Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy ... - Springer Link

Chapter 44

Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy: Comparative Cost Assessment Rami Salah El-Emam and Ibrahim Dincer

Abstract Hydrogen is one of the most promising alternatives for sustainable energy solutions to meet the world energy demands. Recently, there has been great interest in nuclear hydrogen production. Hence, economic evaluation of the nuclear hydrogen production process has become a crucial issue for better implementation opportunities of the production technologies and the nuclear power plants that can be integrated in the process. This chapter presents the Hydrogen Economic Evaluation Programme (HEEP) which is developed by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Five different cases of nuclear hydrogen production using different technologies of reactors and production are presented. The cost of hydrogen production is studied for these cases, including several scenarios with integrating storage of the produced hydrogen as compressed gas and/or transportation through pipelines to investigate the effect of these parameters on the hydrogen cost. Keywords Hydrogen • Nuclear power • Production cost • HEEP • IAEA

44.1

Introduction

Most of the world energy demand is still covered by conventional fossil fuels which are the major contributors, with negative impact, to the global warming [1]. Besides the environmental unbalance caused by using fossil fuels that deplete the atmospheric oxygen, they also cause geopolitical conflicts and limit the access of next R.S. El-Emam (*) Clean Energy Research Laboratory (CERL), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON, Canada L1H 7K4 Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt e-mail: [email protected] I. Dincer Clean Energy Research Laboratory (CERL), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON, Canada L1H 7K4 e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 I. Dincer et al. (eds.), Progress in Clean Energy, Volume 2, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-17031-2_44

615

616

R.S. El-Emam and I. Dincer

generations to a clean environment [2]. In order to achieve the commitments of Kyoto protocol with limiting greenhouse gases emissions, developments of clean mechanisms and technologies as well as potential options with more environmentally benign fuels and fuel production methods have has been considered [1, 3]. A shift to renewable and nuclear energy options to meet world’s growing energy demands is one of the best options. It also helps in limiting carbon dioxide emissions to the environment. However, the high cost of energy produced from the relatively immature renewable technologies gives more credit to nuclear-based options [2, 4]. Nuclear energy, besides heat and power cogeneration, is also one of the most promising candidates for hydrogen production at a lower cost [5]. Hydrogen is taken into consideration as a promising alternative fuel to be integrated or to replace the current fossil fuels. It is believed by decision makers and researchers that it is a unique energy carrier for building a carbon-free economy. Hydrogen economy was initially considered in late 1960s, and the interest in delving into hydrogen technology increased with the oil crisis at the first half of 1970s. Figure 44.1 shows the possible routes for producing hydrogen from water using nuclear heat and power. This figure shows the water splitting technologies that generate non-carbon based hydrogen. It also shows the carbon-based hydrogen generation methods utilizing fossil fuels through gasification and reforming technologies using nuclear heat. The generation IV nuclear reactors provide better opportunity for nuclear hydrogen production path as it co-produce high-temperature process heat and electric power [6]. Nuclear hydrogen generation through the conventional water electrolysis is driven by the electric power from the nuclear power plant. Electrolysis is a relatively mature technology, and achieved an industrial scale since it was developed in 1800s where hydrogen was utilized in fertilization industry. There was a great interest in a larger scale production through electrolysis which diminished with the appearance of the fossil fuel-based compotators; gasification and steam methane reforming, early in the twentieth century. Electrolysis then came back to the scene after the 1970s oil crisis. High-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) is a more efficient alternative when integrated with nuclear energy. HTSE requires less electric power compared with conventional low temperature water electrolysis where the rest of the required energy is substituted by thermal energy. This provides an advantage of being a relatively cheaper option. The French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has a well-developed program to investigate the use of HTSE among other thermochemical options utilizing nuclear heat and power [7]. Thermochemical water splitting cycles provide a very promising path for green nuclear hydrogen production. As indicated in Fig. 44.1, heat is the only energy supplied to thermochemical cycles. Water is consumed as it decomposes into oxygen and hydrogen streams through a closed sequence of chemical reaction. All chemicals involved in the reactions of any thermochemical cycle are completely recycled. The interest in thermochemical cycles for nuclear hydrogen production started early 1960s. It is suitable for large-scale production of hydrogen. Sulfur Iodine (S-I) is a pure three-step thermochemical cycle that requires heat at temperature higher than 800 C and up to 900 C or 1,000 C to operate. It can operate at efficiency of up to 56 % [8]. Figure 44.2 shows a schematic of the cycle

44

Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy: Comparative Cost Assessment

Fig. 44.1 Production methods of nuclear hydrogen production Fig. 44.2 Schematic of Sulfur Iodine (S-I) thermochemical cycle

