i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Analysis of the strategies for bridging the gap

towards the Hydrogen Economy

R. Moliner*, M.J. La

zaro, I. Suelves
Instituto de Carboquı́mica CSIC, Miguel Luesma 4, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain

article info abstract

Article history: The concept of “Hydrogen Economy” originated in the early 1970s as response to the first oil
Received 25 January 2016 crisis. Consequently, its implementation needs a well-planned strategy adapted to the
Received in revised form decay of the “Fossil Fuel Economy” allowing bridging the gap between both of them. This
10 June 2016 strategy must encompass Hydrogen production, distribution and utilization and should be
Accepted 23 June 2016 built on solid grounds of established science and engineering. There is no doubt that
Available online 27 August 2016 hydrogen will play an important role in the future energy scenario but should not be
thought to do so in terms of dominance but rather in competition and complementarity
Keywords: with other energy carriers. Therefore, the strategy for introduction should be planned not
Hydrogen Economy in terms of confrontation with the other energy vectors but in terms of convergence and
Strategies synergies search. In this paper the current situation of the three main fields of the
Hydrogen Economy: Production, Distribution and Uses are analyzed and some consider-
ations and suggestions for action are provided.
© 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

utilization and should start as soon as possible since the

Introduction
The concept of a “Hydrogen Economy” (HE) originated in the
early 1970s, as response to the first oil crisis. The Australian
chemist John Bockris first used the phrase “Hydrogen Econ-
omy” and the first World Hydrogen Conference in 1976 iden-
tified hydrogen as a clean energy carrier for the future. After
two decades of slow progress, the concept was re-launched at
the end of the millennium in response to the increasing social
concerns about global warming. This historical evolution
shows that HE has never been a “first choice” but rather a
response forced by the environmental and supplying con-
cerns generated by the current “Fossil Fuels Economy” (FFE).
Consequently, the strategy for the implementation of the HE
needs to be adapted to the decay of the FFE in order to bridge
the gap existing between both of them. This strategy must
encompass from Hydrogen production to distribution and
transition process will not be a matter of years but of decades.
As a consequence of the apparent conflict between the
hydrogen and fossil fuels economies, there has been an
alignment of the social stockholders, there including policy
makers, with one of them: “progressives” with hydrogen and
“conservatives” with fossil. That has led in many cases to
decisions based on the advice of visionaries and lobby groups
(including scientist ones) and not on facts, what should be
avoided in the future. A secure and sustainable energy supply
cannot be based on hype and activism, but has to be built on
solid grounds of established science and engineering.
In this paper the current situation of the three main fields
of the Hydrogen Economy: Production, Distribution and Uses
are analyzed and the main factors that will affect to their
future evolution are reviewed and presented as a matter of
debate.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rmoliner@icb.csic.es (R. Moliner).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.202
0360-3199/© 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8 19501

The Hydrogen Economy and the hype curve

The High Level Group for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, HLG,
launched in 2003 the report “Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cells.
A vision of our future” [1] which included a Roadmap for
Europe from 2000 to 2050. In this Roadmap, two different pe-
riods were considered: The first one, until 2020, characterized
by public incentives and private efforts and the second one, by
public rewards and private benefits. Table 1 shows the pro-
posal for 2015 extracted from the HLG 2000e2050 Roadmap.
An analysis of this table allows concluding that there are
significant mismatches with the current situation and that the
milestones expected for 2015 are far for being reached.
Other significant example of mismatches is the projection of
Fig. 1 e Hype cycle for the evolution of visibility of the
Fuel Cell Vehicles, FCV, population in Europe up to 2022 reported
Hydrogen Economy versus time.
in the HyNet Project [2]. According to this report, the number of
FCV in 2015 in Europe should be between 0.5 and 1 million!
The evolution of the HE, as all emergent technologies, has
the lack of benefits, implementation of Hydrogen Economy
followed the Hype Cycle, which describes the evolution of the
was mainly based on Public Funding.
maturity of a technology versus its visibility. An adaptation of
In the same way, Hydrogen was univocally associated to
this cycle to the HE is presented in Fig. 1. At the beginning,
FCV (Oil Replacement) what has shown to be a wrong strategy
there was a rapid increase of visibility due to the great ex-
because hydrogen, as a gaseous fuel, can be used as a sub-
pectations created by the technology, what leads to a peak of
stitute of Natural Gas for domestic heating and distributed
inflated expectations at the middle of 2000's decade.
power generation. This would be especially true if Power to
It is clear that the researchers involved in HyNet were
Gas technology were implemented. The clear distinction of
carried away by inflated expectations that were not reached,
the applications of FC as a power generator and Hydrogen as
what subsequently triggered the fall of society in the trough of
an energy carrier would be also beneficial for Fuel Cells which
disillusionment. Which were the causes of mismatches? As
can be fueled with different fuels other than hydrogen:
we said, the two primary reasons to promote the hydrogen
Methanol for portable electronic devices and Natural Gas for
economy were the limitations of oil supply, and the concerns
Combined Heat and Power. In fact, most of the commercial
about global warming. As a consequence, the Hydrogen
fuel cells sold nowadays for CHP are fueled with Natural Gas,
Economy was univocally associated in “green” circles to
given the high prices of hydrogen production and difficulties
Renewable Hydrogen Production (GHG Depletion), which was
for delivery and storage.
far from the HLG Roadmap forecasts where SMR was also
considered a source of Hydrogen in the early stages of
deployment of the HE. This huge “green approach” was a
Hydrogen production
strategic mistake that inhibited the early development of the
Hydrogen Economy because hydrogen produced by electrol-
Concerning production, there has been a division, inherited
ysis from RES was very expensive. As a consequence, due to
from the different approaches above mentioned, between the

