Key components with optimization potential

by Hydrogeit | Dec 15, 2022 | Germany

The bipolar plate is one of the most used components in a fuel cell stack, alongside the gaskets and the membrane electrode assembly. This is why it’s important in the overall scheme of things to bring down their cost. Manufacturers, regardless of whether they produce metal or graphite solutions, are increasingly looking to automate and link up individual processes on the one hand and to optimize the products themselves on the other, for instance by further reducing sheet thicknesses. Already plans are afoot to scale up production and could result in several million bipolar plates being manufactured for use in over 100,000 stacks every year.

In a proton exchange membrane fuel cell, the bipolar plate is a key component. It accounts for up to 80 percent of stack weight and up to 65 percent of stack volume, hence its enormous importance in terms of the power density. It’s equally significant for the functioning of the fuel cell: The bipolar plate or BPP separates and distributes process gases and removes product water. Not only that, this component is responsible for performing the essential tasks of conveying the generated current and evenly distributing all media.

Advertisements

BPPs are principally made from graphite carbon or metal. The various materials are associated with different properties and have different advantages for plate functionality. Because of low efficiency benefits and a lack of manufacturing processes for competitive metal BPPs, it is the graphite variant that has dominated in the past. However, graphite-based BPPs exhibit volumetric and gravimetric shortfalls compared with their metal counterparts, particularly when it comes to demanding applications. Plus, graphite is extremely brittle and can therefore break easily. Nevertheless, graphite plates are frequently deployed in stationary applications in which the volume of the structure is not a limiting factor.

On matters of cost, it’s metal plates that take the lead. “With the right production process the sheet thicknesses can be reduced down to 0.05 mm. Here, metal is at a completely different price level to graphite,” emphasizes German manufacturer CellForm. Given that several hundred plates are used in a single stack, the financial ramifications for the final application are huge. A further advantage of metal BPPs cited by CellForm is their positive impact on the cold-start capability of the fuel cell.

The company, based in Baienfurt in Baden-Württemberg, covers the entire manufacturing process for metal BPPs with a multistage forming process and subsequent laser welding. Commenting on working with metal, company representatives point out that the “extremely thin” sheet thicknesses are a particular challenge: Shaping such fine initial sheets and creating the highly precise and complex geometry of the channels can, due to physical constraints, quickly lead to fractures that would render the BPP unusable. On top of this come the stringent quality requirements with low margins for error which need to be met when producing in large volumes. “Only those who satisfy this requirement will be able to maintain their position in this growing and fiercely competitive market,” says the company.

These challenges, according to CellForm, are putting a certain degree of selective pressure on the manufacturing processes which are still under development. “Physical restrictions – such as heat generation – will limit how much these processes can make in future mass production,” states the manufacturer. This problem, it says, isn’t noticeable when dealing with small volumes, but will become increasingly evident in the years ahead as demand grows.

H2-Merit Order – Future Priorities for supplying H2-energy

by Hydrogeit | Nov 14, 2022 | Germany

A full decarbonization of the European energy supply to achieve the 1.5 °C target from the Paris agreement is not a question of “if” but of “how”. In particular, the European Green Deal envisages climate neutrality by 2050 based on renewable energy sources (RES) as top priority of its political agenda for the coming decades [1]. What is more, the International Energy Agency (IEA) promotes a radical paradigm change of the global energy supply in favour of RES [2]. In Germany, a foregoing climate policy has been fortified by the federal German Constitutional Court’s groundbreaking verdict to introduce more stringent climate policies as a reaction to several constitutional complaints against failing climate policy. In the Netherlands, the local Den Haag Court of Justice has ruled that Shell shall amplify its CO₂-emission reduction measures in its global operations [3] [4] [5].

Both the European Commission and the IEA underpin that hydrogen should gain a key role in the power sector as well as in all other energy sectors on the way towards zero CO₂ emissions [1] [2]. Hydrogen can be easily stored in large quantities for long periods of time and used for re-electrification in corresponding power plants. In this way, it can contribute to integrate intermittent renewable power into the energy system [2].

Advertisements

In this context, an important question referring to the optimal mix for hydrogen production has yet not been answered: from which energy sources and in which world regions shall (green) hydrogen be produced and what are relevant corresponding international strategies? From the German and European perspective, multiple hydrogen supply options could be chosen from as hydrogen is a universal energy carrier which can be produced by different and in the future more decentralised technologies around the globe [6] [7].

Multiple hydrogen production options

Following the official terminology of the European Commission concerning different production pathways [8], hydrogen is classified as “fossil-based H₂” and “electricity-based H₂”, distinguished by primary energy input (e.g. natural gas, mineral oil or electricity) and the respective key production technology. These two classes are subdivided into “low-carbon H₂” (incl. “fossil-based H₂” with carbon capture as well as “H₂ from electrolysis with electricity from grid or nuclear electricity”) on the one side and “renewable or clean H₂” through electrolysis with renewable electricity (REN-E) on the other side. In addition, the following terms are being used:

• Green hydrogen (electrolysis based on renewable electricity or gasification of biomass),
• Blue hydrogen (traditional process from fossil energy with carbon capture and storage – CCS),
• Turquoise hydrogen (methane pyrolysis),
• Yellow or red hydrogen (electrolysis based on nuclear electricity) and
• Grey hydrogen (traditional processes without CCS or electrolysis based on grid electricity).

The structure of terms and the colour coding are depicted in Figure 1.

Traditional production technologies

The traditional hydrogen production technologies belong to the group of fossil-based processes, today typically dominating global bulk hydrogen production. Steam reforming of natural gas or methane (SMR) is the principal process technology (catalytic, endothermal) in (chemical) industry which requires steam as single additional feedstock and with highest efficiencies in large plants. Worldwide, about 2% of global coal and 6% of global natural gas consumption is used for hydrogen production, out of which 73 Mt_H2/a are converted to pure hydrogen and a further 42 Mt_H2/a blended with synthesis gases [6].

Another similar and widely applied industry process technology is dubbed partial oxidation of heavy fuel oil (POX), which requires oxygen as feedstock (non-catalytic for sulphur-containing fuels, exothermal). It is applied in locations where cheap heavy fuel oil (HFO) is available such as in oil refineries. By combining both processes through adjusting a stochiometric equilibrium of steam and oxygen feeds, the highly dynamic autothermal reformation process (ATR) has been developed for e.g. natural gas as feed at a somewhat reduced overall efficiency (65% instead of the up to 80% of SMR). Another advantage of this technology is that the resulting synthesis gas has high hydrogen contents.

Furthermore, the reaction is energy neutral, i.e. neither auxiliary thermal energy is required nor waste- or off-heat need to be considered, allowing a robust process design (Table 1). With the goal to substitute fossil by renewable energy according to emission reduction targets, SMR, POX and ATR will only contribute temporarily. Both regional and logistic aspects have to be considered in assessing an economic competitiveness of fossil hydrogen over time, and the degree to which CO₂ can be taken out of the atmosphere at the given and measurable scale.

All fossil processes are characterised by highest efficiencies at large plant scales even though there is a small market for decentral yet less efficient methane steam reformers today. Nevertheless, the current hydrogen supply is dominated by the delivery (merchant hydrogen) or production of large hydrogen quantities onsite.

