1

Future Fuels for the APEC Region

An Integrated Technology Roadmap
September 2005
Compiled by David E. Minns
1
Foreword
This Technology Roadmap (TRM) is Phase 2 of the APEC Project Foresighting Future Fuel Technology.
Two Workshops were held to solicit input from APEC economies to develop the Roadmap. The first workshop
was held in Vancouver, Canada in April 2005 and the second in Kenting, Chinese Taipei in August 2005.
The TRM is an overview document where every effort has been made to make it technically and factually
sound through engaging experts from throughout the APEC region. This, of necessity, means that some of the
discussion is quite technical in nature. It is not, however, intended to be a technical document aimed at the
technical community. Rather it attempts to inform policy makers of technical opportunities and issues. There
was local industry participation in both the Vancouver and Kenting Workshops. In addition, many of the
APEC Economies participating in this study have conducted detailed roadmaps of their own in which industry
was, in some case, an active participant. Through this means, this Roadmap has attempted to reflect the
industry perspective to a limited degree.
The APEC Project is a collaborative initiative between the APEC Energy Working Group and the APEC
Industrial Science and Technology Working Group. It is coordinated jointly by the APEC Center for
Technology Foresight in Thailand and the Office of the National Science Advisor in Canada and sponsored by
Canada, Chinese Taipei and Thailand supplemented by APEC central funds.
The TRM explores future fuel options by focusing on three future fuel options and exploring their interaction
over the time period 2005-2030:
x Unconventional hydrocarbons
x Biofuels
x Hydrogen
The TRM focuses principally on supply-side technologies (well-to-tank) rather than demand-side
technologies. It is recognized that demand could be influenced by changes in consumer attitudes, higher oil
prices and the increased energy efficiency of energy converters such as internal combustion engines but these
aspects are not discussed here. Rather, the TRM examines technology development pathways to provide viable
supply options to meet demand no matter how this evolves.
However, well-to-tank energy efficiency features as part of the TRM. Conserving primary energy and
delivering as large a fraction of it to the user as possible becomes of increasing importance as energy sources
become limited. It is of critical importance for maximizing the contribution that can be made by renewable
energy.
Electricity is a well-developed energy carrier for both stationary and transportation applications with an existing
infrastructure and could represent serious competition for the potential role described for hydrogen. However,
since the focus of this TRM is on fuel, that is, on a substance that releases its energy through some form of
chemical transformation, the potential for electricity is not examined.
1
Can be contacted at, dminns@rogers.com
2
The study focuses in the region represented by the APEC economies. Although a projection of the expected
aggregate demand for the APEC region can be made, it is recognized that individual economies will be
establishing their own individual energy supply plans depending on specific local threats, available options and
local economics.
This TRM is therefore designed to present a menu of options and their implications and interactions as a
resource for individual economies. There are some initiatives that can be advanced through collaboration
between APEC economies and these have been highlighted.
Acknowledgements
Specific acknowledgements for technical inputs are given for each of the Roadmaps reported in the Appendices.
However, this TRM could not have been produced without the guiding hand of Geoff Nimmo of Industry
Canada. Geoffs leadership of this Phase of the APEC Project drawing on his extensive experience in
technology roadmapping has been pivotal in producing the report presented here. I also want to personally
thank Gloria Fu for going beyond the call of duty to apply here analytical skills to ensure my thinking did not
contravene the natural laws.
1. Vision: Integrated Roadmap of Future Fuels Technology
The APEC Project Foresighting Future Fuel Technology has as its vision the ultimate achievement of a
renewable energy based economy. The Project is aimed at examining the technology development steps
required to achieve this long-term vision.
Phase 1 of this Project was a Scenario 2030 experts workshop designed to develop descriptions of possible
futures derived from an examination of the key drivers of future fuels technology development using a
classification called STEEP social, technological, economic, environmental and political. Emerging from
Scenario 2030 was a common agreement that the Vision of Phase 2 the Integrated Technology Roadmap
should be:
A Secure and Sustainable Fuel Supply for the APEC Region
Where secure means a greater:
x diversification of sources of energy supply;
x emphasis on trading of energy supplies from within the APEC region and;
x emphasis on renewable energy supplies particularly from domestic sources;
And Sustainable implies operations where:
x waste emissions are within the acceptable tolerance of ecosystems and meet public health
requirements,
x socioeconomic objectives - such as job growth, poverty reduction and preservation of rural
communities - are considered,
x other non-energy resources such as metals, fresh water and biodiversity are preserved,
Making strides to achieving this Roadmap vision will be a key contribution and milestone in establishing the
renewable energy based economy desirable in the longer term.
This Vision was confirmed by a detailed analytical study conducted by Dr. Nathasit during the Vancouver
Workshop (see Addendum 1).
3
2. APEC Energy Supply Outlook and Production Goals
This section draws heavily on presentations made at the Kenting Workshop by Dr. Jung, Dr. Bloyd and Dr.
Natusch of the Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre and Dr Tsau of Chinese Taipei and member of the APEC
Energy Working Group.
Future world energy demand is estimated to be ~ 14,800 Mtoe by 2030 (see Figure 2.1). Energy demand for
the APEC region is approximately 70% of the world demand thus will reach approximately 10,500 Mtoe by
2030 rising from approximately 5050 Mtoe in 2005.
Figure 2.1: World Primary Energy Demand to 2030
Source: IEA World Energy Outlook Jan. 20
Hydrocarbons are forecast to contribute more than 80% of the primary sources utilized to meet this demand
through to 2030.
The energy supply is currently dominated by conventional crude oil and natural gas production. As this
production peaks and oil and gas prices rise, it is expected that the deficit between supply and demand will be
filled largely by the development of unconventional (synthetic) hydrocarbons and, to a lesser extent, increased
use of renewable (i.e., sources based directly or indirectly on solar energy includes PV, biomass, wind, hydro)
and alternate energy sources (e.g., nuclear, geothermal, tidal).
Since all economies integrate their energy supply to minimize costs and optimize the use of the production and
distribution infrastructure, there will not be a single energy mix that is applicable APEC-wide. Each APEC
economy will have a different optimum approach depending on the costs of alternatives available to it and its
individual strategy for a secure and sustainable energy supply within its own socioeconomic context.
4
Currently, liquid hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline and diesel) dominate the transportation sector and rely on oil as
the feedstock. Attempts are being made to use gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, hydrogen) as well as
electricity because of their environmental advantages but these fuels have yet to match the functional
performance and cost advantages in storage and distribution enjoyed by liquids. Liquid biofuels (ethanol and
biodiesel) are just starting to penetrate the transportation market since they can be blended readily with
hydrocarbon fuels and use existing engine technologies provided the blend proportion is limited to less than
~20%. Since the carbon in biofuels derives from the natural carbon-cycle, use of biofuels has the potential to
decarbonize
2
the liquid hydrocarbon fuel in which it is blended thus reducing the global warming potential.
The production of biofuels also has many socioeconomic benefits.
All other primary sources of energy in use today, as well as oil, supply the stationary energy sector (electricity
production and industrial, commercial and residential applications). This includes natural gas, nuclear, hydro,
and renewable energy.
The APEC Sectoral Energy Demand Outlook (2000-2020) produced by the Asia Pacific Energy Research
Centre shown in Table 2.1 indicates that the electricity and transportation sectors will grow at the fastest rate
through to 2020.
Table 2.1: APEC Sectoral Energy Demand Outlook (2000-2020)
Source: APERC (2002) APEC Energy Demand and Supply Outlook 2002
It is noteworthy that currently biofuel is the only renewable energy source that can be used conveniently in the
transportation sector. All others, as well the alternate energy sources, are more useful for stationary applications
primarily to produce electricity. The widespread introduction of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles would
broaden the direct application of renewable and alternate energy sources to the transportation sector.
Furthermore, the use of renewable and alternative energy sources in the electricity sector can relieve oil for
transportation use.
3. Production Goals
2
Retaining this benefit requires that there is no significant use of fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process and
distribute the biofuels. Use of waste biomass as a feedstock has a significant advantage over the intensive
agricultural production of biomass energy crops in this regard.
1999 2005 2010 2015 2020
1999-
2010
2010-
2020
1999-
2020
Electricity 635.1 762.2 899.9 1050.3 1218.8 3.2% 3.1% 3.2%
Industry 1325 1545 1730.9 1932.3 2152.7 2.5% 2.2% 2.3%
Transport 1035.6 1216 1401.1 1606 1823.9 2.8% 2.7% 2.7%
Commercial 359.3 408.8 459.7 516.2 597.5 2.3% 2.7% 2.5%
Residential 912.3 976 1041.8 117.6 1209.5 1.2% 1.5% 1.4%
Other 127.8 141 153.4 166.8 182 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
Absolute Level (Unit:Mtoe) Annual Average Growth
5
The technology development pathways described in this Integrated Future Fuels Roadmap are intended to
maximize the flexibility and options available to energy supply strategists of individual APEC economies for
meeting their future domestic energy demand. For the reasons described above three areas for future fuels
development have been singled out because of their potential for playing a significant role in meeting the need.
3.1. Unconventional Hydrocarbons
There are significant sources of unconventional hydrocarbons available as a potential feedstock to synthesize oil
and gas to meet this demand deficit left by the decline of conventional oil and gas production. Significant
examples are
x Not including hydrocarbons in oil shale, it is estimated that there are 8-9 trillion barrels of heavy oil
and bitumen in place worldwide, of which potentially 900 billion barrels of oil are commercially
exploitable with todays technology. This represents a supply of over twice as much heavy oil and
bitumen than it does conventional oil.
x There are still large reserves of natural gas that are isolated from distribution pipelines and are not
currently exploited. These can be tapped through the use of LNG or gas-to-liquid (GTL) conversion
based on the well established Fischer-Tropsch technology. Application of either or both of these
technologies would also enable natural gas to be shipped between continents.
x Coal deposits are widespread in many APEC economies including China, United States, Australia and
Canada. Coal is mostly used for electricity production but new unconventional uses would see coal
cleaned and used as a feedstock for synthesizing oil and gas.
x Methane found in coal deposits is widespread.
x Gas hydrate deposits may account for approximately twice that of all other hydrocarbon resources
combined and 100 times that of conventional gas resources
It should be noted that the supply chains to access many of these unconventional hydrocarbon
sources will consume much energy and this should be borne in mind when comparing the
performance with other products such as biofuels and hydrogen.
3.2. Renewable Energy - Biofuels
No specific goal for biofuels production has been established for the overall APEC region. Examples of goals
established by some APEC economies and some other countries (included for comparison purposes) are:
For Bioethanol:
APEC Economy/Country Feedstock Current Status/target
Australia Grain, sugarcane 350 ML/a by 2010
Brazil Sugarcane E25
Canada Grain
Cellulosic waste
Ontario (corn)
200 ML/a
0.1 ML/a
E1, target E5 by 2007
Japan Import from Brazil E3
Thailand Molasses, cassava E10 > 100 filling stations
Target: 3 ML/a in 2011
USA (illustrative, not complete) Corn Minnesota: E10 target E20 by 2012
ND: E10
OR: E10 by 2010
Idaho: E85 at 1 filling station
Target 19 billion L in 2012
6
For Biodiesel:
APEC Economy/
Region
Feedstock Fuel Specification Current Status/Target
EU Rape EN 14214 2 billion L, 1700 filling stations
USA (illustrative, not
complete)
Soya, WCO
3
ASTM 6751 B2-B20 (US Energy Bill)
15 states, 123 filling stations
Canada Canola, Soya
WCO and yellow
grease
CGSB 3.520 B1-B5
Target 500 ML by 2010
1 filling station
Japan WCO n.a Target: 50 100 ML in 2007
Thailand Palm Oil, WCO Drafting (EN &
ASTM)
Target B5 in 2006, 8.5 ML/D (B10) in
2012
If one uses targets published by the USA
4
as a guide:
Biopower Target (heat and electricity) to meet ~ 5% of total industrial and electric generator capacity by 2030.
Biobased transportation fuels Target to meet 20% of transportation needs by 2030.
This in effect is a ~40 fold increase in the use of biofuels from current levels by the year 2030 and could be
considered as the APEC goal for this Biofuels Roadmap.
Such a target is unlikely to be met using biomass waste alone as a feedstock but will require cultivation of
dedicated bioenergy crops.
3.3. Hydrogen
Hydrogen is an energy carrier not a primary energy source. It is present in abundance bound chemically in
water and in hydrocarbons and biomass. Hydrogen is clean in its end-use application but its overall
environmental performance depends very much on its source and the means used to extract and distribute it.
IEA countries are developing plans for a transition to low carbon economies by 2050 (shares of coal/ oil & gas /
renewables: 5% / 35% / 60%, and hydrogen accounting for 50% of the final energy consumption); the world
overall is projected to complete a similar transition by 2100, with the global CO2 emission down to the 1990
levels.
Currently, there is more than 50 million tons of hydrogen produced per year globally but less than 5% (2.5
million tons) of these are merchant hydrogen, i.e. traded as a
commodity (Reference?).
Given the expected energy demand described earlier for the APEC region of 14,000 Mtoe by 2050, if the same
goal was set as that of the IEA, this would require the production and distribution of ~ 225 million tons of
hydrogen by 2050. This is a ~ 100 fold increase from todays levels.
3
WCO = Waste Cooking Oil.
4
Roadmap of Biomass Technologies: US and Australia.
7
To achieve this level by 2050 one would expect that production levels of hydrogen would have to have reached
at least 50 million tons by 2030. This represents at least a 25-fold increase over todays figures.
Given, also, that hydrocarbons will still represent more than 90% of the primary sources utilized to meet the
energy demand, reforming technologies combined with carbon sequestration would be expected to form the
primary hydrogen conversion pathway to meet such a goal.
4. Scope, Methodology and Assumptions
The general methodology adopted in Vancouver was to use the Roadmapping approach described by Geoff
Nimmo and shown schematically in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Canadian Model: Three Phases of a Roadmap
Three Working Groups were established to develop the Roadmap, one each for:
x Unconventional Hydrocarbons
x Biofuels
x Hydrogen
Each Working Group comprised experts in the drawn from as many APEC economies as possible and was
tasked to explore a path of technology development from today to the future vision by:
1. Considering Trends and Drivers identified as affecting the Vision and Goals
2. Identifying Technology Barriers. (Barriers are knowledge gaps. For each technology area these are the
scientific, technical, skills and possibly regulatory issues that could prevent the strategic goals being
achieved)
3. Identifying the Priority Technologies from the Alternatives (according to their ability to overcome the
barriers and meet the strategic goals and place them in short, medium and long term time frames).
Suppliers
Manufacturers
End Users
WHO WHAT/HOW WHY
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Identified market
demands
Identified critical
technologies
Targeted R&D
investment
Reduced market and
investment risk
Partnerships
Enhanced
competitiveness
Influence on
government policy,
programs and
regulations
Innovation
Improved knowledge
Productivity Growth
f
Anticipated Benefits Industry -led Initiative
Periodic iteration
Facilitated by:
Industry Canada
Potential Facilitators:
Other Departments,
Research
Organizations,
Associations or
Consultants
Academia
and Research
Organizations
Feasibility Resources Analysis
Actions to develop, commercialize
and transfer technology
Periodic evaluation, re-thinking,
and cultural adoption
8
This means selecting approximately the top 3 or 4 technology alternatives from the many options that
will be generated.
The time lines will reflect the time frame for market introduction. Mature market penetration may
take several decades after this depending on factors such as the rate of stock turnover.
Prioritization Criteria were given as:
x Timeline Short (now-5 years), Medium (10-20 years), Long (20-30 years)
x Stage of development Basic R&D, Applied R&D and Product Development, Engineering
Testing and Codes & Standards, Technical Demonstration, Product Demonstration and First
Purchases, Production and Sales
x Cost sharing model Public Private Partnership, Government to Government, Industry to
Industry, Academia to Academia, Others
x Lead stakeholder Government, Industry, Academia (or subset thereof)
4. Identifying Resources to aid in implementation: R&D; Partnerships/Collaboration; Infrastructure
(e.g., transportation); Standards; Policy Instruments; Societal Initiatives.
Specific strategies and other assumptions made by individual are noted in the detailed findings of these
Working Groups attached as Appendices.
5. Integrated Technology Roadmap
This section draws on the detailed findings of the three Working Groups and highlights the conclusions that
can be drawn about the integration of the three individual roadmaps. Since hydrocarbons will continue to play a
dominant role for the period of this roadmap, integration is built around this energy resource as the key driver
with which biofuels and hydrogen must interact.
The integration of fuel and energy supply is inevitable in order to make maximum use of the investment in
extraction, production, and distribution infrastructure while meeting the needs for overall energy security, good
public health and sustainable development.
Fuels for transportation application have a much more demanding functionality than those required for
stationary uses. Because of the need to have sufficient on-board fuel supply while keeping the payload down,
liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) derived from the refining of oil dominate the transportation market.
By contrast, stationary applications primarily for the production of electricity and of heat for commercial,
industrial and residential application, are much more forgiving and can utilize a wide range of fuels including
coal and renewable and alternate energy sources such as nuclear, wind and PV solar not directly useable for
transportation. APEC region energy use by the stationary sectors is also more than three times greater than that
for transportation (currently: 3883 Mtoe/annum compared to usage for transportation of 1216 Mtoe/annum).
Besides using some of the Future Fuels (bitumen, biofuels) directly for transportation applications within the
current liquid infrastructure, the opportunity also exists to introduce other Future Fuels in stationary
applications both to accommodate the increase in demand but also to help release those primary energy sources
suitable for producing transportation fuels, principally oil and biomass, currently used in stationary applications.
9
This dynamic is shown schematically in Figure 5.1. The diagram is complex and it should not be read as
meaning that fuels that enter the market later totally displace those that come before rather that they become
part of the available fuel mix and the market share is then dictated by availability, functionality and cost.
Note also, from Figure 5.1, a trend to the greening of the fuel supply. There are two drivers here.
The first is the decarbonisation of the overall fuel mix to mitigate climate change.
Advances in achieving this objective can be made much more readily for fuels for stationary
applications than those for transportation. Hydrocarbon gases have much lower carbon content per
unit energy than hydrocarbon liquid fuels and coal hence one might expect a fairly rapid advancement
of the gasification of the fuel supply for stationary applications along with a much greater use of zero-
carbon fuels from renewable and alternate primary sources.
Decarbonisation of liquid transportation fuels can also be accomplished by blending them with zero-
carbon biofuels or other fuels derived from hydrocarbon sources such as methanol. Current engine
technology would limit these blends to no more than 20%.
This combination of strategies may well enable the climate change mitigation targets to be
accomplished without having to move to gaseous transportation fuels.
Figure 5.1: Integration of Future Fuel Supply
10
(NB: Time lines suggest market entry, Market penetration will then depend on such factors as availability,
functionality, price and the rate of turnover of stock which can take several decades.)
LIQUID FUELS (conventional oil
bitumen and heavy oil)
Electricity
And
Heat
2005 2010 2030
Biofuels GTL CG
LNG
OIL
GAS FUELS
BIOMASS
Electricity and Heat from renewable and gas fuels
Renewable and Alternate
NG
Hydrogen
Coal
Gasification
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
2020
Coal bed methane
Gas Hydrates
11
The second is the need to improve urban air quality for public health reasons.
Emissions leading to poor urban air quality come principally from the transportation sector. Where there is
sufficient imperative, a shift to cleaner gaseous fuels and the construction of the necessary associated
infrastructure will occur to try to mitigate this problem. Natural gas is already being introduced in some of
the larger Asian cities motivated by this concern.
Hydrogen is the ultimate clean fuel for improving urban air quality producing only water as a waste at its
point of use. It also provides a currency for linking non-transportation fuels (coal, nuclear, solar, wind) to
transportation applications via electricity production and electrolysis thus introducing greater versatility and
flexibility for overall energy management. Development of technologies to provide economical ways to
distribute, store and use hydrogen are under intensive investigation but have not yet been established so
this option is still years probably decades away from realisation.
However, improving urban air quality does not fall solely with the choice of fuel. There is still significant
margin to improve the fuel efficiency of ICEs as is shown in Table 5.1.
If such advances are realised, liquid fuels for transportation may continue to dominate well beyond the period of this
study.
At what point management of urban air quality will result in a major shift to gaseous transportation fuels and further
at what point hydrogen will displace natural gas as the gaseous fuel of choice will vary from economy to economy
and may depend on non-technology factors such as the need to diversify the energy mix and reduce the dependency
on imported oil for reasons of energy security. APEC economies differ significantly on their dependence on
imported oil and vulnerability to the world price of oil as shown in Table 5.2 so some may be more motivated to
advance the hydrogen agenda relative to others.
Source: Gunasekera (2005), The impact of high oil prices on trade in the APEC region,
a paper presented at the APEC EWG EMM7 Steering Committee Meeting
Figure 5.1: Percentage reduction in technical fuel consumption per km
compared to gasoline vehicle in 2000.ion in technical fuel consumption per km cto
2000 2030
Base gasoline vehicle 0
Base diesel vehicle -18
Gasoline hybrid -25 -46
Advanced gasoline vehicle -28
Advanced diesel vehicle -41
Diesel hybrid -51
Hydrogen fuel cell -61
12
Table 5.2: Net Oil Import Dependency in Asia (2002 and 2020)
Thus, although, the general trends shown in Figure 1 to capture these dynamics may prevail, the sequencing and
fuel priority will vary from economy to economy, some pushing forward to the hydrogen economy others
emphasizing greater use of biofuels and electricity from renewable sources. Others still will maintain a liquid fuel
transportation infrastructure for some considerable time resolving urban air quality problems through advances in
engine efficiency.
The fuel mix and supply infrastructure will evolve over time to accommodate these various priorities in the most
cost effective way. The overall dominant fuel feedstock will continue to be conventional hydrocarbons in the time
period to 2030, however much groundwork will have to be done during this period to develop viable fuel
alternatives to meet future demand as conventional oil supplies peak and start to decline.
Technology development trends for each of the Future Fuels being investigated in this study to accommodate this
integration of a diverse fuel mix, while developing fuels with suitable characteristics and functionality to utilize
existing fuel infrastructure to the maximum, are discussed below.
5.1. Unconventional Hydrocarbons
Given the continuing dominance of hydrocarbons in the fuel mix, unconventional hydrocarbons will be developed
to produce synthetic crude as is currently the case with bitumen and heavy oils for use with existing refining
technologies and distribution systems. Ways to access stranded natural gas reserves and to accelerate intercontinental
trade will be a priority. LNG is currently the preferred technology but GTL technologies may supplant this
approach if LNG runs into too much public resistance. Coal will likely be gasified rather liquefied because it will be
easier to sequester carbon and remove other pollutants. The gas can then be fed into the natural gas system for
stationary use. The same can be said for coal-bed methane and gas hydrates.
An emerging technology will be the gas-to-liquid technologies using Fischer-Tropsch to produce synthetic crude oil
from natural gas. There will also be increased interest in the production of lower-carbon, blendable liquid fuels
from methane feedstock such as methanol and dimethylether (DME) but there will like be limits to the blended
fraction dictated by current engine technology. These fuel technologies, however, will be in competition with liquid
biofuels for opportunities in the transportation fuel sector.
2002 2020
China 32% 69%
Indonesia -11% 58%
Japan 101% 100%
Korea 100% 100%
Malaysia -50% 37%
Philippines 98% 97%
Thailand 75% 95%
Viet Nam -74% 6%
Source: History: IEA (2004), Energy Balances of OECD and Non-OECD Countries, Projection: APERC (2002),
APEC Energy Demand and Supply Outlook
Note: Net Oil Import Dependency = (Oil Import - Oil Export)/Total Primary Demand of Oil
13
5.2. Biofuels
Liquid biofuels (bioethanol and biodiesel) have a functionality which makes them very easy to blend into the
existing transportation liquid fuel infrastructure. Bioethanol can be used at up to an 85% blend with suitable engine
modifications. However, given their solvent and other physicochemical properties, they will likely be limited to a
maximum 20% blend with gasoline or diesel with current engine technologies. If they are being used as a means of
decarbonising the fuel mix, their proclaimed zero-carbon property will need to be improved by reducing the
amount of fossil fuel used in the feedstock production and biofuel production technologies. This can be done by
increasing the overall energy efficiency of the supply chain and/or replacing fossil fuels used by renewable fuels
wherever possible.
Biofuels can also be made for stationary applications: methane can be produced from the fermentation of biomass
waste and by the pyrolysis of wood and agricultural waste; wood chips can also be burned directly for electricity
production. These will continue to gain prominence as the stationary applications for fuel will bear the greater
burden proportionally for GHG mitigation.
5.3. Hydrogen
Hydrogen will not likely appear as a significant fuel currency until the late 2020s or 2030. It will first appear as a
niche application where it has significant advantage over other options for meeting an economys need for fuel
security through diversification of primary energy sources to those that are not readily applicable to the
transportation sector combined with a desire to improve urban air quality. Competition to meet this need will come,
however, from electricity.
It would appear that hydrogen, to utilize the existing fuel infrastructure for hydrocarbon liquids and gases, will need
to:
x Focus more on the use of liquid fuels (particularly ethanol and methanol) as a feed to fuel cells to provide
more flexible links with the dominant hydrocarbon fuels. Ethanol / methanol energy efficiency is 2x for
fuel cell over the internal combustion engine (ICE) and also aligns more flexibly with biofuels. Some
hydrocarbon fuels can be used as direct feed to SOFC / MCFC and via reforming for PEM.
x Improve the versatility and efficiency of reformer technology in the production of hydrogen:
o For distributed hydrogen generation: to maximize hydrogen production from given hydrocarbon
fuels (e.g., from gasoline or natural gas).
o For stationary systems: can use current reformer technology to be more flexible and allow for fuel
switching to match with fuel supply and optimise costs.
6. The Way Ahead
This Project was a joint undertaking of the Energy WG (EWG) and Industrial Science and Technology WG of
APEC. Each of these two working groups has, as a mission, to provide support to policy development for the APEC
members, in the case of EWG through analysis of energy options and forecasts and for the ISTWG supporting the
framework for technological innovation. Both are key to developing successfully viable, competitive fuel options for
meeting the ongoing energy demands of the APEC Region.
That this issue will continue to be at the forefront of political consideration throughout the APEC region for years
to come is highlighted by the current pressures to respond sensibly to the rapid increase in oil prices currently being
experienced.
The results of the APEC Project, of which this Integrated Technology Roadmap is one, though significant, part
represents a first step in what is hoped to be an ongoing collaboration between the two APEC WGs to implement
some of the findings.
14
These collaborations, ultimately, should result in policy analysis that will lead to significant recommendations to
future APEC Ministerials.
Examples that came from the work of the Roadmap Working Groups reported in the Appendices, that could be
considered through special joint studies or workshops are:
x Systems Analysis of Fuel Integration options and strategies
x Human Resource Development
x Public education and awareness
x Codes and standards (e.g, biodiesel specification, fuel safety)
x Regulation ( especially related to fuel safety)
x Energy efficiency of the supply chain
x Demonstration of new technologies
x Assistance to economies in policy development
o Technology Roadmapping and Foresight
o Review of published environmental life-cycle assessments
o Considerations for site-specific environmental assessments for new processes (e.g., bioethanol or
biodiesel production plants)
o Full cost accounting (a level playing field for evaluating fuel options by examining collectively both
the internal (business) cost of production and the external societal costs (health, environment
damage, etc)
15
Appendix Unconventional Hydrocarbons
APEC Foresighting Future Fuel Technology
APEC Unconventional Hydrocarbons Technology Roadmap to 2030
Compiled by Dr. David Minns
5
This Technology Roadmap is one of three developed as part of an APEC Integrated Future Fuels Roadmap study
which in turn is part of the APEC Project: Foresighting Future Fuels Technology. It was developed in consultation
with experts in unconventional hydrocarbon technology drawn from across the APEC community at two
workshops. The first was held in Vancouver Canada April 27-29, 2005 and the second at PingTung, Chinese Taipei,
August 10-12, 2005.
This Unconventional Hydrocarbons Technology Roadmap should be read in conjunction with the Integrated
Roadmap to which it is appended.
[Acknowledgements: This interim report draws extensively on the paper prepared for the Krabi Workshop by Dr.
Kinoko Urashima of Japan for the background context for this Roadmap and on the keynote address and on the
reports, discussions and conclusions of the Unconventional Hydrocarbons WG led by the keynote speaker, Dr.
Tom Beer, (Australia) and documented by Mr. Ken White (Canada) and facilitated by Jack Smith. I appreciate
particularly the additional work that Ken White has done to get the roadmap to its current form.]
CONTENTS
UH1. Contribution of Unconventional Hydrocarbons to the Vision..............17
UH1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study..............................................................................17
UH2. Assumptions..........................................................................................................19
UH3. Current Status.......................................................................................................19
UH3.1. Natural Gas ..................................................................................................................19
UH3.1.1. Distribution of natural-gas resources..............................................................................19
UH3.1.2. Trend in production of natural gas .................................................................................20
UH3.1.3. Prospect for supply-and-demand of natural gas..............................................................21
UH3.1.4. Trend for technology using natural-gas ..........................................................................21
UH3.1.5. Clean Natural Gas (CNG) vehicle...................................................................................22
UH3.2. Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) technology ...................................................................................23
UH3.3. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) technology ........................................................................25
UH3.4. Dimethyl Ether (DME)....................................................................................................25
UH3.5. Methane Hydrate ..........................................................................................................28
UH3.6. Future R&D of natural-gas technologies .........................................................................29
UH3.7. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)......................................................................................29
UH3.7.1. Distribution of LPG production.......................................................................................29
UH3.7.2. Trend for consumption of LPG.......................................................................................30
UH3.7.3. Prospect for supply-and-demand of LPG........................................................................31
UH3.7.4. Trend for technology using LPG ....................................................................................31
UH3.7.5. Co-generation...............................................................................................................32
UH3.7.6. LPG vehicle ..................................................................................................................33
UH3.7.7. Future R&D of LPG technologies ...................................................................................34
UH3.8. Coal .............................................................................................................................34
5
Canadian Core Team dminns@rogers.com
16
UH3.8.1. Distribution of coal resources ........................................................................................34
UH3.8.2. Trend in demand for coal ..............................................................................................35
UH3.8.3. Prospect for supply-and-demand of coal ........................................................................36
UH3.8.4. Trend for technology using clean coal............................................................................36
UH3.8.5. Technology for the improvement in thermal efficiency.....................................................38
UH3.8.6. Technology for environmental improvement ...................................................................38
UH3.8.7. Technology for improvement of conventional fuels .........................................................39
UH3.8.8. for effective use of coal ashes........................................................................................40
UH3.8.9. Future R&D in coal technologies....................................................................................40
UH3.9. Non-conventional Oil.....................................................................................................41
UH3.10. Concluding Remarks.....................................................................................................41
UH4. Unconventional Hydrocarbon Roadmap......................................................42
UH4.1. Technology Drivers .......................................................................................................42
UH4.2. Technology alternatives ................................................................................................43
UH4.3. Gaps and barriers .........................................................................................................48
UH4.4. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines............................................50
UH5. Resources ..............................................................................................................61
UH6. Next Steps..............................................................................................................62
UH6.1. What Governments Can Do...........................................................................................62
UH6.2. Collaborations ..............................................................................................................63
B1. Contribution of Biofuels to the Vision..............................................................69
B1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study..................................................................................69
B2. Assumptions..............................................................................................................70
B3. Current Status...........................................................................................................70
B4. Biofuel Technology Roadmap.............................................................................71
B4.1. Technology alternatives ....................................................................................................71
B4.2. Gaps and barriers .............................................................................................................72
B4.3. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines................................................73
B5. Resources ..................................................................................................................74
B6. Next Steps..................................................................................................................77
B6.1. Collaborations ..................................................................................................................77
H 1. Contribution of Hydrogen to the Vision...........................................................84
H 1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study..............................................................................85
H 2. Assumptions..............................................................................................................87
H 3. Current Status...........................................................................................................88
H 4. Hydrogen Roadmap................................................................................................92
H 4.1. Key Drivers...................................................................................................................93
H 4.2. Technology alternatives ................................................................................................93
H 4.3. Gaps and barriers .........................................................................................................93
H 4.4. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines............................................94
H 5. Resources ..................................................................................................................95
H 6. Next Steps..................................................................................................................96
H 6.1. What Governments Can Do...........................................................................................96
H 6.2. Collaborations ..............................................................................................................96
H 7. Bibliography ..............................................................................................................96
17
UH1. Contribution of Unconventional Hydrocarbons to the Vision
Energy is not recyclable this is a significant difference between non-renewable energy resources compared to non-
renewable materials resources. Therefore, the role of non-renewable energy resources in the long run always has to
be as a stepping stone to a renewable energy economy. However, within the time frame of this roadmap
hydrocarbons will still represent greater than 80% of the energy resource needed to meet the demands of the APEC
region. This trend will substantially remain even should hydrogen be significantly developed as an energy currency
since hydrogen needs a feedstock and hydrocarbons are likely to be a major source.
The WG therefore developed three visions to embrace the hydrocarbon options.
Unconventional Gas Vision
x Gas will increase market share over coal and oil over next 30 years substantially due to:
o Environmental considerations
o Lower costs
o Availability
x LNG provides an established and secure solution to gas supply that is limited by capacity and infrastructure
heavily linked to investment. This capacity gap can be filled by both GTL replacing oil and gas hydrates
replacing coal if technology development produces economically competitive sources of supply.
Unconventional Coal Vision
x A new economy of coal where the product is liquid and gas and there are multiple products along the value
chain.
x Coal is clean; CO2 is sequestered; and end use is a feedstock for other processes.
x End use is high quality diesel, low quality gasoline and a widespread use of the oil and gas distribution
system.
x Public perception of coal shifts from dirty old fuel to new flexible multi-valued conversion products.
Unconventional Oil Vision
x Integrated petrochemical feedstock with widespread substitution for light crude applications with
integrated solutions for water use, CO
2
emission reductions and potential linkage with biodiesel for
processing and hydrogen infrastructure for transportation and possible linkage with coal gas and nuclear for
natural gas substitution.
x Spin off technologies possible in water, materials, carbon and bioremediation.
UH1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study
Unconventional hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons that involve heavier grades of crude oil and bitumen and
innovative methods of extracting and converting coal and natural gas to higher order energy products.
Unconventional hydrocarbons are sources of fossil fuels that are currently under-exploited due primarily to
technology limitations that make them either very expensive or uneconomical.
Examples of unconventional hydrocarbons include:
Conventional Unconventional Hydrocarbons
x Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
x Compressed natural gas (CNG)
x LPG (Propane, Propane-butane mix
18
Feedstock
Processing
Utilization
Process
Integration
CO2
Sequestration
Enhanced Oil
Well Recovery
Hydrogen
Production
Tar Sands
Processing
Coal
Gasification
Coal Bed
Methane
Coal Mines
Methane Gas
Hydrates
Tar Sands
Biomass
Hydrogen Fuel
Cells
Crude Oil
Biodiesel
Ethanol
x Synthetic (Fischer-Tropsch) diesel
x Coal bed methane
x Landfill gas methane
Unconventional Unconventional Hydrocarbons
x Upgraded and cleaner processed heavy oils from bitumen
x Cleaner (fluidized bed)
x Gasified or liquefied coal based fuels
x Natural gas from hydrates
Other Unconventional Fuels (Methane Based)
x Methanol
x DME dimethylether
x Methylal DMM dimethoxymethane
x Hythane
TM
Integration of Unconventional Hydrocarbons and Other Fuels
Each fuel has unique S&T opportunities and challenges, although carbon sequestration is highly relevant for each
fuel.
The feedstock supplies are plentiful for each fuel. These feedstocks include biomass, coal deposits, tar sands,
methane and gas hydrates.
These fuels are interrelated to a degree as shown in Figure 1, which depicts a value chain showing feedstocks,
processing and utilization.
Gasified coal could be used as a substitute for natural gas in tar sands production. The carbon dioxide produced
from burning the coal gas could be captured and either sequestered or used to enhance oil well recovery.
Hydrogen that is produced from this process could be used in both tar sands separation and to power fuel cells. The
end result could be a substantially strengthened energy value chain, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, improved
utilization of coal beds and greater value for natural gas usage for industrial and residential applications and as a
petrochemical feedstock.
Figure 1: Value Chain for Unconventional Hydrocarbons
19
UH2. Assumptions
The Unconventional Hydrocarbon WG examined a broad range of current and emerging technologies over the
value chain exploration, and production, distribution and storage, usage. These were then reduced using the 3E
criteria energy security, economics, environment and grouped into one of three categories: gas; oil; and coal.
The members of the Unconventional Hydrocarbon Working Group are listed as Attachment UH1.
Details of the Roadmap are presented in the following Sections, first by describing the background or current status
of the technology as presented to the participants (Section 3) and then the findings and recommendations of priority
technologies and timelines given by the experts assembled first in Vancouver, Canada and later in PingTung,
Chinese Taipei.
UH3. Current Status
It is anticipated that more than 80% of the energy demand forecast for the APEC region to 2030 will need to come
from sources of hydrocarbons. Unconventional hydrocarbons are likely to be increasingly required to supplement
the use of conventional oil to meet this demand. Fuels from unconventional hydrocarbons encompass a variety of
products and include: new fuels from NG, LNG, di-methyl ether, methanol, LPG, methane from methane hydrate,
clean coal, gasified and liquefied coal, and non-conventional oil including heavy oils and bitumen. Each has its
advantages and disadvantages and each form part of this Roadmap.
What follows is a discussion of the current status of the technology taken verbatim from the paper presented by Dr.
Kuniko Urashima at the Scenario 2030 workshop in Krabi with a section by Ken White on non-conventional oil
Dr. Urashima wishes wish to express appreciation to Dr. Nares Damrongchai, Prof. Jen-Shih Chang, Mr. Takao
Kobayashi and Mr. Kazunari Yoshimura for various comments and discussions.
UH3.1. Natural Gas
UH3.1.1. Distribution of natural-gas resources
The proven reserves of natural gas in the world were 156 trillion m3 in 2002 with approximately one-third in the
former Soviet Union, one-third in the Middle East and the remaining third distributed elsewhere. The distribution
of these resources is shown in

