A national laboratory of the U.S.

Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Technical Report
Potential for Hydrogen Production NREL/TP-640-41134
from Key Renewable Resources February 2007
in the United States
A. Milbrandt and M. Mann

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

 Technical Report
Potential for Hydrogen Production NREL/TP-640-41134
from Key Renewable Resources February 2007

in the United States

A. Milbrandt and M. Mann
Prepared under Task No. H278.2100

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle
Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
 NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Acknowledgments

The study was performed by analysts at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable
Energy Laboratory under contract number DE-AC36-99-GO10337. For their valuable
contributions, the authors would like to acknowledge Donna Heimiller and Johanna Levene
from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A special thanks to Fred Joseck from the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Program for his continued assistance, which made the
completion of this study possible.

iii
Executive Summary

This study was conducted to estimate the potential for producing hydrogen from key renewable
resources (onshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and biomass) by county in the United States and to
create maps that allow the reader to easily visualize the results. To accomplish this objective,
the authors analyzed renewable resource data both statistically and graphically utilizing a state-
of-the-art Geographic Information System (GIS), a computer-based information system used to
create and visualize geographic information.

Land-use and environmental exclusions were applied to represent the most viable resources
across the country. While wind, solar, and biomass are considered major renewable resources,
other renewable energy resources could also be used for hydrogen production, thus contributing
to hydrogen development locally and regionally. These additional resources include offshore
wind, concentrating solar power, geothermal, hydropower, photoelectrochemical, and
photobiological resources.

This study found that approximately 1 billion metric tons of hydrogen could be produced
annually from wind, solar, and biomass resources in the United States. The greatest potential for
producing hydrogen from these key renewable resources is in the Great Plains region. In
addition, this research suggests that renewable hydrogen has the potential to displace gasoline
consumption in most states if and when a number of technical and scientific barriers can be
overcome.

iv
Contents
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables......................................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Wind Resources........................................................ 2
Data Information .................................................................................................................... 2
Exclusions .............................................................................................................................. 3
Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................... 4
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Solar Resources ....................................................... 7
Data Information .................................................................................................................... 7
Exclusions .............................................................................................................................. 7
Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................... 8
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Biomass Resources ............................................... 10
Data Information .................................................................................................................. 10
Exclusions ............................................................................................................................ 10
Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................... 11
Hydrogen Production Potential from Combined Renewable Resources: Wind, Solar, and
Biomass.......................................................................................................................................... 13
Renewable Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel ............................................................................... 18
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 22
References............................................................................................................................................ 23

v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Available windy lands in the United States ............................................................. 2
Figure 2. Environmental and land-use exclusions for U.S. wind resources ............................ 3
Figure 3. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, by county............................. 5
Figure 4. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, per person............................ 6
Figure 5. U.S. solar resource: flat-plate collector tilted at latitude......................................... 7
Figure 6. Environmental and land-use exclusions for solar resources .................................... 8
Figure 7. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, by county............................. 9
Figure 8. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, per person ............................ 9
Figure 9. Available biomass resources in the United States.................................................. 10
Figure 10. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, by county...................... 11
Figure 11. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, per person..................... 12
Figure 12. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, by county .................. 13
Figure 13. Hydrogen production potential from dominant renewable resources .................... 14
Figure 14. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, per person ................. 14
Figure 15. Population of the United States, by county............................................................ 15
Figure 16. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources .................................... 17
Figure 17. U.S. gasoline consumption by county, 2002.......................................................... 18
Figure 18. Renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption,
by county................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 19. Renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption,
by state ................................................................................................................... 20

List of Tables
Table 1. Wind Resource Capacity Factor Used in This Study............................................... 4
Table 2. Hydrogen Production Potential from Renewable Resources, by State .................. 16
Table 3. Renewable Hydrogen Production Potential Relative to Gasoline Consumption
and Population........................................................................................................ 21

vi
Introduction
Hydrogen is the simplest element and most plentiful gas in the universe. Today, most hydrogen
is produced from fossil fuels, but to most effectively impact the emissions and energy import
balances associated with transportation fuels, hydrogen must be produced from domestically
available renewable resources such as wind, solar, and biomass.

There are many options for producing hydrogen from renewable resources. This study
considers hydrogen production using wind and solar electrolysis as well as gasification and
steam methane reforming methods for converting biomass to hydrogen.

