Total Cost Of Ownership Analysis For Hydrogen Fuel Cells .
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Analysis forHydrogen Fuel Cells in Maritime Applications –Preliminary ResultsD. Papadias and R. K. AhluwaliaArgonne National LaboratoryE. Connelly and P. DevlinFuel Cell Technologies OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyH2@Ports WorkshopSeptember 10-12, 2019Marines’ Memorial Club & HotelSan Francisco, CAThis presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, orotherwise restricted information.
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen in Maritime ApplicationsHydrogen fuel cells can play an important role in curbing the emissions of regulated andunregulated pollutants in maritime applications Sustainable marine transportation Future restrictions on marine diesel oil Tighter standards on emissions of sulfur oxides and NOxHydrogen fuel cells must also compete with low-sulfur marine gas oil (LSMGO) andliquefied natural gas (LNG) combustion engines on the basis of total cost of ownership(TCO) TCO defined to include the cost of fuel; levelized cost of propulsion/auxiliary engines,propulsion system, and fuel storage system; and the cost of annual maintenance,lifetime overhaul, and consumables 10% internal rate of return (IRR) applied to the initial capital investment To avoid uncertainties due to price volatilities, inflation not applied to fuel costHydrogen fuel cells are an emerging technology*DOE-FCTO TargetsFCS for heavy duty trucks, /kWFCS lifetime, hDelivered hydrogen cost, /kgLH2 storage system, Million Annual FCS maintenance, rences[22][22][22][8,13-19][23]All results in this report are based on FCTO targets for fuel cell trucks. Future work will develop specific requirements and evaluatepotentials for fuel cells for maritime applications.2
Maritime Fuels: LSMGO, LNG and LH2We are using LSMGO as the reference fuel for maritime applications consideredin this study. Harbor tugs and ferries operate in Emissions Control Areas (ECA) that effectively limitsulfur content in fuel to 0.1% as in low-sulfur marine gas oil (LSMGO). From 2020, IMO regulations will cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 86%, reducingworldwide (container ships) sulfur content in fuel from 3.5% (IFO) to 0.5% (MGO). Ships operating in international waters must install scrubbers if burning IFO, orswitch to MGO. The scrubber option is not evaluated in this study. Ships using MGO must switch to LSMGO (or install scrubbers) after entering theECA zone. Small difference in price of MGO and LSMGOFuel Characteristics On LHV basis, 1 gallon of LSMGO is equivalent (MGE) to 3.0 kg-NG, or 1.215 kg-H21 MGE 7.0 L-LNG 17.2 L-LH2 On price basis, LSMGO 0.016 /MJ; LNG 0.013 /MJ; LH2 0.075 /MJDensityLHVBunkeredCommentskg/m3MJ/kgPrice, 48.6616MGO density range: 850 - 910 kg/m 3LH270.81209,000LH2 cost: Eudy and Post [23]In this report, ton (t) refers to metric ton and equals 1000 kg3
TCO Analysis for Selected Maritime Applications Wärtsilä LNG Tugboat1Main Dimensions: 28.8(L)X13(W)X6(D)m, 495 TPerformance: 55-T pull, 12 nm/h service speedDual Fuel Tank: 25-m3 LNG, 50-m3 fuel oilPropulsion: 2x9L DF:3330 kW, WST-18 thruster M/V Issaquah: Auto/Passenger Ferry2Main Dimensions: 100(L)X24(W)X5.1(D)mPerformance: 1200 passengers, 124 VehiclesFuel Tank: Diesel (2X43 m3 LNG – conceptual)Propulsion: 4.5 MW main, 1.2 MW auxiliary Isla Bella LNG Container Ship3Main Dimensions: 233(L)X32(W)X10(D)mPerformance: 2100-TEU (36,571 T), 1100 nmDual Fuel Tank: 2x900-m3 LNG (475,000 gallon)Engine: 26-MW main, 3 x1.74-MW auxiliary AIDAnova LNG Cruise Ship4Main Dimensions: 337(L)X42(W)X9(D)m, 180 kTPerformance: 5,200 passengers, 1,500 crewFuel Tank: 3,600 m3 LNG for 14-days operationGenset: 62 MW (37 MW propulsion)Photo courtesy of WärtsiläPhoto courtesy ofWashington State FerriesPhoto courtesy of General Dynamics NASSCOEach application includes gensets or auxiliary power: cold ironing at ports not considered.4
