Progress 07/01/23 to 02/29/24

Outputs
Target Audience:PCC Hydrogen's process for converting ethanol to hydrogen targets both supplier (ethanol producers) and customers (hydrogen offtake). We held meetings with the following companies that are critical to our supply chain. Feedstock Suppliers: Poet Ethanol Archer Daniels Ethanol Marquis Ethanol Glacial Lakes Valero Ethanol Hydrogen Customers: Cummins Engines Deutz Engines EV Powerpods Summit Materials (Cement manufacturing) Accelera Fuel Cells SiOx (Hydrogen gas consumer) Indiana Oxygen (gas supplier) AWG (gas supplier) Since carbon dioxide capture and sequestration are important to achieving a low/negative carbon intensity score required for tax incentives and renewable fuel standard pathways, we have met with service providers and state and federal agencies: ?Service Providers and Government Agencies Summit Carbon Solutions (CO2 pipeline and sequestration) Vault 44.01(CO2 pipeline and sequestration) National Renewable Energy Labs Argonne National Labs (GREET analysis) Battelle(CO2 sequestration) Air Quality Management Board (California) EcoEngineers (45V and RFS pathways) Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The global movement toward decarbonization has spawned opportunities for expanding our company's employee's understanding of the design and operations of ethanol production plants, transport of hydrogen, the development of hydrogen markets and the engineering associated with capture, transport and sequestration of carbon dioxide. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Presentations and Press Releases of Note during the Grant Period (7/1-23- 2/29/24): July 17 - issued press release about the intent to build and locate a demonstration unit in Cloverdale, IN July 28 - PCC Hydrogen presentation at the H2 Expo (Houston, TX) on Ethanol to Hydrogen August 4 - issued press release announcing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Cummins (engine), Terex (mixer truch chassis), Edge Materials (concrete manufacturer) and PCC H2 to develop and fuel hydrogen internal combustion engines in concrete mixer trucks August 8 - signed MOU with SiOx (Cloverdale, IN) to be their industrial gas sup[plier of green hydrogen as a substitute for natural gas in the reduction of hematite to magnetite. September 12 - presentation and update to POET Bioethanol management September 27 -presentation and update to ADM Bioethanol management October 15 -issued press release announcing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Summit Materials (Cement Manufacturing) and PCC Hydrogen to study replacement of fossil fuels with hydrogen in their clinker kilns. Octomer 17 -issued press release announcing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Accelera to jointly develop standalone fuel cell powered Level 3 battery charging units for BEVs. January 12 - introduction and presentation to GEVO management as discuss integrations with bioethanol producer and potential hydrogen offtake from PCC Hydrogen. February 14 - presentation and update to Summit Carbon Soultions (CO2 pipeline) We continue to post regular updates on LinkedIn What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? 1.Construction and operation of a small-scale adiabatic oxidative reformer reactor that validates the technicalfeasibility of the conversion of 95% ethanol to hydrogen. The constructed system uses a single flanged adiabatic reactor with an internal volume of 0.2 liters that can accommodatethe catalysts that are proposed for the pilot unit of 20 liter volume. With the addition of a water pump and ethanol pump, we can run a wide range of steam to ethanol and oxygen to ethanol feed compositions at pressures up to 20 bar. The control system for the unit allows for automated unattended operation for long periods. We ran a matrix of experiments examining the effect of steam to ethanol ratio (between 2.5 - 5.0) and oxygen to ethanol ratio (between 0.4 - 0.8) to determine the effect on (1) the internal adiabatic reactor temperature, (2)ethanol conversion, and product distribution, (percentages of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane) and (3) water conversion. The result of these experiments established the optimum feed composition to maximize ethanol conversion and hydrogen yield. Toward the end of Phase 1, we ran long term tests of the catalyst to determine the deactivation rate. After more than 500 hours of operation, we see no evidence of deactivation. There is a longer term minor shift in product composition with hydrogen slowly decreasing to an equilibrium value. This is accompanied by a slow increase in carbon monoxide and methane yield. The shifts reflect a need for a larger volume of secondary catalysts to convert the methane and water-gas shift the carbon monoxide.There is no evidence of any significant accumulation of carbon on the catalyst. 