1 s2.0 S030626191301012X Main
1 s2.0 S030626191301012X Main
1 s2.0 S030626191301012X Main
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
Large scale hydrogen production from wind energy for the upgrading
of bitumen from oil sands
Babatunde Olateju, Joshua Monds, Amit Kumar ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G8, Canada
h i g h l i g h t s
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: There is considerable interest concerning sustainable, economically competitive and environmentally
Received 21 April 2013 benign hydrogen production pathways. In this study, a large scale wind-hydrogen plant is assessed for
Received in revised form 1 December 2013 the production of electrolytic hydrogen, for the servicing of the oil sands bitumen upgrading industry
Accepted 16 December 2013
in Western Canada. The wind-hydrogen plant proposed has a capacity of 563 MW, along with the dual
Available online 6 January 2014
functionality of hydrogen production and electricity generation; with the delivery of hydrogen to the
bitumen upgrader via pipeline. The research carried out involved the development of a data intensive
Keywords:
techno-economic model in tandem with a simulation model of the plant. Several plant configurations
Wind energy
Hydrogen
were assessed to determine the optimum electrolyzer size and quantity – which would translate into
Oil sands the minimum hydrogen production cost (including delivery). The optimal plant configuration consists
Bitumen ugrading of 80 units of the 3496 kW (760 Nm3/h) electrolyzer, which yields a minimum hydrogen production cost
Techno-economic assessment of $8.43 and $7.84/kg of H2 with and without delivery. Therefore, currently, hydrogen production from
wind energy remains uncompetitive relative to conventional fossil fuel hydrogen pathways.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 492 7797; fax: +1 780 492 2200. 1
Synthetic Crude oil production in Alberta amounted to 126,400 m3/day in 2010
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Kumar). [17].
0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.013
B. Olateju et al. / Applied Energy 118 (2014) 48–56 49
as is the case in much of the globe, hydrogen is predominantly electricity is often utilized in the published literature for the esti-
produced via steam methane reforming (SMR) [12–14,19–21]; repre- mation of the unit cost of hydrogen [33,34,36,38]; with sensitivity
senting about 48% of global production [2]. However, SMR has a sig- analysis often carried out to compensate for electricity price base
nificant life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions footprint of about case assumptions.
11,000–13,0002 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of hydrogen pro- As a result, a key objective of this study is to circumvent the
duced [22–25]. Furthermore, the feedstock cost for SMR is highly var- aforementioned modeling limitations by utilizing accurate, real
iable; as natural gas prices are often difficult to predict, with high time, wind power generation and electricity price data in the
price volatility and sensitivity to market dynamics [17,26]. Apart developed techno-economic and plant simulation model. This will
from this, natural gas is a premium fossil fuel with a significant in turn lead to decreased modeling uncertainty, and yield results
opportunity cost; thus, the continued reliance on SMR as the princi- which are more indicative of the ‘real’ hydrogen production cost
pal hydrogen production pathway in Western Canada raises ques- in a particular jurisdiction. In addition, the research carried out
tions about the sustainability of the bitumen upgrading industry, aims to investigate the extent of economies of scale in wind-hydro-
especially in the long-term. gen systems, with the techno-economic assessment of a large scale
As a result, there is considerable interest from industrial and wind-hydrogen plant in Western Canada. Apart from this, the
governmental stakeholders concerning the production of hydrogen determination of the optimum wind-hydrogen plant configuration
from conversion pathways which have low GHG footprints. Thus, which will result in a minimum hydrogen production cost is an-
research into the development of alternative hydrogen production other objective. Therefore, this paper seeks to ascertain the opti-
pathways without compromising economic viability and maintain- mum electrolyzer size and quantity which will facilitate the least
ing a negligible GHG footprint is warranted; in order to facilitate hydrogen production cost (including delivery to a bitumen upgrad-
the sustainable growth of the bitumen upgrading industry in North er via hydrogen pipeline). All costs are in 2010 Canadian dollars4,
America, and other industries that exist within the hydrogen econ- unless otherwise specified.
omy elsewhere.
