Abstract
Hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier and chemical feedstock to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially in difficult-to-decarbonize markets such as medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, aviation and maritime, iron and steel, and the production of fuels and chemicals. Significant literature has been accumulated on engineering-based assessments of various hydrogen technologies, and real-world projects are validating technology performance at larger scales and for low-carbon supply chains. While energy system models continue to be updated to track this progress, many are currently limited in their representation of hydrogen, and as a group they tend to generate highly variable results under decarbonization constraints. The present work provides insights into the development status and decarbonization scenario results of 15 energy system models participating in study 37 of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF37), focusing on the U.S. energy system. The models and scenario results vary widely in multiple respects: hydrogen technology representation, scope and type of hydrogen end-use markets, relative optimism of hydrogen technology input assumptions, and market uptake results reported for 2050 under various decarbonization assumptions. Most models report hydrogen market uptake increasing with decarbonization constraints, though some models report high carbon prices being required to achieve these increases and some find hydrogen does not compete well when assuming optimistic assumptions for all advanced decarbonization technologies. Across various scenarios, hydrogen market success tends to have an inverse relationship to success with direct air capture (DAC) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. While most model-scenario combinations predict modest hydrogen uptake by 2050 – <10 million metric tons (MMT) – aggregating the top 10 % of market uptake results across sectors suggests an upper range demand potential of 42–223 MMT. The high degree of variability across both modeling methods and market uptake results suggests that increased harmonization of both input assumptions and subsector competition scope would lead to more consistent results across energy system models. The wide variability in results indicates strongly divergent conclusions on the role of hydrogen in a decarbonized energy future.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 100153 |
Journal | Energy and Climate Change |
Volume | 5 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Dec 2024 |
Funding
The views expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their respective institutions. M.W.M. acknowledges support from the US Department of Energy; the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views or the policies of the U.S. Department of Energy. C.S.L. acknowledges support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views or the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. D.L.M. acknowledges support from the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy; the views expressed do not represent those of ORNL/UT-Battelle or US DOE. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the EMF 37 modeling teams for data submission and contributions to modeling surveys that made this work possible. This work was supported by ongoing guidance and review provided by the EMF 37 Hydrogen Crosscut Working group, with members including: Rizaldo Aldas (CEC), Olivier Bahn (GERAD), Geoff Blanford (EPRI), Morgan Browning (EPA), Kathryn Dyl (EIA), James Edmonds (PNNL), Allen Fawcett (EPA), Ruying Gao (Stanford), Tomas Green (DOE), Peter Gross (EIA), Page Kyle (PNNL), Carol Lenox (EPA), David L. McCollum (ORNL), James McFarland (EPA), Amogh Prabhu (OnLocation), Peter Puglia (CEC), Edward Thomas (EIA), Sugandha Tuladhar (NERA), Siyuan Wang (Johns Hopkins), Peter Whitman (OnLocation), and Sonia Yeh (Chalmers).
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Allen Fawcett | |
Sonia Yeh | |
James Edmonds | |
Sugandha Tuladhar | |
Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program | |
Electric Power Research Institute | |
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory | |
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association | |
U.S. Department of Energy | |
Geoff Blanford | |
James McFarland | |
UT-Battelle | |
Carol Lenox | |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
Keywords
- Deep decarbonization
- Energy systems
- Hydrogen energy
- Model comparison