Table 1 e Proposals for 2015 extracted from the “Skeleton proposal for European hydrogen and fuel cell roadmap”
(Reference [1]. Figure 4).
Proposals for H2 production and distribution:
✓ Interconnection of local H2 distribution grids
✓ Significant H2 production from renewables
✓ H2 produced from fossil fuels with C sequestration
✓ Clusters of local H2 distribution grids
✓ Local clusters of H2 filling stations
✓ Local H2 production at refueling station (reforming and electrolysis)
Proposals for FC deployment:
✓ Low-cost high temperature fuel cell systems
✓ FCs commercial in micro-applications
✓ FC vehicles competitive for passenger cars
✓ SOFC systems atmospheric and hybrid commercial (<10 MW)
✓ First H2 fleets (1st generation H2 storage)
✓ Series production of FC vehicles for fleets (direct H2 and on-board reforming)
✓ Stationary low-temperature fuel cell systems (PEM) (<300 kW)
✓ Stationary high-temperature fuel cell systems (MCFC/SOFC) (<500 kW)
✓ H2 ICE developed; Demonstration fleets of FC buses
✓ Stationary low-temperature fuel cell systems for niche commercial (<50 kW)
19502 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8
processes that use RE as primary energy source and the ones
that use fossil fuels. In general, the “Hydrogen Community”
has been in favor of using RE, which is paradoxical since, ac-
cording to the IEA Energy Technology Essentials, in 2007, more
than 95% of hydrogen was produced from fossil resources
(48% Natural Gas; 30% Refinery gas; 18% Coal). So, although it
is generally accepted that in the long term, hydrogen will be
obtained from RE, in the sort and medium term, production
from fossil fuels will continue playing an important role by
economic and technological reasons. It should not be
forgotten that Hydrogen is an energy carrier, so a very careful
energetic analysis, including Energy Return on Investment,
EROI, should be done to evaluate the feasibility of a process. In
this sense, the low EROI of RE, in particular solar, should be
carefully considered before deploying these types of pro-
cesses. The high quantity of noble metal and rare earths used
in many RE technologies should also be considered in the Life
Cycle Analysis.
Hydrogen production costs
It is clear now that HE must move from a granted strategy
based on public funding toward a market driven strategy
based on private efforts with public incentives (as proposed in
the HLG Roadmap) to create self-sufficient hydrogen markets.
To move to this scenario, Hydrogen must be produced at a
competitive cost. According to data reported in Ref. [3], the
levelized costs of Hydrogen production by several technolo-
gies, varies from 4.7 US $/kg for distributed SMR (6 US $/kg for
centralized SMR and pipelines distribution) to 6.8 US $/kg for
distributed electrolysis with US Grid Mix (8.5 US $/kg for
central electrolysis with wind generation and pipelines dis-
tribution). It should be noted that CSD (Compression, Storage
and Dispensing) costs, which are very high, must be added to
the production cost, so that, a very low cost of production is
key to dispense Hydrogen at reasonable prices. The report
concludes that 2e4 US $/kg cost target (2 US $/kg in a mature
market) can be met with distributed natural gas pathway and
that further R&D to reduce cost of CSD is needed.
The above should not lead to think that a low cost of pro-
duction is associated with high GHG emissions. A common
mistake concerning SMR is that it produces unacceptable GHG
emissions, much higher than electrolysis, which is false when
electricity is taken from the Grid and the share of coal in the
energetic mix is very high, such as happens in USA, China,
India or Poland, to mention just some few examples. In fact,
according to [4], a 2020þ FCEV using compressed Hydrogen
from NG reforming has the potential for GHG emissions half
those of a gasoline vehicle while the electrolysis route would
give no advantage over conventional vehicles/fuels.
EROI's concerns
The potential of RES to produce Hydrogen via water electrolysis
should not be overestimated because they are much more
costly to implement, both economically and energetically than
fossil fuels. The “Energy Returned On Invested”, EROI, is the
most important parameter used to describe the overall life-
cycle efficiency of a power supply technique, independent
from temporary economical fluctuations or politically
motivated influence distorting the perception of the real pro-
portions. According to [5], an EROI of 7 is the lowest value for a
technology to be considered economically viable (The physical
limit being 1). An exergy based analysis of the RE sources
commonly used to produce electricity leads to authors to
conclude that the Solar PV in Germany even with the more
effective roof installation and even when not taking the needed
buffering (storage and over-capacities) into account has an EROI
far below the economic limit. Wind energy seems to be above
the economic limit but falls below when combined even with
the most effective pump storage and even when installed at the
German coast. Biogas-fired plants, even though they need no
buffering, have the problem of enormous fuel provisioning
effort which brings them clearly below the economic limit with
no potential of improvements in reach. Solar CSP is the most
hopeful option among the new solar/wind technologies, in
particular because of the smaller influence of the buffering.
Choosing less effective storage techniques like molten salt
thermal storage and the connection to the European grid
probably brings the EROI again far below the economic limit.
The authors calculate the following EROI's values for the
energy techniques commonly used to produce electricity: PV:
3.9 (Germany. Roof installation). Biomass: 3.5 Maize, 55 t/ha
per year harvested (wet). Wind: 16 (Location is Northern
Schleswig Holstein. 2000 full load hours). CSP: 19 (Grid
connection to Europe not included). CCGT: 28. Coal: 30
(Transportation not included). Hydro: 49 (Medium size). Nu-
clear (PWR): 75 (Enrichment 83% centrifuge, 17% diffusion). It
can be conclude that fossil fuels provides much more energy
per energy unit invested that RE and therefore, the time of
easily available energy will end with them.
Renewable energy systems and critical raw materials
Another important concern with implementation of RES
technologies is that, in many cases, requires mining and
processing of huge amounts of Critical Raw Materials what
could seriously affect to their implantation. For instance, a
MIT study of the future of solar energy [6] concludes that
supplying even 5% of world electricity demand with Cadmium
Telluride (CdTe) or Copper Indium Gallium Sellenide (CIGS)
solar cells would require directing today's entire worldwide
production of key elements to PV fabrication. There is little
historical precedent for the rates of growth in metal produc-
tion that would be necessary to support higher levels of CdTe
or CIGS penetration.
Long term transition to CO2 free hydrogen
The real challenge of HE in the long term is to produce CO2-
free Hydrogen at competitive cost. UC Davis researchers Chris
Yang and Joan Ogden analyzed different strategies for
achieving a near-zero-carbon Hydrogen transportation fuel
supply system in California by 2050 with an economic opti-
mization model of infrastructure costs and emissions con-
straints [7]. They found that it would be possible to develop
Hydrogen as a near-zero emissions transportation fuel, by
relying on a combination of fossil with CCS, biomass derived
Hydrogen, and Hydrogen from intermittent renewable
electricity.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8
Fossil Hydrogen with CO2 capture and sequestration offers
nearly zero emissions at relatively low cost, assuming suitable
CO2 disposal sites are available nearby, and Hydrogen is pro-
duced at large scale. The ELCOGAS Company developed a
14 MW project for Hydrogen production from coal gasification
and CCS using mature industrial technologies [8]. It was
concluded that CO2-free Hydrogen can be produced at a
marginal cost of 0.6 V/kg, which could be marketed al 1.3 V/kg.
Adding 4 V/kg for DSC costs, ELCOGAS claimed that could
allocate CO2-free Hydrogen at a Re-Fueling Station, HRS, at a
price of 4.6e5.3 V/kg, which could be competitive, before
taxes, with the petroleum derived fuels. Despite that, there is
a great deal of uncertainty about the potential environmental
impacts and feasibility of CCS due to social acceptance that
could impede the implementation of this technology.
Concerning the renewable pathways, Hydrogen is obtained
from water splitting. Two ways are envisaged for that: Elec-
trolysis, (Wind and PV) and the so called: Sun To Hydrogen,
STH. Regarding Electrolysis, the issue is primarily cost rather
than technical feasibility or resources, so that, a great devel-
opment is expected in the future as renewable electricity cost
approaches the parity grid.
STH processes group those processes in which water
splitting is carried out using directly the sun energy without
prior conversion into electricity. The main advantage of STH
processes is that the efficiency limitations imposed by the
electricity conversion step can be overcome. At present a lot of
efforts are being devoted to develop different STH process, but
all of them are at research level, far from a practical utiliza-
tion. In most of STH processes under development, the re-
ported efficiency in capturing the sun energy is very low, far