20
Fig. 1. With approximately 65% of the petroleum being in the Middle East, regional distribution is somewhat better
with natural gas than oil. Reserve production of natural gas is estimated to be 60.7 years.

Fig. 1 Natural gas deposits classified by area (2002)

UH3.1.2. Trend in production of natural gas
Production of natural gas in 2002 was at 2.53 trillion m3. When compared with the yearly mean growth in the
production of petroleum (1.1%) and coal (0.5%) from 1990 to 2002, natural gas has shown a 2.0% rate of growth. As
shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, approximately 30% of the worlds production is in North America and 40% is in the
former Soviet Union and Europe. Production in the Middle East represents approximately 9%, which is small when
considering that 36% of the worlds reserves are found there. This is the case because of the distance to the
European demand area is further from the Middle East than production areas in the former Soviet Union.
Enormous investment is needed for natural gas transport from the Middle East area. Moreover, the Middle East area
invested in oil development rather than natural gas development. Pipelines from the Middle East to the large
demand areas were not laid like those between the former Soviet Union area and Western Europe. Natural gas is
consumed in the Middle East area, or exported as liquefied natural gas (LNG). In other cases it is incinerated by
flaring or forced back into oil or oil gas fields when it cannot be sold.
The worlds natural-gas market is presently strengthened as a buyers market by production increases and planned
projects in the Middle East, Europe, and Indonesia. In addition, European-American observers see a promising
future for natural gas and have started tackling the guaranty issues and are looking positively on development
interests. Not only petroleum interests but also oil producing countries are showing positive attitudes to
development of natural gas. Furthermore, research and development is taking concrete direction in response to the
new availability of natural gas through projects such as those for gas-to-liquids (GLT) and dimethyl ether (DME).
21

Fig. 2 Natural gas production percentage by area (2002)

