate 6 %
Inflation rate 1 %
Equity to Debt ratio 70:30
Interest on borrowings 6 %
Tax rate 1.5 %
Depreciation period 20 years
35
Conventional electrolysis
Nuclear Power Plant -SMR (NPP)
Hydrogen Generation Plant (HGP)
Electricity
Electrolyzer H2O
H2
O2
Energy
H2O + Energy H2 + ½ O2
Case-1 Case-2
Reactor type APWR APWR (AP1000)
Rated power capacity 719 MWe 1117 MWe
Number of units 2 2
Capital investment ($106/unit) 4656.5 5964
Annual O&M cost ( % of capital
cost)
1.66 1.66
Annual fuel cost ($ 106) 51.6 66.09
Decommissioning cost (% of capital
cost)
2.8% 2.8%
Nuclear Power Plant Data
Process type CE CE
Hydrogen production (106 kg/year) 252.288 391.993
Capital cost ($ 106/unit ) 846.2 1313
Number of units 1 1
Annual O&M expenses (percent of capital cost) 4 4
Demineralised water consumption (109 l/year) 2.272 3.530
Decommissioning cost (percent of capital cost) 10 10
Hydrogen Generation Plant Data
0
1
2
3
4
14
,4 t
on
s/h
ou
r
28
,8 t
on
s/h
ou
r
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
There is a reduction in the hydrogen production cost as the production rate goes up. There is a decrease of more than 28 % as the production rate doubles
Conventional electrolysis: hydrogen production cost
1 2 3 40
1
2
3
4
28
,8 t
on
s/h
ou
r
28
,8 t
on
s/h
ou
r
14
,4 t
on
s/h
ou
r
Hyd
rog
en
co
st fr
actio
n (
$/k
g)
G
NPP
HGP
14
,4 t
on
s/h
ou
r
90,7%
88%
Conventional electrolysis: fractional cost
The cost related to the nuclear power plant dominates the cost of hydrogen production
However, this cost drops with the increase in hydrogen production rate
High Temperature Process
SMR (NPP)
Hydrogen Generation Plant
(HGP)
External electricity source
Heat
41 1
Two different sources for the needed energy
Intermediate Heat Exchanger
Heat
SMR (NPP)
Hydrogen Generation Plant
(HGP) Heat
Intermediate Heat Exchanger
Heat
Electricity
CONVENTIONAL
COGERATION
High Temperature Process: HTSE
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000
15
30
45
60
75
TS
G
H
Temperature (°C)
Energ
ie (
Wh/m
ole
)
:
STGHE
Real case: we have to add losses
eHE /
Theoretically: Water electrolysis
42
Heat vaporizes the water and brings it to the electrolysis temperature
NPP
Electricity steam electrolysis grid 1
H2SO4 -------> SO2 + H2O + 1/2 O2
SO2 + I2 + 2H2O -----> H2SO4 + 2HI
2HI---------> H2 + I2
SO2 & H2O
I2 regeneration
~900oC
~120oC
~400oC
H2
O2
H2SO4 Regeneration
HI
H2O
High Temperature Process: SI
Heat for process operation NPP
for non process operation grid Electricity
HTSE SI
Reactor type HTGR HTGR
Thermal rating (MWth/unit) 250 250
Heat for H2 plant (MWth/unit) 250 250
Electricity rating (Mwe/unit) 0 0
Nombre of units 2 2
Initial fuel load (kg/unit) 2950 2950
Annual fuel feed (kg/unit) 1155 1155
Capital cost (106 $/unit) 416 395
Capital cost fraction for electricity generating
infrastructure (%)
0 0
Fuel cost ($/kg) 4800 4800
O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) 3.1 3.1
Decommissioning cost ( in % of capital cost 6.3 6.3
High Temperature Process: no-cogeneration case
Nuclear Power Plant Data
High Temperature Process: no-cogeneration case
Hydrogen Generation Plant Data
Process type HTSE SI
Hydrogen generation per unit (106 kg/year) 506 68
Heat consumption (MWth/unit ) 500 500
Electricity required (MWe/unit ) 1975 16.5
Number of units 1 1
Capital cost (106 $) 1720 340
Other O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) 9.15 7.5
Decommissioning costs (in % of capital cost) 10 10
Temperature 850 °C 900 °C
HTSE SI
Reactor type HTGR -co HTGR -co
Thermal rating (MWth/unit) 250 250
Heat for H2 plant (MWth/unit) 19.5 234
Electricity rating (Mwe/unit) 89.5 16.5
Nombre of units 2 2
Initial fuel load (kg/unit) 2950 2950
Annual fuel feed (kg/unit) 762 1000
Capital cost (106 $/unit) 416 395
Capital cost fraction for electricity generating
infrastructure (%)
10 10
Fuel cost ($/kg) 4800 4800
O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) 3.1 3.1