from the 10% which is considered the practical threshold for
that a process to be feasible. STH processes can be divided into
two big groups depending on the type of approach used to
capture the sun energy: The “biological” approach, also called
artificial photosynthesis, based on biological mechanisms and
the “chemical” approach, commonly called Photo Electro
Chemical, PEC, based on synthetic semiconductor materials.
The main challenges that must face STH based on biology
are the theoretical limits to solar energy conversion. For
instance, the theoretical limit for the efficiency of photosyn-
thetic glucose production from CO2 and water is of ~12%.
Taking into account the losses in light harvesting and respi-
ration, the maximum limit is reduced to 4.6 and 6.0% for C3
and C4 respectively. This is in part because photosynthetic
organisms access only ~50% of the incident solar energy. In
addition, the two photosystems required for oxygenic photo-
synthesis compete for the same wavelengths of light,
reducing overall photochemical efficiency. An ambitious
modification would be to maintain the two photosystems but
engineer one of them to use the bacteriochlorophylls found in
many anoxygenic photosynthetic organisms, which have ab-
sorption maxima that extend out to ~1100 nm [9].
Concerning PEC, the situation is much more promising and
great advances have been reported on new IIIeV type semi-
conductors development and photoreactor prototyping sug-
gesting that the transition from the baseline (0.2 year PEC
material replacement time; 10:1 solar concentration; 2000 $/
m2 PEC material cost; 10% solar to Hydrogen efficiency) with a
Hydrogen production cost of 93.66 $/kg to the DOE ultimate
19503
cost goal of 1e2 $/kg is possible. (Intermediate DOE cost target:
17.30 $/kg in 2015 and 5.70 $/kg in 2020). To do that, PEC sys-
tems with 25% of solar-to-Hydrogen efficiency, semiconductor
cost around 150 $/m2 and 10 years of stability are needed [10].
Hydrogen as energy storage
Hydrogen is essentially a “chemical reservoir”, so, it could be
also used for storing electricity as chemical energy. Two very
different scales must be considered: The Strategic-scale
(Terawatt-hour) and the Utility-scale (KWh or some few
MWh). In the first one, storage is considered a way of securing
general energy supply while in the second one the target is to
secure the operation of a power plant. Regarding the strategic
storage, there is not at short and medium term any available
technology other than Power to Gas which is treated below.
Concerning Utility-scale, great efforts are being currently
devoted to elucidate the economic feasibility of converting
electricity surplus, mainly from wind, into Hydrogen, but clear
conclusions have not been obtained The main concern with
Hydrogen is the low storage efficiency compared with other
technologies such as batteries. A study carried out at INTA [11]
to compare different Hydrogen storage technologies to store
electricity concludes that the energy storage vary from 14% for
high pressure storage in metal hydrides to 32% for low pres-
sure tanks. These efficiencies are far lower than the obtained
for advanced lead acid batteries on a DC to DC basis: 85%. In
contrast, according to [12] the cost of Hydrogen storage is
competitive with batteries and could be competitive with
CAES and pumped hydro in locations that are not favorable for
these technologies. Levelized costs for output electricity of
0.10 $/KWh for CAES, 0.13 $/KWh for pumped hydro, 0.19 $/
KWh for gas turbines, 0.25 $/KWh for NaS battery, 0.28 $/KWh
for Vanadium redox battery and 0.83 $/KWh for NiCd battery
are reported.
Ehret et al. [13] discussed the potential that Hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies offer for supporting the goals of the
German Energiewende. They concluded that Hydrogen can be
competitively produced based on renewable energies, sup-
porting the central goal of the Energiewende to shift energy
supply from fossil to renewable. Hydrogen also offers solu-
tions for tackling another big challenge of the Energiewende:
the integration of large and growing volumes of fluctuating
renewable energies in the energy system. They assume that
Hydrogen could be competitively produced from excess wind
power by large-scale wind-Hydrogen-systems and stored in
caverns, to later provide energy for both the transport and the
stationary sector. This would simultaneously facilitate the
sustainability advantages Hydrogen entails for the transport
sector and provide the energy storage capacity necessary to
successfully tackle the issue of integrating renewable
energies.
Hydrogen delivery and CSD
Delivery Pathways have not significantly changed over the
time. It is generally accepted that cylinders distributed by
trucks is the best option for small distances and low
19504 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8
production whereas pipe-line is preferred for long distances
(higher than 600 km) and large productions. Concerning
scheduling for deployment, according to [14] delivery of
compressed and liquefied Hydrogen by trucks or with mobile
re-fuelers will be the best options up to 2020 and dedicated
pipelines could be implemented in the next decade.
Regarding CSD, it is important to remark that the station
costs adds between $1.00 e $3.00 to the cost of dispensed
Hydrogen, ~70% of which can be attributed to Compression
and Storage. HDSAM projected costs of Hydrogen delivery
from central production facilities in 2015 are $3.00 while the
target for 2020 is $2.00 (Main Assumptions of the Model: City
size: 1.5 M; 10% Market penetration; 750 kg/day Station size;
700 bars fills from a cascade storage bank; The Hydrogen
Source is a central production facility located 62 miles from
the city) [4].
Recently, a “new” idea is gaining acceptance: To distribute
the Hydrogen using the widespread grid of natural gas. This
technology is particularly suitable for distributing Hydrogen
produced from renewable electricity surplus so it is
commonly referred to as Power to Gas, P2G. The concept is
very attractive and is gaining more and more attention from
both, electricity and natural gas companies. If it were even-
tually implemented, the desirable convergence between
Hydrogen and natural gas would occur. The P2G offers a lot of
advantages that are considered in depth in the next point.
Hydrogen end uses
As stated before, the initial postulates of the HLG for Hydrogen
Economy, although emphasized replacing oil in the transport
sector, also looked applications in the industrial and domestic
sectors. This initial spirit was ignored later, but is clear now
that the fact of linking Hydrogen exclusively with the trans-
port sector in Fuel Cell Vehicles was a strategic mistake that
hid the long term advantages of Hydrogen as a gas fuel and of
FC as a power generator because Hydrogen can be used in
other sectors, in particular, if Power to Gas technologies are
implemented.
Hydrogen as a gas fuel: power to gas
The high costs of Hydrogen delivery and the fact that Hydrogen
could be used in all the applications where natural gas is used as
a gas fuel has recently promoted the idea of injecting Hydrogen
produced from excess electricity into the grid of natural gas.
This technology is usually called Power to Gas, P2G, and would
promote the convergence of Hydrogen with Gas Natural. The
great advantages of P2G have been stated in Ref. [15]. The chief
advantage is the considerable energy storage capacity of the
natural gas network: even at relatively low concentrations can
equate to terawatt-hour of energy than can be stored for
months. Other relevant advantages is that pipelines offer a
significantly more effective means of moving large quantities of
energy over distances than power lines do and are subject to
lower losses. Concerning RE, adding renewable Hydrogen to the
NG Grid connects electricity and heating, increasing the flexi-
bility of the energy system management as a whole while
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Concerning material limitations, the NaturalHy project [16]
outlines general conclusions of detailed studies of both
durability and integrity issues, and they estimate that
Hydrogen can be carried by existing natural gas transmission
pipelines with only minor adaptations. These are generally
insignificant with concentrations up to 50% Hydrogen, but the
durability of some metal pipes can degrade when they are
exposed to Hydrogen over long periods at high concentrations
and at high pressures, as in the case of the transmission lines.
The effect is highly dependent on the type of steel, so a
detailed investigation for every case is mandatory and could
result in the upper limitation on Hydrogen concentration
being reduced.
Regarding the distribution system (Lower pressure)
Hydrogen-induced failures are not major integrity concerns
for steel pipes at the pressure and stress levels occurring in
the distribution system and modifications to existing integrity
management practices may incur an additional 10% cost in-
crease due to Hydrogen blends.
Concerning end-uses, the NaturalHy Project explored in
depth the issue of maximum Hydrogen blend levels at which
none or minor modifications would be needed for end-use
systems, including appliances such as household boilers or
stoves and industrial or power generation. It is concluded that
end-use requirements are generally the most restrictive con-
ditions on increasing Hydrogen blend levels in natural gas and