Tab. 1: Key data of the most relevant hydrogen production technologies

¹ TRL – Technology Readiness Level; ² LHV – Lower heating value; ³ Depending on plant scale; ⁴ Bandwidth depending on technology; ⁵ For larger plants also depending on transport distances for biomass; ⁶ The reaction zone comprises a temperature bandwidth [10]; ⁷ Strongly dependent on electricity supply costs; ⁸ Only for full renewable electricity utilization

Pyrolysis, electrolysis and biomass-gasification

Another fossil energy based hydrogen production technology – undergoing commercialization since only recently – is the so called methane pyrolysis. It comprises a class of process technologies of its own, all having a high specific energy input in common. Possible concepts are the electric arc or microwave plasma processes (using direct electricity as energy input) or the energy contained in part of the methane feed to heat a (catalytic) moving reaction bed reactor at very high temperatures crushing the remaining methane share into its constituents hydrogen and carbon. On the one hand, an advantage of all pyrolysis based processes is solid carbon as final product instead of gaseous – and hence difficult to handle – CO₂. If applied well, solid carbon can be re-utilized in a way that no CO₂ is released to the atmosphere in any of the consecutive processes. On the other hand, the pyrolysis process is highly dynamic and difficult to control, i.e. it is not as robust as SMR. Finally, also the solid carbon markets are rather limited seen from an energy market scale perspective.

The key technology for green hydrogen production is electrolysis. It comprises a group of technologies, splitting water into its constituents hydrogen and oxygen using electricity as energy input. The proton exchange or membrane technology (PEMEL) applies solid proton conducting membranes whereas alkaline electrolysers (AEL) use caustic soda in an internal electrolyte circulation loop and as gas carrier. Both technologies are operated at low temperature in opposite to the high temperature or solid oxide electrolysis (SOEL) using a steam feed at up to 850°C. SOEL apply solid anode and cathode layers, plated on a gastight ceramic carrier substrate. The Anion-Exchange-Membrane Electrolysis (AEMEL) has begun to be offered in the market only recently and currently in small numbers. It promises however to be comparatively cost efficient as the use of Pt-group catalysts is avoided and at the same operational dynamics as PEM electrolysis.

Another relevant green hydrogen production pathway is the gasification of biomass or biogenic residues applying steam in an allothermic process (Güssing principle) [10]. As compared to low temperature AEL and PEMEL this technology has not been widely commercialized yet. Furthermore, its wide application is hampered by the limitation of available biomasses or (non-)organic residues in Europe.

Beyond hydrogen from electrolysis, it may also be produced through further green hydrogen production pathways (see Fig. 2). A thorough assessment of 10 process technologies found, however, that most of the alternative options are limited by either region specific advantages or are at a very early research or development stage

Other term widely used today is “by-product H₂” The term is applied to (chemical) processes (e.g.in refineries) in which hydrogen is produced “inadvertently” and can be made readily available at low cost in large quantities. As today’s by-product hydrogen is generated through fossil based processes it is in principle also denoted as grey hydrogen, i.e. characterized by similar specific CO₂ emission levels.

Depending either on production technology or customer specific quality requirements, the hydrogen delivered has to be purified by a set of gas cleaners designed to meet the relevant end-user needs by impurities, process layout and plant scale. Typically and according to recent agreements by European gas industry, this will comprise industry grade hydrogen in dedicated hydrogen transmission grids or fuel cell grade hydrogen with a very low level of hydrogen impurities

Natural hydrogen has been dubbed as “white” and is not industrially applied today. As its exploitable potentials are limited in view of the energy markets, white hydrogen from indigenous sources such as from Africa or Brazil is believed to have little impact on the development of future hydrogen energy markets, even though further analysis is being undertaken [11] [12] [13].

Power-to-X as major ingredient for renewable hydrogen production

Water electrolysis is the key process technology of all Power-to-X concepts which are the basis of green hydrogen supply. Power-to-X can be principally subdivided in different main pathway routes. The major concept is the one of Power-to-Gas (PtG) with its two options Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH₂) and Power-to-Methane (PtCH₄). Further Power-to-X concepts, extending the gas-focused energy world by other alternatives are: e.g. Power-to-Heat (PtH), Power-to-Liquids (PtL) as well as Power-to-Chemicals (PtCh). With the exemption of PtH, all concepts are unified by the common and central hydrogen molecule [14].

A major consequence is that electrolysis is seen as key technology for the future sustainable energy supply, with high electrical efficiency at all scales, large and small. This is the consequence of electrolysis being a surface-driven process for which only the balance-of-plant equipment’s efficiency does not scale linearly, and in contrast to volume-driven processes which are characterised by significantly increasing efficiencies towards larger process scales. The underlying argument is that today’s fossil or nuclear primary energies will be substituted by electrons as major primary energy source. Electrolytic hydrogen can thus contribute to seasonal energy storage at large scale and supplement the short-period local energy storage of electrons in mechanic-kinetic (e.g. flywheel) or mechanic-potential (pumped hydro storage) or electrochemical storage (e.g. batteries) systems. A side-effect is the substitution of a large number of aboveground electricity transmission lines with large specific footprint by cost efficient and publicly acceptable underground gas pipelines with a low specific footprint.

The CAPEX-dominated costs and resource-intense application of large-scale electricity transport and storage will thus be pushed towards OPEX-dominated costs, combined with the high energy-density gas transport/storage. With a view to water intensity, electrolysis consumes about 9 kg of water per kg of hydrogen, a factor asking for monitoring in the future. This poses no substantial challenge for central Europe (e.g. a long-term production of 100-400 TWh_H2/a of hydrogen for the case of Germany would require the provision of ca. 27-108 Mt/a of water, equivalent to about 0.7-3.0% of all German drinking water needs today). In addition, it should be born in mind that water after thermal use in fuel cells becomes part of a natural water recirculation, even though locally uncoupled in case of large scale hydrogen imports.

International hydrogen production strategies

Several strategic considerations accompany the techno-economic aspects of introducing hydrogen into the energy system at large scale. In general, they strongly depend on regional framework conditions in different countries and specifically the individual strategic energy and industry policy targets, climate policy ambitions or availability of natural energy or material resources as well as societal development ambitions. Typically, these aspects are reflected in the national hydrogen strategies, being developed by different countries worldwide [15].

In view of the international context, the strategies to introduce hydrogen as energy carrier foresee two phases (Fig. 3). The first phase until 2030 typically comprises an activation of potential H₂ markets. Being a transitional phase, all hydrogen colours will typically be allowed by policy makers for cost and capacity arguments. Just a few countries with specifically large renewable energy potentials such as Spain, Portugal, Ukraine, Chile or Morocco put their focus explicitly only on green hydrogen from the very beginning. In contrast, in e.g. Japan and South Korea also grey hydrogen will contribute to the H₂ production mix due to cost reduction considerations (Japan) or yet less ambitious climate policy goals (e.g. South Korea), even if it is “only” imported as grey hydrogen in short term.

In other countries with a relevant natural gas production level or well-implemented gas infrastructure such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), Norway or Russia blue hydrogen is believed to contribute in short- and medium-term. Some countries such as Germany, the European Union (EU) and Russia have developed a technology-neutral approach open for a large variety of different options. Nevertheless, Germany plans to install an electrolysis capacity of 10 GW by 2030, and the European Union of 40 GW, giving room for an early large share of green hydrogen [8] [16].

Fig. 3: Hydrogen colour preferences of selected national hydrogen strategies

Long-term focus on green hydrogen

In the long-time perspective after 2030, the global focus visibly shifts to the production and use of green hydrogen. In particular, Germany and the European Union including most EU Member States stick out visibly in their ambition to focus on green hydrogen from renewable sources, reflecting the European zero CO₂ emission policy by 2050. In this way, an attempt is made to use the many advantages of green hydrogen and to achieve several energy policy goals at the same time. On the one hand, green hydrogen can be used effectively for climate protection in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, such as heavy-duty transport or steel industry and on the other hand, to improve the flexibility of the energy system. It can also reduce dependence on fossil fuels, promote economic growth and create new jobs [17].