The electrolysis process involves the use of wind- or solar-generated electricity. In this study, a
wind turbine is assumed to be used to produce electricity from the wind, and photovoltaic
(solar electric) systems are assumed to be used to produce electricity from solar resources.
This renewably produced electricity is then used in an electrolyzer, a device that uses
electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Biomass gasification is the conversion, by partial oxidation at high temperature, of a

carbonaceous feedstock (agricultural and woody residues) into a gaseous fuel which is then
reformed to produce hydrogen. In the steam methane reforming process, high-temperature
steam and a nickel catalyst are used to produce hydrogen from a methane source (such as
landfill gas, animal manure, and wastewater sludge).

The objective of this study was to estimate the potential for producing hydrogen from key
renewable resources (onshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and biomass) by county for the United
States, and to create maps for easy visualization of the results. To accomplish this objective,
renewable resource data are analyzed both statistically and graphically utilizing a state-of-the-
art Geographic Information System (GIS), a computer-based information system used to create,
manipulate, analyze, and visualize geographic information.

Land-use and environmental exclusions were applied to this study to represent the most viable
resources across the country. While wind, solar, and biomass are considered major renewable
resources, other renewable energy resources could also be used for hydrogen production, thus
contributing to hydrogen development locally and regionally. Future analyses could include
studying the use of offshore wind, concentrating solar power, geothermal, hydropower,
photoelectrochemical, and photobiological resources for hydrogen production.

1
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Wind Resources
Data Information
This analysis used updated wind resource data where available at the time the analysis was
completed for California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia and Wyoming. These data were then combined with low-resolution 1987 U.S.
wind resource data. The grid cell resolution of these data varies from 200 m2–1 km2 for the
high-resolution data and is 25 km2 for the low-resolution 1987 wind data (Figure 1).

The study considers areas with class 3 annual average wind speeds and greater, at 50 m above
ground. These areas are suitable for most utility-scale wind turbine applications, whereas class
2 areas are marginal for utility-scale applications (some may be suitable for rural applications).
Class 1 areas are generally not suitable for wind turbine installations. The degree of certainty
with which the wind power class can be specified depends on three factors: the abundance and
quality of wind data, the complexity of the terrain, and the geographical variability of the
resource. 1

Figure 1. Available windy lands in the United States

1
Wind data and maps, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html,
March 2005.
2
Exclusions
The following topographic, land use and environmental exclusions were applied to the
analysis of the potential for hydrogen production from wind in this study:

ƒ Completely excluded were areas with slopes greater than 20% for the high-resolution data.
These areas maybe too steep for siting wind turbines.
ƒ Environmental and land-use exclusions (Figure 2) were defined to account for lands
where wind energy development would be prohibited or severely restricted.
- 100% excluded: All National Park Service areas; Fish and Wildlife Service lands;
all federal lands with a special designation (parks, wilderness, wilderness and
study areas, wildlife refuges, wildlife areas, recreational areas, battlefields,
monuments, conservation areas, recreational areas, and wild and scenic rivers);
conservation areas; water; wetlands; urban areas; and airports/airfields.
- 50% excluded: The remaining Forest Service and Department of Defense lands
and non-ridge-crest forests.
ƒ Entirely excluded: The 3-km area surrounding 100% environmental and land-use
exclusions, except for water bodies.

Figure 2. Environmental and land-use exclusions for U.S. wind resources

Additional analysis was performed for the high- and low-resolution data sets:

ƒ Terrain (low-resolution data set only): The low-resolution 1987 wind resource data have
assigned to each 25 km2 grid cell a terrain exposure factor that represents the type of wind
3
 climate for exposed features in that grid cell. The terrain factors are 5% exposed for ridge-
crest wind, 35% or 65% for hilly areas, and 90% for generally flat terrain.
ƒ Minimum density (high-resolution data set only): Minimum density criteria of 5 km2 per
100 km2 of class 3 or better wind resources were applied to the high-resolution data. The
purpose of this density analysis is to eliminate small, isolated wind resource areas with a
low likelihood of development.

