Next Article in Journal
Gastronomy Motivations as Predictors of Satisfaction at Coastal Destinations
Previous Article in Journal
Deterioration Models for Bridge Pavement Materials for a Life Cycle Cost Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 18
10.3390/su141811436
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

On the Potential of Blue Hydrogen Production in Colombia: A Fossil Resource-Based Assessment for Low-Emission Hydrogen

by
Sara Domínguez
1,
Bernay Cifuentes
2,
Felipe Bustamante
1,
Nelly M. Cantillo
3,
César L. Barraza-Botet
3 and
Martha Cobo
3,*
1
Environmental Catalysis Laboratory, Chemical Engineering Department, Universidad de Antioquia UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín 050010, Colombia
2
Chemical Engineering Program, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de La Salle, Carrera 2 No. 10-70, Bogotá 11001, Colombia
3
Energy, Materials and Environment Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de La Sabana, Campus Universitario Puente del Común, Km. 7 Autopista Norte, Bogotá 250001, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11436; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811436
Submission received: 10 August 2022 / Revised: 2 September 2022 / Accepted: 6 September 2022 / Published: 13 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Latin America is starting its energy transition. In Colombia, with its abundant natural resources and fossil fuel reserves, hydrogen (H2) could play a key role. This contribution analyzes the potential of blue H2 production in Colombia as a possible driver of the H2 economy. The study assesses the natural resources available to produce blue H2 in the context of the recently launched National Hydrogen Roadmap. Results indicate that there is great potential for low-emission blue H2 production in Colombia using coal as feedstock. Such potential, besides allowing a more sustainable use of non-renewable resources, would pave the way for green H2 deployment in Colombia. Blue H2 production from coal could range from 700 to 8000 ktH2/year by 2050 under conservative and ambitious scenarios, respectively, which could supply up to 1.5% of the global H2 demand by 2050. However, while feedstock availability is promising for blue H2 production, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture capacities and investment costs could limit this potential in Colombia. Indeed, results of this work indicate that capture capacities of 15 to 180 MtCO2/year (conservative and ambitious scenarios) need to be developed by 2050, and that the required investment for H2 deployment would be above that initially envisioned by the government. Further studies on carbon capture, utilization and storage capacity, implementation of a clear public policy, and a more detailed hydrogen strategy for the inclusion of blue H2 in the energy mix are required for establishing a low-emission H2 economy in the country.

1. Introduction

Energy demand keeps increasing due to economic growth, increasing population, and higher life standards. Indeed, ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all is one of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals [1]. However, the energy sector is a major contributor to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has highlighted the urge for decarbonization of this sector [2]. Therefore, in Latin America, countries such as Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Colombia have begun developing strategies to promote the energy transition in the region.
While most of the attention has turned towards renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, the need to store electricity and integrate the locally available energy resources are smoothing the way for H2 as an energy carrier. H2 is a sought-after energy carrier because of its zero direct GHG emissions. Since pure H2 is scarcely found in nature, though, the energy required for its production usually results in high indirect GHG emissions [3]. Thus, the quest for a cleaner energy source has led to low-emission H2 (<4.33 gCO2-eq/gH2 [4]), either via water electrolysis using renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, hydroelectric and biomass)—known as green H2—or via fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas, coal, and oil) with carbon capture, utilization, and/or storage (CCUS)—known as blue H2.
Currently, most H2 is produced from fossil fuels (up to 98%), i.e., from natural gas and oil derivatives (75%), and from coal (23%) [5], almost entirely without CCUS [6,7], blue H2 deployment being still in early stages, with recent reports marking it as only 0.6% of H2 worldwide production [5,6,7,8]. In this context, less than 1% of Latin American renewable energy projects include low-emission H2 production, and at least a decade might be needed to see large-scale green H2 production in the region [8,9,10]. However, recent energy outlooks and environmental reports call for low-emission H2 to comply with the pressing need for GHG emissions reduction [2,8,11,12,13,14,15]. Blue H2 has, then, appeared as a transitory solution to supply the low-emission H2 demand in the region, with most published H2 strategies—Colombia’s included—considering it an important stepping stone in the path to decarbonization [6,8,16,17,18]. In particular, the promotion of blue H2 as a clean alternative considers that the large fossil fuel industry infrastructure could favor the implementation of the necessary CCUS technologies while continuing to take advantage of the local natural resources and reducing the impact of energy transition on employment in some countries. Colombia could benefit from this approach, due to its significant reserves of non-renewable resources and strong economic dependence on the oil and coal extraction [19,20].
H2 in Colombia is currently both produced and demanded in majority by the refinery sector, and it is obtained through Steam Reforming of Natural Gas (NG), with a 90% gray H2 and 10% blue H2 mix [16,21]. The recently launched National Hydrogen Roadmap calls for the conversion of such gray H2 to blue H2 in the next decades, as well as the committment to significantly increase low-emission H2 production in the country [16]. Although the roadmap mentions coal as potential feedstock for blue H2, to the best of our knowledge, there are no current projects for H2 production through coal gasification, in spite of the significant reserves of this mineral in the country [16,22,23]. Additionally, two scenarios of the National Energy Plan 2020–2050 (PEN 2020–2050) envision H2 as part of the Colombian energy matrix for the energy transition, with an 11% H2 share in the most ambitious one [24].
Some studies on the insertion of H2 in the Colombian energy mix were performed in the early 2010s, and with the recent growing interest on H2 as energy carrier around the world, new reports are appearing in this area [25,26,27,28]. Research on H2 production potential in Colombia has been prolific in recent years, mainly considering the use of residual biomass, with diverse sources such as coffee and cacao plantations [29,30], Pinus patula [31], palm kernel and Jatropha [32,33], and sugarcane [34,35,36]. Studies on the production through ethanol steam reforming [37] and biomass gasification [38], as well as on energy production from H2 [34,39], and on H2 storage [40,41] have also been reported. Meanwhile, studies on Colombian potential for H2 production from fossil fuels are scarce and mostly superficial with respect to coal as feedstock [25,42].
This work presents an analysis of the potential for blue H2 production in Colombia, examining feedstock availability and main technical aspects. In addition, to get a more realistic assessment of this potential, the required investment and CO2 capture capacity were compared with the investment envisioned by the government and the potential CO2 storage capacity due to enhanced oil recovery operations in the country, respectively. Knowledge of such potential will allow the assessment of the role of Colombia as a player in the expected global H2 market.