Water-based electrolytic hydrogen production from wind
2. Methodology and scope
energy is regarded to have the lowest3 life cycle GHG emissions
of all hydrogen pathways by a number of authors [23,24,27,28]. In
2.1. Site selection and energy logistics
addition, with the exception of hydropower, wind energy has the
lowest levelised cost of electricity ($/kWh) amongst all renewable
The wind power generation capacity depends significantly on
options in most jurisdictions around the world [29,30]; thus, a sig-
the available resource at a certain location. As shown in Table 1,
nificant potential exists for extensive, cost-effective, GHG mitigation
as of 2009, the provincial wind generation capacity of the province
with this hydrogen pathway. Furthermore, extensive research per-
totalled 563 MW [45,46]. Alberta’s wind resource is concentrated
taining to the techno-economic assessment of wind-hydrogen pro-
in Southern Alberta, as reflected by the location of its wind farms
duction systems has been carried out in a multitude of regions
illustrated in Fig. 1 [45]. For the wind-hydrogen plant proposed
across the globe [31–35]. Contrastingly, the existing research
(see Fig. 2), the energy from the network of wind farms is chan-
addressing the techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production
nelled via the existing transmission line system to the summer-
from wind energy in Western Canada is scarce; with the exception
view 1 wind farm in Pincher Creek; where the electrolyzer farm
being a small scale grid connected wind-hydrogen production plant
is located for hydrogen production. The electrolyser farm is situ-
proposed by Olateju and Kumar [36]. The hydrogen production cost
ated at Pincher Creek due to the high density of wind farm loca-
yielded by the aforementioned plant, including the cost of delivery
tions in this area relative to other regions in Southern Alberta
amounts to $13.5/kg H2 [36]; which renders the plant uncompetitive
(see Fig. 1), as well as for comparative reasons with a previous
in comparison with the fossil fuel alternative by a relatively large
study [36]. It is worth highlighting the fact that due to the geo-
margin. Thus, further research that addresses the techno-economic
graphically dispersed nature of the wind farm network on a local-
paradigm which will facilitate a positive shift in the cost-competive-
ised level, the capacity factor of the electrolyzer farm has the
ness of wind-hydrogen systems (relative to the fossil fuel alterna-
potential to be significantly enhanced. This is regarded as a more
tive) is warranted.
efficient and pragmatic alternative to the option of having electro-
In this light, significant reductions in hydrogen production costs
lyzer farms situated at each wind farm location, where the capacity
can be achieved with large scale wind hydrogen plants as substan-
factor of the electrolyzers are reduced due to the fact that they are
tiated by a number of authors [33,34,37–39]. Wind energy in Al-
constrained to the productivity of a single wind farm.
berta has an estimated generating potential of about 64 GW [40].
However, as of 2012, wind power accounted for about 6% of the
electricity generation capacity of the province [41]; with coal 2.2. Simulation model for the wind-hydrogen plant
power being the predominant base load mitigating energy re-
source. Hence, due to the limited contribution of wind power to The wind-hydrogen plant proposed in this paper was modeled
the provincial energy mix, the utilisation of the entire provincial using the EXTEND 6 simulation package [47]. EXTEND 6 has the
wind energy resource for electrolytic hydrogen production is con- capacity for discrete and continuous event modeling [47]; with
sidered feasible. the latter being utilized for the purposes of this research. However,
An important point to note is that the methodology adopted in the modeling of the wind-hydrogen system can be achieved with
previous studies involving wind-hydrogen production often in- several other simulation software; thus, the results presented here
volves the modeling and characterization of the wind variability, are independent of the simulation tool adopted. The principal
via the use of a Weibull probability density function, to estimate model inputs involved comprised of the provincial hourly power
energy, and consequently, hydrogen production [34,36,37,42–44]. generation and grid pool price, along with the alkaline electrolyzer
This has limitations, and invariably, has a certain degree of error specifications. The real time provincial hourly power generation
associated with it. Secondly, a fixed base case selling price of wind and pool price data correspond to the year 2009, and was provided
by the Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO) [48]. On the other
2
Value based on the higher heating value (HHV) of hydrogen (141 MJ/kg).