Analysis Methodology
After the exclusions were applied to the wind resource information, the low- and high-
resolution data were merged together to create the final wind resource file used to summarize
the data by county (Figure 1). Installed nameplate capacity was subsequently calculated,
assuming 5 MW/km2 conversion, and applied to the class 3 or better lands. Table 1 below
shows the capacity factor 2 used for this study.

Table 1. Wind Resource Capacity Factor Used in This Study

Class Year Capacity Factor

3 2000 0.2
4 2000 0.251
5 2000 0.3225
6 2000 0.394
7 2000 0.394
Source: Power Technologies Energy Data Book 3

An average hydrogen production rate of 58.8 kWh/kg hydrogen was applied to the final wind
dataset, and the total kilograms of hydrogen per county per year were calculated. This hydrogen
production rate assumes a 66.3% efficient electrolysis system (higher heating value basis).
Typical energy requirements for electrolysis systems range from 53–70 kWh/kg (Ivy 2004), and
larger systems have higher efficiencies. The average of the efficiencies of today’s electrolyzers
from Proton, Avalence, Teledyne, Stuart, and Norsk-Hydro is 58.8 kWh/kg.

Figure 3 illustrates the potential to produce hydrogen from wind in the United States,
normalized by county area. Normalization is dividing one numeric value by another to
minimize differences in values based on the size of areas. In this study, normalizing the
hydrogen from renewable resources (wind, solar or biomass) by county areas, yields hydrogen
from these resources per unit area (km2). This allows transforming the data’s measurements so
that they can be compared regardless of the size of the counties. For example, a map of the raw
hydrogen potential from all renewable resources by county would reveal that many large
counties in the West have more resources than most of the counties east of the Mississippi
River. A normalized map (Figure 12) reveals that, once the size of the county is factored out,
some small counties in the East have similar values as some large counties west of the
Mississippi River.

2
Capacity factor is defined as the wind turbine's actual energy output divided by the rated maximum turbine
output for the year. When the wind turbine's capacity factor at a given average annual wind speed is known, it
allows a reliable calculation of the expected energy output per year. A reasonable capacity factor is 0.25 to 0.30.
A very good capacity factor is 0.40.
3
Power Technologies Energy Data Book, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO:
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/, March 2005
4
 Figure 3. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, by county

Figure 4 shows the amount of hydrogen that could be produced from wind per person in each
county. Less populated counties in the Great Plains combined with very good wind resources
define the high hydrogen potential from wind resources per person in this region.

5
Figure 4. Hydrogen production potential from wind resources, per person

6
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Solar Resources
Data Information
This analysis uses solar resources available for nontracking flat-plate collectors oriented
toward the south at latitude tilt. Estimates of annual average daily total global radiation falling
on these collectors are modeled using inputs derived from satellite and surface cloud cover
observations as well as other key meteorological variables. The cloud cover observations are
on a 40-km2 resolution grid representing the period 1985–1991. Values range from about 2.2
kWh/m2/day in portions of Alaska to about 7.0 kWh/m2/day in portions of the Southwestern
United States (Figure 5). 4

Exclusions
These environmental and land use exclusions were applied to the solar resources (Figure 6):

ƒ 100% excluded: All National Park Service areas; Fish and Wildlife Service lands; all
federal lands with a specific designation (parks, wilderness, wilderness and study areas,
wildlife refuges, wildlife areas, recreational areas, battlefields, monuments, conservation
areas, recreational areas, and wild and scenic rivers), conservation areas, water,
wetlands, and airports/airfields.
ƒ Also 100% excluded: A 3-km area surrounding environmental and land-use exclusions,
except for water bodies.

Figure 5. U.S. solar resource: flat-plate collector tilted at latitude

4
Solar data and maps, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html,
March 2006
7
 Figure 6. Environmental and land-use exclusions for solar resources

Analysis Methodology
It was assumed that any given 40-km by 40-km cell will have no more than 10% of its land area
dedicated to photovoltaic development, and only 30% of this area will be covered with solar
panels. The photovoltaic solar panels are assumed to have a solar-to-electricity conversion
efficiency of 10%. As with the analysis of the hydrogen production potential via wind
electrolysis, the electricity requirement of the electrolysis system was assumed to be 58.8
kWh/kg hydrogen, or approximately 66.3% on a higher heating value basis.