2. Methodology

A literature review for blue H2 production and CCUS technologies was carried out. Among these, only well-established technologies were selected to assess Colombian potential in the upcoming decades. Calculations for potential blue H2 production were based on fossil fuel reserves and annual production reported by government agencies such as Unidad de Planeación Minero-Energética (UPME) [23,43], Agencia Nacional de Minería (ANM) [22], Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos (ANH) [44], and Ministerio de Minas y Energía [45,46]. The amount of coal available for H2 production was calculated from the projected decrease in worldwide demand under several scenarios, grouped as conservative, moderate, and ambitious. To ensure the same basis for comparison, data for the different scenarios were obtained from the comparative Global Energy Outlook reported by Resources for the Future, selecting the scenarios from Energy Outlooks published in 2020 and 2021 [47]. Table 1 shows the compared scenarios and their key assumptions.
Reduction in global coal demand under each scenario was calculated as a percentage, using 2019 global coal demand data as reference value. Given that most Colombian coal is destined to overseas markets, the underlying assumption was that Colombian coal exports would decrease in the same proportion as global coal demand, and thus, coal not exported due to such a decrease could be used in Colombia for H2 production.
Constant annual production of 84.5 Mt coal was assumed in accordance with the recent trend (excluding 2020) [23,53], 20% of which was considered to be reserved for internal use. The remaining 80% (67.6 Mt) was considered the export basis, such that coal available for H2 production in Colombia under each scenario was calculated by applying the decrease percentage to this export basis.
To calculate the amount of H2 to be produced from the available coal, a factor of 0.131 kgH2/kgcoal was used, as reported by the CCS Institute for typical coal gasification processes with CCS [54,55]. The amount of CO2 to be captured in such H2 production was calculated considering 22 kgCO2 to be captured per kgH2 produced, a value also reported for typical coal gasification processes by the CCS Institute [54,55]. Emerging H2 production processes, i.e., underground coal gasification [56] or plasma gasification [57], were not considered for these estimations. Demand and market projections were obtained from technical reports [58,59] and international energy outlooks [47,51,52], Colombia’s Energy Plan 2020–2050 [24], and Colombia’s National Hydrogen Roadmap [16].
A rough investment cost estimate was made with the use of reported techno-economic data for coal-based H2 production. Sgobbi et al. [60] reported techno-economic data for several H2 production methods, including coal gasification. The authors considered centralized H2 production, in medium- and large-scale plants (440 and 1667 MW, respectively), with and without CCS [60]. Costs were reported in 2010 Euros (EUR2010), with values for 2015 and projections for 2030 that account for technology learning factors [60]. Based on the reported value for large-scale coal gasification plants with CCS, estimations of the investment required to meet three of the studied scenarios (Reference-OPEC—conservative, BAU-BP—moderate, and Net Zero-BP—ambitious) were obtained. Given that currently there are no operating plants of this kind, production was assumed to start in 2030 and, hence, the investment cost projected to 2030 was used (363.25 EUR2010/kW [60]). The number of large-scale plants required to meet the projected H2 production under each scenario was obtained by dividing the projected production by the large-scale plant capacity (1667 MW [60]). The required investment was calculated by multiplying the number of large-scale plants required to meet the demand by the cost of one large-scale plant (605.54 M.EUR2010). The values were converted to USD with the aim of comparing the required investment to the expected investment, as reported in Colombia’s Hydrogen Roadmap [16]; a factor of 1.33 USD/EUR was used, corresponding to the average USD/EUR exchange value in 2010 [61].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. H2 Production from Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels, traditionally used in direct combustion, can be used to produce blue H2 and energy through technologically mature processes, see Figure 1. Standardized technologies produce syngas from each fossil feedstock and then follow a single path to H2, while emerging technologies do not require the syngas production stage [57,62,63,64]. Colombian fossil fuel reserves are included in the figure as a starting point for the potential transformations [43,45,46].
H2 from NG can be produced through Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), Autothermal Reforming (ATR), and Partial Oxidation (POX) processes [57,62,63], or through the emerging Membrane Reforming (MR) [65,66] and Methane Pyrolysis (MP) [64,67] processes. SMR is the most deployed technology, accounting for 48% of worldwide H2 production and 95% of US production [6,68]. ATR and POX are also mature technologies but less extended since the need for pure oxygen increases their cost and complexity [62,69,70]. Nonetheless, the potentially lower emissions of ATR, due to easier CO2 capture processes, are gaining attention for the achievement of environmental goals and this technology is considered in the early expansion state [7,13,71]. Membrane reforming, on the other hand, is attractive due to the integration of production and separation stages [65,66], while methane pyrolysis calls attention due to its zero-CO2 production [64,67].
Indeed, as seen in Figure 1, SMR, ATR, and POX all produce syngas (CO + H2) that passes through several H2 clean-up stages. In addition to CO2 removal, a CO elimination stage is necessary to be able to use the H2 stream in fuel cells [72]. Although a single water–gas shift reaction (WGS) stage for CO removal could suffice for H2 use in CO-tolerant fuel cells (which resist more than 5% CO [73]), these fuel cells are still an emerging technology. For commercial fuel cells, such as proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEM-FC) that are not CO-tolerant (i.e., tolerate ≤ 50 ppm), a rigorous clean-up of the syngas is necessary [74], specifically, WGS followed by CO Preferential oxidation and/or Selective CO methanation [72]. Alternatively, Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) or Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) can also be used as a final step in syngas purification, achieving high purity (99.99% H2), with high energy consumption (up to 8.89 W/kmol H2) [75]. Meanwhile, H2 produced through MP is commonly purified by treating the outlet stream with TSA and PSA [64,67], and MR directly produces high-purity H2 suitable for PEM-FC [65,66,69].
H2 from other hydrocarbons can be obtained through Steam Reforming (SR) and ATR (light hydrocarbons, i.e., ethane, pentane, naphtha, and alcohols, i.e., methanol, ethanol) or POX (heavy hydrocarbons, i.e., heavy fuel oil or residual oil), followed by the clean-up stages described above [62,70,76]. However, the use of fossil fuels different from coal and NG for H2 production is yet only attractive in places with low availability of these two fuels, or for the utilization of refinery residues [62,76]. On the other hand, the long-term decarbonization goals require a decline in the use of liquid fossil fuels, which could set the conditions for such fuels to become H2 feedstock and continue to provide energy in a more sustainable way.
Finally, H2 from coal is produced through gasification processes, with a variety of gasifier technologies available in the market [62,70]. Coal gasification produces syngas (CO + H2) at variable compositions, which then follows the H2 clean-up pathway that leads to high-purity H2, as described above (Figure 1) [62,70,76]. More recently, underground coal gasification (UCG) has raised some interest and pilot projects are underway in Australia, China, and Canada; however, the environmental challenges of this alternative have restrained its deployment and it is still considered an emerging process [56,77]. Table 2 shows the carbon footprint of mature technologies for both gray and blue H2 production.

3.2. Current State of Blue H2 Deployment

Currently, blue H2 represents a minimal portion of global H2 production, lower than 1% [5,6,7,8]. However, there is a renewed interest in its potential as a low-emission energy carrier, important in the energy transition, and thus it is included in the H2 roadmaps of several countries, promoting its development in various regions worldwide. Table 3 shows blue H2 production projects that are scheduled for the upcoming decades. Australia and Japan have endorsed a bilateral strategy for the development of pilot projects for H2 production from coal, becoming one of the strongest international cooperation programs for the implementation of blue H2 [17,82,83]. Depending on its results, this alliance is expected to foster the construction of blue H2 facilities exceeding 180 kt/year, at a cost between 2.1 and 2.7 USD/kgH2 [17]. Likewise, China began its commitment to H2 from coal taking advantage of its position as the largest coal producer in the world (>3600 ktcoal/y) [84,85].
USA’s H2 roadmap [86] highlights that blue H2 could be obtained from oil, NG, coal, plastic waste, or a mixture of them. Thus, the “21st Century power plants program”—led by the National Energy Technology Laboratory—aims to reduce the price of blue H2 to below 2.1 USD/kgH2 with a mixture of coal/NG/plastic waste [86]. However, most of the projects under development have focused on the use of NG to obtain H2 (see Table 3). In Europe, England already has nine projects associated with blue H2, Germany began in 2018 an ambitious program to be the largest producer of blue H2 in Europe by 2027 [18,87], and Russia seeks to export more than 2 MtH2/year by 2035 [88], most probably from NG and coal, given Russia’s position as the second-largest producer of NG and fifth-largest producer of coal worldwide [84,88,89,90].
The development of blue H2 in Latin America, on the other hand, is not clear yet: blue H2 is mentioned in Brazil’s H2 roadmap [91], but neither what raw materials are to be used nor its contribution to the total H2 production are described; the strategies of Chile [92], Costa Rica [93], and Peru [94] focus exclusively on green H2; while Argentina [95] does consider H2 from NG within its H2 implementation policy (still under construction). This inconclusiveness on the future of blue H2 in the region could provide an opportunity for Colombia to become a pioneer in the implementation of these production technologies and lead the development of blue H2 in the region.
Currently, H2 in Colombia (ca. 140 kt/year) is produced from NG through SMR, 90% of it without CCUS [16]. The recently launched National Hydrogen Roadmap envisions 50 kt/year of blue H2 by 2030, either by replacement or retrofitting of current gray H2 processes, and it expects blue H2 to be more cost-competitive than gray H2 by 2035 [16]. In this context, Law 2099 of 2021 grants tax benefits to producers of green and blue H2, aiming at a low-emission H2 production of up to 120 kt/year by 2030 as well as satisfying a demand of 1850 kt/year by 2050, striving to make H2 production pathways attractive for the fossil fuel industry [16]. The potential of each non-renewable resource available in Colombia to produce blue H2 is reviewed below.