3 4
Some authors have ranked this hydrogen pathway 3rd amongst all other options Where necessary, an inflation rate of 2% has been used to convert all costs into
[2]. 2010 $CAD. Furthermore, a currency rate of $1US = $1CAD is adopted in this paper.
50 B. Olateju et al. / Applied Energy 118 (2014) 48–56
Table 1
Grid-connected wind farm generation capacity in Alberta as of 2009 [45,46].
Wind Farm Name Period of installation to 2009 year end capacity # of Wind turbines Wind turbine rated power (kW) Wind farm capacity (MW)
Blue Trail Wind 2009 22 3000 66
Castle River #1 1997–2001 59 660 40
Cowley Ridge 1993–2001 57 375 38
15 1300
Enmax Taber 2007 37 2200 81
Kettles Hill 2006–2007 35 1800 63
McBride Lake 2001–2003 115 660 75
Soderglen Wind 2006 47 1500 68
Summerview 1 2002–2004 38 1800 68
Suncor Chin Chute 2006 20 1500 30
Suncor Magrath 2004 20 1500 30
Taylor Wind Farm 2004 9 375 4
TOTAL 563
hand, the electrolyzer data input included the maximum and min- alkaline electrolyzers, proton exchange membrane (PEM) electro-
imum power demand, hydrogen flow rate, and the number of elec- lyzers, and high temperature electrolysis (HTE) [36]. Relative to
trolyzer units. A number of electrolyzer sizes were considered in other electrolyzer technologies, alkaline electrolyzers are adopted
the model (see Table 2) along with different numbers of units. Each in this study as a result of their superior technological maturity,
case considered was run as a simulation with a duration of 8760 h large scale hydrogen flow rates and relatively inexpensive capital
to yield the annual hydrogen flow rate as well as the annual elec- cost [36]. For a more detailed scrutiny of the aforementioned elec-
tricity revenue. The quantification of the annual hydrogen flow rate trolyzer technologies, the reader is referred to the work by Olateju
and annual amount of electricity dispatched to the grid is given and Kumar [36].
greater scrutiny in Section 2.4. The electrolyzers considered in this study along with their
performance specifications are given in Table 2. It is important to
2.3. Electrolyzer selection note that the minimum electrolyzer power requirement for all
electrolyzers, has been determined based on a proportional
The current electrolyzer (electrolysis) technologies that exist in relationship between the maximum flow rate and maximum
literature can be sub-divided into three main classes, namely: power demand (rated power) of the electrolyzer as shown in Eq.
B. Olateju et al. / Applied Energy 118 (2014) 48–56 51
Table 2
Electrolyzer size range [33,49].
Electrolyzer manufacturer/model Min. H2 flow rate Max. H2 flow rate Energy requirement Size H2 pressure H2 purity
(Nm3/h) (Nm3/h) (kWh/Nm3) (kW) (bar) (%)
Norsk hydro atmospheric type No. 5010 (5150 0a 50 4.8b 240 1 99.9 ± 0.1
Amp DC) [33]
Norsk hydro atmospheric type No. 5020 (5150 50 150 4.8b 720 1 99.9 ± 0.1
Amp DC) [33]
Norsk hydro atmospheric type No. 5030 (5150 150 300 4.8b 1440 1 99.9 ± 0.1
Amp DC) [33]
b
Norsk hydro atmospheric type No. 5040 (4000 300 377 4.8 1810 1 99.9 ± 0.1
Amp DC) [33]
Norsk hydro atmospheric type No. 5040 (5150 300 485 4.8b 2328 1 99.9 ± 0.1
Amp DC) [33]
Industrie Haute Technologie (IHT) Type S-556 190 760 4.9b,c 3496 30 99.9 ± 0.1
[49]
a
A minimum flow rate of 1 Nm3/h was utilized in this study.
b
Indicates the hydrogen production systems level energy requirement specified by the manufacturer [33].
c
Average value of the energy requirement range (4.6–5.2 kWh/Nm3) indicated.