Figure 7 depicts the hydrogen production potential from solar-driven electrolysis normalized by
county; the Southwest is shown to have the highest potential. Similar to the wind analysis
results, counties with very good solar resources and low population count (such as the Rocky
Mountain-Great Plains region) clearly show high potential for producing hydrogen from solar
resources, per person (Figure 8).

8
Figure 7. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, by county

Figure 8. Hydrogen production potential from solar resources, per person

9
Potential for Hydrogen Production from U.S. Biomass
Resources
Data Information
The assessment of the hydrogen production potential from biomass is based on a recently
published study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of biomass resource
availability in the United States by county. It includes the following feedstock categories:
agricultural residues (crop residues and animal manure); wood residues (forest residues,
primary and secondary mill residues, urban wood waste); municipal discards (methane
emissions from landfills and domestic wastewater treatment); and dedicated energy crops
(switchgrass on Conservation Reserve Program lands). Each feedstock category was processed
using the appropriate methodology, as described in the milestone report (Milbrandt 2005), to
estimate the biomass potential by county depicted in Figure 9. 5

Figure 9. Available biomass resources in the United States

Exclusions
Because of the wide range of feedstock types, biomass is available from many sources and has a
broad geographic distribution. Therefore, it is difficult to define land use and environmental
exclusions that would be applicable to all categories. Additional study is needed to improve the
spatial distribution of biomass resources to define excluded areas appropriately.

5
Biomass data and maps, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/biomass.html, March 2006
10
Analysis Methodology
Different conversion rates of biomass to hydrogen were used, depending on the feedstock. For
crops and woody residues, a relationship formula of 13.8 kg bone dry weight (BDW)/kg
hydrogen was applied. This rate is based on the conversion of lignocellulosic plant material to
hydrogen via gasification analyzed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Analysis
(H2A) Group. 6 For gaseous feedstock (methane emissions from manure management, landfills,
and domestic wastewater treatment), a conversion of 2.34 kg methane/kg hydrogen was used.
This value represents 85% conversion efficiency from the stoichiometric maximum possible
from steam reforming of methane. Figure 10 illustrates the results of this analysis. Counties in
the Midwest, along the Mississippi River, and in the Southeast show the highest potential for
hydrogen production from biomass as a result of the large quantities of crop, forest, and primary
mill residues. High amounts of secondary mill and urban wood residues, as well as methane
emission from landfills and domestic wastewater treatment, contribute to the high potential for
hydrogen production from biomass in the New York metropolitan area. The counties in the
Midwest and Great Plains with their low population counts and good biomass resources
contribute to the high amount of hydrogen from biomass per person (Figure 11).

Figure 10. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, by county

6
The Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) Project: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html
11
Figure 11. Hydrogen production potential from biomass resources, per person

12
Hydrogen Production Potential from Combined Renewable
Resources: Wind, Solar, and Biomass
The results from the previous three analyses were combined to illustrate the total amount of
hydrogen that could be produced from renewable resources by county (Figure 12). The large
quantities of wind, solar, and biomass resources in the Great Plains are the reason for the high
potential for hydrogen production from renewable resources in this region. Figure 13 gives
further details on whether the highest amount of hydrogen in each county comes from wind,
solar, or biomass—in other words, which one is the dominant renewable resource.

Wind is the leading resource for hydrogen production in many counties in the central states
and solar is a dominant resource in the rest of the country; the highest values are in the
Southwest. Hydrogen from biomass has higher values than hydrogen from wind and solar in
only a few counties—New York and Miami metropolitan areas—because of activities related
to high concentrations of people, such as the generation of waste. The results by state are
presented in Table 2 and Figure 16. The amount of hydrogen from combined renewable
resources per person is shown in Figure 14, and Figure 15 illustrates the geographic
distribution of the population. The Rocky Mountain-Great Plains region shows the highest
potential quantity of renewable hydrogen per person because of its low population count and
large amount of renewable resources.