3.3. Assessment of Fossil Fuel Reserves for H2 Production in Colombia

Oil, NG, and coal industries represent around 35% of Colombian exports, generating more than 70,000 direct jobs. While fossil fuels are available throughout the territory, the highest concentration of oil and NG reserves is in the Eastern Plains region, with Casanare and Meta representing 70% of oil reserves, and Casanare representing 59% of NG reserves [96]. The Caribbean region is the main source of coal in Colombia, where La Guajira and Cesar contribute 80.5% of the coal reserves [23,97]. Figure 2 shows the fossil fuel reserves distribution in the Colombian territory [23,96,97].
Proven NG reserves in Colombia (Figure 1) translate into ~8.2 years of self-sufficiency at the current annual consumption (1.09 × 1010 Nm3, i.e., 385 Gscf) [44,45,46]. This indicates that large-scale blue H2 production from NG in Colombia would be only temporary, unless reserves increase in the near future or gas imports are considered for H2 production. Furthermore, H2 from NG (e.g., for heating) may not be competitive compared to the direct use of NG.
Similarly, Colombian oil reserves (Figure 1) yield ~7.2 years of self-sufficiency at the current production rates (1.26 × 105 m3/day) [44,45,46]. This short-term availability renders oil and its derivatives an unfeasible source for H2 production unless—as in the case of NG—reserves increase significantly in the near future and this matches a major decrease in the direct use of fossil fuels. Such an increase in oil and NG reserves would require the implementation of fracking in several fields, which is a controversial technique and may not be allowed in Colombia in the near future.
On the other hand, Colombia is the lead coal producer in Latin America, ranking third in coke and fourth in thermal coal production worldwide [43]. Proven coal reserves in Colombia reached 4554 Mt in 2021 and estimated reserves were 16,569 Mt in 2019 [22,43]. At an annual production rate of 84.5 Mt [23], the country has coal for nearly 54 years from proven reserves and over 190 years considering the estimated ones. Most of this coal is exported, thus becoming the main mining export product and a major contributor to the country’s economy [20,23]. However, both global warming and environmental agreements demand urgent decarbonization of energy systems and production processes [2,14,98], encompassing a decrease in global coal consumption that could significantly affect Colombian economy if more sustainable alternatives are not considered [20]. Blue H2 production from coal could then provide an alternative for the mining sector to use such important reserves in a more sustainable way.

3.4. Blue H2 from Coal in Colombia

3.4.1. Potential from Colombian Coal

Blue H2 production potential from Colombian coal was estimated considering that the country’s exports will behave in accordance with global coal demand projections under several scenarios (Table 1). Figure 3 shows the projected decrease in global coal demand under the compared scenarios. Only Equinor’s Rivalry scenario projects coal demand above 2019 level, peaking in 2040, while all other scenarios project a monotonically decreasing demand. Conservative scenarios reach near 150 EJ in 2050, whereas moderate and ambitious scenarios reach 103–125 EJ and 12–36 EJ, respectively, corresponding to 6.5%, 22–35%, and 78–90% decreases from 2019 values, respectively; the latter required to reach Net-Zero emissions in 2050.
The decline in coal consumption evidenced in all scenarios in Figure 3 indicates that enough coal would be available to be used as H2 feedstock. As explained in Section 2, considering that Colombian coal exports decrease in the same proportion as global coal demand is projected by each scenario, the amount of H2 that could be produced from such coal was obtained for each case. Figure 4 shows the potential blue H2 production in Colombia if the coal not marketed due to the projected demand decreases were used as feedstock. Since Equinor’s Rivalry scenario projects an increase in coal demand up to 2040, no coal would be available for H2 production under this scenario, hence the negative H2 values in Figure 4a; however, from 2045 there could be H2 production from coal under this conservative scenario. All other scenarios would allow H2 production from 2025 and 2030, the ambitious scenarios showing steeper increases as expected.
Table 4 shows the ratios in 2030, 2040, and 2050 of the potential blue H2 production in Colombia, as calculated under each studied scenario, to the low-emission H2 demand in Colombia as projected in the National Hydrogen Roadmap [16]: 120 kt by 2030, 790 kt by 2040, and 1850 kt by 2050. Though conservative scenarios would not supply enough H2 to meet the projected demand, blue H2 from coal still constitutes a rather important contribution to supply internal demand under these scenarios. Meanwhile, both moderate and ambitious scenarios have the potential to meet and exceed Colombia’s projected H2 needs by 2050, resulting in a surplus that could be exported.
Having compared the potential of Colombian blue H2 production capacity to the projected national H2 demand, it is now worth comparing it to the worldwide demand of H2. Global H2 demand has been projected to 240–800 Mt/year, depending on the scenario and energy outlook [12,15,50,51,52,58]. Considering the value reported by the International Energy Agency (530 Mt), an optimistic yet intermediate value, Table 5 shows the share (%) of such global demand that could be supplied with the blue H2 produced from coal in Colombia, ranging from 0.11%, in a conservative scenario, to 1.55%, in a Net-Zero scenario. While this may seem low, current Colombian coal exports represent 5.5% of global coal trade and 1% of global coal consumption [20,84,99]. In addition, blue H2 from coal would not be the only source of low-emission H2 in Colombia, since the country also has significant potential for green H2 production [16], which could increase the H2 export capabilities and position H2 as an important product for the Colombian economy.

