Laying the foundations for excellence:  Lessons from building a groundbreaking manufacturing facility

Three years ago we began our journey to build a manufacturing facility in Herning, Denmark, that would embody Topsoe’s commitment to making energy transition. We set out to create an environment that would allow us to leverage our over 80 years of experience by exploring, developing and delivering the innovative technologies we need to truly drive forward the energy transition.

Our vision for Herning was bold, ambitious and unprecedented. Alongside our construction partners, we set out to build a fully-automated, cutting-edge manufacturing site capable of producing Solid Oxide Electrolyzer Cells (SOEC) at a scale never yet seen before.

As we complete construction of the Herning site, we spoke to some key people and partners involved in the project - including Kim Veng, Senior Director of Business Development at CREADIS, Morten Johansen, CEO of Aqvila, Jørn From, Director at CC Construction and Jonas Skovborg, Head of SOEC Plant Development at Topsoe - to reflect on our achievements so far and perhaps most importantly, identify some of the key lessons we’ve learned along the way.

Lesson 1: Don’t underestimate the unknown

We knew the project would be complex from the outset. Historically, SOEC electrolyzer production has taken place at a kilowatt-level scale, yet we were embarking on building a facility that would be fully automated and produce 500MW of electrolyzer capacity – with the capacity to expand manufacturing capacity significantly.

This wasn’t just a step up; it was a quantum leap in manufacturing capabilities and a bold move towards decarbonizing energy-intensive industries. It was therefore critical for the team to not underestimate the complexities that would be faced along the journey, and that they were prepared to change course and had adequate contingency plans in place.

"The biggest challenge was building a facility that normally produces by the kilowatt globally and making it operate as a high speed, 500 megawatt factory that is fully automated. It was like walking across a bridge at the same time we were building it”. Kim Veng, Senior Director of Business Development - CREADIS

“My best recommendation is not to underestimate the unknown. Going from a small-scale test production to a large-scale commercial production in a tight timescale naturally encompasses risk and uncertainties, which require contingencies”. Morten Johansen, CEO of Aqvila

Lesson 2: Embracing a flexible and agile approach to timelines

The construction phase required a dynamic approach to problem-solving and innovation. The SOEC electrolyzer, a cornerstone of the facility, was still under testing and development, so we needed to adopt a highly flexible and agile approach to working with our key partners to accommodate for any potential change or adapted plan. It also became clear that we would need to be flexible on timing and allow more time to go to market than originally anticipated.

“In a project of this scale, there’s going to be a lot of challenges – especially in our case where the production equipment was still being built. This is a very new technology, so we had to be flexible and agile, since some of the production methods and design requirements were potentially subject to change when we began construction”. Jonas Skovborg, Head of SOEC Plant Development at Topsoe

”We discovered it took a bit longer than we had anticipated, so I’d encourage future project developers of this kind to be flexible and allow more to time to go to market than you want to have – and then give yourself six months more! A complex project like this inevitably changes along the way, so you can never hit the original timeline perfectly.” Kim Veng, Senior Director of Business Development – CREADIS

Lesson 3: Factoring in design and production adjustments

The challenges at Herning ranged from the theoretical to the physical, and one of the big hurdles we encountered was progressing construction whilst also allowing for design adjustments. This required us to adopt a parallel engineering approach, which factored in the potential for tweaks without holding up progress or delaying on-site work.

Furthermore, from a project timeline perspective, we had to anticipate and accept that there would be times where we would need to re-do certain aspects of construction to meet the evolving needs or shifting design requirements, which would inevitably push back timelines, delay certain aspects and create fresh challenges.

“The layout and space required was still subject to change. We had to do some best estimates, and make sure there was enough space for utilization and then take it from there. A lot of parallel engineering went on”. Kim Veng, Senior Director of Business Development – CREADIS

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was the fact we were developing the equipment for the production as we were building it. This meant there were a lot of changes through the process and some aspects we had to go back and redo – which of course created challenges for the craftsmen on site”. Jørn From, Director at CC Construction.

