A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Potential for Hydrogen Production 

from Key Renewable Resources 

in the United States 

A. Milbrandt and M. Mann 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-640-41134 

February 2007 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
Potential for Hydrogen Production 

from Key Renewable Resources 

in the United States 

A. Milbrandt and M. Mann 

Prepared under Task No. H278.2100 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-640-41134 

February 2007 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii 

Acknowledgments 

The study was performed by analysts at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory under contract number DE-AC36-99-GO10337. For their valuable 

contributions, the authors would like to acknowledge Donna Heimiller and Johanna Levene 

from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A special thanks to Fred Joseck from the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Program for his continued assistance, which made the 

completion of this study possible. 
iv 

Executive Summary 

This study was conducted to estimate the potential for producing hydrogen from key renewable 

resources (onshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and biomass) by county in the United States and to 

create maps that allow the reader to easily visualize the results. To accomplish this objective, 

the authors analyzed renewable resource data both statistically and graphically utilizing a stateof-the-art Geographic Information System (GIS), a computer-based information system used to 

create and visualize geographic information. 

 

Land-use and environmental exclusions were applied to represent the most viable resources 

across the country. While wind, solar, and biomass are considered major renewable resources, 

other renewable energy resources could also be used for hydrogen production, thus contributing 

to hydrogen development locally and regionally. These additional resources include offshore 

wind, concentrating solar power, geothermal, hydropower, photoelectrochemical, and 

photobiological resources. 

This study found that approximately 1 billion metric tons of hydrogen could be produced 

annually from wind, solar, and biomass resources in the United States. The greatest potential for 

producing hydrogen from these key renewable resources is in the Great Plains region. In 

addition, this research suggests that renewable hydrogen has the potential to displace gasoline 

consumption in most states if and when a number of technical and scientific barriers can be 

overcome. 
v 

Contents

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................vi 

List of Tables.........................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1

Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Wind Resources........................................................2 

Data Information .................................................................................................................... 2 

Exclusions .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................... 4

Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Solar Resources .......................................................7 

Data Information .................................................................................................................... 7 

Exclusions .............................................................................................................................. 7 

Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................... 8

Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Biomass Resources ...............................................10 

Data Information .................................................................................................................. 10 

Exclusions ............................................................................................................................ 10 

Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................... 11

Hydrogen Production Potential from Combined Renewable Resources: Wind, Solar, and 

Biomass..........................................................................................................................................13

Renewable Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel ...............................................................................18

Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................22

References............................................................................................................................................23 
vi 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Available windy lands in the United States............................................................. 2 

Figure 2. Environmental and land-use exclusions for U.S. wind resources............................ 3 

Figure 3. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, by county............................. 5 

Figure 4. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, per person............................ 6 

Figure 5. U.S. solar resource: flat-plate collector tilted at latitude......................................... 7 

Figure 6. Environmental and land-use exclusions for solar resources.................................... 8 

Figure 7. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, by county............................. 9 

Figure 8. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, per person............................ 9 

Figure 9. Available biomass resources in the United States.................................................. 10 

Figure 10. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, by county...................... 11 

Figure 11. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, per person..................... 12 

Figure 12. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, by county .................. 13 

Figure 13. Hydrogen production potential from dominant renewable resources.................... 14 

Figure 14. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, per person ................. 14 

Figure 15. Population of the United States, by county............................................................ 15 

Figure 16. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources.................................... 17 

Figure 17. U.S. gasoline consumption by county, 2002.......................................................... 18 

Figure 18. Renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption, 

by county................................................................................................................ 19 

Figure 19. Renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption, 

by state ................................................................................................................... 20 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Wind Resource Capacity Factor Used in This Study............................................... 4 

Table 2. Hydrogen Production Potential from Renewable Resources, by State .................. 16 

Table 3. Renewable Hydrogen Production Potential Relative to Gasoline Consumption 

and Population........................................................................................................ 21 
1 

Introduction 

Hydrogen is the simplest element and most plentiful gas in the universe. Today, most hydrogen 

is produced from fossil fuels, but to most effectively impact the emissions and energy import 

balances associated with transportation fuels, hydrogen must be produced from domestically 

available renewable resources such as wind, solar, and biomass. 