2. Identify and incorporate synergies for using biproduct oxygen offgas from an electrolyzer in the oxidative reforming reactor systems Alkaline electrolyzers run at 75 - 90C and pressures between 15 - 20 bar while PEM electrolyzers operate at a similar temperature range, but higher pressure 20 - 30 bar. Both types of electrolyzer deliver a humidified oxygen offgas at these temperatures and pressures. Modeling of our process delivers steam + oxygen to the adiabatic reactor at 600C at a ratio greater than 3 to 1 and a pressure of 17 bar. The pressure of oxygen coming off the electrolyzer is ideal for our process, though further preheating will be required to achieve the correct inlet temperature. The PCC Hydrogen process produces a low grade steam (208C, 17 bar) for export if a use is available. Integration with the electrolyzer offers an opportunity for the beneficial use of the steam for heating the electrolyzers. The purity of oxygen from an electrolyzer is very high - this is important for producingpure carbon dioxide offgas from our process. There is a small amount of hydrogen in the oxygen stream, but this has no impact on our process. Oxygen from the electrolyzer is humidified which is beneficial to our and helps mitigate some of the handling hazards associated with working with pure oxygen. Our lab reactor tests and process simulations have shown that oxygen flow is the primary control point for managing the reactor temperature in the ethanol to hydrogen process. Using the data from these sources, we have constructed a control feedbackalgorithm for maintaining constant temperature (+/- 5C) in the adiabatic reactor. This is a critical operating parameter and safety feedback loop for scale up of the system. 3. Incorporating reactor data, electrolyzer cost and system engineering costs, build an financial modelto assess the economics of the ethanol to hydrogen approach for the production of green hydrogen from ethanol. A single plant economic model was constructed using CAPEX and OPEX values developed from a previous study with our engineering firm, Plant Process Group (Houston, TX). The CAPEX numbers were determined using non-binding vendor quotes and standard engineering cost numbers for standard equipment.. To evaluate larger plant economics, the modeluses engineering exponential scale factors from 0.6 - 0.8,The lower value is used for equipmentthat changes in size volumetrically (reactor, heat exchangers, piping, etc.) and the larger value is used for scaling rotating and electrical equipment (motors, pumps, compressors, etc.). OPEX values assume electrical power requirement, manpower and indirect costs similar that for to a steam methane reforming plant (reference: DOE H2A SMR model) adjusted to the scale of the plant. We use a straight line 15 years capital depreciation schedule and cost escalation of 3%/year. The model also estimates the carbon intensity (CI) of our process using GREET analysis as modeled by the National Renewable Energy Lab adjusted for location and the CI of electricity used by the plant and oxygen source (electrolyzer or air separation unit). In most states, the ethanol to hydrogen process yields a CI less than the threshold for Article 45V (Inflation Reduction Act) and 90% of those are below the threshold for receiving the full $3.00 kg tax credits. Using an ethanol price of $1.55/gallon, 2 gallons ethanol/kg H2,and electricity price at $0.09/kWh, the cost of hydrogen production for a plant producing 10,000 kg H2/day is $.5.71/kg H2. This includes the capital, operating, and transport associated with carbon captureand sequestration. Notincluded arethe federal tax incentiveunder Article 45V of the Inflation Reduction Act of $3.00/kg. It does not include state tax incentives offered in CA, OR or CO. The current selling price of hydrogen is highly dependent on location ranging from $30/kg for a fuel cell station in California to $7/kg for industrial gas sales.in the Midwest. For comparison, Plug Power has publicly disclosed their current cost of production is $7.20/kg H2 using electricity at $0.04/kWh and a PEMelectrolyzer. Using grid electricity, they would not qualify for tax incentives. The model illustrates that distributed production ofhydrogen from ethanol can be economically viable in many locations without tax incentives. With the 45V credit, PCC Hydrogen's distributed generation process can compete almost anywhere with centralized large scale hydrogen production using electrolyzers. In addition to being far less capital intensive thanlarge scale plants, there is a substantial cost saving associated with transport of ethanol to the point of use compared to transport of liquid hydrogen to the customer locations. The scope of the model was recently expanded to allow us to develop our 5 year and 10 year plan. These results will appear in the Commercialization Plan of a Phase II proposal.