Fig. 3 Change of natural gas production volume classified by area

UH3.1.3. Prospect for supply-and-demand of natural gas
From 1990 to 2002 the worlds natural gas demand, including power generation, has increased at a steady annual
rate of 2%, except for the area of the former Soviet Union. The use of natural gas depends on the economical and
environmental advantages of natural gas in power generation and as a fuel, when compared with other fossil fuels.
Technical progress towards reduced environmental loading and combined cycle power generation is also important.
The demand charts, classified by area, reveal that 13% of Japans primary energy supply for 2001 came from natural
gas, while the respective percentages in North America and Europe are both near 23%. Natural gas is produced
abundantly in these regions.
UH3.1.4. Trend for technology using natural-gas
As an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy, promotion of natural gas cogeneration is expected to yield
environmental load reduction and energy conservation. The conversion of fuel from coal to natural gas in large fuel
consumption type equipment, such as industrial furnaces and boilers, is aiming at curtailment of CO2 emissions.
22
Therefore, development of cogeneration, which is operated using natural gas under low thermal power ratio with
high power generation efficiency, and a natural gas car with comparatively small heat demand are progressing in a
public welfare section.
UH3.1.5. Clean Natural Gas (CNG) vehicle
Natural-gas fueled vehicles are classified as shown in Fig. 4 by the storage system for the fuel. Presently, the
majority of the natural-gas fueled vehicles in the world use compressed natural gas (CNG).6
0 u:o!`u
lu_`u
D `:!
lu_`u
| om ::d \ uuu!
_u: ou!y
|oh u! uu`!u|! o
uu \ uuu! 0 u:
0 u:o!`ul 0 )
o u! m `xu
\ uuu! 0 u: !`_h
o`!)
| om |`ud `h
\ uuu! _u: u_`u
uud !` m oo
\ uuu! 0 u: h`! b `u! h`! D uu! lu! | y|`d h`!
\ uuu! 0 u: \ h`!
`u`d \ uuu!
0 u: \ h`! \ 0 )
| om ::d \ uuu!
0 u: \ h`! | \ 0 )
^ d:o|d \ uuu!
0 u: \ h`! ^ \ 0 )
Fig. 4 Natural gas fueled vehicles
The construction of natural gas fueled vehicles is similar to that for alternative gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles,
with the only difference being the fuel line.7 It is basically the same with all the models. Fig. 5 illustrates this system
for a natural gas fueled automobile.8
One characteristic of natural gas fueled vehicles is their clean exhaust emissions. For example,
The CO2 emissions from natural gas fueled vehicles are 0.2 0.3 those for gasoline fueled vehicles.
As is well known, emissions of pollutant gases such as NOx (nitrogen oxides), which cause environmental pollution
in the form of photochemical smog and acid rain, CO (carbon monoxide), HC (hydrocarbons), and SOx (sulfur
oxides) are reduced from natural gas fueled vehicles.
Black smoke is not emitted PM (particulate matter) emissions are nonexistent.
Comparison of the CO2 emissions from conventional gasoline and eco-friendly automobiles is shown in Fig. 6.
Because of proven merits, business vehicles such as buses, trash collection vehicles, delivery vans/trucks, and fork
lifts are operating on and changing from gasoline to natural gas. Typically, the traveling efficiency is superior, and
fuel economy equal to those for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Noise and vibration is improved substantially
when compared with the diesel engine.
6
The Energy and Resources Today / Energy in the World Today; http://www.gas.or.jp/ngvj/text/ngv_str.html
7
Japanese site; http://www.gas.or.jp/ngvj/text/ngv_str.html
8
Energy sources for low emission vehicles, http://www.gas.or.jp/gasfacts_e/11/index.html
23
Fig. 5 The detail schematic of natural gas fueled automobile
Fig. 6 Comparison of CO
2
emissions from conventional and eco-friendly vehicles
UH3.2. Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) technology
Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) processes reform natural gas into liquid fuels such as gasoline, lamp oil, and light oil. These
fuels can be conveyed at normal temperature. Several GTL processes are compared in Table 1. Liquid fuels
manufactured by GTL processes can be conveyed and stored like oil products, and can be placed in existing markets.
Moreover, if less expensive manufacturing processes are established, their scale may create business opportunities in
smaller gas fields. Thus, fields not making LNG or unable to support pipeline distribution may become profitable
and provide products for distant consumers. GTL technologies can produce fuels that are environmentally friendly.
24
Liquid hydrocarbon fuels, which are compounded from natural gas streams, contain negligible sulfur and particulate
impurities and are candidate feeds for applications such as fuel cell electric vehicles and diesel alternative fuels
.9,10
Table 1 Comparison of GTL processes
Process
Place and
developer
Characteristics
GTG (Gas-to-
Gasoline)
1986,
Commercialized
in New Zealand
Methanol is manufactured using a natural gas feed to
make synthetic gas. This is continuously changed into
the gasoline fraction centering on perfume fellows by
the so-called mobile method (Methanol- to -
Gasoline process). The process has a commercialized
capacity of 570,000 ton/yr.
SMDS (Shell Middle
Distillate Synthesis)
Commercialized by
Shell in Malaysia
Partial oxidization of the natural gas is carried out with
oxygen and the products are used to make synthetic gas.
Subsequently, wax and light oil are manufactured by
the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction. In the FT reaction,
hydrogen and carbon monoxide are used to form large
molecular weight hydrocarbons over a catalyst. The
process has a commercialized capacity of 500,000
ton/yr.
SASOL Commercialized in
Republic of South
Africa
Since South Africa was unable to import oil under the
influence of a racial discrimination policy, it used coal
from its own country as a raw material to produce an oil
product via synthetic gas. The process is based on years
of experience and original technical development. It is
very competitive with modern GTL technology.
AGC-21 (Advanced
Gas Conversion
Technology for the
21st century)
Exxon Although the development stage is complete, the
process has not been commercialized.
Statoil Statoil in Norway With its large gas reserves, Norway has been developing
catalysts and process reactors for a FT process to
produce middle distillates from natural gas. The process
continues to be challenged by catalyst performance and
the ability to continuously extract the liquid product.
Rentech Rentech, Colorado
USA
In 2000, Rentech acquired a 75,000 ton/yr methanol
plant in Colorado, USA for conversion into a GTL
facility. The facility, which will be the first in the USA,
will cost about $20M to convert. When operational
(mid-2001) it produces 800-1,000 bbl/day of aromatic-
free diesel fuel, naphtha, and petroleum waxes. It will
cost nearly 50% less than a green-field site because the
plant includes a synthesis gas generation unit.
Syntroleum
11
Syntroleum in USA Partial oxidization of natural gas is carried out by the
auto thermal method with air. The FT reaction is used
to form fuels from synthetic gas in the presence of
nitrogen. The process is economical. Few details are
available, although various evaluations have been
performed since the announcement.
Commercialization is planned in Australia.
9
Gas to Liquids; http://www.japex.co.jp/en/technology/g_liquids.html
10
Gas to liquids , http://www.chemlink.com.au/gtl.htm
25
UH3.3. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) technology
As noted above, the worlds natural-gas market is presently strengthened as a buyers market by production increases
and planned projects in the Middle East, Europe, and Indonesia. Furthermore, oil-producing countries are also
showing a positive posture towards development of natural gas opportunities. Therefore, research and development
is progressing on technology such as GTL and DME, which supports the new availability of natural gas. Products
from new LNG projects are summarized by country in Table 2.
The main ingredient of natural gas is methane. At normal temperature natural gas is a gas, but when cooled below -
163 C, it becomes liquefied natural gas (LNG). It is conventionally manufactured in large quantities and used for
power generation or town gas. Immense energy is required for production of LNG, beginning with the need to cool
the natural gas to -163 C. Recently, LNG process development has led to successes as summarized in Table 3.12
Table 2 New LNG projects of principal product-gas countries
Country
Products
(10 B m
3
/year)
Reserves
(10 B m
3
/year)
New LNG Projects
(10 B m
3
/year)
Australia 32.7 2,550 22.8
Indonesia 62.9 2,620 27.6
Iran 60.6 23,000 33.1
Malaysia 47.4 2,120 9.4
Oman 13.4 830 4.6
Qatar 32.5 14,400 20.5
Russia 542.4 47,570 13.2
The United Arab Emirates 41.3 6,010 2.8
Table 3 Several technologies using LNG
Technology Characteristic
Cold energy power
generation system
A regeneration system that produces electric power from cold thermal
energy, which otherwise would have been disposed to the atmosphere and
sea water.
Air liquefaction and
separation
The power expense of air separation equipment is reduced by using cold
thermal energy.
Liquefaction of carbonic
acid
Liquefied carbonic acid is efficiently manufactured using cold thermal
energy. The process has been applied in an oil industrial complex.
Air-conditioning,
refrigeration and a cold
storage warehouse
Environmental load reduction has been attained. Liquefaction carbon
dioxide is efficiently manufactured by cold thermal. The employment start
has already been carried out as effective use of energy in the oil industrial
complex area.
Turbine inhalation-of-
air cooling
Environmental load reduction of the object for air-conditioning, and a
refrigeration and a cold storage warehouse is attained.
UH3.4. Dimethyl Ether (DME)
Dimethyl ether (DME) is a stable gas at room temperature and is easily liquefied by compression. It is handled by
methods that are similar to those used for LPG. Toxicity of DME is very low and it doesnt contain the sulfur that is
found in methanol. Burning DME doesnt generate SOx and produces little NOx. Differences in physical
properties between DME and conventional fuels are summarized in Table 4.
13
11
Western Australia - Australia's resource State, http://www.chemlink.com.au/wachem.htm
12
Japanese site; http://www.tohoku.meti.go.jp/enetai/energy/kanrishiteikojo/shishin/toku_ko3.pdf
13
about DME; http://www.dmeforum.jp/about/property_e.html
26
Table 4 Comparison of physical properties between DME and similar fuels
Methan
(LNG)
formula CH
3
OCH
3
CH
4
C
3
H
8
CH
3
OH -
boiling point (C) -25.1 -161.5 -42 64.8 180~360
liquid density
(g/cm
3
(@20C))
0.67 - 0.49 0.79 0.84
gas specific gravity 1.59 0.55 1.52 - -
saturated steam
pressure (atm, 25C)
6.1 - 9.3 - -
firing temperature(?) 350 632 504 470 250
explosion limit (%) 3.4~17 5~15 2.1~9.4 5.5~36 0.6~7.5
cetane rating 55~60 0 5 5 40~55
low heat value
(kcal/kg)
6,900 12,000 11,100 5,040 10,200
(R&D brochure of 5t/d pilot plant)
DME Propane Methanol Gas oil
DME is mostly used as an injection agent for sprays for paint, agricultural chemicals, and cosmetics. Approximately
10,000 ton/yr are used in Japan and approximately 150,000 ton/yr worldwide. Various DME uses are illustrated in
Fig. 7.
14
Fig. 7 Various uses of DME
DME is manufactured by a direct compounding method from products of methanol dehydration, hydrogen, and
carbon monoxide. Since DME production begins with natural gas and uses hydrogen and carbon, it can be formed
from other feeds, including organic matter such as residual oil, livestock feces and urine, and coal. Alternative
production lines are illustrated in Fig. 8. Typical DME production processes use either the indirect synthetic
method (dehydration reaction of methanol) or a direct synthetic method for producing DME from materials such as
natural gas, coal bed methane, and synthetic gas (syngas
15
) made from coal or biomass. At present, DME is usually
made by the indirect method and technology development towards direct synthetic methods is in progress.
16
In
14
DME used as fuel, http://www.dmeforum.jp/about/fuel_e.html
15
Syngas is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide made from the high temperature reaction of steam with
hydrocarbons.(steam reforming).
16
DME Forum; http://www.dmeforum.jp/about/process.html
27
Japan, a 5 ton/day pilot plant was supported by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to investigate direct
synthetic methods for DME production with various feeds, including coal bed methane and synthetic gas from coal
gasification. The program ran for 4 years beginning in 1997.
Fig. 8 DME production processes
Also in Japan, NKK started technical development in 1989 towards extensive manufacture of DME. Under support
from the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, construction of a 5 ton/day examination plant was begun in 1999
in cooperation with the Pacific Ocean Coal Mine and Sumitomo Metal Industries under the Coal Use Synthesis
Center. Experiments with this plant demonstrated the worlds first direct composition of DME from methane in the
coal bed. Through cost comparison with other energy technologies, it was estimated that a commercial plant with at
least 2,500-ton/day capacity is necessary, and future work should focus on manufacturing technology and process
verification.
DME fuel has been targeted for applications such as automobiles and for distributed power on islands. Commercial
plants could be sited in the minor gas fields of Asia and the Pacific Ocean area to foster utilization and spread
activities in these areas. Under current investigation are uses of LPG supply infrastructures such as LPG filling
stations and tanks for the supply of DME.
The oil crisis in the 1980s raised interest in processes that yield synthetic gasoline. In these processes, synthetic gas
with CO and H
2
are main ingredients. These feeds can serve to compound DME. The flow charts for a synthetic
gas plant and a DME composition slurry-floor reactor are shown in
and
Fig. 10, respectively.
Fig. 9 Schematic for a synthetic gas plant for DME production (5 ton/day)
17
17
IRAN Petroleum, Issue No.4
28
Fig. 10 DME composition slurry-floor reactor
This research and development has achieved anticipated results and work began in 2002 on construction of a 100
ton/day pilot plant. The larger plant will begin operation in 2004.
UH3.5. Methane Hydrate
Methane hydrate is currently being examined as a next-generation energy resource to replace oil and natural gas.
Methane hydrate is an ice-like substance with the moisture child connoted methane in the basket (cluster) made by
the hydrogen bond. Although methane hydrate is confined in the stratum and exists as a solid, it can be released as
natural gas. Research and development of methane hydrate have placed emphasis on making solid methane hydrate
decompose to produce methane and by-products such as hydrocarbons. If methane is extractable, development of
use will follow that for natural gas. Fig. 11 shows that methane hydrate is distributed globally in the earths surface
and concentrated on the submarine deposition layer and permafrost layer zone of the continental margin.
18
The levels of NO
x
or SO
x
emitted when gases from methane hydrate are burned are unknown, but as natural gases
the emissions will be cleaner than those from oil and coal. However, high releases of CO
2
from burning methane
for a period of 100 years draw attention to global warming and its influence on the environment.
19
Moreover, when
methane hydrate gas production is developed, new environmental impacts will emerge.
18
Kuvenvolden, K.A. Estimates of the Methane Content of Worldwide Gas Hydrates Deposits,
presented at Methane Hydrates Resources in the Near Future?, JNOC-TRC of Japan, October 20-22, 1998
19
Research Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan; http://www.mh21japan.gr.jp/mh-1.html
29
Fig. 11 Worldwide distribution of gas-hydrates
These include the emission of methane, water generation as a by-product, influence on marine organisms, and
stability of the foundation (land subsidence after mining and possibility of a submarine landslide) beneath the sea.
Large-scale mining beneath the sea can lead to landslides and calls for monitoring of the ocean space environment
with apparatus and sensors. Research into such technology and that for monitoring methane in real time is
underway.
UH3.6. Future R&D of natural-gas technologies
Although natural gas is presently conveyed and used in the form of LNG, as mentioned before, development of new
processes for GTL and DME will be examined. As for the use of natural gas in applications such as power
generation, diesel engines, fuel cells, and noncommercial uses, the objectives for development are focused on
simplified handling and liquefaction.
UH3.7. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
LPG is composed of liquefied petroleum gas (C
3
H
8
) and butane (C
4
H
10
). Through liquefaction, gas volume is
reduced by a factor of 250 for storage and transport. LPG has many commercial and residential applications such as
the cassette cylinder, writer, and spray. LPG is imported with crude oil and natural gas from the Middle East and
especially Saudi Arabia. It is also commercially produced in Japanese refineries. LPG is an excellent source of clean
energy:
x It produces very little CO
2
when compared with oil or coal combustion.
x It contains almost no sulfur or nitrogen.
x It produces no particulate matter emissions or ash.
x Its by-products do not yield ozone-layer depletion.
x Propane has 2.5 times and butane 3.3 times the caloric value per volume of natural gas.
UH3.7.1. Distribution of LPG production
The production of LPG in 2002 was about 210 million ton, and increased from 120 million ton in 1985 see Fig.
12. The gas separated from refining oil occupies the largest market share (40%), followed by associated gas (35%),
and crude oil (25%). The market share for North America was 38.4% in 1985, but this decreased to 28.4% by 2002.
Still, North America remained the largest producer of LPG. The Asian area has shown production growth from
10.7% in 1985 to 18.6% in 2002, while the African area has grown 3.8% in 1985 to 7.6% in 2002.
30

Fig. 12 Worldwide production of LPG

UH3.7.2. Trend for consumption of LPG
The worldwide demand for LPG is approximately 210 million ton, and is increasing at an average annual rate of
3.4%, exceeding the demand for natural gas since 1995.
Although North America satisfied 38% of worldwide demand 1985 and was the largest demand area, demand for
LPG has increased in other areas. As of 2002, North America consumed only 28.7% of worldwide demand see
Fig. 13. The Asian area has tripled its demand and passed North America in 2001 to become the largest demand
area. Demand for LPG rose from 19.5% of worldwide demand in 1985 to 29.7% in 2002. The market for cars using
LPG is increasing and about 9 million vehicles will establish an approximately 16 million ton market in the world in
2002.

Fig. 13 The trend of the LP gas consumption in the world

31
UH3.7.3. Prospect for supply-and-demand of LPG
According to a consulting firm, LPG supply and demand in the world increases at an average annual rate of 2.2%. It
is predicted to reach 310 million ton in 2020. While North America (26.5%) and Western Europe (9.2%) will reduce
their market share, Asia will show growth to 33.1%. Growth is seen in home business use and materials
development. As the supply of LPG in the world increases to 310 million ton in 2020, it is predicted that the supply
from North America area (26.1%), the Middle East area (20.4%), and the Asian area (19.0%) will account for two-
thirds of world supply. Consequently, the demand-and-supply balance will become as shown in
Fig. 14, while export from the Middle East area will increase, and the Asian area will increase imports.
20

Fig. 14 The prospect for future demand of LPG

UH3.7.4. Trend for technology using LPG
The demand for LPG gas has been leveling-off over the past ten years. Home business use is growing and accounts
for approximately 40% of demand. Industrial use remains large, while town-gas usage is seeing a conversion to
natural gas and its market share is reduced. The market share for cars forms approximately 8% of the whole LPG
demand, and although use in taxis is important now, expansion to freight vehicles is expected. The outline of this
system is shown in Fig. 15. Cogeneration is an advanced electric power supply method that combines the
production of electricity and heat. A variety of fuels can be used for this application including LPG.
21
20
LP gas; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/hokoku/html/16022242.html
21
Japan LP gas Association home page; http://www.j-lpgas.gr.jp/cog/index.html
32

Fig. 15 Demand for LGP by application
UH3.7.5. Co-generation
LPG is expected to serve small-user markets such as homes and small businesses. A noteworthy technology is a fuel
cell system for efficient distributed power generation. Air pollutants such as NO
x
and SO
x
can be sharply abated in
comparison with conventional power generation equipment, and adoption of the technology yields reduced
distribution costs or, at least, burden on bulk supplies. LPG solid polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEFC)
development supports this objective, and an example is illustrated in Fig. 16.
22
Since a fuel cell directly transforms chemical energy to electrical energy, it yields higher efficiency than cogeneration
by gas engine or gas turbine. The power generation efficiency of a commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell is
approximately 40% of exhaust thermal efficiency, and overall efficiency for power generation is approximately 80%.
That is, power generation and usable thermal energy from the exhaust each result from approximately 40% of the
fuels energy.
Fig. 16 LPG solid polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (home fuel cell)
Fuel cells produce heat and electrical energy by chemical reactions and release negligible gaseous emissions to the
environment, when compared with gas engines and gas turbines. As shown in Fig. 17, fuel cells are also used as
22
Japanese site; http://www.nissekigas.co.jp/common/fc/index.htm
33
efficient hot-water heaters and to generate electricity to be returned to the commercial power system. LPG, as a feed
material, is reformed by hydrogen in the fuel processing equipment, and electricity is generated in a PEFC stack by
the chemical reaction using hydrogen and the oxygen in the air. Moreover, heat from the fuel processing equipment
or PEFC stack can serve the hot-water supply demand for the home or a back-up boiler.
l _u:
ho u
!oo hu`u_
b uh
oom
ho u u!m |`u_
ho
u
lu! | !! :y:m
l o m
: `h |oud
ouo! :y:m
Fig. 17 Outline for a domestic hot-water supply system
UH3.7.6. LPG vehicle
Currently, fuel cells are capturing the spotlight for the latest electric vehicles. A typical outline for such as system is
shown in Fig. 18.
Fig. 18 Fuel cell system for cars
Although other fuels are being demonstrated, hydrogen is still the primary fuel being considered for fuel cell
applications and its source can be methanol, LPG, natural gas, gasoline, light oil, lamp oil, etc. Aside from hydrogen
storage in the vehicle, there are technical challenges with generating hydrogen from the various fuels - each fuel has
its practical merits and demerits with associated cost implications. LPG as a feed material is second only to gasoline
in availability and development for storage on vehicles. Challenges in using LPG remain, as CO
2
is released in
forming hydrogen from LPG
23
. However, NO
x
and SO
x
are not emitted and the noise level is small in comparison
with that from diesel engines.
23
Japanese site; http://www.j-lpgas.gr.jp/lgv/10.html
34
Technical development has centered on replacement of diesel cars by those fueled with LPG. Local government in
Japan is replacing diesel cars, public buses, and garbage collection trucks with LPG vehicles. The use of LPG in taxi
vehicles for approximately 20 yr without accident has proven safety. Gasoline and LPG fueled vehicles compare
favorably from a cost standpoint. LPG yields perfect combustion, so that no CO gas is emitted. No lead and
negligible sulfur and benzene are emitted as with gasoline and diesel engines.
Recently, the LPI (Liquid Petroleum Gas Injection System) car was developed by Vialle Alternative Fuel Systems
BV in the Netherlands. The Bi-fuel arrangement for this car is shown in Fig. 19. The car uses a conventional
gasoline injection system and supplements it with alternative fuels. Electronic controls are used to adjust the
quantity of gas so that its combustion efficiency is high. There are advantages as follows:
x At low mpg operation it is almost equivalent to a gasoline vehicle, and is 10 20% low mpg from the
conventional LPG cars.
x When LPG is used, the output is more than from a gasoline-fueled vehicle.
x The exhaust gas is cleaner than from LPG cars.
x It can run a Bi-fuel vehicle, i.e., LPG and gasoline with both as fuel, and it is possible to use all the LPG in
its tank.
Fig. 19 Bi-fuel system
UH3.7.7. Future R&D of LPG technologies
The environmental load of LPG is relatively small. As with natural gas, there is no emission of particulate matter
(PM). Distributed power from fuel cells using LPG are efficient though, since LPG is a byproduct of petroleum
refining and NG processing there is an upper limit for supply. LPG produces little CO
2
emissions under
abnormal operation. Use of LPG should be promoted for broad use in cogeneration and fuel cells. Since the
infrastructure cost of LPG is lower than alternative clean fuels such as CNG or LNG , applications in many
countries are expected.
DME has similar qualities to LPG, so application development of either serves both. The LPG industry has know-
how and existing infrastructure to support research and development.
UH3.8. Coal
UH3.8.1. Distribution of coal resources
Coal is distributed more widely than oil and natural gas. It has a big merit in Japan, because it is produced in Pacific
Rim countries such as China, Australia, and Indonesia. Also, coals reserve production stands 204 years longer
than those for energies based on oil and natural gas. The distribution of coal reserves is illustrated in Fig. 20.
24
24
Japanese site; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/hokoku/html/16022251.html
35
UH3.8.2. Trend in demand for coal
The amount of coal (including lignite) consumed in the world in 2002 was 4,741 million ton. Of this coal, 888
million tons was lignite. The consumption of lignite showed a 1.8% annual growth, while the other coals showed a
2.1% growth in consumption. The distribution of coal consumption is summarized in Fig. 21.
China (26.4%) and the United States (20.5%) consume nearly half (46.9%) of the coal (including lignite) see Fig.
21. Chinas consumption has started to increase again in recent years, although the amount of coal consumption has
been decreasing from a peak in 1996.
25

Fig. 20 Recoverable coal reserves of the world

25
Japanese site; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/hokoku/html/16022253.html
36
Fig. 21 Coal consumption in the world (excluding lignite)
UH3.8.3. Prospect for supply-and-demand of coal
IEA has projected the largest growth in demand for coal to be in China, and that this will encourage overall growth
in demand in the Asian area. On the other hand, we can see that the growth in other areas is small (Fig. 22). Coal
supply increases are expected in China, the USA, India, etc., while decreases are predicted in the OECD Europe
area.
26

Fig. 22 Worldwide growth in demand for coal (2000 to 2030)

UH3.8.4. Trend for technology using clean coal
Environmental loads of coal, such as CO
2
emissions, are large compared with those from oil or natural gas. The
development and spread of coal-use technology (clean coal technology: CCT) which support a cleaner environment
are important. Possible areas for technology development are shown in Fig. 23. The most cost-effective
combination will depend on local circumstances and the cost of technology alternatives. .
Given the energy resource that coal represents, it is necessary to promote development of economical clean-coal
technologies such as coal gasification combined cycle power generation (IGCC) and coal gasification fuel cell
combined cycle power generation (IGFC). This will lead to reduced CO
2
emissions through improvement in
combustion efficiency of power plants. In Asia and the Pacific Ocean area, where the greatest increase in coal
demand is expected, it is important to encourage transfer of clean coal technology to developing countries. The aim
is to accept expanded coal use in developing countries, while protecting the environment, taking measures against
global warming, and applying a clean development mechanism (CDM).
26
Japanese site; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/hokoku/html/16022255.html
37
Fig. 23 Outline of the main clean coal technology
27
Clean coal technology is summarized by the following:
x Improving thermal efficiency by IGFC and IGCC technologies and reducing CO
2
emissions.
x Adopting technology to abate NO
x
and SO
x
emissions, and achieve CO
2
separation recovery and fixation.
x Adopting advanced technology such as coal liquefaction, gasification, liquefaction, and slurry conversion.
x Adopting technology for the effective use of coal ashes.
Approaches in each of these areas are described below.
27
Clean Coal technology; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/hokoku/html/16013253.html
38
Hopper
Coal
pulverizer
Coal
Gasification
Reactor
Heat
Exchanger
Char
Slug Hopper
Gasifying Agent
Char
Collection
Device
Gas
Purification
Booster
Cooling
Water
Smoke
Stack
Exhaust
Heat
Collection
Boiler
Generator
Electric
Transformer
Gas
Turbine
Air
Steam
Turbine
Hopper
Coal
pulverizer
Coal
Gasification
Reactor
Heat
Exchanger
Char
Slug Hopper
Gasifying Agent
Char
Collection
Device
Gas
Purification
Booster
Cooling
Water
Smoke
Stack
Exhaust
Heat
Collection
Boiler
Generator
Electric
Transformer
Gas
Turbine
Air
Steam
Turbine
UH3.8.5. Technology for the improvement in thermal efficiency
Several technologies are commercialized or near commercialization:
a) Supercritical pressure pulverized coal thermal power generation is commercialized.
b) Extra super critical pressure pulverized coaled coal thermal power and
c) Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) Combined Cycle system are near-term technologies.
d) Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) system, as shown in Fig. 24 should reach
commercialization around 2010.
e) The coal gasification fuel cell power generation system is expected around 2020.
28
If the end efficiency for thermal-power-generation/transmission is 38% and CO
2
generation is set to 100 by Japanese
average (1997 levels), the efficiency of the above mentioned processes and the amount of CO
2
generated by them
will be a) 40% @ 95, b) 41%@93, c)42%@ 90, d) 46% @83 and e) 54% @70 when commercialized. It turns out
that power generation efficiency improves with technology development from a) to e), and CO
2
generation is
reduced.
Fig. 24 Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle system
UH3.8.6. Technology for environmental improvement
Environmental improvement is achieved through clean coal technology and technology for pollutant abatement. In
Japan, technology exists for control of sulfur oxides (SO
x
) and nitrogen oxides (NO
x
) found in combustion exhaust
gases. There is also technology to separate, collect, and fix CO
2
emissions from large-scale generation sources.
CO
2
injection holds promise for improved crude oil recovery at oil fields (EOR process) see Fig. 25.
29
Research
towards technical development is complete and shows that methane collects in the coal bed as clean energy while
fixing the CO
2
that would otherwise lead to global warming if released to the atmosphere.
28
The Northeast Asia Eco-friendly Energy Use Workshop, National Institute for Research Advancement
(NIRA). Hokutou Asia no Kankyo Senryaku (Environmental Strategies in Northeast Asia). Nihon Keizai
Hyoron-sha, 2004.
29
CO
2
Sequestration Research Group; http://www.rite.or.jp/English/E-home-frame.html
39
Fig. 25 Overview of CO
2
sequestration technology
UH3.8.7. Technology for improvement of conventional fuels
Coal-use improvement often depends on technology to produce
x Coal high functional-materials such as methanol, ammonia, and activated carbon,
x Automobile liquid fuel of added value,
x Home fuel such as light oil and lamp oil, and
x DME as a LPG alternative fuel.
A process flow model is illustrated in
Fig. 26. Coal handling technology can include the development of Coal-Water Mixtures (CWM) and Coal
Cartridge Systems (CCS). CWM typically employs 7:3 pulverized coal-water suspensions. CCS is a total system
technology that includes controlled pulverization, sealed transportation, and batch processing of the combustion
ashes. Both are technologies at the actual proof stage.
40
As noted in an earlier section research has demonstrated the direct formation of DME from synthetic gases obtained
through coal gasification.
Fig. 26 Coal practical use energy and a functional-materials chain
30
UH3.8.8. for effective use of coal ashes
It is important to find uses for coal ashes. Studies on the use of coal ashes as cement materials, base course material,
and land improvement material has already been performed. In the near future, technologies are anticipated for
manufacturing artificial super lightweight aggregates, uses of flow floor boiler combustion ashes, and fly ash
activation.
UH3.8.9. Future R&D in coal technologies
In order to advance the use of coal, technology must be developed that improves combustion efficiency, draws
hydrogen from coal, and puts coal ashes to good use.
Coal use is linked to global environmental problems, and Asia and the Pacific Ocean area will be looked on for their
rising demand for coal. For this reason, the model enterprise of a circulation flow floor boiler (China) and an
30
Tsuge, A. 21-seiki no Energy Kankyo Shakai no Kochiku ni Mukete (Towards the Creation of the 21st
Century Energy-environment Society). Preliminary Report for the 42nd National Symposium on Atomic
Energy: 59-68, 2004.
41
advanced concentrating-coal system (Vietnam) have been undertaken for the purpose of promoting clean coal
technology.
31
UH3.9. Non-conventional Oil
Non-conventional oil resources are quite large and could play a greater role in meeting future energy needs. Non-
conventional oil initially in place could amount to as much as 7 trillion barrels of which 39 percent are tar sands and
bitumen, 23 percent are extra heavy oil and 38 percent to be oil shales. Extra-heavy oil in Venezuela, tar sands in
Canada and shale oil in the United States account for more than 80% of these resources. However, the amount of
oil that could be recovered from these resources is very uncertain. The International Energy Agency in its World
Energy Outlook, estimates that there were only 333 billion barrels of remaining recoverable bitumen reserves
worldwide in 2003, which represents about 11 years of current total world oil production.
32
In its business as usual scenario, the IEA project that total non-conventional oil production to grow from 1.6 mb/d
in 2002 to 3.8 mb/d in 2010 and 10.1 mb/d in 2030. By 2030, it is forecast to make up 8% of global oil supply. Non-
conventional production technologies are already economic in some locations. Production efficiencies will come
primarily from synthetic crude derived from oil sands in Alberta, Canada and from the Orinoco extra-heavy crude
oil belt in Venezuela. Canadian oil-sands production has become much more competitive in recent years, especially
from mining and upgrading projects. In-situ recovery techniques involve the introduction of heat, normally via
steam, into the oil sands to allow the bitumen to flow to well bores and then to the surface. According to the IEA,
the cost of production from such projects has been less than $US10 per barrel for the past 15 years.
33
The exploitation of these resources have associated potential for significant ecological impacts and threats to
biodiversity and it will take a strong stand by governments to develop these resources while preserving the
environment.
UH3.10. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we reviewed the present scope and status of hydrocarbon fuels which hold potential to replace oil. The
continued use of oil poses challenges:
x New oil fuels with reduced environmental loads are needed.
x New oil stripper technology is needed.
x Clean fuel conversion processes for heavy crude strippers are needed.
x Advanced integrated technical development is needed for oil-refining to reduce environmental loads and
improve processes.
IEA predicts future oil demands in the Asian area, including China, to increase greatly and there will be additional
advancement in other areas as shown in
31
CO
2
Geological Sequestration Project; http://www.rite.or.jp/English/E-home-frame.html
32
World Energy Outlook, 2004, International Energy Agency
33
Ibid
42

Fig. 27 (prediction of this clause is hereafter based on an IEA prospect).