(1). The adoption of this approach is as a result of the energy (WPi 6 EPmin & WPi 6 EPmax total), allows for the calculation of the
requirement for all the electrolyzers being non-uniform. amount of hydrogen produced from the plant and/or the amount
of energy sold to the grid for each hour of the year. The summation
ðEFmin EPmax Þ
EPmin ¼ ð1Þ of the hourly hydrogen production for the entire year yields the an-
ðg EFmax Þ nual hydrogen production. The annual amount of energy sold to
the grid is calculated in identical fashion.
2.4. Quantification of hydrogen production It is worth pointing out that, for reduced complexity, an implicit
assumption is made with the energy management regime adopted
The wind-hydrogen plant has a dual functionality of hydrogen in this study. The assumption is that the energy from the wind
production and electricity generation. Electricity generation is in- farms is distributed uniformly across all electrolyzers in a given
tended to enhance the plant’s cost competiveness; as wind power plant configuration. This would imply that for an increased quan-
will be sold to the grid in periods where power output falls short of tity of electrolyzers, it would be possible for a given electrolyzer
the threshold required for hydrogen production. Furthermore, in unit to operate at a power level below EPmin.
the event where excess wind energy is available during hydrogen In reality, it is more likely that power would be distributed
production, the simultaneous yield of hydrogen and electricity oc- within the electrolyzer farm in a non-uniform manner. For in-
curs, to consolidate the revenue generation capacity of the plant stance, one or more units may not be available at any given time
even further. due to maintenance, or a control system may switch units on or
Using the average hourly wind power production data [48], the off given a set of safety considerations or the optimization of plant
distribution of the energy produced by the wind turbine either for efficiency5. Thus, a plant operator may decide to run some units at
hydrogen production and/or the sale of electricity to the grid is
governed by the energy management flow chart illustrated in 5
It is important to note that in practice, the energy requirement for a given
Fig. 3. This flow chart, with the use of two decision tools electrolyzer will vary based on its operational load.
52 B. Olateju et al. / Applied Energy 118 (2014) 48–56
full capacity while others remain idle; or all at half capacity, yet 3.3. Hydrogen pipeline costs
maintaining the same hydrogen output. Hence, it becomes apparent
that irrespective of the energy allocation strategy adopted by a given 3.3.1. Hydrogen pipeline characterisation
plant operator managing the electrolyzer farm, the cumulative For a hydrogen production flow rate that exceeds 2400 kg/day,
hydrogen production obtained per annum and subsequent electricity pipeline transport of the hydrogen produced is regarded as the
sold to the grid would be the same. Therefore, the energy manage- most cost effective means of delivery [55]. Thus, considering the
ment regime adopted here has no impact on the veracity of the large scale flow rate of the plant, for each plant configuration ap-
results. praised from a techno-economic standpoint, the characterization
Lastly, an electrolyzer efficiency of 73% (based on HHV of H2) i.e. of the appropriate pipeline is warranted6. The characterization of
4.8 $/kWh energy requirement and a rectifier efficiency of 95% the hydrogen pipeline required the determination of two key pipe-
[50,51] were adopted in the EXTEND 6 simulations. line parameters i.e. the pipeline diameter and pipeline length. The
diameter of the hydrogen pipeline was calculated with the use of
the Panhandle – B equation [56]. This equation was solved with a re-
3. Cost estimation verse engineering approach to obtain the required diameter for the
plant’s hydrogen flow rate. The estimate of the pipeline distance
3.1. Electrolyzer capital cost from Pincher Creek to the Industrial Heartland of Edmonton where
the upgrader is located (see Fig. 1), is based on the driving distance
An electrolyzer capital cost estimation model developed in an between these two locations – about 450 km [36]. However, the dis-
earlier study, which is based on data obtained from existing liter- tance of hydrogen delivery will vary depending on the jurisdiction in
ature and industrial experts, was adopted to serve as a reliable question.