that the impact of Hydrogen blends on industrial facilities
must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Ranges noted as
being acceptable generally for end-use systems fall within
5%e20% Hydrogen.
Hydrogen downstream extraction
P2G would also be a very interesting option for pure Hydrogen
delivery provided that Hydrogen could be extracted down-
stream at competitive prices. This option is highly dependent
on the Hydrogen concentration. Thus, according to [15], for a
10% concentration and 80% recovery factor, the estimated cost
of Hydrogen extraction by PSA from a 300 psi pipeline is
$3.3e$8.3/kg Hydrogen extracted, for a range of recovery rates
of 1000e100 kg/day while for a 20% concentration and 80%
recovery factor, the extraction cost is $2.0e$7.4/kg Hydrogen
extracted, for the same range of recovery rates. These addi-
tional supply chain costs are high relative to a competitive
Hydrogen cost goal of $2e$4/kg for FCEV markets. However, if
Hydrogen is extracted at a pressure-reduction facility, the high
cost of recompressing the natural gas to the original natural
gas pipeline pressure can be avoided. The resulting estimated
extraction cost for a 10% concentration and 80% recovery
factor is $0.3e$1.3/kg, with the range resulting from econo-
mies of scale for a system size or recovery rate of 1000e100 kg/
day. These costs per kilogram are reduced by approximately
10% if the Hydrogen concentration is increased to 20%.
Hydrogen to methane
As stated above, the concentration ranges being acceptable for
end-use systems fall within 5%e20% Hydrogen. In order to
surpass this limitation, Hydrogen can be converted to syn-
thetic methane by reaction with carbon dioxide. Conventional
process proceeds in two steps: Production of Hydrogen via
electrolysis and reaction with CO2 in a catalytic reaction, the
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8
Sabatier reaction. This conversion is subject to an energy loss
of around 40% (20% Electrolysis þ 20% Methanation) but there
are significant advantages when carbon is sourced from
biomass. The pilot plant for this technology is operated by the
Company e-On in Falkenhagen, Germany. Recently, a new
process [17] based on high temperature co-electrolysis on a
Solid Oxide Electrolyzer of steam and CO2 have been pro-
posed. Synthesis Gas (CO þ H2) is obtained from the HT elec-
trolyzer, which can be converted to methane but also to
methanol. This last option is very interesting because meth-
anol can be used in ICE blended with gasoline and in Direct
Methanol Fuel Cells (See below) to produce electricity in
portable devices
Great efforts to develop such a system are being developed,
in particular in Europe, and two major collaborative platforms
have been launched in 2013, one centered around the North
Sea and the other around the Mediterranean countries.
However, understanding the techno-economic potential and
spatial logistics associated with this type of energy storage
and Hydrogen delivery system requires additional analysis. In
a recent study [18] it is concluded that P2G is not profitable at
the current prices of Natural Gas and the practical absence of
credits to avoid CO2 emissions. However, this scenario will
change in the medium term when the NG prices and the
credits for CO2 avoided are expected to rise. In the meanwhile,
a credit trading system could apply to renewable Hydrogen
paralleling the credit system used in the renewable electricity
sector in order to promote its implementation. This credit
system would provide an economic incentive for increasing
the energy provided from existing renewable facilities.
Hydrogen for fueling transport. Fuel Cell Vehicles
The use of Hydrogen in the transport sector in Fuel Cell Vehicles,
FCV, has been considered since the beginning of the Hydrogen
Economy the main and disruptive field of application. Again, the
dissociation between the fuel, Hydrogen, and the powertrain,
fuel cells, would be beneficial for Hydrogen implementation.
Thus, using of compressed H2/Natural Gas blends in Natural Gas
Vehicles, NGV, powered by ICE has shown to be very efficient
with significant reduction of GHG emissions. In the near future
new engines specifically intended to be used with gaseous fuels
that directly produce electricity and not mechanical torque
could be introduced in the next generations of Plug-in Range
Extended Electric Vehicles, PREEV. Consequently, transitioning
the transport sector will require exploring the intersection of
FCV and NGV in order to take advantages of the synergies be-
tween Hydrogen and NG as gaseous fuels.
In the same way, the traditional confrontation of FCV
versus EV should be changed looking for synergies between
them because both are electric vehicles. This confrontation
has been a strategic mistake that have led to the advocates of
FCV to consider EV as a threat instead an opportunity, what is
a mistake because FC will substitute to ICE, not to batteries.
The most rational configuration for the future electric vehicle
will be a PREEV with a fuel cell as range extender instead of an
ICE. In this way, FCV will be able to take advantages from
being connected to the future Smart Grids.
Proponents of FCV should beware of using the greater au-
tonomy of these vehicles as sole argument to defend their use
19505
because they would be defenseless if, as expected, EV en-
hances significantly their autonomy and approaches to the
one of FCV. In the same way, advocates of electrolytic
Hydrogen should considered that in this case, EV would
dominate the market due to the higher efficiency of charging
directly electricity in a battery at home using the already
existent grid versus the conversion into Hydrogen and sub-
sequent distribution in a HRS network yet to be implemented.
In fact, the fall in the “through of disillusionment” occurred in
the second part of the past decade and the first part of the
present one, was originated by the huge improvement of EV
range due to the introduction of Li-ion batteries in transport.
The changes occurred in 2009 in USA where R&D efforts
moved from the FutureGen Program promoted by President
Bush to produce Hydrogen from coal to the Battery 300 Pro-
gram promoted by President Obama to develop a 300 miles
range battery helped to create the perception in public that
Hydrogen was no longer necessary.
Another cause of disillusionment was involuntarily intro-
duced by HE stockholders leading people to think that the
implementation of FCV was closer than it actually was.
Although most of automakers envisage starting “commer-
cialization” of FCV in the second half of the present decade, in
general under leasing contracts that includes Hydrogen sup-
ply, it should be noted that the number of cars produced is
very low. Thus, production of Toyota Mirai, which is the first
FCV commercialized, will only top 700 units in 2015 [19]. Ac-
cording to the Company, the car's complex nature requires a
lot of hands-on work rather than highly-automated processes.
This attention to detail means production needs to be limited.
Toyota is also wary that demand may be limited until
adequate Hydrogen refueling infrastructure is in place.
However, although great advances have been carried out in
improving the range of EV, it seems that the 300 miles goal for
batteries is far from being met. This fact added to the efforts of
FC makers to reduce the cost and performance of these de-
vices, allows thinking that 2015 will mark the beginning of the
“Slope of Enlightenment” for Hydrogen Economy and FCV, Fig
1, which will lead to the “Plateau of Productivity” next decade.
According to [7] the Vehicle Retail Equivalent Price for FCV will
reach the parity with advanced gasoline vehicles in the sec-
ond part of next decade and it is expected that new FCV sales
in the US reach 3 MM in 2030.
Building a hydrogen Re-fueling stations network
As stated above, demand of FCV may be limited until adequate
Hydrogen refueling infrastructure is in place. To implement a
HRS Network will be costly and will take a long time. Gov-
ernments are publishing directives in order to promote it. In
Europe, the European Commission launched in 2014 the
“Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative
fuels infrastructure” [20] aiming to accelerate the process of
creating refueling stations for alternative vehicles, in partic-
ular, NGV, FCV and EV.
According to the Fuel Cell Industry Review 2015 [21], the
global number of public stations available to fuel a passenger
vehicle will approach 200 by the end of 2016, based on public
data from North America, Europe and Asia. In Japan, several
private sector teams, under pressure from the government,
19506 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8
are building or operating 74 stations, a dramatic jump from
the 45 stations operating or under construction at the end of
2014, but far from the government's initial goal of 100 by the
end of 2015. By comparison, 58 stations in California are in
some stage of development, with 3 already open, according to
the California Fuel Cell Partnership, while Germany has about
50 stations operating or financed. In Korea, 13 stations were
open and 10 more are planned by 2020. However not all of the
existing stations are accessible to the public.
The “Hydrogen Mobility Europe” project announced in
September 2015 should bring 29 operational stations in ten
countries by 2019. The project is underpinned by the major
European initiatives in the area: H2 Mobility Germany, Mobi-

