TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS

Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

The Techno-
Economics of
Hydrogen
Compression
TECHNICAL BRIEF

Mohd Adnan Khan

Cameron Young
Catherine Mackinnon
David B. Layzell
 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

The Techno-Economics of
Hydrogen Compression
TECHNICAL BRIEF
Mohd Adnan Khan PhD
Energy Systems Analyst
TRANSITION ACCELERATOR

Cameron Young MSc, P.Eng.

Energy Systems Analyst
CESAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Catherine MacKinnon MSc, P.Eng.

Energy Systems Analyst
CESAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

David B. Layzell PhD, FRSC

Energy Systems Architect
TRANSITION ACCELERATOR

TO CITE THIS DOCUMENT:

Khan, M.A., Young, C., and MacKinnon, C. and Layzell, D. (2021). The Techno-Economics of Hydrogen Compression. Transition
Accelerator Technical Briefs Vol. 1, Issue 1, Pg. 1-36. ISSN 2564-1379

English version of this document available at www.transitionaccelerator.ca

Ver. 2.0

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION i

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Transition Accelerator ..................................................................................................................................... iii

About the Authors ............................................................................................................................................................... iv
Figures, Tables, Boxes ......................................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Terms ......................................................................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................ ii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. iii
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Types of Compressors .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Mechanical compressors ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Reciprocating piston compressors 4
2.1.2 Reciprocating diaphragm compressors 5
2.1.3 Reciprocating ionic liquid compressors 6
2.1.4 Centrifugal compressors 7
2.2 Non-mechanical compressors................................................................................................................................................ 8

3 Compression Energy and Power Calculations ......................................................................................................10

3.1 Power calculation for single stage compressors ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Power calculation for multistage compressors ............................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Isentropic efficiency .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

4 Choice of Compressor, Prime Mover, and Cost Calculations ...........................................................................16

4.1 Assumptions used.................................................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Determining the capital cost of a hydrogen compressor ............................................................................................. 17
4.3 Determining the operating cost of a hydrogen compressor ........................................................................................ 20
4.4 Determining the lifecycle cost of hydrogen compression ............................................................................................ 22

5 Analysis and Results....................................................................................................................................................23

5.1 Analysis of a large hydrogen compressor for use in pipelines..................................................................................... 23
5.1.1 Effect of design capacity 25
5.1.2 Effect of suction/inlet pressure and isentropic efficiency 26
5.2 Analysis of a small hydrogen compressor for use at HFS ............................................................................................ 28
5.2.1 Effect of design capacity 30
5.2.2 Effect of suction/inlet pressure and isentropic efficiency 31

6 Summary and Outlook................................................................................................................................................33

References ............................................................................................................................................................................34

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION ii

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

ABOUT THE TRANSITION ACCELERATOR

The Transition Accelerator (The Accelerator) exists to support Canada’s transition to a net zero future while
solving societal challenges. Using our four-step methodology, The Accelerator works with innovative groups
to create visions of what a socially and economically desirable net zero future will look like and build out
transition pathways that will enable Canada to get there. The Accelerator’s role is that of an enabler,
facilitator, and force multiplier that forms coalitions to take steps down these pathways and get change
moving on the ground.

Our four-step approach is to understand, codevelop, analyze and advance credible and compelling transition
pathways capable of achieving societal and economic objectives, including driving the country towards net
zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

1 UNDERSTAND the system that is being transformed, including its strengths and weaknesses,
and the technology, business model, and social innovations that are poised to disrupt the
existing system by addressing one or more of its shortcomings.

2 CODEVELOP transformative visions and pathways in concert with key stakeholders and
innovators drawn from industry, government, indigenous communities, academia, and other
groups. This engagement process is informed by the insights gained in Stage 1.

3 ANALYZE and model the candidate pathways from Stage 2 to assess costs, benefits, trade-
offs, public acceptability, barriers and bottlenecks. With these insights, the process then re-
engages key players to revise the vision and pathway(s), so they are more credible, compelling
and capable of achieving societal objectives that include major GHG emission reductions.

4 ADVANCE the most credible, compelling and capable transition pathways by informing
innovation strategies, engaging partners and helping to launch consortia to take tangible steps
along defined transition pathways.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION iii

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mohd Adnan Khan PhD

TRANSITION ACCELERATOR
Adnan Khan is an Energy Systems Analyst at the Transition Accelerator working to help design pathways
towards the establishment of a sustainable energy future. Adnan has a PhD in Material Science and
Engineering and is passionate about working on renewable energy systems and contributing to the
development of a future hydrogen economy. He has over eight years of industrial and academic experience
leading research teams across the value chain of technology development and commercialization, driving
innovation, and fostering collaboration among industry, government, and academia. He has published over
35 articles in reputable scientific journals, has seven granted patents and now hopes his work will lead to
the spin-out of consortia led projects, get change moving on the ground and help drive Canada towards a
net-zero future.

Cameron Young MSc, PEng

CESAR AT UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Cameron Young is an Energy Systems Analyst at CESAR. He joined CESAR to help create a hydrogen
economy in Canada. His work will include research on different pathways for hydrogen production,
transmission, and distribution to provide pragmatic information for industry and policy makers. He hopes
his work will help develop projects that convert Alberta’s resources into a sustainable source of hydrogen
fuel. Cameron has a Chemical Engineering & Management double-major bachelor’s degree from McMaster
University, a Masters in Sustainable Energy Development from the University of Calgary and is registered
as a Professional Engineer with APEGA. He has 10 years of process engineering and project development
experience in Alberta’s energy sector.

Catherine MacKinnon MSc, PEng

CESAR AT UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Catherine MacKinnon is an Energy Systems Analyst at the CESAR Initiative at the University of Calgary. She
has a Master of Science degree in Sustainable Energy Development (SEDV) and a Bachelor of Science degree
in Chemical Engineering from the University of Calgary. She is a Professional Engineer in good standing with
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta and has more than nine years of
professional experience in the upstream energy industry in various technical, corporate, and financial roles.
She recently completed her capstone project, exploring the carbon footprint and carbon management
strategies of direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with operations of a remote, off-grid research
station in the Yukon.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION iv

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

David B. Layzell PhD, FRSC

CESAR AT UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
David B. Layzell is an Energy Systems Architect with the Transition Accelerator, a Faculty Professor at the
University of Calgary, and Director of the Canadian Energy Systems Analysis Research CESAR Initiative.
Between 2008 and 2012, he was Executive Director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment
and Economy (ISEEE), a cross-faculty, graduate research, and training institute at the University of Calgary.
Before moving to Calgary, Dr. Layzell was a Professor of Biology at Queen’s University, Kingston (cross
appointments in Environmental Studies and the School of Public Policy), and Executive Director of BIOCAP
Canada, a research foundation focused on biological solutions to climate change. While at Queen’s, he
founded a scientific instrumentation company called Qubit Systems Inc. and was elected ‘Fellow of the Royal
Society of Canada’ (FRSC) for his research contributions.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION v

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

FIGURES AND TABLES

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Overview of where compression takes place in a H2 supply chain. ........................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2 H2 compression at different scales. .................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1 Types of mechanical compressors broadly divided based on how they compress a gas....................................... 3
Figure 2.2 Schematic of reciprocating piston compressor ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.3 Schematic of a metal diaphragm compressor. ................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2.4 Schematic of an ionic liquid compressor. .......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.5 Schematic of a centrifugal compressor.............................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.6 Schematic of an electrochemical compressor (Left) and metal hydride compressor (Right). ................................ 8
Figure 3.1 Graph of the compressibility factor (Z) versus pressure for various gases at 273 K. .......................................... 10
Figure 3.2 Multistage compressors with intercooling and corresponding P-V diagram in blue line. ................................... 14
Figure 4.1 Compressor selection based on discharge pressure (bar) and flow rate (m3/min). .............................................. 17
Figure 5.1 Impact of design capacity on (a) TCI (MM 2019 C$) and (b) LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for large scale
centrifugal H2 compressors. .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 5.2 Impact of suction pressure (a-c) and isentropic efficiency (d-f) on performance of large scale centrifugal H2
compressors. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 5.3 Combined effect of suction pressure and isentropic efficiency on (a) energy intensity (kWh/kg H2) and (b)
LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for large scale centrifugal H2 compressors ................................................................ 27
Figure 5.4 Impact of design capacity on (a) TCI (MM 2019 C$) and (b) LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for small scale
diaphragm compressors. .................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5.5 Impact of suction pressure (a-c) and isentropic efficiency (d-f) on performance of small-scale diaphragm H2
compressors. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5.6 Combined effect of suction pressure and isentropic efficiency on (a) energy intensity (kWh/kg H2) and (b)
LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for small scale diaphragm H2 compressors. ................................................................ 32

List of Tables
Table 4.1 Detailed cost assumptions for total installed cost of hydrogen compressors. ...................................................... 18
Table 4.2 Detailed economic assumptions for calculating the LCOH for compression. ....................................................... 22
Table 5.1 Power and cost calculation of a large centrifugal H2 compressor for pipeline use. ............................................. 23
Table 5.2 Power and cost calculation of a small diaphragm hydrogen compressor for HFS. .............................................. 28

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION vi

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

LIST OF TERMS

AIH Alberta Industrial Heartland, H2 Hydrogen

Edmonton, Strathcona, Fort
Saskatchewan, Sturgeon, Lamont HDV Heavy-Duty Vehicle: Vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating >= 15
Blue Hydrogen Hydrogen produced from natural gas metric ton or tonne
with carbon capture and storage
HFCE Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric
CESAR Canadian Energy Systems Analysis
Research HFS Hydrogen Fueling Station

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage HHV Higher Heating Value

CCSU Carbon Capture, Storage and ICE Internal Combustion Engine

Utilization
IF Installation Factor
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
LCOH Levelized Cost of Hydrogen
CRF Capital Recovery Factor
LDV Light-Duty Vehicle
DTE Drivetrain Efficiency
LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
MDV Medium-Duty Vehicle
EWMC Edmonton Waste Management
Centre
NG Natural Gas

FCEB Fuel Cell Electric Bus

O&M Operations and Maintenance

GHG Greenhouse Gas

PJ Petajoule (1015 Joules)

GJ Gigajoule (109 Joules)

SF Scale Factor

Green Hydrogen Hydrogen produced by water

electrolysis using intermittent zero-
SMR Steam Methane Reforming
carbon electricity generated from
wind and solar facilities TCI Total Capital Investment

Grey Hydrogen Hydrogen produced from natural gas TIC Total Installed Cost
or coal
UC Uninstalled Cost

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION vii

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Transition Accelerator appreciates the valuable reviews of this work provided by Prof. Ron Hugo,
Director of Pipeline Engineering Centre at the University of Calgary, and Brodie Chalmers, Manager,
Hydrogen System Planning at ATCO Group.