estimate of costs [36]. The nature of the work carried out in the
current study involves the capital cost estimation of a significant
number of electrolyzer units with varying sizes. In reality, a de- 3.3.2. Hydrogen pipeline capital cost
gree of cost and labour efficiencies will likely be achieved, with The hydrogen pipeline capital cost model utilized in this study
the purchase of a large number of units from a particular is based on published literature [57] (see Fig. 4). The cost ascer-
vendor/manufacturer. However, this study takes a conservative tained using this model was compared to other hydrogen pipeline
approach, with the assumption that none of the aforementioned capital cost models in the existing literature [58,59]. The difference
efficiencies are realized. Table 3 gives the further details on elec- in the pipeline capital cost between the model adopted in this pa-
trolyzer costs including installation, operating and maintenance per and the models presented by Parker [58] and Johnson and Og-
(O&M) costs. den [59] were 10% and 18%, respectively. As is the case with all
pipelines, hydrogen pipeline capital costs will be highly site spe-
cific, and the consideration of the special pipeline seals required
3.2. Wind turbine capital cost and auxiliary units costs for hydrogen transport and the possible embrittlement of steel will
play a significant role in determining costs [58]. In general, taking
The wind turbine capital cost, O&M cost, along with costs and pipeline operation into account, an increased risk is associated
useful lives associated with auxiliary plant equipment and power with hydrogen pipelines relative to other industrial fluids (e.g.
electronics are provided in Table 3. Considering auxiliary plant
6
costs in particular, it is important to note that the cost of Note that for plant configurations with a hydrogen flow rate less than 2400 kg/
purification of the feed water (via reverse osmosis) for the day, a hydrogen pipeline is not considered cost effective nor pragmatic [55]. However,
the optimization of the delivery mode for each case is beyond the scope of this paper.
electrolyzers is miniature compared to the cooling water cost Moreover, the flow rates encountered in the simulations run in this study are
[36]. Thus, the latter has been assumed to account for the cost predominantly large scale (>2400 kg/day). Thus, a pipeline was sized specific to each
of purification. simulation considered.
B. Olateju et al. / Applied Energy 118 (2014) 48–56 53
Table 3
Wind turbine and auxilliary plant costs.
Table 4
Electrolyzer performance output.
Electrolyzer manufacturer/ Max. H2 flow Size H2 output Energy sold to Energy used for H2 Number of Capacity Min. H2
model rate (Nm3/h) (kW) (kg/day) grid (kWh/yr) production (kWh/yr) electrolyzer factor (%) cost ($/kg)
units
Norsk hydro atmospheric type 50 240 43,640 2.37E + 08 1.23E + 09 800 51 13.88
No. 5010 (5150)
Norsk hydro atmospheric type 150 720 46,523 1.56E + 08 1.31E + 09 300 48 10.82
No. 5020 (5150)
Norsk hydro atmospheric type 300 1440 49,755 6.52E + 07 1.40E + 09 175 44 9.77
No. 5030 (5150)
Norsk hydro atmospheric type 377 1810 50,878 3.33E + 07 1.43E + 09 150 42 9.54
No. 5040 (4000 Amp DC)
Norsk hydro atmospheric type 485 2328 50,021 5.77E + 07 1.41E + 09 110 44 9.30
No. 5040 (5150 Amp DC)
Industrie Haute Technologie 760 3496 53,475 2.32E + 07 1.44E + 09 80 41 8.43
(IHT) Type S -556
5. Conclusion
[9] Taljan G, Fowler M, Canizares C, Verbic G. Hydrogen storage for mixed wind- [36] Olateju B, Kumar A. Hydrogen production from wind energy in Western
nuclear power plants in the context of a hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrogen Canada for upgrading of bitumen from oil sands. Energy 2011;36:6326–39.
Energy 2008;33:4463–75. [37] Rodriguez CR, Riso M, Yob GJ, Ottogalli R, Santa Cruz R, Aisa S, et al. Analysis of
[10] Agbossou K, Chahine R, Hamelin J, Laurencelle F, Anouar A, St-Arnaud J-M, the potential for hydrogen production in the province of Cordoba, Argentina,
et al. Renewable energy systems based on hydrogen for remote applications. J from wind resources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:5952–6.