3.4.2. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and/or Storage

CO2 capture technologies are classified in four categories: absorption, adsorption, cryogenic separation, and membrane separation [78,100]. Among them, membrane separation is at an early development stage, while the others are technologically mature, with absorption being the most deployed [100]. According to their location in the process, they can be further classified as pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-combustion processes [100]. For gasification, SMR, and ATR processes, pre-combustion CO2 capture has been found to be the most economical, though the combination of both pre- and post-combustion capture is necessary to reach higher net capture efficiencies (96%) [78,100].
Even though these technologies are mature and widely used in other processes, the adoption of CCUS in H2 production raises at least some concerns. Challenges in retrofitting, production upscaling and supply logistics, costs favoring large projects, and public acceptance (due to continued use of fossil fuels) are issues under consideration [13]. In addition, the development and deployment of CCUS has not yet matched the objectives set in the last decade (there have been significant delays and abandoned projects) [13].
Furthermore, blue H2 production is not essentially CO2-free. Though capture efficiencies can be as high as 85–95%, current industrial applications for H2 production are in the range of 31–54% [7,13,70]. Large amounts of GHG emissions may result from obtaining and pre-processing the feedstock and can be released to the environment, depending on CO2 application after capture (e.g., in enhanced oil recovery, EOR), so life-cycle emissions must be considered to evaluate the net effect of CCUS [13,70,80,101]. Even with these concerns on the table, the pressing need for decarbonization has led institutions, researchers, and policymakers to continue considering blue H2 as a bridging solution towards green H2 and a necessary step towards net-zero GHG emissions, hoping for a synergy between blue and green H2 for their deployment [13,14,16,17,18,70].
CO2 capture and storage capabilities could curtail the potential for blue H2 production. Since H2 production from coal is a carbon-intensive activity (Table 2), efficient carbon capture processes must be included for the production to be considered low-emission, and enough storage and/or utilization facilities must be available in the country. Thence, specific studies on Colombia’s CO2 storage potential are needed to fully comprehend its blue H2 potential.
Figure 5 shows the amount of CO2 to be captured and stored in Colombia under the studied scenarios, considering 22 kgCO2 to be captured per kgH2 produced, as mentioned in Section 2 [54]. Since this CO2 should not return to the atmosphere, the country’s capture capacity should account for the cumulative storage/utilization of this CO2, and this could be a limiting factor for blue H2 deployment.
CO2 can be safely stored in geological formations, such as depleted oil and gas fields, coal seams, and deep saline reservoirs, or used as industrial feedstock and for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) [102]. Yáñez et al. have investigated the country’s potential for CCUS through CO2-EOR and found promising results (ca. 200 Mt CO2) through a rapid screening method [103,104], while Mariño and Moreno reported that the Casanare region would be appropriate for geological storage [105]. Given the Colombian role as a fossil fuel producer, further potential could be found in the depleted oil and gas fields and the exploited coal seams, which cover a sizable part of the national territory, as shown in Figure 2. On the other hand, utilization of CO2 captured in blue H2 production or in other industrial processes does not appear feasible in the short term. In fact, there is availability of high-purity CO2 from bioethanol production (ca. 250 ktCO2/y), which can be used directly in the food industry. In addition, the cement industry—another potential large consumer of CO2—is focused on reusing its own emissions (ca. 4.5 MtCO2/y) [106]. An accurate appraisal of Colombia’s CO2 capture capacity is thus essential for the estimation of Colombian blue H2 production potential. Furthermore, the relative locations of sources and sinks should be considered to get a better assessment of capture costs, as suggested by Yáñez et al. [103,104].

3.4.3. Assessment of Investment Costs

As important as technical aspects, economic constraints are a decisive factor. For three of the studied scenarios, investment costs were obtained, as explained in Section 2. Table 6 shows the number of large-scale plants (i.e., 1667 MW, equivalent to 438 ktH2/year) required to meet the demand in the reported years and the investment costs involved.
Colombia’s National Hydrogen Roadmap envisions USD 2500 to 5500 M. public + private investment to achieve the stated goals by 2030, which includes both green and blue H2 deployment, research and education activities, and governance measures [16]. Thence, both the conservative and moderate scenarios would be within Colombia’s expected investment by 2030. Even with no further ventures, the conservative scenario could be attained. The moderate scenario could be attained in the case of the USD 5500 M. investment scenario, but would require most of the resources to be directed to coal gasification, which may not be consistent with the stated primary interest in green H2. The ambitious scenario, on the other hand, exceeds the highest expected investment even in 2030, highlighting the need to update (and possibly modify) the assumptions used in the Hydrogen Roadmap if such scenarios were to be pursued.
Low investment in research and development (R&D) in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) has limited industrialization in Colombia, requiring new technologies to be imported, mainly from the USA, Europe, and China [107]. The import process is expensive, which affects the establishment of new processes, such as blue H2 production. According to Colombian policies, technologic imports have an extra customs tariff of 10% [108], and when the value of the imported goods exceeds USD 1000, a customs agent must be hired, with a cost of 0.18% to 0.48% of the total value of the equipment. In addition, the costs of packaging, documentation, insurances, international freight, storage in seaports, currency exchange, and bank fees could double or triple the importing costs. These factors increase the costs estimated in Table 6, limiting the potential to produce blue H2 from coal in Colombia. Thus, although Law 2099 grants an exemption of the Value Added Tax (VAT) for the development of non-conventional energy source projects [109], the success in the production of low-emission H2 and the achievement of the goals proposed in the National Hydrogen Roadmap will depend on the mechanisms adopted by the government to promote the development of local technology and/or grant further tax benefits to importers of blue H2 technology, as is currently conducted with emerging technologies such as electric vehicles [110].

4. Conclusions

Energy transition to achieve decarbonization has positioned H2 in the spotlight as a low-emission energy carrier. Colombia, a growing economy with a great dependence on fossil resources, needs to find alternatives to use them in a sustainable way, and thus blue H2 appears as an option to move towards a decarbonized economy. While blue H2 production from oil is yet unfeasible, and from NG seems to be a temporary option and limited to the refinery sector, the abundance of coal makes it an attractive resource for H2 production in the country. Results of this work indicate that H2 produced from not-marketed coal could cover and exceed the projected national demand (i.e., 1850 kt H2 by 2050); namely, the surplus could be exported and thus replace coal’s current role to some extent.
Introduction of blue H2 to the energy matrix could promote H2 use in the short to medium term and open the road to extended green H2 uses. However, Colombia must ensure an investment of at least USD 1610 M. (conservative scenario) to position blue H2. Investment is increased by the absence of local technologies for converting coal to low-emission H2, including CCUS technologies, which creates a need for policies that facilitate technology imports and/or initiatives that rapidly promote local research on blue H2 technologies.
While feedstock availability paints a promising picture for blue H2 production, investment costs and CO2 capture capacities could limit this potential in Colombia. Further studies on CCUS capacity, the development of a clear public policy, and a more detailed roadmap for the inclusion of blue H2 in the energy matrix are required steps for the establishment of H2 in the country.

Author Contributions

S.D.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, visualization; B.C.: validation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, visualization; F.B.: resources, methodology, writing—review and editing, supervision; N.M.C.: writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration; C.L.B.-B.: resources, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition; M.C.: resources, methodology, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación (Minciencias, call 879-2020, contract 036-2021), Unidad de Planeación Minero Energética (UPME, contract 036-2021), Universidad de La Sabana (Project code ING-272-2021), and Universidad de Antioquia (UdeA).

