据8月11日MENAFN消息：氢是宇宙中含量最丰富的元素，最近一直在抢电动汽车和可再生能源的风头。从几十年前的一种精品汽车燃料，已经发展成为未来清洁能源的重点之一。随着可再生能源的价格减半，氢气的未来可能充满光明。国际清洁运输委员会委托进行的一项研究发现，在美国和欧洲，利用太阳能或风能通过电解生产一公斤氢的平均价格将在2020年至2050年间下降约50%。
根据电解装置（将水分解成氢气和氧气的装置）是否与电网相连，是否与可再生发电机相连，或者是否与电网相连以用作存储设施。它还研究了三种可再生能源发电技术，包括公用事业规模的太阳能，陆上风电和海上风电。
这项研究的结果对于寻求将氢成为下一个主要燃料的公司而言无疑是鼓舞人心的。同时，欧盟为未来制定了一个完整的氢战略，正是将重点放在绿色氢上，而不是由天然气产生的所谓蓝色氢和由煤产生的灰色氢。
欧盟已经表示，氢气将在运输和制造业脱碳中发挥主导作用。它计划到2030年至少建设40吉瓦的电解能力，其中20吉瓦将在2024年建成并运行。
然而，值得注意的是，在关注绿色氢的过程中，欧洲将花费大量资金来确保无排放氢生产，而不是使用蓝色氢生产，蓝色氢生产涉及天然气，而且比绿色氢的未来价格便宜得多。考虑这一点。根据ICTT委托的研究，电网连接的水解装置每公斤氢气的价格是8.81美元。到2050年，这一价格将降至每公斤5.77美元。
这两项研究都指出，价格受地理位置的影响，因此各地的价格差异很大。在ICTT委托的研究中计算的价格不包括建造氢运输和储存基础设施的价格。欧盟的战略设想了牛津能源公司所谓的务实方法:最初围绕最大的氢用户群建设交通基础设施，最终在欧洲大陆扩张。在非洲大陆的部分地区，氢将通过以前用于天然气的管道输送。
欧盟也一直给人以实用主义的印象。减少排放需要大量资金，也需要大量的氢气项目。正如牛津能源公司在对欧盟战略的分析中指出的那样，正在开发的绿色氢项目只有4.5吉瓦。如果欧盟想实现自己的目标，则需要约20-30吉瓦的在建项目，因此可以批准其中的20％至30％。
接下来是氢作为汽车燃料的未来。目前，氢能汽车只占很小的比例，这是因为它们比某些电动汽车还要昂贵。氢可用于发电，这正是欧盟计划将其作为氢的主要用途。但是，如果计划变得更加雄心勃勃，而且氢燃料电池技术对汽车来说变得更加便宜，那么就需要为加氢站网络制定计划。另外还需要大量的存储空间，存储空间要求特殊，因为氢是高度易燃品。在这种情况下，特殊意味着昂贵。这预示着使用太阳能和风能的电解成本的下降是个好消息，但对于氢能游说团体来说并不是。
同时，公用事业和石油巨头在氢能领域正在扩张。清洁氢气的最大成功机会在于私营部门。政府可以起草他们想要的所有战略，但没有私营部门的投资，也没有公用事业和超级巨头拥有的发电专业知识，所有这些战略都将注定失败。因此，与绿色电解成本下降相比，大型企业与公用事业之间的氢空间竞争日益加剧这一事实可能是一个更好的消息。
冯娟 摘译自 MENAFN
原文如下：
Green Hydrogen Prices Are Set To Drop By 50% During The Next Decades
Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, has been stealing the spotlight from EVs and renewables lately. From a sort of boutique car fuel a couple of decades ago, hydrogen has evolved into one of the clean energy priorities for the future. And this future may be quite bright for it as prices for its production from renewable sources of energy are set to halve. A study commissioned by the International Council on Clean Transportation has found that the average price for a kilo of hydrogen produced through electrolysis using solar or wind power will fall by about 50 percent between 2020 and 2050 in the United States and Europe.
The stuffy examines three scenarios based on whether the electrolyzer—the installation that breaks down water into hydrogen and oxygen—is connected to the grid, to a renewable electricity generator, or is grid-connected but serves as a storage facility. It also looks into three renewable power generation technologies, including utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and offshore wind.
The results from this research are certainly encouraging for companies seeking to make hydrogen the next dominant fuel. And it's not just companies. None other than the European Union has devised a whole hydrogen strategy for its future, focusing precisely on green hydrogen, as opposed to so-called blue hydrogen, which is produced from natural gas, and gray hydrogen, produced from coal.
The EU has stated that hydrogen will have a leading part to play in decarbonizing transport and manufacturing. It has plans to build at least 40 GW of electrolysis capacity by 2030, with 6 GW of these to be up and running by 2024. The news of lower green hydrogen prices must have been a reason for celebration in Brussels.
However, it's worth noting that in its focus on green hydrogen, Europe will be spending a lot of money to ensure emission-free hydrogen production rather than using blue hydrogen production, the kind that involves natural gas and the kind which is a lot cheaper than even the future prices of green hydrogen.
Consider this. According to the ICCT-commissioned study, the price per kilo of hydrogen produced at a grid-connected hydrolyzer is currently $8.81. This will fall to $5.77 per kilo by 2050.
But the price per kilo of blue hydrogen, produced through carbon capture and storage, is currently $2.36 (2 euro), according to the EU's hydrogen strategy. Also according to this strategy, the price of green hydrogen varies between $2.95 and $6.49 per kilo (2.5-5.5 euro).
Both studies note that prices are location-sensitive, so they actually vary greatly from place to place. And there is more. The prices calculated in the ICTT-commissioned study do not include the price of building a hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure. The EU's strategy envisages what Oxford Energy calls a pragmatic approach: building transport infrastructure around the biggest users of hydrogen in clusters initially and only eventually expanding it across the continent. In parts of the continent, hydrogen will be transported via pipelines formerly used for natural gas.
Now, being pragmatic certainly tends to save money. But the EU, if not the U.S., has been giving the impression that pragmatism is not its priority. Cutting emissions is. This will require a lot of money. Incidentally, it will also require a lot of hydrogen projects. As Oxford Energy notes in an analysis of the EU strategy, there are just 4.5 GW of green hydrogen projects under development. If the EU wants to hit its own target, it would need some 20-30 GW of projects in the pipeline, so it could approve 20 to 30 percent of them.
And then there is hydrogen's future as a vehicle fuel. Currently, hydrogen cars are a tiny minority, and this is because they are even more expensive than some EVs. Hydrogen can be used for electricity generation, and this is what the EU likely plans to use it for primarily. But if plans get even more ambitious and hydrogen fuel cell tech becomes cheaper for cars, then plans will need to be made for filling station networks. And a lot of storage space, which is a special kind of storage space because hydrogen is highly flammable. Special in this context means expensive. And this means that the falling cost of electrolysis using solar and wind power is good news, but we have yet to see if it is good enough news for the hydrogen lobby.
Meanwhile, utilities and oil supermajors are expanding in the hydrogen space. This is where the biggest chance for success is for clean hydrogen: in the private sector. Governments can draft all the strategies they want but without investments from the private sector—and the energy generation know-how the utilities and the supermajors have—all these strategies would be doomed. So the fact that competition is intensifying in the hydrogen space between supermajors and utilities may turn out to be a lot better news than the falling costs of green electrolysis.