The production of blue hydrogen shall be eventually phased-out stepwise in long-term or otherwise be marginalized. By 2030, turquoise hydrogen from methane pyrolysis is seen as a bridging technology by 2030 in the national strategies specifically in Germany and the EU. The only longer-term perspective for turquoise hydrogen has been mentioned by Russia so far [15].

Perspectives of a future hydrogen supply

In addition to the domestic production of hydrogen, also (green) hydrogen imports (or exports from countries rich in renewable energy) have gained strategic importance. Specifically countries with large industry intensity such as Germany, Japan or South Korea will depend on hydrogen imports. In contrast Australia, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Morocco or Ukraine with high solar or wind potentials, understand hydrogen as an energy carrier for renewable energy with high economic potential [15].

It is obvious that new energy partnerships will develop, which can be observed already today. Both bilateral agreements between individual countries as well as superordinated regional cooperations will be needed in the future. An example for the first one is the cooperation between Australia and Japan for providing grey/blue hydrogen in the short-term and liquefying and shipping it to Japan at large scale [18] [19] or the declaration of cooperation between Germany and Ukraine to develop an energy partnership focusing on hydrogen among others [20].

The second option is reflected by the extensive EU programs currently in preparation to support innovative H₂-projects such as e.g. the “Important Projects of Common European Interest“ (IPCEI), aiming at explicitly strengthening the cooperation of individual member states in superregional projects [21]. As this approach is technology neutral a harmonisation process is needed in respect to hydrogen quantities, type of hydrogen carrier (either gaseous or liquefied hydrogen versus hydrogen derivatives such as methane or liquid fuels versus ammonia or methanol), hydrogen colour (i.e. remaining CO₂ burden) as well as transport routes and relevant future infrastructures.

Sufficient renewable energy potentials in Europe

From the European perspective, a number of criteria and open issues will have to be respected and/or decided to clarify important aspects of a large-scale hydrogen energy infrastructure, specifically with a view to the hydrogen import/export relations. The availability of renewable electricity to produce hydrogen in the EU or in Europe, in other words the green hydrogen potential, is paramount to be assessed for a fully green hydrogen portfolio in the long-term.

According to [22] the renewable electricity production potential within EU-27 and the UK amounts to a total of about 14,000 TWh_el/a, the major share contributed by fluctuating wind (ca. 9,000 TWh_el/a or 64%) and solar electricity (ca. 3,700 TWh_el/a or 26%). In addition, this estimate is rather conservative as further potential might become available through the use of additional areas for PV plants and so-called floating technology for wind offshore.

Putting today’s electricity demand of ca. 3.000 TWh/a into perspective, it is found that close to 80 % of the total RES potential becomes available for further electrification of the energy system, e.g. for mobility (battery electric vehicles) or room heating (electrical heat pumps) as well as for the production of green hydrogen via electrolysis (Fig. 3). In view of the 2045 policy target of climate neutrality the electricity demand for direct electricity use and hydrogen production in Europe will sum up to 5,300-6,900 TWh/a [22]. Depending on the individual scenario, this would then be less than half of the total REN-potential as explained before. Further hydrogen quantities could be added as potential imports from neighbouring countries and regions such as Norway, North Africa but also Ukraine.

Fig. 4: Renewable electricity potential and electricity use in Europe

The findings of the above analysis show that the renewable electricity potential in Europe is sufficient to satisfy all demand for green hydrogen. For future discussions on green hydrogen import/export, it will thus not be Europe’s renewable electricity potential becoming the ceiling for domestic production. Instead, the focus should be directed at further criteria such as technical, economic, social and strategic hydrogen supply aspects such as hydrogen cost along full supply chains, energy supply independency, local value creation, political stability, established political relationships and public acceptance.

Of course, this relationship does not apply to every Member State, since both the renewable energy potential and the energy demand are unevenly distributed. Countries with high energy consumption such as Germany or the Netherlands will still be dependent on imports, which can, however, be served within the EU from countries with high RES potential such as Spain, Portugal or France.

Advantages of a “merit order“ for hydrogen supply in Europe

In this context, the future hydrogen production mix will become an important, but currently not fully resolved aspect of future regional energy systems with hydrogen as one of major energy carriers. In contrast to natural gas, the advantage of hydrogen is that it can also be produced regionally in modular electrolysers with similar efficiency as in large electrolysers around the globe. Due to its physical properties, hydrogen is similarly well transportable and storable as methane and – depending on the electricity source – can be produced at low cost. Both aspects will become relevant for the “Merit Order” for hydrogen supply seen from a regional perspective and could virtually turn it upside down in coparison to today’s fossil and centralised energy supply system.

Fig. 5: Supply options for a green hydrogen “merit order“, e.g. from the perspective of Mitteldeutschland [25]

Fig. 5 illustrates considerations for a “merit order” for green hydrogen supply given different supply options for a potential case of Central Germany (Mitteldeutschland) [25]. To benefit from an individual region’s opportunities in a robust way, (green) hydrogen supply should have more than one pillar. Providing hydrogen from regional renewable electricity should have highest priority from a local value creation standpoint, supplemented by national hydrogen sources imported from renewable energy rich regions e.g. by existing or refurbished hydrogen pipeline infrastructure with the ambition to safeguarding existing assets. In the case of Mitteldeutschland this could be hydrogen from on- and offshore wind in Northern Germany (e.g. in the federal state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) through a pipeline.

Any further hydrogen demand surpassing the available local, regional and national energy resources need to be imported from farther away locations, such as other parts of the EU (e.g. from solar or wind power in Spain) or geographical Europe (e.g. from wind in East or Northern Europe) or even outside of Europe (e.g. from solar power in North Africa) simultaneously strengthening the European wide hydrogen pipeline infrastructure.

Should even these sources not prove to be sufficient e.g. during the transition phase then green hydrogen could be imported from other international resources yet at lowest priority. The long-distance import options would contribute to establish global hydrogen partnerships and a global hydrogen market, possibly lowering the global hydrogen energy price not only for industrialized countries.

Furthermore, hydrogen production costs are not the only criterion for decisions on hydrogen supply options. Other criteria such as independence, political stability, flexibility of the energy system and local value creation will come into play. Telling from the recent national hydrogen strategies, this paradigm shift has not been well understood, such that rethinking a sustainable energy system for the future by industry and politics is overdue.

Green hydrogen as local and global opportunity

Hydrogen has been identified as a central element of a future climate neutral energy system in Europe. It will facilitate the integration of renewable electricity and improve the security of energy supply. Moreover, hydrogen will generate economic welfare and entail new jobs. Even though fossil-based hydrogen is produced at large scale already today for industrial applications renewable hydrogen has been earmarked to replace the fossil-based processes by water electrolysis from renewable electricity.

Only Power-to-X concepts will fully exploit all advantages of a hydrogen-based energy system becoming the basis for a sustainable and lasting transition of the energy system. In the transition period until 2030, also low-carbon technologies using fossil energy such as e.g. natural gas through steam reforming enhanced by CCS (blue hydrogen) or methane pyrolysis (turquoise hydrogen) in some regions will activate the hydrogen market lowering the initial cost burden to develop large-scale gas infrastructures. However, in the long term, i.e. by 2050, Europe will push towards green hydrogen.

Analysis has proven that Europe‘s renewable electricity potential is sufficient for a self-sustaining renewable hydrogen supply, which will extend the considerations of import-export relations for green hydrogen. Further criteria addressing technical, social and strategic aspects will receive growing attention. For a region-specific evaluation the so-called “merit order“ of hydrogen supply need to be developed as multi-criterion analysis. It will be focused on nearby renewable energies and fill up the gap between regionally exploitable renewable energy potential and energy demand by green hydrogen from farther away regions. This approach will help to exploit and combine the different regional strengths and opportunities of hydrogen from different world regions.