34
Research and development is needed for improved processes for production and use of fuels and for environmental
controls. Processes that are inherently more environmental-friendly should receive greatest attention.
Fig. 27 Global growth of oil demand (from 2000 to 2030)
Energy supply and demand, infrastructure, maintenance, and related environmental issues vary among countries.
Therefore, we should take regional needs into consideration as much as possible. Finally, technical development
should consider needs of the next generation and environment.
UH4. Unconventional Hydrocarbon Roadmap
This section, and the ones that follow, summarise the findings of the expert working group assembled in Vancouver
and PingTung (see Attachment UH1) to determine the development path forward for unconventional hydrocarbon
technologies to contribute to the Vision and Goals of this Roadmap.
Input to the Working Group were the Roadmapping Methodology (see main text) and the Current Status of
unconventional hydrocarbon technology described in Section 2.
UH4.1. Technology Drivers
The following were the key drivers considered by the WG in evaluating the technology priorities:
x Rising energy prices as oil shortages and rising demand increase the costs of conventional energy supplies.
34
Japanese site; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/hokoku/html/16022215.html
43
x An increasing proportion of the worlds oil supplies are being sourced from politically unstable areas.
x Security of energy supplies for many countries is driving new investments.
x Energy reliability as brownouts and power failures are problems in major population areas.
x Strong global desire to reduce greenhouse gas and acid rain emissions.
UH4.2. Technology alternatives
The technology development challenges and opportunities identified by the expert group may be summarised as
follows:
CHALLENGES TECHNOLOGIES
Natural gas exploration and
development
x Greater efficiency of exploration and development for natural
gas is needed from 2010 to 2020.
x The technology challenge is to discover and develop additional
gas fields in offshore and in deeper waters. By 2030, successful
offshore exploration and production capacity should grow the
sector.
LNG Distribution and Storage x A small-scale, short-sea based distribution system for LNG
would make natural gas commercially viable in regions with
small-scale needs.
x Compared to the deep-sea LNG market, a short-sea, small-scale
LNG distribution system would use smaller ships
x Cost-efficient processes for condensing boil-off gas more
economically
x Patented BTU reduction processes that are seamlessly
integrated into the design of regasification facilities for the
management of gas heating value
x Semi-automatic ultrasonic equipment and test
x procedures for examining tank welds
Lower gas-to-liquids (GTL) costs
(Fischer-Tropsch)
x Gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants are expected to emerge as a major
new market for natural gas, making use of known (and therefore
cheaper) reserves located far from traditional markets. Interest
in developing GTL projects has grown rapidly in recent years
due to technological advances that have greatly reduced
production costs and to higher oil prices. Holders of gas
reserves that cannot be transported economically to market by
pipeline may now be able to turn to GTL as an alternative or
complement to LNG.
x All GTL plants now in operation, under construction or
planned use Fischer- Tropsch technology, which converts
natural gas into synthesis gas (syngas) and then, through
catalytic reforming or synthesis, into very clean conventional oil
products. The main fuel produced in most plants is diesel.
x The Fischer-Tropsch process uses reactors and special catalyst
in the conversion of synthesis gas (CO and H2) into high
quality diesel, naphtha, lubes, wax and many other gas/oil
products that can be used to produce liquid and powder
detergent, baby oil, etc. Unlike similar products produced by
other means, GTL products are produced with purity by
desulphurizing natural gas.
x As a feedstock, natural gas provides great opportunities via the
syngas process that produces a mixture of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen. Moreover, such a mixture is the basic building block
44
CHALLENGES TECHNOLOGIES
for many processes in gas to liquid chemicals such as the GTL
diesel.
x Although Fischer- Tropsch technology was developed in
Germany before the First World War, its commercial use was
demonstrated many years later by the conversion first of coal-
based feedstock into fuel and now of natural gas into GTL
products.
x F-T fuels can be used in blends with conventional refinery
streams.
Gas-to-liquids costs (Non-
Fischer-Tropsch)
x Research and development on non Fischer-Tropsch catalysts
shows promise to convert natural gas into liquid hydrocarbons
(gasoline, diesel, kerosene, fine oils, specialty chemicals, etc.)
that are potentially cleaner and more cost effective than any
other technologies available.
x A Pilot Plant, located near Bryan, Texas first produced liquids in
May, 2001. In August, 2001 the pilot plant ran as a complete
integrated unit, converting a natural gas supply into a high
quality combustible hydrocarbon liquid.
35
x Converting natural gas or methane to methanol has been the
subject of considerable research and debate among chemists.
x Research and development is taking place on bacterial enzymes
that efficiently converts methane to methyl alcohol.
Methane gas hydrates costs x Engineers and geoscientists have analyzing for some time how
changes in temperature and pressure affect hydrates situated in
the ocean or in permafrost. Hydrates melt when the pressure is
reduced or if the temperature rises just enough. These
temperature and pressure changes cause the gas and water
molecules to separate. Scientists have assumed, that with the
appropriate technology hydrates be captured similar to gas from
conventional deposits.
x Progress has been made in understanding the challenges of
recovering the gas from the hydrate. Proposed methods usually
focus on dissociating or "melting" in-place gas hydrates by:
i. Heating the reservoir with hot water or steam injection above
hydrate stability temperature
ii. Injecting an inhibitor such as methanol or glycol to decrease
hydrate stability
iii. Decreasing reservoir pressure below hydrate equilibrium,
thus allowing release of the ethane gas contained in the
clathrate
iv. Depressurization is the most economically promising method
of producing gas from methane hydrates. The economic cost
of thermal stimulation is prohibitive, although is technically
possible. Flooding the hydrate accumulation with inhibitors
is technically feasible but impractical both economically and
environmentally.
x Gas hydrates can cause problems to conventional oil and gas
production. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, oil and gas
exploration extends into water depths and high pressures where
gas hydrates occur at the sea floor.
35
http://johnread.com.au/synfuels.htm
45
CHALLENGES TECHNOLOGIES
x Pumping hot oil from great depths through drill pipes can cause
warming of sediments and dissociation of hydrate, liberating large
amounts of methane, weakening sediments, and perhaps
generating pockets of highly pressured gas. The result might be
gas blowouts, loss of support for pipelines, and sea-floor failure
that could lead to underwater landslides and the release of
methane from hydrates.
Coal gasification x A technology called integrated gasification combined cycle, is
capable of producing electricity from coal and other low value
carbons with virtually no CO
2
emissions into the atmosphere. It
converts coal into a synthetic gas composed primarily of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen.
x This syngas can be burned in a high efficiency gas turbine to
produce electricity, or processed using commercially available
technologies to produce a wide range of products, fuels,
chemicals, fertilizers, and industrial gases (polygeneration).
x It can produce, for example:
i. Hydrogen that can potentially be used in fuel cells and to
generate both
ii. electricity and heat
iii. Hydrogen and steam required to upgrade bitumen from the
oil sands into
iv. marketable synthetic crude
v. Petrochemical feedstocks to create everything from
pharmaceuticals to
vi. plastics to lipstick
vii. Rich by-product streams of CO2 which can be used to
enhance oil and gas recovery, then sequestered underground.
x The significant challenge now is to develop the technology into
robust, reliable, large-scale commercial applications that are
economically viable.
x Improved gasification technology associated with clean coal
can help reduce the oil sands industrys reliance on costly
natural gas.
Heavy oil / bitumen production
costs
x Technology challenge is to raise the recover ratio
(reserves/resources); need for heated pipelines in cold climates if
moving bitumen; cost pressures building; environmental
concerns high.
x Technology challenge for Canada is to make bitumen more
mobile with less heat from gas and the use of other
hydrocarbons such as gasified coal.
x Carbon sequestration technologies are important. Hydrogen /
heat are needed to split out useful oils. Carbon management is
the issue requiring technology solutions.
x Labour shortages and cost over runs is also a concern.
x There are two types of oil sands production methods: mining
and in-situ.
x For oil sands reservoirs too deep to support economic surface
mining operations, some form of an in-situ or in place
recovery is required to produce bitumen.
x Numerous in-situ technologies have been developed that apply
thermal energy to heat the bitumen and allow it to flow to the
well bore. These include thermal (steam) injection through
46
CHALLENGES TECHNOLOGIES
vertical or horizontal wells such as cyclic steam stimulation
(CSS), pressure cyclic steam drive (PCSD) and steam assisted
gravity drainage (SAGD). Other technologies are emerging such
as pulse technology, vapour recovery extraction (VAPEX) and
toe-to-heel air injection (THAI).
x There are reservoirs in the oil sands where primary or "cold"
production is possible. The bitumen in these areas will flow to
the well bore when co-produced with sand through the use of
progressive cavity pumps, the same technology that is used in
conventional heavy oil production. This type of production
technology is commonly called cold heavy oil production with
sand (CHOPS).
x A significant difference between primary bitumen and
conventional heavy oil production is the amount of sand that is
co-produced. Sand production in primary bitumen wells may
be two to three times greater than sand production in
conventional heavy oil wells.
x New technologies and extraction methods include:
i. burning bitumen instead of gas to produce steam;
ii. vapour extraction (VAPEX) - a solvent-assisted
production technique; and,
iii. Toe-to-Heel-Air-Injection (THAI) - a system that
injects air into the oil well and ignites it to stimulate
iv. oil flow
CO
2
sequestration for coal gas x Coal has potential to store vast quantities of CO
2
, and injected
CO
2
can be used to enhance the recovery of coal bed methane.
Enhanced coal bed methane recovery is a promising technology
for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power
plants and other anthropogenic sources while providing
significant economic benefit.
x Dormant oil well can potentially be used to store CO
2
. This
technology is at a prototype and testing phase.
x New pipelines will be needed to transport CO2 from point
sources to injection sites
CO
2
oil well enhancement x Production from an oil or natural gas reservoir can be enhanced
by pumping CO
2
gas into the reservoir to push out the product,
which is called enhanced oil recovery.
x The United States is the world leader in enhanced oil recovery
technology, using about 32 million tons of CO
2
per year for this
purpose. From the perspective of the sequestration program,
enhanced oil recovery represents an opportunity to sequester
carbon at low net cost, due to the revenues from recovered
oil/gas.
Water management x Technology to reduce the use of fresh water by the energy
industry including the tar sands and coal bed methane is
required, and to implement cost-effective water re-use and
recycle systems.
Coal bed methane x Coal beds typically contain large amounts of methane-rich gas
that is adsorbed onto the surface of the coal.
x The current practice for recovering coal bed methane is to
depressurize the bed, usually by pumping water out of the
reservoir.
47
CHALLENGES TECHNOLOGIES
x An alternative approach is to inject carbon dioxide gas into the
bed. The adsorption rate for CO
2
to be approximately twice that
of methane, giving it the potential to efficiently displace
methane and remain sequestered in the bed.
x CO
2
recovery of coal bed methane has been demonstrated in
field tests, but more work is needed.
The WG reviewed these technology challenges and summarized the opportunity with respect to APEC Energy
Security as follows:
Table 2: Specific Focus for Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development
Fuel Global or Niche Technology Focus
(Risk / Reward)
Product or
Feedstock Focus
2030 Energy
Security Potential
Liquid Natural
Gas (LNG)
Global Low / Medium Product High
Compressed
Natural Gas
(CNG)
Global Low / Medium Product High
Liquefied
Petroleum Gas
(LPG)
Global Low / Low Product High
Coal Bed Methane
(CBM)
Global Low / High Feedstock High
Liquefied Gasified
Coal (LGC)
Global Low / High Feedstock High
Synthetic Gas
(SynGas)
Niche Medium / High Product High
Methane Gas
Hydrates (MGH)
Global High / High Feedstock Questionable
Bitumen Global Low / High Feedstock High
Venezuelan Heavy
Crude
Niche Low / High Feedstock High
Shale Oil Global Low / High Feedstock High
The WG selected the following areas as having strong potential in the APEC region and highlighted the specific
challenges and opportunities in these priority areas as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Full Value Chain for Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development with Strong Potential
Fuel Driver Critical Issues Challenges &
Opportunities
Liquid & Compressed
Natural Gas
x Transport
x Pipeline versus liquefy
Not-in-My-Back-Yard
Capital cost intensive
Materials / Storage
Energy cost
Transport scale up
Safety
LNG stations / range
Coal Gas x Environment & CO
2
costs
x Transport costs
x Inter-fuel substitution
CO
2
sequestration
Cleaning
Gasifying
Hybrid substation
48
integration
Transport
Heavy Oil & Bitumen x Abundance
x Environment GHG
x Water usage
x Transport
x Refining
Upgrade processes
Net energy efficiency
Environmental
technologies
(water, bioremediation)
CO
2
sequestration
Methane Gas Hydrates
(MGH)
x Abundant potential
x Environment
x Location
Completion of a long term
production test to produce
an engineering and cost
model for development
planning.
CO
2
scrubbing possible
Energy density
(Transport challenge)
Production challenges
(Huge investment
required)
Gas to Liquids x Scale
x Transport
x Infrastructure
Technical efficiency of
units (production)
Direct competition with L
crude
(Fixed cost is volatile)
Materials / storage
UH4.3. Gaps and barriers
Emerging from this detailed analysis were the following key challenges listed below and summarised in Table 4.
Key S&T Challenges
x Create a cycle where carbon dioxide is sequestered or used for oil well enhanced recovery
x For bitumen tar sands, replace high priced and scarce natural gas with gasified coal
x Lower production costs (current tar sands break even point is $20 US per barrel)
x Extraction costs for other unconventional hydrocarbons are high and uneconomic
x Tar sands and coal bed methane involve complex water related challenges
Key Environmental Challenges
x Capture CO2 emissions, which could be used for enhanced oil well recovery or sequestered in dormant oil
wells or in the ocean
x Tar sands production and coal bed methane require substantial amounts of water
x Methane gas hydrates are an important sink for greenhouse gas
x Methane is also the primary gaseous constituent of naturally occurring gas hydrate deposits. Sudden release
of methane from gas hydrate therefore has the potential to affect global climate.
x Methane does not emit particulates, sulphur compounds or nasty metals that you get with oil.
Key Regulatory Challenges
x Tar sands technology involving gasified coal ( and carbon sequestration) as a substitute for natural gas
feedstocks may reduce CO2 emissions, but could increase NOx and SO2 emissions. Governments need to
better understand the trade-offs involved and make regulatory decisions.
x Carbon sequestration underground in old oil wells will need government approval.
49
x For coal bed methane, mineral and surface ownership rights must be clear and established. Water related
issues require government regulation as does possible unintended methane emissions that are not captured.
x Regulatory issues for methane gas hydrates development include soil instability induced by offshore drilling
and production operations which represent a potential geohazard adjacent to offshore structures, where
hydrate occurrence may result in foundation problems.
Capital Investment Challenges
x Investment in non-conventional oil (including gas to liquids) will amount to US$205 billion, or 7% of total
oil investment. Canada and Venezuela will need to spend in excess of US$160 billion on developing their
extra-heavy oil and bitumen resources.
x Gas-to-liquids plants, most of which will be built in the Middle East, will cost around US$40 billion. The
construction of tankers and pipelines will cost US$260 billion.
x Large amounts of capital are required to setup commercial plants to produce fuel gas from coal gasification
as a feedstock for gaseous and liquid fuels and chemicals etc.
x The investment costs and time to bring typical large projects such as clean coal plants and oil sands projects,
into production is also a major risk. The cost of clean coal plant is approximately $1.5 billion for 500 MW
plant and is about 30 to 50% higher than the cost of traditional coal burning.
x Typical oil sand mining, extraction and upgrading projects require about $4 billion investment to produce
100,000 barrels/day of high quality refinery ready synthetic crude oil.
x Coal bed methane requires investment in roads, pipelines, compressors, water impoundments and other
facilities.
x More than 100 leading scientists from Canada, Japan, the US, Germany, and India are participating in a
pilot project in the Canadian Arctic to extract methane gas hydrates.The site of the project - the Mallik gas
hydrate field in the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories - was discovered through an exploration well
drilled by Imperial Oil Ltd. in 1971-1972.
Table 4: Barriers and Challenges for Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development
Fuel Political &
Social
Economic Environment Technical Regulatory Infrastructure
Liquid
Natural
Gas
(LNG)
Not in My
Back Yard
(NIMBY)
issue for
terminals
Supply chain
management
constraints
Volatility High
investment
required
Local
approval of
terminals
Pipeline storage
system
Compress
ed Natural
Gas
(CNG)
Not in My
Back Yard
(NIMBY)
issue for
terminals
Supply chain
management
constraints
Less volatile High
investment
required
Local
approval of
terminals
Storage systems
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas (LPG)
Niche fuel
Small volume
Subsidies Link to refinery
structure in
some areas
Coal Bed
Methane
(CBM)
Energy
security
12% of US gas
supply
Water usage
Green house
gas
Site specific Water and
land use
issues
Pipeline access
Liquefied
Gasified
Coal
(LGC)
Strong
political will to
use natural gas
for higher
value added
Strengthens
hydrocarbon
value chain
and is a
substitute for
Clean coal
with reduced
CO
2
emissions
Technology
enables CO
2
sequestration
Approval of
CO
2
storage
Demonstration
projects needed,
e.g. Weyburn
SK in Canada
Substantial
50
Table 4: Barriers and Challenges for Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development
Fuel Political &
Social
Economic Environment Technical Regulatory Infrastructure
products natural gas investment in
processing and
distribution
systems needed
Synthetic
Gas
(SynGas)
Niche
applications
Indirect
conversion via
Fischer-
Tropsch or via
methanol
Use as
feedstock for
local stations
Methane
Gas
Hydrates
(MGH)
Early
production
simulations
suggest that
some GH may
be better
handled as a
utility.
Economic
model
requires
additional
production
testing and
research
Methane is
strong green
house gas
Significant
technical
barriers for sea
bed mining
CO
2
injection
In some
jurisdictions
it may be
that the
ownerships
of GH is not
included
with
petroleum
rights.
Infrastructure
largest
No transport
Isolated
Bitumen Raw bitumen
site processing
and
transportation
cost
thresholds
Water use
approval
Ecology at
site
Massive
infrastructure
needs
Venezuela
n Heavy
Crude
Political access
Stability
Alternative to
in situ to
reduce costs
High sulphur
content
Cogeneration
(only visible in
isolated
closed
environment
Shale Oil High costs Large
environmental
barriers
UH4.4. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines
The roadmap that emerges and is described in this section in detail for each of liquid, gaseous and solid hydrocarbon
fuels is predicated on the overarching trend shown below.
Detailed timelines and priority technology development that emerge from this perspective are shown in Tables 5
and 6 using the following legend to indicate innovation opportunity or barrier to be overcome.
51
Charcoal (100% C)
Coal
Crude Oil
Synthetics
Gas
Hydrogen (0% C)
5000 BC 2030 AD ?
Gaseous fuels infrastructure facilitates the
Transition to Hydrogen
Exchange of H
2
and C for energy balance
Bio-fuels inclusion in the evolutionary chain
Overarching Trend in Hydrocarbons
52
Legend
High Growth
Penetration
Requires
Technology
Breakthrough
Greater
Productivity
or Efficiency
Required
Major Cost
Barrier
53
Table 5: Growth Potential and Technology Challenges for Gas Feedstocks and Related Energy Products
2010 2020 2030
Exploration
and
Production
Liquid
Natural Gas
Greater efficiency of
exploration and
development for natural gas
is needed.
The technology challenge is
to discover and develop
additional gas fields in
offshore and in deeper
waters.
Increase efficiency
Exploration and production
efficiencies are still being
required.
Increase efficiency
Exploration and
production efficiencies
have been achieved.
High growth penetration
Methane
Gas
Hydrates
Hydrates melt when the
pressure is reduced or if the
temperature rises just
enough. These temperature
and pressure changes cause
the gas and water molecules
to separate. Scientists have
assumed, that with the
appropriate technology
hydrates be captured similar
to gas from conventional
deposits.
Progress has been made in
understanding the challenges
of recovering the gas from the
hydrate. Proposed methods
usually focus on dissociating
or "melting" in-place gas
hydrates
Requires technology break
through
Technology breakthroughs
have been achieved in
recovering gas hydrates,
especially in Japan and in
projects where Japan is a
major collaborator
including the Mallik project
in the Canadian Arctic.
Increase efficiency
(Japan)
Other countries including
the United States and
India achieve technology
breakthroughs in
recovering gas hydrates/
Increase efficiency
(Elsewhere)
54
2010 2020 2030
Gas-to-
Liquids
(Fischer-
Tropsch)
GTL plants currently use
Fischer- Tropsch
technology, which converts
natural gas into synthesis gas
(syngas) and then, through
catalytic reforming or
synthesis, into very clean
conventional oil products.
Production costs need to be
reduced, although
technological advances have
been achieved.
Major cost barrier
Cost savings have been
achieved, although greater
efficiencies are still required.
Increase efficiency
Cost savings have been
achieved, although
greater efficiencies are
still required.
Increase efficiency
Gas-to-
Liquids
(Non-
Fischer-
Tropsch)
Research and development
on non Fischer-Tropsch
catalysts shows promise to
convert natural gas into
liquid hydrocarbons
(gasoline, diesel, kero, fine
oils, specialty chemicals,
etc.) that are potentially
cleaner and more cost
effective than any other
technologies available.
Converting methane to
methanol has been the
subject of considerable
debate and research.
Requires technology break
through
Progress in Non F/T
technology is made, but still
at early stage.
Converting methane to
methanol is in early
development stage.
Requires technology break
through
Non F/T technology (for
catalysts) is more
advanced and priority is
now on gaining
production efficiencies.
Converting methane to
methanol is in prototype
and testing stage.
Increase efficiency (Non
F/T catalysts)
55
2010 2020 2030
Distribution
& Storage
Liquid
Natural Gas
A small-scale, short-sea
based distribution system for
LNG would make natural
gas commercially viable in
regions with small-scale
needs.
Technologies to make the
LNG conversion process
more cost effective are being
developed and employed
High growth penetration
Increase efficiency
Smaller economies of scale
and more cost effective
technologies being
employed
High growth penetration
Increase efficiency
Smaller economies of
scale and more cost
effective technologies
being employed
High growth penetration
Increase efficiency
Methane
Gas
Hydrates
Major cost barrier to
produce infrastructure to
capture and distribute gas
hydrates.
Major cost barrier X
With distribution and
storage infrastructure in
place, strong growth
opportunities are evident.
High growth penetration
With distribution and
storage infrastructure in
place, strong growth
opportunities are evident.
High growth penetration
Gas-to-
Liquids
(Fischer-
Tropsch)
Technology barriers involve
GTL production costs.
Distribution and storage
systems for conventional
diesel and gasoline can be
employed.
High growth penetration
Technology barriers involve
GTL production costs.
Distribution and storage
systems for conventional
diesel and gasoline can be
employed.
High growth penetration
Technology barriers
involve GTL production
costs. Distribution and
storage systems for
conventional diesel and
gasoline can be employed.
High growth penetration
Gas-to-
Liquids
(Non-
Fischer-
Tropsch)
Technology barriers involve
GTL production costs.
Distribution and storage
systems for conventional
diesel and gasoline can be
employed.
High growth penetration
Technology barriers involve
GTL production costs.
Distribution and storage
systems for conventional
diesel and gasoline can be
employed.
High growth penetration
Technology barriers
involve GTL production
costs. Distribution and
storage systems for
conventional diesel and
gasoline can be employed.
High growth penetration
56
2010 2020 2030
Use
Liquid
Natural Gas
Increase efficiency
More products from gas
Increase efficiency
More products from gas
Increase efficiency
More products from gas
Gas-to-
Liquids
(Fischer-
Tropsch)
High growth penetration High growth penetration High growth penetration
Gas-to-
Liquids
(Non-
Fischer-
Tropsch)
High growth penetration High growth penetration High growth penetration
Methane
Gas
Hydrates
Obtaining the ethane
contained in the clathrate is
the technology challenge
not the use of the ethane.
Requires technology break
through for releasing the
ethane
Industrial applications
Obtaining the ethane
contained in the clathrate is
the technology challenge
not the use of the ethane.
Requires technology break
through for releasing the
ethane
Industrial applications
Clathrate capture and
separation technologies
are becoming more
advance
Increase efficiency
Industrial applications
Comment Subclass = LNG / CNG / MGH / FTGTL / NonFTGTL
LHN / CHG = Established technical incremental benefits of higher cost effectiveness
GTL = FT established technology: focus on higher efficiency
GTL = Non FT focus on niche and reaching commercial scale
MGH = Production technology breakthrough; develop environmental industrial applications and
CO2 removal
Table 6: Growth Potential and Technology Challenges for Coal and Heavy Oil
2010 2020 2030
Exploration
and
Production
China 2008
North America 2010
Coal liquefaction in Mongolia
CO
2
for feedstock
Sour oil: US/CH/TH/AU
Heavy oil: no exploration
Environmental issues (CO
2
,
water)
Skills constraint in Canada
Canada pipeline by 2010
Technology challenge is to
The technology
developments identified for
2010 are needed in 2020 as
well.
Requires technology break
through
Energy efficient coal =
multiple of products = new
economy.
Fuel = liquid or gas
Technology breakthroughs
have been achieved and the
sector has realized
High growth penetration
57
2010 2020 2030
make bitumen more mobile
with less heat from gas and
the use of other
hydrocarbons such as
gasified coal.
Regarding gasified coal, the
technology challenge is to
achieve lower production
costs.
Environmental issues are of
paramount importance.
The employment of new
technologies to reduce and
capture GHG gas and acid
rain emissions are needed.
Waste water management
for coal bed methane and
bitumen production both
require technology
solutions
Requires technology break
through
Distribution
& Storage
CO
2
storage constraint
New technologies to lower
costs of distributing
bitumen and gasified coal
are needed.
CO
2
sequestration
technology is at early stage
and more R&D is required
for enhanced oil well
recovery, CO
2
storage in
dormant wells, under
Clean coal becomes integrated
and accepted
Shifts in energy jobs and
production to mine fields
CO
2
sequestration
technology is more
advanced in 2020, but still at
early stage.
CO
2
solutions linked to coal
gasification and enhanced oil
well recovery
CO
2
sequestration
technology is well advanced
by 2030.
High growth penetration
58
2010 2020 2030
ground or in water.
Requires technology break
through
Requires technology break
through including:
Use Government / business policy
drivers and innovations
New technologies need to
be employed for bitumen
and gasified coal to be as
effective a feedstock as light
crude oil and natural gas
for entire range of energy
and petrochemical
products.
Environmental
technologies involving
green (clean) chemistry and
better water use
management need to be
employed.
Requires technology break
through
Integration of multiple
products
In 2020, some advancement
made in addressing
technology needs identified
but still at early stage.
Requires technology break
through
New vision of coal prevalent
By 2030, technology
developments have been
realized and high quality
diesel and low quality
gasoline sourced from coal
is showing strong potential.
High growth penetration
Comment x Biodiesel for improved oil sands diesel
x Link to hydrogen economy / vehicles as transport
x Coal gas / nuclear replaces natural gas for heavy oil / bitumen development
x Collaboration / inter-fuel integration and systems solutions
The following discussion summarizes the key issues arising from this discussion with respect tp gaseous
LNG/CNG/LCNG
x Significant cost reduction in LNG vessel development
x Infrastructure is developing
x Demand not yet mature
x Price declining to compete with pipeline natural gas (Philippines) for electric power
x LNG does not need gas compressor at fuel station thats why costs are declining. Sixty-five percent of the
cost is for gas compressor. We can now partially compress it as a liquid.
59
Methane Hydrates
x Methane hydrate is considered by some experts to be a long shot others are more optimistic
x Technology and methods for economic recovery of methane from hydrates are at a very early stage of
development
x Gas hydrates are considered to be at the stage of development where oil sands were 25 years ago. The
results of the first prototype tests for the Mallik field were encouraging it produced gas in situ
x Millions of dollars are being spent by the United States on methane gas hydrates-related research and
development. The Japanese are optimistic regarding this future fuel domain. Their target is to start
producing hydrates by 2016. The next Mallik test is critical. A fifteen-year timeframe is not out of the
question.
x LNG is a competitive fuel to gas hydrates depends on the price. LNG is here now gas hydrates is still a
potential opportunity
x LNG faces distribution challenges: methane hydrates have technical production barriers
Summary of challenges and opportunities arising from the Roadmap are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6: Barriers and Opportunities for Unconventional Hydrocarbons
Unconventional
Hydrocarbons
Feed Supply Fuel
Production
Fuel
Transport
Fuel
Distribution
Fuel
Storage
End
Use
Public
Perception
LNG
CNG, LCNG
B
Payload
b
Engines B
LNG
Syn Gas GTL O
New
Resources
O
Catalysts
Scale