Hydroge
lite ne France, the Scandianvian Hydrogen Highway
Partnership and UK H2 Mobility, with funding from the FCH JU.
Deployment of some 200 cars and 125 range-extended vans is
also part of the plan.
In October 2015, H2 Mobility Germany, a company formed
as a joint venture consortium by six private European com-
panies, separately has announced a goal of 100 Hydrogen
stations in the country in the next four years, financed largely
with private funds. Nineteen public stations are already open
in Germany, with financing secured to bring the total to 50.
Scandinavia has nine operating stations and one under con-
struction, with a goal of 15 full service stations and as many as
30 satellite stations.
Five public stations are operating in the United Kingdom.
The UK Government, with Department of Transport financing
through the Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) announced
funding in March 2015 to bring 12 sites into public use. This
includes 2 entirely new stations, 2 mobile refuelers, and up-
grades to a number of other stations to bring them to full
compliance with customer requirements, including credit card
payment capabilities. Stations are open in several other coun-
tries, including Switzerland, Austria, France, Spain and Italy.
Ogden et al. [7] simulated a scenario for rollout of 34,000
FCVs in Southern California in seven years with the following
assumptions: i) Hydrogen is supplied via compressed gas
Hydrogen truck delivery, building on the current industrial gas
supply system; ii) The Hydrogen is largely derived initially
from natural gas or industry by-products; iii) Initially,
Hydrogen is supplied via mobile refuelers, a small-scale
portable station incorporating storage and dispensers that
can be towed to any site; iv) After 3 years of starting deploy-
ment, a network of small fixed stations (170 kg/d) to assure
coverage is added, and as demand rises at year 4, larger sta-
tions, 250 kg/d and then 500 kg/d at year 5 are added to the
network. The study concluded that the total number of HRS
that must be deployed at year 7 is 78 with a total capacity of
Hydrogen dispensing 31,580 kg/y.
Irrespective of the Hydrogen supply mode, HRS remain
expensive and in Europe currently cost three to four times as
much as a CNG station. Core equipment, including the
dispenser, compressor and onsite storage add up to about
V1M. Higher production volumes, standardization and tech-
nology development are required to bring costs down and
improve performance. Advanced compression techniques
remain a focus of development, as do low-cost and rapid
contaminant measurement techniques. It should be noticed
that FCV's will probably represent less than 50% of the car fleet
in 2050 [22]. In this scenario, plug-in electric cars with
extended range provided by an ICE adapted to CNGH supplied
from the NG Grid could play an important role to increase the
Hydrogen demand and enhance its penetration into the
market. It has been shown [23] that significant additional
reduction of CO2 emissions is obtained using Compressed
Hydrogen/Natural Gas blends, CHNG, in ICE.
Fuel cells: distributed generation and CHP
Although FCV is the best known use of fuel cells, applications
other than transport represent currently their major utiliza-
tion. In particular, their use in Distributed Generation and
Combined Heat and Power is gaining more and more atten-
tion. A Fuel Cell is, essentially, a very efficient device for power
generation. Consequently, FC can substitute conventional
generators based on ICE and gas turbines. A study carried out
for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking [24] claims
that Stationary fuel cells can play a beneficial role in Europe
changing energy landscape since as energy systems integrate
more and more generation capacity from intermittent re-
newables, numerous challenges arise. Amongst others,
Europe's energy systems of the future require new concepts
for complementary supply, such as efficient, distributed
power generation from natural gas and long-term storage
solutions to ensure permanent power supply, e.g. power-to-
gas. Distributed generation from stationary fuel cells prom-
ises significant benefits: In distributed generation, fuel cell
systems exhibit particularly high energy efficiencies (elec-
trical efficiency of up to 60%, combined efficiency in cogene-
ration of more than 90%), thereby attaining considerable
primary energy savings whilst avoiding transmission losses.
When using natural gas and thereby building on existing
infrastructure, stationary fuel cells can substantially reduce
CO2 emissions as highly efficient conversion of low-carbon
natural gas replaces central supply from a still predomi-
nantly fossil-fueled electricity mix. Depending on the fuel
used and its source, the technology can potentially eliminate
CO2 and other emissions altogether e e.g. when fueled with
pure Hydrogen produced from water electrolysis using elec-
tricity from renewables. With its flexible modulation capa-
bilities and high efficiencies at partial loads, the technology
shows strong potential for grid balancing in the context of a
power mix with more intermittent.
Despite these considerable benefits and the wide array of
potential use cases for application, the commercial role of fuel
cell distributed generation in Europe remains limited so far
while has gained traction in other advanced countries, such as
Japan, South Korea and the United States where stationary
fuel cells are already being commercialized. According to The
Fuel Cell Industry Review 2015 forecast [21], the number of
units shipped in 2015 in the world will be 71,000 units,
distributed as follow: Europe 9000; North America 15,000; Asia
46,000 and ROW (Rest Of the World) 1000. Accounted in
Megawatt, 340 MW were shipped in 2015, being the share:
Europe 30; North America 140; Asia 169 and ROW (Rest Of the
World) 1.
Regarding applications, the composition of the total has
begun to change in 2015. While portable shipments are
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8
estimated to be lower than 2014 and stationary fuel cell units
higher, transport numbers have almost doubled. This change
is revealed in even starker terms when expressed by MW since
with more than 1000 fuel cell cars in 2015, has more than
trebled. The distribution by applications in 2015 was: 18,000
Portable; 49,000 Stationary and 4000 Transport. When Power is
considered, the distribution changes because power of
portable applications are, in general, very low: Stationary:
205 MW; Transport: 135 MW.
Stationary fuel cell shipments fall mainly into the three
well-worn categories evident in past years: back-up or off-grid
power for telecoms equipment; fuel cells for micro-CHP and
larger CHP; and power-only systems of hundreds of kW to MW
electrical output. Large scale stationary fuel cells of the
100 kW to MW scale, dominate the sector in terms of capacity
shipped but Micro-CHP fuel cell shipments dominate unit
numbers in the stationary sector. At present, there is a great
variety of micro-CHP fuel cell commercially available over
0.7 kW to 1400 kW that can be fueled with very different
alternative fuels such as Natural Gas from the pipeline, liq-
uefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, industrial waste gases and
manufactured gasesetypically low-and medium-Btu gas pro-
duced from gasification or pyrolysis processes.
Concerning portable applications, shipments run into the
thousands, but their total power output is small. Chargers of
5 W unsurprisingly contribute little to the MW total. However,
it is important to note that the added value per watt is very
high in this sector. Their utilization is expected to grow due to
their interest for military applications, such as high density
power supplier and battery recharger, which are expected to
act as a driver for development.
Concerning technologies, PEMFC continues to dominate
the unit numbers of fuel cell shipments. This reflects the fact
that the technology is very adaptable to a wide range of ap-
plications in the transport, stationary and portable fields. By
contrast other fuel cell technologies are focused on specific
applications, for example MCFC and PAFC for larger scale
stationary uses, or SOFC for stationary and some portable
applications. DMFC, a related PEMFC technology, is found in
portable, occasionally small transport, and some small scale
back-up or off-grid uses.
In MW shipped, 2015 sees a shift from previous years.
Whereas PEM shipments were stable at 60e70 MW previously,
2015 has seen the number more than double. PEM shipments
benefited in 2015 from the roll-out of fuel cell electric vehicles,
notably Toyota and Hyundai cars. With a maximum power
output of 114 and 100 kW respectively, the MW quickly add up.
The composition of the total units shipped is as follow: PEMFC
64,000; DMFC: 2000; SOFC: 5000. Due to high power of the fuel
cells installed in FCV, the power shipped for this technology
has significantly increased in 2015 and now the total of PEMFC
shipments exceeds the sum of all other fuel cell technologies:
PEMFC: 180 MW; PAFC: 20 MW; SOFC: 60 MW; MCFC: 80 MW.
Conclusions
Although significant mismatches exist between the early HLG
outlooks for Hydrogen Economy implementation and the
current situation, there is no doubt that Hydrogen will play an
19507
important role in the future energy scenario. Mismatches are
attributed to economic crisis, what dramatically reduced the
government supports and the social perception that EV could
provide an easier approach to zero emission vehicles. The
range limitations of EV, which are far from the 300 miles, and
improvements in cost and performances of FCV have
enhanced their pre-commercial introduction in 2015and cost
parity with conventional vehicles is expected for the second
half of next decade.
Deployment of FCV should not be thought in terms of
dominance but rather in complementarity with other alter-
native fuels so that the strategy for deployment should be
planned in terms of convergence and searching for synergies.
In the short term (2015e2030) Hydrogen should be supplied via
compressed gas Hydrogen truck delivery, building on the
current industrial gas supply system in order to reduce the
CAPEX & OPEX of the refueling stations.
In the medium term (2030e2040), Hydrogen obtained by
electrolysis from renewable surplus is expected to be
competitive with that obtained from natural gas due to the
rising of NG prices and the credits obtained from the CO2
emissions avoided. In this scenario, renewable Hydrogen
could be injected in the NG Grid, P2G technologies, pure or
converted into methane and used in applications other than
transport. In this P2G scenario, Hydrogen could be extracted
downstream from the NG grid at competitive prices, thus
avoiding the construction of a Hydrogen Grid.
In the long term, fossil Hydrogen with CCS offers nearly
zero emissions at relatively low cost. However, there is a great
deal of uncertainty about the potential environmental im-
pacts and feasibility of CCS. Sun to Hydrogen processes have
created great expectations and great research efforts are being
devoted to improve their energy efficiency, so, it is expected
than a renewable Hydrogen production system independent
from the electricity grid will be implemented.
Stationary and CHP applications of fuel cells are already
well introduced in the market and it is expected significantly
grow in the medium term. Given that a great variety of fuels
other than Hydrogen can be used to power the different types
of fuel cells, a specific strategy for Fuel Cells apart from that of
Hydrogen should be implemented in order to enhance their
market penetration.
references
[1] Hydrogen energy and fuel cells. A vision of our future. EUR
20719 EN Final Report of the High Level Group. https://ec.
europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/Hydrogen-report_en.pdf.
[2] Towards a European hydrogen energy roadmap. 12 My 2004.
Executive Report, http://www.hyways.de/hynet/HYNET-
roadmap_Executive_Report_MAY2004.pdf.
[3] Ramsden T, Ruth M, Diakov V, Laffen M, Timbario TA.
Hydrogen pathways: updated cost, well-to-wheels energy
use, and emissions for the current technology status of ten
hydrogen production, delivery, and distribution scenarios.
March 2013. NREL/TP-6A10e60528.
[4] JEC WTW Study Version 4. Well-to-Wheels analysis of future
automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context.
Overview of Results. May 2014.
19508 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 9 5 0 0 e1 9 5 0 8

