Sizing, Optimization, and Financial Analysis of a Green Hydrogen Refueling Station in Remote Regions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Sizing Model
2.2. Economic Model
3. Results
3.1. Description of Scenarios
3.2. Brief Summary of the Main Results
3.3. Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CEPCI | Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index |
EV | Electric Vehicle |
FCEV | Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles |
H2A | Hydrogen Analysis |
HDSAM | Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model |
HOF | Hose Occupied Fraction |
HRS | Hydrogen Refueling Station |
HSRAM | Hydrogen Refueling Station Analysis Model |
IRR | Internal Rate of Return |
LCOWE | Levelized Cost of Wind Generated Electricity |
LCOWH | Levelized Cost of Wind Based Hydrogen |
NPV | Net Present Value |
PR | Profit Ratio |
RES | Renewable Energy Sources |
SMR | Steam Methane Reforming |
Nomenclature
cb,e | evaporator’s basic parts’ cost | € |
ce | energy cost | €/kWh |
purchase price of H2 | €/kg | |
cs | selling price or specific cost | €/kWh |
cmunic. | municipal taxes | € |
co | specific cost of H2 | €/kg |
e | annual H2 price escalation rate | |
FC | present value of the operation and maintenance cost | € |
FC0 | annual fixed cost of the HRS | €/year |
FCDIS | fixed cost of dispensers from O&M | €/year |
FCE | energy cost | €/year |
FCEM | O&M cost of the electrical equipment | €/year |
FCFC | H2 selling price from the H2 production station owner | €/year |
FCFCL | cost concerning the fuel losses during HRS operation and refilling | €/year |
FCIN | insurance of HRS | €/year |
FCL | annual labor cost | €/year |
FCPUMP | O&M cost of pumps | €/year |
FCR | fixed cost of the remainder system from O&M | €/year |
FCST | O&M cost of storage means | €/year |
ft | scaling factor of tank capacity | |
g | inflation rate of maintenance and operation cost | |
i | discount rate | |
ic,c | specific cost of cascade system | €/kg |
ic,d | specific cost of the dispenser | €/unit |
ic,e | specific cost of an evaporator | €/(kg/h) |
ic,p | specific cost of pump | €/unit |
ic,t | specific cost of the storage tank | €/kg |
IC0 | initial cost | |
ICc | initial cost of cascade system | € |
ICdis | initial cost of dispensers | € |
ICevap | initial cost of an evaporator | € |
ICpump | initial cost of a pump | € |
ICst | initial cost of storage tank | € |
Lb | fuel losses due to boil-off | kg |
Lp | fuel losses during pump operation | kg |
Mannual | annual dispensed H2 | kg/year |
Mc | total capacity of all cascades | kg |
mc | capacity of each cascade | |
Mc,tot | total required cascade capacity | kg |
Md,y | annual daily dispensing rate | kg/day |
maximum evaporator mass flow rate | kg/h | |
minimum evaporator mass flow rate | kg/h | |
total evaporator mass flow rate | kg/h | |
Mf,mo | monthly demand from FCEV | kg/mo |
Mt | storage tank capacity | kg |
Mt,c | available storage tank capacity | kg |
Mv,max | maximum storage capacity of a FCEV | kg |
n | time-period | years |
nd | number of dispensers | |
ne | number of evaporators | |
nFCEV | number of FCEV | |
nh | number of available hoses at HRS | |
Np | power requirement of the pump | kW |
np | number of pumps | |
nv | maximum refueled vehicles per hour | |
Pc,max | maximum pressure of cascade storage vessel | kPa |
Psup | H2 supply pressure | kPa |
q1 | level of technological improvement of the components with moderate industry experience | |
q2 | level of technological improvement about components with significant industry experience | |
q3 | level of technological improvement about components with limited industry experience | |
R | revenues | € |
R0 | annual net income | €/year |
to | operating hours of HRS | h |
tp | peak hour (s) | h |
ttot | total occupied hose time | min |
Yn | residual value of the investment at the end of its life span | € |
ηp | pump’s total efficiency | |
ρH2 | density of H2 | kg/m3 |
γ | obtained subsidies |
References
- Peighambardoust, S.J.; Rowshanzamir, S.; Amjadi, M. Review of the proton exchange membranes for fuel cell applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 9349–9384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banshwar, A.; Sharma, N.K.; Sood, Y.R.; Shrivastava, R. Optimal approach for efficient utilization of renewable energy sources in power system. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Students’ Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Science (SCEECS), Bhopal, India, 5–6 March 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Sundén, B. Hydrogen, Batteries and Fuel Cells; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Alazemi, J.; Andrews, J. Automotive hydrogen fuelling stations: An international review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 483–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Electrolysis Capacity Becoming Operational Annually, 2014–2023, Historical and Announced—Charts—Data & Statistics IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-electrolysis-capacity-becoming-operational-annually-2014-2023-historical-and-announced (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Fuel Cell EV Deployment, 2017–2019, and National Targets for Selected Countries—Charts—Data & Statistics IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/fuel-cell-ev-deployment-2017-2019-and-national-targets-for-selected-countries (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- California Fuel Cell Partnership. A California Road Map: The Commercialization of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. Available online: https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/A%20California%20Road%20Map%20June%202012%20(CaFCP%20technical%20version).pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Viktorsson, L.; Heinonen, J.; Skulason, J.; Unnthorsson, R. A Step towards the Hydrogen Economy—A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of a Hydrogen Refueling Station. Energies 2017, 10, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddi, K.; Elgowainy, A.; Sutherland, E. Hydrogen refueling station compression and storage optimization with tube-trailer deliveries. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 19169–19181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parks, G.; Boyd, R.; Cornish, J.; Remick, R. Hydrogen Station Compression, Storage, and Dispensing Technical Status and Costs: Systems Integration; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Pratt, J.; Terlip, D.; Ainscough, C.; Elgowainy, A. H2FIRST Reference Station Design Task: Project Deliverable 2-2; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rezaei, M.; Khalilpour, K.R.; Mohamed, M.A. Co-production of electricity and hydrogen from wind: A comprehensive scenario-based techno-economic analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 18242–18256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, S.; Zhang, F.; Liu, F.; Maddy, J. Optimal operation of a hydrogen refuelling station combined with wind power in the electricity market. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 21057–21066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qadrdan, M.; Shayegan, J. Economic assessment of hydrogen fueling station, a case study for Iran. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 2525–2531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavadias, K.A.; Apostolou, D.; Kaldellis, J.K. Modelling and optimisation of a hydrogen-based energy storage system in an autonomous electrical network. Appl. Energy 2018, 227, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dikeos, J.; Haas, J.; Maddaloni, J.; Owen, T.; Smolak, T.; Songprakorp, R.; Sodouri, P.; Germain, L.S.; Tura, A. Hydrogen Refueling Station. Available online: http://www.hydrogencontest.org/pdf/2004/uvictoria_2004.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Elgowainy, A.; Reddi, K.; Mintz, M. H2A Delivery Scenario Analysis Model Version 3.0* (Hdsam 3.0) User’s Manual. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/12022c_hdsam2-31_2020_case.xls (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Kaldellis, J.K.; Zafirakis, D.; Kavadias, K. Techno-economic comparison of energy storage systems for island autonomous electrical networks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 378–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Z.; Hu, Y.; Xu, H.; Gao, D.; Li, W. Cost-Economic Analysis of Hydrogen for China’s Fuel Cell Transportation Field. Energies 2020, 13, 6522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fern, J. O Investopedia, Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/irr.asp (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Kurtz, J.M.; Sprik, S.; Saur, G.; Onorato, S. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Driving and Fueling Behavior; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Passenger Mobility per Capita|Odyssee-Mure. Available online: https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publications/efficiency-by-sector/transport/passenger-mobility-per-capita.html (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Isenstadt, A.; Lutsey, N. Developing Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure for Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Status Update. Available online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hydrogen-infrastructure-status-update_ICCT-briefing_04102017_vF.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Costs and Financing|H2 Station Maps. Available online: https://h2stationmaps.com/costs-and-financing (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Adolf, J.; Balzer, C.H.; Louis, J.; Schabla, U. Energy of the Future? Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH: Hamburg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kolb, O.; Siegemund, S.; Aizpún, A.T. Study on the Implementation of Article 7(3) of the “Directive on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure”: Fuel Price Comparison; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
