Technical Report

NREL/TP-560-42773

February 2009

Hydrogen Resource Assessment

Hydrogen Potential from Coal, Natural 

Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro Power

Anelia Milbrandt and Margaret Mann
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-560-42773

February 2009

Hydrogen Resource Assessment

Hydrogen Potential from Coal, Natural 

Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro Power

Anelia Milbrandt and Margaret Mann

Prepared under Task No. H278.2100
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 (DOE) National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The authors would like to thank Johanna Levene from 

NREL and Stephen Lasher from TIAX LCC for their review and recommendations. The authors 

also extend a special thanks to Fred Joseck from DOE’s Hydrogen Program for his continued 

assistance, making the completion of this study possible.
iv

List of Acronyms

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon dioxide

EIA Energy Information Administration

GIS Geographic Information System

H2A U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Analysis Group

kg Kilogram

SMR Steam methane reforming

Tonne Metric ton

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Conversions

Hydrogen from coal: 7.6 kg of coal/kg hydrogen

Hydrogen from natural gas: 4.5 normal cubic meters/kg of hydrogen

Hydrogen from nuclear and hydro power: 58.8 kWh/kg of hydrogen

On average, about 3 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 kg of hydrogen 

1 kg of hydrogen can potentially displace 4.35 kg or 1.58 gallons of gasoline 
v

Executive Summary

As an energy carrier, hydrogen can be produced from any primary energy source. Currently, 

most hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reforming. Other sources like coal and 

biomass can also be used to generate hydrogen through gasification. Electricity, once produced 

from nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, or geothermal, can generate hydrogen through electrolysis. 

Given that this wide diversity of energy resources is geographically specific, it’s important to 

understand where resources are located so that appropriate plans can be made for hydrogen 

production technologies and infrastructure.

The objective of this study is to estimate the hydrogen production potential from coal, natural 

gas, nuclear, and hydro power by county in the United States, and to create maps for easy 

visualization of the results. To accomplish this, fossil fuels production and power generation data 

are analyzed both statistically and graphically using a state-of-the-art Geographic Information 

System (GIS), a computer-based information system used to create, manipulate, analyze, and 

visualize geographic information. In addition to estimating the hydrogen potential from the 

sources mentioned above, the study discussed the major factors that need to be considered when 

choosing a site for a hydrogen production facility. These include the availability of feedstock, 

distribution infrastructure, and water. The study concluded that regions with high hydrogen 

potential, such as the Rocky Mountain States, have access to existing distribution infrastructure, 

but may not have sufficient water availability. 

Previous work by the authors (Milbrandt and Mann 2007) estimated the hydrogen production 

potential from key renewable resources (wind, solar, and biomass) in the United States at about 

1,000 million tonnes per year (far more than would be needed to fuel all cars in the United 

States), and identified the Great Plains as the region with the highest potential. The present study 

is a continuation of that work in an attempt to provide a comprehensive picture of all resources 

currently available for hydrogen production in the country.

The study estimated that more than 72 million tonnes of hydrogen can be produced from coal

and natural gas resources, nuclear, and hydro power per year (considering only 30% of their total 

current annual production). Leading states include Wyoming (26% of total potential), Texas 

(16%), West Virginia (8%), Kentucky (6%), and New Mexico (5%). The United States 

consumed about 396 million tonnes of gasoline in 2007 (IEA 2008), therefore the amount of 

hydrogen derived from these sources could displace about 80% of this consumption1

 1 1 kg of hydrogen can potentially displace 4.35 kg or 1.58 gallons of gasoline.

. Although 

this study uses current production of coal/natural gas and electricity generation from

nuclear/hydro power plants rather than the total amount of resources available or power 

generation capacity, it helps highlight opportunities for first-generation hydrogen production 

during the transition period to a hydrogen economy.
vi
vii

Table of Contents

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................viii

List of Tables..............................................................................................................................viii

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

Hydrogen Production Potential................................................................................................... 2

Hydrogen from Coal ................................................................................................................... 2

Hydrogen from Natural Gas........................................................................................................ 4

Hydrogen from Nuclear and Hydro Power................................................................................. 5

Hydrogen from All Resources.................................................................................................... 9

Integrated Hydrogen Production Analysis............................................................................... 11

Distribution Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 11

Water Availability..................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 17