[5] Weissbach D, Puprecht G, Huke A, Czerski K, Gottlieb S, [22] Anandarajah Gabrial, McDowall Will, Ekins Paul.
Hussein A. Energy intensities and energy payback times of Decarbonising road transport with hydrogen and electricity:
electricity generating power plants. Energy 2013;52:210e21. long term global technology learning Scenarios. Int J
[6] PV scaling and materials use. In: The future of solar energy. Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:3419e32.
An Interdisciplinary MIT study. Richard Schmalensee Chair; [23] Genovese Antonino, Contrisciani Nicola, Ortenzi Fernando,
2015. ISBN (978-0-928008-9-8). Chapter 6, https://mitei.mit. Cazzola Vittorio. On road experimental tests of hydrogen/
edu/system/files/Chapter%206_compressed.pdf. natural gas blends on transit buses. Int J Hydrogen Energy
[7] Ogden Joan, Yang Christopher, Nicholas Michael, Fulton Lew. 2011;36:1775e83.
The hydrogen transition. Next steps white paper. UC Davis [24] Advancing Europe's energy systems: stationary Fuel Cells in
Institute of Transportation Studies; July 29, 2014. distributed generation. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2843/
[8] Ma
ster Universitario en EE. RR., Pilas de Combustible e 088142. Sponsored by FCH JU, ISBN 978-92-9246-134-8, http://
Hidro


