H2POWER: Development of a methodology to calculate life cycle cost of small and medium-scale hydrogen systems
Abstract At this time, hydrogen-based power plants and large hydrogen production facilities are capital intensive and unable to compete financially against hydrocarbon-based energy production facilities. An option to overcome this problem and foster the introduction of hydrogen technology is to introduce small and medium-scale applications such as residential and community hydrogen refueling units. Such units could potentially be used to generate both electricity and heat for the home, as well as hydrogen fuel for the automobile. Cost modeling for the integration of these three forms of energy presents several methodological challenges. This is particularly true since the technology is still in the development phase and both the financial and the environmental cost must be calculated using mainly secondary sources. In order to address these issues and aid in the design of small and medium-scale hydrogen systems, this study presents a computer model to calculate financial and environmental costs of this technology using different hydrogen pathways. The model can design and compare hydrogen refueling units against hydrocarbon-based technologies, including the “gap” between financial and economic costs. Using the methodology, various penalties and incentives that can foster the introduction of hydrogen-based technologies can be added to the analysis to study their impact on financial cost.
Hydrogen as an Alternative: Life Cycle Cost Analysis between Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (Al+Hci) and Gasoline Engine Based on Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
Estimation of the life cycle cost (LCC) for a hydrogen internal combustion engine (H2ICE) that uses hydrogen as an alternative fuel by forecasting a financial investment plan for a period of five years (n = 5). This is influenced by the interest rate of 10% (i = 10). The effect of Annual Operating Cost and salvage value in the LCC for H2ICE would give impact on the cost of investment and economic growth in the long term. The result shows the brake specific fuel consumption to achieve 14% savings for grams per kilowatt hour for the engine (G + H2) compared to the engine (G). The operation of H2ICE in the first year would be increased by 22%, the reason is due to the cost of equipment, maintenance and purchase of new components. However, the percentage of operation cost for the following five to ten year of Present worth (PW) is reduced to 0.36% in the fourth year (n = 4) within the interest rate of 10%. The return of initial investment in the capital-first cost (FC) is to occur at the beginning of the fifth year (n = 5) of H2ICE operations. The cost of savings for the next five years would become more profitable reaching 37% reduction in cost compared to conventional fuel consumption
Oil supply insecurity: control versus damage costs
Introduction In a recent paper, Ogden et al. (2003) presented estimates of the societal lifecycle costs of fifteen different automobiles based upon alternative fuels and engines. This wide-ranging and comprehensive study derived estimates of the lifecycle private costs associated with the different technologies, and then augmented these with their respective lifecycle external costs in order to derive an estimate of their impact on society. External costs were calculated as damages resulting from air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, together with an estimate of the cost (to the USA) of providing security of supply for US oil imports from the Middle East. The inappropriate derivation of this latter cost, referred to as Oil Supply Insecurity by the authors, is the motivation for this note given its critical role in determining the viability of fuel cell automobiles, particularly those “fuelled” with hydrogen derived from a renewable energy resource (in their example, wind).