References.................................................................................................................................... 19
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. U.S. coal supply regions.................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Hydrogen potential from coal resources by county......................................................... 3

Figure 3. U.S. natural gas supply regions....................................................................................... 4

Figure 4. Hydrogen potential from natural gas by county.............................................................. 5

Figure 5. U.S. nuclear power plants................................................................................................ 6

Figure 6. U.S. hydro power plants.................................................................................................. 7

Figure 7. Hydrogen potential from nuclear power.......................................................................... 8

Figure 8. Hydrogen potential from hydro power............................................................................ 8

Figure 9. Hydrogen potential from coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro power as a percentage of 

total hydrogen potential ................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 10. Hydrogen potential from coal, production facilities, and railroads............................. 12

Figure 11. Hydrogen potential from natural gas, production facilities, and pipelines.................. 12

Figure 12. Hydrogen potential from nuclear and hydro power, production facilities, and 

transmission lines.......................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 13. Average water needs for centralized hydrogen production by county, based on 

resource......................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 14. Water use by county, 2000 .......................................................................................... 15

Figure 15. Thermoelectric water use by county, 2000.................................................................. 15

Figure 16. Irrigation water use by county, 2000........................................................................... 16

List of Tables

Table 1. U.S. Hydrogen Potential from Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro Power 

(tonnes/year) ................................................................................................................................... 9
1

Introduction

Today’s energy supply system includes electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and diesel fuel, serving 

as energy carriers and produced by the conversion of energy sources such as coal, oil, natural 

gas, biomass, solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Hydrogen is considered a potential energy 

carrier that could contribute to a more sustainable energy supply system because it can be 

produced from any primary energy source. There are roughly 8 million tonnes of hydrogen

produced in the United States annually, used primarily for petroleum refining, and ammonia and 

methanol production. If used as a transportation fuel, this amount of hydrogen could power 

approximately 20-30 million cars (NHA 2008). 

The objective of this study is to estimate the quantity of hydrogen that could be produced from 

coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro power by county in the United States, and to create maps for 

easy visualization of the results. To accomplish this, fossil fuel production and power generation 

data are analyzed both statistically and graphically using a state-of-the-art GIS, a computer-based 

information system used to create, manipulate, analyze, and visualize geographic information.

Nearly all of the hydrogen in the United States today is produced by steam reforming of natural 

gas, and this method of production is expected to dominate for the near term. Coal is by far the 

most abundant and available fossil fuel in the country and technologies for gasifying coal to 

produce hydrogen are in relatively advanced states of development. Another method to produce 

hydrogen is via electrolysis of water—splitting water with an electric current. Electrolysis offers 

great locational advantages for either distributed production at fueling stations or other points of 

use, or at electrical generation facilities as a way of using excess power generation at night or 

during other off-peak periods. For example, both nuclear power plants and, to a lesser extent, 

hydroelectric power plants operate as base-load facilities and therefore have the potential to

supply electricity for hydrogen production during off-peak-demand periods.

One of the drawbacks of producing hydrogen from coal and natural gas is the production of 

carbon dioxide during the reforming process, meaning carbon capture will be an important 

operation for environmentally benign utilization of these resources in the future. Likewise, the 

environmental profile of hydrogen produced via electrolysis will depend on the feedstock and 

configuration of the power plant. Although renewable electrolysis is not cost effective today, it is 

considered a viable option for the future.
2

Hydrogen Production Potential

Hydrogen from Coal

Hydrogen produced from coal is considered a promising near- to mid-term opportunity in the 

United States due to widely-available, inexpensive coal resources and existing gasification 

technologies.

Coal is by far our most abundant remaining fossil fuel resource. The United States has the 

world’s largest proven reserves of coal—about 247 billion tonnes estimated at the end of 2006 

(BP 2007). The United States produced about 1 billion tonnes in 2006 and annual production has 

been steady at about that amount in recent years. Figure 1 depicts the United States’ coal supply 

regions. Leading states in coal production are Wyoming, West Virginia, and Kentucky. In 

addition to resource availability, coal is a relatively inexpensive resource. In 2006, on a dollarsper-million-Btu basis, natural gas was the most expensive fossil fuel ($6.94), petroleum was 

second ($6.23), and coal was least expensive ($1.69) (EIA 2008).