This work was begun in the Canadian Energy Systems Analysis Research (CESAR) Initiative at the University of
Calgary, where it was funded by the Transition Accelerator and Natural Resources Canada. With the launch
of the Edmonton Regional Hydrogen Hub in early 2021, the project was moved to the Transition Accelerator
where it was completed with the support of the Hub’s sponsors: Emission Reduction Alberta, Prairies
Economic Development Canada and the Alberta Industrial Heartland Association. The authors thank all sponsors
for their support.

DISTRIBUTION: Transition Accelerator Technical Briefs are available online at www.transitionaccelerator.ca

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this publication are the authors’ alone.
COPYRIGHT: Copyright ©2021 by the Transition Accelerator. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief passages that may be quoted in critical articles
and reviews.
ISSN: Transition Accelerator Technical Briefs (Online format): 2564-1379
COVER IMAGE: Shutterstock. Image(s) used under license from shutterstock.com [Online]. Available at:
shutterstock_1113786896
MEDIA INQUIRIES: For media inquiries, requests, or other information, contact [email protected]

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION ii

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The future of a hydrogen economy will rely on developing infrastructure for low-cost distribution and
delivery of hydrogen. To this end, compression of gaseous hydrogen is a key technology which enables
delivery to end user. Nonetheless the compression of hydrogen is challenging and generally considered to
be one of the most expensive process units in the supply chain. There are various compressor designs that
can be used and ultimately the choice of compression technology, associated costs, energy use and resulting
GHG emissions will depend on where in the supply chain it is used.

The purpose of this ‘technical brief’ is to describe how to conduct technoeconomic analysis of hydrogen
compressors, with a focus on developing a hydrogen value chain for heavy transport (buses, trucks, trains,
and ships). The report is written by compiling techno-economic information from several previous studies
to develop a model for students, engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs focused on evaluating hydrogen
compression technologies, power requirement and associated costs. Some key insights and highlights are as
follows:

æ Although compression of natural gas is widely used, the compression of hydrogen is significantly
challenging due to its low molecular weight and density.

æ The reported isentropic efficiency (ŋ!"#$ ) of hydrogen compressors is in the range of ~55-80%.

æ Currently available reciprocating compressors which rely on mechanical pistons with several moving
parts are expensive with cost varying from several hundred thousand dollars to millions of dollars
depending on scale and compression ratio required. It is expected that the capital costs associated
with these compressors will drop sharply with economy of scale.

æ Since compressing hydrogen is an energy intensive process, the cost of operating a hydrogen
compressor is dominated by energy/fuel costs rather than capital costs.

æ Further research and development activities are needed to tackle issues with leakage of hydrogen,
embrittlement and increase efficiency and reliability of hydrogen compressors.

æ The development of new technologies such as those based on ionic liquids or metal hydrides is
promising. In particular, ionic liquid compressors, which have been particularly developed by Linde,
could be the key to efficient and low cost hydrogen compression.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION iii

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

1 INTRODUCTION

In the transition to net-zero emission energy systems, electricity made from very low or non-emitting carbon
sources (e.g., solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage) will play a major role
as an energy carrier. However, electricity is not a viable energy carrier for applications such as heavy-duty
or long distant transport, heavy industry (e.g., steel making) and space heating in cold climates or large
buildings. These applications currently rely on energy carriers such as diesel fuel or natural gas [1,2]. To this
end, hydrogen (H2) could play a key role as an energy vector and become the zero/low carbon emission fuel
of choice of the future for these hard-to-decarbonize sectors.

Figure 1.1 Overview of where compression takes place in a H2 supply chain.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 1

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

As one of the world’s lowest cost producer of low-carbon ‘green’ (from water electrolysis) or ‘blue (from
fossil fuels coupled to carbon capture and storage) H2, Canada is strategically positioned to benefit from
taking a leadership role in the transition to a net-zero H2 economy [3]. While Canada can make H2 at a cost
that is lower than the wholesale price of diesel [3], the distribution and storage of H2 is more challenging.
The challenge arises from H2’s low density of ~0.0898 kg/m3 (energy density ~3 kWhLHV/m3) at standard
temperature and pressure (STP) of 0 °C and 1 atm, respectively [4]. Therefore, a volume of ~11.1 m3 (11,100
L) would be required to store 1 kg of H2. In contrast, 1 kg of gasoline can be stored in a volume of ~ 0.0013
m3 (1.3 L) under the same conditions [5]. Compression, liquefaction, or conversion of H2 into larger molecules
such as ammonia (NH3) are possible options to overcome this hurdle. Each option has advantages and
disadvantages, and the lowest cost option will vary according to geography, distance, scale and the required
end use [6]. Compression is the ubiquitous solution in the gaseous H2 supply chain whereby high pressures
can help achieve acceptable energy densities. Although widely used, the compression of H2 is generally
considered to be one of the most expensive process units in the H2 value chain [6,7]. The choice of
compression technology, associated costs, energy use and the resulting GHG emissions will depend on
where in the supply chain compression is used (Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2). Several factors such as molar flow
rates, pressure ratio, nature of gas or gas mixture (compressibility and ratio of specific heats), and purity
required, dictate the choice, energy requirement and cost of compression.

The purpose of this ‘technical brief’ is to describe how to conduct technoeconomic analysis of H2
compressors, with a focus on developing a H2 value chain for heavy transport (buses, trucks, trains, and
ships). The document is intended as a beginner’s guide for engineers and scientists focused on calculating
compression power, associated costs and selection of appropriate compressor technology depending on
where compression takes place in the supply chain. The basic operating principles and design features of
various compressor technologies will be described, along with the challenges of compressing H2. In addition,
the report will provide a detailed step-by-step guide on power and efficiency calculations of both single and
multi-stage compressors for the purpose of energy system analysis. Finally, the report will provide detailed
steps on calculating capital, operating and energy costs for H2 compression.

Weight: ~180 tons

Figure 1.2 H2 compression at different scales.

LEFT: Compression at a large-scale industrial facility at a scale of ~44,000 kg H2/day. RIGHT: Compression at a small H2 Fueling Station
(HFS) less than 40 kg H2/hr.
SOURCE: LEFT: NEUMAN-ESSER [8]. RIGHT: LINDE [9]

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 2

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

2 TYPES OF COMPRESSORS

2.1 Mechanical compressors

Mechanical compressors are widely used and are designed based on the direct conversion of mechanical
energy into compressed gas energy. There are several classifications, but most compressors used today for
gaseous H2 compression are either positive displacement compressors or dynamic compressors (Figure 2.1)
[7,11]. In the sections below we provide a summary of various compressor technologies. For further details,
readers can refer to the comprehensive review on H2 compression, published by G. Sdanghi et. al. in
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) [7].

Figure 2.1 Types of mechanical compressors broadly divided based on how they compress a gas.
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM PERRY'S CHEMICAL ENGINEERS' HANDBOOK [10]

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 3

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

2.1.1 Reciprocating piston compressors

Figure 2.2 Schematic of reciprocating piston compressor

TDC: top dead centre; BDC: bottom dead centre.
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM REFERENCE [7]

Reciprocating piston compressors are ideal for low to moderate flow and high-pressure applications [7]. They
are positive displacement machines that work on the concept of reciprocation i.e., via compression and
displacement of gases. A single stage reciprocating compressor is designed using a piston and cylinder
(Figure 2.2) system where the piston is driven by a crankshaft, converting rotary motion into linear motion.
The cylinder uses two automatic valves – one for gas suction and the other for gas discharge and the energy
needed for compression is provided by either an electrical or thermal source. They are widely used in
petrochemical plants and oil refineries.

Reciprocating compressors can produce high-pressure H2 particularly when a multi-stage configuration is

used. Companies like Hydro-Pac Inc. have demonstrated high discharge pressures up to 850 bar, with an
inlet pressure of 350 bar and flow rates up to 5084 Sm3/h [7,12]. These are typically used in refineries and
chemical plants to compress industrial grade H2 to high pressures. Howden Co. has recently demonstrated
the world’s largest reciprocating compressor with a compression power of ~ 16.6 MW [13]. Currently oil-
free versions of reciprocating compressors are preferred in applications where the purity of H2 is a priority.
Nonetheless oil free H2 reciprocating compressors are affected by embrittlement and experience frequent
failure of the sealing rings due of non-uniform pressure distribution [7,14]. Furthermore, since there is no oil
to act as heat sink, thermal protection of various components becomes critical in oil free compressors.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 4

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

2.1.2 Reciprocating diaphragm compressors

Figure 2.3 Schematic of a metal diaphragm compressor.

SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM REFERENCE [7]

Diaphragm compressors also known as membrane compressors are suitable when handling high purity gases
since the process gas is completely isolated from the hydraulic oil and/or piston. Similar to the reciprocating
piston compressor, the piston is driven by a crankshaft but in this case the motion is then transmitted to a
hydraulic fluid and then finally onto a thin metal membrane called a “diaphragm”, isolating the process gas
[7]. Typically, a perforated plate is used to distribute the hydraulic oil and get a uniform pressure distribution
on the diaphragm plate (Figure 2.3). In middle and larger sized diaphragm heads, the hydraulic oil can be
effectively cooled, thereby increasing the efficiency of the compressor. This makes diaphragm compressors
unique as they can achieve high single stage compression ratios. For example, a compression application
that could require three to five stages in traditional reciprocating piston compressors, could be done in one
to two stages in diaphragm compressors.

Diaphragm compressors are a good choice for compressing gases without contamination and leakage of gas
to ambient air. Diaphragm compressors are suitable for applications requiring low flow rates and are widely
used in H2 fueling stations (HFS) [15]. The American company, PDC Machines [16], has designed and
manufactured diaphragm compressors for H2 fuel cell vehicles and their compressors operate at a discharge
pressure of 517 bar with flow rates ranging from 52.7 to 295.4 Sm3/h [7]. Howden, has designed diaphragm

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 5

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

compressors that are 100% leak free, with a special 'head' of the compressor design that makes high single
stage pressure ratios possible. The company claims that 1000 bar discharge pressure can be achieved with
only two compressor stages, from suction pressures of 50 bar [17].

2.1.3 Reciprocating ionic liquid compressors

Figure 2.4 Schematic of an ionic liquid compressor.

SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM REFERENCE [7]

Ionic liquid compressors are also positive displacement devices that use ionic liquids to replace the metal
piston of a conventional compressor (Figure 2.4). A combination of various properties such as low
compressibility, low vapor pressure, negative melting points, high heat capacity, high thermal conductivity,
high chemical and thermal stability and low H2 solubility have attracted the use of ionic liquids for H2
compression [11,18]. They are known to achieve inexpensive compression because they can ensure a quasi-
isothermal process [19]. The ionic liquids assist with thermal management, because of which external heat
exchangers are not required, giving them a significant advantage over mechanical piston compressors. This
also leads to higher efficiency values close to 70% versus ~45% for reciprocating piston or diaphragm
compressors, reducing costs as well [7,11].

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 6

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Additionally, these compressors do not require bearings or seals, two of the common sources of failures in
piston and diaphragm compressors. Its fewer moving parts can further lead to the reduction in mechanical
losses. Ionic compressors are currently available at the capacities and pressures required at HFS. Ionic liquid
compressors have been particularly developed by, Linde, whose ionic liquid compressors have only eight
moving parts. This reduces mechanical losses, improves overall efficiency, resulting in H2 compression up to
900 bar in only five steps, at flow rates between 358.7 to 797.5 Sm3/h with an energy requirement of only
2.7 kWh/kg H2 [20].

2.1.4 Centrifugal compressors

Figure 2.5 Schematic of a centrifugal compressor.

SOURCE: THE PIPING TALK [21]

Centrifugal compressors are dynamic compressors that are most commonly used in applications that require
high throughput and moderate compression ratios [22]. They compress the process gas using a rotating
impeller with radial blades that imparts kinetic energy to the process gas by increasing its velocity (Figure
2.5). The kinetic energy is converted into pressure increase using a diffuser. Centrifugal compressors are
used for pressurizing air and natural gas in petrochemical plants, refineries, gas gathering, and transmission
pipelines. Unlike reciprocating compressors, the compression ratio largely depends on the molecular weight
of the gas in the centrifugal compressor. Because of the low molecular weight of H2, centrifugal compressors
will require impeller tip-speeds around 3X higher for H2 than those used for natural gas [11,23]. Therefore,
when high discharge pressures are needed, the impeller speed must be increased, or additional compression
stages must be added. Increasing current impeller tip speeds is very challenging due to material strength
limitations and H2 embrittlement issues [24]. Research and development activities over last few years has led

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 7

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

to the evolution of titanium alloy-based impellers that can operate with 100% H2 at high tip speeds to of
~700 m/s, enabling pressure ratio per stage of 1.26:1 [23]. The design and construction of centrifugal H2
compressors is a multifaceted engineering task because it is affected by several interconnected
aerodynamic, thermodynamic and mechanical parameters and they are currently limited to prototype
demonstrations [23]. Nonetheless it can be assumed that these centrifugal compressors will be commercially
available in coming years when there is a demand for them.

2.2 Non-mechanical compressors

Though mechanical compressors are traditionally used for H2 compression, the low density of H2 results in
the need of large amount of energy for mechanical compression. Moreover, mechanical compressors suffer
from high capital and operating costs due to the presence of many moving parts and H2 embrittlement
leading to reliability issues [11]. Non-mechanical H2 compressors have proven to be a valid alternative due
to limited moving parts, compact design and safe operation [11]. While these compressors are still in the
development phase, it is worth discussing a few promising designs [11].

Figure 2.6 Schematic of an electrochemical compressor (Left) and metal hydride compressor (Right).
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM REFERENCE [7]

Electrochemical compressors enable isothermal, and consequently efficient compression of H2 and can be
used when required flow rates are small. Low-pressure H2 flows through the gas diffusion layer to the anode
electrode of an electrochemical compressor where it splits into protons and electrons (Figure 2.6). The
protons pass through the proton exchange membrane (typically Nafion®) while the electrons flow towards
the cathode via the external electrical circuit. At the cathode, the protons and electrons recombine to form
H2 molecules again [11]. It is important to note that unlike fuel cells, the cathode in an electrochemical
compressor is blocked i.e., no gas/air can flow in. A backpressure regulator is used to attain H2 at desired
outlet pressure. The compression process can continue as long as the driving force provided by the potential,

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 8

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

i.e., the electric energy supplied to the system, exceeds the internal energy of the system itself [25]. The
process is selective for H2, as other gases cannot pass the membrane. In reality, high-pressure
electrochemical compression faces significant challenges at high pressures due to back diffusion of H2 across
the membrane, decreasing the system's performance [11].

Alternatively, metal hydride compressors use thermal energy for compression utilizing hydride-forming metals,
alloys, or intermetallic compounds. The technology is used specifically for compressing H2 gas, whereby these
metal hydrides are used to absorb and desorb H2 simply by means of heat and mass transfer in the reaction
system (Figure 2.6). H2 absorption is an exothermic process while desorption is endothermic and produces an
increase in pressure. The selection of suitable metal hydrides is critical with several properties needed such as
high H2 storage capacity, fast kinetics, easy activation, and low costs [7,11]. The unique advantage of metal
hydride compressors over other compressor technologies is that the system can be powered using waste
industrial heat or using renewable solar energy. Recently, the technology was demonstrated for H2
compression in a refueling station for fuel cell powered forklifts [26]. Nevertheless, the efficiency of metal
hydride compressors is limited by the heat transfer between the heating/cooling fluid and the metal hydride
alloy; efficiencies are generally below 25% at 423 K with average reported efficiencies < 10% [7,11].

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 9

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

3 COMPRESSION ENERGY
AND POWER
CALCULATIONS

The energy needed for compressing gases strongly depends on the required molar flow rate, the
compressibility of gas and weakly on the ratio of specific heat. The first factor puts H2 at a disadvantage due
to its low molar energy density of ~0.066 kWh/mole versus ~0.248 kWh/mole for natural gas. Secondly,
while the behavior of most gases can be approximated using the ideal gas law (PV = nRT), the behavior of
H2 deviates significantly from the predictions of the ideal gas model. This deviation results in expansion i.e.,
the H2 gas occupies more space than what the ideal gas law anticipates [28]. This deviation is accounted
using the compressibility factor (Z), whereby Z=1 for an ideal gas. For pressures lower than 600 bar (592
atm), Z is higher for H2 versus other gases such as CH4, O2 and CO2 (Figure 3.1). Indeed, by compressing H2
from 1 bar to 700 bars, increases density by only 477 times from 0.0898 g/L to 42.9 g/L. This leads to higher
compression power requirement for H2 versus other gases due to the direct dependence on Z.

Figure 3.1 Graph of the compressibility factor (Z) versus pressure for various gases at 273 K.
SOURCE: LUMEN LEARNING [27].

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 10

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Therefore, due to these factors, compression is the most energy intensive component of the H2 supply chain.
If we consider H2 gas initially generated at 20 bar such as that from steam methane reforming (SMR) or
autothermal reforming (ATR) units, the lowest possible energy to compress H2 isothermally in a single stage
from 20 bar to 350 bar at 20 °C is 1.08 kWh/kg H2 and only 1.48 kWh/kg H2 to compress from 20 to 700
bar. In practice, greater compression energies are required reach these high pressures due to compressor
inefficiencies and leaks. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Technology Validation Project data
for compression from on-site H2 production ranges from 1.7 to 6.4 kWh/kg H2, depending on inlet, outlet
pressures and compressor efficiencies [29].

Typically, calculations for compressor power are performed for an ideal process. The results are then
adapted to the practical scenario employing thermodynamic efficiency factors. Both positive displacement
and dynamic compressors are controlled by some basic principles derived from the laws of thermodynamics.
There are three ideal processes that can be used to describe the compression process: 1) Isothermal process
(PV1=C1), 2) Isentropic process (PVk=C2) and 3) or a polytropic process (PVn=C3) [30]. While either of these
processes is acceptable as a basis for evaluating compression power requirements, isentropic process is most
common and will be discussed in next section.