geno. MODULO III e Asignatura: Tecnologı́a de www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/FCHJU_
Produccio
n de Hidro
geno. Produccio
n de Hidro

geno a partir FuelCellDistributedGenerationCommercialization_0.pdf.
del carbo
n. 6 Mayo 2014. Pilar Coca Lano. ELCOGAS, http://
www.elcogas.es/images/stories/7-noticias-documentos/2-
Acronyms
documentos/3-presentaciones/20140506_Produccion_
hidrogeno_a_partir_del_carbon.pdf.
CAES: Compressed Air Energy Storage
[9] Blankenship Robert E, et al. Comparing photosynthetic and
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure
photovoltaic efficiencies and recognizing the potential for
CHP: Combined Heat and Power
improvement. Science 2011;332:805. http://dx.doi.org/
CCGT: Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
10.1126/science.1200165.
CCS: CO2 Capture and Sequestration
[10] Deutsch Todd G, Turner John A. Semiconductor materials for
CIGS: Copper Indium Gallium Selenide
photoelectrolysis. 2014. U.S. DOE Hydrogen & Fuel Cells
CHNG: Compressed Hydrogen/Natural Gas blends
Program Review, https://www.Hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/
CNG: Compressed Natural Gas
review14/pd035_deutsch_2014_o.pdf.

