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.

H2A Delivery Analysis and 

H2A Delivery Components Model

Dr. Olga Sozinova

National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory

2010 Hydrogen Program 

Annual

Merit Review

June 9, 2010

Project ID # PD015

NREL/PR-560-49745

THIS PRESENTATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE RESTRICTED INFORMATION
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

- Start date: FY 2004

- End date: on-going Project

Overview

- Lack of Hydrogen/Carrier and 

Infrastructure Option Analysis (3.2 A)

- Gaseous Hydrogen Storage and Tube 

Trailer Delivery Costs (3.2 F)

- Funding: 100% DOE Funded

- FY09: $200K 

- FY10: $150K

- Argonne National Lab

- Pacific Northwest National Lab

- Nexant, Inc.

- TIAX

- GTI

- Chevron

- Air Liquide

- Linde

- DTI

Timeline Budget

Barriers Partners
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Relevance: Objectives

• Update and maintain the H2A 

Delivery Components Model

• Provide Cost Analysis on 

Hydrogen Delivery 

Infrastructure

• Support other models and 

analysis that include delivery 

costs

• Expand H2A Components 

Model by designing new 

components

“Activities: Development of the H2A 

Delivery Components and Scenario 

Models, MYPP, 2007, p. 3.2-9”

“Analysis: Comprehensive cost and 

environmental analyses for all 

delivery options as function of 

demand, MYPP, 2007, p. 3.2-9”

Outputs

“D3. Output to System Analysis and 

System Integration: Hydrogen 

delivery infrastructure analysis 

results, MYPP, 2007, p. 3.2-29”

Project Objectives

MYPP
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Approach

Since 2004 – the project introduction – we were

following the general H2A approach and guidelines:

- collaborating closely with industry getting and updating 

costs and tech specs in the models

- keeping consistency of the cost inputs across all H2A models

- employing H2A standard assumptions *

- maintaining models as publicly available

* http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html#h2a_project
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Approach /Barriers Addressing

Barrier 3.2 A: Lack of Hydrogen/Carrier and 

Infrastructure Option Analysis

“Additional analysis is needed to 

better understand the advantages and 

disadvantages of the various possible 

approaches.” (p. 3.2-18)

Barrier 3.2 F: Gaseous Hydrogen Storage and 

Tube Trailer Delivery Costs “Approaches include 

increasing the storage pressure, utilizing cold 

hydrogen gas, and/or utilizing a solid carrier 

material in the storage vessel. The same 

technology approaches could be utilized for 

gaseous tube trailers making them much more 

attractive for hydrogen transport and 

distribution.” (3.2-20 

Milestone 12

“By 2017, reduce the cost of hydrogen delivery 

from the point of production to the point of use 

at refueling sites to < $1/gge” (p. 3.2-26)

• Developing new H2 Delivery 

option: Rail Delivery Components

• Analyzing a possibility to deliver 

H2 via existing CNG infrastructure

•Building the model capable of 

calculating delivery costs from 

multiple sources to multiple 

demand centers

• Multi-node delivery model will 

also include storage sharing 

capability between demand 

centers, providing overall storage 

cost decrease

• Analyzing a possibility for 

delivering H2 by Truck-Trailer in 

Composite Tubes instead of Metal 

tubes – increased capacity

APPROACH
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Approach/Milestones

H2A Delivery Components Model 

Update: finalize changes to the 700 bar 

and cryo-compressed dispensing 

options

95% complete 

expected completion: end of April 2010

Hydrogen Rail Delivery

Cost Analysis

50% complete

expected completion: end of FY10

Multi-node delivery scenario model 

development, stage 1 and 2

50% complete

expected completion: end of June 2010

Review: go/no go decision on delivering 

hydrogen via natural gas pipelines

10% complete

expected completion: end of FY10

Milestone % of completion, as of March 31, 2010
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

- H2A Components Model Upgrade and Cost Analysis

- Rail Components development and Cost Analysis

- Building new components for GH2 delivery using composite tubes

- Building multi-node delivery scenario model

Outline
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2A Components Model Upgrade and Cost Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2A Delivery Components Model 

provides costs for hydrogen 

delivery components 

– Excel based (availability 

to public)