CB Methane B
Geological
B
Environment
Bitumen etc. B
Environment
O
Demos

Coal Gasification/
Liquefaction
O
Alternative
to natural gas
and
conventional
liquid fuels
B
Costs
B
Pipelines
Public
view coal
as dirty
Methane Hydrates B
Geology
B/O
Environment/
Resource

Lexicon: B = Significant Barrier; b = smaller barrier; O = opportunity
This leads to the following highlights with respect to each hydrocarbon fuel domain.
LNG, CNG and LCNG
x LNG is a mature technology; direct use of LNG as a transport fuel faces high costs of storage tanks on
vehicles
x A barrier exists for the development, use and acceptance for true gas engines
x Energy and automotive companies prefer to use existing infrastructure (internal combustion engine) even if
there is a loss in efficiency
x Security for LNG terminals and distribution points is a concern and a barrier
x Role of government is to provide an attractive environment, peace of mind and the required infrastructure
x We need to address institutional barriers such as city gas distribution systems.
60
Syn Gas GTL
x Energy companies are making the Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) technology a commercial reality
x Further work on catalyst specificity is needed
x Plants are smaller (5K barrels a day) now; but new plants with size larger than 30,000 barrels a day are
under construction
x Fischer Tropsch (FT) competes with LNG
Coal Bed Methane
x More government demonstration project needed
x Waste water is a major challenge and a barrier
x CO
2
can be used to help liberate coal bed methane for its production and to sequester carbon at the same
time
x Coal bed methane development is part of the energy strategy in the United States
x Australia and China have a lot of coal and this technology represents an opportunity, although there is a
serious need for new technology role for government demonstration projects to produce and capture the
gas. A thorough knowledge of the geology (barrier) of CMB reserve is required.
x Feedstock supply is large issue it currently provides 10% of methane supply in the United States. This
percentage is likely to increase.
Bitumen (Heavy Oil)
x Barriers include water usage, CO
2
, NO
x
and SO
2
emissions as well as availability and price of natural gas
fuel used in the production process and availability of skilled labour.
x Production and processing costs of bitumen have declined from the 2001 to 2004 as shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Syncrude Canada Ltd. Joint Venture Operating Costs per Barrel (Canadian Dollars) of Sweet Syncrude
Bitumen (SSB)
2001 2002 2003 2004
Overburden Removal Costs 2.25 2.53 2.78 2.10
Production Costs 10.66 9.96 11.18 10.51
Turnaround and Catalyst Costs 0.92 1.19 1.86 0.71
Purchased Energy 3.54 2.37 4.44 4.24
Corporate Admin/Research 0.80 1.00 0.81 1.05
Total Operating Costs 18.17 17.05 21.07 18.61
Source: Syncrude Annual Report 2004
x In the first six months of 2005 operating costs rose to $28.51 Canadian per barrel compared to $18.61 per
barrel for the entire year in 2004. Purchased energy costs rose as both the volumes and price of natural gas
increased in the first half of 2005 compared to 2004. These high prices for natural gas are a concern to the
industry, which is driving the possible future substitution of gasified coal.
x In 2004, Syncrude, a Canadian consortium of oil companies mining and processing bitumen in the
Athabasca region of Alberta, Canada showed operating netback of $33 Canadian per barrel of Sweet
Syncrude Bitumen (SSB). After capital cost allowances the netback was $31 per barrel.
x Synthetic crude from Athabasca tar sands bitumen and other heavy oil sands deposits such as Cold Lake in
Alberta presently account for 30% of Canadas oil requirements.
61
x The Alberta provincial government has invested of the order of $ 1 billion in oil sands research and
development between 1975 and 1995. The Canadian federal government is also investing in oil sands R&D
through its Devon facility
x The International Energy Agency in its business as usual scenario sees bitumen and heavy oil accounting for
almost 30% of global supply by 2030.
Coal Gasification/
Liquefaction
x Minimal disruption scenario to effectively utilize coal and change its public perception from a dirty fuel to a
clean fuel
x Liquefied coal technology exists. The barrier is that costs need to decline
x A potential source of hydrogen for fuel cell, etc.
x Use of FT process is favored by large energy companies
x The cost of the FT process is going down
x Non-FT process, e.g., direct conversion to methanol could be disruptive, relative to FT diesel. It is
necessary to change the internal combustion engine to efficiently run on methanol.
x Sequestration of CO
2
in coal seams that at the same time displaces adsorbed methane thus producing gas is
excellent longer solution to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Sequestration by injection of CO
2
in
depleted oil fields to recover more oil and at the same time sequester CO
2
, and straightforward storage in
other types of geological formations are viable options
x Its up to governments to make CO
2
sequestration happen. They need to provide investment infrastructure
and climate
x The government of Alberta is developing a scheme for leasing geological formations under crown land for
sequestration. The compression and injection costs are considered to be high. More wok is needed to
determine if there is a risk of gases escaping.
Methane Hydrates
x Long term option there is risk but also opportunity
x Japan and the United States have made major investments in methane hydrates
x South Korea and India are also investing in this technology
x There is lower risk in production of hydrates in the Arctic than in the ocean
x Inadequate knowledge of the geology is a significant barrier. The appropriate geoscience knowledge and
exploration tools are needed
x Exploration methods that recognize hydrates are important. We need to know how much is there
x Environmental considerations pertaining to hydrates are important
UH5. Resources
A number of APEC economies have done substantial work on issues related to the development of commodity-scale
production of future fuels. In addition to those who are represented in the expert group (Attachment 1) the
following could be noted:
Canada
EnergyInet:
Contact: Eddie Isaacs : Vision: an abundant supply of environmentally responsible energy, creating economic
prosperity and social well-being for Canadians. http://www.energyinet.com/
Telephone (403) 297- 8650; Fax (403) 297-3638
#2540, 801 6 Avenue SW
Calgary, AB Canada
T2P 3W2
Additions to this list from all APEC economies are being requested.
62
UH6. Next Steps
UH6.1. What Governments Can Do
The key Unconventional Hydrocarbons trends identified are:
x Rapid shift to LNG replacement of conventional coal
x GTL replace conventional diesel
x Clean coal replace conventional coal
x Methane hydrates by 2020?
x Impact of large swings in oil prices (roller coaster)
Governments should endeavour to ensure that there is a level playing field from a pricing perspective that reflects
not only the direct costs of production but also the indirect costs of externalities such as those arising from
environmental pollutions and consequent impact on human health. In this context, governments can also take steps
to encourage innovation.
Possible actions by government within this context for unconventional hydrocarbons noted by the WG are:
x Incentive / credits to change or convert coal (to accelerate LNG)
x Incentives for coal-bed methane / clean coal / energy storage would enhance transition
x Public education by governments
x Greater LNG transport security
x Flexible contract terms for LNG trade
x Technology support, e.g., on board gas storage / clean coal
x Domestic market de-regulation (reduce monopolies)
x New technology demonstration projects
Unconventional hydrocarbons will be the largest fuel source alternative to conventional light crude, it will be
essential for APEC economies to rely upon their national governments for leadership in the strategies and actions
necessary to accelerate transitions from the current conventional light oil economy to unconventional hydrocarbons
and complement the development of renewable energy resources.
Specifically:
1) To promote and ensure that the infrastructure, innovation and regulatory measures are in place to enable
economic development of unconventional gaseous and liquid fuels in the following key areas:
a. Infrastructure for LNG , CNG and LCNG use
b. Coal liquefaction and Fischer-Tropsch processes
c. Environmental sustainability of oil sands - bitumen\heavy oils\
d. Coal-bed methane production
2) To promote reciprocal agreements and cross-border technology exchanges and joint primary energy
production:
a. To facilitate cross border investments and to support mutually beneficial demonstration projects,
e.g., to foster joint development projects;
b. To enhance energy production within the APEC region for security;
c. To increase efficiency and access to underutilized energy resources and to balance mismatched
supply-demand situations within the APEC region;
d. To overcome barriers related to infrastructure, storage and transport systems.
3) To continue to support longer term regional APEC energy security through R&D for clean coal, bitumen,
heavy oil and methane hydrates
4) To help industry manage the transition by communicating and building public trust to facilitate the
transition to those unconventional fuels identified above, e.g., public perception issues, safety and
infrastructure.
63
UH6.2. Collaborations
Suggested topics that might be facilitated through collaboration between APEC economies noted by the WG are:
x Cross border sharing of infrastructure and overcoming barriers for unconventional hydrocarbons is
desirable
x Greater collaboration amongst APEC economies on new infrastructure development, new production
techniques and knowledge on geology, conversion processes and end use is needed
x Table 8 discusses energy issues and collaborative integration opportunities for economies that are primary
producers and non-primary producers of energy.
Table 8: Issues for Primary and Non-Primary Producers
Gas / LNG Liquefaction Collaborative
Integration
Opportunities
Primary Carbon sequestration
technology
Have-nots getting
together with haves
Non-Primary Big oil companies
invest in FT technology
64
Attachment HC1
Unconventional Hydrocarbons Working Group Participants.
Vancouver, Canada Workshop April 27-29, 2005
Keynote Speaker:
Australia
Tom Beer (Co-ordinator)
CSIRO, Environmental Risk Division
CSIRO Environmental Risk Networ, Private Mail Bag 1,
Aspendale, VIC 3195 Australia
E-mail: tom.beer@csiro.au
Facilitator:
Canada
Jack Smith (Director)
Office of the National Science Advisor
E-mail: jesmith@pco-bcp.gc.ca
Participants :
Brunei Darussalam
Sunny, Mr. Eddie & Dato Paduka Haji (Act. Head Research and Development Unit)
Ministry of Development Act. Head Research and Development Unit
Brunei Darussalam
E-mail: eddie@mod.org.bn
Canada
Keng Chung (Program Director)
Upgrading, EnergyINet
C/O Alberta Energy Research Institute
#2540, 801 6th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 3W2
E-mail: kengchung@energyinet.com
Andrew Hall (Director, Corporate Development)
QuestAir Technologies Inc.
Canada
E-mail: hall@questairinc.com
Kirk G. Osadetz (Manager, Gas Hydrates Fuel of the Future Program, Earth Sciences Sector)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
E-mail: Kirk.Osadetz@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
Dr. Marlo Raynolds (Executive Director)
Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development
65
E-mail: marlor@pembina.org
Dr. Donald Simpson (CEO)
The Innovation Expedition
Dsimpson@InnovationExpedition.com
Mr. Ken White (President)
Acton White Associates Inc.
E-mail: actionwhite@shaw.ca
China
Dr. Chunming Xu (Director of China State Laboratory of Heavy Oil Processing, Dean of Chemical Engineering
Sciences)
China University of Petroleum
E-mail: xcm@cup.edu.cn
Chinese Taipei
Chen, Mr. Chung-Hsien (Senior Engineer, Energy Technology Division)
Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs
Chinese Taipei
E-mail: ctchen@moeaboe.gov.tw
Singapore
Mr. Poon King Wang
Agency for Science, Technology and Research
Singapore
20 Biopolis Way, #07-01 Centros, Singapore 138668
E-mail: poon_king_wang@a-star.edu.sg
Thailand
Paritud Bhandhubanyong (President, National Metal
and Materials Technology Center)
Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment
E-mail: paritud@mtec.or.th
Khajohn Bhasavanija (Manager, Starategic Planning)
PTT Exploration and Production Plc
PTTEP Office building, 555 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road,
Chatuchak, Bankgok 10900 Thailand
E-mail: Khajohn@pttep.com
Mrs. Usanee Chatranon (Director)
PTT Public Company Limited
555 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd.,
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand
E-mail: usanee.c@pttplc.com
Chatri Sripaipan (Vice-President)
National Science and Technology Development Agency
66
E-mail: chatri@nstda.or.th
PingTung, Chinese Taipei August 10-12, 2005
Canada
Mr. Jack Smith
Director of S&T Foresight
Office of the National Science Advisor
Government of Canada
jesmith@pco-bcp.gc.ca
www.techforesight.ca
Dr. Jan Boon
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister
Earth Scineces Sector
Natural Resources Canada
jboon@nrcan.gc.ca
Dr. Kenneth White
President
Acton White Associates
actonwhite@shaw.ca
www.actonwhite.ca
Thailand
Dr. Boonrod Sajjakulnukit
Project Coordinator
Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies
Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency
boonrod_s@dede.go.th
www.dede.go.th
Dr. Khajohn Bhasavanija
Manager, Strategic Planning Department
PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited
Khajohn@pttep.com
Dr. Paritud Bhandhubanyong
Director
National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC)
paritud@mtec.or.th
Korea / Japan
Dr. Yong-Hun Jung
Asia Pacific Research Center
Chinese Taipei
Dr. Hwai-Derg Chiang
New Zealand
Dr. David F.S. Natusch
67
Managing Director
Resource Development Limited
rdl@iconz.co.nz / dnatusch@ihug.co.nz
U.S.A.
Dr. Michael Wang
Manager, Systems Assessment Section
Center for Transportation Research
Energy Systems Division
Argonne National Laboratory
mqwang@anl.com
http://greet.anl.gov, Secretary: 630 2529681
Observers:
Australia
Professor Greg Tegart
Executive Advisor
APEC Center for Technology Foresight
gregtegart@ozemail.com.au
Chinese Taipei
Dr. Alex Yu-Min Peng
Mr. Chun-Li Lee
Mr. Cheng-Chung Huang
Professor Cheng-kuo Sung
Dr Mr. Huey-Ching Yeh
Guay Shin S Yu
Mr. Po-Hsiang Chu
Ms. Tina Tseng
Ms. Virginia Lee.
68
Appendix Biofuels
APEC Foresighting Future Fuel Technology
APEC Biofuels Technology Roadmap to 2030
Compiled by Dr. David Minns
36
This Technology Roadmap is one of three developed as part of an APEC Integrated Future Fuels Roadmap study
which in turn is part of the APEC Project: Foresighting Future Fuels Technology. It was developed in consultation
with experts in biofuel technology drawn from across the APEC community at two workshops. The first was held
in Vancouver Canada April 27-29, 2005 and the second at PingTung, Chinese Taipei, August 10-12, 2005.
This Biofuels Technology Roadmap should be read in conjunction with the Integrated Roadmap to which it is
appended.
[Acknowledgements: This report draws primarily on the keynote address by Dr. Peesamai Jenvanitpanjakul and the
notes and conclusion from the discussions of the Biofuels WG facilitated by Dr Nares Damrongchai and Dr.
Byeongwon Park.]
CONTENTS
B1. Contribution of Biofuels to the Vision....................................................................... 69
B1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study.......................................................................... 69
B2. Assumptions............................................................................................................... 70
B3. Current Status............................................................................................................. 70
B4. Biofuel Technology Roadmap................................................................................... 71
B4.1. Technology alternatives............................................................................................. 71
B4.2. Gaps and barriers ....................................................................................................... 72
B4.3. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines...................................... 73
B5. Resources ................................................................................................................... 74
B6. Next Steps .................................................................................................................. 77
B6.1. Collaborations............................................................................................................ 77
36
Canadian Core Team dminns@rogers.com
69
B1. Contribution of Biofuels to the Vision
Biofuel is a renewable fuel produced from biomass derived from agricultural and forest products and wastes,
municipal wastes and sludge. If produced domestically use of biofuels will lead to enhanced energy security through
reduced dependence on foreign oil imports. With an appropriately designed and managed value-chain, biofuels can
also lead to reduced GHG emissions. Cellulose-based biomass is in much greater supply and therefore represents a
much greater production potential than grain-based but has proven more challenging to process and the production
technology is less mature. The energy and environmental benefits also differ significantly for these two forms of
biomass.
With respect to the sustainable component of the Vision, the use of agricultural and forestry waste products and
energy crops brings with it the potential for socioeconomic benefits to rural communities. Though biomass is
renewable, there is potential for it to be exploited non-renewably. Biomass represents a large carbon reservoir in the
worlds forests and its waste helps to preserve soil carbon levels. If these carbon reservoirs are significantly
disturbed through poor management of biomass waste or deforestation then the apparent GHG benefits may well
be lost. Fresh water is also a key ingredient for producing biomass and is at risk through intensive agricultural
practices. The effective governance of the multi-use resources of land and water will be a key requirement if
biofuels are to be exploited on any significant scale.
B1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study
Biofuels take a variety of forms and can be derived from a range of natural feedstocks. A summary of current
feedstocks, conversion technologies and biofuels is given in Figure 1:
Figure 12: Biofuels Value-Chain
Feedstocks
Conversion
Fuel
Usage
Crops/Forestry:
Straw,
Wood, Chips
Crops:
Cellulosic
- based
Crops:
Starch/sugar
- based
MSW
Manure
Waste water
Crops: Oilseeds
Animal Fats
Physical:
Chipping
Compacting
Drying
Chemical:
Carbonization
Liquefaction
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Solid:
Chips
Pellets
Briquette
Gas
Biogas
Syn gas
Biological:
Fermentation
Digestion
Liquid
Ethanol
Biodiesel
Biooil
Chemical:
Transportation
Industry/
Agriculture
heat
electricity
For this Roadmap, conversion technologies for ethanol and biodiesel are the target for transportation. Conversion
technologies for these together with biogas, biooil and syngas are the target for stationary uses.
70
B2. Assumptions
The Biofuels Working Group elected to divide their effort into two sub-working groups. One was focussed on
Biofuels for Transportation and the second Biofuels for Stationary Applications. The results of these two subgroups
were then combined to produce the Biofuels Roadmap presented here.
It was assumed that there will be sufficient biomass available as feedstock to meet the Goal and therefore the
Roadmap focuses primarily on technology developments and innovation required for conversion.
Thus issues of sustainable energy crop production, forest management, soil carbon management and associated
environmental issues related to agricultural production, such as eutrophication, were not discussed though they are
issues.
The members of the Biofuels Working Group are listed as Attachment B1.
Details of the Roadmap are presented in the following three Sections, first by describing the background or current
status of the technology as presented to the participants (Section B3) and then the findings and recommendations of
priority technologies and timelines given by the experts assembled in Vancouver in PingTung.
B3. Current Status
The potential for biofuels has long been established and bioethanol and biodiesel (in various forms) is now available
in a number of economies as a commercially available fuel or fuel additive. Ethanol is a single compound
standardised by its chemical structure. Biodiesel, by contrast, is a complex mixture of organic compounds whose
composition depends on the feedstock and processing used in its production. Significant efforts are underway to
establish standard specifications. Examples are given in the Table in Section 3.1. Like ethanol, biodiesel can be used
in a low concentration additive in a predominately hydrocarbon-based fuel or in high concentrations as a fuel in its
own right. The solvent properties of the current formulations of biodiesel, however, tend to mobilise engine
deposits caused by conventional diesel fuels. This suggests that it is advisable to stay with biodiesel once the
conversion has been made rather than switch back and forth between biodiesel and fossil diesel. This means that
one either has to have an extensive supply infrastructure and wide-distribution of biodiesel service stations or limit
the use of biodiesel to localised fleets such as buses, local trucking services or ferry services. Ethanol does not have a
similar constraint for fuel switching and therefore can be introduced into the existing infrastructure as supplies
become available.
The use of either liquid biofuel does have the potential for some reduced impact on climate change if the supply
chain is well managed and as long as the role of biomass as a terrestrial reservoir for carbon is not disturbed.
Exploitation of biomass in a non-sustainable way involving such things as clearing of forests or the reduction of soil
carbon, could, however, cause major net releases of carbon to the atmosphere with its consequent augmented
impact on climate change.
Key to preserving the environmental benefits is the development of technologies to improve the overall energy
efficiency of the value-chain. Currently, sugarcane for the production of ethanol has a very good energy balance
(energy output / energy input) of 8.3; other feedstocks are much less attractive have energy balances of 1.9 (sugar
beet) or lower. Current energy balances for biodiesel from oilseeds are approximately 3.
Since both ethanol and biodiesel are available commercially, growth barriers in the near-term relate more to gaining
market acceptance than to overcoming technological limitations. In the longer-term, though, as demand increase,
supply may become limited by feedstock availability. As noted above, significant efforts are still required to advance
the overall performance of the production chain from feedstock, through harvesting, storage, conversion and
distribution.
Biooil is another liquid biofuel which also has versatility as a feedstock for other bioproducts. It is produced using
pyrolysis from a variety of biomass sources and is under very active development in Canada.
71
Although much of the focus of biofuels is for the development of liquid fuels for application in transportation, by
far the largest current use is in stationary applications through direct combustion for heating and industrial
applications for producing process heat (steam) or electricity. Typically the biomass is in solid form as chips, pellets
or briquettes for such applications.
There is, however, a growing interest in producing gaseous biofuels particularly biogas by anaerobic digestion of
MSW as well as fuel gas or syngas from gasification processes such as pyrolysis or steam reforming.
B4. Biofuel Technology Roadmap
This section, and the ones that follow, summarise the findings of the expert working group assembled in Vancouver
and PingTung (see Attachment B1) to determine the development path forward for hydrogen technologies to
contribute to the Vision and Goals of this Roadmap.
Inputs to the Working Group were the Roadmapping Methodology and the Current Status of biofuels technology
described in Section B3.
B4.1. Technology alternatives
The findings of the two subgroups are succinctly summarised in the two diagrams below.
A simplified biofuel roadmap (stationary)
Barriers and
challenges
(knowledge gaps)
Technology
alternatives
R&D,
resources,
initiatives
Trends & drivers
Products
Process
5 years 10 years 20 years
Sustainable chemical production Handling of municipal waste
Management of agricultural produce Less carbon emission
Storage and delivery
Thermo efficiency
De-watering
Reduce contamination
Direct combustion
Electricity
Heat
Hydrogen SynGas BioOil
Anaerobic digestion
Gasification Pyrolysis
Electrochemical
Canada
Thailand
Singapore
Philippines
Chinese Taipei
72
A simplified biofuel roadmap (transportation)
Barriers and
challenges
(knowledge gaps)
Technology
alternatives
R&D,
resources,
initiatives
Trends &
drivers
Products
Process
10 years 20 years
Sustainable chemical production Zoning of feedstock plantation
Management of agricultural produce Less carbon emission
unfully-utilized byproduct
Catalyst
De-watering
Biodiesel specification
Cellulosic Technology
Bioethanol Biodiesel
Hydro-treating Transesterification
Thermo depolymerization
US/Canada
Thailand Vietnam Chinese Taipei
Fermentation
Insufficient feedstock
Incompetitive cost to fossil fuel
B4.2. Gaps and barriers
The major barriers and knowledge gaps identified to focus the roadmap are noted in the Table below as extracted
from the two diagrams above.
Upto 5 years Upto 10 years Upto 20 years
Biofuels for
transportation
For ethanol production
x More effective
catalysts
x More energy
efficient dewatering
For biodiesel
x Insufficient feedstock
x Biodiesel
specification
x Cost uncompetitive
with fossil fuels
For biodiesel
x Unfully-utilized
byproduct
Biofuels for stationary
applications
(production of
electricity)
From heat
x Thermal efficiency
From Syngas and biooil
x More energy
efficient dewatering
x Reduced
environmental
contamination
From Hydrogen
x Storage and delivery
Current production of biofuels is at quite a low volume. The challenge that seems to be emerging here is one of
increasing the scale of production to commodity levels in a way that is cost competitive with fossil fuels during the
period of the roadmap.
Some bioprocesses, primarily because they have to operate at low temperatures and pressures, do not scale-up to
large volume production as well as chemical methods which do not face this constraint and therefore can be more
easily optimized.
73
B4.3. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines
The WG combined the findings of the two subgroups to produce the timeline for technology development for
biofuels as shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 3: Biofuel Roadmap with Timeline and Linkages to Other Fuel Types
Fossil fuel-based
Economy
2000
2010
2020 L
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
2030
H
2
- rich
Biogas
Fuel cells,
H
2
storage
H
2
from
SynGas
H
2
H
2
hydrocarbons
hydrocarbons
Biofuel
Economy
B
i
o
f
u
e
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
i
o
f
u
e
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Bio Oil - Pyrolysis
Ethanol from starch/sugar
CH
4
rich Biogas
Biodiesel
Ethanol from cellulose
SynGas
Biomass Integrated
Gasification Combined
Cycle ( BIGCC)
Polygeneration of
energy, chemicals
and H
2
From proof of concept to implementation
Technology
readily
available
Need specification and market for co-products
Limited experiences and further R&D needed
Direct
combustion
Diesohol
Technology to produce biofuels from biomass is flexible and can, in principle, produce solid, liquid or gaseous fuels
that can be blended into a mainstream of hydrocarbon fuels in the near term or support the hydrogen economy in
the longer term. The linkages are not fixed in time but will come into effect when there is demand. The linkage is
placed at the point in time where supply is feasible. Figure 2 shows the technology developments required to exploit