 

There are many options for producing hydrogen from renewable resources. This study 

considers hydrogen production using wind and solar electrolysis as well as gasification and 

steam methane reforming methods for converting biomass to hydrogen. 

The electrolysis process involves the use of wind- or solar-generated electricity. In this study, a 

wind turbine is assumed to be used to produce electricity from the wind, and photovoltaic 

(solar electric) systems are assumed to be used to produce electricity from solar resources. 

This renewably produced electricity is then used in an electrolyzer, a device that uses 

electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. 

Biomass gasification is the conversion, by partial oxidation at high temperature, of a 

carbonaceous feedstock (agricultural and woody residues) into a gaseous fuel which is then 

reformed to produce hydrogen. In the steam methane reforming process, high-temperature 

steam and a nickel catalyst are used to produce hydrogen from a methane source (such as 

landfill gas, animal manure, and wastewater sludge). 

The objective of this study was to estimate the potential for producing hydrogen from key 

renewable resources (onshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and biomass) by county for the United 

States, and to create maps for easy visualization of the results. To accomplish this objective, 

renewable resource data are analyzed both statistically and graphically utilizing a state-of-theart Geographic Information System (GIS), a computer-based information system used to create, 

manipulate, analyze, and visualize geographic information. 

 

Land-use and environmental exclusions were applied to this study to represent the most viable 

resources across the country. While wind, solar, and biomass are considered major renewable 

resources, other renewable energy resources could also be used for hydrogen production, thus 

contributing to hydrogen development locally and regionally. Future analyses could include 

studying the use of offshore wind, concentrating solar power, geothermal, hydropower, 

photoelectrochemical, and photobiological resources for hydrogen production. 
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Wind Resources 

Data Information

This analysis used updated wind resource data where available at the time the analysis was 

completed for California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, 

West Virginia and Wyoming. These data were then combined with low-resolution 1987 U.S. 

wind resource data. The grid cell resolution of these data varies from 200 m2

–1 km2 for the 

high-resolution data and is 25 km2 for the low-resolution 1987 wind data (Figure 1). 

The study considers areas with class 3 annual average wind speeds and greater, at 50 m above 

ground. These areas are suitable for most utility-scale wind turbine applications, whereas class 

2 areas are marginal for utility-scale applications (some may be suitable for rural applications). 

Class 1 areas are generally not suitable for wind turbine installations. The degree of certainty 

with which the wind power class can be specified depends on three factors: the abundance and 

quality of wind data, the complexity of the terrain, and the geographical variability of the 

resource.1

Figure 1. Available windy lands in the United States 

 

2 

1

 Wind data and maps, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html, 

March 2005. 
Exclusions

The following topographic, land use and environmental exclusions were applied to the 

analysis of the potential for hydrogen production from wind in this study:

 Completely excluded were areas with slopes greater than 20% for the high-resolution data. 

These areas maybe too steep for siting wind turbines.

 Environmental and land-use exclusions (Figure 2) were defined to account for lands 

where wind energy development would be prohibited or severely restricted. 

- 100% excluded: All National Park Service areas; Fish and Wildlife Service lands; 

all federal lands with a special designation (parks, wilderness, wilderness and 

study areas, wildlife refuges, wildlife areas, recreational areas, battlefields, 

monuments, conservation areas, recreational areas, and wild and scenic rivers); 

conservation areas; water; wetlands; urban areas; and airports/airfields. 

- 50% excluded: The remaining Forest Service and Department of Defense lands 

and non-ridge-crest forests. 

 Entirely excluded: The 3-km area surrounding 100% environmental and land-use 

exclusions, except for water bodies.