Container Ship – Engine and Fuel SystemsContainer ShipMax Slot Capacity, TEURoundtrip Distance, nmRoundtript Duration, hSail time, hAverage Speed, hService Life, y 210022001681161925Isla Bella LNG Container ShipMain Dimensions: 233(L)X32(W)X10(D)mPerformance: 2100-TEU (36,571 T)Engine: 25-MW main, 3x1.74-MW auxiliaryDual Fuel Tank: 2x900-m3 LNG (475,000 gallon)EnginePropulsion, MWAuxiliary Genset, MWFuel StorageMain Fuel, tSecondary Diesel, tMain Fuel, m3Secondary Diesel, m3Fuel ConsumptionMain Fuel, g/kWhGenset Fuel, g/kWhPhoto courtesy of General Dynamics 03001632,5001721971461693,30060FCS Container Ship A 26-MW FCS replaces 25-MW propulsion engineand 3 x 1.74 MW auxiliary genset Container ship refueled with LH2 once per roundtrip, 4 x 820 m3 tanks. LNG tanks have excesscapacity. LSMGO refueled once a month. On LHV basis, comparable efficiencies of LSMGO(48.9%), LNG (49.6%) and LH2 (50%) fuel optionsTEU: twenty-foot equivalent units; nm: nautical mile5
Container Ship – TCOLSMGOLNGLH2-FC2803805035050560Gearbox/Electric Motor, /kWPower Conditioning, /kWFuel Storage System, /m3Ship Upgrade, k OPEX70605070602,8303,000120602,9603,000Main Fuel, /tonSecondary Diesel, /kgMaintenance, k /yrComsumables, k /yrLifetime Overhaul, k 7006207004604000CAPEXPropulsion, /kWAuxiliary Genset ( /kW)Nox Emission Control ( /kW) 290170607200FCS Container ShipFCS has lower initial cost: room to increaseefficiency and durability at higher cost OPEX includes current/interim/ultimate stackreplacement cost after 25/30/35 khLH2 storage system cost propulsion system cost FCS costTCO dominated by fuel cost: LNG option slightlycheaper than diesel and much cheaper than LH2LH2 break-even cost at 57% efficiency: 2030 /tonLNG fuel cost factors per MMBTU basis: 4 NG, 5 liquefaction, 4 transport and bunkeringOnly ultimate cost targets for FCS ( 60/kW) and H2 ( 4,000/ton) included in this report6
Ferry – Engine and Fuel SystemsWashington State Ferries (WSF) - Issaquah Class RoPaxNumber of Passengers1200Number of Cars124RouteSeattle-Bremerton, 13.5 nmEngine Power,Total Power,Time, min# of 801,7213913792022212An illustration of LNG tanks onIssaquah class ferry. Imagecourtesy Washington State Ferries3442782379404EnginePropulsion, MWAuxiliary Genset, MWFuel StorageMain Fuel, tSecondary Diesel, tMain Fuel, m3Secondary Diesel, m3Fuel ConsumptionMain Fuel, g/kWhSecondary Diesel, 19721517820519058FCS Ferry A 4.5-MW FCS replaces 2 x 2.25-MW propulsionengines and 3 x 300-kW auxiliary gensets Ferry refueled with LH2 (or LNG) once every 5 d.LSMGO tank has excess capacity. 2 x 43 m3 LNG tanks vs. 2 x 95 m3 LH2 tanks Above-deck location, tank size may not be acritical issue On LHV basis, LH2-FCS has higher efficiency onferry duty cycle: 52% vs. 43% for LSMGO andLNG systems7
Ferry – TCOCAPEXPropulsion, /kWAuxiliary Genset, /kWNox Emission Control, /kWGearbox/Electric Motor, /kWPower Conditioning, /kWFuel Storage System, /m3Ship Upgrade, k OPEXMain Fuel, /tonSecondary Diesel, /tonMaintenance, k /yrComsumables, k /yrLifetime Overhaul, k 5120608,5401,375620700105400070083537833FCS FerryFCS has lower initial cost: room to increaseefficiency and durability at higher cost OPEX includes current/interim/ultimate stackreplacement cost after 25/30/35 khLH2 storage system cost propulsion system cost FCS costTCO sensitive to fuel cost: LNG optioncomparable to diesel and much cheaper than LH2LH2 break-even cost at 60% efficiency: 2360 /ton FCS may compete with LSMGO and LNGoptions at slightly below ultimate H2 cost target8
Harbor Tug – Engine and Fuel SystemsLNG: 25 m3 tank, below deckLSMGOLNGLH2-FC3.62003.62004.5Main Fuel, tSecondary Diesel, t483Main Fuel, m3Secondary Diesel, m3Fuel Consumption5010102510Main Fuel, g/kWhGenset Fuel, g/kWh221235EnginePropulsion, MWAuxiliary Genset, kWFuel StorageImage courtesy of WärtsiläDuty Cycle11952054153FCS Harbor TugA 4.5-MW FCS replaces 2 x 1.8-MW propulsionengines and 2 x 100-kW auxiliary gensets Ferry refueled with LH2 (or LNG) once every 4 d.LSMGO tank has excess capacity. 25 m3 LNG tank vs. 41 m3 LH2 tank Below deck location, tank size may not be acritical issue On LHV basis, LH2-FCS has higher efficiency ontug duty cycle: 57% vs. 38% for LSMGO andLNG systems91Boyd,E. and Macperson, D. Using Detailed Vessel Operating Data to Identify Energy-Saving Strategies, ITS 2014, Germany
Harbor Tug – TCOCAPEXPropulsion, /kWAuxiliary Genset, /kWNox Emission Control, /kWGearbox/Electric Motor, /kWPower Conditioning, /kWFuel Storage System, /m3Ship Upgrade, k OPEXMain Fuel, /tonSecondary Diesel, /tonMaintenance, k /yrComsummables, k /yrLifetime Overhaul, k 51206013,000875620700100400070089536526FCS Harbor TugFCS has lower initial cost: room to increaseefficiency and durability at higher cost OPEX includes current/interim/ultimate stackreplacement cost after 25/30/35 khPropulsion system cost LH2 storage systemcost FCS costTCO nearly equally sensitive to CAPEX and fuelcostsOn TCO basis, FCS competes with LSMGO andLNG engines at 4000/ton LH2 cost Break-even cost at 65% duty cycle efficiency:3450 /kg10
Break-Even Cost of Bunkered LH2Break-Even Cost of Bunkered LH2 Break-even cost of bunkered LH2 ( /ton) asfunction of LSMGO price (low/current/high)and FCS efficiency Container: 450 (low) – 1710 (current)– 3610 (high) Ferry: 430 (low) – 2010 (current)– 4310 (high) Harbor Tug: 1010 (low) – 2930 (current)– 5770 (high)LSMGO Price LSMGO price follows the Brent index moreclosely than natural gas (NG) LSMGO price is volatile Over the last 9 years, it has variedbetween 245/t (low), 700/t (current),and 1185/t (high).Tug5000 1180/tFerry100065%57%60%52%2000 700/t57%3000Container50%4000FCS EfficiencyLH2 Break-Even Cost, /ton6000 296/tLSMGOPrice011
Prospects of Hydrogen Fuel Cells in Maritime ApplicationsProspects of fuel cells depend on the types of maritime application Container ship: TCO dominated by fuel cost - difficult match for fuel cells at currentLSMGO price ( 700/t) and the ultimate target for hydrogen fuel cost ( 4,000/t) Ferry boat: TCO sensitive to fuel cost - a modest 0.30 increase in ticket price neededfor cost parity with LNG option Harbor tug: TCO equally sensitive to capex and fuel costs - fuel cells are competitivewith LSMGO and LNG engines at slightly below the ultimate cost targetHigher efficiency fuel cells raise the break-even cost of bunkered hydrogen relative to 700/t LSMGO price Container ship: 2030/ton Ferry boat: 2360/ton Harbor tug: 3450/tonHydrogen storage for maritime applications Storing H2 as liquid is the method of choiceOpportunities for further development Fuel cells for maritime auxiliary power Higher efficiency fuel cell systems taking advantages of lower projected costs Higher durability MEAs: advanced materials, system controls, optimized operatingconditions Availability and reliability of FCS BOP components including air management Methods of meeting and exceeding the critical FCTO target of 4/kg-H2 for light-dutyvehicles and medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks12
7.18.19.20.21.22.23.Wärtsilä ship design. tugs/lng-tugsPratt, J.W. and Klebanoff L. (2016). Feasibility of the SF-BREEZE: a Zero-Emission, Hydrogen Fuel Cell, High-Speed Passenger Ferry.SAND2016-9719.Hengst. P. (2017). Marlin Class LNG Propulsion, General Dynamics, -1854www.mandieselturbo.com: MAN B&W S70ME-C8.2-GI-TII Project guide. Electronically Controlled Dual Fuel Two-Stroke Engines.February 2014.Madsen, R.T et al. (2011). 144-car Ferry LNG Fuel Conversion Study. Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Prepared for the Washington StateFerries, Seattle, WA by The Glosten Associates.Flynn, C. et al. (2015). Project 702012 – M/V Matanuska Repower & Ship Systems Upgrades. Propulsion Engine Report. Prepared forAlaska Marine Highway System by The Glosten Associates.Germanischer Lloyd (2011). Costs and Benefits of LNG as Ship Fuel for Container Vessels. Key results from a GL and MAN joint study.www.sealng.org. LNG as a Marine Fuel – The Investment Opportunity. Sea\LNG Study – Newbuild 14,000 TEU Liner Vessel on AsiaUSWC Trade.Koenhardono, E. S. (2018). Comparative of Feasibility Study Between Diesel Mechanical Propulsion System and Combination of DieselEngine and Electric Motor Propulsion System on Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) 80 m, MATEC Web of Conferences, 177, 01011.www.epa.gov. (2009). Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines. Prepared for EPA by ICF InternationalEPA Contract No. EP-C06094 Work Assignment No. WA1-8.Sofras, E. and Prousalidis, J. (2014). Developing a new methodology for evaluating diesel - electric propulsion. Journal of MarineEngineering & Technology, Vol 13 (3), 63-92.Fu, R. et al. (2017). U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-68925 September 2017.Herbert Engineering Corp. (2013). LNG as Ship Fuel – Effects on Ship Design, Operations and supporting Infrastructure. TRB – MarineHighways Committee AW010 – Jan. 2013Newman, M. (2017). Competing on Price: Making LNG as a Bunker Fuel Commercially Viable. Platts 16th Annual LNG Conference,February 10.ERIA(2018), ‘Investment in LNG Supply Chain Infrastructure Estimation’,in Uemura T. and K. Ishigami (eds.), Formulating PolicyOptions for Promoting Natural Gas Utilization in the East Asia Summit Region Volume II: SupplySide Analysis.ERIA Research ProjectReport 2016-07b, Jakarta: ERIA, pp.67-80.Ribas, X. (2016). Cost analysis of LNG refuelling stations. European Commission, DG Move. GC.SST.2012.2-3 GA No. 321592Baker, (2013). Interior Gas Utility Fairbanks Gas Distribution Advancement Project Task 3: LNG Storage Tank Cost AnalysisHYDROGEN DELIVERY SCENARIO ANALYSIS MODEL (HDSAM), https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content hdsamErhorn, T., Schnack, P. And Kruger, M. (2014). LNG as Ship Fuel. DNV GL ID. 801156 and-22Leslie Eudy and Matthew Post, (2018). Fuel Cell Buses in U.S. Transit Fleets: Current Status 2018. National Renewable EnergyLaboratory, NREL/TP-5400-7220813
Preliminary Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Analysis Results1. Container ShipImage courtesy of General Dynamics NASSCO2. FerryImage courtesy of Washington State Ferries3. Harbor TugImage courtesy of WärtsiläFuel cells with LH2 storage could compete with low sulfur diesel and LNG ferries and tugs(if cost targets are met)14
replacement cost after 25/30/35 kh LH 2 storage system cost propulsion system cost FCS cost TCO dominated by fuel cost: LNG option slightly cheaper than diesel and much cheaper than LH 2 LH 2 break-even cost at 57% efficiency: 2030 /ton LNG fuel cost factors per MMBTU basis: 4 NG, 5 liquefaction, 4 transport and bunkering LSMGO LNG LH 2-FC
Total Cost of Ownership Total cost of ownership (TCO) is an assessment of all costs, direct and indirect, involved with an item over the useful life of that item. Most frequently, TCO is used at the beginning of the purchase process to evaluate which is the most cost-effective choice. When
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) summary Sample Report for Data Center Migration . Total cost of maintaining server(s) over 3 year(s) 2,652,375 Total hardware costs over 3 year(s) 11,493,625 Software cost Virtual Machine Costs Cost of Windows Data Center license per 2 Proc, 32
z find out total fixed cost, total variable cost, average fixed cost, average variable cost, average total cost and marginal cost. 18.1 DEFINITION OF COST AND COST FUNCTION Cost is defined as the expenditure incurred by a firm or producer to purchase or hire factors of production in order to produce a product. As you know, factors of
Total Costs of Ownership Calculations and Worksheets by Building 2. After filling in the necessary values, go to the Results tab to see a graphical comparison of the two adoption approaches in terms of cumulative cost. This Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) calculator provides enterprises with a framework for comparing the cost of building a new .
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) within IT could allow companies to more accurately budget their future costs (Smith, 2002). In this report, we use the term Total Cost of Ownership to refer to the direct and indirect costs of applications used to support lines of business. This description of TCO provides a balanced approach to emphasizing both the
One approach is to divide your total cost into six distinct components. Figure 1 illustrates this idea. Figure 1: Determining RPA’s total cost of ownership requires considering several different things. The six components are the following: The cost of purchasing your RPA software. The cost of creating your initial automated processes.
The total cost of owning any boiler is determined by more than the initial equipment cost. Total cost of ownership includes operating, maintenance, unplanned downtime, and years of service. When an external burner is preferred, the CBJT model offers the lowest total cost of ownership for this style burner and boiler combination.
Cycle Cost Analysis Sensitivity analysis of individual cost contributors Life cycle cost analysis to estimate total cost of ownership 3 . Primary Power/CHP Nominal Design Basis . 227 . 120 . 116 . Total. 16,674 . 8,527 . 6,354 . 6,217 . Cost per kW. net. 667 . 341 . 254 . 249 . 11 .