3.1 Power calculation for single stage compressors

The thermodynamic power calculation for single stage compressors is generally idealized using an isentropic
process that is both adiabatic and reversible. “The compression is said to be isentropic when it is carried out by
an ideal compressor, without friction, without internal leakage and while being perfectly insulated” [31] (No net
transfer of heat or matter) [32]. This process does not occur as adiabatic and reversible would mean that the
initial and final entropies are the same. To account for this non-ideality, an isentropic efficiency factor (ŋ!"#$ )
is used which is defined as ratio of minimum isentropic work to actual work [31]. In other words, the ŋ!"#$
accounts for the deviation from isentropic case where all the shaft work is used for compression and actual
case where some of the shaft work goes to increasing internal energy or temperature of system. ŋ!"#$ is
generally quantified and mentioned by the manufacturer or can be quantified if the suction, discharge
pressures and temperatures are known using the equation:

)*+
𝑇"%& 𝑃'!"& ( )
,
ŋ!"#$ = &' ) − 1+
𝑇'!"& − 𝑇"%& 𝑃"%&

Ideal equation with compressibility,

𝑚
𝑃𝑉 = 𝑍 𝑅𝑇
𝑀
-
𝑃"%& 𝑉"%& = 𝑍"%& . 𝑅𝑇"%&

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 11

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Isentropic Equation

𝑃𝑉 ) = 𝐶

+ +
𝑉 = 𝐶 ) 𝑃 *)

The power for an isentropic (reversible and adiabatic) single stage process is calculated by Compressor
power = VdP.

7!"#$
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 2 𝑉𝑑𝑃
7#%$

7!"#$ + +
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 2 𝐶 ) 𝑃*) 𝑑𝑃
7#%$

+ +
* 8+ * 8+
+𝑃 ) − 𝑃"%&)
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 𝐶 ) '!"&
1
− +1
𝑘

)*+ )*+
+/) 𝑘 )
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 𝑃"%& 𝑉"%& 6𝑃'!"& − 𝑃"%&) 7
𝑘−1

+ )*+ )*+
)
𝑚 1 𝑘 )
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 𝑃"%& 𝑍 𝑅𝑇"%& ∗ 6𝑃'!"& − 𝑃"%&) 7
𝑀 𝑃"%& 𝑘 − 1

+ )*+ )*+
) *+ 𝑚 𝑘 )
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 𝑃"%& 𝑍 𝑅𝑇"%& 6𝑃'!"& − 𝑃"%&) 7
𝑀 𝑘−1

)*+ )*+
1 𝑚 𝑘 )
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = + 𝑍 𝑅𝑇"%& 6𝑃'!"& − 𝑃"%&) 7
+* 𝑀 𝑘−1
𝑃"%&)

)*+ )*+
1 𝑚 𝑘 )
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = )*+ 𝑍 𝑅𝑇"%& 6𝑃'!"& − 𝑃"%&) 7
𝑀 𝑘−1
𝑃"%&)

)*+
𝑚 𝑘 𝑃'!"& )
𝑃/!$01# "340#(!'#41) = 𝑍 𝑅𝑇"%& 9' ) − 1:
𝑀 𝑘 − 1 𝑃"%&

𝒌.𝟏
𝒌 𝒁 𝑷 ( ,
𝒌
𝑷𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 = <𝒌*𝟏= <ŋ = 𝑻𝒔𝒖𝒄 (𝒒𝑴 )𝑹 C < 𝑷𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄 = − 𝟏E
𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒖𝒄

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 12

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Where,

• 𝑃"!$01# "340# : Power (W)

• 𝑘: Ratio of specific heat under constant pressure (𝐶! ) to specific heat under constant volume (𝐶" ): 𝑘 =
#!
= 1.41 (𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑛)
#"

• 𝑍: Average compressibility factor [dimensionless]: Typically, Z = 1.0 - 1.4 for H2 in the pressure and
temperature ranges examined in this report. Z can be determined using the CoolProp excel plugin or
other applications such as NIST REFPROP.

• 𝑇"%& : Suction/inlet temperature (K); 𝑇'!"& : Discharge/outlet temperature (K)

• 𝑃"%& : Suction or inlet pressure (bar); 𝑃'!"& : Discharge or outlet pressure (bar)

• R: Universal gas constant, R = 8.314 J/mol.K

• qM: Molar flow rate (mole/s)

3.2 Power calculation for multistage compressors

When overall high compression ratios (> 2) are needed, compression is usually carried out in multiple stages
with intercooling and same per-stage compression ratio. This leads to significant power savings versus single
stage compression and the advantage is illustrated in Figure 3.2 [31]. Thermodynamic power calculation for
multistage compressors with intercooling can be done using the isentropic model based on several
assumptions:

i. The work at each stage is equal.

ii. Pressure ratio per stage is equal.
iii. Temperature of gas in intercoolers is cooled to original suction temperature at first stage.
iv. There is no pressure drop or heat losses that occur in intercoolers between stages.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 13

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Figure 3.2 Multistage compressors with intercooling and corresponding P-V diagram in blue line.
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM LEARN THERMO [33].

Therefore, considering N = number of compressor stages and 𝑥 = compression ratio for single stage,

𝑃'!"&
' ) = (𝑥)J
𝑃"%&

𝑃
𝑙𝑜𝑔 < 𝑃'!"& =
"%&
𝑁=
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑥)

where 𝑥 = 2.1-4.0 as reported in literature. (Source: References [11,15,18,19,22])

The power for an isentropic (reversible and adiabatic) multistage process is calculated by,

𝑘 𝑍 )*+
𝑃+ = 𝑃K = 𝑃L = 𝑃J = ' )' ) 𝑇"%& (𝑞. )𝑅 L (𝑥)( ) , − 1M
𝑘 − 1 ŋ!"#$

𝑃-%13! "340# = 𝑃+ + 𝑃K + 𝑃L + … . + 𝑃J

𝒌.𝟏
𝒌 𝒁 𝑷 ( ,
𝑵𝒌
𝑷𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 = 𝑵 <𝒌*𝟏= <ŋ = 𝑻𝒔𝒖𝒄 (𝒒𝑴 )𝑹 C < 𝑷𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄 = − 𝟏E
𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒖𝒄

The rate compressor power can be calculated using equation:

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 14

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

𝑃-%13!"340#
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑊) =
𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 (%)

3.3 Isentropic efficiency

The above equations can be used when there is no heat or pressure loss in the intercoolers and the ŋisen
number used in calculating compression power should specifically be taken for H2 compressors. There is
limited literature available concerning ŋisen for H2 compressors, but depending on the compressor type, size
(scale) and design, ŋisen varies in the range of ~55-80% for most compressor designs [34]. It is well known
that larger compressors are more efficient than smaller ones [35,36] and Amos [36] states that large
compressors have an ŋisen of ~65-70%, while small compressors have an ŋisen of ~40-50%, though there is
no quantification for “big” and “small”. The H2A model developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) uses an ŋisen of 88% for large scale reciprocating compressors up to max capacity of 16 MW and an
ŋisen of 65% for smaller scale diaphragm/reciprocating compressors with flow rates up to 500 kg/h [37]. A
more detailed look at the Tables 2-18 and 2-22 in H2A Analysis Results report [37] suggests that ŋisen can
vary between 75-88% for large reciprocating compressors and between 45-70% for smaller reciprocating
or diaphragm compressors [37]. The HDSAM model follows the H2A model by assuming ŋisen of 88% for
large scale central compressors and ŋisen of 75% for smaller scale refueling station compressors [38]. The
DOE validation data for small scale (1,000 kg/day) reciprocating compressors reports an ŋisen of ~56% [29].

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 15

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

4 CHOICE OF COMPRESSOR,
PRIME MOVER, AND COST
CALCULATIONS

Only after careful evaluation of various parameters can the proper compressor type and number of stages
be determined. Some important parameters include [39]:

• Volume and mass flow of the gas.

• Inlet or suction pressure

• Outlet or Discharge pressure

• Inlet or Suction temperature

• Specific gravity of the gas to be compressed.

A chart of the inlet volume flow versus discharge pressure (Figure 4.1; Adapted from Reference [9]) reveals
that centrifugal compressors are appropriate for high flow applications while reciprocating compressors are
better suited to low flow rates.

Furthermore, it is important to note that compressors are driven by different types of engines such as
reciprocating engines, gas turbines or electric motors which are also known as “prime movers”. Reciprocating
engines are like internal combustion engines where gas is ignited in a chamber to move a piston in a
reciprocating movement. In contrast gas turbines rely on hot exhaust gas to run a power turbine in a
rotational movement which in turn drives the centrifugal compressor. Recently pipeline companies are
designing inlet pipeline compressors using modern electric motors. These electric motors are more reliable
and efficient than either reciprocating engines or gas turbines with a faster ramp up. An added advantage of
using electric motors is that they do not emit toxic emit NOx and CO2 at the point of use. However, the
availability and reliability of grid electricity is the biggest concern when using electric motors. The selection
of the compressor dictates the choice of the prime mover as well. In the natural gas industry, reciprocating
compressors are generally driven by natural gas-powered reciprocating engines and centrifugal compressors
are driven by natural gas turbines.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 16

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Figure 4.1 Compressor selection based on discharge pressure (bar) and flow rate (m3/min).
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM PETROWIKI [9]

4.1 Assumptions used

For the analysis presented in this report we assume compressors are driven by electric motors with a motor
efficiency of 95%. Furthermore, we assume the use of large centrifugal H2 compressors for pipelines
application following the HDSAM model developed by Argonne National Laboratory [30,32]. We use an
isentropic efficiency of 80% and fix the maximum compressor capacity at 16,000 kW. Following the HDSAM
model we also assume the use of smaller diaphragm compressors for HFS applications, as they are more
reliable. An isentropic efficiency of 60% and maximum capacity 1,000 kW was assumed for these smaller
diaphragm compressors. For higher power levels multiple compressors were assumed.

4.2 Determining the capital cost of a hydrogen

compressor
If production costs are not considered, then compression of H2 dominates the delivery cost of H2 in the
supply chain [6]. The purchase price of a compressor can vary from several thousand dollars to millions of
dollars depending on scale and compression ratio required. Therefore, generally compression must be done
at a large scale to remunerate this cost. Academic literature and industry both use empirical cost correlations
or rules of thumb to determine how much a compressor will cost based on its size. The cost of compressor
is calculated using these correlations and is based on the required compressor motor power (determined in
Section 0). In this section we describe the calculation of capital costs associated with compressors using the
correlations provided in the HDSAM model [32].

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 17

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

1) Total Installed Costs (TIC)

The cost is defined here as the total installed cost (TIC), which is the cost of the compressor itself
(uninstalled cost (UC)) and the labor/parts required to install it (installation factor (IF)). Correlations and
factors are provided in more detail in Table 4.1.

TIC = UC * IF

Some notable resources for more information include:

• H2A / HDSAM
• Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook

Table 4.1 Detailed cost assumptions for total installed cost of hydrogen compressors.

Compressor Type Value / Conversion factor Notes

High flow rate – Pipeline compressor: Source: HDSAM

Moderate UC [2019 C$] = 3,083.3* kW^SF, where kW = kW motor power
compression ratio Scale Factor (SF) = 0.8335; IF = 2.0
Converted to 2019 C$ by escalating cost
using CEPCI (2007 = 525.4, 2013=567.30,
2019 = 619.2) followed by the C$/US$
exchange rate.
0.75 US$/C$ (2019 average)

Small flow rate – Terminal storage or Refueling station main: Source: HDSAM
High compression • For 350 bars refueling kW = kW motor power
ratio
UC [2019 C$] = 63,684.6 * kW^SF, Converted to 2019 C$ by escalating cost
where SF = 0.4603; IF = 1.3 using CEPCI (2007 = 525.4, 2013=567.30,
2019 = 619.2) followed by the C$/US$
• For 700 bars refueling
exchange rate.
UC [2019 C$] = 62,909.9 * kW^SF,
0.75 US$/C$ (2019 average)
where SF = 0.6038; IF = 1.3
Terminal loading or refueling station booster
compressors:
UC [2019 C$] = 8,731.88 * kW; IF = 1.3

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 18

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

2) Indirect costs
The simplest way to determine indirect costs is by calculating it as a percentage of the TIC. The
advantage of this approach is that larger and more complex projects, which have a higher TIC, have
higher associated costs. The indirect costs used in this whitepaper are based on established literature
(SOURCE: HDSAM) and are detailed below:

• Site preparation = 5% of TIC; This cost helps cover purchase of the land, site preparation costs
including building infrastructure and installation of electrical, water, HVAC, and sewer systems.
Furthermore, this would also cover construction of internal roads, walkways, and parking lots [40].

• Engineering & Design = 10% of TIC; This helps cover salaries and overhead expenditures for the
engineering and project management personnel on the project [40].

• Project Contingency = 10% of TIC; Unforeseen events, such as project risks or uncertainties are
factored in. This cost also helps cover delays caused by storms and strikes, as well as minor design
modifications and unanticipated price rises [40].

• Permitting = 3% of TIC; The price of obtaining the appropriate approvals to design and install the
control equipment are covered by these indirect costs. This is a site-specific expense, meaning that
the costs sustained by one facility may not be easily transferred to another.

• Owner’s Costs = 12% of TIC; For significant investments, an owner's cost component is used to
account for additional owner's engineering, prospective construction debt origination, closure costs,
and due diligence studies. The 12% estimate is based on construction experience and is only applied
for large scale compressors [41].

𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 = 40% 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑠; 28% 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐻𝐹𝑆 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑠

3) Total Capital Investment (TCI)

Once the TIC of a compressor and indirect costs are known, the total capital investment (TCI) can be
determined. TCI is the capital expenditure (Capex) at the beginning of a project and can occur over
several years depending on how long it takes to design & procure equipment, deliver it to a project site,
and construct the project.

𝑇𝐶𝐼 (𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥) = 𝑇𝐼𝐶 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

4) Annualized TCI
The annualized TCI converts the TCI, which usually occurs at the beginning of the project lifecycle, into
an annual expenditure so it can be compared equitably with other annual expenditures such as
electricity costs and non-energy OPEX (Discussed in next sections).

$
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥 C E = 𝑇𝐶𝐼 ($) ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (𝐶𝑅𝐹)
𝑦𝑟

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 19

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

! (+8!)1
𝐶𝑅𝐹 = (+8!)1 *+
; (𝑖 – 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (%); 𝑛 – 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒)

• Finally, the TCI can be normalized to the H2 throughout using the equation:

$
$ '𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝐶𝐼 L𝑦𝑟M)
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥&N-O C E=
𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑘𝑔𝐻 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
'𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 [%] × 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 L 𝑑𝑎𝑦K M × 365 L 𝑦𝑟 M)

In the above equation, availability is the fraction of the year the asset (a compressor in this case) can
operate. When multiplied with the compressor’s design capacity, it determines how much H2 can be
compressed (throughput) in a year. This white paper assumes the availability is related to compression
at a large-centralized H2 production facility that only needs to be taken offline for maintenance for few
weeks of the year or any unplanned outage i.e., ~ 10%, therefore availability = 90%. If H2 compression
was used for a production process that only runs a small fraction of the year, such as an electrolyzer
using electricity from a wind farm, then setting the availability to the capacity factor of the wind farm
(30-40%) may be more appropriate.

4.3 Determining the operating cost of a hydrogen

compressor
The followed factors need to be considered to determine the operating costs associated with a H2
compressor.

1) Energy/Electricity costs
In compression, the energy used is the electricity consumed to power the compressor motor. Energy
costs are a form of variable operating expenditure (OPEX), broken out because energy use (and
associated cost) is of particular interest in the H2 supply chain. The formula for energy cost per year for
compression, can be expressed as:

$ SR $
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 <QR = = 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑘𝑊) ∗ 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 <QR= ∗ 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 <)TS=

Note: Electricity price = Average industrial electrical price in Alberta for 2019 (0.11 C$/kWh)

$
$ '𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 L M)
𝑦𝑟
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦&N-O C E=
𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑘𝑔𝐻 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
'𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 [%] × 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 L 𝑑𝑎𝑦K M × 365 L 𝑦𝑟 M)

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 20

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

2) Non-energy OPEX:
Non-energy OPEX costs found in literature (SOURCE: HDSAM) for H2 compression include labor costs and
fixed O&M costs.

$ $ $
𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋 6 7 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7 + 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑂&𝑀 6 7
𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟

i. Total labor cost:

$ $ $
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7 = 𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7
𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟

Direct labor cost:

$ ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 $
𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7 = 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ' ) ∗ 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 6 7
𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

ℎ𝑟 𝑥 U.KW
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ' ) = 288 ∗ ' )
𝑦𝑟 100,000

where x = compressor flow rate (kg H2/day) and Labor rate = 49.66 2019 $CAD/hour. (SOURCE:
HDSAM)

Overhead indirect labor cost:

$ $
𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7 = 𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 6 7 ∗ 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (%)
𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟

𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 50%; used to consider the cost of overhead (i.e., head office, personnel)

ii. Fixed O&M costs:

All non-labor fixed O&M costs ($/yr) are calculated as a fraction of the TCI or TIC (Section 4.1) to
reflect that the larger and more complex, and therefore more expensive, projects have higher
upkeep costs throughout the project life.

• Operating, maintenance and repairs = 4% of TIC

• Insurance = 1% of TCI
• Property tax = 1% of TCI
• Licensing and permitting = 0.1% of TCI

$
$ '𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋 L M)
𝑦𝑟
𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋&N-O C E=
𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
'𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 [%] × 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 L × 365 L
𝑑𝑎𝑦 M 𝑦𝑟 M)

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 21

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

4.4 Determining the lifecycle cost of hydrogen

compression
A useful indicator of the relative economic viability of H2 is the Levelized Cost of H2 (LCOH). The simple
definition of LCOH for compression is as follows and the detailed assumptions are in Table 4.2

$ $ $ $
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐻&N-O C E = 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥&N-O C E + 𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋&N-O C E + 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦&N-O C E
𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑘𝑔𝐻K 𝑘𝑔𝐻K

This technical brief report focuses on the LCOH of compression only. However, it is possible to determine
the LCOH for multiple units in a supply chain to determine the overall cost of H2 as an energy carrier in
different applications. For example, in a supply chain where H2 is generated as a zero-emission fuel for heavy
duty trucks, delivered via pipeline to a HFS (Figure 1.1), the LCOH could be determined as:

𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐻XN341 = 𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐻7RN' + 𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐻&N-O + 𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐻7!O#1!$# + 𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐻YZ/

This is a simplified example that does not necessarily consider all essential steps for a supply chain.

Table 4.2 Detailed economic assumptions for calculating the LCOH for compression.

Factor Value / Conversion factor Notes

Exchange rate 0.75 US$/C$ Source: 2019 average

Inflation Rate e.g., CAPEX from 2007 to 2019 Source: CEPCI – Plant Cost Index for CAPEX/Equipment
= 619.2 / 525.4 = 1.179 (US$)
2007 = 525.4. 2013 = 567.30.
2019 = 619.2.

Discount Rate 8% Discount rate = weighted average cost of capital (WACC)

(Assumed)

Project Lifetime 15 years Source: HDSAM

Electricity cost 0.11 C$/kWhe Rate Alberta Industrial Electricity in Alberta; Source:
NRCAN

Availability 90% Assumed

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 22

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.1 Analysis of a large hydrogen compressor for

use in pipelines
In this example we will demonstrate the energy and cost calculations for a large centrifugal compressor
driven by an electric motor to be used for H2 pipelines. The capacity needed is 50,000 kg H2/day, inlet
temperature of 305.15 K, an inlet (suction) pressure of 20 bar and required outlet (discharge) pressure of 70
bar. A compression ratio per stage (x) of 2.1, isentropic efficiency (ŋisen) of 80% and electric motor efficiency
of 95% is considered as the model. The steps involved are listed below with the results presented in Table
5.1.

Table 5.1 Power and cost calculation of a large centrifugal H2 compressor for pipeline use.

Steps Calculation Notes

[$%&(()/+))] !
𝐍 = =2 $%&0 !"#$%1
$%&(+./) N= $%&(2)
$&%
; Round N up to the nearest
whole number, i.e., 1.7 à 2.
𝐓𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜 @8/
/.78/ ? B
70 0 +∗/.7 1 ⎡ P A@ ⎤
D20E − 1⎞ D P:;<= E − 1⎥
⎛ ⎢ <>=
= 305.15 ⎜1 + T:;<= = T<>= ⎢1 +
0.8 ⎟ = 379.9 K ŋ;<CD ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦

𝐏𝐚𝐯𝐠 (𝐛𝐚𝐫) and 2 70J − 20J 𝑃KLM =

+ N+
bN'()*
8N+
),*
c [17]
PHI& = ] ^ = 49.62 bar J -
8N-
𝐓𝐚𝐯𝐠 (𝐊) 3 70+ − 20+ '()* ),*

305.15 + 379.9
THI& = = 342.5 K O$&% PO"#$%
2 THI& = +

𝐙 At calculated THI& and PHI& ; Z = 1.024 Using CoolProp excel plugin

𝐪𝐌 0
./,///
1 S%$C< Molar flow rate from Mass flow rate
= /.//-
= 289.35
+7∗R)∗R) <C=

Actual ".$%" Power =

Compressor 1.4 1.024 70 ! &∗".$ ( *+,
0%&'( ! -* (
= 2& +& + 305.15 (289.35) 8.314 4 & + − 16 N=
)
>&
*
+ T,-. (q / )R B = > − 1C
power (kW) 1.4 − 1 0.8 20 )%" ŋ!"#$ 0')(

= 1,289,410 W = 1,289.41 kW
Rated 1,289.41 kW Rated Compressor Power (kW)
Compressor =
0.95
Power (kW) = 𝟏, 𝟑𝟓𝟕. 𝟐𝟖 𝐤𝐖 T=U>H$ W%SXYC<<%Y Z%[CY (@\)
= ]%U%Y ^__;=;CD=` (%)

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 23

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Steps Calculation Notes

Energy Intensity bY<

= (1357.28 kW ∗ 24 :H`)/ (50,000 kg/day)
(kWh/kg H2)

= 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 𝐤𝐖𝐡/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐
UC = 3083.35 * 1,357.28 ^ 0.8335 UC = 3083.3 * [kW]^SF, where SF =
(2019 C$) = 𝟏, 𝟐𝟓𝟗, 𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟏 𝐂$ 0.8335

TIC = $1,259,222.11 * 2 TIC = UC * IF; where IF = 2.

(2019 C$) = 𝟐, 𝟓𝟏𝟖, 𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟓 𝐂$
TCI = $2,518,444.58+ (0.4* $2,518,444.58) TCI = TIC + Indirect Costs; where
(2019 C$) Indirect costs = 40% TIC
= 𝟑, 𝟓𝟐𝟓, 𝟖𝟐𝟐. 𝟒 𝐂$

Annualized TCI 0.08(1 + 0.08)/d $

Annualized TCI ‘`CHY’ = TCI ($) ∗
CRF = = 0.1168
(2019 C$/yr) (1 + 0.08)/d − 1
Capital recovery factor (CRF)

; (/P;)2
Annualized TCI = $3,525,822.41 ∗ 0.1168 CRF = (/P;)2 8/
(i – Discount rate (%); n-
= 𝟒𝟏𝟏, 𝟗𝟐𝟎. 𝟐𝟑 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 Plant lifetime)
Electrical energy = 1,357.28 kW ∗ 24
bY<
∗ 365
:H`<
∗ 0.90 ∗
).//$ Electrical energy cost ($/yr) =
:H` `CHY @\b
cost Power (kW) ∗ Operating hours (hours/
(2019 C$/yr) = 𝟏, 𝟏𝟕𝟕, 𝟎𝟖𝟓. 𝟗𝟖 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 yr) ∗ Electricity price ($/kWh)
Direct labor cost = (288*(50,000/100,000) ^0.25) *49.66 Direct labor cost ($/yr) =
(2019 C$/yr)
= 𝟏𝟐, 𝟎𝟐𝟔. 𝟔𝟕 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 Annual hours(hours/yr) ∗
Labor cost ($/hour)

Annual hours(hours/yr) = 288 ∗ (x/

100000)^0.25
Indirect labor = 12,026.67 ∗ 50% $
Indirect labor cost D`YE =
cost = 𝟔, 𝟎𝟏𝟑. 𝟑𝟑 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫
(2019 C$/yr) $
Direct labor D E ∗
`Y
Indirect labor factor (%)

Indirect Labor factor = 50%

𝐅𝐢𝐱𝐞𝐝 𝐎&𝐌 = (0.04 ∗ $ 2,518,444.58) + (0.021 ∗ $3,525,822.41) ü O&M & repairs = 4% of TIC
ü Insurance = 1 % of TCI
(𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫) = 𝟏𝟕𝟒, 𝟕𝟖𝟎. 𝟎𝟓 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫
ü Property tax = 1 % of TCI

License & permits = 0.1% of TCI

𝐍𝐨𝐧 − 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 = $12,026.67 + $ 6,013.33 + $174,780.05 $

O&M ] ^
yr
𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐗 = 𝟏𝟗𝟐, 𝟖𝟐𝟎. 𝟎𝟔 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫
$
= Total labor ] ^
(𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫) yr
$
+ Additional O&M ] ^
yr

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 24

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Steps Calculation Notes

Capexcomp $411,920.23/yr $
Capex=%SX ‘@&f ’ =
(2019 C$/kg H2) =
(0.90 ∗ 50000 ∗ 365) -
$
0TDD>H$;gC: OWh i j1
45
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟓 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 678- "94$
0TIH;$Hk;$;U`[%]×mC<;&DWHXH=;U`i "94
j×JRdi 4:95 j1

Non-energy $192,820.06/yr Non − energy Opex=%SX ‘@&f ’ =

$

OPEXcomp =
(0.90 ∗ 50000 ∗ 365) -
$
0A%D8CDCY&` nXC2%;<= i j1
(2019 C$/kg H2) 45
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟏 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 678- "94$
0TIH;$Hk;$;U`[%]×mC<;&DWHXH=;U`i "94
j×JRdi 45 j1

Energycomp $1,177,085.98/yr Energy=%SX ‘@&f ’ =

$
(2019 C$/kg H2) =
(0.90 ∗ 50000 ∗ 365) -
$
0^$C=UY;=H$ ^DCY&` =%<U< i j1
45
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟏 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 678 "94$
0TIH;$Hk;$;U`[%]×mC<;&DWHXH=;U`i "94-j×JRdi 45 j1

LCOHcomp = 0.025 + 0.011 + 0.071 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎𝟖 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 $ $

LCOH=%SX ‘@&f ’ = Capex=%SX ‘@&f ’ +
(2019 C$/kg H2) -
$
-

Non − energy OPEX=%SX ‘@&f ’ +

-
$
Energy=%SX ‘@&f ’
-

5.1.1 Effect of design capacity

The TCI (MM 2019 C$) as a function of compressor size or capacity is shown in Figure 5.1(a). As mentioned
earlier the uninstalled capital costs were calculated using correlations built by the H2A and HDSAM models.
The earlier versions of the HDSAM models were based on cost data of two and three stage reciprocating
compressors which was assembled from data supplied by Air Liquide, Neuman & Esser, Burckhardt
Compression, Ariel Compressors, and Dresser-Rand [37]. However the latest versions of the HDSAM uses
cost projections based on an existing centrifugal H2 compressor design and protype developed by Concepts
NREC for the US Department of Energy (DOE) [23]. The cost correlation does not predict a significant cost
reduction with compressor capacity with a scaling factor of ~0.83 for TCI. A breakdown of LCOHcomp,
CAPEX, electricity and non-energy operating costs is shown in Figure 5.1(b) which shows the dominant
contribution from energy/electricity costs. More importantly, the results indicate that at capacities > 100
tH2/day, there is no advantage of scaling up compressors. This is because the electricity/energy costs
become the dominant contributor to the LCOHcomp, which is independent of scale/capacity.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 25

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Figure 5.1 Impact of design capacity on (a) TCI (MM 2019 C$) and (b) LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for large
scale centrifugal H2 compressors.