Figure 2. Environmental and land-use exclusions for U.S. wind resources 

Additional analysis was performed for the high- and low-resolution data sets: 

 Terrain (low-resolution data set only): The low-resolution 1987 wind resource data have 

assigned to each 25 km2 grid cell a terrain exposure factor that represents the type of wind 

3 
4 

climate for exposed features in that grid cell. The terrain factors are 5% exposed for ridgecrest wind, 35% or 65% for hilly areas, and 90% for generally flat terrain. 

 Minimum density (high-resolution data set only): Minimum density criteria of 5 km2 per 

100 km2 of class 3 or better wind resources were applied to the high-resolution data. The 

purpose of this density analysis is to eliminate small, isolated wind resource areas with a 

low likelihood of development. 

Analysis Methodology 

After the exclusions were applied to the wind resource information, the low- and highresolution data were merged together to create the final wind resource file used to summarize 

the data by county (Figure 1). Installed nameplate capacity was subsequently calculated, 

assuming 5 MW/km2

 conversion, and applied to the class 3 or better lands. Table 1 below 

shows the capacity factor2

 used for this study. 

Table 1. Wind Resource Capacity Factor Used in This Study 

Class Year Capacity Factor

3 2000 0.2 

4 2000 0.251 

5 2000 0.3225 

6 2000 0.394 

7 2000 0.394 

 Source: Power Technologies Energy Data Book3

An average hydrogen production rate of 58.8 kWh/kg hydrogen was applied to the final wind 

dataset, and the total kilograms of hydrogen per county per year were calculated. This hydrogen 

production rate assumes a 66.3% efficient electrolysis system (higher heating value basis). 

Typical energy requirements for electrolysis systems range from 53–70 kWh/kg (Ivy 2004), and 

larger systems have higher efficiencies. The average of the efficiencies of today’s electrolyzers 

from Proton, Avalence, Teledyne, Stuart, and Norsk-Hydro is 58.8 kWh/kg. 

Figure 3 illustrates the potential to produce hydrogen from wind in the United States, 

normalized by county area. Normalization is dividing one numeric value by another to 

minimize differences in values based on the size of areas. In this study, normalizing the 

hydrogen from renewable resources (wind, solar or biomass) by county areas, yields hydrogen 

from these resources per unit area (km2

). This allows transforming the data’s measurements so 

that they can be compared regardless of the size of the counties. For example, a map of the raw 

hydrogen potential from all renewable resources by county would reveal that many large 

counties in the West have more resources than most of the counties east of the Mississippi 

River. A normalized map (Figure 12) reveals that, once the size of the county is factored out, 

some small counties in the East have similar values as some large counties west of the 

Mississippi River. 

 

2

 Capacity factor is defined as the wind turbine's actual energy output divided by the rated maximum turbine 

output for the year. When the wind turbine's capacity factor at a given average annual wind speed is known, it 

allows a reliable calculation of the expected energy output per year. A reasonable capacity factor is 0.25 to 0.30. 

A very good capacity factor is 0.40. 

3

 Power Technologies Energy Data Book, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/, March 2005 
 

Figure 4 shows the amount of hydrogen that could be produced from wind per person in each 

county. Less populated counties in the Great Plains combined with very good wind resources 

define the high hydrogen potential from wind resources per person in this region. 

Figure 3. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, by county 

5 
Figure 4. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, per person 

6 
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Solar Resources 

Data Information 

This analysis uses solar resources available for nontracking flat-plate collectors oriented 

toward the south at latitude tilt. Estimates of annual average daily total global radiation falling 

on these collectors are modeled using inputs derived from satellite and surface cloud cover 

observations as well as other key meteorological variables. The cloud cover observations are 

on a 40-km2

 resolution grid representing the period 1985–1991. Values range from about 2.2 

kWh/m2/day in portions of Alaska to about 7.0 kWh/m2/day in portions of the Southwestern 

United States (Figure 5).4

Exclusions

These environmental and land use exclusions were applied to the solar resources (Figure 6):

 100% excluded: All National Park Service areas; Fish and Wildlife Service lands; all 

federal lands with a specific designation (parks, wilderness, wilderness and study areas, 

wildlife refuges, wildlife areas, recreational areas, battlefields, monuments, conservation 

areas, recreational areas, and wild and scenic rivers), conservation areas, water, 

wetlands, and airports/airfields.