“With the experience we have gained throughout the project so far, in hindsight I would recommend increasing the site footprint by 10-20% and the height of the building by 1-2 meters. This would help with challenges with limitation of space as design and production needs were altered”. Morten Johansen, CEO of Aqvila

Lesson 4: Delivering as a partnership

It was clear from the outset that if we were to overcome the challenges we encountered along the way and ensure the project kept on course and progressed at pace, we would need ensure we had a very close and collaborative relationship with all our key partners – from construction teams to plant development to R&D. We all had to work together as one tightly knit team and create a spirit of true partnership.

Thanks to these close partnerships we were able to stay on track with our projected timelines, despite running into additional off-stream clarifications in the R&D process.

“For a project like this, you need a flexible and collaborative partner. Topsoe has been very flexible to work with – the team has been very supportive, listened when we wanted them to, commented when they should, and pushed back when they should. That’s what makes a good partnership”. Kim Veng, Senior Director of Business Development – CREADIS

Throughout construction, it became essential to embed efficiency across all aspects of the development to meet deadlines, make decisions and keep construction on track.

To streamline collaboration, 25 members of the Topsoe team moved into the same office with CREADIS, this significantly helped to improve decision making and ensure any issues were ironed out quickly. This meant that when the project faced potential challenges they ended up simply being a bump in the road, rather than a major delay or even a roadblock.

”We have a very good dialogue with the contractors. and got things done in a formalized way so that every time we changed something, we made sure to document it and make an impact analysis before saying yes to moving along”. Jonas Skovborg, Head of SOEC Plant Development at Topsoe

Key takeaways: How to bring these learnings into future projects

The Herning project has yielded invaluable insights that can be applied for future projects of similar magnitude and complexity. Looking back at the project, there are clear learnings that other project managers, contractors and developers can draw from, especially in the context of building a manufacturing facility of an unprecedented scale for a nascent technology.

1. Don’t underestimate the unknown
2. Anticipate change and give yourself more time
3. Factor in flexibility for design and production changes
4. Ensure very close ties and links with your construction partners

The construction of our Herning manufacturing facility is more than a story of building a factory; it's about laying the groundwork for a sustainable future.

As we work to achieve our Net Zero goals, we aim to spread the lessons learned in this project with the European Union Innovation Fund — about ambition, technical innovation, collaboration, and agility – to not only act as guiding principles for future Topsoe facilities, but to also help project developers across Europe achieve their own aspirations.

As the world increasingly recognizes the critical role of electrolyzer capacity in achieving climate goals, the Herning facility stands as a beacon of progress and a blueprint for success in the green hydrogen economy.

About the SOEC factory in Herning, Denmark

• Capacity: Initial manufacturing capacity of 500 megawatt of SOEC electrolyzers. Option to expand further.
• Operational: 2024
• Employment: The factory will employ 150 people once fully operational. The facility will also create numerous indirect job opportunities through its supply chain, building and maintenance to infrastructure, logistics and more.
• Size: 23,000 square meters
• Location: Haldor Topsøes Vej 2, 7400 Herning, Denmark.

About SOEC
Topsoe’s SOEC electrolysis technology is a modular design that operates at significantly higher temperatures compared to other electrolyzer technologies – a tested and proven process that enables industrial-scale production of green hydrogen using renewable electricity.

When coupled with waste heat from downstream production (from processes producing ammonia, methanol, or steel production), Topsoe’s SOEC technology will produce 30% more hydrogen per total power input when compared to conventional electrolyzer technologies. It further allows for the lowest levelized cost of hydrogen per megawatt volume.

About the Innovation Fund
The Innovation Fund is the EU fund for climate policy, with a focus on energy and industry. It aims to bring to the market solutions to decarbonize European industry and support its transition to climate neutrality while fostering its competitiveness. The Innovation Fund is financed through the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETC).

Disclaimer
Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or CINEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.