(438f) Comprehensive Analysis of Various Types of Hydrogen Refueling Stations : Economics, Environmental, and Safety

Efforts to reduce carbon emissions are being made in all sectors for global carbon neutrality. In the transportation sector, which accounts for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, a shift from traditional fossil fuels to electric or hydrogen-based fuels is being pursued to overcome direct carbon emissions. Among these, Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) using hydrogen as a fuel are considered advantageous for their short refueling time, high fuel efficiency, and long driving range.

As of the end of 2021, there were 685 hydrogen refueling stations worldwide, but to meet the increasing demand for FCEVs, about seven times more hydrogen refueling stations are needed. Therefore, it is crucial to determine the type of hydrogen refueling station (HRS), as large-scale new infrastructure needs to be built. HRSs can be classified into two types: on-site, which produce hydrogen directly on site (e.g., water electrolysis, steam methane reforming, and ammonia cracking), and off-site, which store hydrogen transported in a compressed or liquefied form from other regions.

This study comprehensively analyzed the performance in terms of the economic, environmental, and safety aspects for five different kinds of HRSs with high commercialization potential: gaseous, liquid, steam methane reforming, ammonia cracking, and electrolysis. In addition, we analyzed their performances by reflecting on the scenario of commercialization of renewable energy in 2050 to identify the potential of each refueling station.

As a result, in 2020, we found that gaseous HRS (GHRS) was the most economical and environmentally friendly hydrogen refueling station due to its simple process configuration and low cost and global warming potential of materials. However, in terms of safety, electrolysis had the lowest risk because the water is used as the raw material. In 2050, assuming a decrease in investment costs due to the introduction of renewable energy and the commercialization of the electrolysis system, GHRS still has good economic and environmental performance while the electrolysis HRS has a comparable carbon intensity to GHRS.