 Also 100% excluded: A 3-km area surrounding environmental and land-use exclusions, 

except for water bodies. 

Figure 5. U.S. solar resource: flat-plate collector tilted at latitude 

 

7 

4

 Solar data and maps, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html, 

March 2006 
Figure 6. Environmental and land-use exclusions for solar resources 

Analysis Methodology 

It was assumed that any given 40-km by 40-km cell will have no more than 10% of its land area 

dedicated to photovoltaic development, and only 30% of this area will be covered with solar 

panels. The photovoltaic solar panels are assumed to have a solar-to-electricity conversion 

efficiency of 10%. As with the analysis of the hydrogen production potential via wind 

electrolysis, the electricity requirement of the electrolysis system was assumed to be 58.8 

kWh/kg hydrogen, or approximately 66.3% on a higher heating value basis. 

Figure 7 depicts the hydrogen production potential from solar-driven electrolysis normalized by 

county; the Southwest is shown to have the highest potential. Similar to the wind analysis 

results, counties with very good solar resources and low population count (such as the Rocky 

Mountain-Great Plains region) clearly show high potential for producing hydrogen from solar 

resources, per person (Figure 8). 

8 
Figure 7. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, by county 

Figure 8. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, per person 

9 
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Biomass 

Resources 

Data Information 

The assessment of the hydrogen production potential from biomass is based on a recently 

published study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of biomass resource 

availability in the United States by county. It includes the following feedstock categories: 

agricultural residues (crop residues and animal manure); wood residues (forest residues, 

primary and secondary mill residues, urban wood waste); municipal discards (methane 

emissions from landfills and domestic wastewater treatment); and dedicated energy crops 

(switchgrass on Conservation Reserve Program lands). Each feedstock category was processed 

using the appropriate methodology, as described in the milestone report (Milbrandt 2005), to 

estimate the biomass potential by county depicted in Figure 9.5

Figure 9. Available biomass resources in the United States 

Exclusions

Because of the wide range of feedstock types, biomass is available from many sources and has a 

broad geographic distribution. Therefore, it is difficult to define land use and environmental 

exclusions that would be applicable to all categories. Additional study is needed to improve the 

spatial distribution of biomass resources to define excluded areas appropriately.

 

10 

5

 Biomass data and maps, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/biomass.html, March 2006 
Analysis Methodology 

Different conversion rates of biomass to hydrogen were used, depending on the feedstock. For 

crops and woody residues, a relationship formula of 13.8 kg bone dry weight (BDW)/kg

hydrogen was applied. This rate is based on the conversion of lignocellulosic plant material to 

hydrogen via gasification analyzed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Analysis 

(H2A) Group.6 For gaseous feedstock (methane emissions from manure management, landfills, 

and domestic wastewater treatment), a conversion of 2.34 kg methane/kg hydrogen was used. 

This value represents 85% conversion efficiency from the stoichiometric maximum possible 

from steam reforming of methane. Figure 10 illustrates the results of this analysis. Counties in 

the Midwest, along the Mississippi River, and in the Southeast show the highest potential for 

hydrogen production from biomass as a result of the large quantities of crop, forest, and primary 

mill residues. High amounts of secondary mill and urban wood residues, as well as methane 

emission from landfills and domestic wastewater treatment, contribute to the high potential for 

hydrogen production from biomass in the New York metropolitan area. The counties in the 

Midwest and Great Plains with their low population counts and good biomass resources 

contribute to the high amount of hydrogen from biomass per person (Figure 11).