5.1.2 Effect of suction/inlet pressure and isentropic efficiency

We have also analyzed the effect of two key parameters i.e., suction/inlet pressure and isentropic efficiency
on the energy requirement and cost of compression as show in Figure 5.2. As expected, the suction pressure
has a significant effect on the energy/power requirement and thereby both capital and electricity costs
decrease with increase in suction pressure as shown in Figure 5.2(c). This leads to significant decrease in
LCOHcomp indicating that the pressure drop in pipelines should be minimized to lower the cost of
compression. The isentropic efficiency of the compressor also has a similar but more subtle effect on the
energy requirement and cost of compression as shown in Figure 5.2(d-f). The combined effect of these two
parameters is depicted in the contour plots of Figure 5.3 showing the dominant effect of suction pressure
on both energy intensity and LCOHcomp.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 26

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Figure 5.2 Impact of suction pressure (a-c) and isentropic efficiency (d-f) on performance of large scale
centrifugal H2 compressors.

Figure 5.3 Combined effect of suction pressure and isentropic efficiency on (a) energy intensity (kWh/kg
H2) and (b) LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for large scale centrifugal H2 compressors

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 27

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

5.2 Analysis of a small hydrogen compressor for

use at HFS
In this example we calculate the energy and cost of a small H2 diaphragm compressor to be used at HFS.
The capacity needed is 2,000 kg H2/day, inlet temperature of 305.15 K, an inlet (suction) pressure of 20 bar
and required outlet (discharge) pressure of 500 bar. A diaphragm compressor with compression ratio per
stage (𝑥) of ~3.1, isentropic efficiency (ŋ!"#$ ) of ~60% and motor efficiency ~95% is considered as the model.
The steps involved are listed below with the results presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Power and cost calculation of a small diaphragm hydrogen compressor for HFS’s.

Steps Calculation Notes

[$%&(d))/+))] .
𝐍 = =3 123! .%&'( (
$%&(J./) N= ')(
; Round N up to the nearest
123(5)
whole number, ie. 1.7 à 2

)%"
𝐓𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜 /.78/ 9 ;
500 0 J∗/.7 1 ⎡ P
= 78,. >
:)
−1
⎤
⎛ D E − 1⎞ ⎢ P,-. ⎥
= 305.15 ⎜1 + 20 ⎟ = 487.6
T78,. = T,-. ⎢ 1 +
ŋ8,<= ⎥
0.6 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎝ ⎠

𝐏𝐚𝐯𝐠 (𝐏𝐚) and 500 + 20 𝑃>?@ =

&
&
3
B/012 3
%B142
+ [17]
PHI& = = 260 bar A 5
B/012 5
%B142
𝐓𝐚𝐯𝐠 (𝐊) 2
E')( FE%&'(
305.15 + 487.6 TCD3 =
&
THI& = = 396.4 K
2

𝐙 At calculated THI& and PHI& ; Z = 1.126 Using CoolProp excel plugin

𝐪𝐌 0
-,///
1 S%$C< Molar flow rate from Mass flow rate
= /.//-
= 11.57
+7∗R)∗R) <C=

?.@A?
Actual Compressor 1.4 1.12 500 > B∗?.@ D Power =
power (kW) = 3] a] a 305.15 (11.57) 8.314 h ] a − 1i ) *
*+,
0%&'( ! -* (
1.4 − 1 0.6 20 N= >& + T,-. (q / )R B = > − 1C
)%" ŋ!"#$ 0')(
= 207,702 W = 207.7 kW

Rated Compressor 207.7 kW Rated Compressor Power (kW)

= G.H-C1 J2KLM<,,2M 02N<M ()O)
Power (kW) 0.95 = (%)
/2H2M PQQ8.8<=.R
= 𝟐𝟏𝟖. 𝟔𝟑 𝐤𝐖

Energy bY<
= (218.63 kW ∗ 24 :H`)/ (2,000 kg/day)
Intensity
𝐤𝐖𝐡
(kWh/kg H2) = 𝟐. 𝟔𝟐
𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 28

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Steps Calculation Notes

UC = 63,684.6 ∗ 218.63 ^ 0.4603 For 350 bars refueling

(2019 C$) = 760, 𝟑𝟑𝟖. 𝟒𝟗 𝐂$ UC [$C 2019] = 63,684.6 * kW^SF, where
SF = 0.4603; IF = 1.3

TIC = $760,338.49* 1.3 TIC = UC * IF; where IF = 1.3

(2019 C$) = 988, 𝟒𝟒𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 𝐂$

TCI = $988,440.04 + (0.28* $988,440.04) TCI = TIC + Indirect Costs; where Indirect
(2019 C$) = 1,265,204.31 𝐂$ costs = 28% TIC

Annualized TCI 0.08(1 + 0.08)/d Annualized TCI p

$
q = TCI ($) ∗
(2019 C$/yr) CRF = = 0.1168 R<CM
(1 + 0.08)/d − 1 Capital recovery factor (CRF)
8 ("F8)6
CRF = ("F8)6 (i: Discount rate (%); n-
%"
Annualized TCI = $1,265,204.31 ∗ 0.1168
Plant lifetime)
= 𝟏𝟒𝟕, 𝟖𝟏𝟑. 𝟐𝟒 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫

Electrical energy bY< :H`< ).//$

= 218.63 kW ∗ 24 :H` ∗ 365 `CHY ∗ 0.90 ∗ @\b Electrical energy cost ($/yr) =
cost Power (kW) ∗ Operating hours (hours/
(2019 C$/yr) = 𝟏𝟖𝟗, 𝟔𝟎𝟖. 𝟔𝟐 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 yr) ∗ Electricity price ($/kWh)

Direct labor cost = (288*(2,000/100,000) ^0.25) *49.66 Direct labor cost = > =
$
RM
(2019 C$/yr) = 𝟓, 𝟑𝟕𝟖. 𝟒𝟗 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 Annual hours(hours/yr) ∗ Labor cost ($/
hour)
Annual hours(hours/yr) = 288 ∗ (x/
100000)^0.25

Indirect labor cost = $5,378.49 ∗ 50% Indirect labor cost ($/yr) =

(2019 C$/yr) = 𝟐, 𝟔𝟖𝟗. 𝟐𝟒 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 Direct labor($/yr) ∗
Indirect labor factor (%)
Indirect Labor factor = 50%

𝐅𝐢𝐱𝐞𝐝 𝐎&𝐌 = (0.04 ∗ $988,440.04) ü O&M & repairs = 4% of TIC

(𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫) + (0.021 ∗ $1,265,204.31) ü Insurance = 1 % of TCI
= 𝟔𝟐, 𝟕𝟏𝟕. 𝟗𝟎 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 ü Property tax = 1 % of TCI
ü License & permits = 0.1% of TCI

𝐍𝐨𝐧 − 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 = $5,378.49 + $2,689.24 + $62,717.9 $

O&M } ~
𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐗 = 𝟕𝟎, 𝟕𝟖𝟓. 𝟕𝟐 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫 yr
(𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 𝐂$/𝐲𝐫) $ $
= Total labor } ~ + Additional O&M } ~
yr yr

Capexcomp $147,813.24 /yr Capex.2KL p

$
q=
(𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐) = )3U5
(0.90 ∗ 2000 ∗ 365) $
!G==-C18V<7 EJW X$89:Y(
= 𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟓 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 *;< %9$'
!GDC81CZ818HR[%]×^<,83=JCLC.8HRX %9$5Y×A_`X$89: Y(

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 29

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Steps Calculation Notes

Non-energy $70,785.72/yr Opex.2KL p

$
q=
OPEXcomp = )3U5
(0.90 ∗ 2000 ∗ 365) $
!a&/ X$89:Y(
(2019 C$/kg H2) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎𝟖 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 *;< %9$'
!GDC81CZ818HR[%]×^<,83=JCLC.8HRX %9$5Y×A_`X$89: Y(

Energycomp (2019 $189,608.62/yr Energy.2KL p

$
q=
= )3U5
C$/kg H2) (0.90 ∗ 2000 ∗ 365) !P=<M3R X$89:Y(
$

= 𝟎. 𝟐𝟖𝟗 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 *;<

!GDC81CZ818HR[%]×^<,83=JCLC.8HRX %9$5Y×A_`X$89: Y(
%9$'

LCOHcomp (2019 = 0.225 + 0.108 + 0.289 LCOH.2KL p

$
q = Capex.2KL p
$
q+
)3U5 )3U5
C$/kg H2) = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟏 𝐂$/𝐤𝐠 𝐇𝟐 $
Non − energy OPEX .2KL p q+
)3U5
$
Energy.2KL p q
)3U5

5.2.1 Effect of design capacity

As discussed earlier, small-scale compressors for use at HFS need to compress H2 to high discharge
pressures of ~450-850 bars. While both reciprocating and diaphragm compressors can be used for this
purpose, diaphragm compressors are more common due to higher reliability and purity of H2 at discharge.
The TCI (MM 2019 C$) of these small-scale compressors as function of design capacity is shown in Figure
5.4(a). In contrast to large scale centrifugal compressors, there is a significant advantage of compressor size
on TCI with a scaling factor of ~0.46. A breakdown of LCOHcomp, CAPEX, electricity and non-energy
operating costs is shown in Figure 5.4(b) which shows the dominant contribution from energy/electricity
costs at capacities > 4000 kg H2/day. This leads to a drastic drop in in LCOHcomp up to capacity of ~4000 kg
H2/day due to the effect of scaling factor on capital and non-energy operating costs. At higher capacities,
the scaling factor effect is minimized due to the dominant contribution of electricity/energy costs, and we
observe a more gradual decrease in LCOHcomp.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 30

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Figure 5.4 Impact of design capacity on (a) TCI (MM 2019 C$) and (b) LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for
small scale diaphragm compressors.