We interpret the results of a recent analysis by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) [26] as first international evidence for the expected paradigm change. In a central graph the following four aspects have been illustrated from the viewpoint of an emerging European hydrogen energy market:

• By 2050, hydrogen will be preferably provided from renewable energy sources within Europe (4,771 PJ/a),
• All hydrogen imported to Europe will preferably be transported cost efficiently by pipeline from neighbouring North Africa (2,382 PJ/a),
• Whereas only small quantities of ammonia are expected to be produced within Europe (136 PJ/a), a significant percentage will again be imported from North Africa by ship (1,606 PJ/a), further yet smaller quantities also from South America and the Near East.
• The ammonia vectors are believed not to be applied for hydrogen transport (H₂ derivative), but for later end-use as base chemical and here preferably for fertiliser production.

Yet, many aspects surrounding the production of (green) hydrogen have not been finally solved and require further analysis and instruments. Among others, an international hydrogen market will need to be established with an optimum balance between domestic hydrogen production and imports. In order to integrate Power-to-X concepts into international energy markets adequate regulations will have to be developed and agreed for safe and transparent hydrogen handling (e.g. certificates of origin as suggested by the European CertifHy project [24]).

Even though CO₂ emissions will become the new currency in a future energy system lock-in effects (e.g. blocking investments and trained workforce, who would develop green technologies instead) from investing in durable but non-sustainable technologies (e.g. to produce blue hydrogen) need to be avoided. Green hydrogen based on renewable energy is one of the keys to achieve the 1.5 °C target from the Paris Agreement in a sustainable, socially acceptable and cost-effective manner.

Literature: To be acquired at Hydrogeit Verlag or from the authors

1. European Commission: The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final, Brussels, December 11, 2019.
2. International Energy Agency (IEA): Net Zero by 2050. A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Paris, 2021.
3. German Constitutional Court (BVerfG): Sentence of the Erste Senat, March 24, 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18, Rn. 1-270, March 2021.
4. German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG): Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen das Klimaschutzgesetz teilweise erfolgreich. Press release No. 31/2021 from April 29, 2021.
5. Rechtbank Den Haag: Judgement May 26, 2021. Case number C/09/571932, Cause list number HA ZA 19-379,
   https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 (accessed May 31 2021).
6. International Energy Agency (IEA): The Future of Hydrogen. Seizing today’s opportunities. Report prepared by the IEA for the G20, Japan. 2019.
7. Cihlar, J.; Villar Lejarreta, A.; Wang, A.; Melgar, F.; Jens, J.; Rio, Ph.: Asset Study. Hydrogen generation in Europe. Overview of costs and key benefits. Luxembourg, 2020.
8. European Commission: A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate Neutral Europe. COM(2020) 301 final, Brussels, July 8, 2020.
9. Trinomics, Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik (LBST): Sector integration – Regulatory framework for hydrogen. Bericht an die Europäische Kommission (DG Energy), 2020.
10. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ): Kleintechnische Biomassevergasung, Option für eine nachhaltige und dezentrale Energieversorgung. Leipzig, 2013.
11. Albrecht, U., Altmann, M., Barth, F., Bünger, U., Fraile, D., Lanoix, J.-Ch., Pschorr-Schoberer, E., Vanhoudt, W., Weindorf, W., Zerta, M., Zittel, W.: Green Hydrogen Pathways Study (GHyP Study). Joint study on hydrogen from renewable resources in the EU for FCH-JU by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik and Hinicio, July 2015.
12. Prinzhofer, A.; Cissé, C.S.; Diallo, A.B.: Discovery of a large accumulation of natural hydrogen in Bourakébougou (Mali). In: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43 (2018), H. 42, pp. 19315-19326.
13. Cathles, L.; Prinzhofer, A.: What Pulsating H₂ Emissions Suggest about the H₂ Resource in the Sao Francisco Basin of Brazil. In: Geosciences 10 (2020), H. 4, p. 149.
14. Bünger, U.; Michalski, J.; Schmidt, P.; Weindorf, W.: Wasserstoff – Schlüsselelement von Power-to-X. In: Töpler, J.; Lehmann. J. (Editors): Wasserstoff und Brennstoffzelle. Berlin: Springer Vieweg, 2^nd edition, 2017, pp. 327-368.
15. Albrecht, U.; Bünger; U.; Michalski, J.; Raksha, T.; Wurster, R.; Zerhusen, J.: International hydrogen strategies. A study by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH commissioned by and in cooperation with the World Energy Council Germany. 2020.
16. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi): Die Nationale Wasserstoffstrategie. Berlin, 2020.
17. Trinomics, Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik (LBST): Opportunities for Hydrogen Energy Technologies considering the National Energy & Climate Plans. A study for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking, Reference number: FCH / OP / Contract 234, Rotterdam, 2020.
18. Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources: Australia, Japan agreement an exciting step towards hydrogen future. Press release, January 10, 2020.
19. Kawasaki: Major Milestone for Victoria’s World-First Hydrogen Project. Press release, URL:
    https://global.kawasaki.com/news_210312-1e_1.pdf (accessed 31 May 2021).
20. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi): Gemeinsame Absichtserklärung zwischen der Regierung der Ukraine und der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland über den Aufbau einer Energiepartnerschaft. Berlin, 2020.
    https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/G/gemeinsame-absichtserklaerung-zwischen-der-regierung-der-ukraine-und-der-regierung-der-bundesrepublik-deutschland-ueber-den-aufbau-einer-energiepartnerschaft.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 (accessed 31 May 2021).
21. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi): „Wir wollen bei Wasserstofftechnologien Nummer 1 in der Welt werden“: BMWi und BMVI bringen 62 Wasserstoff-Großprojekte auf den Weg. Press release, May 28, 2021.
22. Trinomics, Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik (LBST), E3M: Impact of the use of the biomethane and hydrogen potential on trans-European infrastructure. Study for the European Commission , DG Energy, Brussels, 2020.
23. Brändle, G.; Schönfisch, M.; Schulte, S.: Estimating Long-Term Global Supply Costs for Low-Carbon Hydrogen. Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne gGmbH (EWI) Working Paper No. 20/04, 2020.
24. CertifHy: Designing the first EU-wide Green Hydrogen Guarantee of Origin for a new hydrogen market,
    https://www.certifhy.eu/project-description/project-description.html (accessed 31 May 2021).
25. [IRMD 2022] Ch. Kutz, U. Bünger, W. Weindorf, L. Reichelt, J. Moll, R. Schultz, D. Schultz, R. Kirchner, C. Dinse, St. Klingl, F. Pothen, P. Borovskikh, H. Ventz, L. Samartzidis, B. Klement, L. Schubert, Ch. Klöppelt, St. Bergander, J. Renno: Potenzialstudie Grüne Gase – Analyse und Bewertung der Potenziale Grüner Gase
    in der Innovationsregion Mitteldeutschland. Project report for the Metropole Region Mitteldeutschland,
    https://www.innovationsregion-mitteldeutschland.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/220209_Potenzialstudie_Gruene_Gase_Gesamtbericht.pdf (accessed 21 April 2022).
26. [IRENA 2022], Global hydrogen trade to meet the 1.5°C climate goal: Part I – Trade outlook for 2050 and way forward, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2022.

With a big bang into a new era

by Hydrogeit | Nov 14, 2022 | Germany

The presentations of new hydrogen trucks are becoming more and more spectacular. After first Faun in Bremen and then Paul Nutzfahrzeuge in Vilshofen each introduced their new H₂ trucks the June of 2022, Clean Logistics (CL) followed suit on June 23rd. Paul Nutzfahrzeuge, in a hybrid in-person/online event with much dramatic steam and music, ushered in the PH2P. Clean Logistics topped this and held races with its new fyuriant on the grounds of the local airport in front of 600 invited guests.