Figure 10. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, by county 

 

11 

6 The Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) Project: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html
Figure 11. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, per person 

12 
Hydrogen Production Potential from Combined Renewable 

Resources: Wind, Solar, and Biomass 

The results from the previous three analyses were combined to illustrate the total amount of 

hydrogen that could be produced from renewable resources by county (Figure 12). The large 

quantities of wind, solar, and biomass resources in the Great Plains are the reason for the high 

potential for hydrogen production from renewable resources in this region. Figure 13 gives 

further details on whether the highest amount of hydrogen in each county comes from wind, 

solar, or biomass—in other words, which one is the dominant renewable resource. 

Wind is the leading resource for hydrogen production in many counties in the central states 

and solar is a dominant resource in the rest of the country; the highest values are in the 

Southwest. Hydrogen from biomass has higher values than hydrogen from wind and solar in 

only a few counties—New York and Miami metropolitan areas—because of activities related 

to high concentrations of people, such as the generation of waste. The results by state are 

presented in Table 2 and Figure 16. The amount of hydrogen from combined renewable 

resources per person is shown in Figure 14, and Figure 15 illustrates the geographic 

distribution of the population. The Rocky Mountain-Great Plains region shows the highest 

potential quantity of renewable hydrogen per person because of its low population count and 

large amount of renewable resources. 

Figure 12. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, by county 

13 
Figure 13. Hydrogen production potential from dominant renewable resources 

Figure 14. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, per person 

14 
Figure 15. Population of the United States, by county

15 
16 

Table 2. Hydrogen Production Potential from Renewable Resources, by State 

State Hydrogen from Biomass per km2 (thousand kg) Hydrogen from Biomass (million kg) Hydrogen from Solar per km2 (thousand kg) Hydrogen from Solar (million kg) Hydrogen from Wind per km2 (thousand kg) Hydrogen from Win

(million kg) 

Alabama 293 588 6,003 12,014 0 0 Alaska 5 73 901 51,887 19 868 Arizona 7 142 1,413 27,433 28 727 Arkansas 394 729 6,618 12,102 145 308 California 314 1,165 4,536 29,926 215 2,309 Colorado 93 289 5,422 24,036 2,244 10,669 Connecticut 37 64 621 1,004 1 1 Delaware 36 55 228 399 1 2 District of Columbia 24 4 27 5 0 0 Florida 254 557 5,475 11,319 0 0 Georgia 712 675 14,070 13,475 31 25 Hawaii 30 65 323 1,365 34 17 Idaho 73 225 3,605 16,462 207 1,160 Illinois 1,590 2,408 8,544 12,281 6,763 10,414 Indiana 1,086 1,148 7,489 7,600 22 24 Iowa 1,782 2,624 8,626 12,691 8,745 12,996 Kansas 582 1,112 10,256 20,962 11,642 24,738 Kentucky 605 570 10,200 8,914 11 11 Louisiana 476 749 5,231 9,827 0 0 Maine 51 235 1,143 6,271 52 355 Maryland 258 219 1,823 1,935 32 42 Massachusetts 131 150 932 1,499 172 66 Michigan 449 759 5,988 10,855 857 1,328 Minnesota 975 1,902 6,918 16,800 8,055 16,605 Mississippi 586 891 7,356 11,048 0 0 Missouri 962 1,411 10,314 16,162 722 1,199 Montana 29 187 4,527 30,357 4,535 30,603 Nebraska 716 1,120 8,785 18,925 9,211 19,551 Nevada 13 52 1,541 24,684 51 796 New Hampshire 50 101 710 1,686 39 142 New Jersey 654 293 1,518 1,424 2 2 New Mexico 14 71 3,438 33,237 1,192 10,248 New York 1,364 682 4,469 9,368 431 938 North Carolina 581 779 8,379 10,786 47 47 North Dakota 387 1,249 4,513 15,505 7,364 25,340 Ohio 786 934 6,776 8,257 51 44 Oklahoma 130 311 7,351 17,425 6,762 16,256 Oregon 60 212 2,560 17,997 260 1,624 Pennsylvania 407 625 5,102 8,926 68 132 Rhode Island 36 21 336 198 5 1 South Carolina 209 355 4,051 7,013 5 8 South Dakota 360 756 6,006 18,368 10,689 32,756 Tennessee 395 492 7,957 9,141 41 42 Texas 507 1,201 24,935 68,564 10,938 26,869 Utah 21 65 2,377 17,723 75 635 Vermont 29 52 971 1,771 94 177 Virginia 993 430 10,383 8,250 80 81 Washington 94 378 2,514 11,393 296 1,260 West Virginia 145 144 4,239 4,811 94 150 Wisconsin 502 866 5,478 11,080 717 1,351 Wyoming 3 24 2,051 22,089 1,890 20,442 U.S. Total 20,292 30,209 265,028 717,249 94,933 273,361 
Hydrogen Potential from Renewable Resources