this flexibility. It also depicts a move to the greater exploitation of lignocellulosic feedstock since this is in much
greater supply than grain or sugar sources and must be the main source of feedstock, complemented by grains and
sugars, if significant quantities of biofuels are to be produced.
There is a significant, though limited, supply of biomass waste from agricultural and forest products. Utilization of
this source is a key target for biofuel production. The diversion of biomass waste to fuel production may also reduce
the production of methane gas from natural decay, which is a powerful GHG. Moving beyond waste utilization to
the dedicated production of energy crops brings with it greater demand for energy for fertilizers and to service the
necessary farming practices. It also presents the potential for a greater environmental burden through N
2
0 releases
a potent GHG offsetting the zero-carbon claims of biofuels as well as nutrient contamination of water bodies. It
is evident that the energy efficiency and environmental implications of biomass exploitation for the production of
biofuels must be managed using LCA tools over the full value-chain.
Biomass is a renewable source of energy but it can easily be used in a non-renewable way. If the development of
biofuels leads to a reduction of the reservoirs of carbon in soils and forests, then an unsustainable situation may have
been created. Energy crops are a solar-capture technology and will be in competition with other forms of solar
capture such as PV for the most effective use of land area. How best to meet the fuel requirements for
transportation will be a pivotal issue in this competition.
Biomass is a carbohydrate and, in its raw form also contains large quantities of free water yet biofuels, especially
those for transportation should be as free of water as possible. Coping with or eliminating the water content
74
throughout the full production cycle from bio-feedstock to product requires energy and this tends to introduce a
source of energy inefficiency into the production of biofuels. Intuitively, this may mean that technologies that
require water injection to produce fuel (i.e, where water is a resource rather than a waste) such as steam reforming
to produce Syngas or hydrogen - may conserve energy better than other technology value-chains.
B5. Resources
A number of APEC economies have done substantial work on issues related to the development of commodity-
scale production of biofuels. Those noted by the WG are:
Transportation
Ethanol
1. Starch (grain)
Vietnam Interested using starch as feedstock
Philippines Interest in using sugar cane as feedstock
China Produces ~ 1 billion litres / annum
US Continued use of starch as feedstock
Common point xalready under implementation and looking for
enhance efficiency and reduced cost
xproven technology commerciallly
2. Cellulose
US xLooking to 3-5 year solution to get EtOH from
cellulosic material
Canada xHas lead company Iogen
Thailand xConcern for the higher blends for the non FFV
xWant to get TT in cellulosic biomass to get
efficient process commercially.
Malaysia xHas big feedstock but need conversion
technology
Taipei xAiming at enzyme technology scaling to high
sizing
Common issues: xAPEC members; eg. US and Canada can share
their experiences in the introduction of
bioethanol, eg, storage, vehicle modification.
xNeed to move from proof of concept to
commercial implementation
xConcern for higher blends of ethanol with on
FFV
Biodiesel US xneed to work on oxidation stability
xspecification refinement
xlong term effect on engine durability
Canada xcommercial facility (60M Litres, yellow fats,
WVO) in 2005
xRecently mandated B5
Thailand xNeed to work on oxidation stability
xNeed system approach to produce for refinery
xEngine vehicle technology
xProcessing robustness
xHas roadmap zoning issue
xQuality & standard
xFeed stock: used veg oil and animal fat, need
diversification
75
xB100 standard EN
Malaysia xSpecification important
xDiesel is subsidized so need level playing field
xAiming for transportation sector
xStrategic need for price stabilization
Taipei x B2 By 2010
x B5 By 2020
x Use waste cooking oil currently and looking
for more domestic feedstocks, e.g., rapeseed
and sunflower
Philippines x Looking for the best available & affordable
technology
Vietnam x Feedstock collection system and storage
(Infrastructure).
x Mass production of feedstock
Common Issues x US has pretty much abandoned the pursuit
of diesohol and can share experiences on
concerns of safety issue regarding flash
point.
x Feedstock diversification, varieties
x Blending protocol need to be developed
x Find market for the co-product of biodiesel
production e.g, glycerine
x Need to harmonize and standardize
biodiesel specification for all kinds of
feedstocks.
x Engine & Vehicle Tech.
will be practical before or after 2010?
x Engine warranties e.g. B5 should be accepted
and need to bring in car manufacturing
COMMON points
Stationary
Biogas US Landfill and on-farm system implemented for
transportation and industries
Canada x Working on centralized system
x On-farm system have not worked well
Thailand x Has vast experiences on biogas from pig manure
x Launching biogas project from agro-industrial waste
water
x Need to develop or TT for biogas production from
MSW
x Need to develop gas cleaning, gas engine
modification, small gas turbine
Malaysia x Has experiences on biogas from palm oil waste
x Using the biogas for power generation is challenging.
Taipei x Experiences on biogas from landfill gas for power
generation and biogas from wastewater treatment for
steam generation.
x Has experience on removing high concentration of
H2S from biogas.
Philippines x On-farm system have not worked well
x Looking for the best available & affordable
technology
76
Vietnam x Small system implemented at pig farms.
Common issues: x Share experiences on landfill gas utilization for
transportation and industries
x Microbial technology for:
(a) methane-rich biogas in the near term
(b) hydrogen-rich biogas in the long term
SynGas
1.Gasification US Biorefinery is based on Syngas
Canada x Has pilot plant but have issues related to
heterogeneous feedstocks
Thailand x Has experience in running 1 MW, rice husk
gasification plant
x Main problem is gas cleaning and waste water
treatment
Malaysia x Has limited experience, mainly R&D
Taipei x One rice husk gasification power plant under
construction.
x Doing more research on co-gasification of biomass
and wastes, and syngas cleaning system
Vietnam
Philippines
Common
issues/interest:
x Separation of H2 from syngas for fuel cell.
2. Direct
Combustion
Thailand x Having problems of combustion chambers (rice
husk, fouling)
x Has some experience on co-firing of biomass and
coal.
Malaysia Still in use
Philippines It is illegal
Bio Oil US
Canada x Leading
x Can share experiences to other APEC member
countries
Thailand
Malaysia
Taipei
Vietnam
Philippines
Common
issues/interest:
Specific examples and contact points for each economy would be useful for aiding in the roadmap implementation.
The following are examples from Canada.
Canada
Terry McIntyre, Environment Canada, terry.mcintyre@ec.gc.ca
Technology and Regulatory Foresight: Environmental and Stewardship Implications of Large
Scale Conversion of Municipal and Agricultural Organic Waste to Energy in Canada March 2005
Lawrence Townley-Smith, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, townleysmithl@agr.gc.ca
77
Lawrence Townley-Smith is the leader of Canadas biomass inventory activity. His group is
developing sustainable protocols, GIS based maps, and interfaces with agriculture, forestry, and
municipal materials. This is definitely an area that Canada could contribute to APEC.
Joseph Cunningham, Industry Canada, Cunningham.Joseph@ic.gc.ca
Joseph Cunningham organised a multistakeholder initiative to develop the Innovation Roadmap
on Bio-based Feedstocks, Fuels and Industrial Products published in 2004.
B6. Next Steps
B6.1. Collaborations
COMMON issues for the biofuels: transportation and stationary that represent areas where APEC economies
could benefit from combining resources through collaborations:
x Need actions to gain public acceptance
x Government take the lead in using biofuels in their fleets as procurement strategy.
x Level playing field with other types of fuel
x Sharing experiences between economies
x Lesson learnt/best practices from government measures, policies and programs.
x Collection and logistics of feedstock management
x Preprocessing to address the bulk size of the feedstock, e,g densification to reduce transportation cost
x LCA to identify critical points to be addressed by research and to select appropriate technologies
x Net energy balance to be assessed.
78
Attachment B1: Biofuels Working Group Participants.
Vancouver Canada April 27-29, 2005
Keynote Speaker:
Dr. Peesamai Jenvanitpanjakul (Director of Environment Ecology and Energy)
Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technology Logical Research
196 Phahonyothin Rd., Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
E-mail: peesamai@tistr.or.th
Facilitators :
Dr. Nares Damrongchai (Policy Researcher)
APEC Center for Technology Foresight
E-mail: nares@nstda.or.th
Dr. Byeongwon Park (Foresight and Strategic Planning Team)
Korea Institutes of S&T Evaluation and Planning
Korea 8F Dongwon Industry Bldg., 275 Yangjae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea
E-mail: bpark@kistep.kr
Participants :
Canada
Gloria Fu (Research Analyst)
National Research Council Canada
Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology
E-mail: gloria.fu@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Randal Goodfellow (President)
Goodfellow Agricola Consultants
2005 6th Line Road, R.R. #1,
Dunrobin, Ontario K0A 1T0
E-mail: randal@goodfellowagricola.com
Representing: Office of the National Science Advisor of Canada
Dr. Richard Hallman (Industry Specialist, BioProducts and Special Crops; Executive Director BC Bioproducts
Association)
Biofuels, Hydrogen
BC Ministry of Agriculture
Food, and Fisheries,
Industry Competitiveness Branch
E-mail: richard.hallman@gov.bc.ca
Chris Johnstone (Chief, Fuels Policy and Programs)
Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
580 Booth, Ottawa, ON
E-mail: chris.johnstone@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
79
Mr. Kevin Jonasson (Director, Commercialization)
National Research Council of Canada, ICPET
kevin.jonasson@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Ron Kehrig (V.P. BioProducts and BioProcessing)
Ag-West Bio Inc
E-mail: ron.kehrig@agwest.sk.ca
Warren Mabee (Research Associate, Faculty of Forestry)
University of British Columbia
E-mail: warren.mabee@ubc.ca
Terry McIntyre (Research Scientist)
Environment Canada
E-mail: terry.mcintyre@ec.gc.ca
Steffen Preusser (Technology Development Officer)
Foreign Affairs Canada
FriedrichstraBe 95, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
E-mail: steffen.preusser@international.gc.ca
Jack Saddler (Dean, Faculty of Forestry)
University of British Columbia
E-mail: jack.saddler@ubc.ca
Dr. Mark A. Stumborg (Head, Applied Science, Research Branch)
Agriculture & Agri-food Canada
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre,
P.O. Box 1030,
Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2
E-mail: Stumborgm@agr.gc.ca
Chinese Taipei
Dr. Hom-Ti Lee (Deputy Director, Clean Energy Technology Division)
Energy & Resources Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute
Chinese Taipei
ERL/ITRI Rm. 309 B.dg., 64, 195, Sec. 4, Chung Hsing Rd.
Thutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan 310. R.O.C.
E-mail: HTLee@tri.org.tw
Korea
Dr. Byeongwon Park (Foresight and Strategic Planning Team)
Korea Institutes of S&T Evaluation and Planning
Korea 8F Dongwon Industry Bldg., 275 Yangjae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea
E-mail: bpark@kistep.kr
Peru
Dr. Johnny Nahui Ortiz (Consultant, Clean Technologies)
CONCYTEC
jnortiz@amauta.rcp.net.pe
80
The Phillipines
Dr. Olivia Castillo (Chair/President, Environment)
Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption & Production
Philippines Room 204, Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs,
Aleneo De Manila Unviersity, Katipunan Road, Loyola Heights,
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108
E-mail: oliviacastillo@yahoo.com
Mr. Eric A. Raymundo (EPI System Specialist, Environment Division)
Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production (APRSCP)Phillipines
E-mail: env_mgt@yahoo.com
Singapore
Dr. Keith Carpenter (Research Institute Director, Institute of Chemical Engineering & Sciences)
Agency for Science, Technology and Research
Singapore 1, Pesek Road, Jurong Island,
Singapore 627833
E-mail: keith_carpenter@ices.a.-star.edu.sg
Thailand
Mrs. Siriluck Nivitchanyong (Assistant Director, National Metal and Material Tecnology Center)
Ministry of Science and Technology
114 Thailand Science Park Paholyothin Rd., Klong 1, Klong Luang, Pathumthanl 12120
E-mail: siriluck@metc.or.th
Mrs. Siriporn Sailasuta (Director-General)
Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency
17 Rama 1Rd., Patumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
E-mail: siripns@dede.go.th
Dr. Boonrod Sajjakulnukit
Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency Senior Scientist
Kasatsuk Bridge, 17 Rama 1 Road, Bldg., 7, 10th Floor, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
E-mail: boonrod_s@dede.go.th
PingTung, Chinese Taipei August 10-12, 2005
Canada
Mr. Randal Goodfellow
Goodfellow Agricola
Randal@GoodfellowAgricola.com
www.GoodfellowAgricola.com
Malaysia
Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim
Vice President
Research and Technology Division
SIRIM Berhad
ahmad@sirim.my
81
http://www.sirim.my
Philippines
Mr. Eric A. Raymundo
EPI System Specialist
Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption
envl_mgt@yahoo.com
Dr. Olivia la O' Castillo
Chair/President
Asia Pacific Roundtable for
olcastil@pldtdsl.net, aprcp@pldtdsl.net
www.aprcp.org
Chinese Taipei
Dr. Hom-Ti Lee
Deputy Director
Clean Energy Technology Division
Energy&Resources Lab.
HTLee@itri.org.tw
www.itri.org.tw
Dr. Yun-Huin Lin
Researcher
Biomass Energy Laboratory, Clean Energy Technology Division
Energy & Resources Laboratories
Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI)
yunhlin@itri.org.tw
Dr. Gia-Fen Tsai
Research/Program manager
Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI)
gfchen@itri.org.tw
Shen-Da (Simon) FUH
Research Fellow
National Science Council
sdfuh@nsc.gov.tw
Thailand
Dr. Bundit Fungtammasan
Director
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
Bundit_f@jgsee.kmut.ac.th
http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th
Ms. Peesamai Jenvanitpanjakul
Senior Expert and Acting Director
Environmental, Ecological and Energy Department
Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (TISTR)
82
peesamai@tistr.or.th
www.tistr.or.th
Dr. Nares Damrongchai
Policy Researcher
APEC Center for Technology Foresight
National Science and Technology Development Agency
nares@nstda.or.th
Mrs. Siriluck Nivitchanyong
Assistant Director
National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC)
siriluck@mtec.or.th
www.mtec.or.th
Mrs. Usanee Chatranon
Vice President, Research Promotion Department
Research and Technology Institute
Petroleum Authority of Thailand
usanee.c@pttplc.com
U.S.A.
Dr. Cary N. Bloyd
APEC Expert Group on New and Renewable Energy Technologies
Energy and Environmental Policy Scientist
Decision and Information Sciences Division
Argonne National Laboratory
bloyd@anl.gov
www.anl.gov
Stephen J. Goguen
Stephen.Goguen@ee.doe.gov
Vietnam
Dr. Nguyen Xuan Chuan
President, Former Vice Minister of Industry of Vietnam
Mechanics Accociation of Vietnam
nxchuan@hn.vnn.vn
83
Appendix Hydrogen
APEC Project: Foresighting Future Fuel Technology
Hydrogen Technology Roadmap to 2030
Compiled by Dr. David Minns
37
This Technology Roadmap is one of three developed as part of an APEC Integrated Future Fuels Roadmap study
which in turn is part of the APEC Project: Foresighting Future Fuels Technology. It was developed in consultation
with experts in hydrogen technology drawn from across the APEC community at two workshops. The first was
held in Vancouver Canada April 27-29, 2005 and the second at PingTung, Chinese Taipei, August 10-12, 2005.
This Hydrogen Technology Roadmap should be read in conjunction with the Integrated Roadmap to which it is
appended.
[Acknowledgements: This roadmap report draws liberally on the Position Paper prepared by Dr. Withaya
Yongchareon for the Krabi Workshop for the background and is used verbatim in many places. It also builds on the
keynote address by Dr. Fanghei Tsau of Chinese Taipei and the core of the Roadmap uses exclusively the notes and
conclusion from the discussions of the Hydrogen WG facilitated by Annie Desgagn and Dr. Nathasit Gerdsri in
Vancouver and Dr. David Minns in Chinese Taipei. Hanks are also extended to Shannon Miles and Dr. Vesna
Scepanovic of Natural Resources Canada for their thorough review and editing of the first draft.]
CONTENTS
H 1. Contribution of Hydrogen to the Vision ............................................................................ 84
H 1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study.................................................................................. 85
H 2. Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 87
H 3. Current Status ............................................................................................................... 88
H 4. Hydrogen Roadmap........................................................................................................ 92
H 4.1. Key Drivers ................................................................................................................... 93
H 4.2. Technology alternatives................................................................................................... 93
H 4.3. Gaps and barriers............................................................................................................ 93
H 4.4. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines ................................................... 94
H 5. Resources...................................................................................................................... 95
H 6. Next Steps .................................................................................................................... 96
H 6.1. What Governments Can Do............................................................................................. 96
H 6.2. Collaborations ............................................................................................................... 96
H 7. Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 96
37
Canadian Core Team dminns@rogers.com
84
H 1. Contribution of Hydrogen to the Vision
Hydrogen is an energy carrier and can be produced from various sources of fossil and renewable energy. Hydrogen
produced from renewable resources or nuclear energy results in significantly reduced net carbon emissions. The
fuel cell is an energy converter, which uses hydrogen as a fuel to produce electricity and thermal energy and the by-
product is water.
Fuel cells can achieve higher conversion efficiencies than the internal combustion engine, thus reducing emissions
and energy costs at the point of use. The overall energy efficiency and environmental performance depends on the
value-chain used for supplying hydrogen and a life cycle analysis should be completed in order to use hydrogen,
both in power plants and in vehicles, in the most effective way. Also international policies concerning global climate
change must be strongly stressed in order to promote the use of hydrogen. Hydrogen is only as sustainable as the
primary energy sources used in its production.
The following examines in more detail the potential that hydrogen has for contributing to the Vision for greater and
more sustainable energy security.
Energy Security
The need to diversify the supply of transportation fuels is great. Currently, unlike stationary applications, the
transportation sector relies almost exclusively on refined petroleum products and this demand is expected to rise
steadily for the foreseeable future unless energy use patterns are changed. Hydrogen is a versatile energy carrier that
could be produced in large quantities entirely from domestic sources of fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas and coal with
CO
2
sequestration), renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, and biomass), and nuclear energy. Using hydrogen
as a major energy carrier would thus provide the APEC region with a more diversified energy infrastructure linking
primary energy sources with the points of use and promote greater energy security as a consequence..
Global Climate Change and Urban Air Quality
Hydrogen has an important role in a low carbon global economy. With the capture and sequestration of carbon
from fossil fuels, hydrogen is one path for coal, oil, and natural gas to remain viable energy resources, should strong
constraints on carbon emissions be required. Hydrogen produced from renewable resources or nuclear energy
results in greatly reduced carbon emissions.
Urban air quality is a major public health concern. Transportation of all types and electric power plants are
significant contributors to air quality problems. The introduction of commercial bus fleets fuelled by hydrogen in
metropolitan areas is one of the approaches being considered to achieve compliance with air quality standards.
Population and Economic Growth
Many experts have pointed out that if highly populated countries like China, India, or Indonesia were to adopt
energy consumption patterns similar to those of the West to fuel their economic growth, world energy supplies
would have to increase enormously to meet the demand. Many international energy experts are hoping that
developing countries will be able to bypass todays energy technologies by adopting more advanced technologies to
decouple increases in energy demand from economic growth. Unfortunately, the advanced energy devices that
would be needed to move ahead in this way, such as fuel cells, are not yet cost competitive or commercially available
on the required economies of scale.
Hydrogen Safety
While there is much work at present in the fields of codes, standards and safety misperceptions about the safety of
hydrogen remain. The public needs to be aware that safety issues related to hydrogen are being addressed, and
perceptions based on misinformation need to be corrected. A public information campaign can help eliminate many
of the concerns about hydrogen safety, furthermore field tests and demonstrations will help to increase public
85
confidence and acceptance of hydrogen technologies. Continuing efforts to develop effective codes and standards
are also needed to ensure that these concerns are addressed in equipment designs, manufacturing practices, and
operation and maintenance procedures.
H 1.1. Fuel products targeted for this study
Since hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source, its production requires energy .The energy
conversion efficiency and the emissions caused by production largely depend on the selected source and production
method. Some examples are shown in Table 1. If renewable energies are assumed to be supplied free by nature,
electrolysis supported by electric power gained from hydropower generation and gasification of biomass have high
conversion efficiencies (Column 1 compared to Column 4). The two production methods only require a primary
energy input of 0.1 and /or 0.2 kWh per kWh of hydrogen produced. However, if the overall energy efficiency is
important measure (Column 3 compared to Column 4), then biomass gasification appears the best but hydrogen
produced through use of hydroelectricity drops to third behind natural gas.
Table 1. Energy consumption for hydrogen production and transportation for various energy sources [1]
Primary Energy Input Energy Input
Source Column 1
Electric Energy
for
Plant
construction
and transport
Column 2
energy
Column 3
Total
Process Chain Column 4
Energy
Output
Hydroelectric
Power
0.1 kWh 3.2 kWh
The energy
content of
water is
provided
naturally and
can be
considered
free.
3.3 kWh Electrolysis
Liquefaction
Distribution
1 kWh LH
2
Biomass 0.2 kWh 1.5 kWh
The energy
content of
biomass is
provided
naturally and
can be
considered
free.
1.7 kWh Gasification
Compression
Distribution
1 kWh GH
2
Natural gas/w
Electricity
2.0 kWh 1.0 kWh
electricity
mix
3.0 kWh Pyrolysis
Compression
Distribution
1 kWh GH
2
Solar energy 1.0 kWh 19.0 kWh
The solar
energy
content is
provided
naturally and
can be
considered
free.
20.0 kWh Photovoltaic at
North Africa
Electrolysis
Storage of GH
2
Transport and
Distribution
1 kWh GH
2
Source: Institute for Energy Technology and Power Plant Engineering, TU Munich
86
Hydrogen can be transported, stored and made available to consumers in gaseous or liquid form. From the energy
standpoint, transport of gaseous hydrogen clearly comes out on top. Liquefaction requires a considerable amount of
auxiliary energy for producing the refrigerants and operating the compression/ expansion loops required to produce
the extreme cold necessary. Approximately 30% of the gaseous hydrogen energy input is lost during liquefaction.
Hydrogen costs increase with the number of steps in a process chain linked to the choice of the primary energy
source. Every conversion causes additional costs and energy loss. Therefore, the use of hydrogen production by
electrolysis for the end-use conversion back to electricity and heat in fuel cells must be considered a relatively
inefficient method of hydrogen use, from the point of view of both primary energy and cost. Apart from energy
efficiency and costs, the availability of various energy sources needed for hydrogen production, hydrogen
distribution technology, and end use converter technologies will all play crucial roles for its ultimate
implementation.
Energy Conversion Efficiency
Current designs suggest that automobile applications, the hydrogen will be mainly stored and used in its gaseous
state. Hydrogen can be converted to mechanical energy via traditional combustion methods and through
electrochemical processes in fuel cells linked to electric motors. Table 2 shows a comparison of conversion
efficiency of various fuel technologies from well-to-tank; tank-to-wheel and the combined efficiency from well-to-
wheel. From the table, fuel cells can achieve higher efficiencies than internal combustion engines but diesel
powered hybrid-electric vehicles (HEV) perform the best. .
Table 2 Conversion Efficiency [4]
Technology Well to Tank
%
Tank to Wheel
%
Well to Wheel
,%
Gasoline Car 85 17 14
Diesel Car 89 22 20
Gasoline HEV 85 25 21
Diesel HEV 89 30 27
H2 ICE 65 22 14
H2 Fuel Cell 65 40 26
N.B. For indication only Results will vary depending on pathway, vehicle and duty cycle.
For power plant applications, the high temperature fuel cells, MCFC and SOFC, are capable of fuel to electricity
efficiencies of 60 % LHV
38
and total thermal efficiencies up to 80% LHV in combined cycle applications. Note also
that the high operating temperatures of MCFCs and SOFCs allow direct internal processing of fuels, such as
natural gas no separate hydrogen generation and storage is required.
Hydrogen Cost
Hydrogen at present is more expensive than gasoline based on conventional internal cost factors. However, if we
use Total Costing methods and include the external societal costs incurred by such factors as global warming, urban
air quality and reduced public health, hydrogen becomes the less costly of the two. These externalities can be
internalized through the introduction of fiscal reforms such as tax measures or incentives.
Hydrogen fuel costs and global warming impacts depend on its primary energy source. For example, liquid
hydrogen produced from hydropower is cheaper than that produced from solar energy. Since hydrogen can be
generated from any primary energy source, its production can be optimized by supplying hydrogen from both fossil
fuels and renewable energy in a ratio to minimize the Total Cost. Figure 1 illustrates one example of this in the
German context. If the LH2 is produced from a mixture of 50% of natural gas and 50% of a combination of
renewable energy, the cost of LH2 is the same as gasoline sold in Germany that is 10 euro cent per kWh. However
the overall CO2 emission is reduced approximately 16 %.
38
LHV = Lower Heating Value. It excludes the heat of condensation of the water vapor in the combustion products.
87