The interest was great – on the industry side with shipping and logistics specialists as well as on the investor side, along with the media. Everyone wanted to watch and see how the retrofitted H₂ truck (tractor unit) from Clean Logistics would fare against its diesel counterpart. Long story short: In the drag race – narrated by Formula 1 commentator Kai Ebel – Swedish technology influencer Angelica Larsson, in the fyuriant, gave opponent Janina Martig, in the diesel truck, no chance.

Advertisements

From HyBat-Truck to fyuriant

In the midsummer heat, the two Clean Logistics founders Dirk Lehmann and Dirk Graszt, affectionately referred to as H₂D², revealed a colorfully painted hydrogen-powered tractor unit. At their side was Dr. Klaus Bonhoff from the federal transport ministry (BMVD), formerly head of the national administrative organization for hydrogen and fuel cells (Nationale Organisation Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellen-Technologie, NOW). Both institutions, BMVD and NOW, have been giving support to the small business founded in the state of Niedersachsen since 2017 and thus had a large part in the bringing about of this spectacle.

Bonhoff frankly explained that we “have achieved relatively little so far in the vehicle sector.” But then he pointed out that the now presented H₂ truck that came out of the NIP program HyBat-Truck was excellent and that its development had been supported with 3.3 million euros of government funding. The first talks about a truck were held with shipping specialist Dirk Graszt in 2017, and then Dirk Lehmann was brought in. Lehmann, who is actually a shipbuilder, was immediately enthusiastic about the idea of converting long-haul trucks to run on hydrogen. At the time, Lehmann was managing director of E-Cap Mobility GmbH, which electrifies, in addition to maritime vehicles, also road vehicles.

The two Dirks teamed up, and this resulted in CL. Since then, they have been working to convert conventional diesel vehicles to zero-emission H₂ vehicles. After buses, the formerly small company from Niedersachsen will immediately also be pushing out 40-tonne semi-trucks for the program.

“The demand is enormous,” stated Graszt in Stade. It’s no surprise, since according to the German climate protection law (Klimaschutzgesetz, KSG), greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector must fall to 48 percent of 2019 levels by 2030. This means that of the 340,000 trucks currently registered nationwide, around 240,000 will need to be operated climate-neutrally by then.

“We are starting with a big bang into a new era… We already have the capability to make zero-emission vehicles available on the market today. Thanks to the converting of classic diesel vehicles into emissions-free hydrogen vehicles, this is also being done in a very resource-saving way. This is how we will rapidly drive the transformation of mobility into a sustainable future.”

Dirk Graszt, CEO of Clean Logistics

New CI – new logo

During the premiere at the airport in Stade, Clean Logistics SE presented itself in a completely new design – with a new corporate identity. With a new logo and a much more internationally oriented strategy. Additionally, Lehmann said, “We’re integrating Chinese technology.” The reason for this is obvious: “They’re six or seven years ahead of us in China… Refire does fully automated series production.” These compliments were likewise returned by Audrey Ma, vice president of Refire, who said, “Clean Logistics has made history by making clean logistics accessible to the world.”

Over-length is an issue

Clean Logistics sees itself purely as an integrator. The components are purchased and brought in – whether it’s the two 120 kW capacity fuel cells from Refire or the 43-kg hydrogen tanks stacked directly behind the driver’s cabin. Although these allow a range of over 400 km (250 mi), at the same time they make the vehicle around 60 centimeters (24 inches) longer.

The result of this “over-length” is that no series approval is possible under German law and only approvals on an individual basis have been granted up to now. Not only Clean Logistics is fighting this bureaucratic imposition. Because production capacities are meant to be massively expanded in Winsen an der Luhe. In the new production hall of 10,000 m² effective area (110,000 ft²), up to 450 vehicles a year are to leave the yard starting end of 2023.

EU type approval
The German automotive office (Kraftfahrtbundesamt) gave the Eugenius brand of the Faun Group, which was introduced in the August 2022 issue of H2-international, EU type approval, which means their vehicles are allowed in road traffic throughout the EU without additional approvals from member states. Head of development Georg Sandkühler said, “As our type approval is the first granted worldwide for hydrogen-powered commercial vehicles, it means that this type of drive has taken a big step forward overall.” However, their trucks are also not over-length, because the H₂ tanks are integrated in the chassis.

It was almost exactly one year ago that Clean Logistics gave the first pyuron, a hydrogen-converted bus, to the public transit company of the Uckermark in Brandenburg (Uckermärkische Verkehrsgesellschaft, UVG). The bus has been transporting tourists in the lower Oder River Valley ever since.

Fig. 2: At the celebration of the premiere, GP Joule had a special highlight to offer. André Steinau, managing director of GP Joule Hydrogen, announced to H2-international that its parent company has reserved 40 assembly stations for 40 fyuriants: “We will solve, with the production of H₂, the building of H₂ refueling stations and the offering of vehicles, the well-known chicken-and-egg problem.”

Dr. Klaus Bonhoff concluded, “No truck manufacturer can afford not to build H₂ trucks.”

Paul Nutzfahrzeuge
Paul Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH is comparable yet quite different. Similarly to Clean Logistics, Paul is committed to H₂ trucks. “Hydrogen will prevail,” sales manager Thomas Kotowski is certain. Up to 200 km (124 mi) – no matter the tonnage – battery-electric is indeed more efficient. But for longer ranges, only retrofit or fuel cell solutions come into question for him. Larger providers like Faun (see H2-international Aug. 2022) won’t be an issue, as the Bremen-based company with its Enginius brand caters to municipal vehicles on short and medium routes, whereas Paul targets mid-weight, so 12- to 16-tonne, trucks on distribution routes. Particularly package delivery services such as Hermes and DHL are potential partners here.

“Everything that Mercedes does not build with the assembly line, we build,” Kotowski told H2-international. As a special vehicles builder, the Vilshofen-based company concerns itself with not only old-time car restorations, but also installation of alternative drive systems. Paul started in 2016 with a facility that could build 1,300 vehicles a year. In order to meet the growing demand for custom-made products, a second site is currently being prepared, which is to double the total production capacity to 2,700 vehicles per year. An initial 22 units of purely H₂-run trucks are foreseen for 2022, around 150 for 2023 and 500 per year for 2025. Each at an individual workstation, mind you. “We are crafters,” says Kotowski – not without pride.

Cooperation partner Shell is contributing the H₂ refueling stations. There will probably be eight in 2023. Maximator stands ready as a technology provider. Although Shell is financially strong, 3 million euros for one H₂ station with two pumps makes a big dent, even when the pressure is “only” 350 bar. And if several H₂ trucks are to be filled, it could quickly amount to 1 tonne of hydrogen per day that needs to flow.

Paul is also involved in the service realm. “Anything that breaks, we replace,” states the key account manager. At the same time, he points out that only trained personnel may touch alternatively powered vehicles – in view of the shortage of skilled workers, for certain a bottleneck. In addition, a workshop conversion, at around 200,000 euros, will be costly.

Author: Sven Geitmann

Market is developing really well

by Hydrogeit | Nov 14, 2022 | Germany

Dr. Werner Tillmetz has not only promoted the advancement of hydrogen and fuel cell technology for many years, he has also at various points played a decisive role in shaping it – be it as a board member of the PV and fuel cell research institute of the state of Baden-Württemberg (Zentrum für Solar- und Wasserstoffforschung, ZSW) or in the formulation of the national support program for hydrogen and fuel cell innovation (Nationales Innovationsprogramm Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellentechnologie, NIP). Sven Jösting, on behalf of H2-interntional, spoke with Tillmetz, who after retiring founded an H₂ business network for the Lake Constance Region called h2connect.eco, and asked him for an assessment of the current developments.