Figure 12. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, by county

13
Figure 13. Hydrogen production potential from dominant renewable resources

Figure 14. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources, per person
14
Figure 15. Population of the United States, by county

15
 Table 2. Hydrogen Production Potential from Renewable Resources, by State

Hydrogen from Biomass Hydrogen from Biomass Hydrogen from Solar Hydrogen from Solar Hydrogen from Wind Hydrogen from Wind Total Hydrogen
State Total Hydrogen per km2
per km2 (thousand kg) (million kg) per km2 (thousand kg) (million kg) per km2 (thousand kg) (million kg) (million kg)
(thousand kg)
Alabama 293 588 6,003 12,014 0 0 6,296 12,602
Alaska 5 73 901 51,887 19 868 926 52,828
Arizona 7 142 1,413 27,433 28 727 1,448 28,302
Arkansas 394 729 6,618 12,102 145 308 7,156 13,139
California 314 1,165 4,536 29,926 215 2,309 5,066 33,401
Colorado 93 289 5,422 24,036 2,244 10,669 7,759 34,994
Connecticut 37 64 621 1,004 1 1 659 1,069
Delaware 36 55 228 399 1 2 264 457
District of Columbia 24 4 27 5 0 0 51 9
Florida 254 557 5,475 11,319 0 0 5,728 11,876
Georgia 712 675 14,070 13,475 31 25 14,812 14,175
Hawaii 30 65 323 1,365 34 17 387 1,447
Idaho 73 225 3,605 16,462 207 1,160 3,886 17,847
Illinois 1,590 2,408 8,544 12,281 6,763 10,414 16,897 25,103
Indiana 1,086 1,148 7,489 7,600 22 24 8,596 8,772
Iowa 1,782 2,624 8,626 12,691 8,745 12,996 19,153 28,311
Kansas 582 1,112 10,256 20,962 11,642 24,738 22,481 46,812
Kentucky 605 570 10,200 8,914 11 11 10,816 9,496
Louisiana 476 749 5,231 9,827 0 0 5,707 10,576
Maine 51 235 1,143 6,271 52 355 1,246 6,860
Maryland 258 219 1,823 1,935 32 42 2,113 2,196
Massachusetts 131 150 932 1,499 172 66 1,234 1,714
Michigan 449 759 5,988 10,855 857 1,328 7,295 12,942
Minnesota 975 1,902 6,918 16,800 8,055 16,605 15,948 35,307
Mississippi 586 891 7,356 11,048 0 0 7,942 11,939
Missouri 962 1,411 10,314 16,162 722 1,199 11,998 18,772
Montana 29 187 4,527 30,357 4,535 30,603 9,091 61,147
Nebraska 716 1,120 8,785 18,925 9,211 19,551 18,712 39,595
Nevada 13 52 1,541 24,684 51 796 1,605 25,532
New Hampshire 50 101 710 1,686 39 142 799 1,929
New Jersey 654 293 1,518 1,424 2 2 2,174 1,719
New Mexico 14 71 3,438 33,237 1,192 10,248 4,644 43,557
New York 1,364 682 4,469 9,368 431 938 6,263 10,988
North Carolina 581 779 8,379 10,786 47 47 9,007 11,612
North Dakota 387 1,249 4,513 15,505 7,364 25,340 12,264 42,094
Ohio 786 934 6,776 8,257 51 44 7,613 9,236
Oklahoma 130 311 7,351 17,425 6,762 16,256 14,243 33,993
Oregon 60 212 2,560 17,997 260 1,624 2,880 19,833
Pennsylvania 407 625 5,102 8,926 68 132 5,577 9,683
Rhode Island 36 21 336 198 5 1 376 220
South Carolina 209 355 4,051 7,013 5 8 4,265 7,376
South Dakota 360 756 6,006 18,368 10,689 32,756 17,055 51,880
Tennessee 395 492 7,957 9,141 41 42 8,392 9,675
Texas 507 1,201 24,935 68,564 10,938 26,869 36,381 96,633
Utah 21 65 2,377 17,723 75 635 2,473 18,423
Vermont 29 52 971 1,771 94 177 1,094 1,999
Virginia 993 430 10,383 8,250 80 81 11,455 8,761
Washington 94 378 2,514 11,393 296 1,260 2,903 13,030
West Virginia 145 144 4,239 4,811 94 150 4,478 5,105
Wisconsin 502 866 5,478 11,080 717 1,351 6,697 13,297
Wyoming 3 24 2,051 22,089 1,890 20,442 3,944 42,555
U.S. Total 20,292 30,209 265,028 717,249 94,933 273,361 380,253 1,020,819

16
 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado

Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii

Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana

17
Nebraska
Nevada

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Hydrogen Potential from Renewable Resources