– flexible

– can be used to provide 

inputs for spatially and 

temporally detailed 

models

Relation to Other Models

GH Terminal H2 

Production

City gate

Transmission Distribution

H2A Delivery

Components

Model

(component-based)

H2A Production

Model

HDSAM 

(scenario-based)

H2A Power

Model

HyDRA

Model

SERA Model

(former 

HyDS-ME)

delivery 

cost data

HyPRO

Hydrogen 

Logistics 

Model

H2A DELIVERY COMPONENTS MODEL OVERVIEW
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2A Delivery Components Model Upgrade

480 atm

GH2 Tube-Trailer Upgrade

2 options for tube pressure:

- 180 atm

- 480 atm

GH2 Refueling Station Upgrade

dispensing pressure

dispensing type

tube pressure

350 bar 700 bar

cascade cascade booster compressor

180 atm 480 atm 180 atm 480 atm 180 atm

LH2 Refueling Station Upgrade

2 dispensing options: 

- gas

- liquid or cryo-compressed

Simple Design

Storage

Cryo-Pump

Dispenser
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

100 kg/day Refueling Station H2 COST

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

GH2 350

bar-cascade

GH2 700

bar-cascade

GH2 700

bar-booster

compressor

LH2 - gas

dispensing

LH2 -cryo

dispensing

$/kg H2

Other Costs

Energy Cost

Capital Cost

H2A Delivery Components Model Upgrade

Impact on refueling station upgrade
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

100 kg/day Refueling Station CAPITAL COST

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

GH2 350

bar-cascade

GH2 700

bar-cascade

GH2 700

bar-booster

compressor

LH2 - gas

dispensing

LH2 -cryo

dispensing

MM $

100 kg/day Refueling Station ENERGY USE

0

2

4

6

8

GH2 350

bar-cascade

GH2 700

bar-cascade

GH2 700

bar-booster

compressor

LH2 - gas

dispensing

LH2 -cryo

dispensing

MJ/kg H2

How much initial investment needed? Impact on refueling station upgrade

How energy-effective?

H2A Delivery Components Model Upgrade
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Station Capital Cost

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

100 400 1200

station capacity, kg/day

MM $

350 bar-cascade

700 bar cascade

700 bar-booster

compressor

LH2-gas

dispensing

LH2-cryodispensing

Near term: 100 kg/day

Mid-term: 400 kg/day

Long-term: 1200 kg/day

Larger Station – Bigger Investment

cryo-compressed station 

is the cheapest and has 

the simplest design

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2A Delivery Components Model Upgrade

Station Size Comparison
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

H2 Cost

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

100 400 1200

station capacity, kg/day

$/kg

350 barcascade

700 barcascade

700 bar-booster

compressor

LH2-gas disp

LH2-cryo disp

Near term: 100 kg/day

Mid-term: 400 kg/day

Long-term: 1200 kg/day

The larger the station – the cheaper H2

H2 cost 

drop by 

∆=$2.5/kg

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2A Delivery Components Model Upgrade

Station Size Comparison
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

GH2 Truck-Trailer H2 COST

(average station size 100 kg/day)

0

1

2

3

180 480

Tube Pressure, atm

Truck capacity, kg H2

GH2 Truck-Trailer Capacity

0

200

400

600

800

180 480

Tube Pressure, atm

Truck capacity, kg H2

Overview

140 % 

increase

37% drop

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2A Delivery Components Model Upgrade

Gaseous H2 Tube Trailer
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Rail Components Development and Update

Technical Accomplishments and Progress
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

WHY RAIL?

Rail Delivery may be the most economical option for delivering 

hydrogen made from renewable sources (long distances+high demand)

Example: H2 from Wind

Estimates of Wind Energy Potential 

in “purple/red band” states* :

86% of Total US Installed Capacity**

(8,989 GW)

Estimated Annual Generation:

32.4 millions GWh

* * 30 % capacity factor at 80 m above ground,

assumes 5 MW/km2 of installed nameplate

capacity Source: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps.asp

* IA, KS, MN, MT,NE,NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, WY

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2 Rail Delivery 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

THIS PRESENTATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE RESTRICTED INFORMATION

Overview

Gaseous Hydrogen Rail Delivery

Liquid Hydrogen Rail Delivery

Gaseous 

Production

Site Terminal

Gaseous

City Gate

Terminal

Gaseous

Refueling

Station

Liquid 

Production

Site 

Terminal

Liquid 

City Gate

Terminal

Liquid

Refueling

Station

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2 Rail Delivery Pathways
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

2 independent reviews (by DTI and PPNL) of the H2 Rail Delivery 

Components were conducted. The comments and suggestions were 

incorporated in the updated model.