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Figure 16. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources 

17 
Renewable Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel 

A study was conducted to estimate the amount of gasoline consumption that could potentially 

be displaced by renewable hydrogen in each county. Gasoline consumption data for 2002 were 

obtained from the Federal Highway Administration7

 to generate the map of Figure 17. The 

results of this analysis show that the most populated counties cannot produce enough hydrogen 

from renewable resources to completely displace their high gasoline consumption. However, 

they could, in most cases, rely on hydrogen from surrounding counties (Figure 18). Renewable 

hydrogen in these counties (urban areas) could displace less than 50% of their gasoline 

consumption. 

In contrast, counties in the Rocky Mountain-Great Plains region, because of their relatively low 

gasoline consumption and high amounts of renewable resources, have the potential to displace 

more than 40–50 times their current gasoline demand. At the state level, only Connecticut, the 

District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lack the 

resources to completely displace gasoline with renewably generated hydrogen (Figure 19). 

Table 3 presents the accompanying values. 

Figure 17. U.S. gasoline consumption by county, 2002 

 

18 

7

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2002, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs02/
19 

Figure 18. Renewable hydrogen production potential 

 relative to gasoline consumption, by county 
Renewable Hydrogen Potential Relative to Gasoline Consumption by State

0

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware

District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois IndianaIowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North DakotaOhio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tenn

Million

Hydrogen from Renew able Resources (kg) 2002 Gasoline Consumption (gallons)

Figure 19. Renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption, by st

20 
21 

Table 3. Renewable Hydrogen Production Potential 

Relative to Gasoline Consumption and Population 

State Hydrogen from Renewable Resources 

(million kg) 

2002 Gasoline Consumption 

(million gallons) 

2000 Population 

(thousand people) 