Hydrogen and electricity can be co-produced from coal via gasification, followed by reforming 

of a portion of the produced gas, and combusting the remaining gas in a combined cycle. After 

hydrogen separation, carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured and sequestered if the coal plant is 

located close enough to a suitable sequestration site so that CO2 transport is not prohibitive.

Figure 1. U.S. coal supply regions
3

To estimate the hydrogen potential from coal, data on coal production in 2005 by county was 

obtained from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). It is unrealistic to assume that all of 

this production would be used for hydrogen; therefore, a conservative assumption of 30% was 

used in this study. A relationship formula of 7.6 kg of coal per kg of hydrogen was applied,

based on the conversion of coal to hydrogen via gasification according to the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) Group.

2

Table 1

Therefore, the amount of hydrogen that 

could potentially be produced from coal annually in the United States is about 40 million tonnes. 

This estimate assumes that coal production would keep steady as it has been during the recent 

years (about 1 billion tonnes annually) and that only 30% of this resource is dedicated to 

hydrogen production. States with the highest potential are Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, 

and Pennsylvania (see ). It is important to note that not all areas with coal resources, 

illustrated in Figure 1, are currently producing. Figure 2 depicts the counties with coal mining 

activities in 2005 and their hydrogen potential. As this analysis includes only the currently 

producing counties, the map below does not mirror the coal supply regions map. 

Figure 2. Hydrogen potential from coal resources by county

 2 Most of the hydrogen production assumptions used in this report are derived from the H2A model. The H2A model 

was developed to provide a consistent way to analyze and compare prospective hydrogen production and delivery 

technologies. It analyzes discounted cash-flow hydrogen production costs using a standard calculation methodology 

and clearly specified assumptions. The key attribute of H2A is that the methodology and assumptions all were 

developed with extensive input and acceptance from hydrogen stakeholders. H2A is available free on the Web at 

www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html.
4

Hydrogen from Natural Gas

Today, almost all hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Natural gas is a gaseous fossil fuel 

consisting mainly of methane (CH4), some higher hydrocarbons, and CO2. Hydrogen is produced 

from natural gas via steam methane reforming (SMR)3, a widely used process in the industry 

today. Depending on the price of natural gas and electricity, carbon capture and sequestration 

constraints, and the availability of viable hydrogen transportation and storage technologies, 

steam reforming of natural gas may be the least expensive means of producing hydrogen.

However, there are still some challenges facing the technology such as improved reforming 

efficiencies, more durable reforming catalysts, and reduced carbon sequestration costs. 

The United States’ natural gas withdrawals in 2006 were 23.5 trillion cubic feet and have been 

relatively steady at that amount in recent years. Proven reserves were estimated at about 209

trillion cubic feet at the end of 2006 (BP 2007). Figure 3 illustrates the location of natural gas 

supply regions. Demands on natural gas resources are expected to increase, indicating future use 

of natural gas for hydrogen production may compete with use for home heating, electrical 

generation, plastics and chemicals manufacture, and perhaps natural gas vehicles.

Figure 3. U.S. natural gas supply regions

 3 Steam reforming converts methane (and other hydrocarbons in natural gas) into hydrogen and carbon monoxide by 

reaction with steam over a nickel catalyst. 
5

The hydrogen potential from natural gas was estimated using data from the EIA on natural gas 

withdrawals by state in 2005. This information was disaggregated to county level using the 

location of gas wells. The number of wells within each county and their percentage of all wells 

within the state was calculated, and the state level information on natural gas withdrawals was 

distributed based on these percentages. A relationship formula of 4.5 normal cubic meters per kg

of hydrogen was applied based on the conversion of natural gas to hydrogen via SMR according 

to the H2A Group. The amount of hydrogen that could potentially be produced from natural gas

annually in the United States is estimated at about 27 million tonnes. This estimate assumes that 

natural gas production would keep steady as it has been during the recent years (about 23.5 

trillion cubic feet annually) and, similarly to coal, only 30% of this production is used for 

hydrogen. States with the highest production potential are Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and New 

Mexico (see Table 1). It is important to note that not all areas with natural gas resources, 

illustrated in Figure 3, are currently producing. Figure 4 depicts the counties with natural gas 

drilling activities in 2005 and their hydrogen potential. As this analysis includes only the 

currently producing counties, the map below does not mirror the natural gas supply regions map.