The NREL delivery team collaborated with multiple industry companies

in order to refine the input cost and technical data, and to get a better 

understanding of the logistics of rail delivery:

- freight data, logistics (Union Pacific Railroads)

- railcar leasing costs (GE Rail Leasing)

- intermodal rail crane cost and technical specs 

(Konecranes Heavy Lifting Company, Paceco)





Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2 Rail Delivery Components Update
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

THIS PRESENTATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE RESTRICTED INFORMATION

Overview

New Components Using Composite Tubes Development

and

Comparative Delivery Cost Analysis 

Technical Accomplishments and Progress
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

To estimate delivery costs using COMPOSITE TUBES

7 new components were added to the H2A Delivery Components Model

1. GH2 Rail Production Plant Terminal-Composite Tubes (filling up composite tubes)

2. GH2 Rail Transport-Composite Tubes (delivering composite tubes with H2)

3. GH2 Rail City Gate Terminal-Composite Tubes (reloading composite tubes to the truck trailer)

4. Pipeline-GH2 Truck City Gate Terminal-Composite Tubes (pumping H2 into composite tubes)

5. GH2 Truck-Trailer Terminal-Composite Tubes (filling up composite tubes)

6. GH2 Truck Transport-Composite Tubes (accommodating composite tubes delivery)

7. GH2 Refueling Station-Composite Tubes (accommodating changes in tube pressure and truck capacity)

* all full pathway costs involving composite tubes are preliminary

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

New Components: Composite Tubes
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

RAIL: From METAL Tubes to COMPOSITE tubes

Increased railcar capacity:

Metal tubes: 2680 kg of H2

Composite tubes: 4400 kg of H2

33 % H2 cost 

reduction for GH2 

Rail Delivery

Cost Reduction for H2 Rail Delivery

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

100 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

distance to the city gate, km

H2 Rail Delivery Cost, $/kg

GH2 Rail-Metal

Tubes

GH2 Rail

Composite

Tubes

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

Rail Components Upgrade
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Hydrogen Delivery Cost Via Different Pathways

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1000 2000 3000

Distance to the city gate, km

H2 delivery cost, $/kg

GH2 Rail

LH2 Rail

Pipeline-GH2

Truck

Pipeline-LH2

Truck

GH2 Truck

LH2 Truck

City Demand: 

100 tonnes/day

Average refueling 

station size: 

1200 kg/day

GH2: 350 bar dispensing

LH2: cryo-compressed 

dispensing

Distance Sensitivity to the Delivery Cost: Composite Tubes

LEAST COST PATHWAY

Up to 1500 km – GH2 Truck

Above 1500 km – LH2 Rail

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

Cost Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Building multi-node delivery scenario model

Technical Accomplishments and Progress
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Multi-Node Delivery

from to

multiple plants single city

multiple plants multiple cities

single plant multiple cities

Flexibility

- storage sharing

- branched pipeline networks

Approach

Using SERA Model (former 

HyDS-ME) – geo-resolution and 

optimization

Substitute cost curves with the 

delivery component build-ups 

inside of SERA

By applying the above: get the 

flexibility to place components 

at different geographical 

locations 

Calculate optimal network and 

storage 

Trace network evolution

Develop optimal multi-node 

scenarios

-

-

-

-

-

-

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

Building Multi-Node Scenario Model
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

GIS-based DYNAMIC optimization 

model determines the optimal 

production and delivery infrastructure 

build-outs for hydrogen, given resource 

availability and technology cost. 

What is SERA Model? Optimal H2 pipeline network build-out 

example: H2 from Wind Study

– B. Bush, M. Melaina, O. Sozinova, 

“Optimal Regional Layout of LeastCost Hydrogen Infrastructure”. 

National Hydrogen Association 

Conference & Expo 2009.