---|---|---|---|
800 €/kg | q1 | 55% | |
100,000 €/unit | q2 | 40% | |
1610 €/kg | q3 | 75% | |
1000 €/(kg/h) | CEPCI | 1.17% | |
350,000 €/unit | i | 7% | |
2500 € | g | 3% | |
6.63 €/kg | cmunic | 3% |
Scenario | Number of FCEVs | Monthly H2 Demand (kg/mo) |
---|---|---|
1 | 25 | 125 |
2 | 50 | 250 |
3 | 100 | 500 |
4 | 150 | 750 |
5 | 200 | 1000 |
6 | 250 | 1250 |
Sizing Results of Scenarios | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario | FCEV Number | Tank Capacity (kg) | Dispensers | Buffers Capacity (kg) | Evaporator Capacity (kg/h) | Pump (kW) |
1 | 25 | 222 | 1 | 18.8 | 42 | 69 |
2 | 50 | 444 | 1 | 18.8 | 43 | 69 |
3 | 100 | 888 | 1 | 18.8 | 43 | 70 |
4 | 150 | 1332 | 2 | 37.6 | 44 | 71 |
5 | 200 | 2220 | 3 | 56.3 | 45 | 73 |
6 | 250 | 2220 | 4 | 75.1 | 45 | 73 |
Scenario 1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subsidy | ICo (€) | FC0 (€) | co (€) | cs (€) | Cost/100 km (€) | Payback (Years) | NPV (€) | PR | IRR |
0% | 343,777 | 54,966 | 44.51 | 53.42 | 24.04 | 11.4 | 168,182 | 0.49 | - |
30% | 240,644 | 54,966 | 40.33 | 48.40 | 21.78 | 10.4 | 147,555 | 0.61 | - |
40% | 206,266 | 54,966 | 38.94 | 46.73 | 21.03 | 10.0 | 140,679 | 0.68 | 1.5% |
50% | 171,889 | 54,966 | 37.55 | 45.06 | 20.28 | 9.3 | 133,804 | 0.78 | 3.6% |
Scenario 2 | |||||||||
Subsidy | ICo (€) | FC0 (€) | co (€) | cs (€) | Cost/100 km (€) | Payback (Years) | NPV (€) | PR | IRR |
0% | 362,342 | 68,431 | 26.38 | 31.65 | 14.24 | 11.0 | 206,087 | 0.57 | - |
30% | 253,640 | 68,431 | 24.18 | 29.01 | 13.06 | 9.8 | 184,347 | 0.73 | 1.6% |
40% | 217,405 | 68,431 | 23.44 | 28.13 | 12.66 | 9.3 | 177,100 | 0.81 | 3.4% |
50% | 181,171 | 68,431 | 22.71 | 27.25 | 12.26 | 8.8 | 169,853 | 0.94 | 5.6% |
Scenario 3 | |||||||||
Subsidy | ICo (€) | FC0 (€) | co (€) | cs (€) | Cost/100 km (€) | Payback (Years) | NPV (€) | PR | IRR |
0% | 392,451 | 95,215 | 17.22 | 20.66 | 9.30 | 10.2 | 281,152 | 0.72 | 0.5% |
30% | 274,715 | 95,215 | 16.03 | 19.23 | 8.65 | 9.0 | 257,605 | 0.94 | 4.5% |
40% | 235,470 | 95,215 | 15.63 | 18.76 | 8.44 | 8.4 | 249,756 | 1.06 | 6.4% |
50% | 196,225 | 95,215 | 15.23 | 18.28 | 8.23 | 7.8 | 241,907 | 1.23 | 8.9% |
Scenario 4 | |||||||||
Subsidy | ICo (€) | FC0 (€) | co (€) | cs (€) | Cost/100 km (€) | Payback (Years) | NPV (€) | PR | IRR |
0% | 495,237 | 123,490 | 14.80 | 17.76 | 7.99 | 10.0 | 363,942 | 0.73 | 0.8% |
30% | 346,666 | 123,490 | 13.79 | 16.55 | 7.45 | 8.9 | 334,228 | 0.96 | 4.8% |
40% | 297,142 | 123,490 | 13.46 | 16.15 | 7.27 | 8.4 | 324,323 | 1.09 | 6.8% |
50% | 247,619 | 123,490 | 13.12 | 15.75 | 7.09 | 7.7 | 314,418 | 1.27 | 9.3% |
Scenario 5 | |||||||||
Subsidy | ICo (€) | FC0 (€) | co (€) | cs (€) | Cost/100 km (€) | Payback (Years) | NPV (€) | PR | IRR |
0% | 616,500 | 154,292 | 13.85 | 16.62 | 7.48 | 10.0 | 454,598 | 0.74 | 0.8% |
30% | 431,550 | 154,292 | 12.92 | 15.50 | 6.98 | 8.8 | 417,608 | 0.97 | 4.9% |
40% | 369,900 | 154,292 | 12.60 | 15.13 | 6.81 | 8.3 | 405,278 | 1.10 | 6.8% |
50% | 308,250 | 154,292 | 12.29 | 14.75 | 6.64 | 7.8 | 392,948 | 1.27 | 9.3% |
Scenario 6 | |||||||||
Subsidy | ICo (€) | FC0 (€) | co (€) | cs (€) | Cost/100 km (€) | Payback (Years) | NPV (€) | PR | IRR |
0% | 694,111 | 179,902 | 12.82 | 15.39 | 6.92 | 9.9 | 528,811 | 0.76 | 1.2% |
30% | 485,878 | 179,902 | 11.98 | 14.37 | 6.47 | 8.7 | 487,164 | 1.00 | 5.3% |
40% | 416,467 | 179,902 | 11.70 | 14.04 | 6.32 | 8.0 | 473,282 | 1.14 | 7.3% |
50% | 347,056 | 179,902 | 11.51 | 13.81 | 6.22 | 7.4 | 486,984 | 1.40 | 10.8% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kavadias, K.A.; Kosmas, V.; Tzelepis, S. Sizing, Optimization, and Financial Analysis of a Green Hydrogen Refueling Station in Remote Regions. Energies 2022, 15, 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020547
Kavadias KA, Kosmas V, Tzelepis S. Sizing, Optimization, and Financial Analysis of a Green Hydrogen Refueling Station in Remote Regions. Energies. 2022; 15(2):547. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020547
Chicago/Turabian StyleKavadias, Kosmas A., Vasileios Kosmas, and Stefanos Tzelepis. 2022. "Sizing, Optimization, and Financial Analysis of a Green Hydrogen Refueling Station in Remote Regions" Energies 15, no. 2: 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020547
APA StyleKavadias, K. A., Kosmas, V., & Tzelepis, S. (2022). Sizing, Optimization, and Financial Analysis of a Green Hydrogen Refueling Station in Remote Regions. Energies, 15(2), 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020547