Conflicts of Interest

Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Abbreviations

ADNOCAbu Dhabi National Oil Company
ANHAgencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos
ANMAgencia Nacional de Minería
ATRAutothermal Reforming
b.USDbillion United States Dollars
BAUBusiness-as-Usual
BNEFBloomberg New Energy Finance
BPBritish Petroleum Co.
CCSCarbon capture and storage
CCUSCarbon Capture Utilization and/or Storage
CGCoal Gasification
COCarbon monoxide
CO2-eqCO2 equivalent
CO-PROXPreferential oxidation of CO
CO-SMETSelective CO methanation
COVID-19Coronavirus Disease 19 Pandemic
EOREnhanced Oil Recovery
ETSEconomic Transition Scenario
GHGGreen House Gases
GscfGiga standard cubic feet
IEAInternational Energy Agency
Inv.Investment
IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRENAInternational Renewable Energy Agency
LSLarge-scale
M.EUR2010Million euros of 2010
M.USDMillion USD
MPMethane Pyrolysis
MRMembrane Reforming
MSMedium-scale
n.a.Data not available for this year and scenario
NDCNational Determined Contribution
NGNatural Gas
NZNet-Zero emissions
OPECOrganization of Petroleum Exporting Companies
PEN 2020–2050Plan Energético Nacional (National Energy Plan) 2020–2050
POXPartial Oxidation
PSAPressure Swing Adsorption
R&DResearch and Development
Ref.Reference
RTRapid Transition
SDGSustainable Development Goals
SDSSustainable Development Scenario
SMRSteam Methane Reforming
SRSteam Reforming
STEMScience, Technology, Engineering, and Math
STEPSStated Policies Scenario
TESTransforming Energy Scenario
TSATemperature Swing Adsorption
UAEUnited Arab Emirates
UCGUnderground Coal Gasification
UKUnited Kingdom
UNUnited Nations
UPMEUnidad de Planeación Minero-Energética
VATValue Added Tax