Figure 1: Cost and Emission comparison of Hydrogen Fuel and Gasoline Fuel [5]
Fuel Cell Costs
Fuel cells are available in the market today. A sampling of estimated list prices is shown in Table 3. The price of the
PEM fuel cell engine is still significantly higher than the equivalent gasoline ICE. However, ICEs are produced in
large volumes and benefit from the cost efficiencies of scale. Larger volume production of fuel cells will also have
this benefit and one can expect the price differential to reduce as fuel cell production increases.

Table 3. Fuel cell cost
1 Estimated cost
2 Estimated cost for 500 kW Mirama marine corps Air Station San Diego California.2003
Source: www.fuelcellstore.com , August 2004
H 2. Assumptions
The development of this Roadmap was aided by an analysis conducted at the Vancouver Workshop by Dr. Nathasit
to review and quantify the ranking of the STEEP Drivers and Factors supporting each driver as input to prioritizing
the technology developments identified by the group. The data for this analysis was gathered through
questionnaires completed by the Hydrogen WG. The details of this analysis are attached as Addendum 1.
Application Supplier Size Price,US $
Portable Power Supply Ballard AirGen 1 kWe PEM 6495
Portable Power Supply Portapack 1 kWe PEM 10175
Smart fuel cell 50 We DM 4343
Engine 50kW PEM 25000-50000
1
Power Plant 500 kW
MCFC
1000-1500/kW
2
88
To develop the Roadmap, the Hydrogen Working Group elected to divide their effort into two sub-working groups.
Group Focus Value Chain Approach
1 Hydrogen Production from
Fossil Fuels
Natural Gas
Methanol
Ethanol
Gasoline
Coal
2 Hydrogen Production from
Renewables
Hydro
Wind power
Photovoltaic
Geothermal
Nuclear
Production
Delivery
Storage
Conversion
Applications
The results of these two subgroups were then combined to produce the Hydrogen Roadmap presented here.
It was assumed that there would be sufficient primary energy sources available to meet the Goal for Hydrogen
production and therefore the Roadmap focuses on technology developments and innovation required for
production, distribution and storage, and conversion for its ultimate end-use.
The participants in the Hydrogen Working Group are listed as Attachment H1.
Details of the Roadmap are presented in the following Sections, first by describing the background or current status
of the technology as presented to the participants (Section H3) and then the findings and recommendations of
priority technologies and timelines given by the experts assembled in Vancouver in PingTung.
H 3. Current Status
The use of hydrogen as an energy carrier or major fuel requires development in several industry segments,
including production, delivery, storage, conversion, and end-use. Hydrogen can be produced through thermal,
electrolytic, or photolytic processes applied to fossil fuels, biomass, or water. Electrolytic hydrogen production uses
electricity to produce hydrogen from water. Electricity, however, can come from various sources (fossil, hydro,
nuclear). Reforming, which uses steam to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other light hydrocarbons, is most
common. This hydrogen is either consumed on site ("captive" hydrogen) or distributed via pipelines or trucks
("merchant" hydrogen). Hydrogen can be stored in its elemental form as a liquid, gas, or as a chemical compound,
and is converted into energy through fuel cells or by combustion in turbines and engines. Each of these components
of the hydrogen industry is under development. The following sections explain the current status of these
technological areas in greater detail.
Production
Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it does not naturally exist in its elemental form
on Earth. It must be produced from other compounds such as water, biomass, or fossil fuels. Each method of
production from these constituents requires energy in some form, such as heat, light, or electricity, to initiate the
process. In 1980, the largest liquid hydrogen plant in the United States was in New Orleans with a hydrogen
production capacity of 60 tons per day. Approximately 95 percent of hydrogen is currently produced via steam
reforming. Steam reforming is a thermal process that involves reacting natural gas or other light hydrocarbons with
steam. This is a three-step process that results in a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, which is then separated
by pressure swing adsorption, to produce pure hydrogen. Steam reforming is the most energy efficient
commercialized technology currently available, and is most cost-effective when applied to large, constant loads.
89
Research is being conducted on improving catalyst life and heat integration, which would lower the temperatures
needed for the reformer and make the process even more efficient and economical. Membrane separation
techniques may also have application for the purification of the hydrogen.
Partial oxidation (autothermal production) of fossil fuels is another method of thermal production. It involves the
reaction of fuel with a limited supply of oxygen to produce a hydrogen mixture, which is then purified. Partial
oxidation can be applied to a wide range of hydrocarbon feedstocks, including light hydrocarbons as well as heavy
oils and hydrocarbon solids. However, it has a higher capital cost because it requires pure oxygen to minimize the
amount of gas that must later be treated. In order to make partial oxidation cost effective for the specialty chemicals
market, lower cost fossil fuels must be used. Current research is aimed to improve membranes for better separation
and conversion processes in order to increase efficiency, and thus decrease the consumption of fossil fuels.
Hydrogen can also be produced by using renewable and nuclear resources to extract hydrogen from water, but these
methods are currently not as efficient or cost effective as using fossil fuels. Creation of more efficient, less expensive
electrolyzers to use electricity from renewable and nuclear sources is also ongoing.
Biomass can be thermally processed through gasification or pyrolysis to produce hydrogen. Research on nuclear-
based hydrogen production is mostly conducted on thermo-chemical processes, which makes use of high reactor
exit temperatures. Both are continuing to be developed. Research on using biological systems such as algae to
extract hydrogen from water is being conducted for domestic use.
Delivery
A hydrogen energy infrastructure would include production and storage facilities, structures and methods for
transporting hydrogen, fueling stations for hydrogen-powered applications, and technologies that convert the fuel
into energy through end-use systems that power buildings, vehicles, and portable applications. This section focuses
on existing infrastructure that moves the hydrogen from its point of production to an end-use device. Today
hydrogen is produced primarily in decentralized locations and is used on-site by the chemical industry for
upgrading fossil fuels. Approximately 17 percent of hydrogen is centrally produced for sale and distribution, and is
transported through pipelines or via cylinders and tube trailers.
Similar to natural gas distribution, pipelines could be used to supply hydrogen to customers. Currently hydrogen
pipelines are used in only a few areas of the United States. Air Liquide, Air Products and Chemicals Inc., and
Praxair Inc. operate hydrogen pipelines in Texas, Louisiana, California, and Indiana. Pipelines provide an efficient
means for transporting hydrogen. Concerns regarding the weakening of carbon steel pipes in a process called
hydrogen embrittlement are being addressed. Alternate delivery forms such as the transport of hydrogen in safe
compounds or chemical forms, are being developed to get hydrogen to end-use sites on an as-needed and real time
usage basis. Hydrogen is also distributed via cylinders and tube trailers that are transported by trucks, railcars, and
barges. For long-distance distribution of up to 1000 miles, hydrogen is usually transported as a liquid and then
vaporized for use on-site. Bulk hydrogen delivery is economical for less than 20,000-25,000 kg/mo. Tube trailers
are used for small-scale distribution, but liquid hydrogen is important for large consumers. Liquid hydrogen
delivery can be up to an order of magnitude cheaper than compressed gas transport for long distances due to higher
mass density.
Hydrogen Storage
Adequate storage capacity is an important component of a networked distribution system to maintain stability under
varying supply and demand. How hydrogen will best be stored depends on the application.
Hydrogen can be stored as a gas or liquid or in a chemical compound. Compact storage of hydrogen gas in tanks is
the most mature storage technology, but is difficult because hydrogen is the lightest element and has very low
density under normal conditions. This is addressed through compression to higher pressures or interaction with
other compounds. In addition, storage tank materials are sophisticated; they are getting lighter and better able to
provide containment. Some have a protective outside layer to improve impact resistance and safety. A typical car fuel
90
tank with a volume of 45 l, can store hydrogen energy of 315 MJ under a pressure of 700 bars whereas it can store
gasoline energy of 1822 MJ at atmospheric pressure.
Hydrogen becomes liquefied at a temperature of -253
o
C, and can be stored in cryogenic containers which require
less volume than gas storage However, the liquefaction of hydrogen consumes large quantities of energy, equivalent
to about one-third the energy value of the hydrogen.
Hydrogen can be stored "reversibly" and "irreversibly" as metal hydrides.
In reversible storage, metals are generally alloyed to optimize both the system weight and the temperature at which
the hydrogen can be recovered. When the hydrogen needs to be used, it is released from the hydride under certain
temperature and pressure conditions. The alloy is restored to its previous state by recharging it with hydrogen.
(However, metal hydrides can store hydrogen only 2-5 % of its weight. There are many metal hydrides with a broad range of storage
capacities.)
39
In irreversible storage, the material undergoes a chemical reaction with another substance, such as water, that
releases the hydrogen from the hydride. The byproduct is not reconverted to a hydride.
Laboratory research continues in the development of carbon-based storage systems. Hydrogen storage in carbon
structures is achieved chemically in fullerenes or by physical sorption in carbon nanotubes. These processes are
controlled through temperature and pressure and are being developed but are still a long way from being
commercially available.
Conversion
As mentioned, hydrogen is an energy carrier that requires production from a feedstock using energy. Hydrogen
can be used by a particular end-use device to produce energy (heat or electricity). Hydrogen can be converted to
energy via traditional combustion methods or through electrochemical processes in fuel cells.
Combustion
Hydrogen can be combusted in the same manner as gasoline or natural gas. The benefit of using hydrogen
combustion over fossil fuel combustion is that it releases fewer emissions and water is the only major byproduct.
No carbon dioxide is emitted, and nitrogen oxides, produced by a reaction with the nitrogen in the air, can be
significantly lower than with the combustion of fossil fuels. Other combustion applications are being researched,
such as new designs of combustion engines for automobiles.
Fuel Cells
The fuel cell is an energy converter, which permits the production of electric power from fuels and oxygen from air.
Fuel cells utilize the chemical energy of fuels such as hydrogen to produce electricity and thermal energy. A fuel cell
is a quiet, clean source of energy. Water is the only by-product it emits if it uses hydrogen directly. Since
electrochemical reactions generate energy more efficiently than combustion, fuel cells can achieve higher efficiency
than internal combustion engines. Current fuel cell efficiencies are in the 40 to 50 percent range, with up to 80
percent efficiency reported when used in combined heat and power applications.
Fuel cells are similar to batteries in that they are composed of positive and negative electrodes with an electrolyte.
The difference between fuel cells and batteries is that energy is not recharged and stored in fuel cells as it is in
batteries. Fuel cells receive their energy from the fuel e.g., (hydrogen) supplied and no charging is necessary. Fuel
cells are characterized by their electrolyte, operating temperature, and level of hydrogen purity required. Table 4
summarizes the characteristics of various fuel cell types. Phosphoric acid fuel cells are the most developed fuel cells
for commercial use. Many of the installed units are used in stationary applications to provide grid support and
reliable back-up power. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells are being developed and tested for use in
transportation, stationary, and portable applications.
39
See for example: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/metal_hydrides.html
91
Table 4. Summary of Fuel Cell Types [2]
Type Electrolyte Operating
Temperature
Sensitivities to Hydrogen
Purity
Proton
Exchange
Membrane
Solid organic polymer
e.g., NAFION
60-100
o
c High sensitivities to
impurities, must have <10
ppm CO
Alkaline Aqueous solution of
potassium hydroxide
soaked in a matrix
90-100
o
c High sensitivity to carbon
dioxide
Phophoric Acid Liquid phosphoric acid
soaked in a matrix
175-200
o
c Sensitive to CO
Molten
Carbonate
Liquid solution of
lithium,
sodium and/or potassium
carbonates, soaked in a
matrix
600-1000
o
c Low sensitivity to CO,
Hydrogen/carbon monoxide
mixtures can be used. CO2 is
required
Solid Oxide Solid zirconium oxide to
which a small amount of
ytrria is added (or yttria-
stabilized zirconia)
600-1000
o
c Low sensitivity to CO,
Hydrogen/carbon dioxide/
methane mixtures can be used
There has been a rapidly growing interest in PEM fuel cells over the past few years and most major automotive
manufacturers are developing fuel cell concept cars based on this technology. Alkaline fuel cells have been used in
military applications, for NASA space missions to provide electricity and drinking water for astronauts. Solid oxide
and molten carbonate fuel cells are best for use in generating electricity in stationary and in combined cycle
applications in which waste heat is used for cogeneration. They are also used in transportation applications as a
source of auxiliary power for peripheral devices such as air conditioners. Fuel cells have operating advantages for
both stationary and mobile applications because they are quiet and typically have high efficiencies at partial loads.
End Use Energy Applications
Historically, the percentage use of hydrogen in industries is: ammonia production 50%; refineries 37%; methanol
8%; space 1%; and other 4%. The demand for industrial hydrogen is expected to grow 5% per year. Today,
hydrogen energy end-use applications include stationary, transportation, and portable devices but the most common
current use for hydrogen is still in industrial processes such as refineries. For the aerospace industry, liquid
hydrogen is used as a fuel because of its high energy density, which is three times as high as that of gasoline fuel. In
addition, the combustion gases of low-molecular weight fuels produce the highest exhaust velocities and, thus, most
powerful thrusts. It is also used as a fuel at NASA, where the combustion of hydrogen has fueled its space shuttle
main engines and propulsion systems for years.
Other energy uses are generally limited to research and demonstrations. One application of hydrogen fuel cells is
for distributed power generation. A number of UTC
40
Fuel Cells phosphoric acid fuel cells are operating in
locations around the world, providing heat and power for buildings and industrial applications. These units include
a reformer component to generate a hydrogen-rich gas from natural gas.
In the transportation sector, a number of fuel cell vehicles are being tested and developed. Vehicular use of
hydrogen energy requires refueling stations. Given the current state of hydrogen technologies, city-owned buses are
a promising application because they are capable of carrying large tanks of hydrogen and typically refuel at a single
location. Vancouver was the first in the World to demonstrate a fuel cell powered bus. Chicago became the first city
in the United States to use hydrogen fuel cells to power buses in their public transit system. A rapidly growing
40
UTC = United Technologies Company : http://www.utcfuelcells.com/utcpower/index.htm
92
number of car manufacturers, including DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, BMW, Toyota, Honda, and
Hyundai are developing fuel cell vehicles for personal use. In 2001, the BMW CleanEnergy World Tour
demonstrated its fleet of 15 hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine vehicles. The prototypes of fuel cell
vehicles are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Prototype Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles [3]
Year Manufacturer Model
1998 Ford P2000 FCV Mid-size/Full-size
2000 GM-Opel Zafira Light Truck/Van/SUV
2000 Daimler Chrysler Necar Sub-compact/Compact
2001 Honda FCX Sub-compact/Compact
2001 Mazda Premacy : methanol fuel cell vehicle
2001 Hyundai Santa Fe/IFC Light Truck/Van/SUV
2002 Toyota FCHV Compact/ Light
Truck/Van/SUV
Source: UTC Fuel Cells
For the latest information on fuel cells for vehicle applications refer to the California Fuel Cell Partnership
(CAFCP) publications (http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/fuel-vehl_cars.html )
Portable fuel cells can also be used to power small devices such as mobile telephones or personal computers.
Slightly larger power generators for recreational and other off-grid applications are under development. For
example, Ballard Power Systems has developed the Nexa power module, a PEM fuel cell system that generates up
to 1200 watts of unregulated direct current electrical power that can be used for industrial and consumer end-
product applications. Portable power applications are still in the early stages of development but are being
successfully pursued by such companies as Hydrogenics.
Hydrogen Infrastructure