Figure 4. Hydrogen potential from natural gas by county

Hydrogen from Nuclear and Hydro Power

Nuclear power plants are a good source of base-load power generation and are generally 

operated at full capacity around the clock, regardless of power demand levels. As such, systems 

with large nuclear components may generate excess power at night or other low-demand periods. 

This power could be used for generating hydrogen via electrolysis. In 2006, U.S. electrical 

production from nuclear power was 784 million MWh from 66 power plants throughout the 
6

United States, primarily in the Northeast, South, and Midwest (see Figure 5). This production 

was lower than past levels due to the retirement of older nuclear reactors without the 

construction of a new reactor since 1996. While the timing of new U.S. nuclear power plant 

construction remains an open issue, potential new technologies being considered for the next 

generation nuclear power production are well suited for the thermo-chemical cycles under 

consideration for future hydrogen production. For example, high-temperature gas reactors and 

other potential next generation nuclear technologies operate at temperatures that are better suited 

for sulfur-iodine and other high-temperature thermo-chemical hydrogen production cycles (i.e., 

more than 700° C compared to about 350° C from current U.S. light-water-reactor technology). 

Although the thermo-chemical cycles under consideration have major technical and cost risks, 

they have the potential to be much more cost competitive than electrolysis-based hydrogen 

production options. 

Figure 5. U.S. nuclear power plants

In 2006, U.S. hydropower production was 216 million MWh from 1,321 plants throughout the 

United States. (see Figure 6). Hydropower accounts for more than 75% of the electricity generated 

from renewable sources. Production varies more as a function of precipitation levels than addition 

or subtraction of power plants. Therefore, low rainfall and drought can affect significantly 

hydropower’s reliability. DOE had set a goal to increase the generation at existing plants and 

harness undeveloped hydropower capacity without constructing new dams. This would be 

achieved by developing new, more advanced technologies that will improve the environmental 

performance and achieve greater energy efficiencies.
7

Hydroelectric generators can be operated to match electrical demand to some extent, but meeting 

minimum downstream flow requirements and a variety of constraints limit this capability. 

During periods of low electrical demand, excess generation capacity can be used to pump water 

into a higher reservoir, which can be released back into a lower reservoir through a turbine 

during periods of high demand. This pumped storage approach improves the daily load factor of 

the generation system. However, the pumped storage approach has some inefficiencies 

associated with it, and some hydroelectric plants have no reservoir capacity (i.e., “run-of-theriver” plants). As such, there is potential for using excess generation for hydrogen production via 

electrolysis.

Figure 6. U.S. hydro power plants

Data on power generation by nuclear and hydro plants in 2006 was provided by Platts, a division 

of The McGraw-Hill Companies. This information was aggregated to county level and similarly 

to hydrogen from the coal and natural gas analysis; therefore, it was assumed that 30% of the 

power generation is dedicated to hydrogen production. A relationship formula of 58.8 kWh per

kg of hydrogen was applied, based on hydrogen production from nuclear and hydro power via 

electrolysis according to the H2A Group. The hydrogen potential from nuclear and hydro power 

annually in the United States is estimated at about 4 million tonnes and 1 million tonnes,

respectively. This estimate takes into account electricity generation in 2006 and considers only 

30% of this generation for hydrogen production. Table 1 illustrates the results of this analysis by 

state. States with the highest hydrogen potential from nuclear power include Illinois,

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, while Washington and California have the highest hydrogen 

potential from hydro power. The geographic distribution of this potential by county is shown in 
8

Figure 7 and Figure 8. Note that this analysis is based on existing installed capacity and does not 

include the potential for new generators.

Figure 7. Hydrogen potential from nuclear power

Figure 8. Hydrogen potential from hydro power
9

Hydrogen from All Resources

Table 1. U.S. Hydrogen Potential from Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro Power (tonnes/year)