Publications

Progress 07/01/23 to 02/29/24

Outputs
Target Audience:During this reporting period, PCC Hydrogen held informationalmeetings with two ethanol producers and six potential hydrogen offtake customers. Ethanol producers arePOET and ADM. In both cases we shared non-confidential information about the benefits of ethanol as a feedstock, our proprietary technology, the USDA SBIR program and market development for hydrogen as a fuel. Offtake customers included Cummins Engine, Accelera, Terex, ABB, Continental Cement, Edge Concrete,and SiOX. MOUs for cooperation were issued with Cummins, Terex, SiOx and Edge Concrete. A MOU with Continental Cement is anticipated in October. PCC Hydrogen is talking to multiple potential investors interested in participating in a Series B fundraise . Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?For the next two months, we have a high school student intern with an interest in Chemical Engineering working in the lab. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We issued a press releases identifying the USDA SBIR support for our the development of the ETH process. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We are on schedule for completion of the Phase 1 goals by February 1. We continue our parametric studies and long term testing of the ETH catalyst. The economic model is evolving as we get better capital cost and operating cost data.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? 1. Construction and operation of a small-scale adiabatic oxidative reformer reactor that validates the technicalfeasibility of the conversion of 95% ethanol to hydrogen. PCC Hydrogen (PCCH2) constructed a 1" diameter X 12" adiabaticreactor, feed system and installed product analysis equipment for short term screening of catalysts and long term testing of selected catalysts for the oxidative reforming of 95% ethanol.In the three month reporting period, we evaluated three catalyst samples for ethanol conversion and product compsotion at three oxygen/ethanol ratios (O2/ethanol between 0.5 to 0.8), two water/ethanol ratios (4 to 1 and 5 to1) and three different space velocities (flow rates). Data acquired from these studies is used in process simulations by our engineering partner Plant Process Group. These simulations are important to the plant design, sizing of equipment and cost estimate for the process. 2. .Identify and incorporate synergies for using biproduct oxygen offgas from an electrolyzer in the oxidative reforming reactor systems. Based on laboratory reactor data and process simulations, the conversion process temperature is most easily and safely controlled by varying the oxygen to ethanol ratio while holding the water to ethanol constant. The preheat temperature of reactants is controlled by combustion of the process tailgas while varying the oxygen/tailgas/CO2 ratio in the burner. Blending oxygen and byproduct CO2 prior to the burner ensures oxygen concentrations are maintained at safe levels (<21% v/v). 3. Incorporating reactor data, electrolyzer cost and system engineering costs, build an financial modelto assess the economics of the ethanol to hydrogen approach for the production of green hydrogen from ethanol. There are two major components to the economic model underway: the electrolyzer model and the ethanol to hydrogen (ETH) model. Since the electrolyzer produces the oxygen used in the ETH process, it has to be sized to meet the ETH plant oxygen demand. This effectively defines the size of the electrolyzer and the amount of total hydrogen produced by the combined system. It makes the economic calculations for the cost of hydrogen more complex because their are more input variables (CAPEX for the electrolyzer and ETH plant and OPEX variable costs for electrolyzer and ETH plant), Ultimately the model will incorporate sensitivity analysis for the variable costs to identify the most impactful components.

Publications