H2-international: Dr. Tillmetz, you have dedicated your life to fuel cells, as people can tell from reading your wonderfully written book “Wasserstoff auf dem Weg zur Elektromobilität” (hydrogen on the way to e-mobility). Where are we today regarding fuel cells in mobility?

Advertisements

Interestingly, I’ve dealt with all these topics – electrolysis, fuel cells, batteries – somewhat equally, having worked in a wide variety of companies as well as in research. Quite an exciting wealth of experience. In the case of the fuel cell in mobility, it is fascinating to follow the now very broad and worldwide industrialization. Asian companies have started series production, but also German and European companies are now very successful in this. Technologically, fuel cells are ready for the market.

You are closely connected to development at Canadian company Ballard Power – including via cooperations with Ford, Daimler, and so on. Can you briefly describe for our readers how you’d valuate Ballard today?

In the 1990s, I was one of the pioneers in actively shaping the activities at these companies. Since 2003, I’ve been following the activities very intently from the outside and still have good contacts in the scene that I stay in touch with. When judging companies such as Ballard, on the one hand there is the technological point of view. In this respect, Ballard belongs, like previously, to the leading players. However, crucial is always economic developments. Here, the quarterly reports of the various publicly listed hydrogen startups give me pause, since with very few exceptions, losses have been similar to sales in value for the last twenty years. However, the market has only really recently started to develop well, primarily driven by legislation around the world towards climate protection. The number of acquisitions and the associated valuations are also impressive.

How would you appraise battery development? Why is especially the automotive industry set on battery-electric mobility and attempting to copy Tesla?

This is quite an exciting phenomenon. In recent years, the vehicle industry has failed to continue curbing global emissions legislation. At the same time, Tesla, an initially ridiculed competitor, came to the market and increasingly took sales away from the established companies in the high-margin segments. Quick action was called for, and the strategists reflexively said to themselves, “What Tesla can do, we can do too.” In this, they overestimated themselves and underestimated Tesla.

With e-vehicles, energy consumption and charging infrastructure are decisive. Tesla has excellently mastered both, while the big car companies, for example, are trying to delegate the issue of charging infrastructure to the state and to energy suppliers. With their billions in annual profit, they could make it themselves too – but profit takes precedence.

Two other major hurdles for the battery are becoming increasingly visible: where all the raw materials are going to come from and how enough green electricity for (fast) charging can be provided to meet demand.

There are various models of how hydrogen will be brought to use in motor vehicles. For example, there are models put forth in which ammonia, methanol or hydrogen (liquid or gaseous) are directly used in the engine – without the detour via a fuel cell. How do you assess this development? Is there a winner?

In general, we should be open to technology and let the engineers develop the best solutions. The legislators should only define the guard rails such as emissions. In my view, there are two crucial issues: the efficiency of the drive system and the availability of green fuel at the “gas station.”

For the dynamic operation of vehicles, electric motors with a battery have enormous advantages – a mechanical drive cannot achieve this efficiency. The (small) battery, however, can be charged by an engine or a fuel cell during the trip (serial hybrid) and then be run at the best time.

With regard to the supplying of the fuel: Hydrogen can, ideally, be directly generated in the region or transported by pipeline from sun- and wind-rich regions to filling stations throughout Europe. For the cost-effective overseas transport of energy from the world’s many sun belts, ideal is a fuel that is liquid at ambient temperature and easy to produce: methanol. At electricity prices of less than one euro cent per kilowatt-hour, the costs for generation play a very minor role. We are still at the very beginning of a marathon run – only at the finish will the wheat be separated from the chaff.

Competition has flared worldwide. What countries do you think have the better approaches?

German and EU policy is not very well thought-out strategically and is influenced by ideology in many places. On top of that is the very discussion-happy society and grassroots democratic structures that make much very slow. On the other hand, there are excellent, creative engineers and skilled workers and a solid industrial infrastructure, especially with the many family businesses that think long-term. Asian countries often have a better thought-out strategy and are much faster to implement. Last but not least comes California, with its extreme capital and readiness to take risks – the latter seems to be lost in Germany.

Now we come to charging infrastructure: electric charging stations versus hydrogen refueling stations. What should it be, do you think? Are there any critical views or visions about this that you have?

Battery-electric vehicles are best charged when and where there is direct green electricity and the fully charged battery is sufficient for a few days of driving – even when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. This can also be the case at the employer’s, for example, if they equip the parking spaces with photovoltaics or install small windmills on the roof. For all frequent drivers, city buses and transport companies, fast, flexible refueling is critical: you can fill up with green hydrogen or green methanol anytime, anywhere.

Where do you see the fuel cell going in the passenger car market? In the commercial vehicle, they’re indeed convinced that a fuel cell is advantageous over a battery for long journeys. What is the situation with passenger cars? Note there are rumors Apple could be entering the market with an iCar in 2024 that would make use of a small battery for short hauls and a fuel cell (H₂) for long hauls. Do you think that’s realistic?

Modern fuel cell drives, including the tanks, are significantly lighter and smaller than a battery, for the ranges often required. The difference to the classic combustion engine is barely there. Whereas installing a battery of over 600 kilograms in a car or of up to five tonnes in a truck really makes no sense. Apple’s concept is good and is already commercially offered for the delivery vans and trucks of Renault and the Stellantis brands.

Which countries are ahead regarding fuel cells, and why?

It’s more about the companies than the countries. Both Toyota and Hyundai are taking their respective products (fuel cell system) into many applications and markets. That achieves quantity and thus reduces costs. Bosch has a powerful strategy and will supply its partners around the world very quickly. The French car companies have positioned themselves well with strategic partners. And of course so have the many Chinese companies, who will reach really large quantities the fastest.

Could you please develop a future scenario for the fuel cell and hydrogen? Where, in your opinion, do we stand today, in five years, in ten years and in 2040 in terms of hydrogen and fuel cells, but also batteries?

We are standing at the very start of a marathon. The changes will be as dramatic as they were more than a hundred years ago, when Henry Ford’s gasoline-powered carriage replaced horse-drawn carriages and the internal combustion engine completely changed the world for the next hundred years. With disruptive innovations, the changes are extremely rapid and hardly predictable, as the example of Kodak and digital photography has also shown us. The battery alone will not be the magical solution for everything, as Bosch chairman Stefan Hartung recently made very clear. To be able to get a handle on climate change at all, we need all options and, above all, more action than discussion.

What would policymakers (Germany, EU) have to do to give fuel cells and hydrogen in mobility a boost?

Be open to technology and have a holistically thought-out strategy. For this, it helps to look out of the window from time to time to see whether there is enough sun or wind to ensure the energy supply for all consumers.

Interviewer: Sven Jösting

Contribution to the efficiency debate

With reference to the guest opinions on e-fuels from the May 2022 issue of H2-international

“Efficiency first” or “Efficiency is key” – is what countless headlines read. This is then backed up with graphs that all suggest that battery-electric e-vehicles are dramatically better than fuel cell and hydrogen e-vehicles. And e-fuels rank far behind in last place. Often the efficiency (fuel or energy consumption) of the vehicle is then lumped together with that of the upstream chain (fuel production). A comparison with reality almost always leaves something to be desired.

Comparing the energy consumption between vehicles should actually be quite easy, if you also compare vehicles that are similar to each other. The consumption (or fuel economy) is stated in the sales prospectuses and is determined in accordance with criteria prescribed by law – unfortunately in varying units: electricity in kilowatt-hours, hydrogen in kilograms and liquid fuels in liters (or gallons), without taking calorific value into account.

The real world of consumption can be found in a thorough examination of the test reviews. There, one quickly discovers that the 20 to 30 percent advantage of battery-powered vehicles practically disappears in winter, when both the passenger compartment and the battery (for fast charging) have to be heated.