Power Sources 2001;96:168–72. [38] Linnemann J, Steinberger-Wilckens R. Realistic costs of wind-hydrogen vehicle
[11] Agbossou K, Kolhe ML, Hamelin J, Bernier E, Bose TK. Electrolytic hydrogen fuel production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:1492–9.
based renewable energy system with oxygen recovery and re-utilisation. [39] Leighty WC, Holloway J, Merer R, Somerdey B, San Marchi C, Keith G et al. A
Renew Energy 2004;29:1305–18. 1,000 MW windplant delivering hydrogen fuel from the Great Plains to a
[12] Ozlap N. Energy and material flow models of hydrogen production in the U.S. distant urban market by pipeline. Leighty Foundation; 2005. <http://
chemical industry. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:5020–34. www.leightyfoundation.org/files/WP05-Pipeline-24May05-Rev2Jun05.pdf>.
[13] Liao Z, Wang J, Yang Y, Rong G. Integrating purifiers in refinery hydrogen [40] Bell J, Weis T. Greening the grid: Powering Alberta’s future with renewable
networks: a retrofit case study. J Cleaner Prod 2010;18:233–41. energy. The Pembina Institute; 2009. <http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/
[14] Johansson D, Franck P, Berntsson T. Hydrogen production from biomass greeningthegrid-report.pdf>.
gasification in the oil refining industry – a system analysis. Energy [41] Alberta Electricity System Operator (AESO). Wind power in Alberta. <http://
2012;38:212–27. poweringalberta.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Wind-Power-in-
[15] Branco DAC, Gomes GL, Szklo AS. Challenges and technological opportunities Alberta_2012-06_FINAL.pdf>.
for the oil refining industry: a Brazilian refinery case. Energy Policy [42] Bechrakis DA, Mckeogh EJ, Gallagher PD. Simulation and operational
2010;38:3098–105. assessment of small autonomous wind-hydrogen energy system. Energy
[16] Naterer GF, Fowler M, Cotton J, Gabriel K. Synergistic roles of off-peak Convers Manage 2006;47:46–59.
electrolysis and thermo-chemical production of hydrogen from nuclear energy [43] Honnery D, Moriarty P. Estimating global hydrogen production from wind. Int
in Canada. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:6849–57. J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:727–36.
[17] Energy Resources Conservation Board, (ERCB). Alberta’s energy reserves 2010 [44] Zini G, Tartarini P. Wind-hydrogen energy standalone system with carbon
and supply/demand, outlook 2011–2020. ST98-2011; 2011. storage: Modeling and simulation. Renew Energy 2010;35:2461–7.
[18] Michelse M. Alberta’s oilsands: resourceful, responsible. Presentation to the [45] Canadian Wind Energy Association. List of wind farms. <http://
University of Alberta Business School. Government of Alberta; 2011. www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php>. (accessed 14.12.2012).
[19] Wang ZL, Naterer GF. Greenhouse gas reduction in oil sands upgrading and [46] Alberta Electricity System Operator (AESO). Current Supply Demand Report.
extraction operations with thermochemical hydrogen production. Int J <http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet>. (accessed
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:11816–28. 14.12.2012).
[20] Kapadia PR, Kallos MS, Gates ID. Potential for hydrogen generation from in situ [47] Imagine That Inc. EXTEND 6 simulation software. <http://
combustion of Athabasca bitumen. Fuel 2011;90:2254–65. www.extendsim.com/index.html>.
[21] Dunbar RB. Canada’s oil sands – a world scale hydrocarbon resource. Strategy [48] Alberta Electricity System Operator (AESO). <http://www.aeso.ca/
West Incorporated 2009. <http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/ gridoperations/20544.html>. (accessed 01.11.2012).
StratWest_OilSands.pdf>. [49] Fu Q. Role of electrolysis in regenerative syngas and synfuel production.