New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

South Carolina
Figure 16. Hydrogen production potential from renewable resources

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
U.S. Total
Wind
Solar
Biomas
Renewable Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel
A study was conducted to estimate the amount of gasoline consumption that could potentially
be displaced by renewable hydrogen in each county. Gasoline consumption data for 2002 were
obtained from the Federal Highway Administration 7 to generate the map of Figure 17. The
results of this analysis show that the most populated counties cannot produce enough hydrogen
from renewable resources to completely displace their high gasoline consumption. However,
they could, in most cases, rely on hydrogen from surrounding counties (Figure 18). Renewable
hydrogen in these counties (urban areas) could displace less than 50% of their gasoline
consumption.

In contrast, counties in the Rocky Mountain-Great Plains region, because of their relatively low
gasoline consumption and high amounts of renewable resources, have the potential to displace
more than 40–50 times their current gasoline demand. At the state level, only Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lack the
resources to completely displace gasoline with renewably generated hydrogen (Figure 19).
Table 3 presents the accompanying values.

Figure 17. U.S. gasoline consumption by county, 2002

7
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2002,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs02/
18
Figure 18. Renewable hydrogen production potential
relative to gasoline consumption, by county

19
 Million

Al

0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
ab
am
Al a
as
Ar k a
i
Ar z on
ka a
Ca nsa
l if s
C o or n
Co l or ia
nn a d
Di ec o
st
ric De tic u
t o l aw t
fC a
olu re
m
Fl bia
or
G id a
eo
r
H gia
aw
a
Id i i
ah
Il li o
n
In ois
di
an
Io a
w
Ka a
n
Ke sa
n s
Lo tuck
ui y
si
an
M a
M M ai n
as ar e
sa y la
c h nd
us
M e tts
i ch
M ig
i n an
M nes
i ss ot

20
is s a
M i pp
is i
s
M ou r
on i
Hydrogen from Renew able Resources (kg)

N e t an
br a
Ne as
w Ne ka
Ha v a
d
N e mp a
w s hi
N J e re
ew rs
M ey
N ex
No ew ic o
r th Y
o
No Ca rk
r th r oli
Renewable Hydrogen Potential Relative to Gasoline Consumption by State

D a na
ko
ta
O Oh
kl a io
ho
2002 Gasoline Consumption (gallons)

Pe O r ma
n n eg
o
Rh sy lv n
So ode ania
u t Is
h l
So Ca and
u t rol
h in
T e Da a
nn ko t
es a
se
Te e
Figure 19. Renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption, by state

xa
s
U
V e ta h
rm
V on
W i rg t
a in
W shi n i a
es g
t V to n
W i r gi
i s ni a
co
W ns
y o in
m
in
g
 Table 3. Renewable Hydrogen Production Potential
Relative to Gasoline Consumption and Population

State Hydrogen from Renewable Resources 2002 Gasoline Consumption 2000 Population
(million kg) (million gallons) (thousand people)
Alabama 12,602 2,624 4,447
Alaska 52,828 260 627
Arizona 28,302 2,605 5,131
Arkansas 13,139 1,467 2,673
California 33,401 15,699 33,872
Colorado 34,994 2,106 4,301
Connecticut 1,069 1,590 3,406
Delaware 457 426 784
District of Columbia 9 167 572
Florida 11,876 7,999 15,982
Georgia 14,175 4,961 8,186
Hawaii 1,447 446 1,212
Idaho 17,847 668 1,294
Illinois 25,103 5,212 12,419
Indiana 8,772 3,188 6,080
Iowa 28,311 1,617 2,926
Kansas 46,812 1,230 2,688
Kentucky 9,496 2,158 4,042
Louisiana 10,576 2,349 4,469
Maine 6,860 720 1,275
Maryland 2,196 2,568 5,296
Massachusetts 1,714 2,851 6,349
Michigan 12,942 5,170 9,938
Minnesota 35,307 2,727 4,919
Mississippi 11,939 1,632 2,845
Missouri 18,772 3,164 5,595
Montana 61,147 509 902
Nebraska 39,595 889 1,711
Nevada 25,532 1,004 1,998
New Hampshire 1,929 715 1,236
New Jersey 1,719 4,095 8,414
New Mexico 43,557 952 1,819
New York 10,988 5,808 18,976
North Carolina 11,612 4,315 8,049
North Dakota 42,094 366 642
Ohio 9,236 5,295 11,353
Oklahoma 33,993 1,796 3,451
Oregon 19,833 1,572 3,421
Pennsylvania 9,683 5,241 12,281
Rhode Island 220 404 1,048
South Carolina 7,376 2,346 4,012
South Dakota 51,880 456 755
Tennessee 9,675 3,090 5,689
Texas 96,633 11,410 20,852
Utah 18,423 1,038 2,233
Vermont 1,999 346 609
Virginia 8,761 3,888 7,079
Washington 13,030 2,760 5,894
West Virginia 5,105 820 1,808
Wisconsin 13,297 2,591 5,364
Wyoming 42,555 354 494
U.S. Total 1,020,819 137,664 281,422