Now to the upstream chain of electricity or fuel production. Here, it is almost always assumed that the electricity to charge the battery comes directly from the photovoltaic or wind power plant. The fact that no sun shines at night, nor through rain, snow or fog, is interestingly omitted. The wind also does not always blow, especially in the South of Germany. If the electricity for charging the battery is generated via a gas turbine (efficiency: 40%) powered by natural gas, or in the future hydrogen, then hopes of first place in efficiency are quickly deflated. The direct use of hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle makes more sense here.

This is true even if the electricity is 100 percent green. On many days in Germany, there is much more electricity from wind or sun than we need. Yet especially in the winter months, there may be no wind or sun for days. So the electricity needs to come from the wind- and sun-rich times of the year. The storage of such large amounts of energy, however, is only economically feasible with hydrogen.

Today, two-thirds of our energy supply is imported (oil, gas and coal). Although 100 percent self-sufficiency is theoretically possible in Germany, in reality it’s rather unlikely. Importing green energy from very sunny and windy regions makes a lot of sense economically. Transport via power lines will, however, be limited to certain regions such as the North Sea. Using the existing European gas grid for the transport of green energy in the form of hydrogen is more than logical. For overseas transport, liquid energy sources such as methanol or kerosene (e-fuels) are becoming unbeatably attractive. It is furthermore much more efficient to use this in the drive system than to remake electricity from it.

The green energy supply of the future, thought through to the end, is very different from what most headlines today suggest: electricity, hydrogen and e-fuels are all sensible green energy sources.

Author: Werner Tillmetz

South Korea on a hydrogen mission

by Hydrogeit | Nov 14, 2022 | Germany

The idea that a crisis can be seen as an opportunity ripe for exploitation is one that is extremely widespread in South Korea. The country is investing massively in both hydrogen technology and the hydrogen economy with the aim of minimizing the environmental impact of its industrial and energy sectors. Having previously built up a successful semiconductor industry from scratch, South Korea plans to leverage its experience of adapting and developing disruptive technologies. And it’s a pragmatic route that the nation has chosen to get there, placing an emphasis on the creation of positive market dynamics over and above the ultimate goal of achieving net-zero.

This pragmatism is combined with the structural tendency (path dependence) to find the lowest common denominator that can achieve cross-party agreement when it comes to long-term strategy. Even though the fundamental elements of energy policy are known, it remains to be seen how the newly elected conservative government will fill out the policy framework.

Advertisements

Here, just as in Europe, the taxonomy of clean hydrogen is a weighty issue. Similar to the situation in other European countries, it’s not just technical path dependences but also political ones that are dictating the future hydrogen color spectrum and the classification of clean hydrogen. Current political events, such as the recent election of the conservative government, are having a specific effect on how this is playing out.

“Korea New Deal” creates framework

The COVID-19 outbreak put the brakes on global economic activities to such a degree that a significant decrease in pollution levels could be measured in some locations. However, the economic impact of the pandemic was felt much more severely by many people, especially in the United States. In order to quickly tackle the country’s financial and social problems as well as ultimately address the environmental crisis, the US launched its “Green New Deal” in 2019 with the aim of bringing about the long-term decarbonization of its economy. There was no mistaking here that the financial and environmental crises were being viewed as an opportunity for more sustainable development.

The idea fell on fertile ground in South Korea which by comparison fared well through the pandemic, having avoided full lockdowns and high excess mortality figures and only experiencing a slight economic downturn. On July 14, 2020, President Moon, from the liberal government at the time, presented the “Korea New Deal” which outlined an overall volume of investment that equates to EUR 117 billion by 2025, of which EUR 84 billion was expected to come from state coffers and the rest from private enterprise.

From the total, more than EUR 53 billion are planned to be used for the environmental restructuring of industry, energy generation and housing infrastructure. The remaining funds are earmarked for digitalization and education in the widest possible sense. The Korea New Deal, which also explicitly mentions hydrogen as an energy carrier and hydrogen technology as an instrument on multiple occasions, is the policy framework in which the state-inspired project to establish a hydrogen industry is lodged.

Road map to Korean hydrogen economy

The liberal government, which was voted out of office in May this year, had previously presented its road map to stimulate the hydrogen economy in January 2019. A McKinsey study on the market potential of the hydrogen economy to 2050 described the establishment of a hydrogen economy with its own technology as a huge opportunity. In addition to the desired economic growth fueled by market participation, the report expected that jobs would be created in midsize companies, technology leadership might be established – thus creating chances for further direct investment from abroad – and enormously high dependence on fossil fuel imports would gradually decline.

What’s more, the hope was also expressed that huge savings would be made in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and particle pollution. While South Korea doesn’t have a long tradition in hydrogen technology to look back on, it is familiar with the rapid adaptation and development of disruptive technologies and has the necessary motivation to achieve this. Indeed it has announced the following specific targets announced for 2040:

Hydrogen given legal weight

To Western observers, such targets will doubtless seem very ambitious or indeed unrealistic and only time will tell whether they can actually be achieved. Nevertheless, any assessment must take into consideration the fact that the Korean hydrogen industry is embedded in an entirely different legal and policy framework to the European model. For instance, the hydrogen law that was passed in February 2020, which currently comprises eight chapters and 62 articles and was the first law of its kind in the world, now governs key areas concerning the systematic development of the hydrogen economy. Furthermore, the then government, together with the national hydrogen council, set up an expert commission on the regulation and control of policy content and processes relating to hydrogen technology and the hydrogen economy.

The first major area of the hydrogen law can be said to be the legal framework surrounding state-supported “hydrogen-specialized enterprises.” These are defined as small- and medium-sized companies which, depending on their overall turnover, generate between 10 and 50 percent of their income from hydrogen technology and dedicate 3 to 15 percent of their investment to hydrogen-related R&D activities (cf. chapter 1, article 2, paragraph 3). The law sets out various incentives to attract companies for the newly created certification scheme as well as for the overall national hydrogen industry project. These inducements may include more than EUR 100,000 of funding per company which can take the form of technical support (e.g., development, certification and patent registration) or commercial support (e.g., advertising, trade fair participation, market research, design development and brand development) (cf. chapter 3, article 9).

Additionally, certified companies are able to receive help and advice from H2KOREA, a consultancy financed by the state and the private sector that is tasked with promoting the hydrogen economy and which also receives a mention in the hydrogen law (chapter 5, article 33). The law further sets out that the legislator can urge energy suppliers, which are generally state owned, to expand hydrogen production and utilization capacity (cf. chapter 4, articles 19 – 21).

To boost the build-out and development of infrastructure, including facilities for development and testing, the legislator also focuses on the designation of “hydrogen-specialized complexes” (chapter 4, article 22). This primarily involves the creation of industrial clusters that can accommodate companies as well as research facilities and educational institutions in order to generate synergies and spillover effects between the organizations involved. In this regard the law creates a framework that allows decisions to be made about where the specialized complex designation is used and what proportion of funding will be allocated. These special-purpose hydrogen zones are being planned primarily in the northeastern Gangwon Province, the southeastern Gyeongsang Province, the southwestern Jeolla Province and the northwestern industrial city of Incheon.

The same law also provides for the expansion of hydrogen demonstration projects (chapter 4, article 24). So as to ensure price stability on the supply side, the legislator obliges gas suppliers to trade natural gas for reforming purposes at a capped price (chapter 4, paragraph 25). However, specific rates have not yet been set. Other key areas are, for example, the training of specialist personnel (chapter 5, paragraph 26), the creation of applicable industry standards (chapter 5, paragraph 27) and the encouragement of acceptance among the general public (chapter 5, paragraph 31). As revealed by the law’s full title (the Hydrogen Economy Promotion and Hydrogen Safety Management Act), its main concern is to put in place rules that cover the safety management of this new technology.