[22] Sarkar S, Kumar A. Biohydrogen production from forest and agricultural Syngas: Production, applications and environmental impact. Chapter 8, Nova
residues for upgrading of bitumen from oil sands. Energy 2010;35:582–91. Science Publishers Inc.; 2011.<http://sktk.che.itb.ac.id/indarto/book/Chapter-
[23] Utgikar V, Thiesen T. Life cycle assessment of high temperature electrolysis for 8.pdf>.
hydrogen production via nuclear energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy [50] Sherif SA, Barbir F, Veziroglu TN. Wind energy and the hydrogen economy-
2006;31:939–44. review of the technology. Sol Energy 2005;78:647–60.
[24] Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N. Life cycle assessment [51] Bartholomy O. A technical, economic, and environmental assessment of the
of hydrogen fuel production processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy Production of renewable hydrogen from wind in California. Master of Science
2004;29:1443–50. Thesis; University of California Davis, United States; 2008.
[25] Dufour J, Serrano DP, Galvez JL, Moreno J, Garcia C. Life cycle assessment of [52] Bartholomy O. Renewable Hydrogen from Wind in California. National
processes for hydrogen production. Environmental feasibility and reduction of Hydrogen Association Proceedings; 2005.
greenhouse gases emissions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:1370–6. [53] Burton T, Sharpe D, Jenkins N, Bossanyi E. Wind energy handbook. John Wiley
[26] Landon S, Smith C. Energy prices and Alberta government revenue volatility. & Sons; 2001. p. 511–512 (ISBN 0 471 489972).
C.D Howe Institute Commentary – Fiscal and Tax Competitiveness [54] Nouni MR, Mullick SC, Kanpal TC. Techno-economics of small wind electric
2010;313:1–24. generator projects for decentralized power supply in India. Energy Policy
[27] Hacatoglu K, Rosen MA, Dincer I. Comparative life cycle assessment of 2007;35:2491–506.
hydrogen and other selected fuels. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:9933–40. [55] Sarkar S, Kumar A. Techno-economic assessment of biohydrogen production
[28] Winter CJ. Hydrogen energy: Abundant, efficient, clean: A debate over the from forest biomass in Western-Canada. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng
energy-system-of-change. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:S1–S52. 2009;52(2):519–30.
[29] Timilsina GR, Kurdgelashvili L, Narbel PA. Solar energy: markets, economics [56] Schroeder DW. A tutorial on pipe flow equations. Stoner Associates, Inc; 2001.
and policies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:449–65. <http://www.psig.org/Papers/2000/0112.pdf>.
[30] Hearps P, McConnell D. Renewable energy technology cost review. University [57] Yang C, Ogden J. Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode. Int J
of Melbourne Energy Research Institute 2011. p. 1–57. Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:268–86.
[31] Gokcek M. Hydrogen generation from small-scale wind-powered electrolysis [58] Parker N. Using natural gas transmission pipeline costs to estimate hydrogen
system in different power matching modes. Int J Hydrogen Energy pipeline costs. Institute of Transportation Studies. University of California,
2010;35:10050–9. Davis; 2004.
[32] Menanteau P, Quemere MM, Le Duigou A, Le Bastard S. An economic analysis [59] Johnson N, Ogden J. A spatially-explicit optimization model for long-term
of the production of hydrogen from wind generated electricity for use in hydrogen pipeline planning. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;27(6):5421–33.
transport applications. Energy Policy 2011;39(5):2957–65. [60] Government of Alberta (GOA). Alberta oil sands industry quarterly update:
[33] Levene JI. Conference paper: economic analysis of hydrogen production from December 12th 2009 – March 5th; 2010. <http://www.albertacanada.com/
wind. United States: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); 2005. documents/AOSID_QuarterlyUpdate_Spring2010.pdf>.
[34] Zolezzi JM, Garay A, Reveco M. Large scale hydrogen production from wind [61] Ogden JM, Yang C, Johnson N, Ni J. Conceptual design of optimized fossil
energy in the Magallanes area for consumption in the central zone of Chile. J energy systems with capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. United
Power Sources 2010;195:8236–43. States Department of Energy (DOE) Report, DOE Award No: DE-FC26-
[35] Manage MN, Hodgson D, Milligan N, Simons SJR, Brett DJL. A techno-economic 02NT41623; 2004.
appraisal of hydrogen generation and the case for solid oxide electrolyser cells.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:5782–96.