617

618


with its three chemical reactions. The first chemical reaction in this cycle is the Bunsen reaction that produces hydriodic acid, HI, and sulfuric acid, H2SO4, under relatively low temperature. HI acid gets into the second reaction which is hightemperature decomposition reaction producing hydrogen. The third reaction is high-temperature decomposition of H2SO4 produced from Bunsen reaction. This reaction produces SO2, H2O, and O2 that are utilized in the solid catalyst [9]. In hybrid thermochemical cycles technology, water is split using thermal and chemical energies with conjunction with another form of energy. Electro-thermochemical hybrid cycles utilize electric power in electrochemical reaction step with thermal energy to accomplish the generation of hydrogen process. There are other types of hybrid cycles using photochemical or radiochemical reactions. Hybrid sulfur cycle (HyS) is one of the promising hybrid electro-thermochemical cycles for nuclear hydrogen production. It is under development since 1975 when the cycle was patented by Westinghouse. It is a two-step water splitting process. In this cycle, electrochemical reaction of SO2 and H2O producing hydrogen is one step, and the other step is a thermochemical decomposition shared with the conventional S-I cycle. Figure 44.3 shows a schematic of the two processes of HyS cycle. A modified cycle is developed in Japan where the maximum temperature range of the cycle is reduced from 800 C to 500–700 C [10]. Another promising hybrid cycle is the Copper-Chlorine (Cu-Cl) cycle which was initially developed in 1970s. It is a medium-temperature cycle operating at around 550 C in three to five thermochemical and electrochemical steps in different configurations. The efficiency of this cycle is calculated at about 40 % [11]. Cu-Cl cycle is studied and examined by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) with collaboration with different research institutes. Figure 44.4 shows a schematic of a five-step CuCl thermochemical cycle. There are several other thermochemical and hybrid thermochemical cycles under research for efficiently integrating nuclear heat and power for hydrogen production. Figure 44.5 shows a three-step Magnesium-Chlorine (Mg-Cl) cycle which includes

Fig. 44.3 Schematic of hybrid sulfur thermochemical cycle (HyS) for hydrogen production

44


Fig. 44.4 The five-steps Cu-Cl thermochemical cycle [adapted from 13]

Fig. 44.5 Mg-Cl thermochemical cycle, modified from [adapted from 3]

619

620


hybrid thermochemical-electrochemical process for water splitting. This cycle is convenient for integration with nuclear power as it operates at about 500 C. The efficiency of Mg-Cl cycle was reported as 37.4 % by Ozcan and Dincer [3]. Economics of nuclear hydrogen production is one of the most important factors that should be considered among national and international energy policies, environmental consideration and resources availability. The cost is highly affected by the technology of hydrogen generation and the pathway through the process from nuclear infrastructure to storage technology. In this study, a comparative cost assessment of nuclear hydrogen production is performed considering different nuclear power plants and hydrogen production technologies. The study also considers several scenarios of storage and transportation for better understanding of their effect on the costs of hydrogen production. The assessment is performed using HEEP software which is developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The following sections cover the description of HEEP software structure, controlling parameters and formulation as well as case studies and their results for comparative cost assessment.

44.2

HEEP for Hydrogen Production Cost Assessment

The Hydrogen Economic Evaluation Programme (HEEP) is developed as a specific software by the International Association of Atomic Energy in collaboration with the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in India [12]. This software is utilized to estimate the cost of hydrogen generation from S-I, HTSE, water electrolysis, and other promising thermochemical and hybrid technologies combined with high-temperature nuclear reactors. Considering storage and transportation for sure has an impact on the hydrogen production cost. In HEEP, different scenarios of storage for compressed gas, liquefaction and metal hydride, and transportation for pipelines and vehicles are integrated to facilitate the evaluation of the effects of design, duration, quantity, and delivery condition, on the cost estimates. Figure 44.6 shows the different scenarios of storage and

Fig. 44.6 Scenarios of nuclear hydrogen production to delivery in HEEP [adapted 14]

44


621

Fig. 44.7 System information categorization as defined for HEEP Table 44.1 Technical features of HEEP Nuclear plant • Reactor type • Thermal rating • Thermal power for hydrogen plant • Electricity rating • Plant efficiency • Unit numbers • Unit capacity • Availability factor

Hydrogen plant • Production technology • Production rate • Plant location • Heat consumption • Electricity required • Number of units • Capacity of the unit • Availability factor • Auxiliary power

Hydrogen storage plant • Storage option (compression, liquefaction, metal hydride) • Storage capacity • Electricity requirement • Cooling required • Compression power

Transportation • Transportation option (pipeline, vehicle) • Distance • Vehicle capacity • Speed of vehicle • Trips preparation • Delivery pressure • Pipes friction

transportation options for hydrogen production, from nuclear power plant to delivery of the product. The software is a single-window with friendly easy use interface. It is programmed in three modules: pre-processing module for data input programmed in Microsoft Visual Basic, execution module where the levelized cost calculations are performed and this module is programmed in Fortran, and the third module is the post-processing module for processing the results in graphs and producing the final report and it is programmed in Visual Basic [7]. The input parameters and variables required for HEEP are classified in three different categories for each of the four processes based on the activated ones in the studied scenario. Figure 44.7 shows a simple chart showing the parameters categories; technical, chronological, and cost elements data. For the technical parameters, Table 44.1 presents a list of the most important parameters to be fed to HEEP. There is a library with different cases provided with the software and some data would be used as default if not available as input parameters. The chronological data, the second set of input parameters, represent the period of different activities through

622


Fig. 44.8 HEEP main categories of cost parameters

the life cycle of the integrated plant for the studied scenario. These events and activities include the following: construction, operation, decommissioning, cooling before decommissioning, refurbishment, waste storage, and used-fuel cooling, where applicable based on the studied plant. HEEP calculates the levelized cost of hydrogen considering certain cost elements as shown in Fig. 44.8. The capital investment element is the summation of all the design expenses, manufacturing, construction, initial inventory, and annual feed. The second cost element is the running cost which includes operation, maintenance, refurbishment, salaries, and others. The fuel cost is mainly for the nuclear power plant and it has two elements: front end cost including annual feed rate and number of fuel types, and the back-end cost depending on direct disposal or reprocessing of fuel scenarios. The last element is the decommissioning cost, especially the nuclear power plant decommissioning cost which contributes and affects the calculated hydrogen production cost significantly. Other financial parameters including equity to debt ratio, tax rate, interest rate, inflation rate, and discount rate can be entered by the user or used as default values provided by HEEP [15–16]. The calculations are done in two steps, first is calculation of the levelized cost of energy utilized which is delivered by the nuclear power plant and the second step is using the nuclear power plant results as input along with other user specified information to calculate the cost of hydrogen generation. The execution module in HEEP considers the levelized cost of hydrogen as the ratio of sum of present value of production, storage, and transportation to present value of gross hydrogen generated as reported by [7] and as shown in the first equation in Table 44.2.

44


623

Table 44.2 Main cost calculation equations considered at HEEP Cost estimation calculation Levelized cost of hydrogen generation Present value of expenditures

ENPP ðt0 Þ þ EH2 GP ðt0 Þ þ EH2 T ðt0 Þ GH2 ðt0 Þ t f t f t f X X X CIt ðt0 Þ Rt DCt Eðt0 Þ ¼ tt0 þ tt0 þ ð 1 þ r Þ ð 1 þ rÞtt0 ð 1 þ r Þ t i t i t i

Present value of gross hydrogen generation at time to

GH2 ðt0 Þ ¼

CH2 ¼

t f X GH2 ðt0 Þ ð 1 þ rÞtt0 t i

The subscripts of the parameters in the equations presented in Table 44.2 are NPP, H2GP, and H2T which refer to nuclear power plant, hydrogen generation and storage, and hydrogen transportation, respectively. In the second equation; CI, R and DC are the capital investment expenditures, facility running expenditures, and decommissioning expenditures for the year t, respectively. r is real discount rate. More details of execution module can be found in [7].

44.3

Results and Discussion of Generic Case Studies

In this study, five different cases are considered with HEEP for estimating the hydrogen production cost. Table 44.3 shows a summary of the facilities and plants used in each case. The first three cases use advanced pressurized water reactors (APWR) as nuclear power plant and conventional electrolysis is proposed for hydrogen production. In case 3, two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors operating to deliver all produced electricity to the hydrogen production facility. This corresponds to a production rate of 12.43 kg/s. Cases 1 and 2 consist of smaller reactors and conventional electrolysis plants with correspondingly smaller production rates; 4 and 8 kg/s, respectively. Cases 4 and 5 use next-generation nuclear reactor and hydrogen production technologies. A high-temperature gas-cooled reactors as cooled with helium is considered for the nuclear power plant facility. The reactor in case 4 delivers heat at 900 C which is utilized to operate HTSE facility for hydrogen generation. In case 5, the reactor delivers process heat at 950 C, which is used to power S-I thermochemical plant. All the proposed cases use compressed hydrogen gas when storage scenario is considered, and pipelines for transportation. The in-built HEEP algorithms calculate the necessary storage and transportation facilities and costs for a given hydrogen production rate. Table 44.4 shows the assumptions of the economic parameters as input data to HEEP. The main technical and financial parameters for each facility in the proposed cases are listed in Table 44.5 for the nuclear power plant and the hydrogen production facilities.