References

  1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development Goals. THE 17 GOALS|Sustainable Development, United Nations. 2021. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/es/goals (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ji, M.; Wang, J. Review and comparison of various hydrogen production methods based on costs and life cycle impact assessment indicators. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 38612–38635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. CERTIFHY Consortium. Certification Schemes, CERTIFHY. 2022. Available online: https://www.certifhy.eu/go-labels/ (accessed on 14 February 2022).
  5. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Hydrogen as Marine Fuel; American Bureau of Shipping: Spring, TX, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  6. IRENA. Hydrogen from Renewable Power: Technology Outlook for the Energy Transition; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. George, A.; Siyaguna, O.; Frank, A.; Le Floch, M. H2 beyond CO2; Pendal Group Limited: Sydney, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. IEA. Hydrogen in Latin America; IEA: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Washburn, C.; Pablo-Romero, M. Measures to promote renewable energies for electricity generation in Latin American countries. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Viviescas, C.; Lima, L.; Diuana, F.; Vasquez, E.; Ludovique, C.; Silva, G.N.; Huback, V.; Magalar, L.; Szklo, A.; Lucena, A.F.P.; et al. Contribution of Variable Renewable Energy to increase energy security in Latin America: Complementarity and climate change impacts on wind and solar resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. IEA. The Future of Hydrogen. Seizing Today’s Opportunities; IEA: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2020; IEA: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. IRENA. Hydrogen: A Renewable; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. IRENA. World Energy Transitions Outlook; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. British Petroleum Co. BP Energy Outlook; British Petroleum Co.: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ministerio de Minas y Energía. Hoja de Ruta del Hidrógeno en Colombia; Ministerio de Minas y Energía: Bogotá, Colombia, 2021.
  17. Bruce, S.; Temminghoff, M.; Hayward, J.; Schmidt, E.; Munnings, C.; Palfreyman, D.; Hartley, P. National Hydrogen Roadmap; CSIRO: Sydney, Australia, 2018.
  18. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi). The National Hydrogen Strategy; BMWi: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
  19. Rodríguez-Zapata, M.A.; Ruiz-Agudelo, C.A. Environmental liabilities in Colombia: A critical review of current status and challenges for a megadiverse country. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. López, S.; Patzy, F. Carbón Térmico en Colombia: Implicaciones para la Economía de la Guajira y Cesar, 1st ed.; Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI): Lima, Peru, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Investigación y Extensión Bogotá-UNAL, Taller Científico “Hidrógeno de Bajas Emisiones”. 2021. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtOCOX_TrFI (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  22. Agencia Nacional de Minería. El Futuro del Carbón en Colombia no Termina, Se Fortalece con las Ruedas de Negocios; Agencia Nacional de Minería: Bogotá, Colombia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  23. UPME—Unidad de Planeación Minero-Energética. Cifras Sectoriales—Carbón. 2021. Available online: https://www1.upme.gov.co/simco/Cifras-Sectoriales/Paginas/carbon.aspx (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  24. UPME—Unidad de Planeación Minero-Energética. Plan Energético Nacional 2020–2050; UPME: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020.
  25. Castiblanco, O.; Cárdenas, D.J. Producción de hidrógeno y su perspectiva en Colombia: Una revisión. Gestión Ambient. 2020, 23, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nadaleti, W.C.; de Souza, E.G.; Lourenço, V.A. Green hydrogen-based pathways and alternatives: Towards the renewable energy transition in South America’s regions—Part B. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Delgado, R.; Wild, T.B.; Arguello, R.; Clarke, L.; Romero, G. Options for Colombia’s mid-century deep decarbonization strategy. Energy Strat. Rev. 2020, 32, 100525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pupo-Roncallo, O.; Campillo, J.; Ingham, D.; Ma, L.; Pourkashanian, M. The role of energy storage and cross-border interconnections for increasing the flexibility of future power systems: The case of Colombia. Smart Energy 2021, 2, 100016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. García, C.A.; Morales, M.; Quintero, J.; Aroca, G.; Cardona, C.A. Environmental assessment of hydrogen production based on Pinus patula plantations in Colombia. Energy 2017, 139, 606–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rangel, C.J.; Hernández, M.A.; Mosquera, J.D.; Castro, Y.; Cabeza, I.O.; Acevedo, P.A. Hydrogen production by dark fermentation process from pig manure, cocoa mucilage, and coffee mucilage. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2020, 11, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. García-Velásquez, C.A.; Moncada, J.; Aristizábal, V.; Cardona, C.A. Techno-economic and energetic assessment of hydrogen production through gasification in the Colombian context: Coffee Cut-Stems case. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 5849–5864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Quiroga, E.; Moltó, J.; Conesa, J.A.; Valero, M.F.; Cobo, M. Kinetics of the Catalytic Thermal Degradation of Sugarcane Residual Biomass over Rh-Pt/CeO2-SiO2 for Syngas Production. Catalysts 2020, 10, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Acevedo, J.C.; Solano, S.P.; Durán, J.M.; Posso, F.R.; Arenas, E. Estimation of potential hydrogen production from palm kernel shell in Norte de Santander, Colombia. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1386, 012093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cifuentes, B.; Bustamante, F.; Conesa, J.A.; Córdoba, L.F.; Cobo, M. Fuel-cell grade hydrogen production by coupling steam reforming of ethanol and carbon monoxide removal. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 17216–17229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sanchez, N.; Ruiz, R.; Rödl, A.; Cobo, M. Technical and environmental analysis on the power production from residual biomass using hydrogen as energy vector. Renew. Energy 2021, 175, 825–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sanchez, N.; Ruiz, R.Y.; Cifuentes, B.; Cobo, M. Controlling sugarcane press-mud fermentation to increase bioethanol steam reforming for hydrogen production. Waste Manag. 2019, 98, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sanchez, N.; Rodríguez-Fontalvo, D.; Cifuentes, B.; Cantillo, N.M.; Laverde, M.U.; Cobo, M. Biomass Potential for Producing Power via Green Hydrogen. Energies 2021, 14, 8366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Niño-Villalobos, A.; Puello-Yarce, J.; Delgado, K.A.O.; Ojeda, K.A.; Sánchez-Tuirán, E. Biodiesel and Hydrogen Production in a Combined Palm and Jatropha Biomass Biorefinery: Simulation, Techno-Economic, and Environmental Evaluation. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 7074–7084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Meramo-Hurtado, S.I.; Puello, P.; Cabarcas, A. Process Analysis of Hydrogen Production via Biomass Gasification under Computer-Aided Safety and Environmental Assessments. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 19667–19681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Medina, O.; Gallego, J.; Acevedo, S.; Riazi, M.; Ocampo-Pérez, R.; Cortés, F.; Franco, C. Catalytic Conversion of n-C7 Asphaltenes and Resins II into Hydrogen Using CeO2-Based Nanocatalysts. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos. Histórico de Reservas; Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020.
  42. Newell, R.G.; Raimi, D.; Villanueva, S.; Aldana, G. RFF Global Energy Outlook. Data Tool. 2021. Available online: https://www.rff.org/geo/ (accessed on 7 December 2021).
  43. Equinor. Energy Perspectives 2020; Equinor: Oslo, Norway, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  44. OPEC. World Oil Outlook 2021; OPEC: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  45. BloombergNEF. New Energy Outlook 2020; BloombergNEF: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. Internationa Renewable Energy Agency. Global Renewables Outlook 2050 Energy Transformation Edition: 2020; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  47. IEA. Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector; IEA: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. UPME—Unidad de Planeación Minero-Energética. Internacional Carbón Térmico. 2018. Available online: http://www1.upme.gov.co/simco/Cifras-Sectoriales/Paginas/inter-carbon-termico.aspx (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  49. Global CCS Institute. Blue Hydrogen; Global CCS Institute: Docklands, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mehmeti, A.; Angelis-Dimakis, A.; Arampatzis, G.; McPhail, S.J.; Ulgiati, S. Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies. Environments 2018, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Perkins, G. Underground coal gasification—Part I: Field demonstrations and process performance. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2018, 67, 158–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Midilli, A.; Kucuk, H.; Topal, M.E.; Akbulut, U.; Dincer, I. A comprehensive review on hydrogen production from coal gasification: Challenges and Opportunities. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 25385–25412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. International Energy Agency, IEA. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/ (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  54. Energy Transitions Commission. Making the Hydrogen Economy Possible; Energy Transitions Commission: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  55. World Energy Council, EPRI. Hydrogen on the Horizon: Ready, Almost Set, Go? Innovation Insights Briefing; World Energy Council: London, UK, 2021; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sgobbi, A.; Nijs, W.; De Miglio, R.; Chiodi, A.; Gargiulo, M.; Thiel, C. How far away is hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-term decarbonisation of the European energy system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Exchange Rates UK. Euro to US Dollar Spot Exchange Rates for 2010. 2022. Available online: https://www.exchangerates.org.uk/EUR-USD-spot-exchange-rates-history-2010.html (accessed on 23 March 2022).