State

Hydrogen from

Hydro Power Hydrogen from

Nuclear Power

Hydrogen 

from Coal

Hydrogen 

from Natural 

Gas

Alabama 32,726 162,812 763,957 556,519

Alaska 3,668 0 52,057 370,096

Arizona 34,268 122,511 432,209 416

Arkansas 5,219 77,717 107 323,421

California 204,930 163,054 0 156,518

Colorado 6,199 0 1,378,759 1,851,974

Connecticut 98 84,640 0 0

Delaware 0 0 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 0 68,160 0 0

Georgia 9,827 163,295 0 0

Hawaii 177 0 0 0

Idaho 40,489 0 0 0

Illinois 109 480,378 1,146,221 288

Indiana 1,972 0 1,233,615 5,601

Iowa 4,495 25,997 0 0

Kansas 49 47,705 6,122 594,770

Kentucky 12,983 0 4,286,828 165,801

Louisiana 3,639 85,385 148,975 2,165,540

Maine 9,104 0 0 0

Maryland 10,644 70,563 185,565 82

Massachusetts 0 29,743 0 0

Michigan 109 148,299 0 381,266

Minnesota 84 67,262 0 0

Mississippi 0 53,156 127,278 329,462

Missouri 1,146 51,616 21,410 0

Montana 45,068 0 496,547 164,072

Nebraska 0 45,932 0 1,685

Nevada 10,306 0 0 9

New Hampshire 5,830 47,948 0 0

New Jersey 0 166,167 0 0

New Mexico 0 0 1,021,055 2,515,645

New York 105,740 215,428 0 98,001

North Carolina 14,177 203,894 0 0

North Dakota 7,760 0 1,072,504 25,997

Ohio 1,711 85,954 885,041 139,037

Oklahoma 1,211 0 66,450 2,898,033

Oregon 141,301 0 0 811

Pennsylvania 9,774 384,172 2,416,427 301,071

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 3,388 265,253 0 0

South Dakota 20,337 0 0 797

Tennessee 36,337 125,912 115,141 0

Texas 1,022 210,532 1,644,737 9,492,567

Utah 1,675 0 877,916 499,093

Vermont 299 26,054 0 0

Virginia 1,805 140,801 993,272 158,325

Washington 436,169 47,593 188,537 0

West Virginia 5,102 0 5,501,110 387,529

Wisconsin 0 62,416 0 0

Wyoming 3,998 0 15,423,917 3,221,271

Total 1,234,945 3,930,351 40,485,759 26,805,697
10

Hydrogen Potential by State

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

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

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

From Natural Gas

From Coal

From Nuclear Pow er

From Hydro Pow er

Figure 9. Hydrogen potential from coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro power as a percentage of total hydrogen potential
11

Integrated Hydrogen Production Analysis 

Resource availability, as identified in the preceding analyses, is not the only factor to consider in 

assessing the likely locations for hydrogen production. Other factors include distribution 

infrastructure and water availability. 

Distribution Infrastructure

Figures 10-12 illustrate the hydrogen potential by county and the relevant resource 

infrastructure—railroads for coal, pipelines for natural gas, and transmission lines for nuclear 

and hydroelectric power plants. Railroads might carry coal to hydrogen production facilities, or 

they could carry liquefied hydrogen made at any hydrogen production facility to market areas 

(i.e., points of end-use). Pipeline infrastructure might be used for shipping natural gas to a 

hydrogen production facility, or gaseous hydrogen product to market, or carbon dioxide to an 

appropriate sequestration site. Close proximity to transmission lines ensures electricity supply for 

hydrogen production via electrolysis. Additionally, the locations of existing hydrogen production 

facilities are shown on these maps as a reference.

Each map identifies counties with a minimum of 20,000 tonnes of hydrogen production potential 

per year. This number is derived from the H2A Group analysis, which identified the minimum 

economically viable hydrogen production level of a centralized facility to be 50,000 kg per day,

or approximately 20,000 tonnes per year. Combining this information with existing infrastructure 

gives a good pictorial, if not quantitative, suggestion as to where hydrogen production from the 

various resources might develop. 

Figure 10 illustrates that the Rocky Mountain States, because of their large resource base and 

distance from demand centers, are good candidates for siting large centralized hydrogen 

production facilities using coal resources. Large scale plants can be built as far as several 

hundred miles from the point of end-use. Other states with good hydrogen potential from coal 

such as West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky may be better suited for semi-central 

production plants, or 25 to 100 miles from the point of end-use. The Rocky Mountain States (in 

addition to Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma) are also suitable for large-scale hydrogen 

production from natural gas due to availability of both resources and pipeline infrastructure (see 

Figure 11). Locations with good hydrogen potential from nuclear and hydro resources are 

relatively close to demand centers and therefore may be better suited for semi-central production 

facilities (see Figure 12).
12

Figure 10. Hydrogen potential from coal, production facilities, and railroads

Figure 11. Hydrogen potential from natural gas, production facilities, and pipelines
13