5.2.2 Effect of suction/inlet pressure and isentropic efficiency

Figure 5.5 highlights the impact of suction pressure and isentropic efficiency on the energy requirement and
cost of compression. Like the trend seen with large scale reciprocating compressors, the suction pressure
has a significant impact on the LCOHcomp and electricity costs. But unlike what we have observed till now,
when suction pressure is > 80 bar (Compression ratio <6.25), electricity costs for small scale compressors
decrease to a point where capital costs contribution becomes dominant as seen in Figure 5.5(c). Also, like
large scale compressors, the isentropic efficiency of small-scale compressors has a smaller effect on the
energy requirement and cost of compression versus suction pressure as shown in Figure 5.5(d-f) and contour
plots of Figure 5.6.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 31

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

Figure 5.5 Impact of suction pressure (a-c) and isentropic efficiency (d-f) on performance of small-scale
diaphragm H2 compressors.

Figure 5.6 Combined effect of suction pressure and isentropic efficiency on (a) energy intensity (kWh/kg
H2) and (b) LCOHcomp (2019 C$/kg H2) for small scale diaphragm H2 compressors.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 32

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

6 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

Low carbon H2 is projected to play a key role as an energy carrier in future energy systems and become the
fuel of choice in hard-to-decarbonize sectors such as heavy transport, heating, and steel production. At
present, almost all the H2 consumed in the world is close to the production site. The development of low
cost and efficient technologies for storage and transportation of H2 will determine its role in a net-zero
future. To this end, compression is the key technology which enables delivery of H2 from production site to
end user.

Although compression of natural gas is widely used, the compression of H2 is significantly challenging due
to its low molecular weight and density. Currently available compressors which rely on mechanical pistons
are expensive and reported efficiencies are low when compressing H2 to high pressures (> 200 bar).
Moreover, they suffer from frequent mechanical failure which increases operating expenses.

Further research and development activities are needed to design high efficiency compressors that can
deliver H2 at high pressures without compromising on the purity and reliability. The development of new
technologies such as those based on ionic liquids or metal hydrides is promising. In particular, ionic liquid
compressors which have been particularly developed by, Linde, could be the key to efficient and low cost
H2 compression. These compressors do not require bearings or seals, two of the common sources of failures
in piston and diaphragm compressors.

Finally, as we move towards the implementation of net-zero energy systems, the capital costs associated
with compressors is forecasted to drop sharply with economy of scale. These are exciting times and present
both challenges and opportunities for different stake holders involved in the H2 economy.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 33

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

REFERENCES

1. Meadowcroft, J.; Layzell, D.B.; Mousseau, N. "The Transition Accelerator: Building Pathways to a Sustainable
Future." Transition Accelerator Reports, 2019. Available at: https://transitionaccelerator.ca/blueprint-for-
change/

2. J, L.; C, M.; G, M.; DB, L. Survey of heavy-duty hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and their fit for service in
Canada. Transition Accelerator Reports 2020, 2, 1-74.

3. Layzell, D.B.; Lof, F.J.; Young, C.; Leary, P.J. Building a Transition Pathway to a Vibrant Hydrogen Economy in
the Alberta Industrial Heartland. Transition Accelerator Reports 2020, 2, 1-59.

4. "Gas Densities." Accessed on Sep. 26, 2021. Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-

d_158.html.

5. "Fuels - Densities and Specific Volume." Accessed on Sep. 26, 2021. Available at:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-densities-specific-volumes-d_166.html.

6. G. Parks, Hydrogen Station Compression, Storage, and Dispensing Technical Status and Costs. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014.

7. Sdanghi, G.; Maranzana, G.; Celzard, A.; Fierro, V. Review of the current technologies and performances of
hydrogen compression for stationary and automotive applications. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 102,
150-170. 2019.

8. Canadian Association of Oil Producers. "Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines." [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021.
Available at: https://www.capp.ca/explore/oil-and-natural-gas-pipelines/

9. Hart, D.; Financial Times Energy Publishing, L. Hydrogen power The commercial future ofthe ultimate fuel';
1997.

10. Don, W.G.; Robert, H.P. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Eighth Edition, 8th ed. / ed.; McGraw-Hill
Education: New York, 2008.

11. Sdanghi, G.; Maranzana, G.; Celzard, A.; Fierro, V. Towards non-mechanical hybrid hydrogen compression for
decentralized hydrogen facilities. Energies, 13, 3145. 2020.

12. EIGA. Hydrogen Pipeline systems. 2014.

13. "Reciprocating compressor." [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021. Available at: https://www.howden.com/en-
us/products/compressors/reciprocating-compressor

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 34

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

14. Yu, W.; Dianbo, X.; Jianmei, F.; Xueyuan, P. Research on sealing performance and self-acting valve reliability in
high-pressure oil-free hydrogen compressors for hydrogen refueling stations. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 35, 8063-8070. 2010.

15. Cornish, A.J. Survey Results Analysis of the Cost Efficiency of Various In-Operation Hydrogen Fueling Stations
Hydrogen Fueling Station Cost Reduction Study: 2011.

16. Ronevich, J.A.; San Marchi, C.W. Assessment of Hydrogen Assisted Fatigue in Steel Pipelines; Sandia National
Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States): 2017.

17. Menon, E.S. Gas pipeline hydraulics; Crc Press: 2005.

18. MacFarlane, D.R.; Tachikawa, N.; Forsyth, M.; Pringle, J.M.; Howlett, P.C.; Elliott, G.D.; Davis, J.H.; Watanabe,
M.; Simon, P.; Angell, C.A. Energy applications of ionic liquids. Energy Environmental Science, 7, 232-250: 2014.

19. Török, A.; Petrescu, S.; Popescu, G.; Feidt, M. Quasi-izothermal compressors and expanders with liquid piston.
Termotehnica 2013.

20. "Fuels - Higher and Lower Calorific Values." [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021. Available at:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html.

21. "Centrifugal compressor parts & their function." August, 2020. [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021. Available at:
http://thepipingtalk.com/centrifugal-compressor-parts-their-function/

22. Lüdtke, K.H. Process centrifugal compressors: basics, function, operation, design, application; Springer Science &
Business Media: 2004.

23. Di Bella, F.A. Development of a Centrifugal Hydrogen Pipeline Gas Compressor; Concepts ETI, Inc. dba
Concepts NREC: 2015.

24. Barton, M.; Soriano, L.; Stahley, J.; Talakar, A. Under pressure: Understanding challenges of hydrogen
compression. Hydrocarbon Engineering 2021.

25. Sedlak, J.M.; Austin, J.F.; LaConti, A.B. Hydrogen recovery and purification using the solid polymer electrolyte
electrolysis cell. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 1981, 6, 45-51, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-
3199(81)90096-3.

26. Lototskyy, M.V.; Tolj, I.; Davids, M.W.; Klochko, Y.V.; Parsons, A.; Swanepoel, D.; Ehlers, R.; Louw, G.; van der
Westhuizen, B.; Smith, F.J.i.j.o.h.e. Metal hydride hydrogen storage and supply systems for electric forklift with
low-temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell power module. 2016, 41, 13831-13842.

27. "How does the Natural Gas Delivery System Work?" [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021. Available at:
https://www.aga.org/natural-gas/delivery/how-does-the-natural-gas-delivery-system-work-/

28. Makridis, S. Hydrogen storage and compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:.06015 2017.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 35

 TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021

29. Gardiner, M. Energy requirements for hydrogen gas compression and liquefaction as related to vehicle storage
needs. DOE hydrogen fuel cells program record 2009, 9013.

30. Rustagi, N.; Elgowainy, A.; Gupta, E. Hydrogen Delivery Cost Projections – 2015. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
Program Record 2016.

31. Process Engineer's Tools. "Compressor power requirement." [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021. Available at:
https://www.powderprocess.net/Tools_html/Compressors/Tools_Compressor_Power.html

32. "Adiabatic Compresion: TS and HS Diagrams." [Online] Accessed: Sept. 26. 2021. Available at:
https://www.learnthermo.com/T1-tutorial/ch08/lesson-C/pg10.php

33. Melaina, M.W.; Antonia, O.; Penev, M. Blending hydrogen into natural gas pipeline networks: a review of key
issues. 2013.

34. B.V, V.H.e.K. Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Electric Motor Systems/Compressors. In Proceedings of the
ENER Lot 31 Final Report of Task 1-8, 2014.

35. Allen, A.L. Efficiency and performance measurements of a PDC Inc. single stage diaphragm hydrogen
compressor. 2009.

36. Amos, W.A. Costs of storing and transporting hydrogen; National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (US):
1999.

37. Tiax, L. H2A Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure Analysis Models and Conventional Pathway Options Analysis
Results. Interim Report, 2008.

38. Argonne National Laboratory. Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM). Accessed on: Sep. 26, 2021.
[Online] Available: https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=hdsam.

39. Pipeline Safety Trust. "Pipeline Basics & Specifics About Natural Gas Pipelines." Pipeline Briefing Paper #2.
(September 2015). Available at: https://www.pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-PST-Briefing-
Paper-02-NatGasBasics.pdf.

40. Turton, R., Bailie, R.C., Whiting, W.B. and Shaeiwitz, J.A., Analysis Synthesis and Design of Chemical Processes.
Pearson Education, 2008.

41. Connelly, E.; Penev, M.; Elgowainy, A.; Hunter, Current Status of Hydrogen Liquefaction Costs, 2019.

TECHNICAL BRIEF | THE TECHNO-ECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 36

TRANSITION ACCELERATOR TECHNICAL BRIEFS
Volume 1 • Issue 1 • October 2021