Korea H₂ Business Summit

Evidence that the country’s hydrogen ambitions are also shared by industry, and are not just the subject of a government decree, can be found in the guise of the Korea H₂ Business Summit which was held for the first time in September 2021 in South Korea. Among the 17 founder members of this initiative are leading national groups and corporations that are keen to cooperate on hydrogen technology. Many of these groups have already pledged billions in financial support. According to media reports, total investment in the lead-up to 2030 runs to more than EUR 31 billion.

Groups invest billions

One company that particularly stands out is the conglomerate SK Group, which wants to become one of the top hydrogen producers over the coming decades. More than EUR 13.5 billion are set to be channeled into creating production capacities of more than 250,000 tons per year up until 2030. As a result, Boryeong, a city situated on the west coast which also has its own liquefied natural gas terminal, is expected to become the world’s largest hydrogen factory. At the moment SK is concentrating its efforts on manufacturing affordable blue hydrogen which should accelerate the build-out of the entire value chain from transportation through energy extraction. As a logical extension of this, SK is also investing in increasing the number of refueling stations and expanding fuel cell capacities. That said, the company has already signaled that it intends to invest in production capacity for green hydrogen as well.

Also automotive manufacturer Hyundai has restated its commitment to hydrogen mobility, claiming it will make a total investment of more than EUR 8 billion by 2030. Despite the continuing commercial success of its hydrogen-powered Nexo model, the corporation recently announced that it would be pausing the development of its successor, Genesis, in a surprise admission that affected the stock prices of many suppliers. However Hyundai has clarified that the deferment is only due to internal restructuring of development and that the company is still maintaining its hydrogen course.

The automaker is currently working on a compact 100-kilowatt fuel cell which it says will save a good 30 percent in space and around 50 percent in price compared with the 200-kilowatt fuel cell that was incorporated in the Nexo model. This, it explains, will not only greatly broaden its scope of application in the mobility sector but will also potentially widen its customer base. Besides further developing its hydrogen mobility portfolio, Hyundai is also involved in the serious task of expanding fuel station infrastructure.

Another important member of the Korea H₂ Business Summit is the steel giant POSCO which is planning to invest more than EUR 7 billion in hydrogen by 2030. On the one hand, POSCO is building industrial plants for extracting gray and blue hydrogen but it is also eager to create capacity for green hydrogen in the longer term. What’s more, the group intends to decarbonize its core steelmaking business and, to this end, is increasing its use of hydrogen direct reduction, a process which has been promoted since 2003 under the Finex brand. The company’s goal is to switch its manufacturing operations completely to hydrogen direct reduction by 2050.

Fig.: Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Eui-sun Chung, SK Group Chairman Tae-won Chey, POSCO CEO Jeong-woo Choi and Hyosung Group Chairman Hyun-joon Cho take photos in front of Hyundai Motor’s hydrogen fuel cell truck

One major corporation that is placing much greater emphasis on green hydrogen is the Hanwha Group. Its takeover of German photovoltaics company Q Cells back in 2012 enabled it to position itself within the renewables sector and subsequently become the market leader. As a means of complementing its PV portfolio, Hanwha now also plans to invest in electrolyzer technology, preferring to focus on innovative anion exchange membrane or AEM electrolyzers.

In a move that will take the company a step further in the value chain, the group’s chemicals division is busy developing a gas turbine that will use a blend of LNG and liquefied hydrogen to generate power. To drive forward this development, last year Hanwha took over the US turbine manufacturer Systems Mfg as well as Dutch energy technology company Thomassen Energy. By 2023 Hanwha hopes to start supplying the first turbines to Korean grid operators. As hydrogen is due to make up more than 50 percent of the gas mixture, the turbines will bring about a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. With plans to invest almost EUR 1 billion by 2030, Hanwha is setting its sights on becoming one of the major players in the hydrogen economy. There are already signs that the company is well on its way: According to media reports, Hanwha has just recently been awarded a contract from German supplier Uniper.

Also the Hyosung Group, which made headlines through its cooperation with Linde, is continuing to pursue hydrogen. The company plans to invest EUR 800 million in the lead-up to 2030. Hyosung built its first hydrogen filling station in South Korea in 2008. Now, with over 20 refueling stations to its name, the company is the country’s market leader. Yet Hyosung wants to go even further. Through its partnership with Linde, the company is intending to make a large-scale move into the production of liquefied hydrogen, otherwise known as LH₂. By mid-2023, the factory is expected to have reached a production capacity of 13,000 tons a year. The collaboration also covers the development of cryopump technology which is needed for refueling when hydrogen is in its liquid state.

Since the group manufactures carbon-fiber mesh, it is also looking to participate indirectly in the market for hydrogen tanks, which are generally made from fiber composite material. Saving greenhouse gas emissions, for instance by producing green hydrogen through electrolysis or by storing and processing carbon dioxide, are Hyosung’s longer-term aims.

Achievements so far

Despite the voting out of the liberal government that was initially responsible for the national drive toward hydrogen, the subject of hydrogen seems to have gained cross-party support in South Korea, even if there is no consensus on the color of clean hydrogen. That there is unity at all on the matter of hydrogen technology is still a major coup.

The area in which this success is most apparent is transportation. More than 30 percent of hydrogen vehicles sold globally are now driving on Korean roads, and most of these are emblazoned with the Hyundai logo. Not only that, South Korea is also the place where infrastructure expansion is advancing most rapidly, with over 130 hydrogen refueling stations already in place.

Progress in the hydrogen technology sector is plain to see. By May this year, H2Korea was able to certify a total of 44 companies as hydrogen-specialized enterprises. It’s reasonable to assume that more than 90 percent of all key components for the hydrogen sector can now be supplied by domestic industry.

What South Korea is still lacking, however, is clean energy. At the moment more than 60 percent of energy is obtained from coal and gas, around 30 percent comes from nuclear power and only about 5 percent is generated from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. Consequently, South Korea’s annual hydrogen production of 200,000 tons is limited almost exclusively to the reforming and separation of hydrocarbons. As such, most hydrogen is either blue or gray.

It is therefore fair to say that South Korea, by taking a long-term policy decision and making generous investment and support measures available, has created a solid foundation for establishing a green hydrogen economy that is supplemented by imports. However, right now, this future green hydrogen economy can be likened to a large construction site in which thick dust clouds are obscuring the color and contours of the new building. Only when the dust finally settles will it reveal its shade and shape.

Outlook on the new government

Much of what is being done today harks back to President Moon’s liberal administration which governed from May 2017 until May this year. It was this previous government that initiated, among other things, a reform of the already adopted hydrogen law and this amendment was passed just as power changed hands. Paralleling the European debate, the main thrust of the reform was the stipulation of legally binding definitions of clean hydrogen which distinguish between hydrogen that is associated “with a small amount” of greenhouse gas emissions and hydrogen that produces none at all. In other words, it centers on how to deal with hydrogen that is not 100% green.

Furthermore, an agreement was reached on a legal price cap for gas that is intended for the production of hydrogen. The most important addition, however, was the provision relating to Clean Hydrogen Portfolio Standards or CHPS which gives suppliers and other market participants quotas for hydrogen production, takeoff and power conversion. This was well received by the stock market and the industry alike.

Nevertheless, the recently elected conservative government led by President Yoon has now brought the expansion of nuclear energy back into play, a development which has caused mixed reactions. While the new government has declared its intention to continue growing the hydrogen economy in its strategy paper, a question mark hangs over whether pragmatism will actually accelerate climate reversal or quite the opposite.

Author:
Moritz Haarstick
Seoul National University, KOTRA (Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency), Hamburg
moritz.haarstick@kotra.de