Figure 12. Hydrogen potential from nuclear and hydro power, production facilities, and 

transmission lines

Water Availability

When choosing a site for a hydrogen production facility it is important to understand the 

approximate water needs for hydrogen production, as well as water supply and demand in a 

given area. The quantity of water needed for hydrogen production varies by feedstock, 

conversion process, and size of the facility. The results of an analysis of the average water needs 

for centralized hydrogen production facilities are presented in Figure 13. The authors assume that 

on average three gallons of water are needed to produce one kilogram of hydrogen, an average 

relationship derived from the H2A Group. The analysis is built on the analytical results presented 

in Figures 10-12, considering only those counties that meet the minimum production requirement 

for a centralized plant, or at least 20,000 tonnes of hydrogen production potential per year.

Water supply analysis was not possible for this study due to lack of water availability data. A 

comprehensive water resource assessment has not been conducted since 1978, when the U.S. 

Water Resources Council published the National Water Assessment. State and local governments 

have done water availability studies for their respective geographic areas, but they need to be 

integrated and supplemented to form a single reference product that provides nationwide 

coverage. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has undertaken this effort and results will be 

available in late 2009 or early 2010.
14

Figure 13. Average water needs for centralized hydrogen production by county, based on 

resource

Water demand analysis was also difficult due to lack of up-to-date data. The most recent 

information on water use is from 20004

 4 The USGS will release 2005 data in the summer of 2009.

. The categories with the largest water withdrawals in 

2000 were thermoelectric power (48 % of total withdrawals) and irrigation (34 % of the total 

withdrawals). The remaining 18% of withdrawals are shared by public supply, self-supplied 

industrial, self-supplied domestic, livestock, aquaculture, and mining. Figure 14 illustrates the

total water use by county in 2000, and Figures 15 and 16 show the water consumption by the two 

main users: thermoelectric and irrigation sectors.

Based on a simple analysis of the available information, it appears that counties in the Rocky 

Mountain States may experience difficulties with the availability of water for hydrogen 

production due to an increasing supply shortage and competition from other sectors, particularly

crop irrigation. These areas have an average annual precipitation of less than 20 inches, which is 

insufficient to support crops without supplemental water. USGS points out that the majority of 

withdrawals for irrigation (86%) and irrigated acres (75%) were in the 17 conterminous Western 

States, as illustrated in Figure 16. A more precise analysis on water supply and demand is 

necessary to determine the water constraints for hydrogen production in the United States. 
15

Figure 14. Water use by county, 2000

Figure 15. Thermoelectric water use by county, 2000
16

Figure 16. Irrigation water use by county, 2000
17

Conclusion

As an energy carrier, hydrogen can be produced from any primary energy source. Currently, 

most hydrogen is produced from natural gas via SMR. Other sources like coal and biomass can 

also be used to generate hydrogen through gasification. Electricity, once produced from nuclear, 

hydro, solar, wind, or geothermal, can generate hydrogen through electrolysis. Given that this 

wide diversity of energy resources is geographically specific, it’s important to understand where 

resources are located so that appropriate plans can be made for production technologies and 

infrastructure. This study used a GIS framework to analyze the spatial distribution of natural gas 

and coal resources, as well as hydro and nuclear power generation, and evaluate their potential 

for hydrogen production. It estimated that more than 72 million tonnes of hydrogen can be 

produced from these sources per year (considering only 30% of their total current annual 

production). Leading states include Wyoming (26% of total potential), Texas (16%), West 

Virginia (8%), Kentucky (6%), and New Mexico (5%). The United States consumed about 396 

million tonnes of gasoline in 2007 (IEA 2008); therefore, the amount of hydrogen derived from 

these sources could displace about 80% of this consumption. Although the ultimate goal of a 

hydrogen-driven economy is based on renewable and low-carbon resources, using fossil 

resources as a bridge can help the build-out of renewable energy and hydrogen delivery 

infrastructures.