21
Conclusions
About 1 billion metric tons of hydrogen could be produced from wind, solar, and biomass
resources annually in the United States. The Great Plains emerge as the area with the highest
potential for producing hydrogen from these key renewable resources. Each county in this
region could produce more than 30 million kg of hydrogen per year (greater than 150,000
kg/km2). Moreover, because they have fewer environmental and land-use exclusions and low
populations, most counties in the Great Plains have the highest hydrogen production potential
per capita, more than 100,000 kg of hydrogen per person. Results are shown in terms of
kilograms of hydrogen, because 1 kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same energy as
1 gallon of gasoline, both on a lower heating value basis.

Finally, this research suggests that renewable hydrogen has the potential to displace gasoline
consumption in most states. However, the infrastructure needed to enable the widespread use
of hydrogen as a transportation fuel is not available, resources are located outside demand
areas, and the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources face many technical
and economic hurdles. All these barriers must be overcome if hydrogen is to fuel a sustainable
transportation economy.

22
References
Elliott, D.L., Holliday, C.G., Barchet, W.R., Foote, H.P., Sandusky, W.F. 1987. Wind Energy
Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH100093-4. Produced by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

George, R., Maxwell, E. 1999. “High-Resolution Maps of Solar Collector Performance Using
A Climatological Solar Radiation Model.” Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference,
American Solar Energy Society, Portland, ME.

Heimiller, D.M., Haymes, S.R. 2001. Geographic Information Systems in Support of Wind
Energy Activities at NREL. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) Project, December 2006:

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html

Ivy, J. April 2004. Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production. National Renewable

Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

Levene, J., Mann, M., Margolis, R., Milbrandt, A. 2005. Analysis of Hydrogen Production
from Renewable Electricity Sources. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

Maxwell, E., George, R., Wilcox, S. “A Climatological Solar Radiation Model.” Proceedings
of the 1998 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Albuquerque, NM.

Milbrandt, A., 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability
in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

Milne, T., Elam, C., Evans, R. 2002. Hydrogen from Biomass – State of the Art and Research
Challenges. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2006. Solar data and maps:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html, Golden, CO.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2006. Wind data and maps:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html, Golden, CO.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2006. Biomass data and maps:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/biomass.html, Golden, CO.

Power Technologies Energy Data Book, December 2005:

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/.

Short, W., Blair, N., Heimiller, D. 2005. Modeling the Market Potential of Hydrogen from
Wind and Competing Sources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

23
24
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
February 2007 Technical report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Potential for Hydrogen Production from Key Renewable Resources DE-AC36-99-GO10337
in the United States
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

A. Milbrandt and M. Mann NREL/SR-640-41134
5e. TASK NUMBER
H278.2100
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

National Renewable Energy Laboratory REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Blvd. NREL/SR-640-41134
Golden, CO 80401-3393
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
NREL/SR-
12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
NREL Technical Monitor:
14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)
This study was conducted to estimate the potential for hydrogen production from key renewable resources (onshore
wind, solar photovoltaic, and biomass) by county in the United States and to create maps that allow the reader to
easily visualize the results. To accomplish this objective, the authors analyzed renewable resource data both
statistically and graphically utilizing a state-of-the-art Geographic Information System (GIS), a computer-based
information system used to create and visualize geographic information.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
hydrogen; potential; renewable resources; United States; resource map; GIS; National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; NREL
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

F1146-E(12/2004)