SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The 2011 Annual Progress Report summarizes fiscal year 2011 activities and accomplishments by projects funded by the DOE Hydrogen Program. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; education; market transformation; and systems analysis.
Natural gas pipeline cost data collected by the Oil and Gas Journal (O&GJ) for interstate pipelines constructed from 1980 through 2017 were used to develop capital cost estimating equations that are a function of pipeline diameter, length, and U.S. region. Equations were developed for material, labor, miscellaneous, and right-of-way costs, the four cost components in the O&GJ data, for six different regions of the United States (U.S.). Each equation is a function of pipeline diameter and length. Adjustment mechanisms were then developed for converting the natural gas pipeline equations into equations for estimating the costs of hydrogen pipelines. These adjustments were based in part on an analysis completed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Here the results of this work were used to update cost models in the Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM), developed by Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Program. Our analysis shows a wide range of pipeline cost across different U.S. regions, especially with respect to labor and right-of-way costs. The developed cost formulas for hydrogen pipelines are both important and timely as hydrogen is being considered as a zero-carbon energy carrier with the potential to decarbonize all energy sectors, and the cost of hydrogen transportation is essential for techno-economic analysis of its potential use in these sectors.
Results of a system evaluation and lifecycle cost analysis are presented for a commercial-scale high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) central hydrogen production plant. The plant design relies on grid electricity to power the electrolysis process and system components, and industrial natural gas to provide process heat. The HYSYS process analysis software was used to evaluate the reference central plant design capable of producing 50,000 kg/day of hydrogen. The HYSYS software performs mass and energy balances across all components to allow optimization of the design using a detailed process flow sheet and realistic operating conditions specified by the analyst. The lifecycle cost analysis was performed using the H2A analysis methodology developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program. This methodology utilizes Microsoft Excel spreadsheet analysis tools that require detailed plant performance information (obtained from HYSYS), along with financial and cost information to calculate lifecycle costs. The results of the lifecycle analyses indicate that for a 10% internal rate of return, a large central commercial-scale hydrogen production plant can produce 50,000 kg/day of hydrogen at an average cost of $2.68/kg. When the cost of carbon sequestration is taken into account, the average cost of hydrogen production increases by $0.40/kg to $3.08/kg.
The objective of this project is to examine safety aspects of candidate hydrogen storage materials and systems being developed in the DOE Hydrogen Program. As a result of this effort, the general DOE safety target will be given useful meaning by establishing a link between the characteristics of new storage materials and the satisfaction of safety criteria. This will be accomplished through the development and application of formal risk analysis methods, standardized materials testing, chemical reactivity characterization, novel risk mitigation approaches and subscale system demonstration. The project also will collaborate with other DOE and international activities in materials based hydrogen storage safety to provide a larger, highly coordinated effort.
This report presents results of system evaluations and lifecycle cost analyses performed for several different commercial-scale high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) hydrogen production concepts. The concepts presented in this report rely on grid electricity and non-nuclear high-temperature process heat sources for the required energy inputs. The HYSYS process analysis software was used to evaluate both central plant designs for large-scale hydrogen production (50,000 kg/day or larger) and forecourt plant designs for distributed production and delivery at about 1,500 kg/day. The HYSYS software inherently ensures mass and energy balances across all components and it includes thermodynamic data for all chemical species. The optimized designs described in this report are based on analyses of process flow diagrams that included realistic representations of fluid conditions and component efficiencies and operating parameters for each of the HTE hydrogen production configurations analyzed. As with previous HTE system analyses performed at the INL, a custom electrolyzer model was incorporated into the overall process flow sheet. This electrolyzer model allows for the determination of the average Nernst potential, cell operating voltage, gas outlet temperatures, and electrolyzer efficiency for any specified inlet steam, hydrogen, and sweep-gas flow rates, current density, cell active area, and external heat loss or gain. The lifecycle cost analyses were performed using the H2A analysis methodology developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program. This methodology utilizes spreadsheet analysis tools that require detailed plant performance information (obtained from HYSYS), along with financial and cost information to calculate lifecycle costs. There are standard default sets of assumptions that the methodology uses to ensure consistency when comparing the cost of different production or plant design options. However, these assumptions may also be varied within the spreadsheets when better information is available or to allow the performance of sensitivity studies. The selected reference plant design for this study was a 1500 kg/day forecourt hydrogen production plant operating in the thermal-neutral mode. The plant utilized industrial natural gas-fired heaters to provide process heat, and grid electricity to supply power to the electrolyzer modules and system components. Modifications to the reference design included replacing the gas-fired heaters with electric resistance heaters, changing the operating mode of the electrolyzer (to operate below the thermal-neutral voltage), and considering a larger 50,000 kg/day central hydrogen production plant design. Total H2A-calculated hydrogen production costs for the reference 1,500 kg/day forecourt hydrogen production plant were $\$$3.42/kg. The all-electric plant design using electric resistance heaters for process heat, and the reference design operating below the thermal-neutral voltage had calculated lifecycle hydrogen productions costs of $\$$3.55/kg and $\$$5.29/kg, respectively. Because of its larger size and associated economies of scale, the 50,000 kg/day central hydrogen production plant was able to produce hydrogen at a cost of only $\$$ 2.89/kg.