In addition to estimating the hydrogen potential from the sources mentioned above, the study 

discussed the major factors that need to be considered when choosing a site for a hydrogen 

production facility. These include the availability of feedstock, distribution infrastructure, and 

water. The study concluded that regions with high hydrogen potential, such as the Rocky 

Mountain States, have access to existing distribution infrastructure, but they may experience 

some difficulties with water availability. Meaningful water supply and demand analyses were not 

possible due to lack of recent data. Water analyses are needed to determine the water constraints 

for hydrogen production in the United States, and as an input to a comprehensive hydrogen 

infrastructure analysis.

Previous work by the authors (Milbrandt and Mann 2007) estimated the hydrogen production 

potential from key renewable resources (wind, solar, and biomass) in the United States at about 

1,000 million tonnes per year. This potential is significantly higher than that estimated in the 

present study because wind and solar resources (the major contributors) are exceptionally 

significant and available everywhere, while the resources considered in this study are exhaustible

and location-specific. Additionally, the previous study estimated the maximum hydrogen 

potential from renewable resources, while this study estimated the hydrogen potential from 

current fossil fuels and electricity (nuclear and hydro) production. The authors considered the 

current production of coal and natural gas instead of reserves, because the reserves’ quantity may 

not be feasible due to technological, economic, or environmental difficulties associated with the 

extraction process, and the fact that the annual production of these resources has been steady 

over the recent years. The same applies to electricity production from nuclear and hydro plants, 

which have been consistent in recent years. Although this study uses current production of 

coal/natural gas and electricity generation from nuclear/hydro power plants rather than the total 
18

amount of resources available or power generation capacity, it helps highlight opportunities for 

first-generation hydrogen production during the transition period to a clean hydrogen economy.
19

References 

1. Argonne National Laboratory (February 2004). Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen 

Economy. Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory. 

http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/NHE_rpt.pdf

2. British Petroleum (BP) (June 2007). “Statistical Review of World Energy.”

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_pu

blications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadshee

ts/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2007.xls

3. Djomo, S.; Humbert, S.; Blumberga, D. (June 2008). “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen 

produced from potato steam peels.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (33:12);

pp. 3067-3072.

4. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2008a). “Summary Statistics for the United 

States - Cost of Fuel at Electricity Generators.” Energy Information Administration

online. Accessed May 2008.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_a.htm

5. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2008b). “Petroleum Basic Statistics for 2007.”

Energy Information Administration online. Accessed April 2008.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

6. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2008c). “Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and 

Production.” Energy Information Administration online. Accessed March 2008.

7. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2008d). “U.S. Coal Production.” Accessed 

March 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.html

8. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2007). “International Energy Outlook 2007.”

Energy Information Administration online. Accessed May 2008.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0484(2007).pdf

9. Milbrandt. A.; Mann, M. (February 2007). Potential for Hydrogen Production from Key 

Renewable Resources in the United States. NREL/TP-640-41134. Golden CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41134.pdf

10. National Hydrogen Association. “Hydrogen’s Properties.” National Hydrogen 

Association online. Accessed March 2008.

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/basics.asp

11. Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies. Licensed GIS data on power 

generation by nuclear and hydro plants in the United States in 2006.

http://www.platts.com/

12. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “DOE H2A Analysis.” U.S. Department of Energy 

Hydrogen Program online. Accessed March 2008.

13. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (July 2004). “Hydropower – Setting a Course for Our 

Energy Future.” http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34916.pdf

14. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (May 2006). National Coal Resources Database. 

Accessed February 2008. http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/databases/USCoal/

15. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (March 2004). “Estimated Use of Water in the United 

States in 2000.” USGS online. Accessed March 2008. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/
20

16. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2002). “Concepts for National Assessment of Water 

Availability and Use.” Report to Congress, Circular 1223, Reston Virginia. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1223/pdf/C1223.pdf
F1147-E(10/2008)

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 2009

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Hydrogen Resource Assessment: Hydrogen Potential from Coal, 

Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro Power

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

A. Milbrandt and M. Mann

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-42773

5e. TASK NUMBER

H278.2100

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/TP-6A2-42773

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This paper estimates the quantity of hydrogen that could be produced from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro 

power by county in the United States. The study estimates that more than 72 million tonnes of hydrogen can be 

produced from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro power per year in the country (considering only 30% of their total 

annual production). The United States consumed about 396 million tonnes of gasoline in 2007; therefore, the report 

suggests the amount of hydrogen from these sources could displace about 80% of this consumption.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Hydrogen production potential; technologies; infrastructure; United States; NREL; Milbrandt; Mann.

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18