  58. Kirk, R.E.; Othmer, D.F.; Kroschwitz, J.I.; Howe-Grant, M. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Häussinger, P.; Lohmüller, R.; Watson, A.M. Hydrogen, 2. Production. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, K.; Song, C.; Subramani, V. Hydrogen and Syngas Production and Purification Technologies; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dincer, I.; Acar, C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 40, 11094–11111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Acar, C.; Dincer, I. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production options for better environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 835–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sánchez-Bastardo, N.; Schlögl, R.; Ruland, H. Methane Pyrolysis for Zero-Emission Hydrogen Production: A Potential Bridge Technology from Fossil Fuels to a Renewable and Sustainable Hydrogen Economy. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 11855–11881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Valora Analitik. Colombia Elevó Reservas de Petróleo y Gas para Garantizar Autosuficiencia; Valora Analitik: Medellín, Colombia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  65. Valora Analitik. Colombia Tiene Reservas de Carbón para 180 Años; Está en Top 10 de Países con Mayor Cantidad; Valora Analitik: Medellín, Colombia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  66. Gobierno de Colombia, Ministerio de Minas y Energía. 2022. Available online: https://www.minenergia.gov.co/ (accessed on 13 May 2022).
  67. U.S. Department of Energy. Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming. 2021. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming (accessed on 27 July 2021).
  68. Brunetti, A.; Caravella, A.; Drioli, E.; Barbieri, G. Chapter 1. Membrane Reactors for Hydrogen Production. In Membrane Engineering for the Treatment of Gases: Volume 2: Gas-Separation Issues Combined with Membrane Reactors, 2nd ed.; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2018; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jakobsen, V.D. Atland, Concepts for Large Scale Hydrogen Production; Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bauer, C.; Treyer, K.; Antonini, C.; Bergerson, J.; Gazzani, M.; Gencer, E.; Gibbins, J.; Mazzotti, M.; McCoy, S.T.; McKenna, R.; et al. On the climate impacts of blue hydrogen production. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2021, 6, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Palo, E.; Salladini, A.; Morico, B.; Palma, V.; Ricca, A.; Iaquaniello, G. Application of Pd-Based Membrane Reactors: An Industrial Perspective. Membranes 2018, 8, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Amiri, T.Y.; Ghasemzageh, K.; Iulianelli, A. Membrane reactors for sustainable hydrogen production through steam reforming of hydrocarbons: A review. Chem. Eng. Process.-Process Intensif. 2020, 157, 108148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thyssenkrupp. Hydrogen, Syngas and Carbon Monoxide. 2021. Available online: https://www.thyssenkrupp-industrial-solutions.com/en/products-and-services/refining/hydrogen-syngas-and-carbon-monoxide (accessed on 30 July 2021).
  74. Haldor-Topsoe. Hydrogen. 2021. Available online: https://www.topsoe.com/processes/hydrogen (accessed on 2 August 2021).
  75. Linde. Hydrogen and Syngas Plants. 2021. Available online: https://www.linde-engineering.com/en/process-plants/hydrogen_and_synthesis_gas_plants/index.html (accessed on 30 July 2021).
  76. Friedmann, S.J.; Upadhye, R.; Kong, F.-M. Prospects for underground coal gasification in carbon-constrained world. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 4551–4557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, H.; Liu, S. Life cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification in comparison with surface coal gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 9630–9643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Antonini, C.; Treyer, K.; Streb, A.; van der Spek, M.; Bauer, C.; Mazzotti, M. Hydrogen production from natural gas and biomethane with carbon capture and storage—A techno-environmental analysis. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2020, 4, 2967–2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hajjaji, N.; Pons, M.-N.; Renaudin, V.; Houas, A. Comparative life cycle assessment of eight alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil feedstock. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Parkinson, B.; Balcombe, P.; Speirs, J.F.; Hawkes, A.D.; Hellgardt, K. Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Li, G.; Cui, P.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, S. Life cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of biomass-to-hydrogen process in comparison with coal-to-hydrogen process. Energy 2020, 191, 116588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ministerial Council on Renewable Energy Hydrogen and Related Issues. Basic Hydrogen Strategy; Ministerial Council on Renewable Energy Hydrogen and Related Issues: Tokyo, Japan, 2017.
  83. Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Project. Home—HESC. 2022. Available online: https://www.hydrogenenergysupplychain.com/ (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  84. IEA. Coal 2020; IEA: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  85. Downs, E. Green Giants? China’s National Oil Companies Prepare for the Energy Transition; Center on Global Energy Policy: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  86. U.S. Department of Energy. US Hydrogen Strategy Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  87. UK Department for International Trade. Hydrogen Investor Roadmap; UK Department for International Trade: London, UK, 2022.
  88. Kholkin, D.; Chausov, I. Three pitfalls of the Russian hydrogen strategy. Energeticheskaya Polit. 2021, 157, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Statista. Global Gas Exports by Country 2020. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/217856/leading-gas-exporters-worldwide/ (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  90. World Popuation Review. Natural Gas by Country 2022. World Popuation Rev. 2022. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/natural-gas-by-country (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  91. Ministério de Minas e Energia. Programa Nacional do Hidrogenio; Ministério de Minas e Energia: Brasilia, Brazil, 2021.
  92. Ministerio de Energía—Gobierno de Chile. Estrategia Nacional de Hidrógeno Verde; Ministerio de Energía—Gobierno de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2020.
  93. Ministerio de Ambiente y Energia MINAE. Dirección Sectorial de Energía Costa Rica, Plan Nacional de Energía 2015–2030; Ministerio de Ambiente y Energia MINAE: San José, CA, USA, 2015.
  94. Asociación Peruana de Hidrógeno. Resumen Ejecutivo Bases y Recomendaciones para la Elaboración de la Estrategia de Hi-Drógeno Verde en el Perú; Asociación Peruana de Hidrógeno: Lima, Peru, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  95. Consejo Económico y Social. Hacia una Estrategia Nacional Hidrógeno 2030; Consejo Económico y Social: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  96. Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos. Datos y Estadísticas. 2022. Available online: https://www.anh.gov.co/es/operaciones-y-regalías/datos-y-estadisticas/ (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  97. Sistema Geológico Colombiano. Zonas Carboníferas de Colombia, Portal Datos Abiertos. 2021. Available online: https://datos.sgc.gov.co/maps/0fd8488d21d14cad952cbacbe3fa3164/about (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  98. Arbeláez, C.G.; Vallejo, G.; Higgings, M.L.; Escobar, E.M. El Acuerdo de Paris, Así Actuará Colombia Frente al Cambio Climático; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente: Bogotá, Colombia, 2016.
  99. IndexMundi. World Coal Exports by Country. 2022. Available online: https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal&graph=exports&display=rank (accessed on 13 April 2022).
  100. IEAGHG. Reference Data and Supporting Literature Reviews for SMR Based Hydrogen Production with CCS, 2017-TR3; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  101. Al-Qahtani, A.; Parkinson, B.; Hellgardt, K.; Shah, N.; Guillen-Gosalbez, G. Uncovering the true cost of hydrogen production routes using life cycle monetisation. Appl. Energy 2021, 281, 115958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. European Comision. Carbon Capture, Use and Storage. Clim. Action. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/carbon-capture-use-and-storage_es (accessed on 23 March 2022).
  103. Yáñez, E.; Ramírez, A.; Lopez, V.N.; Castillo, E.; Faaij, A. Exploring the potential of carbon capture and storage-enhanced oil recovery as a mitigation strategy in the Colombian oil industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2020, 94, 102938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Angarita, E.E.Y.; Núñez-López, V.; Ramírez, A.R.; Monroy, E.C.; Faaij, A. Rapid screening and probabilistic estimation of the potential for CO2-EOR and associated geological CO2 storage in Colombian petroleum basins. Pet. Geosci. 2022, 28, petgeo2020-110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mariño-Martínez, J.E.; De Colombia, U.P.Y.T.; Moreno-Reyes, L.E.; Independiente, I.G. Posibilidades de captura y almacenamiento geológico de CO2 (CCS) en Colombia—Caso Tauramena (Casanare). Boletín Geol. 2018, 40, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Andrew, R.M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2019, 11, 1675–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación. Vicepresidencia de la República de Colombia, Colombia on the Path to a Knowledge-Based Society Reflections and Proposals, 1st ed.; Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020.