Alabama 12,602 2,624 4,447 

Alaska 52,828 260 627 

Arizona 28,302 2,605 5,131 

Arkansas 13,139 1,467 2,673 

California 33,401 15,699 33,872 

Colorado 34,994 2,106 4,301 

Connecticut 1,069 1,590 3,406 

Delaware 457 426 784 

District of Columbia 9 167 572 

Florida 11,876 7,999 15,982 

Georgia 14,175 4,961 8,186 

Hawaii 1,447 446 1,212 

Idaho 17,847 668 1,294 

Illinois 25,103 5,212 12,419 

Indiana 8,772 3,188 6,080 

Iowa 28,311 1,617 2,926 

Kansas 46,812 1,230 2,688 

Kentucky 9,496 2,158 4,042 

Louisiana 10,576 2,349 4,469 

Maine 6,860 720 1,275 

Maryland 2,196 2,568 5,296 

Massachusetts 1,714 2,851 6,349 

Michigan 12,942 5,170 9,938 

Minnesota 35,307 2,727 4,919 

Mississippi 11,939 1,632 2,845 

Missouri 18,772 3,164 5,595 

Montana 61,147 509 902 

Nebraska 39,595 889 1,711 

Nevada 25,532 1,004 1,998 

New Hampshire 1,929 715 1,236 

New Jersey 1,719 4,095 8,414 

New Mexico 43,557 952 1,819 

New York 10,988 5,808 18,976 

North Carolina 11,612 4,315 8,049 

North Dakota 42,094 366 642 

Ohio 9,236 5,295 11,353 

Oklahoma 33,993 1,796 3,451 

Oregon 19,833 1,572 3,421 

Pennsylvania 9,683 5,241 12,281 

Rhode Island 220 404 1,048 

South Carolina 7,376 2,346 4,012 

South Dakota 51,880 456 755 

Tennessee 9,675 3,090 5,689 

Texas 96,633 11,410 20,852 

Utah 18,423 1,038 2,233 

Vermont 1,999 346 609 

Virginia 8,761 3,888 7,079 

Washington 13,030 2,760 5,894 

West Virginia 5,105 820 1,808 

Wisconsin 13,297 2,591 5,364 

Wyoming 42,555 354 494 

U.S. Total 1,020,819 137,664 281,422 
22 

Conclusions 

About 1 billion metric tons of hydrogen could be produced from wind, solar, and biomass 

resources annually in the United States. The Great Plains emerge as the area with the highest 

potential for producing hydrogen from these key renewable resources. Each county in this 

region could produce more than 30 million kg of hydrogen per year (greater than 150,000 

kg/km2

). Moreover, because they have fewer environmental and land-use exclusions and low 

populations, most counties in the Great Plains have the highest hydrogen production potential 

per capita, more than 100,000 kg of hydrogen per person. Results are shown in terms of 

kilograms of hydrogen, because 1 kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same energy as 

1 gallon of gasoline, both on a lower heating value basis. 

Finally, this research suggests that renewable hydrogen has the potential to displace gasoline 

consumption in most states. However, the infrastructure needed to enable the widespread use 

of hydrogen as a transportation fuel is not available, resources are located outside demand 

areas, and the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources face many technical 

and economic hurdles. All these barriers must be overcome if hydrogen is to fuel a sustainable 

transportation economy. 
23 

References 

Elliott, D.L., Holliday, C.G., Barchet, W.R., Foote, H.P., Sandusky, W.F. 1987. Wind Energy 

Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH100093-4. Produced by the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

George, R., Maxwell, E. 1999. “High-Resolution Maps of Solar Collector Performance Using 

A Climatological Solar Radiation Model.” Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference, 

American Solar Energy Society, Portland, ME. 

Heimiller, D.M., Haymes, S.R. 2001. Geographic Information Systems in Support of Wind 

Energy Activities at NREL. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

 

Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) Project, December 2006: 

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html

Ivy, J. April 2004. Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production. National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

Levene, J., Mann, M., Margolis, R., Milbrandt, A. 2005. Analysis of Hydrogen Production 

from Renewable Electricity Sources. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

Maxwell, E., George, R., Wilcox, S. “A Climatological Solar Radiation Model.” Proceedings 

of the 1998 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Albuquerque, NM. 

Milbrandt, A., 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability 

in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

Milne, T., Elam, C., Evans, R. 2002. Hydrogen from Biomass – State of the Art and Research 

Challenges. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2006. Solar data and maps: 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html, Golden, CO. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2006. Wind data and maps: 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html, Golden, CO. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2006. Biomass data and maps: 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/biomass.html, Golden, CO. 

Power Technologies Energy Data Book, December 2005: 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/. 

Short, W., Blair, N., Heimiller, D. 2005. Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from 

Wind and Competing Sources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 
24
F1146-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

February 2007 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Potential for Hydrogen Production from Key Renewable Resources 

in the United States 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/SR-640-41134 

5e. TASK NUMBER

H278.2100 

6. AUTHOR(S)

A. Milbrandt and M. Mann 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR-640-41134 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NREL Technical Monitor: 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This study was conducted to estimate the potential for hydrogen production from key renewable resources (onshore 

wind, solar photovoltaic, and biomass) by county in the United States and to create maps that allow the reader to 

easily visualize the results. To accomplish this objective, the authors analyzed renewable resource data both 

statistically and graphically utilizing a state-of-the-art Geographic Information System (GIS), a computer-based 

information system used to create and visualize geographic information. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

hydrogen; potential; renewable resources; United States; resource map; GIS; National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory; NREL 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18