624


Table 44.3 The plants considered for the different cases in this study Nuclear power plant, NPP Hydrogen generation plant, HG Storage plant, GS Transportation Production rate, kg/s

Case 1 APWR CE CG PL 4

Case 2 APWR CE CG PL 8

Case 3 APWR CE CG PL 12.43

Case 4 HTGR HTSE CG PL 4

Case 5 HTGR S-I CG PL 4

APWR advanced pressurized water reactor, HTSE high-temperature steam electrolysis, CE conventional electrolysis, HTGR high-temperature gas cooled reactor, S-I sulfur Iodine thermochemical cycle, CG compressed gas, PL pipeline

Table 44.4 Main economic and financial parameters

Economic parameters Inflation rate Total tax rate Return on equity Equity:debt Plant lifetime Property insurance Cost of demineralized water Cost of grid electricity

1.9 % 18 % 10 % 85 %:15 % 40 years 2% $0.001442/L $0.06/kWh

The results in Fig. 44.9 show a comparison of the hydrogen generation cost considering the nuclear power plant and the hydrogen generation plant for the five different cases presented in Table 44.5. There is no storage or transportation integrated for these results. The figure shows that the cost of hydrogen generation varies from 2.90 to 4.39 $/kg of produced hydrogen. The lowest is achieved by case 4 and the highest cost is by case 1. In Fig. 44.10, the contribution of the nuclear power plant and the hydrogen generation plant in the total cost of hydrogen production are presented for the five different cases. The cases in these results are considering the nuclear power plant and hydrogen generation plant only (NPP-HG). It can be seen that for case 1, almost 87 % of the cost is the nuclear power plant share. Case 4 experiences the lowest share from nuclear power plant in the cost with about 35 % of the total cost. This depends on the technology utilized for hydrogen generation and the reactor type, as listed in Table 44.5. The effect of hydrogen storage and transportation scenarios is studied and the results are presented in Figs. 44.11 and 44.12. In Fig. 44.11, a comparison of the cost of hydrogen production for the five different cases is presented considering production with storage as compressed gas (NPP-HG-CG) and then integrating the transportation option and testing the effect of changing the traveled distance from 300, 600 to 900 km (NPP-HG-GC-P).

HGP

NPP

NPP capacity Number of NPP units Capital investment, M$ Annual O&M, M$ Capacity factor, % Construction period, years Annual fuel cost, M$ Decommissioning of NPP Capital cost, M$ Annual O&M, M$ Water consumption, L/year Decommissioning of HGP Thermal-H2 efficiency Non-process electricity

Case 1 359.5 MWe 2 6,310 194.9 93 5 34.96 2.8 % CC 422.6 16.90 1.136 109 10 % 26.07 % –

Case 2 719 MWe 2 9,313 154.8 93 5 51.60 2.8 % CC 845.2 33.81 2.272 109 10 % 26.07 % –

Table 44.5 Main technical and cost parameters of plants in the considered cases Case 3 1,117 MWe 2 11,928 198.28 93 5 66.09 2.8 % CC 1310 52.52 3.530 109 10 % 26.07 % –

Case 4 509.3 MWth 2 804.6 46.95 90 3 38.24 $94.02 M 458.5 79.04 1.136 109 10 % 39.82 % –

Case 5 630.7 MWth 2 1,210 21.97 90 3 69.73 $101 M 666.2 44.52 1.136 109 10 % 35.56 % 428 MWe

44 Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy: Comparative Cost Assessment 625

626


Fig. 44.9 Cost of hydrogen production considering nuclear power and hydrogen generation plants (NPP-HG) for the five presented cases

Fig. 44.10 The contribution of each plant in the hydrogen production cost for the five cases for NPP-HG scenario

44


627

Fig. 44.11 Cost of hydrogen production for different scenarios with storage and transportation for different distances

From Fig. 44.11, for case 1, the hydrogen storage shares with 9.02 % of the production cost considering no transportation. This share decreases to 8.7, 8.64, and 8.58 % when considering transportation for 300, 600, and 900 km through pipelines. These percentages are lower for case 2 where it goes from 6.18 % for no transportation to 5.93, 5.90, and 5.88 % for the three transportation scenarios. These percentages for cases 3, 4, and 5 are as follows: for case 3: 4.32, 4.25, 4.22, 4.21 %, for case 4: 11.06, 10.58, 10.5, 10.4 % and for case 5: 9.8, 9.42, 9.36, and 9.28 %, respectively. The results in Fig. 44.12 represent the cost of hydrogen production considering transportation through pipelines for different distances without considering the storage plant in the process. It just considers the nuclear power plant, the hydrogen

628


Fig. 44.12 Cost of hydrogen production for different scenarios and the effect of transportation distance on the cost without considering storage

generation plant, and the transportation cost (NPP-HG-P) for 300, 600, and 900 km of traveled distance. From the presented results, the transportation cost varies based on the production capacity for the different cases.