Pipeline

Production site

Consumption site

Hydrogen infrastructure at various demand levels.

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

Building Multi-Node Scenario Model
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

4 components were coded :

- Pipeline Compressor

- Pipeline Transport

- Geological Storage

- Pipeline-GH2 Truck City Gate Terminal

Stage 1: Build delivery components inside SERA

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

Building Multi-Node Scenario Model
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Future Work
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Stage 3: Optimize Delivery Networks 

- use restructured SERA Model to perform calculations for identifying

optimal infrastructure layout

- identify possible pipeline branching points and storage sharing points

Stage 4: Develop multi-node delivery scenarios

- use the learning curve form Stage 3 to develop multi-node delivery 

scenarios

FY11

Stage 2: Restructure SERA for allowing branched pipelines 

FY10

Overview

Future Work

Building Multi-Node Scenario Model
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

- life cycle assessment

- safety

- leakage assessment

- durability

- integrity

- end use: separation, quality

- impacts: environmental and macroeconomic benefits

Is it feasible to use NG pipelines for delivering hydrogen?

Review available studies on adding hydrogen (pure or as a 

mixture with other gases) to the natural gas pipelines

TARGET:

FOCUS:

Milestone Due: Completion expected by the end of FY10 

FY10

Overview

Future Work (cont)

Go/ No Go decision on using natural gas pipelines for delivering hydrogen 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Build-up Hydrogen-From-Wind Scenarios

- Identify near term largest demand centers

- Identify potential wind production sites with maximized capacity pertinent to 

the above demand areas

- Evaluate storage capacity and locations based on actual wind profiles 

- Optimize wind farm size for allowing electricity-from-wind use to liquefy hydrogen

- Analyze delivery options for H2 from wind

On-Going Efforts

- Update and maintain H2A Delivery Components Model

- Update Rail Delivery components 

- Refine delivery components involving composite tubes

FY10 – FY11

Overview

Future Work (cont)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

- Marianne Mintz - ANL (Delivery Analysis)

- Amgad Elgowainy – ANL (HDSAM)

- Brian Bush - NREL (SERA)

- Daryl Brown - PNNL (Model Review)

- Darlene Steward – NREL (H2A Production Model)

- Mike Penev – NREL (H2A Power Model)

- Linde 

- Air Products

- GE Rail Leasing

- Lincoln Composites 

- Union Pacific Railroad

- Konecranes Heavy Lifting Company

- Paceco Corporation

- DTI (HyPro Model)

- TIAX (Logistics Model)

- GTI

Industry

National Labs

Other 

Companies

(technical and cost inputs)

(data exchange and review)

(data exchange and review)

(data exchange and review)

(subcontract)

Overview

Collaborations
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Relevance

- Project activities follow the DOE H2 Program targets

Approach

- Project follows H2A general approach and guidelines

Accomplishments

- Rail Delivery Components Update with new freight and cost input data

- H2A Components Model Upgrade with 700 bar and cryo-compressed dispensing

- Designed 7 new delivery components for using composite tubes

- Performed comparative cost analysis for various delivery pathways

- Built-up 4 pipeline delivery components into SERA for multi-node scenarios development

Collaborations

Linde, Air Products, GE Rail Leasing, Lincoln Composites, Union Pacific Railroad,

Konecranes Heavy Lifting Company, Paceco Corporation , ANL, PNNL, DTI, TIAX, GTI

Future Work

- Continue developing multi-node delivery scenarios: network optimization and scenarios draft

- Assist DOE in developing go/no go decision on the use of CNG infrastructure for delivering hydrogen

- Build-up Hydrogen-From-Wind Scenarios

Overview

Summary
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 34 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Supplemental Slides

SUPPLEMENTAL

FOR THE REVIEWERS ONLY
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Responses to Previous Year Reviewers’ 

Comments

35

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

• “It was confusing as to why 100,000 of model runs were needed for 

HyDS-ME ”.

- multiple runs were conducted with HDSAM for data being used in HyDS-ME

(SERA) as cost inputs. 

• “This project needs calibration with actual installations costs to

verify accuracy of predictions”.