pez Gonza
lez Eduardo, Isorna Llerena Fernando, Silva CSD: Compression Storage and Dispensing
[11] Lo

rez Manuel, Rosa Iglesias Felipe, Guerra Macho Jose
. CSP: Concentrated Solar Power
Pe
DC: Direct Current
Energy evaluation of a solar hydrogen storage facility:
DMFC: Direct Methanol Fuel Cell
comparison with other electrical energy storage
DOE: Department of Energy
technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:5518e25.
EROI: Energy Return on Investment
[12] Steward Darlene, et al. Analysis of hydrogen and competing
EV: Electric Vehicles
technologies for utility-scale energy storage. In: IPHE
FC: Fuel Cells
Workshop. Seville, Spain; November 15, 2012. NREL/PR-
FCEV1: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
560e47547. NREL.
FCV: Fuel Cell Vehicles
[13] Ehret Oliver, Bonhoff Klaus. Hydrogen as a fuel and energy
FFE: Fossil Fuel Economy
storage: success factors for the German Energiewende. Int J
FCH JU: Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:5526e33.
GHG: Greenhouse Gas
[14] Hydrogen production & delivery program area e plenary
HE: Hydrogen Economy
presentation e Sara Dillich fuel cell technologies office 2014.
HDSAM: Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model
In: Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting June
HLG: High Level Group for Hydrogen and fuel cells
16; 2014. https://www.Hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review14/
HRS: Hydrogen Refueling Station
pd000_dillich_2014_o.pdf.
ICE: Internal Combustion Engine
[15] Melaina MW, Antonia O, Penev M. Blending hydrogen into
INTA: Instituto Nacional de Tecnologı́a Aeroespacial
natural gas pipeline networks: a Review of key issues. March
MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2013. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600e51995, http://www.
NG: Natural Gas
nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/51995.pdf.
NGV: Natural Gas Vehicles
[16] NATURALHY. Integrated Project. SES6/CT/2004/502661. 2004-
OPEX: Operational Expenditure
2009. Final publishable activity report. 25 March 2010.
PAFC: Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell
[17] Giglio Emanuele, Lanzini Andrea, Santarelli Massimo,
P2G: Power to Gas
Leone Pierluigi. Synthetic natural gas via integrated high-
PEC: Photoelectrochemical
temperature electrolysis and methanation: part Idenergy
PEMFC: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
performance. J Energy Storage 2015;1:22e37.
PREEV: Plug-in Range Extended Electric Vehicles
[18] Bünger U, Landinger H, Pschorr-Schoberer E, Schmidt P,
€ hrens J, et al. Power-to-Gas (P2G) in PV: Photovoltaic
Weindorf (LBST) W, Jo
PWR: Pressurized Water Reactor
transport. Status quo and perspectives for development. 11
OLEV: Office of Low Emissions Vehicle
June 2014. Munich, Heidelberg, Leipzig, Berlin, http://www.
RE: Renewable Energy
lbst.de/ressources/docs2014/mks-studie-ptg-transport-
RES: Renewable Energy System
status-quo-and-perspectives-for-development.pdf.
ROW: Rest of the World
[19] Viknesh Vijayenthiran. http://www.motorauthority.com/
SMR: Steam Methane Reforming
news/1029193_toyota-to-build-mirai-fuel-cell-vehicle-at-
SOFC: Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
former-lexus-lfa-plant.
STH: Sun to Hydrogen
[20] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼CELEX:
UC: University of California
32014L0094.
[21] Fuel cell industry Review. 2015. http://www.
1
fuelcellindustryreview.com/. This is an alternative denomination for Fuel Cell Vehicles that
is used in Ref. [15]. The acronym has been conserved such as it
appears in the original document. Although FCV is currently
more common, FCEV is more and more used because it remarks
the electric nature of these vehicles.