44.4

Conclusions

The HEEP software is utilized in this study to perform a comparative assessment on the hydrogen production cost for five different cases, including different nuclear reactor types and different technologies of hydrogen production. The effects of including a plant for hydrogen storage as compressed gas and transportation through pipelines are also investigated. The results show that case 4 presents the lowest cost with 2.9 $/kg, when the other cases are reported as 4.39, 3.49, 3.2, and

44


629

4.06 $/kg for cases 1, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The integration of hydrogen storage facility causes an increase of the cost of the production to be 4.83, 3.72, 3.33, 3.34, and 4.50 $/kg for cases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. When transportation is considered, it is reported that an amount of 0.18, 0.21, and 0.25$ increase in the cost occurs when changing the traveled distance from 300, 600 to 900 km, when 4 kg of produced hydrogen per second is considered.

References 1. Dincer I (2007) Environmental and sustainability aspects of hydrogen and fuel cell systems. Int J Energ Res 31(1):29–55 2. Dincer I, Zamfirescu C (2012) Sustainable hydrogen production options and the role of IAHE. Int J Hydrog Energ 37(21):16266–16286 3. Ozcan H, Dincer I (2014) Performance investigation of magnesium-chloride hybrid thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energ 39:76–85 4. Holladay JD, Hu J, King DL, Wang Y (2009) An overview of hydrogen production technologies. Catal Today 139:244–260 5. Bartels JR, Pate MB, Olson NK (2010) An economic survey of hydrogen production from conventional and alternative energy sources. Int J Hydrog Energ 35:8371–8384 6. Mansilla C, Sigurvinsson J, Bontemps A, Marechal A, Werkoff F (2007) Heat management for hydrogen production by high temperature steam electrolysis. Energy 32:423–430 7. Khamis I (2011) An overview of the IAEA HEEP software and international programmes on hydrogen production using nuclear energy. Int J Hydrog Energ 36:4125–4129 8. Huang CP, Raissi AT (2005) Analysis of sulphur-iodine thermochemical cycle for solar hydrogen production. Sol Energ 78:632–646 9. Keefe DO, Allen C, Besenbruch G, Brown L, Norman J, Sharp R (1982) Preliminary results from bench-scale testing of a sulfur-iodine thermochemical water splitting cycle. Int J Hydrog Energ 7:38–92 10. Gorensek MB, Summers WA (2011) The hybrid sulfur cycle. In: Yan XL, Hino R (eds) Nuclear hydrogen production handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 499–545 11. Naterer GF, Suppiah S, Stolberg L, Lewis M, Ferrandon M, Wang Z, Dincer I, Gabriel K, Rosen MA, Secnik E, Easton EB, Trevani L, Pioro I, Tremaine P, Lvov S, Jiang J, Rizvi G, Ikeda BM, Lu L, Kaye M, Smith WR, Mostaghimi J, Spekkens P, Fowler M, Avsec J (2011) Clean hydrogen production with the Cu–Cl cycle—progress of international consortium I: experimental unit operations. Int J Hydrog Energ 36(24):15472–15485 12. Khamis I, Malshe UD (2010) HEEP: a new tool for the economic evaluation of hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrog Energ 35:8398–8406 13. Orhan MF, Dincer I, Rosen MA (2008) Energy and exergy analysis of the hydrogen production step of a copper-chlorine thermochemical water splitting cycle driven by nuclear-based heat. Int J Hydrog Energ 33:6456–6466 14. El-Emam RS, Ozcan H, Dincer I (2014) Cost assessment of nuclear hydrogen production systems using HEEP. International Ege Energy Symposium and Exhibition, Usak, Turkey 15. El-Emam RS, Dincer I (2014) Comparative study on nuclear based hydrogen production: cost assessment. In: International conference on smart energy grid engineering (SEGE’14), Oshawa, ON 16. Ozcan H, El-Emam RS, Dincer I (2014) Comparative assessment of nuclear based hybrid sulfur cycle and high temperature steam electrolysis systems using HEEP. In: Dincer I et al (eds) Progress in sustainable energy technologies: generating renewable energy. Springer, New York, NY, pp 165–180