Decommissioning cost ( in % of capital cost 6.3 6.3
High Temperature Process: cogeneration case
Nuclear Power Plant Data
Process type HTSE -co SI –co
Hydrogen generation per unit (106 kg/year) 46 49.6
Heat consumption (MWth/unit ) 39 467
Electricity required (MWe/unit ) 179 0
Number of units 1 1
Capital cost (106 $) 156 168
Other O&M cost ( in % of capital cost) 9.15 7.5
Decommissioning costs (in % of capital cost) 10 10
Temperature 850 °C 900 °C
High Temperature Process: cogeneration case
Hydrogen Generation Plant Data
0
1
2
3
co
nv
en
tio
na
l
Co
ge
ne
rati
on
HTSE
SI
Co
ge
ne
rati
on
co
nv
en
tio
na
l
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
High Temperature Process: Hydrogen cost
Hydrogen production cost using cogeneration system is lower than hydrogen production cost using conventional system
Reduction of about 8 % for HTSE Reduction of about 10 % for SI
1 2 3 40,0
0,3
0,6
0,9
1,2
1,5
1,8
Co
ge
ne
rati
on
Co
ge
ne
rati
on
co
nv
en
tio
na
lco
nv
en
tio
na
l
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
G
NPP
HGP
74 %
60 %
High Temperature Process: SI fractional hydrogen cost
Hydrogen production cost is dominated by the cost related to the nuclear power plant cost.
However the cost related to the nuclear power plant decreases as cogeneration is used
1 2 3 40,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
Co
ge
ne
rati
on
Co
ge
ne
rati
on
co
nv
en
tio
na
l
co
nv
en
tio
na
l
Hyd
rog
en
co
st fr
actio
na
l ($
/kg
)
G
cost related to NPP
cost related to HGP
90 %
77%
High Temperature Process: HTSE fractional hydrogen cost
Hydrogen production cost is dominated by the cost related to the nuclear power plant cost.
However the cost related to the nuclear power plant decreases as cogeneration is used
The fractional cost related to nuclear power plant cost is more important In HTSE case than in SI case
0
1
2
3
4
28
,8 t
on
s/h
ou
r
c
og
en
era
tio
n
co
nv
en
tio
na
l
co
ge
ne
rati
on
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
water electrolysis
high temperature steam electrolysis
sulfur cyle
co
nv
en
tio
na
l14
,4 t
on
s/h
ou
r
Comparison of nuclear based hydrogen cost techniques
Hydrogen production by thermo-chemical Sulfur cycle is the most viable technique
Cogeneration reduces the hydrogen production cost
Increasing the production rates decreases also the hydrogen production cost
Comparison between Nuclear based hydrogen cost and solar based hydrogen cost
Technologies under consideration
Solar-based technologies
CPV-electrolysis system
CSP (parabolic trough) –electrolysis system
Nuclear-based technologies
APWR– Electrolysis system HTGR – Electrolysis system
HTGR–Sulfur cycle system HTGR – HTSE
HTGR-cogeneration – Sulfur cycle system
HTGR- cogeneration – HTSE
PV-electrolysis system
CSP- SI system
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Ad
rar
Ad
rar A
nn
ab
a
An
na
ba
co
ge
n
co
ge
n
co
nv
co
nv
Hyd
rog
en
co
st ($
/kg
)
Nuvclear CE
Nuclear HTSE
Nuclear Sulfur cycle
solar PV
Solar CPV
Solar CSP
Solar SI*
* Liberatore et al 2016
low
ra
te
hig
h r
ate
An
na
ba
Ad
rar
Nuclear-based techniques of hydrogen production are more competitive than solar-based techniques of hydrogen production
Hydrogen generated using nuclear sulfure cycle is about 5 times cheaper than hydrogen produced using solar PV
Conclusion
Hydrogen produced using nuclear-based techniques is much less expensive than hydrogen produced using solar- based techniques
Solar based HTSE hydrogen production is at almost the same cost as nuclear based HTSE hydrogen productionHowever, the introduction of solar reduces drastically the emission of CO2.
Cogeneration allows the reduction of hydrogen cost.
Conclusion
Work is underway :
Techno-economic studies of solar-nuclear hybrid systems
To determine the effect of cogeneration on the cost of hydrogen production using solar driven processes
Thank you for your attention