- extensive collaboration with multiple industrial companies 

during past year allowed us to substantially improve cost input data
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Publications and Presentations

36

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Presentations

– O. Sozinova, “Rail and Pipeline networks as new Hydrogen Delivery Options,” 

Delivery Tech Team Meeting, Columbia, MA, April 17 2009.R

– O. Sozinova, D. Steward, “Wind to Liquid Hydrogen Cost study. Preliminary Results,”

Delivery Tech Team Meeting, Washington, DC, April 14, 2010.

Posters

– B. Bush, M. Melaina, O. Sozinova. “Optimal Regional Layout of Least-Cost Hydrogen 

Infrastructure”. National Hydrogen Association Conference & Expo 2009.

Reports

– B. Bush, M. Melaina, O. Sozinova, D. Thompson. “Hydrogen Deployment System 

Modeling Environment (HyDS-ME) Notional California Case Study”. National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, January 2009.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Rail Components Assumptions

37

SUPPLEMENTAL

Where possible, costs for liquefaction and truck pathways 

have been applied to develop rail components.

Gaseous H2 is pumped into composite tubes (550 bar) at the Production 

Terminal. The tubes are loaded to the truck-trailer at the City Gate Terminal.

Liquid H2 is loaded into rail tankers at the Production Terminal, then transported, 

and reloaded to the liquid trucks at the City Gate Terminal.

It is assumed that a single train leaves daily to supply a certain quantity of 

hydrogen to a single city.

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Rail Components Assumptions

38

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

It is assumed that a single train leaves daily to supply a certain quantity of 

hydrogen to a single city

Each day, a loaded train is in transit to the city-gate, and a train with empty 

tanks is returning
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Overview

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

H2 Rail Delivery

US Railroad Availability

Miles of Road Operated in the 

U.S.(2006) - 171,077*

Miles of Road Operated Less 

Trackage Rights - 140,490*

http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Statistics.pdf

*Source: U.S. Freight Railroad Statistics, Association of American Railroads

“Miles of Road is the aggregate 

length of roadway, excluding 

yard tracks and sidings, and 

does not reflect

the fact that a mile of road may 

include two, three, or more 

parallel tracks. Miles of road 

operated less

trackage rights, which eliminates 

double-counting caused by more 

than one railroad operating the 

same

track, is the measure of the rail 

network.”*

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Rail Freight Cost 

40

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Freight information was taken from the 2008 public Carload Waybill.

http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/econ_waybill.html

This data includes commodity code, freight charges, transit charges, 

miscellaneous charges, number of railcars, shipped weight, distance traveled 

and many other factors. The ‘freight charges’ for the 2008 waybill include 

fuel surcharge as described in the federal register 

(http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-26570.htm )

The charges (freight, transit and miscellaneous) were summed and divided 

by the number of railcars to produce the cost per railcar. This was done for 

both liquid natural gas and hydrogen gas in order to develop useful rates for 

moving liquid and gaseous hydrogen. These data were than plotted versus 

distance traveled to see how the rate varied.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Rail Freight Cost 

41

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Gaseous H2 Rail Delivery
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Rail Freight Cost 

42

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Liquid H2 Rail Delivery

Freight Rates for LNG
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Railcar leasing costs 

43

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Rail Car Leasing

Pressure tank and flat car leasing data were provided by GE Rail Car Leasing

http://www.ge.com/railservices/products/railequipmentbycartype.html

Flat car $450/railcar/month

Tanker $700/railcar/month

Leasing rates
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Composite Tubes 

44

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Property SI units

Water 

volume

8400 L

Diameter 1.08 m

Length 11.6 m

TITAN Tank Measurements

Source:

Property SI units

Tanks/module 4

Total Water Volume 1.08 m

Module Dimensions 2.44 m*2.44 m*12.2 m

Module Weight (1 bar) 14,500 kg

TITAN Module
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Pipeline Cost Sensitivity to Distance 

45

SUPPLEMENTAL

THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE USE OF THE PEER REVIEWERS ONLY—NOT TO BE USED IN MAIN PRESENTATION

Pipeline Costs

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

distance to the vity gate, km

millions of $

Total Capital

Investment

O&M Cost

Pipeline Transport Cost

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

distance to the city gate, km

Pipeline Transport Cost, $/kg

Pipeline

Transport

LH2 Rail

Transport

GH2 Rail

Transport

City Demand: 100 tonnes/day