An extensive distribution network of fueling stations is required for hydrogen to receive wide acceptance as a fuel
for light duty vehicle transportation. The capital investment requirements to maintain and improve the
infrastructure over the next several decades will total hundreds of billions of dollars. This investment may be
significantly reduced if a distributed system of on-site hydrogen production proves viable. While hydrogen may be
able to use some of the existing infrastructure, specific upgrades and enhancements will be needed to accommodate
the unique features of hydrogen, particularly in storage and distribution. The technologies needed to convert the
natural gas infrastructure for the use of hydrogen are available today, but are not yet cost effective. At present there
is no motivation to convert to hydrogen, as there are essentially no markets for distributed use of hydrogen
Additional infrastructure costs will have to be incurred in the future, when cost-competitive products are available,
to enable the transition to the hydrogen economy. The technical and economic barriers to upgrading a nations
fueling stations to provide hydrogen represents one of the major stumbling blocks to the expanded use of hydrogen-
fueled vehicles. Some automakers estimate that hydrogen would have to be available in at least thirty percent of the
nations fueling stations for a viable hydrogen based transportation sector to emerge. Large quantities of hydrogen
will need to be sold to recover the large investment required to build this infrastructure. Private investment in such
an infrastructure will not be forth coming in the absence of supporting and sustained, supportive public policies.
H 4. Hydrogen Roadmap
This section, and the ones that follow, summarise the findings of the expert working group assembled in Vancouver
(see Appendix 1) to determine the development path forward for hydrogen technologies to contribute to the Vision
and Goals of this Roadmap.
93
Input to the Working Group were the Roadmapping Methodology and the Current Status of hydrogen technology
described in Section 2.
H 4.1. Key Drivers
Dr. Nathasit surveyed the WG participants and conducted an analysis of the relative importance of the five key
STEEP drivers used in the Krabi workshop and weighted the supporting factors. The results of this analysis are
reported in Appendix 2. The results confirmed the findings of the Krabi Workshop. The weightings of the
supporting factors aided the WG in prioritizing the technology alternatives.
H 4.2. Technology alternatives
Technology alternatives were developed and evaluated for both the reformed and renewable fuel alternatives.
Technology options were developed across the Value Chain
Production -> Delivery -> Storage -> Conversion -> Applications
The following table lists some of the issues presented to the WG participants to aid in their deliberations. It was not
intended to be a complete listing of options for example, under Hydrogen Production Technologies could have
been added: distributed production from renewable liquid feedstocks, high-temperature thermochemical
production, and photoelectrochemical production.
Production Distribution &
Storage
Conversion Recommended Focus
x Steam methane
reforming from fossil
fuels
x Electrolysis from
renewable energy
sources
x CO
2
capture/sequestration
x Supply chain
development
x Distribution
Pipeline
Fuelling stations
and related nozzle
Pump, compressor
x Storage
Gaseous high
pressure
Solid state,
Nano carbon
tubes
x Supply chain
development
x Portable
x Stationary
x Mobile
x Stack
x Components
x Balance of Plant
x PEM
x SOFC
x MC
x DMFC
x Supply Chain
development
x Technology R&D
x Applications
x Infrastructure
x Codes and Standards
x Skills/Education/Training
x Procurement
x Regulation
x Fiscal Policy
x Market Development
x Supply chain
development
x Mechanisms to achieve
collaboration
H 4.3. Gaps and barriers
The following gaps and barriers and contextual issues emerged when reviewing the technology alternatives
2010 2020 2030
- Cost and performance of fuel
cell/application (Durability,
Reliability, Lifetime)
- Materials: Catalysts, Membrane,
Power/Grid Management for
Distributed Generation if there is
feedback to the grid from
hydrogen production or fuel cell
Photo Catalytic electro materials
Materials Management
- Storage/Production Solar
94
Caustic Properties
- Manufacturing -
Compactness, scalability,
power density
- Cost of Electrolysis (Capital +
Operating)
use.
Fuel Cell Technological
Challenges
Market Acceptance of FCVs
Reduction of GHGs/Particulates
through Gasification
Biomass feedstock (Roots to
Hopper);
CO
2
Sequestration
Safety Systems/Pipelines (ie.
Leakage, efficiency)
Public Acceptance of nuclear
- proliferations, waste management
CO
2
Sequestration
Hybrids Combined Cycle
Turbines
CO
2
Sequestration Treatment of
Storage
Scale of Investment Dedicated H2
Pipelines
Hydrogen Storage and Distribution (Hydrides for mobile weight, storage density, inefficiencies)
CO
2
Sequestration
Codes and Standards Development
H 4.4. Recommended technologies, decision points and timelines
The following timeline was developed for the prioritized technology alternatives in response to the relative value of
the key drivers (see Appendix 2), the gaps and barriers identified and the Roadmap prioritization criteria outlined in
the Methodology described in Section
Key Hydrogen Technology Themes
Hydrocarbon / Biomass / Renewable & Alternative
Sources
Electricity ->
Electrolysis -> H2 ->
PEM/ICE
NG->steam R-
>PEM/ICE->
Transportation/
Stationary/Portable
Biomass->Gasification
(onsite) -> MCFC
/SOFC ->
Stationary/Portable
Geothermal/Wind/Solar-
>electrolysis-H2-> Remote Gen
(or intermittent Power Firming)
Biomass-> Gasification -> Trans.
Syngas -> Pipeline -> onsite
Conversion H2 -> Fueling Station -
> Hybrid FC/ICE Vehicle
Coal -> Gasification -> CO2
Sequestration ->SOFC/MCFC
Photo-Catalytic-Solar-
> Stationary /Trans.
Coal/Biomas with CO2
Seques.->large scale
application >10MW
Nuclear Thermo-Chem
->H2 -> Fuel Cell (all
applications: large,
small, central./distri)
2010 2010
2020 2020 2030 2030
Three primary feedstocks of hydrogen were seen as priority technology platforms: hydrocarbons (red), biomass
(dark green) electricity use via electrolysis (light green) and alternatives (blue). Each box tries to show the supply
chain whwre there are opportunities for technical improvements. Use of electricity is the current most
95
straightforward way of linking renewable and alternative sources of energy to hydrogen production using water as
the source. Fundamental research is currently underway to find methods for direct conversion of primary energy
sources such as solar photons to extract hydrogen from water or hydrocarbons. But such technologies, should they
prove viable, are still many years from commercialization.
The extraction of hydrogen from hydrocarbons or biomass will best be accomplished using reforming technologies.
For distributed systems, these will need to be tuned more precisely to maximise the production of hydrogen relative
to other by-products from the available fuels for transportation applications. Hydrogen production for stationary
applications is more able to use existing reformer technology to preserve the greater feedstock flexibility
characteristic of such uses.
High-Leverage Opportunities
x Reformer technology to maximize the hydrogen production in distributed system and utilize a range of
feedstocks
o New catalyst
o Non-equilibrium thermodynamic (kinetics)
o Liquid fuel, e.g. bioethanol or waste chemical solvent
x High temperature membrane (110-120 degC) for PEMFC
o Eliminate water management issues
o Makes fuel cells more tolerant to impurities
x SOFC
o Lower intermediate temperature to 500-600 degC
o Allows to use conventional material e.g. stainless steel instead of ceramic for ease of manufacturing
o Require new solid electrolyte with same conductivity.
x Experimentation techniques
o Direct, non-destructive techniques for real data water, steam movement
o Validate models, improve design and visualization
x Storage for Hydrogen
o Fundamental material research to increase hydrogen density, decrease weight, decrease pressure.
Easily reversible
o Other developments such as choice of fuel may make this a non problem
Non-Technical Barriers
x Commercial transaction
o Approved metering
o Fuel purity control
x Low price of alternative fuels
x Subsidy to fossil fuels
x Requirement of large investment in infrastructure
x Negative public perception
x Lack of regulation and standards
H 5. Resources
Chinese Taipei
Bureau of Energy
ITRI
Hydrogen Infrastructure
Fuel Cell Applications
Taiwan Fuel Cells Partnership
Australia (only small activity)
CSIRO
96
Energy Transformed Flagship
Ceramic Fuel Cells
H 6. Next Steps
H 6.1. What Governments Can Do
Encourage investment in infrastructure
Direct investment
tax system
Invest in R&D or market development
Set target
Financial incentives
Invest in demonstration plant
Build regulatory structure to support commercial production
Amend regulations to reflect current scientific knowledge
H 6.2. Collaborations
x Exchange of information & reports
x Demonstration and technology validation (shares the high cost)
x Hydrogen safety
o Public education and awareness
o Codes and standards
o Regulation related to safety
o Safety throughout the whole value chain
x Environmental performance
x LCA
x Environmental consequences of fugitive hydrogen emissions
x Energy efficiency
x Site specific environmental impact assessment
x Demonstrating fuel reforming process
x Supply expertise to aid individual economy in policy development, e.g. conducting roadmapping (IFAT at
EWG)
H 7. Bibliography
1. TUV Bayern Group (2000). Hydrogen The Energy Carrier . Germany
2. United States Department of Energy. (2002). A National Vision of Americas Transition To A
Hydrogen Economy To 2030 And Beyond. USA.
3. Nakamura, Norihito. (2002) Challenges to Commercializing Clean, High Efficient Vehicle. Paper
presented at First 2002 Future Car Congress.
4. John Wallace. (2003) Future Technology Development with International Partnership Paper
presented at International Fuell Cell Bus Workshop. Long Beach, California.
5. Frank, Detlef.(2002). Drive Test Work shop presented at Clean Energy Seminar , Sacramento
6. Simon D. Fraser, Viktor Hacker, Kurt Friedrich, Juergen O. Besenhard (2003) The role of fuel cells as key
technology in the transition to clean energy for transportation. presented at WEC conference.Austraria.
97
98
Attachment H1: Hydrogen Working Group Participants.
H 1. Vancouver, Canada Workshop April 27-29, 2005
Keynote Speaker:
Dr. Fanghei Tsau (Director, Senior Researcher Innovative Energy Technology Division
Chinese Taipei)
Energy & Resources Labs.
Industrial Technology Research
E-mail: Fanghei@itri.org.tw
Facilitators :
Annie Desgagn (Senior Commerce Officer)
Hydrogen/Facilitator
Industry Canada, Energy Directorate
Vancouver
E-mail: desgagne.annie@ic.gc.ca
Dr. Nathasit Gerdsri (Visiting Assistant Professor)
Portland State University
LL 55-08, FAB Building, 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Portland, OR 97201
E-mail: natasitg@etm.pdx.edu
Participants :
Canada
Annie Desgagn (Senior Commerce Officer)
Hydrogen/Facilitator
Industry Canada, Energy Directorate
Vancouver
E-mail: desgagne.annie@ic.gc.ca
Allan Grant (Manager)
BC Hydro
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program
Vancouver
E-mail: allan.grant@bchydro.com
Dr. Richard Hallman (Industry Specialist, BioProducts and Special Crops; Executive Director BC Bioproducts
Association)
Biofuels, Hydrogen
BC Ministry of Agriculture
Food, and Fisheries,
Industry Competitiveness Branch
E-mail: richard.hallman@gov.bc.ca
Ms. Shannon Miles (Manager, Technology Innovation)
CANMET Energy Technology Centre
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
3250 East Mall, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5
E-mail: shannon.miles@nrcan.gc.ca
99
Prof. Ted Sargent (Research Chair in Emerging Technologies; Visiting Professor in Nanotechnology and Photonics
at the Microphotonics Centre at MIT)
University of Toronto
E-mail: tsargent@MIT.EDU
Alex Tu (Manager, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program)
BC Hydro
333 Dunsmuir Street
9th Floor, Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 5R3
E-mail: alex.tu@bchydro.com
Dr. Maja Veljkovic (Director General, Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation)
National Research Council of Canada
3250, East Mall, Vancouver B.C. V6T 1W5
E-mail: Maja.Veljkovic@cnrc.gc.ca
Yoga Yogendran (Director, Technology Deployment & Commercialization)
NRC-IFCI
E-mail: yoga.yogendran@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
China
Dr. Zongqiang Mao (Chair & Professor China INET)
China Association for Hydrogen Energy (CAHE),
Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET), Tsinghua University
Tsinghua University Bejiing 100084 P.R. China
E-mail: maozq@tsinghua.edu.cn
Chinese Taipei
Mr. Cheng-Chung Huang (Director, Clean Energy Technology Division)
Industrial Technology Research Institute
Chinese Taipei
E-mail: ctchen@moeaboe.gov.tw
Japan
Dr. Yonghun Jung(Vice President, Research Department)
Asia Pacific Energy Research Center (APERC)
Japan The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan,
Inui Bldg., - Kachidoki, 16F, 1-12-1 Kachidoki, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo
104-0054 Japan
E-mail: jung@aperc.ieej.or.jp
Korea
Dr. Jong Seon Kim (Associate Research Fellow)
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Korea 26th Floor, Speciality Construction Center 395-70,
Sindaebang-dong, Tongjak-gu, Seoul 156-714,
Korea
E-mail: jskim@stepi.re.kr
100
Dr. Kwang-ho Lee (Associate Research Fellow)
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Industrial Innovation Team
Korea 26th floor Specialty Construction Center
395-70, Sindaebang-dong, Tongjak-gu, Seoul 156-714,
Korea
E-mail: jskim@stepi.re.kr
Singapore
Prof. Ho Hiang Kwee (Director, Energy Conversion Lab)
Nanyang Technological University
North Spine (N3), Level 2, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798
E-mail: mhkho@ntu.edu.sg
Dr. Vincent Soh (Head, Science, Technology and Research Council)
Agency for Science, Technology and Research
Singapore
30 Biopolis Street, #90-01 Matrix, Singapore 138671
E-mail: vincent_soh@a-star.edu.sg
Thailand
Ms. Pavadee Aungkavattana (Researcher, Ceramics Program Leader)
Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment
pavadeea@mtec.or.th
Dr. Bundit Fungtammasan (Director, The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment)
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
91 Prachauthit Rd., Bangmod, Tungku, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
E-mail: bundit_f@igsee.kmutt.ac.th
Mr. Kajohnsak Sa-nguansat (Planning & Policy Analyst)
Ministry of Science and Technology
E-mail: kajohnss@mtec.or.th
United States
Stephen Goguen
Department of Energy
E-mail: Stephen.Goguen@ee.doe.gov
Vietnam
Dr. Nguyen Xuan Chuan (former Vice-Minister of Industrial Ministry President)
Mechanics Accociation of Vietnam
E-mail: nxchuan@hn.vnn.vn
101
H 2. PingTung, Chinese Taipei Roadmap Workshop August 10-12, 2005
Canada
Dr. David E. Minns
Senior Advisor
dminns@rogers.com
http://www.icpet-itpce.nrc-crnc.gc.ca
Mr. Geoffrey Nimmo
Acting Director
Manufacturing Products Directorate
Manufacturing Industries Branch
Industry Canada
nimmo.geoffrey@ic.gc.ca
http://www.ic.gc.ca
Gloria Fu
Research Analyst
Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology
National Research Council Canada
Gloria.Fu@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
China
Professor Dr. Zong Qiang Mao
Chief Scientist
INET
Tsinghua University
maozq@tsinghua.edu.cn
http://Chinahydrogen.org
Malaysia
Hamdan bin Mokhtar
Programme Head
Environment and Bioprocess Technology Center
SIRIM - Berhad
hamdan_mokhtar@sirim.my
http://www.sirim.my
Chinese Taipei
Mr. Ching-Sung Hsiao
Dr. Chung-Hsien Chen
Engineer
Energy Technology Division
Bureau of Energy
Ministry of Economic Affairs
ctchen@moeaboe.gov.tw
102
Dr. Fanghei Tsau
Director, Innovative Energy Technology Division
Energy & Resources Labs.,
fanghei@itri.org.tw
Dr. Yih-Hang Chen
Advanced Energy Technology Lab.
Innovative Energy Technology Division
Energy & Resources Laboratories
Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI)
yihhung@itri.org.tw
Thailand
Dr. Chatri Sripaipan
Senior Advisor
National Science and Technology Development Agency
chatri@nstda.or.th
Dr. Pavadee Aungkavattana
Ceramics Program Leader
National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC)
pavadeea@mtec.or.th
103
Addendum 1
Dr. Nathasit Study Confirming the Integrated Roadmap Vision
Using the Hydrogen Roadmap Working Group as the source of expertise, Dr. Nathasit conducted an evaluation of
the appropriate vision for the Roadmap using paired-comparison decision analysis tools
He used key drivers and factors and structured them into a hierarchical format so that the complex problem can be
decomposed to the level in which the potential alternatives can be easily prioritized. The structure is shown in the
Figure below based on the STEEP drivers used in the Krabi Workshop.
Hierarchical Model for Evaluating
Future Fuel Technology Alternatives
Social Technological Environmental Political
Enhancing Sustainable Social & Economic Enhancing Sustainable Social & Economic
Development in APEC Region Development in APEC Region
Economic
Fuel Costs
(covering fuel and
production)
Infrastructure
Costs
Fabrication Costs
Total Cost of
Ownership (besides
Fuel cost)
Energy Security
(diversity)
Foreign
Dependence
Govnt
Regulation
Enforcement of
Kyoto Protocol
Global Climate Change
Local Pollution
(air/water)
Land Use
Changes of
Lifestyle
Health
Concerns
Disparity btw
urban and rural
social structure
Sustainability
Capacity
Reliability
Safety
Each participant completed an extensive questionnaire to provide the input data for the analysis
The first step in the analysis was to rank the five Key Drivers in order of importance.
The results of this analysis are shown below.
104
Determining
the Priority on
Key Drivers in
2010
Individual's judgement on the rel. priority of key drivers in
fostering the development of future fuel technologies
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1 2 3 4 5
Key Drivers
R
e
l
.

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Group Mean ->
KOR
SIN
TWA
CHA
THA
CAN
Social Technological Environmental Economic Political
Individual's judgement on the rel. priority of key drivers in
fostering the development of future fuel technologies
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1 2 3 4 5
Key Drivers
R
e
l
.

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Group Mean ->
KOR
SIN
TWA
CHA
THA
CAN
Social Technological Environmental Economic Political
Snapshot on Snapshot on
the Analysis: the Analysis:
Political
concerns are
prioritized as
the most
important
driver.
The analysis indicated that the First Priority Driver in the near term is Political. The priority of Technological,
Environmental, and Economic driver is considered at the same level. The social driver is the least important.
In contrast to the other economies participating in this survey, the First Priority Driver for Canada in 2010 is
Environment rather than Political (security).
Based on the judgments provided by the group, further analysis of the responses to the questionnaire show there is
a tendency that the relative priority of Economic, Technological, and Social driver is expected to be increased over
time (2010, 2020, and 2030) while the relative priority of Political driver will be decreased significantly.
Besides ranking the importance of the key drivers over time, the weighting of the key factors supporting each driver
was also assessed. The results of this analysis are shown in the next figure.
Determining the Rel. Importance of Factors
Supporting Each Driver
0.37 0.37
0.44 0.44
0.19 0.19
0.26 0.26
0.20 0.20
0.23 0.23
0.31 0.31
0.32 0.32
0.41 0.41
0.26 0.26
0.32 0.32
0.27 0.27
0.19 0.19
0.22 0.22
0.28 0.28
0.16 0.16
0.16 0.16
0.39 0.39
For the most important Driver Political- the most important factor for the Roadmap emerged as Energy Security.
This confirms the conclusion arrived at in Krabi by more intuitive means.