This study was performed to elucidate the influence of sulfur on the carbon deposition in steam reforming of liquid hydrocarbons over CeO{sub 2}-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} supported Ni and Rh catalysts at 800 C. The characteristics of the carbon deposits on the used catalysts after the reactions without and with sulfur were investigated by temperature-programmed oxidation (TPO), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM), temperature-programmed hydrogenation (TPH), X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Though abundant carbon deposits can accumulate on the pure CeO{sub 2}-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} support due to fuel thermal cracking, the addition of Ni or Rh metal greatly reduced the carbon deposition in the sulfur-free reaction. The presence of sulfur increased the carbon deposition on both catalysts, which has a much more significant impact for the Ni catalyst. Carbon XANES study on the used catalysts revealed that graphitic carbon was dominant in the presence of sulfur, while oxidized carbon species (quinone-like carbon, carboxyl and carbonate) prevailed without sulfur. Meanwhile, the formation of carboxyl and carbonate more dramatically dropped on the Ni catalyst than that on the Rh catalyst. Our results strongly suggest that (I) the presence of sulfur can suppress carbon gasification and promote the formation of graphitic carbon on reforming catalysts due mainly to its poisoning effect on metals, and (II) Rh catalyst possesses stronger capability to maintain carbon gasification activity than Ni catalyst in the presence of sulfur.
Presentation on NETL's solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) work plan research (FWP 1022411) given by invitation to the 2024 Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review meeting in Arlington, VA on May 7, 2024.
The Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Plan outlines the strategy, activities, and plans of the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program, which includes hydrogen and fuel cell activities within the EERE Fuel Cell Technologies Program and the DOE offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Science.
The Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Plan outlines the strategy, activities, and plans of the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program, which includes hydrogen and fuel cell activities within the EERE Fuel Cell Technologies Program and the DOE offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Science.
This document summarizes the comments provided by peer reviewers on hydrogen and fuel cell projects presented at the FY 2011 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR), held May 9-13, 2011 in Arlington, Virginia
Budget information for hydrogen and fuel cell research, development, and other activities at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is provided here. Included are budgets for DOE's Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science.
In the past year, the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program (the Program) made substantial progress toward its goals and objectives. The Program has conducted comprehensive and focused efforts to enable the widespread commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in diverse sectors of the economy. With emphasis on applications that will effectively strengthen our nation's energy securityand improve our stewardship of the environment, the Program engages in research, development, and demonstration of critical improvements in the technologies. Highlights of the Program's accomplishments can be found in the sub-program chapters of this report.
The 2015 Annual Progress Report summarizes fiscal year 2015 activities and accomplishments by projects funded by the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production; hydrogen delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; systems analysis; and market transformation.
The 2016 Annual Progress Report summarizes fiscal year 2016 activities and accomplishments by projects funded by the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production; hydrogen delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; systems analysis; market transformation; and Small Business Innovation Research projects.
The 2018 Annual Progress Report summarizes fiscal year 2018 activities and accomplishments by projects funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program.
This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2014 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 16-20, 2014, in Washington, DC. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.
This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2011 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 9-13, 2011, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; education; market transformation; and systems analysis.
This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2015 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 8-12, 2015, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.