  108. Ministerio de Hacienda y Credito Publico. Decreto 390 de 2016 Estatuto Aduanero; Ministerio de Hacienda y Credito Publico: Bogotá, Colombia, 2016.
  109. Congreso de la República de Colombia. Ley 2099 de 2021; Congreso de la República de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2021.
  110. Congreso de la República de Colombia. Ley 1964 de 2019; Congreso de la República de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019.
Sustainability 14 11436 g001 550
Figure 1. H2 and H2-derived energy production pathways from fossil fuels. Simplified process diagram. SMR: Steam Methane Reforming, ATR: Autothermal Reforming, POX: Partial Oxidation, PSA: Pressure Swing Adsorption. TSA: Temperature Swing Adsorption, CO-SMET: Selective CO methanation, CO-PROX: Preferential oxidation of CO.
Figure 1. H2 and H2-derived energy production pathways from fossil fuels. Simplified process diagram. SMR: Steam Methane Reforming, ATR: Autothermal Reforming, POX: Partial Oxidation, PSA: Pressure Swing Adsorption. TSA: Temperature Swing Adsorption, CO-SMET: Selective CO methanation, CO-PROX: Preferential oxidation of CO.
Sustainability 14 11436 g001
Sustainability 14 11436 g002 550
Figure 2. Colombia’s proven reserves of (a) coal, (b) NG, and (c) oil.
Figure 2. Colombia’s proven reserves of (a) coal, (b) NG, and (c) oil.
Sustainability 14 11436 g002
Sustainability 14 11436 g003 550
Figure 3. Global coal consumption (1 EJ = 1 × 1018 J) under (a) conservative, (b) moderate, and (c) ambitious scenarios, as described in Table 1.
Figure 3. Global coal consumption (1 EJ = 1 × 1018 J) under (a) conservative, (b) moderate, and (c) ambitious scenarios, as described in Table 1.
Sustainability 14 11436 g003
Sustainability 14 11436 g004 550
Figure 4. Potential H2 production from coal in Colombia under (a) conservative, (b) moderate, and (c) ambitious scenarios, as described in Table 1. Shaded areas indicate negative values (no coal available for H2 production).
Figure 4. Potential H2 production from coal in Colombia under (a) conservative, (b) moderate, and (c) ambitious scenarios, as described in Table 1. Shaded areas indicate negative values (no coal available for H2 production).
Sustainability 14 11436 g004
Sustainability 14 11436 g005 550
Figure 5. CO2 to be captured in Colombia from blue H2 production from coal under (a) conservative, (b) moderate, and (c) ambitious scenarios, as described in Table 1.
Figure 5. CO2 to be captured in Colombia from blue H2 production from coal under (a) conservative, (b) moderate, and (c) ambitious scenarios, as described in Table 1.
Sustainability 14 11436 g005
Table
Table 1. Compared energy scenarios and their key assumptions.
Table 1. Compared energy scenarios and their key assumptions.
TypeInstitutionScenarioKey Assumptions
ConservativeEquinor [48]RivalrySocial, economic, and political tension strongly affect the energy market and energy transition.
Energy policies privilege energy security rather than sustainability.
Slow implementation of clean technologies and pollution reduction.
OPEC [49]Reference Incorporates enacted policies and assumes some future policy changes.
ModerateBNEF [50]Economic Transition Scenario—ETSBased on internal views on technological change, which drives the development of markets and business models.
Consistent with 3.3 °C warming by 2100.
Equinor [48]ReformMarket and technology evolve similarly to recent trends.
Policy trends follow current policy momentum.
Economic growth is prioritized.
BP [15]Business as Usual—BAUPolicies, technologies, and consumer preferences evolve similarly to recent trends.
Carbon emissions peak in mid-2020s.
Little reduction in energy-based carbon emissions, emissions in 2050 being less than 10% below 2018 levels.
IEA [12]Stated Policies Scenario—STEPSConsiders enacted and announced policies, including climate targets.
COVID-19 is gradually brought under control in 2021.
Global economy returns to pre-crisis levels also in 2021.
IRENA [51]Planned Energy Scenario—PESBased on current and announced policies.
Considers NDCs in the Paris Agreement and long-term emissions reduction targets consigned in national energy plans and climate policies up to 2019.
AmbitiousBP [15]Rapid Transition—RTConsiders policy measures led by a significant increase in carbon prices and supported by sector-specific measures (power, transportation, buildings, industry).
A 70% reduction in energy-based carbon emissions by 2050. Consistent with limiting warming to “well below” 2 °C by 2100.
IEA [12]Sustainable Development Scenario—SDSUN Sustainable Development Goals, including universal access to energy, reduced air and water pollution, as well as the Paris Agreement are achieved.
Assumptions on public health and the economy are the same as in the STEPS.
Consistent with 1.7–1.8 °C warming by 2100.
IRENA [51]Transforming Energy Scenario—TESAn “ambitious, yet realistic” scenario.
Improved energy efficiency and large-scale renewables deployment.
Limits warming to “well below” 2 °C and sets the path towards 1.5 °C by 2100.
Equinor [48]RebalanceAmbitious policies push energy system towards limiting warming to “well below” 2 °C by 2100.
World focus on achieving all UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Reduction in the income gap in emerging economies, and more focus on well-being in industrialized countries.
BP [15]Net Zero—NZ-BPTrends from the Rapid Transition scenario are enhanced by substantial societal changes.
A 95% reduction in energy-based global carbon emissions by 2050.
Consistent with limiting temperature rises to 1.5 °C by 2100.
IEA [52]Net Zero—NZ-IEAIntended to show what/when is needed to achieve net-zero energy-related and industrial process CO2 emissions by 2050.
Consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5 °C.
Table
Table 2. Carbon footprint of mature technologies for H2 production from fossil fuels.
Table 2. Carbon footprint of mature technologies for H2 production from fossil fuels.
TypeProcessCarbon Footprint (kgCO2-eq/kgH2)
GraySMR10.92 [4]
ATR11 [78]
POX10.7 [79]
CG24.2 [54,55]
BlueSMR + CCS2.7–5.8 [7,80]
ATR + CCS2.6 [7]
CG + CCS2.84 [81]
Table
Table 3. Projects for blue H2 production.
Table 3. Projects for blue H2 production.
Project NameCountryEstimated
Capacity (ktH2/year)		ProcessOrganization/FacilityIntended
Operation Year		Investment (b.USD)
Brown
Coal-to-H2 project		Australia and Japan≤1 (pilot)
>180 (expected)		CG + CCSJapan’s Electric Power Development Co (J-Power) and Australia’s AGL Energy Ltd.2021–20500.3 (pilot)
Sinopec Qilu Petrochemical CCS ProjectChina3500CG + CCSChina Petroleum & Chemical Corporation2021–2025Not reported
Low-carbon blue
ammonia		United Arab Emirates (UAE)Not reportedSMR + CCSUAE’s state oil company (ADNOC)2022–2030Not reported
Alberta
Carbon Trunk Line		Canada100Asphaltene gasification + CCSSturgeon refinery2017–20251.1
The North Dakota H2 HubUSA310ATR + CCSBakken Energy, LLC2023–20272
Air Products’ Blue H2
Energy
Complex		USA650SMR + CCSAir Products2021–20504.5
‘Blue’ H2
project (H2 Teesside)		UK260
(1 GW)		SMR + CCSBP plc and UK government2027–2050Not reported
The Humber Hub Blue ProjectUK185
(720 MW)		SMR + CCSShell and Uniper2024–2027Not reported
H2-morrow projectGermany≤1SMR + CCSEquinor and Open Grid Europe (OGE)2018–2027Not reported
Roadmap for H2
production		Russia≥5SMR + CCSRussian government2021–2050Not reported
Table
Table 4. Ratio of Colombian potential blue H2 production to national low-emission H2 demand as projected in the National Hydrogen Roadmap. Scenarios described in Table 1.
Table 4. Ratio of Colombian potential blue H2 production to national low-emission H2 demand as projected in the National Hydrogen Roadmap. Scenarios described in Table 1.
TypeInstitutionScenario203020402050
ConservativeEquinorRivalry−0.83−0.340.31
OPECReference1.870.62n.a. *
ModerateBPBAU4.371.421.05
BNEFETS5.072.091.18
IEASTEPS6.451.53n.a. *
IRENAPES7.852.221.37
EquinorReform9.002.301.65
AmbitiousEquinorRebalance25.866.113.71
BPRT22.887.684.05
IEASDS30.677.43n.a. *
IRENATES30.747.114.16
IEANZ-IEA40.598.974.28
BPNZ-BP24.358.764.43
* n.a.: Data not available for this year and scenario.
Table
Table 5. Share of global H2 demand potentially supplied by Colombian blue H2. Scenarios described in Table 1.
Table 5. Share of global H2 demand potentially supplied by Colombian blue H2. Scenarios described in Table 1.
TypeInstitutionScenarioShare in 2050 (%)
ConservativeEquinorRivalry0.11
OPECReferencen.a. *
ModerateBPBAU0.37
BNEFETS0.41
IEASTEPSn.a. *
IRENAPES0.48
EquinorReform0.58
AmbitiousEquinorRebalance1.30
BPRT1.41
IEASDSn.a. *
IRENATES1.45
IEANZ-IEA1.49
BPNZ-BP1.55
* n.a.: Data not available for this year and scenario.
Table
Table 6. Investment cost estimation for blue H2 production from coal in Colombia under selected scenarios. Scenarios described in Table 1.
Table 6. Investment cost estimation for blue H2 production from coal in Colombia under selected scenarios. Scenarios described in Table 1.
TypeScenario 20302035204020452050
ConservativeReference-OPEC# Required Plants12
Cumulative Investment cost (M. USD2010)805.371610.73
ModerateBAU-BP# Required Plants2345
Cumulative Investment cost (M. USD2010)1610.732416.103221.464026.83
AmbitiousNet Zero-BP# Required Plants713161819
Cumulative Investment cost (M. USD2010)5637.5610,469.7512,885.8414,496.5715,301.94
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Domínguez, S.; Cifuentes, B.; Bustamante, F.; Cantillo, N.M.; Barraza-Botet, C.L.; Cobo, M. On the Potential of Blue Hydrogen Production in Colombia: A Fossil Resource-Based Assessment for Low-Emission Hydrogen. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811436

AMA Style

Domínguez S, Cifuentes B, Bustamante F, Cantillo NM, Barraza-Botet CL, Cobo M. On the Potential of Blue Hydrogen Production in Colombia: A Fossil Resource-Based Assessment for Low-Emission Hydrogen. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811436

Chicago/Turabian Style

Domínguez, Sara, Bernay Cifuentes, Felipe Bustamante, Nelly M. Cantillo, César L. Barraza-Botet, and Martha Cobo. 2022. "On the Potential of Blue Hydrogen Production in Colombia: A Fossil Resource-Based Assessment for Low-Emission Hydrogen" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811436

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop