Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-4.
2
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
No. NP-T-4.2
Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

Basic Hydrogen Production
Principles
Using Nuclear Energy
Objectives
Guides
Technical
Reports
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA
ISBN 978–92–0–135110–4
ISSN 1995–7807
IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS
STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES
Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is
authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the
peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle,
radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues
that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and
Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports.
The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale
and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations
to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation.
Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to
achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more
detailed, information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series.
The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows:
NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive
waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are
available in English on the IAEA’s Internet site:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html
For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna
International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria.
All users of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are invited to
inform the IAEA of experience in their use for the purpose of ensuring that
they continue to meet user needs. Information may be provided via the IAEA
Internet site, by post, at the address given above, or by email to
[email protected].
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION USING
NUCLEAR ENERGY
The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency:
AFGHANISTAN GUATEMALA PANAMA

ALBANIA HAITI PAPUA NEW GUINEA
ALGERIA HOLY SEE PARAGUAY
ANGOLA HONDURAS PERU
ARGENTINA HUNGARY PHILIPPINES
ARMENIA ICELAND
POLAND
AUSTRALIA INDIA
PORTUGAL
AUSTRIA INDONESIA
AZERBAIJAN IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR
BAHRAIN IRAQ REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
BANGLADESH IRELAND ROMANIA
BELARUS ISRAEL RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BELGIUM ITALY RWANDA
BELIZE JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA
BENIN JAPAN SENEGAL
BOLIVIA JORDAN SERBIA
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA KAZAKHSTAN
SEYCHELLES
BOTSWANA KENYA
SIERRA LEONE
BRAZIL KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
BULGARIA KUWAIT SINGAPORE
BURKINA FASO KYRGYZSTAN SLOVAKIA
BURUNDI LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC SLOVENIA
CAMBODIA REPUBLIC SOUTH AFRICA
CAMEROON LATVIA SPAIN
CANADA LEBANON SRI LANKA
CENTRAL AFRICAN LESOTHO SUDAN
REPUBLIC LIBERIA SWAZILAND
CHAD LIBYA
SWEDEN
CHILE LIECHTENSTEIN
SWITZERLAND
CHINA LITHUANIA
COLOMBIA LUXEMBOURG SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
CONGO MADAGASCAR TAJIKISTAN
COSTA RICA MALAWI THAILAND
CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAYSIA THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
CROATIA MALI REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
CUBA MALTA TOGO
CYPRUS MARSHALL ISLANDS TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
CZECH REPUBLIC MAURITANIA TUNISIA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITIUS
TURKEY
OF THE CONGO MEXICO
UGANDA
DENMARK MONACO
DOMINICA MONGOLIA UKRAINE
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONTENEGRO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
ECUADOR MOROCCO UNITED KINGDOM OF
EGYPT MOZAMBIQUE GREAT BRITAIN AND
EL SALVADOR MYANMAR NORTHERN IRELAND
ERITREA NAMIBIA UNITED REPUBLIC
ESTONIA NEPAL OF TANZANIA
ETHIOPIA NETHERLANDS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FIJI NEW ZEALAND
URUGUAY
FINLAND NICARAGUA
UZBEKISTAN
FRANCE NIGER
GABON NIGERIA VENEZUELA
GEORGIA NORWAY VIETNAM
GERMANY OMAN YEMEN
GHANA PAKISTAN ZAMBIA
GREECE PALAU ZIMBABWE
The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the
IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The
Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the
contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’.
IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES No. NP-T-4.2
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION USING

NUCLEAR ENERGY

VIENNA, 2013
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of
the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised in
1972 (Paris). The copyright has since been extended by the World Intellectual
Property Organization (Geneva) to include electronic and virtual intellectual
property. Permission to use whole or parts of texts contained in IAEA
publications in printed or electronic form must be obtained and is usually subject
to royalty agreements. Proposals for non-commercial reproductions and
translations are welcomed and considered on a case-by-case basis. Enquiries
should be addressed to the IAEA Publishing Section at:
Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section

International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna International Centre
PO Box 100
1400 Vienna, Austria
fax: +43 1 2600 29302
tel.: +43 1 2600 22417
email: [email protected]
http://www.iaea.org/books
© IAEA, 2013
Printed by the IAEA in Austria
March 2013
STI/PUB/1577
IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Hydrogen production using nuclear energy. — Vienna : International Atomic

Energy Agency, 2013.
p. ; 29 cm. — (IAEA nuclear energy series, ISSN 1995–7807 ;
no. NP-T-4.2)
STI/PUB/1577
ISBN 978–92–0–135110–4
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Nuclear energy — Industrial applications. 2. Hydrogen as fuel —

Research. I. International Atomic Energy Agency. II. Series.
IAEAL 13–00792
FOREWORD
One of the IAEA’s statutory objectives is to “seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy
to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.” One way this objective is achieved is through the publication
of a range of technical series. Two of these are the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series and the IAEA Safety Standards
Series.
According to Article III.A.6 of the IAEA Statute, the safety standards establish “standards of safety for
protection of health and minimization of danger to life and property”. The safety standards include the Safety
Fundamentals, Safety Requirements and Safety Guides. These standards are written primarily in a regulatory style,
and are binding on the IAEA for its own programmes. The principal users are the regulatory bodies in Member
States and other national authorities.
The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises reports designed to encourage and assist R&D on, and
application of, nuclear energy for peaceful uses. This includes practical examples to be used by owners and
operators of utilities in Member States, implementing organizations, academia, and government officials, among
others. This information is presented in guides, reports on technology status and advances, and best practices for
peaceful uses of nuclear energy based on inputs from international experts. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
complements the IAEA Safety Standards Series.
Nuclear generated hydrogen has important potential advantages over other sources that will be considered for
a growing hydrogen share in a future world energy economy. Still, there are technical uncertainties in nuclear
hydrogen processes that need to be addressed through a vigorous research and development effort. Safety issues as
well as hydrogen storage and distribution are important areas of research to be undertaken to support a successful
hydrogen economy in the future.
The hydrogen economy is gaining higher visibility and stronger political support in several parts of the world.
In recent years, the scope of the IAEA’s programme has been widened to include other more promising applications
such as nuclear hydrogen production and higher temperature process heat applications. The OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency, Euratom and the Generation IV International Forum have also shown interest in the non-electric
applications of nuclear power based on future generation advanced and innovative nuclear reactors.
This report was developed under an IAEA project with the objective of providing updated, balanced and
objective information on the current status of hydrogen production processes using nuclear energy. It documents the
state of the art of the development of hydrogen as an energy carrier in many Member States, as well as its
corresponding production through the use of nuclear power. The report includes an introduction to the technology
of nuclear process heat reactors as a means of producing hydrogen or other upgraded fuels, with a focus on high
temperature reactor technology to achieve simultaneous generation of electricity and high temperature process heat
and steam. Special emphasis is placed on the safety aspects of nuclear hydrogen production systems.
This publication was compiled by K. Verfondern (Germany) based on evaluations of officially issued reports
and published papers and presentations from major international conferences. The draft report was reviewed by the
experts named at the end of the report. The IAEA officer responsible for this publication was I. Khamis of the
Division of Nuclear Power.
EDITORIAL NOTE
This report has been edited by the editorial staff of the IAEA to the extent considered necessary for the reader’s assistance. It
does not address questions of responsibility, legal or otherwise, for acts or omissions on the part of any person.
Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor
its Member States assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from its use.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the
legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to
infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1. World energy situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.2. Hydrogen as an energy carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3. Nuclear energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4. Drivers for nuclear assisted hydrogen production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5. Scope of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES ON THE PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN

USING NUCLEAR ENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1. Energy situation in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2. China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1. Energy situation in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2.1. High temperature reactor development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3. European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1. Energy situation in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2. EU research policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.3. Euratom activities on nuclear process heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.3.1. Nuclear technology networks and platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.3.2. The RAPHAEL integrated project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.3.3. The EUROPAIRS project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.4. European Union activities on hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.4.1. European hydrogen road map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.4.2. The HYTHEC STREP and HycycleS project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.4.3. The INNOHYP project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.1. Energy situation in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.5. India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5.1. Energy situation in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6.1. Energy situation in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6.2. Hydrogen R&D activities in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.2.1. The Sunshine, Moonlight, New Sunshine and WE-NET projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.2.2. The Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell demonstration project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.2.3. The stationary fuel cell demonstration project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.3. Nuclear hydrogen production concepts in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.3.1. Hydrogen production with high temperature gas cooled reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.3.2. Hydrogen production with sodium cooled fast reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.6.3.3. Hydrogen production with water cooled reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.7. Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.7.1. Energy situation in the Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.7.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in the Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7.2.1. Nuclear hydrogen development and demonstration project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen key technologies development project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.8. Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.8.1. Energy situation in the Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.8.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in the Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.8.2.1. Nuclear steam–methane reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.8.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen from high temperature steam electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.9. South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.9.1. Energy situation in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.9.2. R&D activities on nuclear process heat in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.10. United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.10.1. Energy situation in the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.10.2. Nuclear hydrogen production R&D programme in the United States of America . . . . . . . 40
2.10.2.1. The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.10.2.2. Nuclear gas cooled reactor concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.10.2.3. The liquid salt cooled advanced high temperature reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.10.2.4. The STAR-H2 reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3. METHODS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2. Hydrogen from fossil fuel processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.1. Steam/CO2 reforming of natural gas and light hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.1.1. Steam reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.1.2. CO2 reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.2. Partial oxidation and autothermal reforming of hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.2.1. Partial oxidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.2.2. Autothermal reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.3. Reforming of other hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2.3.1. Methanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2.3.2. Ethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2.3.3. Dimethyl ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2.3.4. Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2.4. Gasification of coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2.4.1. Steam–coal gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2.4.2. Hydrogasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.4.3. Clean coal technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.5. Gasification of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3. Hydrogen from water splitting by electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.1. Low temperature electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.2. High temperature electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.3.2.1. High temperature electrolysis of steam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.3.2.2. High temperature co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.4. Hydrogen from water splitting by thermochemical cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.4.2. Sulphur–iodine cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.4.2.1. Reactions and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.4.2.2. Bunsen section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.4.2.3. HI decomposition section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.4.2.4. H2SO4 decomposition section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.4.3. The Westinghouse (hybrid sulphur or HyS) cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.4.4. Sulphur–bromine hybrid cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.4.5. Calcium–bromine (UT-3) cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.4.6. Copper–chlorine cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.4.7. Iron–chlorine cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.4.8. Copper sulphate hybrid cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.4.9. Vanadium–chlorine cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.4.10. Very high temperature cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.4.11. Heavy element halide thermochemical cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.4.12. General aspects of thermochemical cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.4.12.1. Limits of number of reactions and separation energy cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.4.12.2. Heat recuperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.4.12.3. Chemical elements and compounds involved in thermochemical cycles . . . . . . 88
3.5. Other hydrogen production options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.5.1. Thermal cracking, plasma decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.5.2. Photochemical and photobiological water splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.5.3. Hydrogen from industrial off-gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.5.4. Gas emissions from geothermal fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.5.5. Radiolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4. NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.1. Nuclear assisted steam reforming of natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.1.1. Concept and feasibility of a nuclear steam reformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.1.2. Germany’s approach: Helium heated steam reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.1.2.1. Tubular type nuclear steam reformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.1.2.2. Methanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.1.2.3. EVA/ADAM energy transportation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.1.3. Japan’s approach: Nuclear steam reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.1.3.1. Concept of SMR for the HTTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.1.3.2. Design of steam reformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.1.3.3. Experiments in mock-up test facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.1.3.4. Nuclear steam reforming at lower temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.1.4. The Russian Federation’s approach: Nuclear steam reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.1.5. China’s approach: Nuclear steam reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.2. Nuclear-assisted coal gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.1. Nuclear steam gasification of coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.2.2. Nuclear hydrogasification of coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.3. Thermochemical conversion of biomass with HTGR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.4. Low temperature electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.5. High temperature electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5.1. Experimental activities in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5.2. Experimental activities in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5.3. Experimental activities in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5.4. Experimental activities in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.5.5. Experimental activities in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.5.6. Experimental activities in the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.5.6.1. Electrolysis of steam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.5.6.2. Co-electrolysis of CO2 and steam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.6. Thermochemical cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.6.1. Experimental activities in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.6.2. Experimental activities in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.6.3. Experimental activities in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.6.4. Experimental activities in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.6.5. Experimental activities in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.6.6. Experimental activities in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.6.7. Experimental activities in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.6.7.1. S–I cycle with high temperature reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.6.7.2. HyS cycle with fast breeder reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.6.8. Experimental activities in the Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.6.9. Experimental activities in the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.6.9.1. Sulphur–iodine cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.6.9.2. The hybrid sulphur cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5. NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1. Requirements of a nuclear hydrogen production system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5.1.1. New generation nuclear reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.1.1. Safety and reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.1.2. Proliferation resistance and physical protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.1.3. Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.1.4. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.2. The Generation IV International Forum initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.1.2.1. Gas cooled fast reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.1.2.2. Lead cooled fast reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.1.2.3. Molten salt reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.1.2.4. Sodium cooled fast reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.1.2.5. Supercritical water cooled reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.1.2.6. Very high temperature gas reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.1.2.7. Generation IV reactor summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.1.3. The INPRO initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.2. Requirements of nuclear energy in industrial applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.3. Process heat high temperature reactor design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.3.1. Experience with HTGRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.3.2. General design of a process heat HTGR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
5.3.3. Fuel and fuel cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.3.4. Hot gas duct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
5.3.5. Helium coolant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5.3.6. Examples of process heat HTGR concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5.3.6.1. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
5.3.6.2. China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
5.3.6.3. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.3.6.4. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.3.6.5. India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5.3.6.6. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
5.3.6.7. Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
5.3.6.8. Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
5.3.6.9. South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.3.6.10. United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
6. ISSUES OF COUPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6.1. Concept of a nuclear heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

6.2. Types of intermediate heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
6.2.1. Shell and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
6.2.2. Plate heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
6.2.2.1. Printed circuit heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.2.2.2. Plate fin heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.2.2.3. Hybrid plate heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.2.3. Spiral heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.2.4. Direct contact exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.3. International R&D on IHX concepts for HTGRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.3.1. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.3.2. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.3.3. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.3.3.1. Testing of the Japanese IHX in the HTTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.3.3.2. IHX concept for the GTHTR300C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.3.4. Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
6.3.5. United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
6.3.5.1. Conceptual design of IHX for the US H2-MHR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
6.3.5.2. Conceptual design of IHX for the US AHTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.4. Process heat exchanger concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.5. Coolants for intermediate circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.5.1. Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.5.2. Gaseous coolants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
6.5.3. Liquid/molten salt coolants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
6.5.3.1. Molten salts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
6.5.3.2. Liquid salts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
6.5.4. Liquid metal coolants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
6.6. Materials for high temperature heat exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
6.6.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
6.6.2. Damage mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
6.6.3. Materials for intermediate heat exchangers and nuclear steam reformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
6.6.3.1. Candidate materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
6.6.3.2. International research efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
6.6.4. Materials for process heat exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
6.6.4.1. Materials research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
6.6.4.2. International research efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
7. SAFETY OF NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
7.1. Integration of nuclear–chemical plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

7.2. Basic considerations for a hydrogen system safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
7.2.1. Safe design of the nuclear reactor for process heat applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
7.2.2. Identification of hazard sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
7.2.3. Hazards in electrolysers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
7.2.4. Hazards in thermochemical cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
7.2.5. Hazardous materials in the chemical plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
7.2.5.1. Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
7.2.5.2. Carbon monoxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.2.5.3. Carbon dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.2.5.4. Sulphur dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.2.5.5. Sulphuric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.2.5.6. Hydroiodic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.3. Tritium contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.3.1. Tritium sources in the primary circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.3.2. Tritium removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
7.3.2.1. Radioactive decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
7.3.2.2. Helium purification system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
7.3.2.3. Adsorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
7.3.2.4. Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
7.3.3. Tritium/hydrogen permeation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
7.3.3.1. Transport mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
7.3.3.2. Growth of protective oxide layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
7.3.4. Tritium studies in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.3.4.1. Permeation of hydrogen through metal walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.3.4.2. Permeation of tritium through metal walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.3.4.3. Experience with tritium in AVR and THTR-300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.3.4.4. Modelling of tritium behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.3.5. Tritium studies in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
7.3.5.1. Permeation of tritium through metal walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
7.3.5.2. Experience from HTTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
7.3.6. Tritium studies in the Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
7.3.7. Tritium studies in the Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
7.3.8. Tritium studies in the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
7.3.8.1. Experience with tritium in Peach Bottom and Fort St. Vrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
7.3.8.2. Permeation of hydrogen and tritium through metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
7.4. Explosion hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
7.4.1. Phenomena and modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
7.4.1.1. Combustion modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
7.4.1.2. Blast pressure waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
7.4.1.3. Interaction of blast wave with structure and structural response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
7.4.1.4. Heat radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
7.4.2. Release of flammable gases into the nuclear containment building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
7.4.2.1. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
7.4.2.2. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7.4.3. Release of flammable gases outside the containment building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
7.4.3.1. Definition of safety distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
7.4.3.2. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
7.4.3.3. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
7.4.3.4. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
7.4.3.5. Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
7.4.3.6. USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
7.4.4. Hazard from liquid hydrogen storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
7.5. Interaction between nuclear and chemical system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
7.5.1. Analysis of HTTR with steam–methane reforming system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
7.5.2. Analysis of HTTR with sulphur–iodine process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
7.5.3. Analysis of GTHTR300C with sulphur–iodine cycle system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
7.6. Release of toxic materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
7.7. International regulations for handling hazardous materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
7.7.1. IAEA Safety Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
7.7.2. European directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
7.7.2.1. Seveso I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
7.7.2.2. Seveso II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
7.7.2.3. Explosion protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
8. USES OF HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
8.1. Current uses of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

8.1.1. Non-energetic and indirect energetic use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
8.1.2. Direct use as a fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
8.2. Uses of hydrogen as a raw material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
8.2.1. Petrochemical industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
8.2.2. Ammonia synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
8.2.3. Direct reduction of iron ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
8.2.4. Coal liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
8.2.4.1. Direct process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
8.2.4.2. Indirect process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
8.2.4.3. International CTL industrial applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
8.2.5. Methanol synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
8.2.6. Alternative transportation fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
8.2.6.1. Substitute natural gas synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
8.2.6.2. Synthetic fuel production with atmospheric CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
8.2.6.3. Hythane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
8.3. Prospects for use of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
8.3.1. Near term demand for tertiary oil recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
8.3.1.1. Shale-oil recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
8.3.1.2. Tar sands oil recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
8.3.2. Long term demand for fuel cells for power and heat supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
8.3.2.1. Fuel cell technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
8.3.2.2. Hydrogen vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
8.3.2.3. Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
8.3.2.4. Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
8.3.3. Stationary hydrogen applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
8.3.3.1. Large scale industrial applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
8.3.3.2. Small scale combustion installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.3.3.3. Peak electricity production using O2–H2 steam cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
8.4. Examples for concepts of a large scale hydrogen economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
8.4.1. Euro–Quebec Hydro–Hydrogen Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
8.4.2. WE-NET project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
8.5. Transition scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
9. HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
9.1. Liquefaction of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

9.1.1. Energy requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
9.1.2. Liquefaction process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
9.1.2.1. Linde–Hampson and Claude processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
9.1.2.2. Magnetic refrigeration process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
9.1.3. Liquefaction efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
9.1.4. Present hydrogen liquefaction capacity in the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
9.2. Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
9.2.1. Gaseous storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
9.2.1.1. Pressure vessel storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
9.2.1.2. Underground storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
9.2.2. Liquid storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
9.2.2.1. Principal tank design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
9.2.2.2. Stationary LH2 tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
9.2.3. Solid storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
9.3. Transportation/distribution of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
9.3.1. Pipeline transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
9.3.2. Road transportation of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
9.3.3. Maritime transportation of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
9.3.4. Chemical energy transmission systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
10. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
10.1. Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

10.2. Hydricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
10.3. Electrolytic hydrogen production and grid conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
10.4. Large scale versus small scale and centralized versus decentralized hydrogen production . . . . . . 326
10.5. Market introduction of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
10.6. Economic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
10.6.1. Economic evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
10.6.2. Cost estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
10.6.3. Cost estimate modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
10.6.3.1. GIF G4Econs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
10.6.3.2. IAEA HEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
10.7. Role of nuclear hydrogen in the energy market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
APPENDIX: PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
LIST OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
SUMMARY
Energy has been universally recognized as one of the most important inputs for economic growth and human
development. Economic growth implies the availability of cost effective and environmentally benign energy
sources. A future energy economy will need to replace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) for climate
protection. The worldwide interest in hydrogen as a clean fuel has led to comprehensive research, development and
demonstration activities whose main objective is the transition from a fossil based to a “CO2 lean” energy structure.
In fact, a major hydrogen economy already exists and is expected to grow at a rate of 4–10%/a. Current global
hydrogen production is estimated at around 7 × 1018 J/a, corresponding to ~52.6 million t/a (higher heating value
(HHV)) or ~630 billion Nm3/a (as of 2006), which is about 2% of the world’s total energy consumption. Significant
amounts of hydrogen are produced in the fertilizer industry for the manufacture of ammonia. In the near future,
hydrogen will play a large and growing role in the refining of petroleum products where the reserves of high quality
light sweet crude oils are declining and the available crude stocks are becoming progressively heavier. These heavier
crudes as well as the increasing share of ‘dirty fuels’ (heavy oils, coal, oil shale, tar sands) require larger amounts of
both process heat and hydrogen to produce cleaner burning end point fuels with a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio.
A secondary market to develop in the medium term is that for hydrogen as a means of storing electrical
energy, for example, the steadily increasing amounts of electricity produced by intermittent renewable energy
sources. Hydrogen can be used to store this ‘intermittent energy’ during periods of weak consumption and to restore
them during times of peak power demand.
The projection of the European Commission High Level Group shown in Fig. 1 offers a realistic scenario of
the hydrogen market and the application areas.
The figure clearly shows that the largest near term markets will be the petrochemical industries, requiring
massive amounts of H2 for the conversion of heavy oils, tar sands and other low grade hydrocarbons, as well as the
fertilizer and steel industries. Anything to liquid (XTL) processes for fuel production for the transportation sector
have been gaining attention in recent years. However, the generation of Fischer–Tropsch liquid fuels from synthesis
gas (H2 + CO) — for example, derived from coal — produces significant CO2 emissions. These could be reduced
with carbon capture and storage (CCS) at the plant, with the net GHG emission rate being approximately the same
as that for the crude oil products displaced.
Furthermore, it can be seen that the decrease of hydrogen consumption in these areas after 2025 coincides
with the market introduction of new hydrogen applications such as in the transportation sector or as a distributed
FIG. 1. Hydrogen production roadmap [1].
1
electrical energy source through the use of fuel cells. Liquid biofuel production needs external energy sources (heat
and/or H2). Hydrogen can be an energy storage system, an energy carrier or feedstock to liquid fuels production.
Hydrogen is omnipresent but not readily available: energy is required to extract it from chemical compounds.
If hydrogen is to play a major role in a future energy economy, the whole spectrum of primary energies (fossil,
nuclear, renewable) for its production must be considered. Different hydrogen production methods are given in
Table 1, which lists the benefits and barriers of the different technologies.
The first step toward a hydrogen economy will always be based on existing technologies and established
processes. In the near and medium terms, fossil fuels are expected to remain the principal source of hydrogen.
Natural gas, the ‘cleanest’ fuel among the hydrocarbons, is expected to have advantages as a starting point for the
initial hydrogen market (in the transition phase) as a source of hydrogen in terms of environmental impact (highest
H:C ratio), availability and economy. In the long term, hydrogen production technologies will be strongly focused
on CO2 neutral or CO2 free methods.
Hydrogen could provide a link between the electricity and liquid fuels markets. It can be generated from
excess electricity produced by means of technologies with low operating costs and stored until needed. Hydrogen
produced from off-peak electricity can be used for premium markets where the unique characteristics of hydrogen
add value [2]. Peak electricity production from stored hydrogen can be provided today from gas turbines, which
may be replaced in the future with high temperature fuel cell plants and/or liquid hydrogen (LH2)–LOX steam
generator cycles.
TABLE 1. BENEFITS AND BARRIERS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES [1]
Technology Benefits Barriers
Steam reforming: Well understood at large scale; Small scale units not commercial;
Splitting of hydrocarbons with heat and commercially available with proven CO2 emissions;
steam. technology; H2 contains some impurities;
widely available feedstock; primary fuel may be used directly;
highly economic at present; subject to natural gas price fluctuations;
CO2 sequestration at large scale; in distributed form not yet verified.
ideal for centralized production.
Gasification: Well understood at large scale; Less hydrogen-rich than methane;

Splitting of heavy hydrocarbons and can be used for solids and liquids; lower efficiency;
biomass into hydrogen and other gases abundance of (coal) resources. High levels of CO2 emissions from coal;
for reforming. feedstock requires pretreatment;
H2 requires cleaning prior to use;
biomass gasification still at pilot plant scale;
low energy density of biomass.
Electrolysis: Well understood;  Electricity price strongly impacts cost of H2;

Splitting of water using electricity. commercially available with proven efficiency of whole chain is low;
technology; need for development of durable HTSE cells;
high purity hydrogen; competition with direct use of renewable
modular; electricity.
convenient for renewable electricity;
ideal for distributed production.
Thermochemical cycles: Potentially massive production at low cost; Not commercial;
Splitting of water using inexpensive no GHG emissions; aggressive chemistry;
high temperature heat from nuclear or high efficiency (~50% expected); much R&D work still needed on process and
solar. International collaboration on R&D and materials technology;
deployment. high capital cost;
high temperature nuclear reactor deployment
needed.
Biological production: Potentially large resource; Slow hydrogen production rates;

Algae and bacteria produce hydrogen no feedstock required. large area needed;
directly under certain conditions. low efficiency;
appropriate organisms not yet found;
still at R&D level.
2
Similar to electricity, hydrogen decouples the energy demand from the energy resources. It can enhance
energy supply security in that individual countries can choose their own sources of energy. But hydrogen is not
always an ideal vector to carry energy from its place of production to the end user, because a fairly high amount of
energy is lost during handling, storage and transportation (Table 2). If the hydrogen is packaged in liquid synthetic
fossil fuels, the overall energy consumption can be considerably lower [3].
Centralized energy production in large quantities favours the use of nuclear plants, which should operate as
the baseload power source, whereas conventional plants would cover peak load. A principal advantage of a nuclear
based energy supply is eliminating supply uncertainty and the sensitivity of energy prices to volatility of natural gas
and other fuel prices. Nuclear, with virtually no emissions of airborne pollutants, appears to be an ideal option for
large scale centralized H2 production (Fig. 2).
TABLE 2. ENERGY AVAILABILITY [3]
Hydrogen stages of application Energy cost in % of HHV
Production: electrolysis 43
on-site production 65
Packaging: compression 20 MPa 8

compression 80 MPa 13
liquefaction 40
chemical hydrides 60
Distribution: road, 20 MPa, 100 km 6

road, liquid, 100 km 1
pipeline, 1000 km 10
Storage: liquid, 10 d 5
Transfer: 20 MPa to 20 MPa 1
FIG. 2. Routes for nuclear assisted hydrogen production [4].
3
The future for hydrogen and the potential for nuclear generated H2 will be driven by major factors such as:
— Production rates of oil and natural gas;

— Societal and governmental decisions on global climate change gases and CO2 emissions;
— Need for savings of fossil resources for later use in environmentally friendly applications;
— Energy security from extended fuel reserves and independence of foreign oil uncertainties;
— The economics of large scale hydrogen production and transmission.
It is strongly recommended to extend the scope of future industrial activities on the market introduction of
nuclear reactors within the spectrum of petrochemical processes. Nuclear cogeneration of heat and power (NCHP)
can be considered, as a near term step, for a variety of existing industrial processes, which need electricity and large
quantities of steam at different pressure and temperature (up to ~600°C) levels. High temperature gas cooled
reactors (HTGRs) are the nuclear energy option to displace the use of natural gas and petroleum for industrial
process heat and to reduce dependence on imported petroleum when integrated with coal conversion processes such
as coal-to-liquid (CTL) to produce synthetic fuels. With the achievability of coolant outlet temperatures up to
950°C, HTGRs could expand the application range beyond electricity and steam generation to high temperature
process heat, which is not directly open to other reactor types. The main incentive for the R&D work on the very
high temperature reactor (VHTR) is its potential for industrial process heat applications, up to 850°C with the
existing technology and higher temperatures in the longer term.
The introduction of a nuclear heat/steam source into an existing refinery consisting of many units promises
enormous CO2 reductions and resource savings, but requires on the other hand tremendous efforts. Heating furnaces
must be adjusted or even replaced. The existing, highly optimized energy and mass flow structures must be
reorganized. An important first step must be the successful operation of a chemical process plant coupled with a
nuclear heat source and demonstration of the potential benefits. While this first step of using high temperature
nuclear heat in refineries and chemical plants would primarily replace the existing use of natural gas as a heat
source, next-step applications of high temperature nuclear heat could produce commodity chemicals such as
hydrogen.
The main challenge at present is to include the production of hydrogen and combined heat and power
applications by means of nuclear energy into the general energy strategies and to establish transition technologies
from present industrial practice or emerging new resources (“dirty fuels”) in order to stabilize the cost for energy.
The question of which energy source is to be utilized will ultimately be decided by the individual country in line
with its domestic resources and methods on how to guarantee energy security. Cogeneration HTGR systems
produce electricity, high temperature process heat for hydrogen production or other applications, and low
temperature process steam if coupled with a desalination system. Reactor power is shared for electricity generation
and process heat supply (Fig. 3).
If nuclear power as a substitute for traditional fossil fuels is to be realized in the future, further work is needed
to enable nuclear technology to accommodate the various industrial needs. There is, however, no standard solution;
each potential industrial customer needs a specific solution. Apart from demonstrating the economics of production
and end use, requirements need to be met in terms of the consumer’s perception of availability and convenience,
and last but not least, social acceptance both by the population and by the industry itself. A nuclear reactor operated
in the heat and power cogeneration mode must be located close to the consumer and thus must have a convincing
safety concept for the combined nuclear/chemical production plant. Both parts will be separated from each other by
employing an intermediate heat exchanger as an interface component between the primary helium circuit of the
reactor and the heat consuming system, e.g. a steam reformer/steam generator facility. The intermediate circuit
serves the safety related purpose of preventing the primary coolant to flow through the conventionally designed
heat-consuming plant and, on the other hand, allowing the gas produced to enter the nuclear reactor building. At the
other end of the intermediate circuit, the thermal energy of the coolant is transferred to the hydrogen production
plant through a process heat exchanger. For economic reasons, all necessary heat exchanger plants on the process
side should be built, maintained and repaired according to conventional, not nuclear, specifications.
Although this assessment is mainly devoted to hydrogen production methods, it must be noted that, due to the
complex interaction of the different chemical processes optimized to a very high degree, the potential supply of
energy by nuclear power may not be dedicated to a specific process, but rather would cover the overall cogeneration
of process steam, process heat and electricity. Any substitution of process heat in large scale industrial productions
4
FIG. 3. HTGR cascade energy plant for efficient cogeneration of electricity, hydrogen, and fresh water.
by nuclear energy results in a complicated restructuring of the on-site energy supply system. But it promises
significant CO2 reductions and savings of fossil resources at competitive costs, which is the dominant challenge for
future energy systems. This will include the generation of process steam and sensible heat for a variety of
applications beyond dedicated hydrogen production.
A near term option of nuclear hydrogen production which is readily available is conventional low temperature
electrolysis using inexpensive off-peak electricity from existing nuclear power plants. This, however, is available
only if the share of nuclear in power production is large. But as fossil fuel prices increase, the use of nuclear outside
baseload becomes more attractive. The main disadvantage is the very low efficiency from today’s reactors, making
it unattractive for H2 production, although it is a proven and clean technology. Optimization and adaptation of the
electrolysis process in combination with HTGR may improve the relatively low thermal efficiency of the
electrolysis path. To demonstrate the order of magnitude: a 500 000 kg/d H2 generation plant capable of serving
around 1 million fuel cell vehicles, if based on nuclear power and low-temperature electrolysis, would require 500
of the largest electrolyser units available today consuming a total of about 1 GW of electric power.
Nuclear steam reforming is another important near term option for both the industrial and the transportation
sectors, since development of the principal technologies and their demonstration in pilot-scale plants was done in
Germany and Japan. It promises a saving potential of some 35% of methane feedstock but is surely not a sustainable
method. In connection with the steam reformer development, the closed-cycle EVA/ADAM chemical energy
transportation system based on H2 was successfully demonstrated.
The competitiveness of nuclear steam reforming will benefit from the increasing cost of natural gas. It is
compatible with a realistic evolution of actual industrial practice and could fully meet the process heat
5
requirements. The economics of this process will be much more favourable compared with electrolysis as long as
natural gas is available at a reasonable cost. Although the process is not free of CO2 emissions, it is justified within
a medium (for natural gas importing countries) to long term transition period toward a less polluting approach with
inherently higher cost.
Coal is a viable option for making hydrogen in large, centralized plants [5]. Nuclear coal gasification for
conversion of coal into substitute natural gas (SNG) for direct use, synthesis gas for the production of methanol or
other hydrocarbons, heating gas for residential heating purposes, reduction gas, e.g. for the direct reduction of iron
ore, or hydrogen as a raw material and universal energy carrier can be used economically under certain conditions
depending mainly on the location, the cost of coal, and the product and its price compared with the competitors,
natural gas and crude oil. A wide variety of coal gasification processes has been developed and demonstrated.
Allothermal steam–coal gasification simulating the nuclear heat source has been examined in numerous
experiments up to pilot scale.
A CO2 emission free option is high temperature electrolysis, which reduces the electricity needs up to about
30% and could make use of high temperature heat and steam from an HTGR. This needs a much more complex
economic evaluation as compared to dedicated hydrogen and dedicated electricity producing plants and opens room
for significant cost reductions. Research and development needs for HTSE will surely capitalize on the solid oxide
(high temperature) fuel cell development, having some technology elements in common. In addition, coupling of
the HTSE process to CTL is of advantage because it provides both hydrogen and oxygen at elevated temperatures,
where the O2 can be directed to a gasifier and the H2 could be used to reduce the excess CO2 produced via the
reverse shift reaction.
Coupling to HTGRs is feasible and possesses optimization potential toward allothermal high temperature
electrolysis and more efficient combined cycle HTGR designs. The use of nuclear generated electricity in off-peak
periods from existing LWRs may become economically competitive, but the stranded capital costs of the
electrolysers during periods of peak electricity prices may be prohibitive.
With respect to thermochemical water splitting cycles, the processes which are receiving the most attention
are the sulphur–iodine (S–I), the Westinghouse hybrid and the calcium-bromine (UT-3) cycles. Efficiencies of the
S–I process are in the range of 33–36% if operated at 950°C which is judged as a feasible upper temperature limit
for the reactor and related heat transfer devices. Under the same conditions, the Brayton cycle may reach ~50% and
could be combined with electrolysers having a conversion ratio greater than 90%. Thus, this process will have an
overall efficiency of greater than 45% depending on the electrolyser performance.
Process optimization and material qualification still require considerable R&D efforts with regard to the
potential of higher efficiencies and more compact chemical reactors to be optimized for commercial use. The S–I
process will benefit from the medium term progress in HTGR and materials technology as well as from non-nuclear
activities on thermochemical water splitting (e.g. by solar energy) thus remaining a long term option for
commercial applications and a typical Generation IV R&D objective.
Both thermochemical and HTSE processes introduce new considerations into the design, licensing and
operation of combined nuclear–chemical plants that must also be considered in the technology selection process.
Many supporting systems will be common to both the nuclear and hydrogen plants, while the high temperature heat
exchanger and the materials associated with thermal transfer will be specific to each production process. The final
decision on which water splitting cycle is the one with lowest cost and lowest technical risk will be dependent on
efficiency and complexity, but also on factors like excessive temperature or pressure requirements, and highly toxic
or corrosive materials. Technical and economic feasibility, however, remains to be demonstrated, since these H2
production processes have not yet been tested beyond the pilot plant scale. The study of other heat transfer media
like molten salts or liquid metals may help to adopt the chemical processes better to HTGR applications. For the
evaluation of efficiencies, both thermochemical processes and electricity generation in combination with
electrolysis are finally governed by the Carnot law, meaning that operational temperatures of the process and the
heat source should be as high as technically feasible. This makes HTGRs more appropriate than other reactor types,
because heat requirements ideally fit with heat available from the reactor.
The most significant product that an HTGR can deliver in the near term is steam to be used in various
industries. Steam pressure is much higher than what is normally produced by LWRs and thus gives a significant
advantage to HTGRs. Decoupling of process steam can be done via a steam–steam intermediate heat exchanger, the
so-called steam converter. The average heat process needs for applications in the steam class are more in the low
power range of 20–40 MW(th) for a single process. An HTGR unit in the order of 250–600 MW(th) would be used
6
to supply a steam network. Nuclear process steam production from an advanced HTGR may actually represent a
reasonable first step to be demonstrated on a commercial scale, before tackling the more ambitious goal of nuclear
hydrogen from high temperature electrolysis or thermochemical cycles.
In industrial processes, energy supply is of the utmost importance. The market for process heat is huge and
hardly penetrated by nuclear. With respect to the large variation in the quantity of energy demand and to the wide
spectrum of operational parameters, a small modular type size and a flexible design of a nuclear unit are necessary
to meet customers’ requirements. Also the security of energy supply is essential, demanding a very high degree of
reliability and availability. Particularly in large establishments, the supply of heat/steam must be highly reliable,
with basically not more than a month of maintenance within a five year operation period for the petrochemical and
refining industries. This can only be ensured by sufficient reserve capacity, which makes a modular arrangement of
electricity or heat producing plants appropriate.
There will also be a strong demand of high reliability for desalination plants, but it will be lower compared to
process heat. Methanol, as an example, is a convenient energy carrier to handle. If the CO2 needed for its synthesis
is taken from other processes where it was released (‘double use of CO2’), CO2 emissions could be further reduced.
Coolant outlet temperatures of up to 1000°C have been discussed but are considered to be beyond the current
capability of metallic materials. A reasonable interim step in VHTR development is a plant at a reduced gas outlet
temperature of 750°C. Reduction in the outlet temperature to 750°C relieves the impact on materials and changes
the safety margins for fuel quality compared to the higher temperatures. Higher temperatures may be considered but
will be at the expense of a significantly reduced lifetime for the respective components.
A new, perhaps revolutionary nuclear reactor concept of the next generation will offer the chance to deliver,
besides the classical electricity, also non-electrical products such as hydrogen or other fuels (e.g. methanol). In a
future energy economy, hydrogen as a storable medium could adjust to a variable demand for electricity by means
of fuel cell power plants and also serve as spinning reserve. Both together offer much more flexibility in optimizing
energy structures (e.g. substitution of natural gas fired peaking plants by hydrogen). Prerequisites for such systems,
however, would be competitive nuclear hydrogen production, large scale (underground) storage at low cost and
economic fuel cell plants. The utilization of oxygen (rather than air) co-produced in the water splitting processes
would improve the efficiency of fuel cell operation significantly, thus further reducing costs.
In various countries, ambitious programmes are ongoing within the Generation IV International Forum (GIF)
initiative, with the main objective being to bring nuclear hydrogen production to the energy market. Numerous
institutions are active in the first stage of demonstrating the viability of nuclear hydrogen production, to be followed
by the stages of performance testing and demonstration of the pursued technologies. Both China and Japan are
operating HTGR test reactors and offer international collaboration on utilizing these tools to further demonstrate
HTGR principles and, at a later stage, nuclear hydrogen production.
Future activities on nuclear process heat could also benefit from a re-evaluation of the studies conducted in
the past on HTGR process heat applications by comparing against current technologies and market conditions. The
goal should be to select promising applications under the current industrial practice within existing and evolving
markets. Superior safety features and high reliability are considered prerequisites for the introduction of nuclear
process heat and nuclear combined heat and power.
The coupling of a nuclear reactor to a hydrogen production plant located in a chemical complex requires
special attention with regard to safety, regulatory aspects and licensing. There is a need for nuclear process heat
reactors to have a common international approach to safety issues related with hydrogen such as explosions and
fires, confinement and limits of contaminants (e.g. tritium); and reliable isolation of both nuclear and chemical
plants. To minimize tritium contamination, it will be essential to keep the fraction of defective/failed TRISO coated
fuel particles and the level of 3He and Li impurities as low as possible, and to properly design the purification
system capacity. Current safety requirements, basically orientated to LWR nuclear plants, must be modified to
Generation IV and new reactors for hydrogen production which are inherently safe, reliable and simple to operate.
This will help the industrial deployment, coordinate the licensing process, and reduce the uncertainties to obtain
agreement by national and local authorities of the hydrogen/nuclear facilities.
The introduction of nuclear energy into the heat or combined heat and power (CHP) market is of a global
dimension, since both nuclear and potential end users are already global players. Thus, the demonstration of the
coupling of a nuclear heat source to an industrial complex should take place on a global level. This needs political
and co-funding support for R&D and efforts to establish an international public/private partnership and to overcome
the ‘cultural gap’ between the nuclear and the end user communities.
7
Whatever the nuclear technological and political challenges are, the public needs to be assured that the highest
standards of safety, security and environmental protection will continue to be applied. This is achieved through
extensive research, development, demonstration and deployment programmes conducted by an alliance of
researchers, vendors, operators, customers and politicians.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. WORLD ENERGY SITUATION
In 2007, the world’s total primary energy supply was more than 12 billion tonnes of oil equivalent (toe)1. The
breakdown by energy resources as given in Fig. 4 (left) shows a dominant contribution of 81% by the fossil fuels.
Nuclear represented 6% of the total energy supply, thereby reducing global CO2 emissions by nearly 10%, which
means that worldwide more than 80% of the total primary energy consumption increased CO2 emissions. From the
total amount of primary energy supply, about 8.5 Gtoe was transformed into final consumption energy, the remainder
being conversion and distribution losses or use by the energy industries. Breakdown of the final energy consumption
was mainly accounted for by the transport sector (28%), the domestic sector (34%) and the industrial sector (36%). In
terms of fuels consumed, the share of oil is on the decline (43%), while electricity generation is strongly rising, having
reached a share of 17% in 2007 [6]. All countries have their own specific energy requirements, which differ in
demand, growth, alternatives, financing options and preferences, and therefore prefer their own energy mix.
The role of electricity is increasing because it is an extremely versatile energy carrier which can be generated
from a wide range of fuels. The world’s total electricity generation in 2007 was about 19 800 TW·h with fuel shares
of 41% from coal, 20% from gas, 6% from oil, 14% from nuclear, 16% from hydro and the remaining 2% from
other renewables (Fig. 4 (right)). These figures also show a strong carbon based economy character, with
worldwide 67% of the electricity generated from fossil fuels, and thus increasing CO2 emissions. According to the
reference energy scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA), coal will remain the dominant fuel
worldwide, but natural gas based electricity generation will rapidly increase. In the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) countries, about 2000 GW of new generating capacity will be needed, with
about one third to replace old plants.
FIG. 4. IEA key world energy statistics 2007 [7].
1
1 toe corresponding to the energy content of 7.4 barrels of oil = 1.428 tce (tonne of coal equivalent) = 39.68 million Btu
(British thermal unit) = 41 868 MJ = 11 630 kWh.
8
FIG. 5. Global emission of GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, F gases) (left); average of surface warming projection (right) for six IPCC emission
scenarios which do not include climate policies in addition to current ones [8].
Since the electricity share in final energy consumption is less than 20% worldwide, as mentioned above, CO2
emission free sources of energy may find new markets, for example, in the transportation sector, whether directly
(electric cars) or indirectly (fuel cells). Nuclear power may play here a major role in the non-electric sector in
delivering electricity, but also may become important as a provider of process heat in a great variety of industrial
processes, including the large scale production of hydrogen.
Energy demand in the world depends on population growth and economic development; it will therefore be
inhomogeneous in terms of quantity and quality. World primary energy breakdown by application is 18%
electricity, 55% heat and 27% transportation. Energy sources have to be considered from the perspectives of
pollution, the gradual depletion of natural resources and import dependency. The most realistic scenario of the IEA
for 2050 is as follows: the world population will be approximately 8.5 billion and the primary energy supply will
almost double, compared to 2007, to reach 23 Gtoe.
The strong influence of global energy use on economic development became obvious with the global financial
crisis in 2008–2009 and the subsequent recession. World energy demand, and consequently CO2 emissions, plunged
with the economic contraction, for the first time since 1981. Under current policies, however, it will quickly resume
its long term upward trend once economic recovery is under way.
Greenhouse gas emissions are being studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
which was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme
to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding climate change, its
potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. With publishing their 4th assessment report in 2007
[8], intensive public debates were restarting on the effects of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs on the climate.
Based on continued current climate policies with a dominant role of fossil fuels, the IPCC emission scenarios
project a further growth of GHG emissions of 25–90% between 2000 and 2030. For some of the scenarios, this
would result in a global warming at a rate of 0.2°C per decade by 2030 (Fig. 5) [8].
According to the IPCC, the total primary energy consumption means releasing into the atmosphere
approximately 7.25 billion t of energy related CO2 per year. From this amount, about half remains in the atmosphere
(today: 380 ppm, compared to 280 ppm before 1750) and half comes back to the earth. This anthropogenic CO2
release exceeds the balancing effect of sinks and results in a gradual accumulation in the atmosphere.
9
The CO2 release from energy consumption has its geographical origin in the OECD countries (53%), in
transition economies (36%) and in developing countries (11%). The emissions per sector of human activity are 40%
in electricity production (primarily coal fired plants); 21% in transport; 14% in buildings; 17% in industry; and 8%
in other sectors.
CO2 emissions have increased greatly since the turn of the century (Table 3). Some of the industrial and
emerging countries are showing high growth rates. Two countries, China and the USA, account for 42% of the total
CO2 emissions, while only a few of the EU Member States and the Russian Federation exhibit decreasing rates. And
global CO2 emissions will continue to increase. With 31.5 billion t of CO2 emissions in 2008, the tenth world record
in a row was set [9].
The Copenhagen Accord of December 2009 confirmed the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It set a maximum of 2°C average global temperature rise, and
states that a review by 2016 should consider if it will be necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C. Countermeasures for
a reduction in CO2 would include increasing the use of non-fossil energies such as nuclear and renewable energy.
Currently under investigation is the development of new technologies for carbon capture and sequestration, but also
for carbon capture and reuse (CCR) as a chemical feedstock in different applications [10].
1.2. HYDROGEN AS AN ENERGY CARRIER
Hydrogen has been used as a chemical for decades, can be produced from various resources, and is used in
many different applications. In the world energy economy of the future, it may serve as a universal energy carrier,
where it will compete with electricity and hydrocarbons. These three energy carriers will coexist, but most certainly
with changing ratios. During the transition period toward a hydrogen based economy, the production of synthetic
hydrocarbon fuels will certainly still be dominating. This intermediate stage will be characterized by enhanced
production of synthetic fuels through the conversion of fossil fuels. Adding hydrogen into the transformation
process improves the CO2 balance.
The general requirements for an innovative energy system are availability, economic production,
transportability, storability, transformability into other forms of energy and environmental friendliness. Hydrogen is
an alternative energy carrier that meets most of these requirements. Hydrogen can contribute to both energy security
and environmental compatibility. A market for hydrogen already exists for specific industrial energy needs
(fertilizer production, oil refining, etc.) and is growing at a rapid pace. Markets may grow further in the future with
the expansion of cogeneration of heat and power and to use as a fuel in fuel cell applications. Important benefits of
hydrogen are expected from the operation of zero-emission vehicles for local (urban) air quality improvement and
from its use as flexible, autonomous energy supply in remote areas or for portable/mobile applications.
TABLE 3. THE TEN LARGEST CO2 EMITTING COUNTRIES AS OF 2008 [9]
CO2 in 1990 CO2 in 2008 Relative change Kyoto goal by

Country
(million t) (million t) 1990–2008 (%) 2012 (%)
China 2452 6809.7 +178 —

USA 5461 6369.8 +17 –7a
Russian Federation 2369 1687.6 –29 0
India 626 1408.5 +125 —
Japan 1179 1391.5 +18 –6
Germany 1029 857.3 –17 –21
Republic of Korea 257 663.5 +158 —
Canada 485 658.3 +44 –6
United Kingdom 625 581.8 –7 –12.5
a
The USA participated in the Kyoto Summit in 1999 but did not ratify the Kyoto protocol.
10
Both electricity and hydrogen will become highly important energy carriers in the future. Both are efficient
and easy to handle, and have near-zero emissions when used, assuming they are of non-fossil origin. Electricity
(electrons) and hydrogen (protons) form complementary and synergetic options for transferring and storing energy
for different end uses. They are in a certain way exchangeable, although conversion losses occur. Both together are
also complementary to each other in that either one is superior to the other in certain aspects, offering much more
flexibility in optimizing energy structures on a macro scale (e.g. substitution of hydrogen for natural gas fired
peaking plants). Hydrogen combined with the reuse of abundantly available CO2 to produce liquid synthetic fuels
may also contribute to a reduction of CO2 emissions. Hydrogen or hydrogen-rich liquid fuel (e.g. methanol) can be
converted to electricity for transport purposes via fuel cells. Decentralized hydrogen production systems can be
established via electrolysis if inexpensive (CO2 free) electricity is available (e.g. off-peak nuclear power). A new
hydrogen market may be first introduced and prepared via the electricity sector.
But hydrogen will also be able to take on a role in energy storage. Due to the steadily increasing share of wind
and solar energy, with their distributed and intermittent character, the resulting fluctuations in electricity generation
will require efficient management to balance the power system, which becomes more complex as the number of
power sources grows. Therefore intelligent solutions for large scale storage are required in a future energy economy
[11]. Also for transportation of energy to the consumer, it will, under certain circumstances, be practical to convert
the energy to hydrogen.
Water and biomass are expected to be the main sources for hydrogen in the future, with the necessary process
heat for extracting the hydrogen to be provided by CO2 emission free energy sources. With respect to hydrogen
production on a large scale at a constant rate, nuclear energy may play an essential role.
But before a major introduction of a new form of energy into the market will take place, it must be accepted
by the consumer. The typical consumer of energy expects a decent energy supply system that provides energy any
time and any place, in any quantity and of any type, in a safe, user friendly and environment friendly way. Plus, it
must be inexpensive.
1.3. NUCLEAR ENERGY
It is more than 50 years ago, in 1954, that the first commercial nuclear power station, the Obninsk reactor near
Moscow, started its operation, producing 5 MW(e). Five decades of development since then have made nuclear
power an industrially mature and reliable source of energy and a key component in the world’s energy economy
(Fig. 6). In 31 of the 191 United Nations Member States, nuclear power plants are being operated for commercial
electricity production. According to the World Nuclear Association, as of 1 October 2010, 441 nuclear power
plants, with a total capacity of 376.3 GW(e) were in operation, with 58 more nuclear stations and an additional
capacity of 60.5 GW(e) under construction [12]. Of 31 newly constructed nuclear plants, 11 were small or medium-
sized plants. More than 44 GW of nuclear capacity have gone on-line since 1990, and many countries are currently
considering nuclear as a realistic option within their national energy policy.
Six countries — the United States of America (USA), France, Japan, Germany, the Russian Federation and
the Republic of Korea — produce about 70% of the nuclear electricity in the world. In 16 countries, nuclear power
provides more than 25% of the electricity. Nuclear is a proven technology that provides clean electricity at
predictable and competitive prices with approximately 14 000 reactor-years (as of 2010) of accumulated operating
experience, generating a total of some 6000 TWh.
Nuclear expanded steadily until the mid-1980s, when it began levelling out or even declining (Fig. 6). As an
example, in October 2007, 15 of the 27 countries of the European Union (EU27) operated 146 reactors, down from
151 units in 2003 and 177 reactors in 1989. The major reasons were [14]:
— Energy efficiency improvements in power plant operation;

— Economic restructuring;
— A significant drop in electricity demand;
— Excess generating capacity;
— Oil price collapse;
— Highly efficient gas turbine technology;
— Liberalization and privatization of electricity market;
11
FIG. 6. Nuclear reactors in operation worldwide [13].
— Regulatory intervention after the accident at Three Mile Island;

— The accident at Chernobyl.
The flattening was compensated by increased availability corresponding to 34 virtual LWRs. There are,
however, signs of rising expectations in the past few years. At present, nuclear power output grows in all major
regions except Europe, but its share in world electricity generation is decreasing slightly. According to an IAEA
projection for 2030, the expected nuclear capacity is 473 GW(e) for the “IAEA low projection” and ~750 GW(e)
for the “IAEA high projection” [14].
Economic baseload production of electricity makes nuclear energy competitive with fossil fuelled power
plants, with the comparatively low fuel cost helping to stabilize the price of electricity within the energy mix. It
helps to save fossil fuel resources and to extend their availability. As an energy source with no GHG emissions and
as a means to improve national energy security, nuclear thus contributes to ‘sustainable’ development.
To keep the nuclear option alive in a longer term perspective, the nuclear industry not only has to continue
operating the existing plants at that high level of safety and reliability, it also has to steadily develop the next
generation of nuclear power plants to meet the more and more insistent concerns of the public about safety. Studies
show that there is a high potential for innovative nuclear techniques, systems and concepts that can offer socially
acceptable, environmentally benign and competitive solutions.
1.4. DRIVERS FOR NUCLEAR ASSISTED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
Centralized energy production in large quantities favours the use of nuclear plants, which should operate in
baseload mode, with conventional plants covering peak load. Nuclear emits virtually no airborne pollutants.
Therefore, it appears to also be an ideal option for large scale centralized hydrogen production. Figure 7 shows the
broader picture of where nuclear energy fits in into the major energy sectors, with the aim of reducing CO2.
The future of hydrogen and the potential for nuclear generated H2 will be driven by major factors such as:
— Production rates of oil and natural gas.

— Societal and governmental decisions concerning global climate change due to GHG emissions.
12
FIG. 7. Strategic routes for energy technologies for hydrogen production to reduce overall CO2 emissions [15].
— The need to save fossil resources for use in environmentally friendly applications (substitution of nuclear for
conventional process heat production would allow resource savings of up to 40%).
— If the cost of nuclear heat is sufficiently low, it may help to meet growing rates of energy use, replace
expensive electricity generation with fossil fuels and replace old plants.
— Energy security from extended fuel reserves and independence from foreign oil uncertainties.
— Economics of large scale hydrogen and synthetic fuels production and transmission.
1.5. SCOPE OF THE REPORT
This report includes an overview of the current status and the recent progress made on hydrogen production
using nuclear energy. Starting with a short description of the world energy situation, with a focus on nuclear energy,
hydrogen as a promising energy carrier in the future, and arguments that favour nuclear assisted, large scale
hydrogen production, Section 2 provides an outline of the specific energy situation and the national R&D
programmes for nuclear hydrogen production currently under way in various Member States. Sections 3 and 4
describe the principal hydrogen production methods and the present status of R&D activities for conventional
production methods under nuclear conditions and advanced methods concentrating on the water splitting processes
of electrolysis at high temperatures and thermochemical cycles. Section 5 deals with the concepts of nuclear
process heat reactors, with a strong focus on HTGRs, which allow the achievement of high coolant outlet
temperatures for process heat/steam production. The coupling of a nuclear heat source and the chemical process is
described in Section 6, including materials aspects and potential types of coolant. Section 7 is dedicated to the
safety aspects that arise with the combination of a nuclear and chemical plant describing potential hazards and the
R&D efforts conducted so far to contribute to an appropriate safety concept. The final sections cover present and
future markets for hydrogen and the hydrogen infrastructure, and also present some thoughts on the economic
aspects of future large scale hydrogen production. The characteristic physical and chemical features of hydrogen
are described in the Appendix.
13
2. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES ON THE
PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN USING NUCLEAR ENERGY
A number of countries have established or are establishing road maps to a hydrogen economy. Among them
are various countries that are considering the option of using nuclear energy to produce the hydrogen at a large scale
and have started comprehensive R&D programmes. These national and international activities will be outlined in
the following sections, including their embedment in national energy policies.
2.1. CANADA
2.1.1. Energy situation in Canada
Canada has considerable natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers (ranking 5th) and
exporters of energy. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has almost doubled, reaching 486 Mtoe in 2006,
while its total energy consumption has increased by only 44%. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to
the USA.
In 2006, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (32%), followed by hydroelectricity
(25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (10%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall
energy mix. Electricity production in Canada has been dominated by hydroelectricity, with nuclear and fossil fuels
holding a 15–25% share each over the past two decades.
Canada has the second-largest petroleum deposits in the world (after Saudi Arabia). Its oil sands produce
1.3 million bbl/d of oil today, up from 600 000 bbl/d in 2000. But the development of oil sands projects has been
sharply criticized for its impact on the environment and its intensive use of both water and natural gas. The growth
in oil sands exploitation is one of the reasons that Canada has failed to contain its GHG emissions in recent years
despite its commitment to do so.
The nuclear industry in Canada dates back to 1942 when a decision was made to develop a design for a heavy
water based nuclear reactor and to build Canada’s first nuclear power plant. The so-called Nuclear Power
Demonstration Reactor, a 20 MW(e) plant, started operation in 1962 and successfully demonstrated the unique
concepts of on-power refuelling using natural uranium fuel, and heavy water as a moderator and coolant. These
features formed the basis for the now more than 60 year evolutionary development of CANDU power reactors built
and successfully operated in Canada and elsewhere.
Currently, nuclear power provides about 15% of Canada’s electricity from 18 units with a capacity of 12.7 GW.
Canada’s nuclear energy production peaked in 1994 at 102.4 TWh, declined to 67 TWh by 1998 as reactors were
mothballed, and increased to 85.6 TWh in 2005 due to improved reactor performance and refurbishment. Recently
renewed interest in nuclear energy is spurred by increasing demand and the desire to comply with Canada’s Kyoto
Agreement obligations.
Hydrogen is currently produced in Canada at a rate of 3 million t/a. Of this hydrogen, 35% is used for
chemical products, 24% for refining, 23% for heavy oil upgrading and 18% for chemical by-products [16].
Hydrogen R&D activities have been initiated within the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Programme by the National
Research Council and managed by Natural Resources Canada since 1985. Prominent successes were, among others,
the world’s first demonstration of a fuel cell bus in 1993 based on Ballard’s polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM)
fuel cells, and the Hydrogenics low temperature water electrolyser.
2.1.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in Canada
Canada, a founding member of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) has selected and is developing
the Generation IV supercritical water reactor (SCWR) based on the successful CANDU system. The use of the
Canadian ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor) for hydrogen production is considered a realistic short term approach.
Its modular design would make it adaptable to various power requirements. The success of such a concept using
14
FIG. 8. Schematic of nuclear syncrude production with ACR-700 [18].
electricity and heat (to produce hydrogen and steam, respectively) would represent a first step toward the
development of cogeneration applications from nuclear power.
In tertiary oil recovery, the biggest cost factor is energy for steam, electricity and hydrogen production, which
is currently provided by natural gas. Its replacement with nuclear energy was found in a study to be competitive. A
candidate nuclear system is the ACR-700, a pressurized heavy water reactor design developed in Canada (see
Section 5.3.6.1). The thermal power of the reference design was 2034 MW(th) with an electric output of
703 MW(e). Assuming high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) as the hydrogen production method, two ACR-
700 units would be needed to meet the demand of a 100 000 bbl/d syncrude reference plant for electricity, steam
and hydrogen [17].
Due to the enormous steam demand in tertiary oil recovery, nuclear process steam generation is considered a
good option for coupling to a synthetic crude oil plant. The example shown in Fig. 8 is based on the ACR-700
nuclear plant with a thermal power of 1900 MW(th). The diagram shows the various associated operations with the
typical production rate of a synthetic crude oil plant, taken to be 130 000 bbl/d. While most of the nuclear thermal
power is used for steam generation, the remaining part of 540 MW(th) is used to generate 200 MW(e) of electricity
to be used in low temperature electrolysis for hydrogen production.
The refining of the extracted bitumen by hydrogenation is required for transformation into a lighter product
(with lower density and viscosity) that can be transported to refineries via pipelines. The 86 t of steam flow can be
maintained at a fairly constant level with the use of the ‘zero liquid discharge crystallizer’ system (instead of the
traditional deep well injection) that enables virtually 100% recycling of the water in a closed cycle. Still, the process
consumes large amounts of water. The 16 000 t of CO2 avoided represent a 77% decrease in emissions.
In close cooperation with the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in the USA and the University of Ontario
Institute of Technology (UOIT) and other universities, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is investigating
the copper–chlorine family of thermochemical cycles with maximum temperatures that can be provided by the
CANDU Mark 2 SCWR (see also Sections 4.6.1 and 5.3.6.1). The coolant exit temperature of 625°C meets the
maximum temperature criterion of the Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle, which is a promising cycle that could be
coupled in the future with the Generation IV CANDU-SCWR [19]. In the process, high quality waste heat
following the expansion of reactor coolant to 300 kPa will be useful for the thermal drying requirements in the
Cu–Cl cycle. But apart from that cycle, AECL research includes investigating the use of direct resistive heating of
catalysts for SO3 decomposition in the S–I process where nuclear electricity is used to provide the high temperature
required that cannot be delivered from the SCWR [20].
15
2.2. CHINA
2.2.1. Energy situation in China
Due to its large population and its strong economic growth in recent years, China’s demand for energy is rising
rapidly. Since 2003, China ranks second after the USA in the consumption of primary energy and also in the
consumption of oil. China is the third largest energy producer in the world, after the USA and the Russian Federation.
In 2007, China’s total energy consumption was 1970 Mtoe, up from 872 Mtoe in 1990 [21]. In the period
2000–2007, the average growth rate of energy consumption was 8.9% per year. Coal makes up the bulk of China’s
primary energy consumption (66% in 2007) and will remain the dominant energy source in the next decades. Other
energies consumed are oil (18%) and hydropower (12%). Natural gas production currently accounts for only 3%,
with most reserves located far away from the demand sites.
China is the largest producer and consumer of coal in the world, which has made the country one of the
world’s largest emitter of GHGs. The present energy policy calls for greater energy conservation measures and a
move away from coal toward cleaner energy sources including oil, natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear power
and hydroelectric resources. A new energy law calls for 10% of its energy to come from renewable energy sources
by 2020. China has abundant cellulosic biomass resources, with an estimated 220–380 Mtoe available for bioenergy
production (e.g. ethanol, synthetic liquid fuels) each year [22].
The total electricity consumption in China in 2007 was 3318 TWh, an increase by a factor of five compared
to 1990, with more than 80% covered by coal and 15% by hydropower [21]. The consumption of electricity tends
to further grow by over 4% per year through 2030, which will require huge investment in electricity infrastructure
to meet the demand. In 2004 and 2005, the newly installed power capacity was ~60 GW(e)/a, and it was 100 GW(e)
in 2007 [23].
China has an ambitious nuclear power programme for the next decades. At present, 13 commercial nuclear
power units with a total capacity of 10.2 GW(e) are in operation, representing ~1% of the total power capacity.
Nuclear energy output in 2009 was 70 TW·h, representing ~2% of the total energy consumption. There are 25 more
units with 27.6 GW under construction. According to the “State Medium-Long Term (2005–2020) Development
Programme of Nuclear Power” of 2007, the power capacity goal is 40 GW(e) by 2020 plus an additional 18 GW(e)
under construction. With regard to the types of nuclear plants, a wide variety has been chosen, showing obvious
interest in different technological developments. In 2007, orders were given for Generation III reactors (two EPRs,
four AP1000) and a fuel reprocessing plant [23].
Hydrogen activities have been enhanced by the Chinese government in recent years, with the main objective
of improving air quality in major cities. This led to the first national hydrogen project, on Fundamental Research for
Hydrogen Production, Storage and Transportation in Large Scale Fuel Cells.
2.2.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in China
2.2.2.1. High temperature reactor development
The development of HTGRs is an important part of the national nuclear programme. Its role is, on the one
hand, to supplement PWRs for electricity generation with more flexibility and, on the other hand, to provide
process steam for heavy oil recovery or the petrochemical industry, and to serve as a process heat source for coal
gasification and liquefaction as well as hydrogen production.
The Chinese HTR-10 with a pebble bed core producing a power of 10 MW(th) is one of the two HTGRs
currently in operation. Like the Japanese HTTR, it is also basically a research tool. First criticality in the HTR-10
was achieved in 2000. The active core consists of some 27 000 fuel spheres producing a coolant outlet temperature
of 700°C. The reactor core and steam generator are housed in two steel pressure vessels in a side-by-side
arrangement. The HTR-10 is planned to be equipped later with a gas turbine cycle (HTR-10GT). Numerous safety
demonstration tests have been conducted in the HTR-10 demonstrating the safety features of small HTGRs.
A follow-on demonstration plant HTR-PM will consist of two nuclear steam supply system modules, each
comprising a single zone 250 MW pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) and a steam generator. Both modules feed
one steam turbine to generate an electric power of 200 MW. The HTR-PM power plants are intended to be a series
of commercial plants, beginning with a demonstration plant. All project activities including investment, design,
16
construction and operation are required to follow market rules. Work on the HTR-PM project can be divided into
four categories: technical design, marketing, project, and organization. Concerning the technical design, the main
work is to find and optimize an HTR-PM standard design which is based on the enveloping or reference site
conditions. The kernel of the organization team is the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) of
Tsinghua University, responsible for research, design and technology development of the nuclear island of the
HTR-PM. The second level is an architecture and engineering company, called CHINERGY, responsible for the
engineering design, main components supply and construction. The third part is the Chinese utility China
HUANENG Group, the Chinese Nuclear Engineering and Construction Corporation (CNECC) and other local
investors. The utility will be responsible for all issues of marketing, financial, site selection, etc.
For the demonstration plant, three parallel lines of the project are being followed: (i) standard design of the
HTR-PM, (ii) site selection for the demonstration plant, and (iii) a fuel plant for the HTR-PM. The standard design
of the HTR-PM envelops all possible site conditions in China. The purpose of a standard design is to accelerate the
design process and to improve the design quality. The work for the fuel plant aims to expand the capacity of the
plant, to stabilize the mass production processes, and to produce fuel elements for initial loading and operation of
the demonstration plant and future follow-on plants.
2.2.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen production
R&D on hydrogen production through water splitting using HTGR as a process heat source was initiated in 2005
as one component of China’s HTR-PM demonstration project. Both the S–I thermochemical cycle and high
temperature steam electrolysis have been selected as potential processes for nuclear hydrogen production. Beginning
with preliminary studies, the R&D programme, now part of the HTR-PM project, will be conducted in phases:
— Phase one (2005–2009): verification of nuclear hydrogen production;

— Phase two (2010–2012): bench-scale testing;
— Phase three (2013–2020): pilot-scale testing, R&D on coupling technology with reactor, nuclear hydrogen safety;
— Phase four (after 2020): commercialization of nuclear hydrogen production.
2.3. EUROPEAN UNION
2.3.1. Energy situation in the European Union
The European Union comprises highly industrialized countries with extended urban agglomerations, and
therefore needs to rely on a secure and economically competitive supply of energy. As of 2007 the European Union,
with 7.5% (or 496 million) of the world population, consumed 15% (1757 Mtoe) of the total energy and 18%
(3325 TWh) of the total electricity [21], and was responsible for 14% (4100 million t) of the total CO2 emissions.
Primary energy by fuel share is 19% coal (down from 28% in 1990), 35% oil, 25% natural gas, 14% nuclear and 8%
renewables. The respective electricity shares are 31% coal, 28% nuclear, 22% natural gas, 9% hydro, 6% other
renewables and 3% oil [21].
The production of oil and natural gas in the European Union has been decreasing for a few years. The
situation in the European Union as projected for the next 30 years is characterized by a growing demand for energy
by 2 %/a and, at the same time (after 2010), decreasing domestic energy production. In 2030, if no additional
measures are taken, 70% of the energy demand will have to be covered by imports. In addition, this development
will push CO2 emissions up 14% compared to the 1990 level, far off the Kyoto commitment of an 8% reduction. For
these reasons, all energy options should be left open for the future [24].
In 2007, principal energy and climate policy targets for the European Union were redefined by the European
Council (the decision making organ of the European Union) to be attained by the year 2020, which are
characterized by the ‘three twenties’:
— A 20% reduction of GHGs compared to the 1990 level;

— A 20% share of renewable energies of end use (compared to 8.5% at present);
— A 20% efficiency of energy use.
17
The four areas selected by the GIF as technology goals (namely, sustainability, economics, safety, and
reliability, proliferation resistance and physical protection) correspond exactly to the priorities set above by the
energy policy for Europe [25]. An important issue for any energy policy is the correct evaluation of the new
industrial needs. Besides electricity production, other industrial requirements are addressing high temperature heat
production for (the petrochemical) industry, synthetic fuel production for transportation, and hydrogen production
from water. In this way, nuclear energy will penetrate the global energy market through cogeneration of heat and
power, thus reducing the dependence on fossil fuel supply.
Also in the light of the 2006 Ukrainian gas crisis, the European Union has set energy security at the top of the
agenda, with the objectives being to strengthen energy markets, secure imports, improve efficiencies, and increase
the degree of self-sufficiency.
Nuclear power is a major energy source in Europe, covering approximately 30% of the total electricity
demand and providing a significant source of reliable and secure baseload power. As of October 2010, a total of
195 nuclear reactors (including the 32 plants in the Russian Federation, of which 5 units are located in the Asian
part of the Russian Federation) were operating in Europe with a net capacity of 170 GW(e), and 19 more units with
16.9 GW(e) were under construction. Within the European Union, 143 nuclear plants with 131 GW(e) of capacity
were operated, located in 14 of the 27 Member States are being operated representing 35% of the installed nuclear
capacity in the world. The nuclear share, however, varies significantly between countries: while some countries
completely refrain from nuclear power, in other countries the nuclear shares range between ~3% for the
Netherlands to ~78% for France. In many EU countries, the possibility of a ‘nuclear renaissance’ is being discussed
and first new construction projects (Generation III+ European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs)) are under way in
Finland and France. Long term intensive cooperation already exists among the nuclear vendors, utilities and
research organizations, not only aiming at an evolutionary development of existing nuclear technology, but also
searching for innovative concepts of power plants and components with improved safety characteristics and
different applications.
With the recent worldwide increased interest in hydrogen as a clean fuel of the future, Europe has also
embarked on comprehensive research, development and demonstration activities, with the main objective of
moving from a carbon-based economy toward a CO2 emission free energy structure. Due to the growing demand for
hydrogen in the petrochemical, fertilizer and refining industries, however, the near and medium terms will be
characterized by coexistence between the energy carriers hydrogen and hydrocarbons.
2.3.2. EU research policy
EU energy policy is characterized by diversity in national energy policies and the tendency among the EU
member countries to consider their energy strategies as a matter of national security. Therefore, closer collaboration
among the EU countries is required to provide a balanced choice of energy supply technologies while achieving the
principal objectives of energy supply security, sustainable development, and economic competitiveness. Of
particular importance are Europe’s R&D efforts in the field of nuclear fission, which is deemed an essential part of
the solution in a balanced energy mix, at the same level as other developments, such as clean fossil and renewable
sources as well as rational use of energy. Since a worldwide increase in the use of nuclear energy is expected, a
potential for economic benefits in maintaining and developing the technological lead of the European Union is seen
in this field.
Under Framework Programme 6 (FP-6) (2003–2006), two new instruments have been created and are being
further developed in FP-7 (2007–2013): a Network of Excellence (NOE) with long term joint planning, and
Integrated Projects (IPs) to develop new knowledge, new technologies and demonstration activities with a planned
total budget of €48 billion for EU research and €3 billion for Euratom, a 40% increase compared to FP-6. The so-
called European Technological Platforms are another new element, of which numerous have been founded in the
meantime. These Technological Platforms are forums bringing together stakeholders of a strategic area to define
strategic research agendas, set up industrial deployment strategies, analyse potential markets and prepare the legal
and political framework. The Platforms propose so-called joint technology initiatives (JTIs), large projects in
public–private partnership with a great deal of autonomy. The first JTIs became active in 2008, among them is the
JTI on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen.
In the European Union, there are no explicit research activities dedicated to nuclear hydrogen production. The
research programmes either concentrate on the nuclear aspects or on the hydrogen aspects. There is, however, a
18
little overlap of both areas in such a way that research on innovative nuclear reactor designs also takes into
consideration one of their most pronounced features, which is the possibility of penetrating the non-electricity
market with hydrogen production as a major issue. On the other hand, research projects which deal with large scale
H2 production methods of the future may also include the option of nuclear power to provide the required primary
energy.
2.3.3. Euratom activities on nuclear process heat
2.3.3.1. Nuclear technology networks and platforms
Between the 1960s and 1980s, Europe played a leading role in the development of HTGRs with the successful
construction and operation of the test reactors DRAGON (UK) and AVR (Germany), the extensive exploration of
the possibilities for process heat applications, and later the introduction of a modular concept. Starting in 2000 with
the foundation of the European High Temperature Reactor Technology Network (HTR-TN), by industrial and
research actors, major activities were resumed dedicated to the development of base generic HTR technologies and
to the exploration of advanced solutions for improving the performances for future VHTR.
The main incentive for the foundation of the MICHELANGELO Network (2001–2005) within FP-5 was to
move away from the fragmentation and isolation of national research efforts and elaborate a common European
position on the priorities of future R&D for the sustainable use of nuclear energy within the worldwide activities in
this area. The principal results were the establishment of a consistent strategy of European nuclear R&D, a
dynamic, long term R&D partnership between the main European organizations of the nuclear industry, and
research in the form of a stable network in an international frame. In particular, a strong European partnership in the
‘Generation IV’ initiative was deemed crucial in order to obtain a benefit for Europe. But this also holds for other
international initiatives like the INPRO initiative by the IAEA (see Section 5.1.3), the Three Agency Study (IAEA,
IEA, OECD/NEA) or the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Nuclear Energy Research Initiative NERI,
as well as for national programmes like the HTTR in Japan or the HTR-10 in China.
The network has made proposals for the orientation of future Euratom R&D Framework Programmes,
including new aspects of nuclear energy like combined heat and power, desalination, and hydrogen or other fuel
production as a complement to other CO2 free energy sources. Nuclear driven steam reforming or coal gasification
may well serve as a bridge to the water splitting processes such as thermochemical cycles or high temperature
electrolysis. In both cases, the complexity of the processes implies that capital and maintenance costs would be
higher than for low temperature electrolysis, and even further increased because they are non-proven processes.
The activities of the MICHELANGELO Network are now continued by the Sustainable Nuclear Energy
Technology Platform (SNE-TP), which prioritizes the deployment of Generation III reactors and the development
of Generation IV systems, both fast neutron reactors with fuel multi-recycling for sustainable electricity generating
capability and (very) high temperature reactors for other applications of nuclear, such as production of hydrogen or
biofuels.
2.3.3.2. The RAPHAEL integrated project
Among the nuclear projects of FP-6 with a certain relationship to hydrogen, the most important was the ‘IP
RAPHAEL (Reactor for Process Heat, Hydrogen, and Electricity Generation). Starting in 2005 and terminated in
2010, the IP consisted of 33 partners from 10 countries, with the main objectives being, on the one hand, a study of
advanced gas cooled reactor technologies needed for industrial reference designs, but also benefiting from the
existing demonstrator projects in Japan and China. On the other hand, RAPHAEL aimed at exploring options for
the new nuclear generation with ‘very high temperature’ applications, i.e. at coolant exit temperatq IP comprised
efforts in all VHTR sections, including reactor physics, thermodynamics, fuel, back end, materials and components
development, safety, and system integration, building upon the successful HTGR projects of previous FPs.
In the European Union, it is recognized that for the introduction of hydrogen energy into the future energy
market, political support (e.g. by public funding of research projects) is an essential key to long term success.
Hydrogen production technologies are strongly focusing on CO2 neutral or CO2 free methods as represented by, for
example, biomass conversion or water splitting processes or reforming of fossil fuels plus CO2 sequestration.
Primary energy sources include nuclear and renewable energies.
19
While RAPHAEL was fully concentrated on the development of a VHTR, five more activities were launched
in the form of Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) to deal with the other Generation IV reactor systems:
— RAPHAEL — Reactor for Process Heat, Hydrogen, and Electricity Generation (VHTR), 2005–2010;
— GCFR — Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR), 2005–2009;
— HPLWR — High Performance Light Water Reactor (SCWR), 2006–2010;
— ELSY — European Lead Cooled SYstem (LFR), 2006–2010;
— EISOFAR — Road map for European Innovative Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR), 2007–2008;
— ALISIA — Assessment of liquid salts for innovative applications (MSR), 2007.
2.3.3.3. The EUROPAIRS project
After several years of joint European research dedicated to base HTGR technologies, HTR-TN has proposed
to develop a demonstrator plant coupling an HTGR with industrial process heat applications. Such a development
requires a close partnership with the end user industries, since their needs will certainly be different from those of
utilities in terms of power and temperature. Typically, nuclear designers are not familiar with industrial process heat
needs. But also the end users themselves, accustomed to integrating heat supply needs in the global optimization of
their processes through heat recovery from these processes, burning of exhaust gases, etc., are not used to
considering the availability of an external, massive, inexpensive (nuclear) heat source [26]. For the demonstration,
the coupling should involve a full scale proven industrial process with high reliability of the nuclear heat supply to
the process. A schedule for the European demonstrator HTR/VHTR is suggested in Fig. 9.
The project EUROPAIRS (End user Requirements for Industrial Process Heat Applications with Innovative
Nuclear Reactors for Sustainable Energy Supply) is a so-called Coordination and Support Action (CSA) within
FP-7 that started in 2009. This project intends to take into account the advice of RAPHAEL’s Industrial User
Advisory Group (IUAG) and could eventually transfer valuable input to the so-called Confirmation of Key
Technologies phase, as defined by the SNE-TP, considering VHTR systems.
FIG. 9. Suggested schedule for the development of a demonstrator HTR/VHTR for industrial process heat applications [26].
20
FIG. 10. HyNet timeline for hydrogen production technologies [27].
EUROPAIRS has the following main objectives:
— To identify the main applications for nuclear process heat;

— To determine the viability of combining a nuclear heat source with conventional industrial processes and CHP
applications;
— To elaborate a programme for the development of a coupled demonstrator between a VHTR and industrial
processes that require heat supply;
— To form a strategic alliance between nuclear industry and process industries.
An essential prerequisite for the success of this project is the significant involvement of private companies in
the form of industrial participation to develop and deploy innovative energy supply systems.
2.3.4. European Union activities on hydrogen
2.3.4.1. European hydrogen road map
The hydrogen network HyNet is the analogue to MICANET on the hydrogen side. HyNet became active from
2001 to 2004 as a ‘thematic network’ within FP-5 with 12 contractors and more than 70 interested partners. It was
working on the development of strategies for the introduction of a European hydrogen fuel infrastructure road map
(Fig. 10).
In 2002, a so-called High Level Group on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells (HLG) was established by the
European Commission (EC). Its principal task is to initiate strategic discussions for the development of a
European consensus on the introduction of hydrogen energy. The group strongly recommended the development
of an integrated European strategy on hydrogen energy through the creation of a political framework consisting
of a partnership of major private and public hydrogen stakeholders. The International Partnership for a Hydrogen
Economy (IPHE) was launched in 2003, representing 15 countries and the European Union. Work is done here
on the governmental level to foster international collaboration on policy and research programmes and thus to
accelerate the transition to a hydrogen economy, with the H2 to come from multiple sources: renewables, nuclear
and fossil plus sequestration.
21
In 2004, the EC started another policy group, the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform
(HFP). Key elements of the integrated European strategy to be deployed include a strategic research agenda with
performance targets, timelines, lighthouse demonstration projects and a deployment strategy or road map for
Europe. General EU targets for 2020 are a 10–20% supply of the hydrogen energy demand by CO2 free or CO2 lean
sources and a 5% hydrogen fuel market share.
HyWays is an IP proposed by HyNet which has elaborated a fully validated European Hydrogen Energy
Roadmap as a synthesis of national road maps from the participating Member States. It comprises a comparative
analysis of regional hydrogen supply options and energy scenarios including renewable energies. The study
includes the investigation of the technical, socio–economic and emission challenges and impacts of realistic
hydrogen supply paths as well as the technological and economical needs, and details the steps of an action plan
necessary to move toward greater use of hydrogen. According to the HyWays road map, an estimated 16 million
hydrogen cars will exist in 2030. The study has also found that introducing hydrogen into the energy system would
reduce the total oil consumption by the road transport sector by 40% between now and 2050. Regarding large scale
hydrogen production, in the early phase up to 2020, hydrogen production will rely on steam reforming of natural
gas, electrolysis and by-product contribution. In the longer term, by 2050, production will be based on centralized
electrolysis and thermo–chemistry from renewable feedstocks and CO2 free or CO2 lean sources (coal and natural
gas with carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear) [28].
Hydrogen production is deemed a crucial element for the introduction of hydrogen into the energy sector.
Hydrogen production from fossil feedstock, mainly natural gas, is a mature technology for the chemical industry.
Research efforts were to be concentrated on the further improvement of known reforming and gasification methods,
also with regard to high temperature primary energy systems such as Generation IV nuclear reactors and
solar–thermal concentrating systems; on the development of CO2 sequestration systems; on gas separation
technologies; and on the efficiency improvement of hydrogen liquefaction technologies and system integration with
hydrogen production facilities [29].
With CHRISGAS, SOLREF, HYTHEC and Hi2H2, projects started in 2004 dedicated to the hydrogen
production by biomass gasification, steam reforming, thermochemical cycles, high temperature steam electrolysis.
Another IP, HYVOLUTION, started in 2006 to deal with biological processes of hydrogen production.
The integrated project CHRISGAS (Clean Hydrogen-rich Synthesis Gas), with a duration of five years, had
the goal of developing and optimizing an energy efficient and cost efficient method to produce hydrogen rich gases
from biomass. The gas can then be upgraded to commercial quality hydrogen or to synthesis gas for liquid fuels
production. The core of the project is a (solid) biomass fuelled integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) pilot
plant facility in Värnamo, Sweden. New process equipment has been developed and tested, and has been
implemented in a pilot facility to produce hydrogen-enriched gas. Studies included the conditioning of the synthesis
gas to the quality required for the production of transportation fuels.
In the Hi2H2 STREP, it was proposed to develop a low cost, compact high temperature water electrolyser
with very high electrical efficiencies of more than 90%. The project makes use of technological developments that
have been made in the field of high temperature fuel cells and evaluates a solid oxide water electrolyser with a
target cost of €400/kW(e) considered feasible. Experimental work is concentrating on the performance of two types
of planar solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) designs. Steam electrolysis was successfully demonstrated at high current
densities and high efficiency on single cells (see also Section 4.5.2).
HySafe was conceived as a Network of Excellence running from 2006 to 2009. The main objectives were to
strengthen, integrate and concentrate existing capacities and fragmented research efforts aiming at the removal of
safety related barriers to the large scale introduction of hydrogen as an energy carrier. By harmonizing
methodologies for safety assessment, the focus is on studies of fire and explosion safety, mitigating techniques and
detection devices. In this way, the network contributes to promoting public awareness and trust in hydrogen
technology. Essential HySafe activities are continued in the newly founded International Association of Hydrogen
Safety.
2.3.4.2. The HYTHEC STREP and HycycleS project
High Temperature Thermochemical Cycles (HYTHEC) was a STREP with six partners starting in 2004 and
running over almost four years. Its main objective was to evaluate the potential of thermochemical processes,
focusing on the S–I cycle to be compared with the Westinghouse hybrid (HyS) cycle. Nuclear and solar were
22
FIG. 11. Coupling of a 600 MW VHTR nuclear reactor to the sulphur–iodine cycle [30].
considered as the primary energy sources, with a maximum temperature of the process limited to 950°C. The
HYTHEC activities comprised, apart from the coupling to high temperature heat sources, the modelling, chemical
analysis, process flowsheeting and experimental studies of the H2 and O2 production steps. The project also
included industrial scale-up studies for the investigation of the feasibility of the main components, the safety
aspects and cost [30].
A preliminary reference sheet of the S–I cycle has been reviewed and optimized to a ‘reference’ flowsheet
with coupling to a single 600 MW indirect cycle VHTR (Fig. 11). The reactor, fully dedicated to hydrogen
production, is designed as a ‘self-sustaining concept” delivering both electricity to meet the plant’s own total power
demand and heat to run the H2 production process at a rate of 110 t/d and an overall plant efficiency of ~35%. The
heat of the 890°C hot primary helium is decoupled in an IHX to secondary helium which partially serves a Brayton
power cycle at 5 MPa and the endothermic sections of the S–I cycle. A specific study was dedicated to the
performance of candidate membranes for separation processes in the HIx section to further improve the
thermochemical cycle efficiency.
A large scale solar furnace was used as an experimental tool in HYTHEC to study the chemical reactions
common to both cycles at VHTR temperatures (~900°C) and also at a higher level (1100–1200°C). The receiver
reactor was qualified for the solar decomposition of H2SO4. Maximum conversion rates were observed with a Pt
catalyst, but significant catalytic activity was also found for uncoated SiSiC absorbers. Both nuclear and solar can
be adjusted to the typical thermal power sizes of present modular power plant designs of up to 600 MW. It will thus
support the design of novel components up to an industrial scale, which are required in allothermal reforming
processes as well as in high temperature electrolysis, or in thermochemical processes. A preliminary evaluation of
the hydrogen production costs based on solar, nuclear and hybrid operation led to following results: small plants are
powered most favourably by solar energy, while nuclear plants are most economical at high power levels
(> 300 MW(th)); hybrid systems may have their niche in the midrange of 100 to 300 MW(th).
The 2015 targets defined for high temperature thermo–electrical–chemical processes with solar–nuclear heat
sources are a reduction of CO2 emissions for fossil reforming by more than 25% and hydrogen production cost of
less than €2/kg [31].
HycycleS is a new European project within FP-7 that started in 2008 involving nine European and four
international associated partners [32, 33]. Following in the footsteps of the HYTHEC project, the three year project
HycycleS (2008–2010) is aimed at the qualification of ceramic materials and reliability of components for the
essential reactions in thermochemical cycles. The focus is on the decomposition of sulphuric acid as the central step
of the hybrid-sulphur (HyS) cycle and the S–I cycle. The final aim is to bring thermochemical water splitting closer
to realization by improving the efficiency, stability, practicability and economic viability. Work includes the design,
23
modelling, realization and testing of a large compact plate SiC heat exchanger for thermal SO3 decomposition.
Dense oxygen transport membranes are being tested under severe conditions for efficient O2 separation in the SO3
decomposition step. A criterion of thermal efficiency of more than 85% has been set, and the mock-up suitability
will be tested under realistic thermal conditions (850°C). The results will lead to recommendations for a pilot-scale
H2SO4 decomposition reactor in the several kW range.
2.3.4.3. The INNOHYP project
Innovative High Temperature Routes for Hydrogen Production (INNOHYP) was a ‘Coordination Action’
within FP6 starting in 2004 to run over four years. Its main objectives were the collection and coordination of
information describing the options for hydrogen production at high temperatures and the identification of further
research efforts. From all the routes to hydrogen considered, 17 were identified as important, for which conversion
efficiencies and their influence on various operating parameters have been studied. Some results are shown in
Section 10.6. Also, a categorization of primary energy sources was made. While nuclear is a ‘high density’ energy
source with maximum process temperatures limited to ~900°C, solar energy appears to be a key primary energy
source in the ‘low density’ category for high temperatures up to ~1600°C [34].
2.4. FRANCE
2.4.1. Energy situation in France
Consumption of primary energy in France amounted to 278 Mtoe in 2005, with an average increase of 1.3%/a
between 1990 and 2005. The breakdown of primary energy is 42% nuclear energy, 33% oil, 15% natural gas, 6%
renewables and 4% coal.
France is comparatively poor in domestic energy resources. French coal production, which was still around 40
million t/a at the end of the 1970s, was terminated in 2004. Also, domestic natural gas contributes not more than 2%
of France’s primary energy production. With the general objectives being to control energy demand, diversify
sources of energy, increase research into energy, and provide methods of transporting and storing energy, the French
energy policy has given priority to the development of a national energy supply with a strong focus on nuclear
energy and renewable energies. These energies are seen to provide a reliable long term supply without GHG
emissions and to ensure stable electricity prices.
The first nuclear power plants built in France were gas cooled reactors and the country also participated in the
OECD Dragon project. Today France is the world’s second largest producer of nuclear energy (after the USA) with
an electricity share of 78%. France operates 58 nuclear power stations with a total capacity of 63.2 GW. One Gen-
III reactor (EPR) is currently under construction. Since nuclear energy is not always fully used, interest is growing
in using excess nuclear electricity, apart from export, for hydrogen production to regulate the electricity production.
As was approved by the French Government in 2005, the nuclear R&D strategy in France is concentrating on
the development of fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle in succession to the Phénix and Superphénix projects,
innovative LWRs, and the promotion of nuclear hydrogen production and very high temperature process heat
supply to industry. France participated in the activities on the GIF VHTR system as well as the different European
programmes on HTGR and hydrogen production. In 2006, however, France announced plans to phase out VHTR
activities and to instead pursue the aim of constructing a sodium cooled nuclear fast reactor of the 4th generation
and to study, as an alternative, the helium cooled fast reactor. The current goals are the construction of a
250–600 MW(e) prototype SFR ‘Astrid’ by 2020 and the preconceptual design for a 75 MW(th) GFR ‘Allegro’. A
cornerstone of this policy is the existing infrastructure for reprocessing to be increasingly used in the civilian
business of reprocessing and fabricating new reactor fuel from the uranium and plutonium present in spent fuel.
2.4.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in France
Although emphasis was on the rapid expansion of PWR technology, some work on the HTGR continued
within European Union FPs. The French AREVA NP company is developing the concept of the ANTARES reactor,
a full-size HTGR design, and is a partner in the US/Russian GT-MHR project. The reference design is based on the
24
FIG. 12. Flexible reference design of ANTARES with heat applications in a wide temperature range [38].
GT-MHR of General Atomics of a 600 MW(th) reactor with prismatic block fuel and a core outlet temperature of
up to 850°C for the advanced HTGR version, or ~1000°C for a VHTR version. It uses an indirect cycle, possibly
with a helium–nitrogen mix in the secondary system.
The IHX is the only novel component that needs further development for the considered operation range.
Options are, besides the ‘conventional’ tubular concept (as a fall-back solution), the plate machined heat exchanger
(PMHX) and the plate fin heat exchanger (PFHX) designs, which should be capable of also sustaining higher
temperatures typical for direct cycle applications (Fig. 12). An extensive R&D and testing programme is necessary,
and has started already, to investigate appropriate materials [35, 36].
The AREVA company has also been developing an HTGR design within the USDOE’s Next Generation
Nuclear Plant (NGNP) programme. A comprehensive evaluation programme for the ANTARES concept was
completed, with a VHTR version for electricity generation and another one for process heat applications (see
Section 5.3.6.3). Following the change of the NGNP project goal to near term deployment with a greatly reduced
technology development and project risk, a new proposal was made, benefitting from the experience of past HTGR
projects, but also from the progress made since. Based on the previous ANTARES reactor, the new concept is a
625 MW(th) prismatic block reactor with a two-loop modular steam supply system which could be designed as a
multiple module plant depending on the applications and the customer’s needs [37].
With the withdrawal of Westinghouse from the bidding with a pebble bed reactor, AREVA is organizing a
concept design team from various suppliers and may still become a pebble bed vendor based on the German
HTR-Modul design.
2.5. INDIA
2.5.1. Energy situation in India
India’s energy consumption has been increasing at a rapid pace in recent years due to population growth and
economic development. In terms of primary energy consumption, at 595 Mtoe in 2007, despite a low per capita
25
energy consumption rate, India ranks fifth in the world, accounting for about 3.5% of the global commercial energy
demand in 2003. Until the end of the 1980s, India’s energy policy was mainly based on the availability of
indigenous resources.
Coal, oil and natural gas are the three primary commercial energy sources. India has the world’s third largest
coal reserves after the USA and China; still, the existing demand exceeds the supply. Coal accounts for 41% (as of
2007) of India’s total energy consumption, followed by renewables including hydroelectric power (29%), oil (24%)
and natural gas (6%) [21]. Although nuclear power comprises only 1% of total energy consumption, it is expected
to increase in the future. A large share of the total energy requirement is met by non-commercial energy sources,
which include wood, crop residue and animal waste. But commercial energy of a much higher quality and
efficiency are steadily replacing the traditional energy resources being consumed mainly in the rural sector. Of
India’s total energy needs, 30% are met through imports.
About 75% of the coal in the country is consumed in the power sector. The poor quality of Indian coal,
coupled with a lack of infrastructure to clean it, poses a major environmental threat. Oil consumption accounts for
roughly a third of India’s energy use. Due to limited domestic resources, most of the demand for crude oil and
petroleum products must be met with imports; since recently, this is the case for coal as well. Natural gas
consumption has risen at the rate of about 6.5% during the past 10 years, thus faster than any other type of energy
source. The import of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is being considered as one of the possible solutions for India’s
expected gas shortages. Part of India’s long term strategy is also to look at unconventional sources such as gas
hydrates, coal bed methane, underground coal gasification and use of coal for SNG production.
India’s electricity consumption totalled 792 TW·h in 2007 with 68% covered by coal and 8% by gas plants,
16% by hydropower and 2% by nuclear [21]. The electric system has proven highly inefficient. There is an at least
a 30% loss of power along the delivery chain. Unreliable power grids cause regular blackouts. In order to meet its
goals for poverty eradication, India must at least triple its primary energy supply and quintuple its electrical
capacity from 160 GW currently to ~800 GW by 2030. The electricity demand by 2050 is estimated to be 13 000
GW, with a nuclear share of about 20%.
India now envisages increasing the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity
from 4.2% to 9% within 25 years. In 2010, India’s installed nuclear power generation capacity will increase to 6000
MW with plans for construction of nine more units, including two EPRs being constructed by France’s AREVA.
Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3 and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors. India’s fast breeder reactor
programme started in the 1980s with a 40 MW(th) test reactor. A follow-on plant, a 500 MW(e) prototype fast
breeder reactor, is currently under construction at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at
Kalpakkam.
India boasts a quickly advancing and active nuclear power programme. The country has 19 nuclear power
plants in operation, generating 4.2 GW, and six more reactors under construction and expected to generate an
additional 3160 MW. Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves, electricity generation from nuclear power in
India declined by 13% from 2006 to 2008. The country is expected to have 20 GW of nuclear capacity by 2020.
Most of the nuclear programme is domestic development. India, being a non-signatory of the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, has been subjected to a de facto nuclear embargo from members of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group cartel. This has prevented India from obtaining commercial nuclear fuel, nuclear power plant
components and services from the international market, thereby forcing India to develop its own fuel, components
and services for nuclear power generation. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the
nation because it allows uranium to be burned with little to no enrichment capabilities. India’s nuclear technology
road map will be strongly based on the closed fuel cycle and on the utilization of thorium, of which India has nearly
one third of the world’s reserves [39].
2.5.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in India
In the Indian nuclear programme, the utilization of thorium has been given high priority. Among the
initiatives for thorium utilization are new nuclear reactor concepts currently under research and development at the
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) such as the advanced heavy water reactor, the so-called KAMINI reactor
at IGCAR, the only one in the world that is successfully operated with thorium and 233U fuel, the fast breeder
thorium reactor (FBTR), and the high temperature nuclear reactor to supply process heat in the 600–1000°C
temperature range.
26
While there is a need to find ways to optimize utilization of raw material, especially related to nuclear
materials, options for nuclear energy assisted hydrogen production are being considered. To meet such large
demands in a sustainable way, India has plans to employ a closed nuclear fuel cycle with large scale thorium
utilization. The magnitude of the demand will call for nuclear reactors with advanced designs. The other
specifications for a suitable nuclear reactor for hydrogen generation would obviously depend on the process
selected for hydrogen production.
Considering these aspects, India has prepared a road map for development of reactors for generating nuclear
hydrogen. Keeping in focus the long term objective, the current R&D activities in BARC are targeting challenging
technologies for high temperature nuclear reactors using thorium based fuel and capable of supplying process heat
at 1000°C.
India has also started to work on a National Hydrogen Energy Road Map with the main targeted sectors of
transportation and power supply and the longer term goal of replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen.
BARC has started a research programme on nuclear hydrogen production through water splitting based on the
S–I thermochemical process. Theoretical and experimental studies are being conducted, currently concentrating on
the Bunsen and the HI decomposition sections of the S–I cycle.
2.6. JAPAN
2.6.1. Energy situation in Japan
Japan has shown tremendous economic growth in the post-war period and is now one of the world’s leading
industrial countries. Japan has virtually no domestic oil or natural gas reserves and is the second-largest net
importer of crude oil and largest net importer of liquefied natural gas in the world. Including nuclear power, Japan
is only 16% energy self-sufficient (neglecting uranium imports).
Japan’s total primary energy demand in 2007 was 514 Mtoe [21]. Oil is the most consumed energy resource
in Japan (45% as of 2007), although its share of total energy consumption has strongly declined from 57% in 1990.
Coal, with 22% (versus 17% in 1990), continues to account for a significant share of total energy consumption,
although 99% of the coal must be imported. Natural gas (16%) and nuclear power (13%) are increasingly important
sources.
Total electricity production in Japan amounted to 1123 TW·h in 2007, with the largest share of 35% (up from
20% in 1990) from natural gas. The share of nuclear power is 32%, followed by coal (28%), oil (19%), hydro (9%)
and other renewables (3%) [21].
The commercial nuclear era in Japan started in 1966 with the operation of the 166 MW(e) gas cooled reactor
of the Tokai power plant. Later, light water reactors (LWRs) were introduced from the USA. With 55 nuclear
reactors and a total capacity of 47.3 GW, Japan has become the third largest consumer of nuclear power in the world
(after the USA and France). The Japanese government has maintained strong support for nuclear power. The LWR
Improvement and Standardization Programme launched by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)
and the nuclear power industry has led to the improvement of operation and maintenance of the existing BWR and
PWR designs and, later, with the introduction of the ‘advanced BWR’, to an increase of reactor size to 1300–1400
MW(e), making considerable design changes. After several incidents in nuclear power plants (Tokai-mura,
Mihama, Monju, Kashiwasaki), however, the government-funded research institutions were reorganized and
stricter controls were enforced. While the number of reactors is expected to increase, the focus of new
developments will shift to the advanced fuel cycle and next generation plants such as the ‘super-safe, small and
simple’ (4S) nuclear battery system, which is a sodium cooled reactor with a steam cycle that is capable of three
decades of continuous operation without refuelling, or the GTHTR300, a helium cooled VHTR for future large
scale hydrogen production.
The commitment made by Japan at the Kyoto conference was a reduction of GHG emissions by 6% below the
1990 level. The reality, however, is an observed increase of 8% in 1995, and of 12% in 2002. This would require an
18% GHG reduction by 2008–2012. Measures to help meet this goal are energy savings by the public, strengthened
plans for renewables, energy efficient vehicles and appliances, expanded use of natural gas, and last but not least the
construction of new nuclear power plants.
27
Because of enhanced and actively promoted R&D projects financially supported by the Government, Japan
has become a strong player in the development of a hydrogen economy. It is, besides the USA, the leading country
in fuel cell research, with large investments by both the Government and the car industries. Since Japan’s
transportation sector accounts for 20% of all CO2 emissions, fuels for ‘clean’ fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) were chosen
to be methanol and/or compressed H2 gas at present, gasoline reforming in the near term, and hydrogen plus
advanced storage options in the long term [40].
The present H2 consumption in Japan is about 162 million Nm3 per year, mainly produced via steam
reforming of natural gas. The demand for hydrogen in the future was projected by METI’s Agency for Natural
Resources & Energy (ANRE) to rise to 54.4 × 109 Nm3 in 2030 [41], with by far the largest share dedicated to
stationary fuel cells. But it will be only after 2020 that the use of H2 will show its CO2 reducing effect.
2.6.2. Hydrogen R&D activities in Japan
2.6.2.1. The Sunshine, Moonlight, New Sunshine and WE-NET projects
In 1974, shortly after the first energy crisis, the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) in MITI
(known since 2001 as the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)) of the Japanese Government initiated
the Sunshine project to develop new energy technologies and reduce environmental pollution. The project was
followed in 1978 by the Moonlight project to focus on energy saving and energy conversion technologies and in
1979 by the project on environmental technology. Due to the strong interrelations between new sources of energy,
energy conversion, and environmental technology, the New Sunshine project was started in 1993, merging all
previous projects to contribute to an international system based on environmentally friendly energy technologies.
The New Sunshine project has become the largest non-nuclear R&D programme supported by the Japanese
Government. In 1997, the Law Concerning Promotion of the Use of New Energy went into force, providing
subsidies in the area of new energy electric power generation with the main goal being to meet 3.1% of the domestic
energy supply using new energy sources by 2010, thus lowering the dependency on fossil fuels.
As a part of the New Sunshine project, the so-called International Clean Energy Network Using Hydrogen
Conversion, or World Energy Network (WE-NET), was established in 1993. The project was directed by NEDO
(New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization), an implementing agency of the Japanese
Government. Originally conceived as a 28 year project to demonstrate all aspects of a future hydrogen economy,
WE-NET was terminated after ten years and replaced with more specific projects on hydrogen applications. The
WE-NET project is described in more detail in Section 8.4.2.
2.6.2.2. The Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell demonstration project
The new Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell (JHFC) demonstration project was designed to consist of three
phases [42]:
— In a first R&D stage until 2005, demonstration projects of H2 infrastructure, also a discussion of international
and a review of domestic codes and regulations;
— In the phase from 2005 to 2010, the gradual establishment of the fuel supply system and promotion of fuel cell
cars and buses;
— And, finally, after 2010, the diffusion of H2 technologies, leading to self-sustained growth and the promotion
of fuel cell systems in the private sector.
Starting with the so-called Koizumi Initiative, a success of the JHFC demonstration programme was the
delivery of the first generation of commercially released H2-fuelled FCVs by Toyota and Honda in December 2002
in both Japan and California. Since then, quite a number of FCVs are being in test operation [43]. The Government
also issued the world’s first FCV safety and environmental standards, in force since April 2005 [44].
A large scale demonstration of stationary fuel cell systems started in 2005 on numerous sites all over Japan
using a polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC) from several manufacturers and applying different fuels under various
conditions. By 2006, more than 1000 PEFC systems in the power range of 0.7–1 kW were being operated for
residential use. Tests will expand to ≥5 kW systems for business use in a second stage of the project [43, 45].
28
2.6.2.3. The stationary fuel cell demonstration project
Fuel cells for mobile, but also for stationary, applications are being investigated. Various demonstration
projects have been starting, particularly as part of complete energy systems based on renewable primary energy.
Within the Millennium project coordinated by the Japan Gas Association, companies are moving to the large scale
production of 1 kW power units for households. Unlike the USA or Europe, Japan is basically looking at PEM
technology [42, 46].
As part of the infrastructure, 10 hydrogen refuelling stations were constructed in the Tokyo–Kanagawa area
based on different H2 sources, with the aim being to compare the various options and investigate their well-to-wheel
efficiencies.
2.6.3. Nuclear hydrogen production concepts in Japan
2.6.3.1. Hydrogen production with high temperature gas cooled reactor
The Basic Plan for Energy Supply and Demand of October 2003 as part of the Basic Law on Energy Policy
Making explicitly states that hydrogen is a clean energy carrier and that commercialization of hydrogen production
systems by means of nuclear, solar and biomass, but not fossil fuels, is desired. With the construction and operation
of the 30 MW(th) high temperature engineering test reactor, or HTTR (which achieved first criticality in 1998), the
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), formerly JAERI, has laid the basis for utilization of nuclear process heat for
hydrogen production. The reactor allows a coolant outlet temperature of 950°C outside the reactor vessel to provide
process heat at 905°C through the intermediate heat exchanger, which was demonstrated in 2004 for the first time
in the world.
Over several years, steam reforming of methane was considered the top candidate method to be connected to
the HTTR. The steam reforming process was successfully demonstrated in an out-of-pile facility under nuclear
conditions (see Section 4.1.3). Potential hazards of the combined system have been comprehensively investigated
in theoretical and experimental studies [47].
In recent years, JAEA has undertaken extensive R&D on the thermochemical cycles based on the UT-3 and
S–I processes for H2 production. It is most advanced in the study of the S–I cycle, with the successful operation of
a bench-scale facility having achieved a hydrogen production rate of 30 NL/h in continuous closed cycle operation
over one week. This process is now considered the prime candidate for the demonstration of nuclear assisted
hydrogen generation. The next step, which started in 2005, is the design and construction of a pilot plant with a
production rate of 30 Nm3/h of H2 under the simulated conditions of a nuclear reactor. Helium is heated by a 400
kW electrical heater [48]. While the efficiency was ~10% for the bench-scale plant, the goal for the pilot plant is
~40%. The backup hydrogen production method is high temperature electrolysis, which was also investigated, but
has not yet gone beyond lab-scale testing [49].
Development of the so-called HTTR-IS system began in 2005 with a conceptual design study, where the
available structure and heat mass balance of the system were evaluated [50]. The HTTR-IS (Fig. 13) will be
operated at gas temperatures of 395–950°C with a 10.2 kg/s coolant flow rate. A thermal power of 8.5 MW(th) will
be taken from the IHX and transferred to the secondary helium gas at the intermediate heat exchanger. The
secondary helium supplies heat to the chemical reactors of the S–I process such as a SO3 decomposer, H2SO4
vaporizer and HI decomposer. Finally, after cooled by a steam generator and helium cooler, secondary helium is
circulated by a helium circulator back to the IHX through the annular pipe of the concentric hot gas duct. Chemical
impurities in the secondary helium are removed by the secondary helium purification system to allow for an H2
production rate of 1000 Nm3/h with an expected efficiency of 43.6% [51]. The S–I process will be designed as a
‘non-nuclear’ grade plant, however, backup nuclear-graded equipment is available for cases of S–I abnormal
conditions [52].
Based on the experience with the construction and operation of the HTTR, JAEA has developed the
conceptual design of a commercial scale HTGR hydrogen cogeneration system, GTHTR300C [53–55]. The
baseline concept is the GTHTR300, which employs a helium cooled, graphite moderated prismatic core with
600 MW of thermal power and a helium outlet temperature of 850°C, and a gas turbine electricity generation
system [56, 57]. The GTHTR300 employs fully passive reactor safety, high fuel burnup, a conventional steel
reactor pressure vessel, non-intercooled direct Brayton cycle power conversion, a horizontal single shaft gas turbine
29
FIG. 13. Demonstration plant for nuclear hydrogen production with sulphur–iodine cycle connected to HTTR [53].
and electric generator, and a modular system arrangement. The reactor coolant temperature is limited to 850°C to
avoid turbine blade cooling and to allow the use of conventional turbine blade materials. The elimination of an
intercooling system reduces the power generation efficiency by 2%. But the system arrangement is simplified and
the cost of construction becomes lower.
For the GTHTR300C (Fig. 14; see also Section 5.3.6.6), the thermal power provided to the hydrogen system
can be increased from 170 to 370 MW if more hydrogen is needed. A total of 30 GTHTR300C could produce
hydrogen to operate 5.9 million FCV which is about 8% of the assumed vehicle fleet of 75 million, while the
370 MW version could provide hydrogen for 12.6 million FCV [55].
2.6.3.2. Hydrogen production with sodium cooled fast reactors
According to the Science and Technology Basic Plan by the Council for Science and Technology Policy of
2006, the fast breeder reactor cycle technology was selected as one of the key technologies of national importance.
Toshiba and CRIEPI developed the concept of the ‘4S Reactor’, a sodium cooled pool type reactor with 30 or
135 MW(th) power output, passive safety features, and underground construction as an additional safety measure.
The advanced fast reactor concept with sodium as a coolant is designed for 410 MW(e) power output. Its special
feature is a double-wall steam generator to avoid construction of an intermediate circuit [58].
JAEA is also studying the concept of a sodium cooled reactor to produce hydrogen in the so-called
Thermochemical and Electrolytic Process or JNC process. Since the maximum temperature remains below
approximately 500°C because electrolysis is applied, a fast reactor can be employed. It is designed for a power of
395 MW(th) to provide primary sodium at 550°C and secondary sodium at 540°C. The electrolytic steps require an
electric power of 18 MW for the SO3 electrolysis and 56 MW for the SO2 electrolysis. Hydrogen is yielded at a rate
of 47 000 Nm3/h [59].
30
FIG. 14. Design of Japan’s VHTR system GTHTR300C for hydrogen production with sulphur–iodine cycle [54].
2.6.3.3. Hydrogen production with water cooled reactors
Toshiba of Japan has proposed that steam reforming of dimethyl-ether (DME), a derivative of fossil fuels or
biomass, could be used to produce hydrogen with 300°C heat from water cooled reactors (see also Section 3.2.3.3).
With 40 MW of heat supply, production of approximately 230 t/d of hydrogen is possible, which is of the same
scale as the largest hydrogen production unit existing. To date, the demonstrated production rate is 4.10 kg/d of
hydrogen [60].
2.7. REPUBLIC OF KOREA
2.7.1. Energy situation in the Republic of Korea
The total primary energy consumption of the Republic of Korea in 2006 was 233 Mtoe (ranking ninth in the
world), with 43% petroleum, 24% coal, 16% nuclear, 14% LNG, 2% renewables and 1% hydro. Energy
consumption is expected to grow significantly in the future. The country lacks domestic energy resources and
currently has to import 97% of its primary energy demand. The Republic of Korea is the sixth largest and fastest
growing CO2 emitter of the OECD countries. The total installed electrical generation capacity is 61.4 GW(e), of
which 17.5 GW(e) is from nuclear. As of 2006, 36% of the electricity was generated by nuclear, 38% by coal, 20%
by LNG, 5% by petroleum and 1% by hydropower. The Republic of Korea is a small country with a high population
density where the use of low-density renewable energies is limited and not a practicable solution.
Commercial scale nuclear power generation started at the Kori-1 plant in 1978, and another 19 reactor units
have since been built using a mixture of CANDU (4 reactors) and PWR (16 reactors) technologies. The total
nuclear capacity amounts to 17.7 GW. Eight more plants are planned to come on-line in the period from 2010 to
2016, adding another 9.4 GW. According to the ‘National Energy Basic Plan’ of 2008, the share of nuclear in the
31
FIG. 15. Korean design of a VHTR for hydrogen production with S–I cycle [64].
primary energy should grow to 33% provided by 32 units. Nuclear power research in the Republic of Korea is very
active with investigation into a variety of advanced reactors, including the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
(KAERI) small system-integrated modular advanced reactor (SMART), a 330 MW(th) pressurized water reactor
with integral steam generators and advanced safety features, and designed for generating electricity (up to 100 MW(e))
and/or for thermal applications such as seawater desalination. Other advanced reactor concepts under development
are a liquid metal fast/transmutation reactor and a high temperature hydrogen generation design.
The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) initiated systematic research on the production, storage and
utilization of hydrogen and started a fundamental fuel cell technology development programme. The hydrogen
supply in the Republic of Korea was ~1 million t/a in 2008 and will increase to 3.6 million t/a or 7% of the total
energy share in 2030 and 11.8 million t/a (15%) in 2040, respectively [61]. Of the anticipated 2040 hydrogen
demand, 25% is projected to be generated with nuclear energy, for which about 50 nuclear hydrogen units will be
required.
2.7.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in the Republic of Korea
2.7.2.1. Nuclear hydrogen development and demonstration project
The Government of the Republic of Korea established a long term vision for the transition to a hydrogen
energy economy [62] where nuclear energy will play an essential role in the hydrogen production at a large scale
(Fig. 15). The main steps of this plan are to develop the technologies for production, storage and supply of hydrogen
fuel by 2020, to demonstrate these technologies by 2030, and then to commercialize them on the basis of a
Generation IV nuclear system [63].
In March 2004, MOST started the Nuclear Hydrogen Development and Demonstration (NHDD) project. Its
main goal is the design, construction and demonstration of nuclear based hydrogen production technology and the
achievement of commercial nuclear hydrogen production by the middle of the 2020s to cover 20% of the total
vehicle fuel demand, corresponding to 3.3 million t/a of hydrogen [65, 66]. While the Government is leading the
programme in the design phase, industrial participation is required from early on, to later take the lead in the
construction of a demonstration nuclear plant.
32
FIG. 16. Republic of Korea’s concept for nuclear methanol production [68].
2.7.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen key technologies development project
A nuclear hydrogen key technologies development project was starting in 2006 as a 12 year national
programme to develop and demonstrate the technologies required for the future nuclear H2 system. The institutions
involved in the project are KAERI for the nuclear part, and the Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) and the
Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) for the hydrogen part. These national activities are in parallel
with the Generation IV VHTR R&D. Research and development is concentrating on HTGR technology. A two-step
approach has been decided which foresees in the first step the deployment of an advanced HTGR (AHTGR) with a
moderate coolant outlet temperature of 850°C to be connected to a steam–methane reforming system with the
syngas used in iron ore reduction or methanol production. The final step will be the more challenging VHTR with
a coolant outlet temperature of 950°C [61].
The steel industries in the Republic of Korea, which need a large amount of energy (currently 11% of the
country’s total energy consumption), are particularly considered for the introduction of nuclear energy from
HTGRs. The introduction of nuclear would offer here the chance to reduce CO2 emissions by substituting fossil fuel
based processes and to produce the hydrogen needed for the direct reduction of iron ores [67]. Another example is
methanol production in the chemical industries (Fig. 16).
2.8. RUSSIAN FEDERATION
2.8.1. Energy situation in the Russian Federation
The Russian Federation, one of the world’s big energy superpowers, is rich in natural energy resources. It has
the largest known natural gas reserves of any country on earth, representing 32% of the world’s proven reserves.
Furthermore, it has, with 157 billion t, the world’s second largest coal reserves (10% of the explored coal reserves).
The Russian Federation is the largest oil producer of the non-OPEC countries, and the second largest in the world
after Saudi Arabia. It has the biggest oil shale reserves in Europe, equal to 35.47 billion t of shale oil. Last but not
least, it possesses 8% of the proven uranium reserves.
In recent years, the Russian Federation has identified the gas sector as being of key strategic importance. The
share of natural gas as a primary energy source is remarkably high compared with the rest of world. Gazprom has a
monopoly for the natural gas pipelines and has the exclusive rights to export natural gas, and thus controls their
access to the European market.
33
The total primary energy consumption in the Russian Federation was 665 Mtoe in 2007, down from 871 Mtoe
in 1990, with 55% covered by natural gas, 20% by oil and 15% by coal [21]. It is the world's fourth largest
electricity producer after the USA, China and Japan. In 2007, it produced 1013 TW·h of electricity. Roughly 67%
of the Russian Federation’s electricity is generated by thermal plants, 17% by hydropower and 17% by nuclear
reactors. The Russian Federation is the world’s leading net energy exporter and a major supplier to the European
Union. In the Russian Federation, about 40% of electric power and 85% of heat supply, mainly in cogeneration, is
covered by regional power industries with power plant units of ~300 MW(th) [69].
With the approval of the Kyoto Protocol by the Russian Federation in November 2004, the Accord could
finally be brought into force 90 days after Russian ratification (16 February 2005). The Russian Federation’s
commitment is not to exceed the 1990 emission level. Its GHG emissions, however, fell well below the 1990
baseline due to a drop in economic output after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The actual Russian energy strategy
is currently determined to find ways of reaching a better quality of fuel and energy mix by concentrating on energy
safety, energy effectiveness, budget effectiveness and ecological energy security.
In the Russian Federation, three big nuclear reactor technology lines have been developed: the pressurized
water reactor WWER, the boiling water reactor RBMK (which has been abandoned in the meantime), and the
sodium cooled fast reactor. As of 2010, ten nuclear power plants with 32 nuclear units and a total installed capacity
of 24.2 GW(e) were in operation, with four more units to be commissioned by 2013 [70].
The major objectives of the current programme are providing accelerated development of the nuclear power
industry with the commissioning of new standardized serial nuclear units. For the near term, a modification of
existing nuclear units is envisaged to extend their lifetime, as well as completion of construction of nuclear plants
at the advanced construction stage. The announced target for future nuclear power generation is to provide 23% of
the electricity needs by 2020. The Russian Federation has made plans to almost double the number of reactors in
operation to 59. Older reactors will be maintained and upgraded, including RBMK units. Preparation for the
construction of new nuclear plants based on the advanced WWER reactor unit with 1170 MW(e) is in progress.
Also, the fast breeder reactor BN-800 with 2100 MW(th) and 880 MW(e) is currently under construction.
Based on several decades of experience with lead cooled or Pb–Bi cooled reactors, a large lead cooled fast
reactor concept has been proposed with the Russian BREST reactor, designed for a power generation of 300 MW(e)
(pilot scale) and 1200 MW(e) (commercial scale), with a primary coolant outlet temperature of 540°C and
employing nitride fuel and a supercritical steam cycle.
In cooperation with the USA and Japan, the Russian Federation is currently developing the GT-MHR for
disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Alternative fuel cycles for the Russian concept are also being
investigated.
2.8.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in the Russian Federation
Starting in the 1960s, the HTGR programme of the Russian Federation focused on the so-called VG reactors,
including the pebble bed reactor concepts VGR-50, VG-400, VGM and VGMP, for which detailed designs have
been elaborated, mainly by the OKBM. At present, the focus is on the block type GT-MHR, which is a cooperative
effort with the USA.
Due to the vast amount of domestic natural gas resources and the anticipated need for large amounts of
hydrogen in the future, steam reforming of methane will remain the dominant hydrogen production method in the
first stage before being replaced with water splitting production processes. Since there is the potential for
considerable savings of natural gas resources when utilizing nuclear energy as a heat source for the steam reforming
process, the Russian Federation has developed an increased interest in utilizing modular type HTGRs for hydrogen
production.
The reactor project MHR-T (see also Section 5.3.6.8) has been designed as a nuclear energy complex with a
thermal power output of 600 MW(th). The complex includes a chemical–technological sector for hydrogen
production plus necessary infrastructure. In the case of steam–methane reforming as the short term option, nuclear
heat is considered to be directly transferred from the primary coolant to the chemical process, while for high
temperature steam electrolysis, both two- and three-circuit plant configurations are being considered [71].
34
FIG. 17. Schematic of MHR-100SMR for hydrogen production by steam-methane reforming [69].
2.8.2.1. Nuclear steam–methane reforming
Based on the preconceptual design of the MHR-100 with a thermal power of ~215 MW and an electric power
of 100 MW, the steam–methane reforming version, MHR-100SMR, is operated with a coolant outlet temperature of
950°C. The hot helium then enters the steam reformer which is composed of three heat exchangers (Fig. 17; see also
Section 4.1.4).
Besides the production of pure (≥99.99%) hydrogen from steam–methane reforming, a modified process
would also allow the production of methane–hydrogen mixtures in one process step (rather than by subsequent
mixing). The mixture is like hythane (see Section 8.2.6.3), but with much higher hydrogen fractions of up to 48%,
to be used, for example, as a cleaner transportation fuel [71].
Another technology of hydrogen production by methane thermal disintegration has been developed using
advanced liquid metal cooled fast reactors [72], which is described in more detail in Section 5.3.6.8.
2.8.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen from high temperature steam electrolysis
In the MHR-100SE for high temperature steam electrolysis (Fig. 18), the helium coolant flows at a rate of
126 kg/s through the gas turbine for electricity production, while another part of the helium, at a rate of 12.1 kg/s, is
used for the generation of steam at a pressure of 4.82 MPa. In the nuclear system to be used in the refinery
industries, it is foreseen to employ an additional intermediate helium circuit to transfer the nuclear heat to the
petrochemical plant, while all other concepts use a two-circuit system.
2.9. SOUTH AFRICA
2.9.1. Energy situation in South Africa
South Africa has only small deposits of oil and natural gas and relies on coal production for most of its energy
needs. South Africa’s economy is structured around large scale, energy-intensive mining and primary minerals
industries having a high commercial primary energy intensity. The supply of primary energy in 2007 was 128 Mtoe
at a growth rate of 4.4 %/a. The main shares were given by coal (68%), crude oil (19%), renewables (8%), nuclear
(3%) and natural gas (2%).
South Africa accounts for a major fraction of the CO2 emissions of the whole continent. Due to its large coal
deposits, South Africa is one of the cheapest electricity suppliers in the world. The main reason is its coal based
power generating capacity, whose share is 79% (of ~40 GW(e)), followed by crude oil (10%), renewables (6%),
35
FIG. 18. Schematic of MHR-100SE for hydrogen production by HTSE.
nuclear (3%) and natural gas (2%). Eskom Holdings Ltd, the State owned power utility that supplies 95% of South
Africa’s electricity, is planning to increase the current generation capacity of 40 GW by 4%/a to 80 GW by 2025.
The power supply crisis in January 2008, which forced shutdowns at mines, has accelerated recognition of the need
to diversify the energy mix, such as with nuclear power and natural gas, as well as various forms of renewable
energy.
Starting in 1984, the national utility ESKOM has been successfully operating the Koeberg nuclear power
station consisting of two 900 MW(e) PWR units which generated ~6.5% of the electricity needs. In addition,
ESKOM has been pursuing the project of modular HTGRs for electricity production to meet the demand of its
growing economy.
In 2007–2008, the demand for electricity in South Africa started to exceed supply when the economy was
growing and, at the same time, existing plants went out for maintenance. As a result, ESKOM and the South
African Government decided to request proposals for new nuclear capacity and to expand the nuclear component in
the energy supply mix of the country. In the strategic plan for the development of a national nuclear policy in 2007,
South Africa decided for the promotion of an ambitious nuclear power plant construction programme. It has been
projected that an additional 40 GW of electricity will be required over the next 20 years in South Africa. By 2030,
nuclear energy should provide 30% of electricity in South Africa, from a fleet of LWRs and HTGRs.
2.9.2. R&D activities on nuclear process heat in South Africa
The main drivers for a larger scale national nuclear hydrogen programme are the significant domestic
resources of uranium (10% of the global reserves) and the broad nuclear expertise (including HTGRs); domestic
resources of platinum group metals (75% of the global reserves), required as catalyst material for fuel cells; and
those of coal, providing the link to the country’s highly developed CTL technologies. In 2007, a National Hydrogen
and Fuel Cell Strategy was approved to develop local, cost competitive hydrogen production solutions on the basis
of nuclear coal gasification with HTGRs.
In 2004, the PBMR project was officially launched and announced as a National Strategic Project. In 2009,
when the project was hit hard by the world economic crisis and lost its financial backing by the Government, a
number of technical achievements had been made. These include different reactor designs with the supporting
nuclear engineering and safety analysis, with the latest reference concept being a 400 MW(th) pebble bed reactor
36
FIG. 19. Process scheme of steam–methane reforming with nuclear process heat plant [77].
with annular core geometry and utilizing a recuperative direct Brayton cycle to produce a nominal net electrical
output of 165 MW(e). The manufacturing capability of pebble fuel including quality control has been managed
such that the high quality of the latest German fuel production could be reproduced. Numerous test facilities and
experiments accompanied by modelling methods and software development discussed with national and
international nuclear regulators resulted in a wealth of expertise in nuclear engineering being gathered [73].
In 2008, as a result of the sudden increase of the oil price on the world market, a re-orientation took place. The
PBMR company changed its business strategy and reactor design by concentrating on near term market opportunities
to serve both electricity and process heat markets with nuclear steam cycle plants and smaller scales. Potential
customers are the South African petrochemical company SASOL for delivery of process steam and, at a later stage,
hydrogen, or oil sands producers in Canada. The most recent design has been scaled back to a 200–250 MW thermal
steam cycle plant with a 200 MW(th), 80 MW(e) demonstration plant at the nuclear site in Koeberg.
In cooperation with Westinghouse, PBMR has developed the preconceptual design of an NGNP plant (see
also Section 5.3.6.9). It employs a PBMR reactor for the production of hydrogen [74]. At a later stage, PBMR was
concentrating on the design of a 200 MW(th) plant (DPP200) for steam production to be delivered to the chemical
industries (see also Fig. 116). The final stage would be a process heat cogeneration plant with a coolant outlet
temperature of 900°C, and steam of 550°C. The combination of a Brayton cycle with a Rankine cycle promises
efficiencies of greater than 50%. A proposal was submitted in 2009 to the USDOE NGNP programme based on two
200 MW(th) reactors linked to an indirect steam cycle, but the participation in the NGNP programme ended with
the withdrawal of the consortium from the project in 2010 [75].
PBMR developed the conceptual design for steam methane reforming under the heat delivery conditions
provided by an HTGR (Fig. 19). Hot secondary helium enters the process plant at 900ºC and about 9 MPa, and exits
at about 660ºC. Temperatures are somewhat below optimum reformer performance, but still it is believed that an
HTGR can economically replace a natural gas heat source under certain conditions of high (and volatile) gas prices
and the need for major reductions in CO2 emissions [76, 77].
Other nuclear hydrogen production methods considered by PBMR were high temperature steam electrolysis
and the thermochemical cycles, with a preference for the Westinghouse HyS hybrid cycle (Fig. 20). The fastest
route to a design was to take the German HTR-Modul concept as basis and to develop a concept design for a
200–250 MW(th) plant which can be used for process heat only, electricity only, or both [73].
An environmentally friendly CTL technology is given if nuclear hydrogen from water splitting processes is
taken for upgrading the fuel chains which result from the coal liquefaction processes. A nearer term solution would
37
FIG. 20. Schematic (top) and process scheme (bottom) of nuclear CTL with PBMR and hydrogen from the HyS process [74].
be the delivery of nuclear-produced process steam, to be used in the petrochemical industries for CTL processes or
oil sands recovery. At a later stage, also hydrogen may be delivered from PBMR plants to serve not only the
chemical industries, but also the future transportation fuel market. In addition to process steam, cogeneration and
water desalination options are also being pursued [78].
The idea of collocating a 400 MW(th) PBMR plant within a chemical complex to supply process heat for
ethylene production is elaborated in Ref. [79]. Ethylene can be produced from different feedstocks by thermal
cracking of hydrocarbons (pyrolysis) at ~750°C in the presence of steam and subsequent separation by multiple
distillation steps at low temperatures. The power output of 400 MW(th) corresponds to the demand for the pyrolysis
step (consuming 75% of the total energy needed) in a large ethylene production train. As the heat transport medium
to the chemical process, the fluoride salt Flinak was selected. One coupling option suggested was to transport the
38
FIG. 21. Estimated energy use in the USA in 2008 [80].
hydrocarbon feedstock near the nuclear plant for conduction of the high temperature pyrolysis step and to return the
cooled cracking products to the chemical site for distillation.
2.10. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2.10.1. Energy situation in the United States of America
The USA uses more energy than any other country in the world. Energy consumption exceeds domestic
supply, which continuously declines. Currently, 27% of the energy needs are imported, a share which will rise to
31% by 2020. In 2007, the USA consumed in total 2337 Mtoe of primary energy [21]. An estimate of the energy use
in 2008 is given in Fig. 21 [80]. The country’s largest source representing 39% of the energy demand is crude oil,
of which 60% must be imported. About 66% of the oil is consumed in the transportation sector and 24% in the
industrial sector, while the remainder is used for residential and commercial heating. The USA is also the largest
consumer of natural gas, with 27% of the world’s annual production. Natural gas is increasingly used for electricity
production (almost doubled to 21% in 2007 compared to 1990) and will remain in the nearer term the fuel of choice
for new electric power plants. About 16% of the natural gas consumed is imported, partly in the form of LNG.
Regasification of LNG is a growing industry. Coal is the most abundantly available energy resource in the USA.
About 50% of the electricity production is from coal, which is responsible for a relatively high level of pollutant
emissions. The USA will need approximately 400 GW of new power generation capacity by 2020.
In 2007, nuclear energy accounted for 837 TWh or 19% of the total electricity production from the operation of
104 nuclear reactors with a capacity of 101.2 GW(e). To maintain this nuclear share, the equivalent of 30 1000 MW
nuclear reactors will have to be built. Renewables are basically used for electricity production with a share of 9%
(with 6% from hydro and 3% from other renewables).
39
In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in nuclear power in the USA. This has been facilitated in
part by the Federal Government with the Nuclear Power 2010 Programme and the Energy Policy Act. By March
2009, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had received applications for permission to construct 26 new
nuclear power reactors, with applications for another seven expected. Types of reactors include ABWR, AP-1000,
ESBWR and US-EPR. To achieve energy security and stability, the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) defined
a strategy to demonstrate an HTGR.
The USA has the fourth largest uranium reserves in the world. Domestic production increased until 1980,
after which it declined sharply due to low uranium prices. In 2001 the United States mined only 5% of the uranium
consumed by its nuclear power plants. The remainder was imported, principally from the Russian Federation and
Australia. After 2001, however, uranium prices were steadily increasing, which prompted enhanced production and
revived domestic mines.
In the American Clean Energy and Security Act of June 2009, it was foreseen to define, for the first time in the
USA, upper limits of GHG emissions with the goal of a 17% reduction of the 2005 emissions by 2020. At present, the
transportation sector accounts for one third of fossil fuel GHG emissions; 16% are from industrial applications.
US process energy demand is in the order of 49 Mtoe in the process temperature range of 250–500°C, of
which more than 90% is used for various petroleum products and Canadian oil sands; 41.5 Mtoe in the range of
500–700°C for petroleum products and ammonia; and about 9 Mtoe in the high temperature range of 700–950°C
for ethylene, propylene and hydrogen production [81]. Synthesis gas production in the USA amounted to 6700 MW
of thermal equivalent in 2005, delivered from 20 coal gasification plants [81].
The annual production of hydrogen was 11 million t in 2006, representing ~49 GW(e) (HHV) or ~1% of the
primary energy. Of all hydrogen, 90% is produced by steam–methane reforming, consuming 5% of the natural gas
used in the USA [82]. This quantity would be sufficient to power 60 million FCVs. Demand for hydrogen in the
USA has been increasing by 10%/a [83] and is expected to grow to more than 30 million t/a by 2030 [84]. Since
1982, there has been a 59% expansion of on-site refinery-owned hydrogen plant capacity in the USA, an average
growth rate of 1.2%/a. Currently, the largest sources of hydrogen production capacity in the USA are associated
with the nation’s 145 operating oil refineries. Three major potential hydrogen markets seen in the USA are
transportation, electric power, and production industries. R&D activities have been or are being supported by the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative of 2003, the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Development Programme, the Multi-
Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan of 2005, and the Roadmap for Manufacturing R&D on the
Hydrogen Economy of 2005.
2.10.2. Nuclear hydrogen production R&D programme in the United States of America
The USDOE has initiated a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), to offer a framework for worldwide
use of nuclear power while reducing the risks of nuclear proliferation and the impacts of radioactive waste. US
participation in GIF is on sodium cooled fast reactors and very high temperature reactors.
2.10.2.1. The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
The goal of the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) is to demonstrate the commercial scale production
of hydrogen using nuclear energy by 2017. The modular helium reactor (MHR) has been suggested as the
Generation IV reference concept for nuclear hydrogen generation on the basis of either the S–I thermochemical
cycle or HTSE.
As part of the national hydrogen research programme, the USDOE created the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
(NHI) with the objective being to advance nuclear energy for the support of a future hydrogen economy. The frame
was widened with the start of the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI) for bilateral or
multilateral international cooperation supporting R&D activities for Generation IV, the NHI and the advanced fuel
cycle R&D.
The objectives of I-NERI include the development and demonstration of technologies which enable the
nuclear powered production of hydrogen by non-fossil based water splitting H2 production processes. The USDOE
cost goal for hydrogen (as of 2005) is US$2–3 per gge (gallons of gasoline equivalent), independent of the pathway
of H2 production and delivery [85]; 1 gge corresponds to 1.004 kg of H2 [86]. Thermochemical cycles that were
selected by a screening effort within the NHI are listed in Table 4.
40
TABLE 4. USDOE NUCLEAR HYDROLOGY INITIATIVE SELECTED
THERMOCHEMICAL CYCLES
Thermochemical cycles
Highest priority baseline cycles Sulphur–iodine (S–I)

Hybrid sulphur (HyS)
Suphur–bromine hybrid
Next priority cycle Calcium–bromine
Promising alternatives Copper–chlorine hybrid (Cu–Cl)

Iron–chlorine (Fe–Cl)
Copper–sulphur hybrid
Vanadium–chlorine (V–Cl)
Between 2003 and 2008, the USDOE promoted nuclear hydrogen programmes in the USA which
concentrated on:
— Hybrid sulphur thermochemical cycle development at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL);
— High temperature electrolysis development at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL);
— S–I process development at General Atomics.
In a down selection activity in 2009, led by INL, to systematically evaluate and select the best technology for
deployment with NGNP, HTSE was judged as the most appropriate advanced nuclear hydrogen production
technology that presents the greatest potential for successful deployment and demonstration at NGNP. But it was
also stated that both HyS and S–I processes exhibit attractive attributes for hydrogen production, which supports
not abandoning either technology for future consideration [87, 88].
The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative ended in 2009.
2.10.2.2. Nuclear gas cooled reactor concepts
(A) Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)
As a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the USA has been designing a Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP). This government sponsored demonstration programme of a VHTR Generation IV system is to be
conducted by an alliance of suppliers of the technology, nuclear plant owner/operators, other support technology
companies, and potential industrial end users of the technology. This alliance in partnership with the USDOE would
provide the private sector perspective and support the selection of the specific operating conditions and
configuration for the NGNP [89]. A licensing strategy is required to be developed with the NRC.
The NGNP project’s objective is to develop and demonstrate a first of a kind nuclear system with the
capability to generate electrical power and produce process heat for hydrogen production and other applications.
The nuclear plant is based on a 400–600 MW(th) full scale prototype gas cooled reactor using an indirect cycle with
intermediate circuit to provide electricity and process heat at 950°C. From the total thermal power, a part is planned
to be consumed for hydrogen production using either the S–I process or the HyS cycle or high temperature steam
electrolysis (Fig. 22).
Preconceptual design studies for the NGNP project have been developed by three contractor teams with the
team leaders Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, AREVA NP Inc., and General Atomics (Table 5). With the
decision of the US Secretary of Energy in March 2010, both a pebble and block type reactor design will be
subjected to continued work on a conceptual design. The selections will support the development of conceptual
designs, cost and schedule estimates for demonstration project completion and a business plan before a final
decision will be made to proceed to Phase 2, which would entail detailed design, licence review and construction of
a demonstration plant.
41
FIG. 22. NGNP combined with both S–I and HTSE systems [90].
Because the NGNP is a prototype plant, and in order to reduce the technology development risks, it is likely
that initial operation will start at less than full design conditions (e.g. lower coolant outlet temperature) with a
subsequent proof of principle operating period which will be used to verify design assumptions as plant operating
conditions are gradually expanded to the full design point. Baseline fuel design for the first modules will be low
enriched uranium (LEU) TRISO coated particle fuel in a once-through fuel cycle. The initial operating period will
also demonstrate general technical performance and reliability of the primary and support structures [89]. More
specifically, the use of a high temperature helium direct Brayton cycle has been suggested to be replaced with a
primary helium cycle and a secondary Rankine steam cycle. Potential materials problems are met in the modified
reference design by a reduced outlet fluid temperature of 750–800°C.
The hydrogen production technology will interface with the NGNP via an intermediate heat exchanger or
steam generator. The interface parameters are [87]:
— Utilize up to 50 MW(th) total reactor power with any electric conversion at 40%;
— He IHX outlet to the hydrogen process at 700°C and 7 MPa pressure;
— Outlet temperature from steam generator up to 550°C at 15 MPa pressure.
The potential for tritium contamination of the hydrogen production process loop is minimized by the
employment of an additional process heat exchanger [91].
While the original NGNP mission goal was for the project to be built at INL, interested industries favour the
co-location of the demonstration facility with an existing commercial chemical plant. In the modified version of
cogeneration of process steam and electricity, General Atomics suggested a 350 MW(th) MHR with a prismatic
LEU UCO core in a single primary helium loop at 750°C outlet temperature, and a single secondary water/steam
loop to produce steam at 540°C, 17.3 MPa. Electricity generation will be done via Rankine cycle, while process
steam generation will be conducted in a tertiary system via steam-to-steam heat exchanger [92].
42
TABLE 5. PRECONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR NGNP [89]
Westinghouse AREVA General Atomics
Reactor core Pebble bed Prismatic Prismatic
Cycle configuration Indirect Rankine Indirect Rankine Direct Brayton

PCS and H2 process
Power size (MW(th)) 500 565 550–600
Reactor inlet/outlet 350/950 500/900 490/≤ 950

temperature (°C)
Fuel TRISO UO2 TRISO UCO TRISO UCO
Secondary fluid He He–N2 to PCS He

He to H2 process
IHX 2-stage PCHX PCS, 3-helical coil

shell & tube
PHX PCHX or PFHX 1-stage PCHX
Hydrogen production HyS, HTSE HTSE, later S–I HTSE, later S–I
Hydrogen plant power 10% of total power 10% of total power 5 MW(th) for HTSE
60 MW(th) for S–I
(B) Modular helium reactor for hydrogen production (H2-MHR)
The GT-MHR design with a prismatic and annular core design (see Section 5.3.6.10) is a General Atomics
development which should go up to 600 MW(th) with direct gas turbine cycle and filtered confinement. For
commercial use, the GT-MHR of 600 MW(th) power will use an LEU fuel cycle. It is designed for averaged coolant
inlet/outlet temperatures of 590/950°C working with an efficiency of 48–52% for electricity production [93]. The
option for cogeneration of electricity and process heat is also studied (see Section 5.3.6.10). In cooperation with the
Russian Federation, a parallel GT-MHR design is being developed for surplus weapons plutonium disposition. The
GT-MHR project coordinating committee decided that before final design development starts, all efforts and funds
should be concentrated on technology demonstration. The GT-MHR for hydrogen production is referred to as
H2-MHR.
INL has conducted system analyses of commercial-size nuclear hydrogen production plants based on HTSE
(Fig. 23) [94, 95]. Flowsheet studies were made for a 600 MW(th) reference HTGR operated at 7 MPa with coolant
inlet/outlet temperatures of 540/900°C. The HTSE section operating ideally at 5 MPa consists of 4 million
electrolysis cells, each with an active cell area of 225 cm2 requiring 300 MW(e) as direct current.
The overall thermal-to-H2 conversion efficiency was assessed to be 47.12%, corresponding to a hydrogen
production rate of 2.356 kg/s. The process analysis tool UniSim was used to develop realistic flow diagrams for
three different advanced nuclear reactors, a direct cycle helium cooled HTGR with 900°C outlet temperature, a CO2
cooled SCWR with 650°C outlet temperature, and a sodium cooled FBR with 550°C outlet temperature, all
connected to a power cycle and an integrated HTSE loop. On the hydrogen side, the cell area was assumed to be
225 cm2. The results have shown that reasonable H2 production rates can be achieved at efficiencies in the range of
45–50% for the HTGR, 42–44% for the SCWR and 33–34% for the FBR.
The same code UniSim was also applied to a 600 MW(th) and 300 MW(e) co-electrolysis plant for dedicated
synthesis gas production. Such a system is conceivable in combination with a biomass plant to deliver the feedstock
CO2 and with Fischer–Tropsch conversion to synthetic liquid fuels [96]. For the nuclear reactor concept, a coolant
exit temperature of 900°C and a direct Brayton cycle is foreseen. The feed stream to the electrolyser cell is a
mixture of CO2, H2 and synthesis gas with a share of 10% recycled from the product stream. The mixture receives
its cell operation temperature from nuclear heat in an IHX. The hot product stream flows through a recuperator to
43
FIG. 23. MHR coupled to high temperature steam electrolysis [86].
preheat the feed stream. Air is used as sweep gas to dilute and remove the hot excess oxygen. The efficiency is
estimated to be 48.3% to result in a synthesis gas production of ~10 kg/s or 78 000 Nm3/h.
Initial analysis of the latest INL reference design using the HYSYS process analysis software results in a
hydrogen production rate of 1.75 kg/s at an overall efficiency of 40.4% with a reactor power source of 600 MW(th)
operating at a reactor outlet temperature of 750°C. The electrolysis stack is assumed to consist of 1.057 million
electrolysis cells operating at a current density of 0.6969 A/cm2 and a steam utilization rate of 66.67% [91].
2.10.2.3. The liquid salt cooled advanced high temperature reactor
A reactor system that did not survive the selection process for Generation IV type reactor concepts was the
advanced high temperature reactor (AHTR). It is a reactor concept that combines four existing technologies in a
new way [97]: (i) coated particle fuel in matrix graphite; (ii) high temperature Brayton power cycle with coolant
outlet temperatures between 700 and 1000°C; (iii) passive safety systems and plant designs from liquid metal
cooled fast reactors; and (iv) low pressure liquid salt coolants with boiling points far above the maximum coolant
temperature. The AHTR uses technologies from VHTRs, GFRs and MSRs, but it is not an MSR where the fuel is
dissolved in a molten salt. It is actually viewed as a follow-on concept for the VHTR, therefore also called
LS-VHTR. It should be economically competitive with LWRs or modular HTGRs.
2.10.2.4. The STAR-H2 reactor
Another project as part of the USDOE NERI is the Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor Hydrogen
(STAR-H2) project (Fig. 24), characterized by passive safety features. The concept was originally based on the
Russian submarine reactor technology demonstrated at ~500°C. STAR-H2 is designed as a heavy liquid metal
cooled, mixed U–TRU–nitride fuelled fast reactor with a power of 400 MW(th) supplying heat at a maximum of
800°C. The primary coolant, lead, circulates by natural convection and transfers its heat to a molten salt coolant
(FLiBe = containing F, Li and Be) in a low pressure intermediate circuit. The salt then transfers heat to a hydrogen
production system based on a variant of the Ca–Br (UT-3) thermochemical cycle.
44
FIG. 24. STAR-H2 concept [98].
The Ca–Br (star) cycle operates at atmospheric pressure employing a single-stage HBr dissociation step:
2 HBr + plasma ↔ Br2 + H2
This production process rejects heat at ~600°C, which — plus some heat from the FLiBe — is used for
electricity production in a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Rejected heat from the Brayton cycle (< 125°C) can be
used in an MED desalination plant with a capacity of 8000 m3/d of potable water [99]. The operation of a liquid
metal reactor above 600°C poses extensive materials problems yet to be solved.
The liquid salt cooled fast reactor (LSFR) has a design similar to that of the AHTR. The coolant is a fluoride
salt such as sodium–zirconium salt, to minimize neutron moderation. Operating temperatures are 700–800°C,
limited by fuel clad materials. The high temperature metal cladding also has to withstand the corrosive environment
and the fast neutron radiation.
In a molten salt breeding reactor (MSBR), all fissile, fertile and fission product materials are dissolved in the
coolant, which flows to a primary heat exchanger to transfer heat to a secondary liquid salt coolant. For the 1000
MW(e) plant concept, the primary coolant temperatures are 565°C at the inlet and 705°C at the outlet at
atmospheric pressure. A molten salt reactor technology (MOST) project aimed at investigating the potential of
MSRs as breeders or burners. The critical aspects are neutronic stability, viability of the reprocessing scheme and
mechanical integrity of the primary circuit structures.
45
3. METHODS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
3.1. INTRODUCTION
Current global hydrogen production has been estimated at around 7 × 1018 J/a, corresponding to ~52.6 million
t/a (HHV) or ~630 billion Nm3/a, which is about 2% of the world’s total energy consumption [100]. Almost all
hydrogen on earth is found in compounds, mainly in combination with oxygen as water or in combination with
carbon as organic substances.
Contemporary industrial hydrogen production is primarily based on extraction from fossil resources, foremost
the reforming of natural gas (48% of the world’s production), but also processes like partial oxidation (POX) of oil
and off-gas from refinery processes in the chemical industries (30%) and the gasification of coal (18%) [101].
Electrolysis contributes 3.9%, with about 2% being generated as a side product in chlorine–alkaline electrolysis.
Still at a minor scale and in the demonstration phase is biomass gasification to produce a hydrogen and/or methane
rich fuel gas. The various process paths from primary energy to the end product and secondary energy carrier,
hydrogen, are illustrated in Fig. 25, encompassing both the CO2 emitting extraction processes from hydrocarbons
and the CO2 emission free water splitting processes.
In the future, new production processes will be needed to supply hydrogen to the energy market, including the
use of biomass and CO2 free or CO2 neutral primary energies.
3.2. HYDROGEN FROM FOSSIL FUEL PROCESSING
The principal conversion product of hydrocarbons is synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide, mainly resulting from the processes of steam reforming, POX or autothermal reforming. The process is,
FIG. 25. Routes of hydrogen production [102].
46
FIG. 26. Processing scheme of steam–methane reforming.
in most cases, a reaction of the feedstock hydrocarbon, steam and air/oxygen taking place at high temperatures. The
hydrogen produced originates from both the hydrocarbon and the steam. If the hydrogen product is to be
maximized, the conversion processes are followed by the water gas shift reaction. The final processing step is the
separation and purification of the hydrogen.
3.2.1. Steam/CO2 reforming of natural gas and light hydrocarbons
3.2.1.1. Steam reforming
The steam reforming process is the catalytic decomposition of light hydrocarbons (e.g. methane, natural gas,
naphtha) to react with superheated steam, resulting in a hydrogen rich gas mixture. A processing scheme is given in
Fig. 26.
The reforming reactions are endothermic, running at high temperatures of greater than 500°C.
Steam–methane reforming (SMR) typically takes place at 850°C, and at pressures of greater than 2.5 up to 5 MPa
in the presence of an iron or nickel or ruthenium catalyst:
CnHm + n H2O ↔ (n+m/2) H2 + n CO (endothermic)
CnHm + 2n H2O ↔ (2n+m/2) H2 + n CO2 (endothermic)
And for methane:
CH4 + H2O ↔ 3 H2 + CO –206 kJ/mol
CH4 + 2 H2O ↔ 4 H2 + CO2 –165 kJ/mol
Since the number of moles is increased during the conversion, high temperatures and low pressures generally
are favourable for this process. Pressures of up to 5 MPa are chosen to save compression energy for the large
amounts of synthesis gas generated. In order to increase the output of hydrogen and to avoid carbon deposition due
to the Boudouard reaction, the carbon monoxide is catalytically converted in the slightly exothermic water gas shift
reaction with steam according to:
CO + H2O ↔ H2 + CO2 +43.3 kJ/mol
47
The shift reaction is generally done in industrial processes via two steps at different temperature levels, the
first at 350–450°C using an iron-oxide catalyst, and the second at 150–250°C using a copper–zinc or aluminium
catalyst. The result is more H2 and a lower CO concentration, which can be reduced to 0.5–2% of the dry gas. The
feedgas is desulphurized to protect the catalyst inside the reformer tubes. The reformer tubes in the furnace are
heated from the outside by burning a part of the natural gas (Fig. 26). The main processes of heat transfer are
radiation and convection. Flue gas at a temperature above 1300°C passes the furnace and is used in a waste heat
utilization step to produce steam and to preheat the feedgas.
The average equilibrium composition of the dry reformer gas, i.e. without steam, is 75% H2 (about half of
which is from the shift reaction), 13% CO, 10% CO2 and 2% CH4. It is strongly dependent on the fuel
characteristics, steam-to-carbon ratio, outlet temperature and pressure, which are chosen according to the desired
products. High reforming temperatures, low pressures and high steam-to-methane ratios favour a high methane
conversion. A minimum H2O:CH4 ratio of around 2 is necessary to avoid carbon deposition on the catalyst, which
would be deactivated. If excess steam is injected, typically 300% away from the stoichiometric mixture, the
equilibrium is shifted toward more CO2 at temperatures of 300–400°C, increasing the hydrogen yield and reducing
the undesired production of carbon by the Boudouard reaction:
2 CO ↔ CO2 + C +172 kJ/mol
Another unwanted reaction is thermal cracking of hydrocarbons which produces soot or carbon black. The
reaction is dependent on the operating temperatures and the steam to carbon ratio.
CnHm ↔ 0.5m H2 + n C
The hydrogen gas needs to pass further purification steps to realize a purity of >99% before being used, e.g.
in fuel cells. The unwanted constituents CO2 and others are removed from the gas mixture by pressure swing
adsorption (PSA), i.e. adsorption on beds of molecules, sieves, or by membrane separation. Another efficient
method for cleaning the H2 product gas developed by AECL is a methanator, which converts the still available CO
to methane, reducing concentrations to below the parts per billion level. An alternative method of removing CO is
by PSA [20]. Tail gases may be used for heat requirements. The CO2 generated is contained in the PSA reject gas
and usually vented to the atmosphere.
Higher hydrocarbons are more reactive and can easily be reformed, the only limitation being sulphur
poisoning. If light hydrocarbons are used as fuel, a pre-reformation is sometimes helpful to operate the tubes under
the same conditions with methane as feedgas. Naphtha based plants are applying a pre-reforming step at a lower
temperature and using a more active catalyst, partially converting the hydrocarbons to methane, hydrogen and
carbon oxides. This allows alternate feed operation and makes better use of heat in the overall process. Feed and
fuel consumption savings are approximately 5% [103]. Steam reforming of heavier hydrocarbons is possible, but it
requires more complex process equipment and is therefore only rarely applied.
Steam reforming of natural gas is a technically and commercially well established technology on the
industrial scale and currently the most economical route. Reforming technology is mainly used in the petrochemical
and fertilizer industries for the production of ‘on-purpose’ hydrogen. Large steam reformer units with up to about
1000 splitting tubes with a typical diameter of 100 mm and a length of 10 m have a production capacity of around
130 000 Nm3/h (Fig. 27). At the Fortum refinery in Porvoo, Finland, a hydrogen plant with a capacity of 180 000 Nm3/h
or 16.2 t/h of H2, corresponding to a stored power of 645 MW (based on HHV), which started operation in 2007, is
one of the largest one-line steam reforming hydrogen plants in the world. This plant is flexible in feedstock in that,
besides natural gas, it can also convert refinery off-gas or liquid propane. Future reformer plants are designed to
produce 237 000 Nm3/h. Commercial large scale SMRs produce hydrogen at an efficiency of about 75% and a CO2
intensity of 9.5 kg per kg of H2 produced [104].
Modern steam–methane reformers often use more than one catalyst at different temperatures to optimize the
H2 output. Heat losses and thermodynamic (Carnot) limitation lead to an overall efficiency of about 80%. Catalytic
autothermal reforming is ideal for fuel cell systems due to its simple design, low operation temperatures, flexible
load and high efficiency.
48
FIG. 27. Uhde steam reformer for light hydrocarbons [103].
In plate type reformers, plates are arranged in a stack, with one side coated with a catalyst and supplied with
the reactants. These reformers are of a more compact design and show faster startup and better heat transfer, and
therefore a higher conversion efficiency.
Advanced reforming techniques will operate at reduced reaction temperatures by means of microporous
ceramic membranes. Membrane modules made of palladium based alloy and a nickel based catalyst can drive the
steam reforming reaction, shift reaction and H2 separation simultaneously (Fig. 28), i.e. without shift converter and
PSA stages. Therefore, the system is compact and provides higher efficiencies. The simultaneous processes allow a
lower reaction temperature down to around 550°C, posing less stringent requirements to the materials. The
temperature reduction is possible because part of the heat for the endothermic reforming reaction is provided by the
exothermic shift reaction. The net heat required is 165 kJ/mol. The technical feasibility of a methane-combusting
membrane reforming system was demonstrated in 2004–2005 by the Tokyo Gas Company, Japan, at a hydrogen
fuelling station in Tokyo [105]. The system performance, efficiency and long term reliability were confirmed by the
production of >99.99% hydrogen at 3.6 kg/h for more than 3000 h with a hydrogen production efficiency of about
68% (lower heating value) [106]. Catalysts and the separation membranes are the key components with potential
for further improvement and optimization.
49
FIG. 28. Membrane reformer [105, 108].
For the high temperature range, inorganic membranes (ceramics, metals) are under development. They allow
new concepts that may make the stages of air separation, POX or PSA obsolete. Ion transport membranes (ITMs),
with their stable oxygen defect crystal structure, are operated at greater than 700°C and allow only oxygen ions to
move through the membrane, which is gas-tight for all other gases. Due to the charge separation, the material must
be conducting at the same time. Palladium coated metal composite membranes promise advantages in terms of
mechanical strength, higher hydrogen flux, high selectivity and reduced materials costs. Hydrogen permeation
through a palladium membrane is a complex multi-step activated process typically in the range of 300–600°C.
Palladium membranes combine the separation unit and shift reaction in one stage, which is particularly
advantageous for small reformers [107]. Conceptual designs promise cost reductions in the generation of high
pressure hydrogen.
A novel approach of allothermal steam–methane reforming has been proposed [109]. External heat, e.g. from
nuclear power, is supplied via an IHX to a three-step reforming and membrane module system, where — in contrast
to a membrane reactor — the membrane stage is separated from the reforming reactor (Fig. 29). Reforming is done
at temperatures of 600–650°C in three steps, reaching a conversion ratio of ~90%. The reactors are heated by hot
air, which itself is heated in a heat exchanger and from purge gas combustion. The main advantage is that the
subsequent external membrane separation step can work at lower temperatures of ~450°C, which is beneficial with
respect to the stability, lifetime and maintenance of the membrane. A highly reliable, reproducible, hydrogen
selective membrane is essential. Research is focused on palladium based composites with thin palladium films
(0.5–3 μm) on porous metallic substrates, promising sufficient mechanical strength, hydrogen permeability and
selectivity.
There is only limited potential for further improvements in the large scale steam reforming process. Such
improvements may be brought about by the optimization of heat integration and recovery, and the removal of the
CO2 in the shift reactor or the replacement of the PSA unit with the selective catalytic removal of CO, assuming
appropriate membranes and catalysts have been developed. With such improvements, an increase in overall
efficiency of approximately 4% might be achievable by 2020 [110].
For decentralized hydrogen production, small scale steam reformers are also commercially available, with
capacities of 500–700 Nm3/h. These reformers are characterized by efficiencies of up to 65% (LHV) within a wide
range of operating conditions (load changes between 40 and 100%), small size, short cold startup times and
automated operation. Smaller scale designs with capacities in the range of 100 Nm3/h appear to be cost competitive
solutions for refineries and applicable in hydrogen refuelling stations. A significant potential for further
improvements is seen in the optimization of compressors and storage vessels, size and cost reductions, and an
increase in reliability and availability [110].
In the 1980s, AECL demonstrated the concept of electro-steam reforming of methane, which appears to be
attractive for small scale hydrogen production. The catalyst on a metal substrate is heated, bypassing
electricity [20].
50
FIG. 29. Schematic of the membrane reforming reactor (MRR) [109].
3.2.1.2. CO2 reforming
If the steam is completely or partially replaced with CO2, the process is called ‘dry reforming’. The strongly
endothermic reaction proceeds at high temperatures of 800–1000°C with a nickel based catalyst [10]:
CH4 + CO2 ↔ 2 H2 + 2 CO –206 kJ/mol
The composition of the synthesis gas is shifted toward a larger CO fraction, with a H2:CO ratio of ~1 or lower,
compared with greater than 3 in the syngas from steam reforming of CH4, making it ideal for production of
synthetic liquid fuels through the Fischer–Tropsch process. The ideal H2:CO ratio for methanol production,
however, is ~2 [111]. Desired ratios can be obtained by combining the CO2 reforming of CH4 and steam reforming
of CH4, so-called bi-reforming:
3 CH4 + 2 H2O + CO2 → 8 H2 + 4 CO → 4 CH3OH
The CO2 can be either imported or taken from the reformer outlet. The catalytic reforming of methane with
CO2 offers an environmental advantage, because two GHGs are combined, resulting in a product gas mixture which
might be more favourable for certain applications, such as the synthesis of oxygenated chemicals.
The main drawback of dry reforming is the formation of coke from the Boudouard reaction, resulting in a
rapid deactivation of conventional reforming catalysts. Coking is also a problem with steam reforming, but it is less
severe since the carbon formed can be volatilized. Only at increased temperatures above 900°C is carbon deposition
minimized during dry reforming. Catalysts based on noble metals were found to be less sensitive to coking than
were nickel based catalysts for dry reforming, but their disadvantage is the high cost and limited availability.
The formation of synthesis gas by dry reforming of methane could provide a substantial use for CO2 from
industrial and natural sources. New methods of combined POX and dry reforming considerably improve the energy
economy for synthesis gas production [10].
51
3.2.2. Partial oxidation and autothermal reforming of hydrocarbons
3.2.2.1. Partial oxidation
POX of carbonaceous feedstock in the presence of water is also a conversion process at high pressures and
high temperatures (950–1100°C), where the reaction heat is provided by partial combustion of the feedstock. POX
produces synthesis gas and maximizes the hydrogen yield if followed by the water gas shift reaction. The hydrogen
mainly originates from the water, while the carbon in the feedstock provides the energy to split the water. By adding
oxygen, a part of the feedstock is burned in an exothermic reaction. It can be noted for alkanes:
CnHm + 1/2 n O2 ↔ 1/2 m H2 + n CO
CnHm + n O2 ↔ 1/2 m H2 + n CO2
And for methane:
CH4 + 1/2 O2 ↔ 2 H2 + CO –38 kJ/mol
CH4 + O2 ↔ 2 H2 + CO2
Downstream equipment is needed to remove the heat generated. The oxygen required is typically provided by
an air separation plant. POX can easily be performed without the presence of a catalyst. Non-catalytic POX needs
high temperatures of 1200–1450°C and pressures of 3–7.5 MPa (Texaco process) to ensure high conversion rates.
The catalytic partial oxidation (CPOX) reaction, however, after premixing of the reactants, can take place at lower
temperatures (~900°C in the hot zone), produces less NOx and may lead to a significantly enhanced H2 yield from
the fuel.
The POX process has the advantage of accepting all kinds of heavy hydrocarbon feed, such as oil, residues,
coal or biomass. In comparison to steam reforming, the hydrogen yield is smaller, meaning that larger reactors for
the shift reaction are required if H2 is the desired product. But the resulting synthesis gas with a H2:CO ratio of ~2
(versus greater than 3 for SMR) makes methanol synthesis an ideal follow-on process. POX allows for compact
equipment and easy maintenance, since there is no need for external heating or steam supply. Efficiencies of about
70% are somewhat lower than those for SMR (80–85%) because of the higher temperatures involved and problems
with the heat recovery. The disadvantages are its high energy consumption and the need for large amounts of
oxygen, catalyst deactivation due to carbon deposition, the by-product CO, which requires the shift reaction, the
need for gas purification stages to remove CO2 (and nitrogen), and, if methane is used as feed, the possibility of
runaway reactions due to hot spot formation. POX can be scaled down to 10 kW(e) units.
Catalytic POX of heavy oil and other hydrocarbons is a commercially applied, large scale H2 production
method, used, for example, in refineries where synthesis gas is generated from residual heavy oil fractions, coal or
coke. The lower feedstock prices of heavy residues are at the expense of higher capital costs and more demanding
operating conditions. The process may become more economical when inexpensive oxygen is available. It can be
conducted in both monolith reactors and in fluidized bed reactors, but also in fixed bed microreactors. Large scale
plants usually include also air decomposition with unit sizes which may reach about 100 000 Nm3/h. Available
commercial technologies include the gasification processes of Texaco and Shell. Small units of POX reforming for
mobile applications are currently in the R&D and demonstration phase, with the aim being to find the optimal
conditions of feedstock and catalyst.
3.2.2.2. Autothermal reforming
The combination of the POX process with endothermic steam reforming may lead to internally heat balanced
reactions in a single fixed bed reactor without heat input from the outside. This method is called autothermal
reforming (ATR). It can be described with the following reaction equations, here especially for oxygen containing
hydrocarbons:
52
CnHmOl + (n – l) H2O ↔ (n – l + 0.5m) H2 + n CO2
CnHmOl + 0.5(n – l) O ↔ m H2 + n CO
And for methane:
CH4 + 3/2 O2 ↔ 2 H2O + CO –520 kJ/mol
CH4 + H2O ↔ 3 H2 + CO +206 kJ/mol
For alkanes, the overall reaction equation is
CnHm + x O2 + y H2O ↔ (2n – 2x + 0.5m) H2 + n CO2 + (y + 2x – 2n) H2O
where x is the molar oxygen to carbon ratio and y is the molar steam to carbon ratio in the input mixture. Typical
ratios in the reactions are 0.2–0.6 for the oxygen to carbon ratio and 1.0–3.0 for the steam to carbon ratio [112]. The
reaction heat is ideally zero (thermo-neutral) to achieve maximum fuel reforming efficiency. In practice, however,
side reactions such as reverse shift or methanation or incomplete conversion result in additional components in the
reformate. The use of a catalyst allows for lower operation temperatures.
ATR technology has been under development since the late 1970s, with the goal being to have the reforming
step in a single adiabatic reactor. Preheated feedstock is gradually mixed and burned in the combustion chamber at
the top where POX takes place. Steam is added to the feed to allow premixing of CH4 and O2. In such a reformer,
the reactor consists of a combustion zone where the heat-up reaction gas mixture is directly transferred into a fixed
bed catalytic steam reforming zone, which is implemented in the lower part of the same reactor vessel. Once the
reactions have started, no separate heater or heat exchanging devices are necessary to transfer heat to the process
stream for the reforming step.
Downstream processing is needed for cooling, purification and separation of the hydrogen from the
reformate. When atmospheric air is used, the nitrogen must be removed from the product stream. The hydrogen
content in the reformate can be as high as 50–55%. PSA allows the level of CO or CO2 impurities to be reduced to
a few parts per million. The soot/carbon formed can be removed in separate soot scrubber systems. Various
characteristics of an ATR contribute to the overall performance of the reformer system such as the mixing and
reforming process, fuel composition, thermodynamic conditions, the ratios of steam to carbon and oxygen to
carbon, catalysts, coke/soot formation and other pollutants. An overall evaluation of important features of these
reforming processes is given in Fig. 30.
FIG. 30. Evaluation of reforming processes.
53
FIG. 31. Autothermal reformer (ATR) (left); tandem system (right) [103].
ATR is mainly used in large scale plants for gas-to-liquid (GTL) applications, with an important cost factor
again being the oxygen. Typical capacities of combined autothermal reformers, however, are between 4 000 and
35 000 Nm3/h, a range where ‘normal’ steam reforming exhibits high specific investment. But there are also smaller
units for local H2 production with a capacity around 150 Nm3/h. Research in reforming technologies is
concentrating on finding the right balance of fuel, air and water flows for optimal processing. If CO2 capture
technology should be added, ATR has an advantage in that the CO2 is recovered from a separation step which works
optimally at 0.3 MPa, thus saving compression costs.
If a distributed generation system with a typical plant size of 480 kg/d of hydrogen is to be used for mass
production, it must be optimized to maximize operating efficiency, to provide buffer storage for a variable hydrogen
demand and to meet the purity requirement, e.g. for fuel cell applications. Whether POX or autothermal reforming
will be applied in such a system may depend on the way the oxygen can be provided, since conventional oxygen
supply (by cryogenic separation) will have increasing costs with reduced unit size [5].
Tandem reforming is the combination of a gas heated reformer and an oxygen fired autothermal reformer
(Fig. 31). If neither oxygen nor steam is available, the facility needs air separation and steam generator units.
There was also increasing interest in using ATR in the fuel processing technology, e.g. for automotive
applications, to convert hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel, bioethanol, or methanol into a hydrogen rich gas for
fuel cell applications. The hydrogen here is defined as ‘short lived hydrogen’. For on-board reforming, multifuel
processors in the 50 kW range have been developed. Methanol appears to be an attractive fuel, because it operates
at lower temperatures and is more tolerant of intermittent demand. Gasoline or LPG reforming would be even more
practicable, since this infrastructure exists already and could allow the introduction of vehicles even at a lower
number. The types of reactors for small scale applications are the fluidized bed reactor, membrane reactor, short
contact reactor, heat exchange reactor and microreactor. Reformer units in the very low power range such as for
mobile/portable fuel cell applications are currently being developed and tested. A key aspect of fuel processing is
the removal of sulphur and CO from the product gas prior to its entering the fuel cell system.
54
FIG. 32. Schematic of the fifth generation of ATR development at FZJ [113].
On-board reforming is currently being investigated in smaller units of ~5 kW(e) to provide the on-board
electricity in a fuel cell based auxiliary power unit (APU). The fuel cell system can be either a high temperature
solid oxide fuel cell or a low temperature PEM fuel cell. An example is given from the activities at the Research
Centre Jülich (FZJ), which have the objectives of designing, constructing and testing ATR systems at the power
level of ~5 kW(e) and focusing on the reforming of diesel fuel. Figure 32 shows the ATR-5A from the fifth
generation of ATR development at FZJ [113]. A part of the airstream is mixed with the fuel and injected through a
two-fluid nozzle to deliver tiny fuel droplets into the mixing chamber where the fuel is vaporized and mixed with
steam and air to form the educt gas mixture. The heart of the ATR is a monolith where the catalytic reforming
process takes place. The monolith has a diameter of ~50 mm and a length of 85 mm. POX is dominant in the first
part of the monolith. Typical operational parameters are flows of 3 kg/h of air, 1.6 kg/h of water, and 0.7 kg/h of
fuel. An essential prerequisite is to obtain a homogeneous mixture of fuel, steam and air for the reforming process.
Therefore, a proper design of the mixing chamber is required whose function is to provide a uniform flow to the
catalyst.
The FZJ autothermal reformer of the ninth generation, ATR 9.2, has been specifically designed for the
conversion of synthetic fuels and produces hydrogen with a thermal power of 28 kW. Here, geometry and injection
of the feedstock are arranged such that a homogeneous, slightly exothermic pre-reaction between oxygen and fuel
in the mixing chamber is favoured, which eases the complete evaporation of the fuel. Other improvements are an
integrated heat exchanger device for steam production and a one-fluid nozzle for fuel injection [114].
A modification of the POX steam reforming process has been suggested which leads to an inherent capture of
the CO2 generated during fuel combustion. The principle of the so-called chemical looping combustion (CLC) is to
have separate reactors, an ‘air reactor’ where oxygen is extracted from air by means of a solid oxygen carrier,
typically a metal, and a ‘fuel reactor’ where the metal oxide is reduced to its initial state and recirculated. CLC has
the advantage of reducing the exergy loss during fuel combustion, while the generated CO2 is separated from the
(diluted) air steam and thus can easily be sequestrated [115].
3.2.3. Reforming of other hydrocarbons
3.2.3.1. Methanol
The production of hydrogen from methanol is attractive because it generates high quality H2. Methanol has a
high hydrogen to carbon ratio, can be easily produced in large quantities, and can be easily stored and transported.
It can be activated at temperatures below 300°C and it is free of sulphur and other impurities and therefore ideally
suited for low temperature fuel cell applications. Extraction of hydrogen from methanol is usually done either by
POX or steam reforming of methanol. POX is characterized by an exothermic reaction and high reaction rates.
Steam reforming of methanol is, although endothermic, advantageous because of its direct decomposition, which
takes place at moderate temperatures in the range of 250 to 350°C:
55
CH3OH + H2O ↔ CO2 + 3 H2
Catalysts typically used in POX with suppressed CO formation are Cu–Zn based. They have, however, the
drawbacks of fast deactivation, poor thermal stability and pyrophoric characteristics. Platinum catalysts are more
stable, but produce much more CO [116]. A steam to methanol ratio of greater than 1 (good: 1.5) results in a
mixture of H2, CO2 and CO as the only significant products.
Present methanol reformers are of fixed bed type. The drawbacks are hot and cold spots and slow response
due to slow heat transfer. Improvement has been achieved by using wash-coated heat exchangers. If applied in a
hydrogen refuelling station, methanol reforming needs a hydrogen purification stage. Small scale reformers for on-
board fuel processors in fuel cell vehicles have been developed as an alternative to on-board storage of hydrogen.
Various types include the plate and membrane concepts for compact design. A reasonable choice for portable fuel
cell applications is the employment of microreactors for methanol reforming. Microreactors are those having
channel sizes with a cross-section of 1000 μm × 230 μm plus a 33 nm thick Cu layer as the catalyst.
3.2.3.2. Ethanol
Interest has also increased in catalytic reforming of biomass derived, CO2 neutral ethanol, which is produced
in large quantities worldwide. A total of six moles of H2 per mole of ethanol reacted can ideally be obtained
according to the endothermic process:
CH3CH2OH + 3 H2O ↔ 2 CO2 + 6 H2 –173.4 kJ/mol
followed by the water gas reaction and a purification of the product gases. An ethanol steam reforming process
might be well suited for decentralized stationary hydrogen production.
3.2.3.3. Dimethyl ether
Dimethyl-ether (DME), generally produced from methanol, is an organic compound with properties similar to
LPG. Combustion of DME leads to low emissions of particulate matter, NOx and CO. It is promising as a clean-
burning hydrocarbon fuel for diesel engines or gas turbines, as synthetic biofuel and as a useful precursor to other
organic compounds. DME is gaseous at ambient conditions and easy to liquefy, highly soluble in water, relatively
non-toxic and flammable.
The reforming reaction is [60]:
CH3OCH3 + H2O → 2 CH3OH
2 CH3OH + 2 H2O → 6 H2 + 2 CO2
The hydrogen is produced at temperatures of 285–300°C, much lower than those with the reforming of
methane. This was made possible by the development of a DME reforming catalyst, Cu–Zn/Al2O3, which gives
98% conversion of DME to hydrogen at 285°C. An additional advantage is the simpler processing, with no need for
desulphurization or CO transformation. DME steam reforming is particularly interesting for on-board reforming,
since the reforming temperature is low and DME is less toxic than methanol. Furthermore, it represents an option
for nuclear assisted hydrogen production using conventional LWRs [60].
3.2.3.4. Benzene
Benzene can be used to extract the hydrogen to be consumed as fuel in a fuel cell. The decomposition of
benzol by steam reforming takes place at temperatures above 700°C and in the presence of a catalyst.
C6H6 + 12 H2O ↔ 6 CO2 + 15 H2 –458 kJ/mol
56
3.2.4. Gasification of coal
Because of its abundance on earth, coal has become a major source of energy, accounting for about 27% of the
world’s primary energy consumption and 41% of the world’s electricity production (as of 2007) [6]. More than 90%
of the existing coal reserves are concentrated in eight countries: Australia, China, India, Kazakhstan, the Russian
Federation, South Africa, Ukraine and the USA. The largest among them (China, the USA and India) have even
become coal importing countries. It is anticipated that China and India will account for about two thirds of the
worldwide increase in demand for coal by 2030, mainly for the production of electricity.
The coke furnace process was already in use more than 100 years ago for the production of low Btu gas
(5–12.7 MJ/m3), synthesis gas (~12.7 MJ/m3), town gas (16.7–20 MJ/m3) or SNG (25–42 MJ/m3). In Germany,
hydrogen rich (~50%) coal gas was fed as town gas into the municipal gas grids [117] and later played an important
role in the production of synthetic fuels. Gasification of coal is the oldest hydrogen production technology but still
plays an important role today. For practically all processes for coal refinement, the technological development was
undertaken in Germany. Today, the conversion of coal to gaseous or liquid fuels is being applied commercially
worldwide.
Unlike combustion in a coal fired power plant, gasification is regarded as a clean coal technology, producing
synthesis gas and hydrogen, and with the potential for easy separation of a high concentration CO2 stream.
Numerous process variants have been developed to effectively gasify coal by adjusting to the different grades and
qualities of coal and to the product composition and undesired interim products. Despite its comparatively low
hydrogen content, and thus higher cost, steam–coal gasification is currently used to produce 18% of the world’s
hydrogen. At present, about 45 million t of coal are converted by gasification worldwide per year [118].
Coal is a solid with a high carbon content and an approximate 5% content of hydrogen. If expressed in carbon
and hydrogen, coal can be described with the formula ~(CH0.8)n. For the production of higher grade hydrocarbons,
either the carbon must be reduced or hydrogen must be added. The conversion of coal into a gas is realized by
means of a gasification agent, which reacts with the coal at temperatures greater than 800°C, similar to an
incomplete combustion (since much less oxygen is used). All organic constituents will be converted at long enough
residence times.
Gasification agents can be steam, oxygen, air, hydrogen, carbon dioxide or a mixture of these. The
gasification agent steam (steam–coal gasification) belongs to the most important reactions of commercial interest.
If air or oxygen is injected into the gasifier, a part of the coal is directly burned (POX), allowing for an autothermal
reaction. The processes have in common that high pressures are needed to achieve a high methane yield, whereas
for an optimal output of synthesis gas, high temperatures and low pressures are required. Effective gasification
means to retain as much of the energy of the coal as possible in the gas.
At present, 20 000 MW of synthesis gas is being produced by coal, mainly for chemicals and power
generation. However, its importance for hydrogen production is decreasing and its use for ammonia synthesis in the
fertilizer industry or for methanol synthesis with large scale production facilities, particularly in the developing
countries, is growing. Air-blown plants have lower capital costs than oxygen-blown plants, but they suffer from
much higher separation costs. Future hydrogen production plants will most probably tend to be based on oxygen-
blown designs. Other important criteria for applicability and economic viability of coal gasification are the
characteristics of the coal to be gasified. The (geologically) older the coal, the smaller is its reactivity and the higher
is the temperature required. Major improvements of efficiencies could be achieved with the development of
improved gas separation and purification techniques like the use of membranes.
3.2.4.1. Steam–coal gasification
Steam gasification of coal has long been a mature and well established technology practised on an industrial
scale. In the conventional steam–coal gasification process, a part of the coal is partially oxidized before, in the much
slower heterogeneous water gas reaction, the residual organic solids are converted to synthesis gas with some CO2
and steam.
In the steam–coal gasification process, two consecutive processes take place, the POX or pyrolysis reaction,
and the water gas reaction. The first step is the pyrolysis reaction during the heat-up phase (400–600°C), where all
volatile constituents of the coal are rapidly expelled. The gasification reaction with the agent ‘steam’ is given by the
57
FIG. 33. Three principal lines of steam–coal gasification [119].
heterogeneous water gas reaction and the homogeneous shift reaction with a further increase of the H2 fraction
where residual organic solids are converted to synthesis gas with some CO2 and steam:
C + H2O ↔ H2 + CO –118.5 kJ/mol C
CO + H2O ↔ H2 + CO2 +43.3 kJ/mol C
This is followed by a methanation step if the desired end product is SNG. Synthesis gas output is optimal at
high temperatures and low pressures. Heat must be quickly withdrawn to avoid reverse chemical reactions:
CO + 3 H2 ↔ CH4 + H2O +206.0 kJ/mol C
Gasification processes are classified according to the type of reactor. The principal lines used today are those
by Lurgi (since 1931), Winkler (since 1922) and Koppers–Totzek (since 1941). These all were developed in
Germany and exist at a large scale (Fig. 33). Modified process variants, such as Texaco, Shell–Koppers and many
others, have been developed aiming at an adjustment to the feedstock quality, optimization of the product gas
composition and, of course, efficiency improvements. Variants differ by temperature and pressure range, grain size
of the coal, and residence time.
POX of pulverized coal by oxygen/air (pure O2 for hydrogen production) and steam in a fluidized bed takes
place at about atmospheric pressure, where 30–40% of the coal is transformed to CO2 to supply splitting energy of
water. The reaction rate strongly increases with temperature; typically temperatures up to 2000°C and pressures up
to 3 MPa are selected. Commercial scale plants usually run in an autothermal mode. Depending on the customers’
requirements, downstream processing allows the optimized generation of hydrogen, methane or synthesis gas. Coal
conversion is estimated to be around 95%, and the total efficiency (based on HHV) is estimated to be ~70%. The
main disadvantages of coal gasification are the handling of solid material streams and the large amounts of CO2,
SO2 and ash, requiring a complex cleaning system. New coal gasification techniques, however, can also be linked
with a CLC process to reduce the impurity level in the synthesis gas. Table 6 lists some of the major characteristic
features of the different types of steam–coal gasification processes [117, 120].
Autothermal gasification reactors are of relatively simple design in that they do not need heat input or heat
exchanging devices. Higher temperatures are possible and thus higher reaction velocities which result in a higher
58
TABLE 6. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF STEAM–COAL GASIFICATION PROCESSES
Lurgi Winkler Koppers–Totzek
Reactor Moving solid bed Fluidized bed Flue stream

Grain size (mm) 10–30 0.5–8 <0.09
Steam-to-oxygen ratio 9–5 2.5–1 0.5–0.02
Movement of reactants, Countercurrent flow Vortex-co-current flow Co-current flow
products
Residence time of fuel 60–90 15–60 <0.02
(min)
Requirements to fuel Must not cake or decay Highly reactive, Melting point of ash
must not decay <1450°C
Maximum gas outlet 370–600 800–950 1400–1600
temperature (°C)
Pressure (MPa) 2–3 0.1 0.1
(also <1) (also <8)
Composition of product
gas (vol%)
CO + H2 62 84 60 + 29
CH4 12 2 0.1
By-products Tar, oil, phenols, gasoline, Little dust, tar None
wastewater
coal throughput. A disadvantage is the larger specific CO2 generation, since part of the feedstock is burned to
provide the process heat for the gasification reactions. This is not a problem if a, external, CO2 emission free heat
source is applied (allothermal gasification). For example, with an HTGR, the heat provided by the hot helium
coolant can be introduced directly into the gas generator, another part being used for the steam production, with the
rest still usable for electricity production.
According to their flow geometry, gasifiers are classified into several generic variants [121].
(A) Solid bed
In Lurgi pressure gasification, a solid bed of coal moving from top to bottom is preheated, dried, pyrolyzed,
gasified and combusted by adding steam and oxygen from the bottom at a pressure of 1.5–3 MPa, forming different
reaction zones at different temperatures. The highest temperatures (~1300°C for dry ash gasifiers) are reached in the
combustion zone, where the remaining char is finally completely burned. The amount of methane generated is
dependent on the pressure, temperature, oxygen to steam ratio, reactivity of the coal, and contents of volatile
substances in the coal. In a solid bed, the coal should be in smaller pieces (but not too small) and must not cake to
allow for a sufficient permeability of the gases. The countercurrent flow arrangement leads to higher conversion
rates and thermal efficiencies. A drawback is that, before exiting, the product gases pass through a zone of fresh
coal (which is given to the reactor from top), where it receives a significant load of tar and higher hydrocarbons, and
therefore requires extensive purification. Of all variants, the moving bed gasifier is the most mature technology
developed to the industrial scale.
The ‘RUHR-100’ reactor is a Lurgi design from 1979 with a coal throughput of 170 t/h, where the ‘100’ (bar)
refers to the increased pressures of up to 10 MPa at which the reactor can be operated. The raised pressure increases
the methane yield in the product gas from 9 to 16 vol%. A test facility was operated in Dorsten, Germany. The Lurgi
gasifier is the only one operated under pressure at a large technical scale, producing synthesis gas for the
Fischer–Tropsch process.
The SASOL company in South Africa is the world’s largest commercial applier of coal conversion
technology, operating a total of 97 units. Most Sasol–Lurgi standard fixed bed reactors have an inner diameter of
3.85 m (‘Mark IV’), able to produce 65 000 Nm3/h of dry gas with a raw coal throughput of 54 t/h. This capacity,
59
corresponding to about 200 MW(th) (based on HHV), appears to represent the upper limit. SASOL is also operating
a 4.7 m diameter reactor (Mark V) with a capacity of 100 000 Nm3/h [122, 123]. The plants in Secunda and
Sasolburg convert more than 30 million t/a of bituminous coal to yield about 5.1 million Nm3/h of pure synthesis
gas (containing 56% H2, 32% CO, 11% CH4), corresponding to almost 30% of the world’s production. It is the basis
of manufacture of numerous fuels and chemicals [124].
(B) Fluidized bed
Fluidized bed combustion systems are operated either under atmospheric conditions or under pressurized
conditions, and are further classified into bubbling or circulating systems. Atmospheric combustors exist up to a
power of 250 MW(e), while pressurized systems are currently at a demonstration stage.
The high temperature Winkler (HTW) process takes place in a fluidized bed where fine-grain brown coal is
reacted with oxygen and steam, which are fed in at the bottom at high speed. The fluidized bed has no reaction
zones but rather forms a homogeneous distribution of solids. Operational conditions are high temperatures, which
are uniformly distributed due to a high degree of back-mixing. The temperature, however, must be below the ash
melting point to prevent a softening and agglomeration of the ash, which would lead to a collapse of the fluidized
bed. The product gas composition changes with height and contains almost no higher hydrocarbons at the exit. It
carries, however, a large amount of dust, which can be recirculated to the reactor to further raise the carbon
conversion rate, reaching up to 95%. Still, treatment of the solid remainder is necessary. Sorbents such as limestone
help decrease the H2S concentration in the product gas and reduce corrosion effects. An important advantage is that
fluidized bed gasifiers are highly flexible, since they can be operated at variable load.
The Winkler gasification is characterized by simple coal pretreatment, low oxygen consumption and good
performance over a broad load range. HTW was proven successful for highly reactive coal grades. It was developed in
Germany under the specific consideration of the domestic lignite resources. A test facility was operated in Frechen,
Germany, at 1 MPa and 1100°C with a dry coal throughput of 1.3 t/h. Several large scale plants were constructed in
Germany and other countries with coal throughputs of up to 35 t/h. Industrial scale is up to 750 MW(th) (~360 000
Nm3/h of synthesis gas) based on HHV [118]. Any type of coal can be applied. Following the atmospheric Winkler
process, the gasification was later carried out at higher pressures of up to 1 MPa in order to raise unit capacity and gas
quantity, and to save compression energy for the product gas. Gasifier plants have shown simple startup and shutdown
as well as good partial load behaviour and high reliability. Also advantageous is the low oxygen consumption.
(C) Flue stream
In the flue stream or entrainment flow gasifier, dry coal dust is mixed with steam and oxygen/air and gasified
at atmospheric pressure in an autothermal way. The reaction zone is limited to the flame area with a co-current flow
of coal and gasification agent. The Koppers–Totzek process runs at very high temperatures above the ash melting
point. It has the advantage that tar formation is suppressed and other organic substances are destroyed. At the same
time, the injected steam serves as a coolant, as it is injected between the flame and reactor wall. The conversion rate
is at almost 100%, with a methane content in the product of < 0.1%.
Industrial plant capacities are in the range of 500–1000 MW(th), corresponding to 140 000–280 000 Nm3/h
based on HHV [118]. The Shell process applies the Koppers–Totzek principle under pressures of up to 4 MPa.
Gasification temperatures achieved are up to 2000°C, as was demonstrated in a test plant in Oberhausen, Germany,
with a throughput rate of 160 t/d of coal. In the Texaco gasification process, fine-grained coal is mixed with water
to a suspension. The oxygen is added at the burner. The reactor operates at pressures of ~5.5 MPa and high steam
contents. Due to the high operation temperatures, the carbon conversion rate is about 99% and the thermal
efficiency is about 92%. The synthesis gas typically contains 34% H2 and 48% CO. Hydrogen can be obtained with
a purity greater than 97% and at a pressure of 4 MPa.
Flue stream coal gasifiers are the most commonly used gasifiers. Their main advantage is that they accept
both solid and liquid fuels. The high operation temperatures and pressures, on the other hand, require high quality
materials for burner and heat exchanger. In the Japanese so-called ECOPRO process, for “efficient co-production
with coal flash hydro-pyrolysis”, a two-stage flue stream reactor is used, where, after injection of coal, oxygen and
steam, gasification takes place in the lower part, while more coal and hydrogen are given to the upper part of the
reactor to allow for partial coal hydro-pyrolysis [118].
60
(D) Iron bath
Coal can also be gasified in a bath of liquid iron. In the MIP (molten iron process) of KHD Humboldt–Wedag
AG, fine-grained coal (<2 mm) is blown pneumatically at the bottom into the molten iron at 1400–1450°C and
0.3–1 MPa. Oxygen is also added. The carbon dissolves in the iron and reacts to CO, while the hydrogen contained
in the coal is liberated. The reactor operates almost continuously. With the Klöckner steel–gas process, coke,
oxygen and iron ore are processed in the iron bath. In the Sumitomo method, coal, lime and a gasification agent are
blown from the top onto the liquid iron ,where the gasification reactions take place basically at the surface.
3.2.4.2. Hydrogasification
In the hydrogasification process of coal, the agent ‘hydrogen’ is added to convert the coal into a methane-rich
raw gas, ideal for the production of SNG. The hydrogen can be provided either by taking the coke left from the
hydrogasification and converting it with oxygen and steam in an HTW process, or by taking a part of the product
methane for steam reforming. Both processes requires high temperatures (>600°C), which could be — in an
allothermal process — provided by nuclear. The gasification reaction with hydrogen and the main product,
methane, is given through a hydrogenating reaction which is strongly exothermic:
C + 2 H2 ↔ CH4 +87.5 kJ/mol C
The kinetics of the process are more complex than those of steam gasification. The above reaction runs in
several steps, a pyrolytic step where primary methane is formed, plus volatile hydrocarbons, which also react with
H2 to methane. The remainder is a highly reactive coke (“C+”) which either reacts with H2 to methane or converts
to slowly reacting coke (“C-”), which then undergoes a hydrogenating gasification to form methane. The other
chemical reactions are the endothermic steam–methane reforming and again the water gas shift reaction, both of
which serve the purpose to provide the gasification agent.
A high gasification degree can be obtained with relatively short residence times of 9–80 min. In order to
obtain a high conversion rate of coal, the methane fraction should not be more than 5%, which requires a low
temperature separation step. The advantage of hydrogasification compared with steam–coal gasification is its
200 K lower preheating temperature, which reduces potential corrosive attack. A major drawback, however, is the
low conversion rate, i.e. the large amount of residual coke of up to 40%. But again, subsequent processes would
allow the generation of SNG or methanol. In contrast to steam gasification, the hydrogasification process still needs
to be demonstrated at a larger commercial scale.
With regard to the exothermic character of the above hydrogenation reaction, if wet coal were applied and
steam added, it would be possible to compensate the heat generation with parallel endothermic steam gasification to
make it an autothermal process.
3.2.4.3. Clean coal technologies
The integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is currently considered the cleanest and most efficient
coal fuelled technique for power generation. A schematic is shown in Fig. 34.
The first step is the gasification of the coal, followed by the Boudouard reaction to produce H2 and CO2. The
‘entrained flow gasifier’ in an IGCC usually operates at high pressures of 2–3 MPa and high temperatures greater
than 1400°C to achieve high reaction rates and residence times in the order of seconds. Gasification is done with
oxygen (‘oxyfuel process’) rather than with air to eliminate the presence of nitrogen. Unlike in conventional plants,
a wide variety of coal grades can be used. After separation and cleaning of dust, sulphur and other impurities, the
hydrogen is combusted in a gas turbine for power production. The hot exhaustion gases can then be used in a waste
heat boiler, where steam is generated to drive a steam turbine for further electricity production. With its gas turbine
step prior to the oxygen/steam process and its intermediate stage of synthesis gas, this technique allows the removal
of most carbon components before combustion. The stream of CO2, which can be easily processed from the flue gas
through rectification or distillation, is of high purity and at high pressure, and therefore suited for capture. The
thermal efficiency achieved can be up to 50%.
61
FIG. 34. IGCC flow diagram (Stan Zurek, 2006).
The ‘cleaner’ technology of IGCC was demonstrated in the 1980s with POX, where the oxygen was distilled
from air. Other facilities on a pilot plant scale followed in Germany and the USA. Clean coal technology with
removal of contaminants during gasification could largely eliminate the emissions of SOx, NOx and particulates.
Thermal efficiency is expected to improve by 10% over conventional coal fired steam turbines. But also other solid
wastes can be gasified with the IGCC technology. For example, the “Schwarze Pumpe” plant in Germany treats a
wide variety of solid (~1200 t/d) and liquid (~200 t/d) wastes, ranging from waste plastic to tires, sewage sludge
and household garbage for the generation of electricity, steam, synthesis gas and methanol (100 000 t/a) [125].
IGCC technology represents the most advanced and efficient solution where the carbon in the fuel is removed and
hydrogen is produced in a pre-combustion process [126].
Under ‘normal’ conditions, IGCC is not competitive with steam–methane reforming. As of 2003, commercial
IGCC plants in the power range of 250–350 MW and with efficiencies of 37.5–41.5% were being operated in the
USA, the Netherlands, Spain and Japan. The most powerful coal based IGCC plants in Europe are the 400 MW(th)
plant in Vresova, Czech Republic (since 1996) for lignite, and the 350 MW(th) plant in Puertollano, Spain (since
1998) for coal and pet coke. The total IGCC capacity in Europe is 2745 MW(e), of which 1075 MW(e) is coal
based [127]. More commercial scale demonstration and R&D efforts aiming at gas turbine improvement, lower cost
air separation and material research are required, to further this technology [121].
The USDOE goal within FutureGen is the verification of a zero-emission, coal fuelled facility for H2 and
electricity cogeneration coupled with CO2 sequestration with an overall efficiency of 60%. The facility is also
intended to be used as a large scale test bed for innovative technologies. The FutureGen programme is now in the
early stages of planning. Germany is also planning the construction of a 400–450 MW, CO2 free IGCC plant, with
the CO2 storage system to be developed in parallel. In the Japanese EAGLE project, a coal gasification system is
being investigated that integrates, in addition to a gas turbine and a steam turbine, a fuel cell system fuelled by the
produced gas. Certain requirements have to be met regarding the purity level of the fuel gas. This integrated coal
gasification fuel cell combined cycle (IGFC) promises an efficiency improvement to greater than 55% and a 30%
CO2 emission reduction. In an advanced design, waste heat from high temperature fuel cells could be recovered and
utilized in the endothermic steam gasification reaction [128].
An improved performance is expected if coal gasification is performed in a two stage, double line process
[129]. The employment of two separate reactors for combustion and for gasification avoids the use of pure oxygen
and still produces synthesis gas free of nitrogen. The two reactors operating in a continuous mode are linked by
62
FIG. 35. Schematic of a two-stage coal gasification process [129].
process heat transfer to the gasification plant by an inert solid continuously moving between the two sections, and
by charcoal transfer to the combustion system (Fig. 35). This principle was successfully tested with biomass
gasification where the heat transferring medium was sand.
In syngas chemical looping (SCL) combustion following the gasification process, hydrogen enrichment and
solids regeneration take place in a fixed bed reactor at atmospheric pressure. Metal oxide, preferably Fe2O3, used as
an oxygen carrier for the combustion, is reduced to the metal (Fe, FeO) in a low temperature reactor, where the
oxygen combines with carbon to form CO2 and steam. Condensing the steam leaves the CO2 for sequestration. The
Fe2O3 particle size is 2–10 mm. In a second reactor, the metal is oxidized at 500–700°C and 3 MPa with the oxygen
from moistened air and recycled to the first reactor, while 99% pure H2 is produced from the water. The gasification
step prior to the chemical looping allows for easier handling of the solids (no contact of coal with the metal oxide).
In a process called coal direct chemical looping (CDCL), a fuel reactor is employed where the coal is not
gasified, but reacts directly with the metal oxide and oxygen to generate metal and CO2 ready for sequestration. The
metal is oxidized with steam to produce hydrogen. The residence time of the coal in the fuel reactor is between 30
and 90 min. The advantage is reduced oxygen consumption, and a significantly higher conversion rate of the solid
fuel. Problems may be given by the high temperatures destabilizing the metal oxide and the control of the reaction
rates [130].
Looking for even higher efficiencies and lower emitting processes, a highly favoured clean coal technology is
the so-called ultra super critical (USC) power cycle characterized by an improved conceptual boiler design resulting
in a longer product lifetime and steam of 600°C and 30.5 MPa. Double reheating has been introduced in order to
increase the efficiency. The final live steam temperature and pressure goals by the year 2020 are 760°C and 38.5 MPa,
respectively, raising the efficiency to more than 48% [131].
The Zero Emission Coal Alliance (ZECA) initiative, founded in 2000 in the USA, is pursuing a concept
developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It integrates hydrogasification of coal, a CaO driven reforming
step with simultaneous CO2 separation, an SOFC for electricity production, and heat recovery. This process
showing no air emissions and producing a stream of liquid CO2 ready for sequestration promises an efficiency of
about 70% (HHV) of fuel energy into electricity [132].
The so-called hydrogen production by reaction integrated novel gasification (HyPr-RING) process proposed
in Japan in 1999 uses the sorbent CaO to fix CO2 as CaCO3. Reaction of the CaO with steam provides reaction heat
for the coal gasification. The overall reaction is exothermic:
C + 2 H2O + CaO ↔ CaCO3 + 2 H2 +88 kJ/mol C
63
The CO2 fixation was found to enhance the hydrogen production reactions. HyPr-RING runs at a temperature
of 800–900°C. Experiments in a fluidized bed with a throughput of 50 kg/d of coal resulted in a product gas with a
H2 concentration of more than 80%. Concentrations of CO and CO2 were found to decrease with increasing
pressure and reached a level below 1% at pressures above 3 MPa [133].
Similarly, in the so-called lime enhanced gasification (LEGS) process, the stages of catalytic steam reforming,
shift reaction and CO2 removal are performed in one reactor, with the result of almost pure hydrogen in one reaction
step. Lignite and other low rank coals appear to be perfect fuels for LEGS. CaO or other lime is used as a sorbent
for the CO2. The solid product generated, consisting of limestone, CaO, char, ash and CaS, is separated from the gas
and regenerated to produce a high purity CO2 stream. LEGS is applicable to a wide range of carbonaceous fuels,
including biomass, sewage sludge and solid organic waste [134].
Another advanced method is the HYDROCARB coal cracking process. The coal is decomposed in a thermal
cracker to carbon black as a clean fuel and hydrogen as a by-product fuel. The commodity carbon black outweighs
the poor efficiency of 17% for this method.
Coal gasification can also be done directly in situ [135]. In this underground coal gasification (UCG) process,
oxygen (or air) and hot steam are given through injection boreholes to the coal-containing layers where the coal
seams are ignited and burn at about 1200°C. After conversion, the synthesis gas is captured through another
borehole and brought to the surface. Further treatment is required to remove pollutants such as particulate matter
and H2S gas. With this method, coal resources can be exploited to a larger extent compared to traditional methods.
It also avoids solid waste discharge. Remote directional drilling equipment is necessary to create a network of
gasification channels, injection wells and production wells. UCG was carried out on the industrial scale in the
Soviet Union beginning in the 1930s, with several commercial plants being operated in the 1960s. The largest UCG
plant today is a 100 MW(e) steam turbine plant operated in Uzbekistan. Currently the most extensive programme is
ongoing in China with renewed interest also in the UK, the USA and Australia. The overall amount of synthesis gas
produced up to now by underground coal gasification corresponds to approximately 15 million t of coal [135].
3.2.5. Gasification of biomass
Biomass is classified into massive biomass (dedicated bioenergy crops, process residues, harvest residues,
energy crops), which can be directly converted thermochemically to hydrogen, and organic biomass (liquid manure,
sludge, process residues), where the hydrogen is produced indirectly by anaerobic fermentation. The amount of
hydrogen in biomass is in the range of 6–7 wt%.
Steam gasification of biomass is generally conducted in two steps. First, thermochemical decomposition of
the biomass takes place with cracking and reforming of volatiles, and the production of tar, char and gasification of
the char. In the second step, hydrocarbon gases and carbon in the biomass react with CO, CO2, H2 and H2O, leading
to more light gases. Dry gas yield, carbon conversion efficiency and the hydrogen fraction in the product gas
increase with increasing temperatures (from ~25% to ~50% if the temperature increases from 600 to 900°C).
The conversion of biomass such as peat, wood and agricultural residues in a thermal process leads to a
hydrogen-containing gas mixture. Its H2 content is dependent on the fuel/feedstock, the availability of steam and
oxygen, and the process temperatures. Processes for decomposition of the organic substances are gasification or
pyrolysis with subsequent autothermal or allothermal steam reforming. The gasifiers are usually indirectly heated
or oxygen-blown to avoid nitrogen in the product gas, and are operated at low pressures. The autothermal
gasification in a fluidized bed results in a synthesis gas with typically 30% H2, 30% CO, 30% CO2 and 5–10% CH4
plus some higher hydrocarbons. A shift reaction again converts CO to increase the hydrogen fraction. Anaerobic
fermentation of wet biomass leads to a CH4 rich gas with only little hydrogen, which, however, at a certain quality
could be used in higher temperature fuel cells (MCFC, SOFC). Although the conversion rate of biomass is high,
hydrogen production is an expensive and thermodynamically highly inefficient process [5]. Due to the relatively
low specific energy content of the biomass, only 0.2–0.4% of the total solar energy is converted to hydrogen.
The gasification of biomass or microbial hydrogen production by converting organic wastes is limited to mid-
sized plants (<40 MW(th)) for decentralized applications. The reasons for this are the distributed nature of biomass
and the low energy density (≤3.7 GJ/m3) connected with high transportation costs where economies of scale do not
apply. For example, a 1.25–2.5 MW(e) biomass gasification plant requires a catchment area with a 60 km diameter
[136]. Facilities for wood treatment are on the verge of achieving commercial status [137]. The transportation issue
64
could be eased with the conversion of the biomass to a bio-oil as an interim product that can be stored and reformed
to hydrogen as needed.
Demonstration of biomass gasification in pilot plants is being performed in various countries and has reached
power sizes in the range of several tens of megawatts [138]. Some plants apply an autothermal process and use air
instead of oxygen. More advanced concepts perform gasification in supercritical water or apply thermochemical
cycles. Concepts based on circulating fluidized bed gasification seem to be the most promising. Their overall
efficiency is likely to be in the range of 50–60%. Despite the development of a broad variety of system components
and designs, it still needs further improvements in feedstock preparation and raw gas handling, ash removal, and
synthesis gas cleanup. Plant capacities should reach an appropriate scale in the range of ~57 000 Nm3/h of
hydrogen [110].
Still, biomass conversion appears to be less convenient if dedicated to hydrogen production and is instead
employed for heat and electricity production, helping to reduce CO2 emissions. Furthermore, biomass can easily be
converted to a variety of valuable chemicals and liquid fuels like methanol. Fast pyrolysis of biomass for liquids
production has been under research and development for nearly 20 years and has now achieved commercial status.
In that time, a wide range of reactor configurations have been devised to achieve the basic process requirements that
give high liquid yields. The focus of research activities is now on the improvement of oil quality. Further areas of
potential improvement include pretreatment of feed to improve liquid quality and liquid collection systems. Issues
raised in connection with biofuel production are land use allocation and food crop displacement, but also the need
to transport very large volumes of biomass feedstock due to the inherently low energy density. An external energy
source for bio-refineries could be provided by nuclear energy.
3.3. HYDROGEN FROM WATER SPLITTING BY ELECTROLYSIS
Apart from classic alkaline electrolysis, he types of electrolysis that are being considered for employment on
an industrial scale are PEM electrolysis using a hydrogen ion conducting polymer electrolyte membrane (or proton
exchange membrane), both operating at low temperatures, and high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) using
oxygen conducting ceramics. Electrolysis is the most straightforward approach currently available to produce
hydrogen directly from water.
3.3.1. Low temperature electrolysis
There are principally two classes of low temperature electrolysis based on either a liquid electrolyte (most
commonly potassium hydroxide, KOH) or a solid polymer electrolyte. In both cases, the water molecule is
dissociated by applying an electrical current.
In an alkaline electrolysis cell containing an aqueous caustic solution with usually 20–40% KOH or NaOH
(typically 30%), electrical energy is applied to two electrodes which are plates made of nickel (anode) or
chromium–nickel steels. Water decomposes at the cathode to H2 and OH-, where the latter migrates through the
electrolyte and a separating diaphragm and discharges at the anode, liberating the O2.
4 H2O ↔ 4 H+ + 4 OH–
4 OH– ↔ O2 + 2 H2O + 4 e– Oxygen electrode
4 H+ + 4 e– ↔ 2 H2 Hydrogen electrode
The hydrogen gas is dissolved in the water and extracted in a separating chamber with high purity. Operation
temperatures are limited to less than 150°C due to corrosion problems; typically ~90°C is used. A schematic is
shown in Fig. 36.
The ideal reversible cell potential needed to split water is 1.229 V at 25°C and 0.1 MPa, which corresponds to
a theoretical dissociation energy of ΔGo = 237 kJ/mol or an electricity demand of 3.56 kW·h/Nm3 of H2. Because of
irreversible processes in the reaction mechanism to account for gas expansion at the electrodes and to maintain the
operation temperature, however, realistic cell voltages are 1.7 to 2.1 V. Requirements to the electrodes for water
65
FIG. 36. Standard low temperature alkaline electrolysis.
electrolysis are a large active surface area, electrochemical stability, high corrosion resistance, good electrical
conductivity, low over-potential, selectivity, ease of use and low cost. The electrical energy requirement is in the
order of 4–4.5 kWh/Nm3 of H2, corresponding to an efficiency of 80% and higher. Norsk Hydro Electrolysers
(NHE) estimates that electrical costs make up about 65% of the operational costs. The water demand is theoretically
0.8 L/Nm3 of H2, in practice 1.0 L/Nm3. The water should be as clean as possible to prevent deposition and
electrode corrosion.
High pressure electrolysis working at pressures of up to 3 MPa allows the saving of compression energy if
hydrogen is stored as a pressurized gas or transported in pipelines, thus reducing the specific consumption of
electricity. A disadvantage is the necessary pressure control and the bulky design of the pressure containment. After
first commercialization of a 3 MPa electrolyser by Lurgi in Germany, low temperature, high pressure electrolysis
has become a well established technology on the industrial scale worldwide, covering about 3.9% of the world’s
production.
In chlorine–alkaline water electrolysis, the hydrogen is actually a by-product of chlorine production and
mostly used as the thermal energy source and a substitute for natural gas. A solution of salt in water is decomposed
into hydrogen and soda lye (mercury cathode) and chlorine (graphite anode):
2 NaCl + 2 H2O ↔ (Cl2)g + (2 NaOH)l + (H2 )g
The oldest process is the amalgam electrolysis where a mercury film a few millimetres thick (as the cathode)
flows along an inclined surface. The initially formed sodium is dissolved as an amalgam before it reacts with water
and decomposes to hydrogen and sodium hydroxide. Other processes are diaphragm electrolysis, mainly used in the
USA, where gases are separated from the other products by migration through a fine-pore wall, and membrane
electrolysis which is the most environmentally friendly and economical method, using an extremely strong and
resistant synthetic foil. The annual production of chlorine worldwide today is approximately 68 million t from
about 550 chlorine plants, mainly in China and other countries in Asia and North America, with ~40 billion Nm3 of
hydrogen being generated.
The first alkaline electrolysers for hydrogen production were developed by Norsk Hydro in Norway, where
inexpensive electricity from hydropower could form the basis for this process. The large hydro electrolyser units
have a capacity of 485 Nm3/h (or ~1 t/d) at an availability of greater than 98% and with an energy consumption of
4.1 kWh/Nm3 [139] (Fig. 37). They usually operate at about atmospheric pressure and allow unmanned remote
operation. Today’s alkaline units are available across a range of capacities — between 4 kW and 100 MW. The
largest electrolyser units produce ~760 Nm3/h with multiple units being combined to larger capacities.
66
FIG. 37. Standard low temperature alkaline electrolysis [140].
Overall efficiencies achieved at that scale are about 63% LHV. Efficiencies are principally independent of cell
or cell stack size, which make them appropriate for small scale use. Additional components are necessary such as
purification of water and products, cooling/heating/compressing devices, gas drying, and reprocessing of alkaline
solution. Other features are a lifetime of over 30 years, a hydrogen purity of greater than 99.8%, and H2 produced at
3 MPa, the latter, however, at the expense of bringing the efficiency down to about 59%. Pressurized systems
operating at higher pressures help to save compression energy resulting in higher efficiencies. Pressurized
electrolysis up to 3 MPa is state of the art; operation at pressures up to 14 MPa has been demonstrated in
prototypes [104].
Norsk Hydro is the world largest producer of technical electrolysers. It describes in a publication an
atmospheric plant for the production of 46 560 Nm3 of H2/h having an electrical power consumption of 230 MW.
The plant has an area requirement of ~27 000 m2 and thus is not designed or optimized for less area demand or
offshore use. The largest integrated installation is currently in Aswan, Egypt, with a production capacity of around
35 000 Nm3/h. Low output electrolysers with less than 100 Nm3/h are typically used in the electronics, agricultural
or food industries. Chlorine–alkali electrolysis can be beneficial to the development of seawater electrolysers,
which might be considered for hydrogen production from offshore wind farms. Characteristic data of various units
of different sizes are given in Table 7.
Both alkaline electrolysis and PEM electrolysis are characterized by good dynamic performance. Therefore,
they are suited for applications with fluctuating power plants (primarily renewables). At present, the more advanced
method is the solid polymer electrolyte water electrolysis (SPEWE) or PEM electrolysis using an acidic, proton
conducting (exchange) PEM as the diaphragm, thus making an additional electrolyte unnecessary. Here the
hydrogen ions are migrating from the anode through the membrane and recombine at the cathode with electrons to
hydrogen molecules. The oxygen remains in the water. The SPEWE can be operated at higher pressures and at
higher current densities due to the compact design compared with cells with a KOH electrolyte. Typical operation
temperatures are 200–400°C; pressures may go up to several tens of MPa. PEM electrolysis is simpler in its design,
safer and promises higher power densities and a longer lifetime and a higher efficiency of ~90%. The electricity
requirement will be reduced to values below 4 kWh/Nm3 of H2.
Today, PEM electrolysers can be regarded as a well established industrial technology. They exhibit
efficiencies of around 50%, somewhat lower than KOH electrolysis; this is, however, compensated by the lower
requirements for purification and compression. High pressure systems are established in the smaller power range
with pressures of 3 MPa achieved and efficiencies up to 80%. Membrane development started in the 1950s and
1960s for use in PEM fuel cells within the US space programme. The main disadvantage today, however, is the still
high capital cost of membrane manufacture, which has prevented significant penetration of the hydrogen market up
to now. In development are plants for pressures of up to 5 MPa. Current plant capacities are in the range of 1–20
kW. The main drawbacks are the limited lifetime and high cost of the membrane [126].
67
TABLE 7. SOME DATA OF INDUSTRIAL WATER ELECTROLYSIS PLANTS, DATA A–D FROM [141]
Parameter A B C D E F G
3
H2 production rate (Nm /h) 10 42 60 485 5–760
Electrolyte (%) PEM alkaline alkaline 25% 25% 29% 25%
KOH KOH KOH KOH
Type of cell bipolar bipolar bipolar bipolar bipolar bipolar bipolar
Temperature (°C) 80 80 80 90
Pressure (MPa) 1.4 0.4–0.8 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.0
2
Current density (kA/m ) 1.75 2 1.5 2
Voltage of cell (V) 2.1 2.04 1.75 2.04 1.85 1.86
Production pressure (MPa) 1.4 0.4–0.8 2.5 3.0
H2-purity (%) 99.999 99.9998 99.997 >99.8 99.8 >99.8 >99.8
O2-purity (%) >99.5 99.6 >98.5 >99.5
Energy requirement electrolyser n.a. n.a. 4. 2 4.3a 4.9 4.6 4.5
(kW·h/Nm3 H2)
Energy requirement entire system 6.3 5.6 4.8 4.8a
(kW·h/Nm3 H2)
System power requirement (kW) 63 235.2 288 2330
Water requirement (L/h) 8.4 42 60 485
Conversion efficiency (%) 95 80 80 80
System efficiency (HHV) (%) 56 63 73 73
A: Proton HOGEN 380 E: BBC
B: Teledyne EC-750 F: De Nora
C: Stuart IMET 1000 G: Lurgi (now ELT)
D: Norsk Hydro HPE Atmospheric Type No. 5040
a
incl. compression to 3.3 MPa.
3.3.2. High temperature electrolysis
A principal variant of electrolysis considered promising for the future is high temperature steam electrolysis
(HTSE). Unlike low temperature water electrolysis, the total energy demand of electrolysis in the vapour phase is
reduced by the heat of vaporization, which can be provided much more inexpensively by thermal rather than
electric energy. Decreasing electricity input can be seen with increasing temperature from Fig. 38 [49], and is about
35% lower compared to conventional electrolysis in the high temperature range of 800–1000°C. Also the efficiency
of electrical generation at this high temperature level is significantly better.
The HTSE process is advantageous because of its high overall thermal-to-hydrogen efficiency when coupled
with high efficiency power cycles. HTSE corresponds to the reverse process of the SOFC; devices could be
operated in both modes. The HTSE development may therefore benefit of ongoing R&D efforts in the SOFC area.
A major difference is that a high temperature electrolyser must be coupled with a heat and power source. Nuclear
plants, in particular those of the fourth generation, could provide the electricity and, in the case of a VHTR, also
deliver relatively high temperatures and high net power cycle efficiencies.
3.3.2.1. High temperature electrolysis of steam
Essentially the electrolytic cell consists of a solid oxide electrolyte with conducting electrodes deposited on
either side (Fig. 39). The electrolyte is an oxygen-conducting ceramic material, typically Y2O3 stabilized ZrO2
(YSZ) and MgO. A mixture of steam to be dissociated and some hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen electrode at
750–950ºC. At the hydrogen electrode–electrolyte interface, the steam is split into hydrogen and oxygen:
2 H2O + 4 e– ↔ 2 H2 + 2 O2–
68
FIG. 38. Energy demand for water/steam electrolysis [49].
Oxygen ions are drawn through the ceramic electrolyte by the electrical potential of about 1.3 V, until they
recombine to oxygen gas at the electrolyte–oxygen electrode interface:
2 O2– ↔ O 2 + 4 e–
The oxygen then flows along the anode, typically made of a composite of YSZ and Sr-doped lanthanum
manganite (LSM)), while the hydrogen–steam mixture passes along the hydrogen electrode (Ni/YSZ cermet with
~30% porosity) on the opposite side of the electrolyte. Preheated air or steam can be used as a sweep gas to remove
oxygen from the stack. The purpose of the sweep gas is to dilute the oxygen concentration and thus decrease
corrosion of the oxygen-handling components. Pure oxygen can be produced by the stack and would be a valuable
commodity if satisfactory materials and/or coatings could be developed for construction of the oxygen-handling
components.
At these high temperatures, all reactions proceed very rapidly. The steam–hydrogen mixture exits from the
stack and then passes through a separator to separate hydrogen from the residual steam. The feedgas stream to the
HTSE cell contains a 10% fraction of hydrogen for the purpose of maintaining reducing conditions and avoiding
oxidation of the nickel in the hydrogen electrode (Fig. 39). HTSE cells can be operated at high current densities,
which allow large production capacities in comparatively small volumes. A practical electricity-to-hydrogen
69
FIG. 39. Schematic of a planar steam electrolysis cell [142].
efficiency of about 90% appears to be realistically achievable. The main issue that needs further improvement
remains the lifetime of the hydrogen electrode, which is limited by degradation [143].
One can clearly see on the graph in Fig. 38 that a large part of the energy demand reduction is related to water
vaporization which does not require high temperature heat. Once vaporization is achieved, the extra heat necessary
to reach the high temperature required to have high enough ionic conductivity in the electrolyte may be also be
provided by a combination of nuclear heating, recuperation of the sensible heat of the produced hydrogen and
oxygen, and self-heating of the cell due to its inherent electrical resistance.
With respect to the electricity requirements, values of 2.6–3 kWh/Nm3 of H2 are expected. The heat for steam
production to supply the cells, however, must be added. The process with the production of hot steam and cell
operation at high temperatures requires a solid oxide membrane electrolyte. For example, Y2O3 stabilized ZrO2
acting as both gas separator and electrolyte is used where oxygen ions start migrating when a voltage is applied.
Steam electrolysis at about 800°C will have an overall efficiency (including the electrical conversion efficiency) in
the range of 35–45%. The efficiency will even rise to around 50% at 900°C. Two major problems to be solved are
the improvement of the long-duration performance of the cells and the development of techniques for
manufacturing and assembling large area cells in order to reduce the overall cost of the commercial plant.
3.3.2.2. High temperature co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide
The principle of high temperature electrolysis is also applicable when steam and carbon dioxide are present
simultaneously. In this case, both H2O and CO2 can be co-electrolysed to hydrogen and CO. A mixture of CO2 and
steam is electrolytically decomposed at a required cell voltage of 1.48 V (if no external heat source is available),
resulting in the production of synthesis gas that may be subsequently used for synthetic fuel production. The
quantities produced are dependent on the quantities of H2O and CO2 in the feedstream, the electrolysis current
applied, and the reverse water gas shift reaction. The net reaction of CO2 electrolysis is:
2 CO2 ↔ 2 CO + O2 at 1.47 V
70
FIG. 40. Solid oxide cell used for the co-electrolysis of CO2 and steam [144].
The solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) negative electrode is usually made of a Ni–YSZ composite, where
the Ni serves directly as a catalyst. As for the electrolyte, a higher ionic conductivity and a lower ohmic loss are the
focus of research, and new materials (ScSZ, LSGM, LSGMC) are being looked into as alternatives to YSZ.
The process taking place is more complex than pure steam electrolysis, since it involves several reactions.
Also in a co-electrolysis cell (Fig. 40), about 10% of the product (here synthesis gas) is recycled and added to the
feed stream to maintain reducing conditions at the steam/H2 electrode. The mixture then enters the electrolysis cell,
where the oxygen is removed electrolytically and the product stream is enriched in synthesis gas.
Two design concepts are possible: planar and tubular. The tubular design pursued in Germany and the USA
was first selected for its mechanical stability and because fabrication of thin-walled ceramic parts with large
surfaces was not state of the art. The tubes were vertically deployed on support tracks which contained steam input
and hydrogen output ducts. Tubular cells have the advantage of achieving a high degree of leaktightness, while
planar cells can be fabricated with a larger active area per volume.
3.4. HYDROGEN FROM WATER SPLITTING BY THERMOCHEMICAL CYCLES
3.4.1. Overview
Besides high temperature electrolysis, high temperature water splitting has been identified as another
potential method for producing large amounts of hydrogen, and the thermochemical process is currently under
investigation worldwide.
The most straightforward way of splitting water would be one-step direct thermal decomposition. This,
however, would require temperatures of greater than 2500°C for reasonable quantities, which industrially is not
71
FIG. 41. Thermochemical cycles of the sulphur family [146].
feasible. Therefore, multistep processes are being considered. A thermochemical cycle is a process consisting of a
series of thermally driven chemical reactions where water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen at moderate
temperatures. Supporting intermediate chemical compounds are taken to run a sequence of chemical and physical
processes and are regenerated and recycled internally, and remain — ideally — completely in the system. The only
input is water and high temperature heat. Therefore, these cycles have the potential for better efficiency compared
with low temperature electrolysis and hence promise to significantly reduce the production cost. A hybrid cycle
combines the benefits of thermochemical and electrolytic reactions. Here, the low temperature reaction, while
thermodynamically unfavourable, is forced electrochemically. Thermochemical cycles are being investigated
mainly with regard to solar or nuclear primary heat input.
Numerous thermochemical cycles have been proposed in the past and checked against features such as
reaction kinetics, thermodynamics, maximum temperature, heat transfer, separation of substances, side reactions,
material stability, toxicity, corrosion problems, processing scheme, thermal efficiency and cost analysis [145].
Some have sufficiently progressed to be experimentally demonstrated and proven their scientific and practical
feasibility. All cycles, however, have design challenges, and none has actually reached the commercial scale. In all
studies that systematically examined thermochemical cycles, those of the sulphur family — sulphur–iodine, hybrid
sulphur, sulphur–bromine hybrid — have been identified as the potentially most promising candidates with higher
efficiency and a lower degree of complexity (in terms of number of reactions and separations) [86]. All three have
in common the thermal decomposition of sulphuric acid at high temperatures (Fig. 41).
A major challenge in thermochemical cycles is to obtain maximum yields while reducing the amount of any
excess reagents used to drive the reactions in the desired directions. Optimization of heat flows is important for high
energy conversion efficiency in thermochemical cycles.
After the principle of a thermochemical cycle was discovered by Funk and co-workers in the mid-1960s
[147], various process suggestions have been made. The first major programme [148] directed by the Joint
Research Centre (JRC) of the European Community in Ispra, Italy, began in the late 1960s and ended in 1983. The
goal of this work was to identify potential thermochemical cycles to be coupled with a high temperature gas cooled
reactor. In a first step, mercury, manganese and vanadium based cycles were studied. Later, nine cycles based on
72
iron and chlorine were investigated. These cycles were abandoned because of difficulties in decomposing the iron
chloride. Finally several cycles of the sulphur family were studied, which eventually resulted in a laboratory
demonstration loop of the sulphur bromine process. Associated with this experimental effort, the JRC had an
important activity in the field of corrosion, the design of large scale equipment and the development of industrial
scale flowsheets.
Japan has focused its efforts on two cycles: the UT-3 cycle (iron, calcium and bromine) and the S–I cycle. In
both cases, the reactions were studied separately and demonstration loops were successfully operated. Japan
maintains activity in the S–I cycle. In the USA, particularly the S–I cycle was extensively studied with respect to
individual reactions, corrosion, bench scales of the three parts of the cycle and full scale flowsheet [149]. Later the
Gas Research Institute (GRI) funded a long term systematic programme to evaluate some 200 distinct
thermochemical cycles, out of which 125 cycles were selected on the basis of thermodynamic criteria. Eighty of the
most promising were tested in a laboratory, 15 were found to be feasible using batch techniques with chemical
reagents, and eight were demonstrated successfully with recycled materials. Within the Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI), a three year programme was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of thermochemical cycles for
efficient, cost effective, large scale nuclear H2 production. After various screening processes on a total of
115 cycles, the number of cycles considered worth investigating in more detail boiled down to two: S–I and UT-3
[150]. The Russian Federation also undertook some major research on the thermochemical cycles and finally
constructed and operated a small demonstration loop of the hybrid sulphur (HyS) process.
In the following subsections, some thermochemical cycles are described in more detail. They refer to those
cycles that have been recently identified within the USDOE NHI as worth further investigating (see also
Section 2.10.2).
3.4.2. Sulphur–iodine cycle
3.4.2.1. Reactions and processes
One cycle considered with a high priority is the S–I process (also known as the Ispra Mark 16 cycle)
originally developed by the US company General Atomics and later taken up and modified by different research
groups such as the JAEA. It basically consists of three chemical reactions. According to the General Atomics
stoichiometry, the S–I process is an all-fluid cycle and can be split into the following steps [151]:
(1) (9I2)l + (SO2)g + (16H2O)l → (2HI+10H2O+8I2)l + (H2SO4+4H2O)l (120°C)
(2) L2 = (2HI + 10H2O + 8I2)l → (2HI)g + (10H2O+8I2)l (230°C)
(3) (2 HI)g → H2 + (I2)l (330°C)
(4) L1 = (H2SO4 + 4H2O)l → (H2SO4)l + (4H2O)l (300°C)
(5) (H2SO4)l → (H2SO4)g (360°C)
(6) (H2SO4)g → (SO3)g + (H2O)g (400°C)
(7) (SO3)g → (SO2)g + 0.5 O2 (870°C)
The temperatures in parentheses are approximate values and depend upon the pressure, which is not
necessarily uniform in the different parts of the cycle.
The S–I cycle is, of all thermochemical cycles, the one with the highest efficiency quoted. The theoretical
limit of efficiency for the total process is assessed to be 51% assuming ideal reversible chemical reactions.
Analytical studies anticipate efficiencies of 40–50%. As the result of a flowsheet analysis in 1982, General Atomics
estimated the process thermal efficiency to be 47% [152]. A best estimate was found to be around 33–36% [153]. A
schematic of the S–I cycle is shown in Fig. 42.
73
FIG. 42. Schematic of sulphur–iodine thermochemical water splitting cycle.
After separation, purification and further concentration, both acids are decomposed. The heavier HI part is
sent to the section of reaction (3), the endothermic decomposition of the HI resulting in the production of hydrogen,
while the lighter H2SO4 part is sent to the section of reaction (4), the endothermic decomposition of the H2SO4
resulting in the production of oxygen. This separation is the most critical phase and is difficult because of the partial
decomposition into H2 and I2 and the presence of an azeotrope2 in the ternary mixture.
The most energy consuming parts of the S–I cycle are the separation processes, where optimization decisively
determines the potential and economics of this cycle. Heat requirements for concentration and purification of the
two acids influence the thermal efficiency. Figure 43 shows the equilibrium conversion of the two acids as a
function of temperature, showing the need for high excess iodine due to the low HI conversion ratio of about 20%.
3.4.2.2. Bunsen section
The Bunsen reaction represents an essential part of the S–I cycle. Its reaction products and their composition
have a strong influence on the energy consumption in the subsequent reaction steps and therefore need to be
optimized. Due to the exothermic nature of the Bunsen reaction, through which some amount of heat is rejected,
this section does not need a connection to an external heat source. The reaction system consisting of SO2, H2O, I2,
HI and H2SO4 has a very complex solution chemistry due to strong electrolytic behaviour, the formation of
tri-iodides (I3–), poly-iodides (I42–, I5–, etc.) and solvation reactions. The system displays partial miscibility behaviour
[155], as can be seen in Fig. 44.
As can be seen from reaction (1), a considerable excess of iodine is necessary in practice to observe the
splitting of the acids into immiscible aqueous solutions through a spontaneous (and slow) separation process. Also,
water is added in excess to keep the overall reactions exothermic and spontaneous. Those excesses become a
burden in the downstream sections where they have to be recovered and sent back to the Bunsen section, requiring
energy for heating, separating, concentrating, cooling, pumping and recycling, thus decreasing the overall
2
An azeotrope is a mixture that cannot be separated by normal distillation since compositions of the liquid phase and the gas
phase are equal.
74
FIG. 43. Sulphur–iodine process equilibrium conversion [4].
FIG. 44. Two immiscible aqueous acid phases resulting from the Bunsen reaction [154].
efficiency. Efforts are directed at minimizing excess quantities and/or seeking alternative routes to carry out process
operations in various sections. It is very important to find the optimal composition ratio of chemicals for the Bunsen
reaction. A large excess is typically connected with side reactions which lead here to the formation of S and H2S
according to:
H2SO4 + 8 HI → 4 I2 + 4 H2O + H2S
H2SO4 + 6 HI → 3 I2 + 4 H2O + S
75
FIG. 45. Options of HIx decomposition [151].
3.4.2.3. HI decomposition section
The steps of HI concentration, i.e. the separation of HI from water and excess iodine, and of HI decomposition
to H2 and I2 are key parts in terms of further cycle optimization because the:
(1) Concentration of HI in the HIx solution is highly energy intensive due to the presence of a homogeneous
azeotrope in the binary system HI–H2O;
(2) Decomposition into H2 and I2 is slow and thermodynamically limited (22% equilibrium conversion ratio at
450°C), implying large amounts of products to be recirculated;
(3) Separation of H2 from still unreacted HI requires a dedicated unit including an I2 distillation column and HI
condenser at low temperature;
(4) Energy exchange is large due to the large heat capacity of the HIx mixture.
For the difficult process of separation of large amounts of water from HI (to be recycled to the Bunsen
section), efficient distillation is not viable due to the azeotropic character of the HI-H2O mixture. Three methods
(Fig. 45) are currently being investigated [156]: extractive distillation, electro–electrodialysis and reactive
distillation.
(A) Extractive distillation
In extractive distillation (Fig. 46), pursued in the USA, a third body — phosphoric acid (H3PO4) — is added
to destroy the azeotrope by separating the iodine before the HI is distilled and decomposed with the hydrogen
separated by using membranes [157].
(B) Electro–electrodialysis
In electrodialysis and electro–electrodialysis (EED) (Fig. 47), pursued by Japan, the Republic of Korea and
China, water is removed in the HIx purifier to concentrate the HIx mixture. Purified HIx is sent to the EED section,
where, in the cathode cell, HI is concentrated by electrochemical reduction of I2 to I–, while in the anode cell, HI is
diluted by electrochemical oxidation of I– to I2. Excess HI can be removed by simple distillation using ion exchange
membranes under the driving force of electric potential difference. H+ is transported from anode to cathode through
a Nafion 117 proton permeation-selective membrane [159, 160].
76
FIG. 46. Principle of extractive distillation [158].
FIG. 47. Principle of electro–electrodialysis [161].
(C) Reactive distillation
Reactive distillation (Fig. 48), pursued by France, is based on the idea of shifting the azeotropic composition
at elevated pressures (~2 MPa). The HIx is distilled in a pressurized distillation column where, after vaporization,
the HIx passes through a catalyst bed with the HI being decomposed to a gas mixture of I2, H2, HI and H2O. HIx
distillation and HI decomposition take place in the same reactor, leading to a liquid–gas column with I2 dissolved in
the lower, liquid phase and H2 plus water to be gained from the upper, gaseous phase [153]. The pressurized
hydrogen gas is removed from the stream by condensation and released, while the unreacted species are sent back
to the EED reservoir tank. Iodine at the distillation bottom is recycled to the Bunsen reactor to close the cycle.
HI distillation columns have been proposed so far for operation at ~2.2 or ~5.0 MPa [156]. The HIx
environment is extremely corrosive, and the severity increases with temperature.
77
FIG. 48. Principle of reactive distillation [158].
3.4.2.4. H2SO4 decomposition section
In the S–I cycle reactions (5)–(7), sulphuric acid is decomposed in two endothermic stages. One of the key
components in this section is the decomposer of H2SO4, which, at a concentration of greater than 90 wt%, is
vaporized and decomposed to SO3 and H2O at temperatures between 300°C and 500°C. In the second stage, the SO3
further decomposes at high temperatures of 800–900°C and in the presence of a catalyst into oxygen and sulphur
dioxide. Sulphur dioxide, water and iodine are then recycled in L1. The H2SO4 decomposition reactions proceed
smoothly with almost no side reactions.
More complex heat exchanger configurations are needed for the second stage, the SO3 decomposition,
because both primary and secondary streams are gas phases. Sulphur trioxide decomposition was observed to be
satisfactory only at temperatures above 800°C. Several designs of ceramic high temperature heat exchangers have
been suggested. They include the application of catalyst coatings to the inner walls of the decomposer channels.
The high temperatures and pressures required make the unit operation technologically challenging due to the
harsh corrosion characteristic of H2SO4 under such conditions. According to the temperatures required in the
different components of this section, the helium coolant has to pass in series the SO3 decomposer, the H2SO4
decomposer and the H2SO4 vaporizer. Heat exchange between hot fluids from the nuclear reactor and process fluids
needs to be carried out effectively. One type of innovative heat exchanger reactors considered is PCHX having
catalyst coated small semicircular flow channels. Another one is a self-catalysing heat exchanger reactor made of
platinum (1–5 wt%) incorporated Alloy 800H, Inconel 617, etc. These compact designs allow for effectively
carrying out multiple operations like heat exchange or chemical reaction. Corrosion-resistant membrane
reactor–separator–heat exchanger units are also being developed.
3.4.3. The Westinghouse (hybrid sulphur or HyS) cycle
The hybrid-sulphur (HyS) process [162] originally studied at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and
further developed by Westinghouse in 1973–1983, also known as the Ispra Mark 11 cycle, is a variation of the S–I
process which consists of only two reaction steps and where sulphur is the only other element involved apart from
hydrogen and oxygen:
(1) (H2SO4)g → (SO2)g + (H2O)l + 0.5 O2 (~850°C)
(2) (SO2)g + (2 H2O)l → H2SO4 + H2 (20–110°C, 0.17 V, 0.2–1 MPa)
Reaction (1) is conducted in two stages: first the decomposition of the sulphuric acid into SO3 and H2O at
500–600°C, followed by the SO3 gas catalytic decomposition, where the SO3 is then reduced in a high temperature
step to SO2 and O2. The products are sent through various heat exchangers for heat recovery and cooling to allow
phase separation. A series of flash evaporators are used to separate oxygen from the rest of the liquid species,
78
FIG. 49. Schematic of Westinghouse hybrid-sulphur cycle [164].
resulting in almost pure oxygen. The rest of the mixture, consisting of mainly SO2, sulphuric acid and water, is sent
to the electrochemical section. The mixture of SO2 and water is reacted in an electrolytic cell at lower temperatures
to produce H2 and a sulphuric acid aqueous phase. The electrolytic step offers the advantage of having a theoretical
cell potential for SO2 anode depolarized electrolysis of only 0.17 V per cell. In practice, SO2 electrolysers may
require ~0.29 V, i.e. no more than 25% of the electricity needed in the low temperature water electrolysis [163],
however, at the expense of the need to decompose H2SO4 at high temperatures in order to recycle the SO2 for cycle
completion. Still, the net thermal energy requirement is significantly less than that for conventional water
electrolysis. The Westinghouse process (Fig. 49) is simpler in design, because the use of corrosive halides is not
required.
The first reaction equation, sulphuric acid splitting, is common to all cycles of the sulphur family. After the
oxygen is removed from the system, the SO2 and H2O are combined with make-up H2O and routed to the
electrolyser cell. The SO2 is then electrochemically oxidized at the anode to form H2SO4, protons and electrons,
while the protons migrate through the electrolyte and produce H2 gas at the cathode.
The raw material flow is quite limited when compared with other thermochemical cycles. Optimum efficiency
was observed at a 65% concentration of sulphuric acid in water. The main advantages of this cycle are the fact that
there are only two reactions, and the ability to have the hydrogen production separated from the nuclear plant. The
overall process efficiency, taking into account the thermal energy required both for the electricity production in step
1 and for step 2, is estimated to be around 50% (based on HHV).
A major task is the optimization of the cell design (Fig. 50), materials selections and operating conditions to
improve performance and overall durability. The most important issue for increasing the competitiveness of this
cycle is the reduction of the cell voltage (currently about 0.6 V against a theoretical demand of 0.17 V) and the cost
of the SO2 electrolyser. The challenge is that SO2 must react with water to produce hydrogen in the presence of
strong sulphuric acid under elevated temperature and pressure.
79
FIG. 50. Schematic of an SO2-depolarized electrolyzer [165].
Other technical issues to be dealt with are the sulphuric acid decomposition step and the SO2/O2 separation
system. Various design suggestions for the SO3 decomposer are currently being investigated, including the bayonet
type, plate type, direct contact, compact, and shell-and-tube type heat exchangers (see also Section 4.6). Special
caution has to be taken to avoid sulphur deposition on the anode or H2S formation in the electrolytic step, which
requires the use of SO2 perm-selective membranes.
3.4.4. Sulphur–bromine hybrid cycle
Developed as the Mark 13 cycle at JRC Ispra, this sulphuric acid–bromine hybrid cycle, the third of the
sulphur family, uses bromine instead of iodine. The reactions steps are
(1a) H2SO4 → H2O + SO3 (700–1000°C)
(1b) SO3 → SO2 + 0.5 O2 (700–1000°C)
(2) SO2 + Br2 + 2 H2O → 2 HBr + H2SO4 (20–100°C)
(3) 2 HBr → H2 + Br2 – electricity (80–200°C)
with reaction (3) as the electrochemical step. The S–Br hybrid cycle uses only liquid or gaseous species. In the
electrochemical step, the voltage required is, at 0.8 V, slightly higher than that for the HyS cycle (0.6 V). The cycle
was successfully tested in 1978 at a laboratory scale facility at JRC Ispra, demonstrating a hydrogen production rate
of 100 L/h over 150 h with an efficiency of 37% [166]. The system was also operated with a 1 kW solar heat source.
The main task currently seen is reducing the energy requirement for the electrochemical step [86].
80
FIG. 51. Schematic of the UT-3 thermochemical process [168].
3.4.5. Calcium–bromine (UT-3) cycle
Another promising thermochemical process is the calcium–iron–bromine or UT-3 cycle which was developed
at the University of Tokyo some decades ago [167]. The process consists of four gas–solid reactions which include
hydrolysis and bromination of calcium and iron compounds:
(1) (CaBr2)s + (H2O)g → (CaO)s + (2 HBr)g (700–750°C)
(2) (CaO)s + (Br2)g → (CaBr2)s + (0.5 O2)g (500–600°C)
(3) (Fe3O4)s + (8 HBr)g → (3 FeBr2)s + 4 H2O + (Br2)g (200–300°C)
(4) (3 FeBr2)s + 4( H2O)g → (Fe3O4)s + (6 HBr)g + (H2)g (550–600°C)
The process takes place in four separate reactor furnaces containing the solid reactants CaBr2, CaO, Fe2O3 and
FeBr2, which are present as spherical pellets. Only the heat-carrying gases are passed through the reactors, which
eases material flow control. The solid–gas reactions are connected with volume changes in each cycle step. The
maximum heat input required is up to 750°C, lower than that for the sulphur cycles. Hydrogen and oxygen are
removed from the recirculating streams via semi-permeable membranes. A major drawback is the still low reaction
rate [169]. The reactors are connected in series in a loop as is shown in Fig. 51. Stages (1) and (3) produce reactants
for stages (2) and (4). After one cycle, the reactors are switched and the direction of the cycle is reversed.
Reactions (1) and (4) are endothermic and therefore require heat, which must be supplied from an external
heat source such as an HTGR. The gaseous products O2 and H2 from reactions (2) and (4) are separated by
condensation. A condensed mixture of hydrogen bromide and steam can be utilized as gas reactant for reaction (3).
The thermodynamics of the above reactions are considered favourable; the overall efficiency, however, is limited to
about 40% due to the melting point of CaBr2 at 760°C [170].
The physico-chemical approach forecasts some difficulties because of the sintering of the solid reactants
[171]. With regard to the second and the last reaction, thermodynamics require operation at very low pressure and
at high temperature, which is in contradiction with the volatility of the bromides. One way could be to operate with
over-stoichiometric conditions, which assumes a large amount of gases and will probably lead to too large reactors
because of the too low pressure level required by thermodynamics.
81
The UT-3 cycle was successfully operated for a few hours in the pilot plant MASKOT (Model Apparatus for
the Study of Cyclic Operation in Tokyo) [172]. But problems were seen in the cycling behaviour of the solids and
in the coupling with a permanent constant heat source because of the variations of the temperature and heat demand
of the four reactors. It was found to be difficult to extrapolate to a large scale.
Another major difficulty is given by the toxicity of the reactants (bromide). To overcome this problem, a new
flowsheet was developed by the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) of France (now the French Alternative
Energies and Atomic Energy Commission), which employed two asymmetrical torus reactors with fluidized beds of
solid reactants in each leg. This has the advantage of avoiding the energy intensive reactant preparation step and
also improves the reaction kinetics [173].
At the Argonne National Laboratory, a modified UT-3 cycle, a three step Ca–Br hybrid cycle, is being
investigated. In the first step, the CaBr2 is reacted with steam of 1050 K (181.5 kJ/mol heat of reaction) in a
solid–gas reaction to split the water. The dry product HBr is then delivered to a plasmatron where in an endothermic
reaction the HBr is decomposed by electricity into the products H2 as a gas and Br2 as a liquid, which are expected
to be easily separable:
(2 HBr)g → (H2)g + (Br2)g (~60°C)
In the exothermic oxygen production step, the initial CaBr2 is regenerated [174].
One advantage is the fact that more than half of the thermodynamic requirement is supplied as heat rather than
electricity. Experiments on the laboratory scale have shown that the direct injection of steam into the molten bath of
CaBr2 promptly yields HBr in a stable and continuous operation, which is then electrolytically decomposed to
produce H2. The conversion ratios observed were up to 19 mol% of the calcium bromide [175].
3.4.6. Copper–chlorine cycle
Several alternative thermochemical cycles for hydrogen production were investigated, which operate at
moderate temperatures in the range of 500–600ºC. Lower operating temperatures reduce the costs of materials and
maintenance, and can effectively use low grade waste heat, thereby improving the cycle and power plant
efficiencies. Additional advantages of lower operating temperatures include ease of handling the chemical agents
and reactions. The NHI identified a number of chlorine-based thermochemical cycles [19]. The copper–chlorine
(Cu–Cl) cycle (the four step cycle shown in Fig. 52) can be operated at a maximum temperature of about 550°C. It
requires much lower operating temperatures than other cycles, with the advantages of reduced materials and
maintenance costs. Furthermore, this cycle can effectively use low grade waste heat, which improves cycle and
power plant efficiencies [19].
The Cu–Cl cycle is a hybrid cycle consisting of several thermal and one electrochemical reaction. The steps
involved in the five step cycle are shown below. The five step cycle promises an efficiency as high as 41% and has
the advantage of employing less expensive raw materials compared with the S–I cycle. The electric energy demand
was assessed to be 39% of the total energy. The viability of all reactions and, in particular, the H2 and O2 generation,
was demonstrated at ANL on the bench scale level. What still needs to be checked are side reactions and the
completeness of the reactions [176].
(1) (2 Cu)s + (2 HCl)g → (2 CuCl)l + (H2)g (430–475°C)

thermal reaction
(2) (4 CuCl)aq → (2 CuCl2)aq + (2 Cu)s (30–70°C) electrolysis
(3) (2 CuCl2)aq → (2 CuCl2)s (< 100°C) drying
(4) (2 CuCl2)s + (H2O)g → (CuO·CuCl2)s + (2 HCl)g (400°C) hydrolysis
(5) (CuO·CuCl2)s → (2 CuCl)l + (0.5 O2)g (500°C)

thermal decompos.
82
FIG. 52. Schematic of the four step copper–chlorine thermochemical water splitting cycle [177].
Reaction (1) of the cycle is a heterogeneous, exothermic and reversible reaction. HCl heated up to 475°C and
solid copper are fed into a reactor. The reaction preferably takes place at temperatures greater than 425°C (i.e.
above the melting point of CuCl), in order to avoid formation of solid CuCl, which would passivate the Cu metal
surface. Conversion of the solid particles strongly depends on reaction rates and residence times. Particles of 3 μm
size were found to result in a complete conversion, whereas larger sizes led to lower hydrogen production. Efforts
are currently being made to generate hydrogen in a larger reactor at higher rates up to 3 kg/d [19]. Due to the low
activation energy, catalysts might not be required.
In the electrochemical reaction (reaction (2)), aqueous CuCl enters the electrochemical cell and is
electrolysed, with CuCl2 formed at the anode and Cu particles at the cathode exiting the cell, possibly by a
conveyer. R&D tasks include the identification of appropriate membrane and electrode materials, and of the proper
operating conditions to produce small dendritic Cu particles [178].
Drying of the aqueous cupric chloride (equation (3)) is an energy intensive step that requires heat at
temperatures less than 100°C. Heat requirements for the Cu–Cl cycle amount to 221 kJ/g of H2 produced. Studies
have shown that a large portion could be delivered by low grade waste heat and other heat recovery. Here, the waste
heat from the moderator of a CANDU reactor could be used.
The hydrolysis step (reaction (4)) is an endothermic, non-catalytic, gas–solid reaction taking place in the
temperature range 350–400°C. Here, solid CuCl2 particles react with steam to generate copper oxychloride and HCl
gas. The ideal operating temperature to give reasonable kinetics was found to be between 300 and 400°C. Also,
excess water vapour was found to be advantageous for the hydrolysis reaction, resulting in high yields [178]. At
375°C and atmospheric pressure, the ratio is ~17 which would result in a 60–80% conversion to Cu2OCl2. Since
high steam to copper ratios have a direct impact on the capital costs due to higher volumetric flows and larger
equipment size, the main goal of the test programme at ANL is to further reduce the unwanted CuCl amount left in
the solid products [179].
The endothermic oxygen production reaction (5) requires the highest temperatures. It is the thermal
decomposition of solid CuO·CuCl2 which produces liquid copper monochloride and oxygen gas plus unavoidable
traces of species from incomplete conversion or side reactions. This step has been experimentally demonstrated on
the bench-top and laboratory scales. Unwanted agglomeration of particles during processing appeared to be a safety
concern still to be solved [19].
A conceptional layout of a nuclear assisted Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle is given in Section 4.6.1
(see Fig. 81) [180].
Originally proposed in Ref. [181] as a two-step cycle, different variations of the Cu–Cl cycle have been
developed in the meantime. They include the Cu–Cl cycle in four process steps [182] or in five process steps [182,
83
183], but also as a purely thermal reaction to produce hydrogen with low yield [184]. In the four step cycle,
reactions (1) and (2) are combined to form an electrolysis step involving direct electrolysis of CuCl/HCl. Direct
hydrogen production from this combined step was demonstrated for the first time by AECL. This demonstration
was made possible by the use of the right type of membrane for the electrolysis. A conceptual layout of a Cu–Cl
cycle is shown in Fig. 52 [180].
3.4.7. Iron–chlorine cycle
The iron–chlorine or ‘Mark 9’ cycle is one of the thermochemical cycles that have been extensively studied in
the past. It appeared to be an appropriate cycle, since some partial reactions are well known and technically proven.
The endothermic reaction (1) is the hydrogen producing step by hydrolysis of FeCl2. Conversion of the solid is
almost complete. The choice of the proper material is seen to be a problem, as is the coupling to a process heat
source. Also, separation of the solid and gaseous reaction products appears to be difficult considering the melting
point for FeCl2 of 950°C and its high vapour pressure at such high temperatures. For easier separation, reaction (1)
is done in two steps. The well known reaction (3) represents oxygen production by means of the reverse Deacon
reaction. Reaction (2) is the chlorination of magnetite with HCl, also performed in two steps, the same as the
dechlorination process of reaction (4). The latter is considered the key reaction of the cycle due to the energy
consuming vaporization of the interim product Fe2Cl6.
(1a) 3 FeCl2 + 3 H2O → 3 FeO + 6 HCl
(1b) 3 FeO + H2O → Fe3O4 + H2
(2a) Fe3O4 + 3 HCl → FeCl2 + FeOCl + 1/2 Fe2O3 + 3/2 H2O
(2b) 1/2 Fe2O3 + FeOCl + 5 HCl → 2 FeCl3 + 5/2 H2O
(3) Cl2 + H2O → 2 HCl2 + 0.5 O2 – heat
(4a) 2 FeCl3 + CO → 2 FeCl2 + COCl2
(4b) COCl2 → CO + Cl2
The estimated efficiency resulting from mass and energy balances is in the range of 28–35% which is not
deemed sufficiently high with regard to cycle economics [185, 186].
An analysis of the iron–chlorine cycle in terms of chemical engineering factors was conducted by detailed
flowsheeting of the process, with attention given to the high and low temperature heat balances of the process.
Efficiencies of 28–35% were shown to be attainable by the optimization of the HCl boiler system and by the
incorporation of two paths for FeCl2 hydrolysis. The irreversibility of the process was calculated to be 315 MW,
most of which is produced in the separation steps. It was concluded that although the calculated efficiency is too
low to guarantee the economic feasibility of the process, the further development steps needed should be valuable
to other cycle studies also [186].
3.4.8. Copper sulphate hybrid cycle
The hybrid copper oxide–copper sulphate thermochemical cycle, originally derived from the Westinghouse
HyS cycle, appears to be feasible with currently available technologies. The following reaction steps describe the
H-5 version of the copper sulphate hybrid cycle which was simulated using Aspen Plus software [187]:
84
(1) (CuO)s + (SO2)l + (6 H2O)l → (CuSO4·5 H2O)s + (H2)g (25°C)
(2) (CuSO4·5 H2O)s → (CuSO4)s + (5 H2O)l (208°C)
(3) (CuSO4)s → (CuO)s + (SO3)g (850°C)
(4) (SO3)g → (SO2)g + (1/2 O2)g (850°C)
Reaction (1) is the hydrogen generating step, where at 25°C and 2.17 MPa solid copper oxide and liquid
sulphur dioxide is reacted in an electrolyser cell to copper sulphate pentahydrate and hydrogen. Most of the
feedwater is the water recycled from reaction (2), while only a small part is fresh water. The pentahydrate is
decomposed in reaction (2) at high temperatures to anhydrous copper sulphate and water. This dehydration is
actually done in several consecutive steps at progressively higher temperatures (up to 320°C) where the water
vapour produced is recycled for heat-up of the feed stream in the preceding steps. After cooling, the water is sent
back to step (1). In reaction (3), the heated and pressurized anhydrous copper sulphate is decomposed at 850°C in a
fluidized bed reactor. The fluidizing medium is oxygen gas to minimize the formation of Cu2O. The copper oxide
produced is recycled to reaction (1). The gaseous constituents of the product stream, SO3 and O2 are separated,
which is done efficiently at elevated pressures.
The SO3 is then heated to 850°C and decomposed in a packed bed reactor to SO2 and oxygen (reaction (4)).
The product stream contains about 20% of O2, 40% of SO3, and 40% of still unconverted SO3. After separation in a
distillation column, the SO2 is recycled to the electrochemical reactor of section (1). Approximately 2% of the SO2
is lost with the oxygen stream and must be added to the system. Oxygen purification and SO2 recovery could be
conducted more efficiently with an adequate refrigeration process. Estimated cycle efficiencies, assuming recovery
and use of all rejected low quality heat, are up to ~52% [187].
3.4.9. Vanadium–chlorine cycle
The vanadium–chlorine cycle first proposed in 1964 by Funk and Reinstrom as a four step cycle, and later
improved, is a purely thermochemical process. Its reaction sequence is as follows [188, 189]:
(1) (2 VCl2)s + (2n H2O)l + (2 HCl)l → (2 VCl3·n H2O)s + H2 (120°C)
(2) (2 VCl3·n H2O)s → (2 VCl3)s + (2n H2O)g (160°C)
(3) (4 VCl3)s → (2 VCl2)s + (2 VCl4)g (766°C)
(4) (2 VCl4)l → (2 VCl3)s + (Cl2)g (200°C)
(5a) (1/3 V2O5)l + Cl2 → (2/3 VOCl3)g + 1/2 O2 (927°C)
(5b) (2/3 VOCl3)g + (H2O)g → (1/3 V2O5)s + 2 HCl (127°C)
In reactions (1) and (2), n ranges between 2.8 and 6.
Hydrogen generation is initiated, when an acidic V2+ solution is mixed with a catalyst like palladized carbon
and heated up to reaction temperature. Experiments at the RWTH Aachen University have shown the feasibility of
the individual reaction steps on a laboratory scale. Based on these results, the total process has been optimized.
Assuming a steam power plant for the production of the electricity required, an overall plant efficiency of 42.5%
has been estimated [189].
85
3.4.10. Very high temperature cycles
There are materials which can act as effective redox pairs in a two step water splitting process. In the first
step, a metal oxide is reduced, delivering the oxygen. In the second step, the reduced compound is reacted with
water, extracting its oxygen, while the hydrogen is liberated. Two-reaction processes offer the potential for high
efficiencies at low cost. Pairs of materials investigated are Fe3O4/FeO as the most representative, but also
Mn3O4/MnO, ZnO/Zn, CoO3/Co-O, Ce2O3/CeO2. The water splitting is done at temperatures below 650°C, whereas
the reduction step requires much higher temperatures around 2000°C, which favours solar systems for primary
energy supply. The advantage is the production of pure hydrogen. A major drawback is the decreasing activity over
repeated oxidation/reduction cycles. The general reaction scheme is
(1) MxOy → MxOy-δ + δ/2 O2
(2) MxOy-δ + δ H2O → MxOy + δ H2
Two step metal oxide cycles have been proven experimentally in laboratory scale mock-ups up to 10 kW(th).
They are under investigation at the PSI, Switzerland, in connection with solar-concentrated heat input and at INET,
China, in connection with nuclear heat input. Main research efforts are concentrated on finding new metal oxides
with a comparatively low decomposition temperature. The most promising cycles were found to be the pairs
ZnO/Zn and Fe3O4/FeO. Investigations by the German DLR were done on the following system to be coupled to a
solar receiver:
(1) 3 Zn + 2 Fe3O4 + 4 H2O → 3 ZnFe2O4 + 4 H2 600°C
(2) 3 ZnFe2O4 → 3 Zn + 2 Fe3O4 + 2 H2 1500°C
INET is examining in detail MFe2O4 with M = Cu, Ni, Co, Mg, Zn, Mn having decomposition temperatures
in the range of 800–860°C. Hydrogen generation has been demonstrated for Cu, whose cycling capability was also
proven [190]. The ZnO/Zn is a promising cycle because of its comparatively low decomposition temperature.
Metal–oxide cycles are often considered in connection with solar thermal reactors which can easily achieve
temperatures of 1500–2500 K.
The PSI, Switzerland, has realized a 60 kW sunlight concentrating device providing a temperature of 2200°C
for the water splitting process based on the metal iron with an expected efficiency of about 20%.
The steam–iron process, although based on coal, is a cycle process where hydrogen is generated from the
decomposition of steam by reaction with iron oxide. The cycle is not completely closed since coal is consumed and
CO2 is emitted. The synthesis gas produced in the coal gasification process with steam is reacted to reduce the iron
oxide. The input is hematite (Fe2O3) which can be easily reduced to magnetite (Fe3O4) in the presence of synthesis
gas, and further reduced to either wustite (FeO) or metallic iron (Fe) depending on operating temperature. High
operating temperatures (750–850°C) favour the reduction to FeO using both H2 and CO, whereas temperatures
below 550°C favour reduction to Fe using only CO. In the subsequent re-oxidation step with water, the original
oxides are produced together with a hydrogen-enriched gas. The reaction equations are:
Fe3O4 + 4 CO → 3 Fe + 4 CO2 Reduction
3 Fe + 4 H2O → Fe3O4 + 4 H2 Oxidation
Continuous hydrogen production is given if reduction and oxidation take place in separate reactors. This
process has the advantage of producing H2 at a high purity and the fact that renewable sources can easily be
employed. A major drawback of this process is its poor efficiency. The steam–iron process was used in the early
1900s for the commercial production of hydrogen at relatively higher temperatures in the range between 750 and
850°C, but was later abandoned due to severe degradation of the iron oxide ores within a few cycles. It has regained
interest due to its ability to produce pure hydrogen for fuel cell applications. With the development of a novel,
86
moderate temperature (400–550°C) steam–iron dual-reactor fluidized bed process, pure hydrogen by-product can
be produced from coal gasification derived hot syngas in an IGCC power plant [191].
3.4.11. Heavy element halide thermochemical cycle
Another cycle currently studied at ANL is worth being mentioned because of its very low temperature
requirement [106]. The cycle is based on heavy element halide chemistry with a maximum reaction temperature of
300°C, the lowest known temperature for a purely thermochemical hydrogen production cycle. The reaction
sequence is composed of the following steps:
(1) 2 UO2Br2·3 H2O → 2 “(UO3·H2O)s” + 4 (HBr)g + 2 (H2O)g
(2) 4 EuBr2 + 4 HBr → 4 EuBr3 + 2 (H2)g
(3) 4 EuBr3 → 4 EuBr2 + 2 (Br2)g
(4) 2 “(UO3·H2O)s” + 2 Br2 + 4 H2O → 2 (UO2Br2·3 H2O) + (O2)g
No integrated cycle test has been performed so far, and thermodynamic data are largely unknown for this
system. For reaction (1), work demonstrated that HBr was produced with the reaction going to completion at
300°C. The notation “(UO3·H2O)s” means that the exact stoichiometry of the species has not been determined yet.
Studies on reaction (2) showed that EuBr2 reacts with aqueous HBr to produce hydrogen. But reaction rates are
slow, with typically several hours for completion under the experimental conditions investigated. For reaction (3),
vacuum pyrolysis was employed, while for reaction (4), bromine and water were found to react to HOBr. Reactions
(1) and (3) are endothermic and require application of heat at a temperature of 300°C to the drive the reaction to the
desired products. Reactions (2) and (4) are expected to be exothermic and to proceed spontaneously. Further efforts
are needed to enlarge the thermodynamic database for the U–Eu–Br cycle and to improve the efficiency of the
system, but also including consideration of the corrosiveness of the chemicals.
3.4.12. General aspects of thermochemical cycles
3.4.12.1. Limits of number of reactions and separation energy cost
An important factor to be considered when evaluating a thermochemical cycle is the number of reactions
involved. With decreasing maximum temperature, the number of required reaction steps increases. This leads to a
decreasing efficiency and the need for large excess energy for separating the reaction products and of transporting
the products/reactants between the reaction stages. The substantial heat usually needed to heat up and vaporize the
reactants can only partly be recovered, while much of the available heat is at temperatures too low to be useful.
Chemical reactions are often incomplete at low temperatures. Irreversibility and costs of each step are cumulative,
quickly lowering the overall efficiency and increasing the final cost of the global process.
A minimal irreversibility (or driving force) is necessary to drive each step, especially at low temperatures,
which is ~40 kJ/mol for both electrolysis and chemical reactions. To this irreversibility, minimal enthalpy needs to
be added to separate the reactants from the products with a high purity (corresponding to the term of ideal mixing
entropy) with a minimal amount of 20 kJ/mol in practice to achieve a purity of at least 10-3 molar.
In the case of low temperature exothermic reactions, this additional heat cannot be recovered in other steps of
the process and has to be added to the final heat demand. Therefore the economic aspect will be an important issue
in cycles with two or more exothermic chemical reactions at low temperatures or cycles with five or more reactions.
The same holds for cycles with two or more electrolytic steps due to the cumulative overvoltage and large
investment costs required.
The separation work required has a strong influence on the efficiency of the cycle processes. A typical
separation problem is the energy needed to separate hydrogen from water vapour, for example, at the exit of a high
temperature electrolysis system operating with a voltage near the theoretical reversibility point. The easiest way is
87
to cool the water–hydrogen mixture to ambient temperature. But doing so, the heat of vaporization of water will
usually get lost and cannot be recovered directly to heat the water at the entrance of the electrolyser.
The large recirculation of materials is another major constraint of thermochemical cycles. Typically, for 1 t of
hydrogen produced, the material recirculation is between 500 and 10 000 t. Recirculation can be more easily
realized in cycles involving only liquids or gases and liquids, whereas transport of solid materials would be too
energy consuming. Also, processes with slow kinetic steps may lead to undesired holdup of materials. affecting the
plant investment costs.
Following the second law of thermodynamics, to achieve the best efficiency, heat must be provided at the
highest temperature compatible with the heat source, as the efficiency of the process is limited by the Carnot law
applied to all temperature levels balanced by the heat needed at these levels (and not just to the highest temperature
level). Therefore endothermic reactions at low temperature levels should be avoided. The free enthalpy of each
reaction must be negative or near zero to avoid apparatus dimensions that are too large (a negative example in this
respect is the UT-3 process).
3.4.12.2. Heat recuperation
It is often supposed that the heat requirement for the endothermic chemical reactions is the major heat load in
thermochemical cycles. But a large heat demand is always necessary to heat the chemical reactants to the reaction
temperature. This amount of heat can be provided by recovering heat as higher temperature materials are cooled.
This is a real challenge because of corrosion issues. The stoichiometry of the products has an impact on these
energy exchanges. As the free energy change of each reaction is designed not to be too negative to avoid exergy
losses that are too large, a very large recirculation rate can be needed, leading to large energy exchanges.
A typical example is the S–I cycle. First the product of the Bunsen reaction as proposed by the US company
General Atomics included not only HI but also a large amount of water and iodine (2 HI with 10 H2O and 9 I2 in the
General Atomics proposal). Furthermore, as the HI decomposition process has a positive free enthalpy, a large
recirculation rate is necessary in the HI decomposition section. For example, in Ref. [153], a recirculation rate of 3
is proposed. This is equivalent to around 30 H2O and 27 I2 circulating to produce 1 mole of hydrogen. More than
1500 kJ must be exchanged to produce 1 mole of hydrogen (compared to the HHV of only 286 kJ/mol).
In order to keep the contribution of external energy within reasonable limits, it is necessary to recover a part
of the heat rejected by exothermic reactions. This energy recuperation will be performed through heat exchangers,
whose efficiencies will be dependent on their pinch values (temperature differences between the hot leg and the
cold leg of a heat exchanger). The efficiencies are better, but the technical feasibility is much more difficult for low
pinch values. For more than 20 years, it has been known that this should be much more of a penalty for HI
decomposition than for H2SO4 decomposition.
3.4.12.3. Chemical elements and compounds involved in thermochemical cycles
One of the major questions in a thermochemical cycle process is whether the reactions are as expected or
whether there are undesired side reactions, which are influenced by both the excess input of chemicals and by the
residence time in the reactor. This can theoretically be answered by applying computer models to determine
simultaneous equilibria. The fact that in some processes the low-temperature step reduces other elements rather
than reducing the hydrogen has led to the proposal of using a hybrid process replacing the low-temperature step
with an electrolysis step.
Computer models also allow the determination of the required excess (over-stoichiometric) masses that
become necessary due to the formation of stable interim compounds but that, on the other hand, enhance side
reactions. Therefore it is necessary to find a compromise between completion of reaction, phase separation, side
reaction and energy loss. The weight related throughput of chemicals in use may be several orders of magnitude
higher than the water to be split. Losses from the system might become economically unfavourable and also
represent an ecological concern.
An often neglected aspect is the abundance of a given element. If relatively low, these rare resources may be
depleted rapidly, and the cost of extraction/purification of raw material will increase significantly as supplies
dwindle. The minimum maintenance cost is the flow loss running in the oxygen and hydrogen product, typically
88
around 0.01–0.1% of hydrogen production (lower limit of typical industrial standard in chemical industry). This
gives the order of magnitude of resources needed.
Worldwide hydrogen production through thermochemical cycles should be in the order of 108 mole/s to have
a significant influence on the transportation sector (assuming an optimistic 40% efficiency for fuel cell and
transport and storage). The assumption of maintenance losses for the various chemical elements applied of (at least)
~103 mol/s would amount to a total annual loss of about 3 × 1010 moles. This has to be compared with the
worldwide production of the respective raw material and typical worldwide reserve estimates.
Another issue is the toxicity of the various elements. Examples are the toxic gases SO2 and SO3 in the S–I
process, and bromine in the UT-3 process. Also ,cycles that contain Hg, Se or Cd may be limited in their industrial
application because of the very low allowable releases (e.g. per US EPA regulations).
For uncommon elements like iodine, a deep analysis seems necessary. As mentioned, the S–I process is
practicable only when operated at over-stoichiometric mixtures with high excess of iodine (and steam). Depending
on market prices, the quantity of iodine needed could represent a valuable asset, which again puts stringent
limitations on the iodine loss in the S–I process with respect to the hydrogen production cost, making iodine
recovery one of the key issues. The amount of iodine to be handled in a 600 MW(th) plant has been assessed to be
3000 t [151].
Iodine exists in the form of iodide ion and other iodine compounds in seawater (~0.05 ppm with a total
estimated at 68.5 billion t), seaweeds, brine and minerals (niter, KNO3), as well as in the air, but its content is
normally very low. The areas of the world where iodine can be economically collected are very limited. The
worldwide total annual production of iodine is ~18 000 t, 50% of which is produced in Chile, 40% in Japan and
10% in the other areas.
Iodine production from brine is done through a ‘blow-out’ process taking advantage of its characteristic
feature to easily evaporate. Iodine contained in brine in the form of iodine compound ions (I-) is limited (more or
less 100 ppm), and the process is suited for the extraction of iodine from such low content solution. Sand and other
impurities are first removed from brine by sedimentation, an oxidant is added to it to extricate iodine (I2) and then
air is introduced to ‘blow it out’. After that, iodine is extracted, crystallized and purified.
As the iodine concentration in various types of seaweed is high (500–8000 ppm), they were used as the raw
material for iodine production. Today, however, production is conducted only in areas where the iodine
concentration is high in brines from oil fields and natural gas fields, and in caliche from the niter field in the Chilean
nitrate industry (~1000 ppm with a total estimated 9 million t). Iodine production in Japan covers as much as
approximately 30% of the total iodine production in the world. In Japan, the deposit of water-soluble natural
gas/brine which stretches under Chiba prefecture is a water layer containing lots of salt and existing along with
natural gas with a concentration of iodine of more or less 100 ppm. Total annual world production of iodine (as of
2006) is ~25 000 t with the big producer countries being Chile (15 500 t), Japan (8000 t) and China (360 t).
3.5. OTHER HYDROGEN PRODUCTION OPTIONS
3.5.1. Thermal cracking, plasma decomposition
Since methane belongs to the most stable organic compounds, high temperatures are required for its thermal
decomposition. The search for optimal catalysts to reduce the maximum temperature has led to Ni or Fe based
catalysts to decompose CH4 in the range of 500–700°C (Ni) or somewhat higher (Fe). Activated carbon is seen as
an interesting alternative for the 900–1000°C range, since it has a relatively high catalytic activity, low cost and
would make an external catalyst unnecessary [192]. Process heat can be obtained either from an outside source like
direct solar heating or from burning a part of the hydrogen produced.
In the plasma-arc process, methane splitting takes place at temperatures in the order of 2500°C yielding solid
carbon separated from the gas stream. The efficiency was reported to be about 45% and is expected to further
improve. In the so-called Kvaerner carbon black and hydrogen process, an electrically powered plasma torch is
being generated in a reactor to provide the energy for the decomposition of methane into the commodity carbon
black with the by-product hydrogen. Hydrogen purity is 98% prior to the cleaning step if natural gas feed is used. In
principle, all kinds of gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons including heavy oils can be decomposed to hydrogen and
89
carbon black with almost no emissions. The main disadvantage of this process currently is its need for large
amounts of expensive electricity.
Hydrogen production by catalytic methane decomposition was demonstrated in the 1960s in a pilot plant with
a capacity of 7 Nm3/h. The carbon was burned to provide process heat at 815–1093°C (emitting large amounts of
CO2). SINTEF in Norway is using a 150 kW laboratory plasma torch with coaxial graphite electrodes, but without
CO2 or NOx emissions. In cooperation with Kvaerner, a 3 MW industrial scale plant was constructed in Canada and
has been working since 1992. An input of 1000 Nm3/h of natural gas plus 2100 kW of electric energy results in the
production of 2000 Nm3/h of hydrogen plus 500 kg of pure carbon and hot steam as a side product [193]. In 1999,
the Kvaerner group started the commercial operation of its first carbon black plant in Canada, which runs on oil or
natural gas and is designed for an initial annual capacity (in two units) of 20 000 t of carbon black plus 50 million
Nm3 of H2. The hydrogen is considered here a by-product and is recirculated to the plasma burner and used as a
process gas. The energy demand for the plant is said to be 1.25 kWh/m3 of H2 [194]. The conversion rate of the
hydrocarbon feedstock is almost 100%. But also solar furnaces are under development using sunlight to provide the
dissociation temperatures. Research efforts are concentrating on optimized concepts for gas injection, heat transfer
and protection against undesired carbon deposition [195]. Ammonia is a hydrogen carrier whose cracking is an
endothermic reaction with high reaction rates at above 700°C.
2 NH3 ↔ N2 + 3 H2
The main impurities are NOx and unreformed ammonia. Since PEM fuel cells need highly pure hydrogen, the
recommended reaction temperature is 900°C. The reactor is of a simple design, since no H2O co-feed or shift stage
is required. The overall efficiency of an ammonia cracking fuel processor has been reported to be about 60%, with
the remainder to supply the process heat and compensate for heat losses. For the production of pure H2, efforts need
to be made to separate N2 from H2 (which is not a problem in a fuel cell).
Splitting of sulphur hydride is developed as a by-product in different chemical processes. The endothermic
reaction requires temperatures of 500–800°C.
3.5.2. Photochemical and photobiological water splitting
There are various other processes of hydrogen production currently under research and development which,
however, are still on the laboratory scale. Among them are photochemical and photoelectrochemical water splitting
processes. They require appropriate light absorbing materials where a species is raised into the excited state by
means of radiation energy. Efficiencies achieved are still very low.
In photobiological processes, insolation is used to make algae (‘hydrogenase’) or bacteria (‘nitrogenase’)
release hydrogen. Protons are reduced through electron transfer with the help of enzymes. The process is highly
sensitive to the oxygen formed, which does not allow the use of higher radiation densities. The theoretical upper
efficiency limit is 40.7%.
3.5.3. Hydrogen from industrial off-gases
Most off-gases in the chemical and petrochemical industries contain a large fraction of hydrogen that is
usually flared or vented into the atmosphere, because its utilization is either not economical or the infrastructure for
its utilization does not exist. Sources of off-gas are, for example, the processes of naphtha reforming, hydro-
processing, catalytic cracking and the synthesis of methanol and ethanol. With the increased utilization of hydrogen
and increasing energy prices, it has become more common to capture the hydrogen in the off-gas and sell it or use
it in boilers or turbines. Recovery methods for this hydrogen are PSA, cryogenics and membrane technologies.
Industrial off-gases still represent a large potential as a hydrogen source to meet the local demand at an early
stage of a hydrogen economy. For Europe, the project Roads2HyCom identified 500 industrial hydrogen production
sites with an estimated surplus capacity of 2–10 billion Nm3/a, but only a small fraction would be commercially
available [136]. This hydrogen potential has been quantified for a couple of European countries to be in the order of
850 million Nm3/a in Germany, 650 million Nm3/a in Norway and 300 million Nm3/a in France [11].
90
3.5.4. Gas emissions from geothermal fields
Geothermal fields emit gas mixtures with a high content of hydrogen in technically recoverable
concentrations and quantities. The utilization of this hydrogen requires cleaning. The gas vented from the
Bjarnarflag field in Iceland, for example, is composed of 40% H2, 32% H2S, 27% CO2 and 1% other. It may be able
to provide around 50 t/a of hydrogen. The maximum available geothermal temperature is around 350°C [196].
3.5.5. Radiolysis
Purely nuclear based production of hydrogen was observed in the 1940s in experimental nuclear reactors
based on the aqueous homogeneous reactor (AHR) concept (see also Section 5.1.2.3), where the nuclear fuel is
dissolved in the water coolant and circulates between reactor core and heat sink. These reactors were originally
given the name ‘water boiler’ due to the observed bubbling of the liquid fuel. The bubbles are hydrogen and oxygen
gas formed by radiolytic dissociation of the water from the ionizing radiation of energetic neutrons and fission
fragments. Radiolysis is actually considered a serious problem for water reactors, since it can lead — and has led
—to explosions in the reactor system.
The radiolytic yield of hydrogen was estimated to be ≤1.6 molecules of H2 per 100 eV of absorbed energy
from the fragments of 235U fissioning, translating into 28.8 kg of hydrogen by-product per day per MW(th). Due to
the low energy efficiency of hydrogen production, this method was not considered promising as a commercial
dedicated hydrogen production method. Therefore, a proposal was made to take advantage of the radiolysis
phenomenon by employing blankets around the core enriched with elements (10B, 6Li) that produce alpha radiation.
The hydrogen would then be extracted, before it could recombine, by a mechanical gas separator system based on
centrifugal forces. About 50% of the energy of fission fragments was found to be consumed in chemical
transformations inside a crystal structure. This represents the upper limit for the efficiency of H2 or CO generation
if powders of substances containing H2O or CO2 are irradiated with fission fragments [197].
4. NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION METHODS
4.1. NUCLEAR ASSISTED STEAM REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS
With respect to the present dominance of steam reforming of natural gas in today’s refineries, the production
of process heat by an HTGR to the refining process may be an ideal starting point for nuclear power to penetrate this
market in the near and medium terms, and a reasonable transition step toward fossil free hydrogen production in the
long term.
4.1.1. Concept and feasibility of a nuclear steam reformer
In comparison with a conventional steam reformer, the employment of a nuclear steam reformer requires
certain changes, since operational conditions of a nuclear reactor are not as flexible as those of a fossil fuelled
furnace. Also, safety requirements are much more stringent than for a fossil fuelled system. It is therefore desirable
to achieve the highest effectiveness in utilizing the nuclear process heat in the whole production process system. A
high hydrogen production rate is achieved if the process feedgas rate and the conversion rate are high. The feedgas
rate depends on the amount of heat input into the process gas and the temperature of the process gas. The
conversion rate depends on the temperature and pressure of the process gas.
A principle flowsheet of an HTGR with steam reformer where all the heat for the reforming process, the
steam production, gas purification and gas compression can be gained from the helium circuit is shown in Fig. 53
[198]. The stages of gas purification include the shift conversion, CO2 scrubber, H2 separation and a methanation
reaction to remove traces of carbon oxides from the process gas.
91
FIG. 53. Principal flowsheet of HTGR with steam reformer [198].
A schematic of a nuclear heated splitting tube and temperature profiles along the tube length are shown in
Fig. 54. Unlike in conventional steam reforming, the splitting tube is heated from outside (allothermal) by hot
helium, with an inlet temperature of ~950°C at the bottom. The process feedgas (methane) enters the splitting tube
from the top at a temperature of typically ~450°C, passes through the catalyst bed, takes up heat to a final value of
~830°C, and is converted to a mixture of H2, CO and CO2. A special feature is the recirculation tube, which is a thin
tube located inside the splitting tube to guide the process gas back to the top. By this means, not only does the
countercurrent flow allow cooling of the process gas and heating of the feedgas, it also leaves the splitting tube in
the area with highest thermal impact completely closed without connecting pipes and ensures free thermal
expansion movement in the axial direction.
The steam reformer uses the temperature of the helium between 950 and 700°C, while the steam generator is
using the part of heat between 700 and 250°C. The feedgas mixture with an H2O:CH4 ratio of ~3 and a pressure of
~4.0 MPa is preheated up to around 500°C and reformed at a maximum process temperature of 800°C. A fraction
of 85% of the methane is then converted in this first step. Utilization of the heat of the reformer gas for preheating
the feedgas, shift conversion and methanation are the steps following the reformer to finally obtain the product
hydrogen. A steam turbine plant using CO generation supplies the needed steam and electrical energy for the whole
process. The overall energy balance delivers roughly the following numbers:
1 Nm3 CH4 + 6.8 kW(th) (nuclear heat) → 4 Nm3 CH2
170 MW(th) + 2.5 × 104 Nm3 CH4/h → 105 Nm3 H2/h
Methane as a raw material is completely converted to hydrogen; the total efficiency including the nuclear heat
is around 65%. A complete life cycle analysis has even revealed that, depending on operating conditions, about
40% savings of natural gas feedstock can be achieved if nuclear is selected as the primary energy source [200].
92
FIG. 54. Schematic of a nuclear-heated splitting tube and temperature profiles along the tube [199].
4.1.2. Germany’s approach: Helium heated steam reforming
Nuclear steam reforming of methane was the subject of extensive R&D activities in Germany in the
1970–1980s. In the German Prototype Nuclear Process Heat (PNP) project, the steam reformer was an essential
component of nuclear assisted hydrogasification of coal. In this concept, the nuclear steam reformer was included
directly within the HTGR primary circuit. The employment of an intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) was, in those
days, deemed unnecessary. Such an arrangement poses much more stringent requirements to this component and its
reliability than is in the case of an indirect cycle via an intermediate heat exchanger as was pursued in the Japanese
HTTR project. The direct coupling to the steam reformer, resulting in a simplified design of a process heat HTGR,
may, from today’s safety perspective, be regarded as a long term option.
Within the German Nuclear Long Distance Energy Transportation (Nukleare Fernenergie, NFE) project, test
facilities at the megawatt scale were constructed and successfully operated at the Research Centre Jülich (FZJ),
with the general aim being to demonstrate the operation of a helium heated system for steam reforming under
HTGR typical conditions and to study the technical performance of the thermochemical pipeline system and its
efficiency. With regard to the operational conditions, the ranges of interest were temperatures of 400–900°C,
pressures of 2–4 MPa, and H:C:O ratios of 8:1:2–12:1:4 [201].
4.1.2.1. Tubular type nuclear steam reformer
(A) EVA-I reformer single tube test
The first test facility to demonstrate steam reforming of natural gas under simulated nuclear conditions was
EVA-I (the German acronym for single splitting tube), which started operation in 1972 (Fig. 55) [201]. Helium was
heated up to 950°C by a 1 MW electric heater and introduced at 4 MPa into the annular gap around the splitting
93
FIG. 55. Single splitting tube test facility EVA-I at the Research Center Jülich [199].
tube. Splitting tubes of various geometries (tube diameter: 80–160 mm; heated tube length: 10–15 m) and tube
materials were subjected to operational conditions covering broad ranges, as indicated in Table 8. The heat
transferring inner surface of the splitting tube was between 3 and 8 m2. Initial tests without an inner return pipe for
the product gas clearly proved the advantage of the concept of internal recirculation, which has been applied since.
Differently shaped inner recirculation tubes were investigated (straight, helical), as was the arrangement of more
than one per splitting tube, which, however, was at the expense of ease of catalyst replacement. As a catalyst,
various types of Ni Raschig rings, discs and other novel systems were examined, especially with regard to easy and
rapid exchange.
The test with a double-walled splitting tube revealed the expected result of practically no transfer of hydrogen
to the helium system and allowed a direct quantification of H2 permeation rates through the Incoloy 800 tube wall
to be initially 0.26 × 10-3, later reduced to 0.013 × 10-3 Nm3/(m2·h) at 830°C and 1.3 MPa of H2 partial pressure on
the process side.
(B) EVA-II reformer tube test bundle
The follow-on test facility, EVA-II, represented a complete helium circuit containing a bundle of reformer
tubes [202]. The nuclear heat source was simulated by an electrical heater with a power of 10 MW to heat up
helium gas to a temperature of 950°C at 4.0 MPa. As can be seen from the schematic in Fig. 56, the principal
components of heater, reformer bundle and steam generator were housed in separate steel pressure vessels in a side-
by-side arrangement. The vessels of the helium heater and steam reformer were connected by a co-axial helium
duct of 5 m length.
Two reformer bundles, both with convective helium heating, were investigated in the EVA-II facility. They
differed in their way of channelling the helium flow. The first bundle tested was a baffle design tube bundle for a
94
TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF DATA OF STEAM REFORMER IN EVA TEST FACILITIES AND IN A
COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR APPLICATION [201, 202]
Test facilities
Nuclear steam reformer for
Parameter EVA-II
EVA-I 170 MW(th) HTR-Modul
Annulus design Baffle design
Nuclear heat input (MW(th)) ~0.3 5 ~6 60.2
Catalyst tube
Outer tube diameter (mm) 80–160 120 130 120
Wall thickness (mm) 10–21 10 15 10
Length (m) 10.0–15.7 13 11.5 14
Number of tubes 1 18 30 199
Tube material Incoloy 800H Incoloy 800H Incoloy 800H Inconel 617
and others and others
Primary helium 
Inlet temperature (°C) 800–950 950 950 950
Outlet temperature (°C) ~600–750 700 650 720
Inlet pressure (MPa)  4 4 4 4.987
Flow rate (kg/s) 0.15–0.45 ~3.8 ~3.8 50.3
Process feedgas
Temperature inlet recuperator (°C) 460–600 330 330 347
Temperature outlet catalyst (°C) 700–850 810 800 810
Pressure inlet recuperator (MPa) 2–4 4.0 4.0 5.6
Raw gas flow rate (kg/s) ~0.01–0.04 0.62 0.62 34.8
Steam–methane ratio 2–4 4 4 4
Product gas
Temperature inlet inner tube (°C) ~830 810 800 810
Temperature outlet recuperator (°C) ~520 457 450 480
power of 6 MW consisting of 30 tubes. The bundle was characterized by baffle structures (discs and doughnuts) on
the helium side, as shown in Fig. 57, and each splitting tube was connected at the top with a separate feed and
product gas line. Inside the splitting tube, the heat between 950 and 650°C was used to run the steam reforming
process. The internal helical tube for recirculation of the product gas had an outer diameter of 20 mm and a wall
thickness of 2.1 mm, the helix itself had a diameter of 70 mm.
The second steam reformer bundle tested was of annulus design for a power of 5 MW. It consisted of 18 tubes,
with each splitting tube placed inside a guiding tube channel where the hot helium was flowing upwards through the
annular gap. For both designs, tubes were hanging on a supporting plate, which allowed easy exchange of single
tubes. The specific data of both tubes and catalytic systems were very similar compared with components planned
for nuclear applications, as can be seen from Table 8. Also the loads imposed on the supporting structures were
characteristic of the nuclear case.
In the connected steam generator, an upward boiler with forced convection and direct superheating, and
composed of helical tubes for a total power of 4 MW, the remaining helium heat was used up to 350°C. Via a helium
circulator, the cold helium was routed back to the electrical heater. The circuit was operated under nuclear
conditions at a lower power level, but with a full scale steam reformer component. Also, the process gas handling
system was the same as it would have been in a commercial scale nuclear plant.
The catalytic steam reforming reaction allows reaction rates of 103 Nm3 CH4/(m3catalyst·h) (related to the
catalyst volume in the reformer tubes) at 800°C, 4 MPa and H2O/CH4 = 4. The overall heat transport coefficient in
connection with the chosen temperature distribution on the helium side and on the process side allows an average
heat flux of 60 kW/m2 for the reformer tubes. The heat transfer coefficient on the process side was observed to be
rather high. More than 1000 W/(m2·K) was realized. The heat transfer coefficient on the helium side was around
500 W/(m2·K), which is also relatively high. It is, however, limited by the allowable pressure drop of around
40 kPa.
95
FIG. 56. Flowsheet of steam reforming test facility EVA-II [203].
96
FIG. 57. EVA-II steam reformer bundle, baffle design (left); annulus design (right) [203].
During operation of the steam reforming system EVA-II, no damage was observed on reformer tubes or
guiding tubes, internal recuperators or inner return pipes. The components behaved very well in terms of thermal
expansion, bending of tubes, friction, fretting and vibrations caused by flow effects. The gas ducting structures,
insulation and supporting structures were also operated without difficulties. Measurement and control of process
parameters during operation was easy.
The efficiency of the catalyst practically did not change during some 1000 h of operation. There was no
carbon deposition on the catalyst because of the chosen H2O:CH4 ratio of 4 in the process. The handling of different
catalysts was tested with procedures which can be applied to a larger component.
Components were also tested at transient conditions, with changing rates for the temperature on the helium
side of more than 10°C/min and for the pressure of more than 4 MPa/min. The rates of changes of parameters on the
process side were even larger. No difficulties were encountered. The switching off of single splitting tubes within
the bundle was observed to result in enhanced heat transfer for the process gas, which, however, did not compensate
for the reduced heat area. The consequence was a slight reduction in the splitting temperature connected with an
increased portion of unreformed methane in the product gas.
Instability in the operational behaviour was observed in the case of low helium flow rates, where an
inhomogeneous temperature distribution developed, with differences of up to 150 K, causing a buckling of the
vessel wall of several centimetres. Another observation was back-circulation of the helium flow in the entrance
area, which resulted in inhomogeneity in the inlet temperature profile. In the reformer tube bundle of the baffle
design, these differences were quickly equalized, whereas in the annulus design, differences in the inlet temperature
resulted in different power rates of the single tubes.
The EVA-II helium system was operated over a total time of 13 000 h, with 7750 h at a temperature of 900°C.
Both types of steam reformer were operated for more than 6000 h, each without any difficulties. The operation
included steady state, partial load and transient conditions, and also special tests with tube blockage at full power
operation. Post-operation inspection confirmed the integrity of all tubes.
A variant of the HTR-Modul pebble bed reactor for process heat production has been designed by Siemens-
Interatom for a thermal power of 170 MW to deliver helium at temperatures of 950°C. For the version without IHX,
the helium coolant is directly fed to the steam reformer, which consumes 71 MW, and to the steam generator,
operated with 99 MW.
97
FIG. 58. Concept of a helium heated steam reformer connected to a modular process heat HTGR [202].
Details of the concept of the nuclear steam reformer are shown in Fig. 58. It is a bundle consisting of straight
tubes connected to an upper supporting plate. The tubes filled with a catalyst contain an internal recuperator and an
inner return duct for the hot process gas. The upper part of the component includes the collector structures for the
feedgas composed of steam and methane, and for the product gas containing H2, CO, CH4, CO2 and steam. Of the
total heat transferred into the steam reformer, 85% is used for the reforming process, while 15% is taken to heat up
the feedgas. The main characteristic data of the steam reformer component as designed by Interatom on the basis of
a simple cylindrical pebble bed core with a power of 170 MW(th) are listed in Table 8.
On the basis of a broad experimental programme for nuclear steam reforming (EVA-I and EVA-II facilities,
additional testing of kinetics, heat transfer, materials), it can be stated that the allothermal steam reforming process
with hot helium to be supplied in the future by a process heat HTGR was successfully tested on a large scale and is
well understood. The results achieved should allow, in terms of power, the extrapolation by a factor of around 10
from the EVA-II plant to a helium heated reformer connected to a modular HTGR of 170–200 MW(th). For larger
powers, more reformer loops should be coupled to the reactor.
4.1.2.2. Methanation
The reverse process of steam–methane reforming is methanation. The counterpart of the EVA facility is called
ADAM (Plant with Three Adiabatic Methanation Reactors). In ADAM, the original feedstock of the reforming
98
FIG. 59. Temperature profiles in the methanation system ADAM [205].
process, methane and water plus heat, can be regained. After separation, the methane can be piped back to the EVA
site to close the cycle, while the steam can be used in other process applications.
From 1979, the pilot plant ADAM-I was operated where high temperature methanation takes place in a three
stage process with adiabatic fixed bed reactors (Fig. 59). The three stages, including a dilution of the product gas by
feedback of the already re-transformed gas, were chosen to mitigate the large heat release, to minimize soot
formation and to maximize the methane output. The feedgas was synthesis gas at a rate of 600 Nm3/h in ADAM-I.
The conversion to methane leads to a release of the complete reaction enthalpy again and the realization of a 650°C
gas mixture after the first methanation step, which allows for the generation of superheated high pressure steam for
further use. In conjunction with EVA-I, the ADAM-I plant was tested over 2344 h and in a broad range of
operational parameters [204].
For the operation of the steam reformer bundle in EVA-II, another methanation plant, ADAM-II, completing
the cycle, was operated over almost 6000 h. Synthesis gas was given as feed to the plant at a rate of 9600 Nm3/h.
The conversion of methane at the reaction conditions mentioned above is in the order of 65%. This corresponds
closely with the thermodynamic equilibrium. From the power input of 10.78 MW(e) into the helium, the
transported energy in the pipeline was 5.72 MW(th). The heat eventually released in the ADAM plant was
5.42 MW(th) in the form of 650°C heat. With an additionally utilized heat of 2.34 MW(th), the total energetic
efficiency achieved was 72%.
4.1.2.3. EVA/ADAM energy transportation system
Steam reforming reactions in combination with their reverse reaction, the methanation, can form the basis of
a long distance energy transportation system using the energy carrier hydrogen. Such a system, which became
known under the acronym ‘EVA/ADAM’, was first suggested in the 1970s in connection with nuclear as the
primary energy source. Its principle is the storage of energy in the form of latent heat by an endothermic chemical
reaction in a gas and the transportation of the gas to the consumer’s site, where in the exothermic reverse reaction
the stored energy is liberated in the form of heat for further utilization (Fig. 60).
The complete EVA-II/ADAM-II system was operated at FZJ for a total time of 10 150 h. It demonstrated the
chemical cycle process under the realistic conditions of industrial application with a transported power of 300 kW
99
FIG. 60. EVA/ADAM energy transmission system [203, 205].
(EVA-I/ADAM-I) and of 5.4 MW (EVA-II/ADAM-II). With EVA-II/ADAM-II, it was the first time anywhere that
a plant was designed, constructed and successfully operated which, in all components, process steps and auxiliary
systems, represented a nuclear long-distance energy transportation system and proved its operability and reliability
under nuclear heat transport conditions.
4.1.3. Japan’s approach: Nuclear steam reforming
4.1.3.1. Concept of SMR for the HTTR
Unlike Germany, Japan has selected the option of coupling an HTGR to SMR by the employment of an
intermediate heat exchanger for the steam reforming process. This approach has been applied in the Japanese
100
FIG. 61. HTTR coupled to a hydrogen production plant based on SMR [206].
HTTR project. A flow diagram of the hydrogen production system based on SMR and its potential coupling to the
HTTR is shown in Fig. 61. The total system is subdivided by the dotted line into the existing nuclear part on the left
hand side and the — not yet existing — chemical part on the right hand side.
The requirements for a system with safe operation and high hydrogen production efficiency have initiated
engineering design work on key components for the nuclear steam reforming process:
— A new concept steam reformer heated by helium gas from the nuclear reactor has been designed to achieve
high hydrogen production performance and competitiveness with an economical, fossil fired hydrogen
production plant.
— A natural convection type of steam generator has been selected to achieve sufficient system controllability
accommodating the large difference in thermal dynamics between the nuclear reactor and the steam reformer.
— An air-cooled radiator is connected to the steam generator to operate as a final heat sink during normal and
anticipated operational occurrence conditions.
The separation of the primary circuit and the chemical process avoids the possibility of contamination in the
steam reformer and reduces the permeation rates of hydrogen and tritium to negligible values. However, the heat
fluxes in the steam reformer have values of around 40 kW/m² if the same conditions in the reforming process are
fulfilled. The fabrication of the steam reformer and steam generator requires different standards than those of
components that are directly integrated into the primary helium circuit.
For several years, steam reforming of methane has been considered the top candidate process to be connected
to the HTTR for the world’s first nuclear hydrogen production. The HTTR nuclear steam reforming system will
therefore be taken as an example and described in more detail.
The HTTR steam reforming system has been designed to provide about 4200 Nm3/h of hydrogen production
using a Ni-based catalyst with 10 MW of thermal energy. A heat utilization ratio (defined as the ratio of output
hydrogen energy to total input thermal energy) of 73% is expected. This value is competitive with that of the
conventional system, where the heat utilization ratio is about 80%.
101
FIG. 62. Steam reformer component for connection to HTTR [206].
4.1.3.2. Design of steam reformer
The HTTR can provide high temperature helium gas of 905°C at the outlet of the IHX and, owing to further
heat loss from the hot gas duct between the IHX and the steam reformer, secondary helium of 880°C at the inlet of
the steam reformer. The steam reformer component is shown in Fig. 62 [206].
Helium flows into the steam reformer at the bottom and then upwards outside the catalyst tubes, squeezed by
multiple plates of orifice baffles transferring heat by forced convection flow (in contrast to heat radiation in the
conventional design). The catalyst tubes contain packing of Ni/Al2O3 reforming catalysts, through which the
process feed gases (natural gas, steam) are routed. The catalyst tube wall thickness is 13 mm, meeting the
requirements on design limits for pressure retaining components. Finally, the helium, which is cooled down to
585°C, exits and flows to a superheater. The main design specifications of the steam reformer are listed in Table 9.
102
TABLE 9. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE STEAM REFORMER FOR HTTR AND MOCK-UP TEST
FACILITY
Steam reformer in Splitting tube in

Parameter
HTTR mock-up test facility
Heat input (MW) 3.6 (nuclear) 0.42 (electric)

(plus 1.3 from product gases)
Material
Tubes Hastelloy XR Alloy 800H
Catalyst Ni/Al2O3
Size 
Shell diameter (m) 1.19
Shell height (m) 14
Catalyst tube Bayonet type, concentric Bayonet type, concentric
 double-walled tube double-walled tube
 153.8 146
Outer diameter (mm) 13 10
Wall thickness (mm) 7.9 7.0
Length (m) 60.5
Inner tube diameter (mm) 3.9
Wall thickness (mm) not decided yet
Length (m) 37 3
Number of tubes
Secondary helium 
Inlet temperature (°C) 880 880
Outlet temperature (°C) 585 650
Pressure (MPa) 4.1 4.1
Flow rate (kg/s) 2.5 0.091
Heat transfer rate at outer surface  1700
(W/(m2·K))
Process feedgas
Outlet temperature (°C) 580 (max.: 800) 600 (max.: 756)
Pressure (MPa) 4.5 4.5
Raw gas flow rate (kg/s) 0.39 0.012
Raw gas conversion (%) 64.2 55
Steam:methane ratio 3.5 3.5–4 (3.5)
3
Hydrogen production rate (Nm /h) 4240 120
The process feedgas mixture of natural gas and steam, after being preheated to 450°C at a pressure of
4.5 MPa, enters the steam reformer at the top and then flows downwards in an annular flow between the walls of the
outer and inner tubes through the catalyst bed, where the methane and other lighter hydrocarbons together with
steam are reformed. The reformed gas, having reached a maximum temperature of 830°C, then flows upwards
inside the inner tubes, transferring at the same time heat to the feedgas and eventually leaving the steam reformer at
a temperature of 580°C and a pressure of 4.1 MPa.
In the HTTR steam reforming system, a steam to methane ratio of 3.5 has been selected. The required steam
is about 5160 kg/h at rated conditions, thus the thermal energy necessary to generate steam is 3.1 MW. The thermal
energy of the product gas at the outlet of the steam reformer is only 1.9 MW. Therefore a steam generator is
necessary on the secondary helium loop in order to supply this large amount of thermal energy. The superheater and
the steam generator are installed downstream of the steam reformer to generate feed steam for the steam reformer.
The required helium temperature at the inlet of the IHX is 160°C, requiring the addition of a feedwater preheater
and a helium cooler. In the future HTGR heat application system, the outlet helium gas of steam generator will be
returned to the IHX directly.
103
The flow rate of natural gas as a feedgas is 1290 kg/h, and the flow rate of steam is 5160 kg/h at the inlet of
the steam reformer. The temperature of the product gas is about 600°C. This gas is cooled down by the water cooler
and separated into steam and dry gas compositions including hydrogen, carbon oxide, carbon dioxide and residual
methane in the separator. The pressure and maximum temperature of the process feedgas are 4.5 MPa and 830°C,
respectively, so that the conversion ratio from methane to hydrogen is expected to be 68%. As a result, 32% of
methane will remain in the product gas. In the conceptual design of the HTTR-SMR, this residual methane is
burned in the flare stack together with the other combustible gases.
Furthermore, the reforming process requires a thermal heat input of 4.8 MW. In order to generate feed steam
by the thermal energy of secondary helium gas, the helium gas temperature at the outlet of the steam reformer is
required to be about 600°C, so that only thermal energy of 3.6 MW is supplied to the steam reformer from helium
gas. This high pressure and low temperature condition is a disadvantage for the steam reforming reactions.
A new heat exchanger type concept for the steam reformer is required, to enhance the hydrogen production
rate. It should allow an:
— Increased heat input into the process gas by employment of orifice baffles;
— Increased reaction temperature of the process gas at the outlet of the catalyst zone;
— Optimized reforming gas composition, to enhance the reforming rate.
The aim of reaching a heat flux density closer to that of the conventional method (Table 10) can be achieved
by employing a helium heated counter-flow heat exchanger. Helium under pressure shows excellent heat transfer
properties.
Assuming an infinitely long catalyst tube, the process gas temperature approaches that of the helium gas. But
in general, a catalyst tube length limit of approximately 10 m is mandated from the viewpoint of seismic design. It
is necessary to enhance the heat transfer rate in order to design for an adequate steam reformer size. There are
several means to enhance the heat transfer, such as baffles, double tubes and fins. JAEA has performed an analytical
comparison of the heat transfer rate and selected a double tube with a radially finned catalyst tube, for which the
thermal radiation rate is more than 1800 W/(m2·K).
The proposed new design of a steam reformer is shown in Fig. 63. JAEA has adopted a bayonet type of
catalyst tube, a concentric, double-walled tube which can use both the outside and inside gas flow for heating up the
process gas. The thermal energy input into the process gas increases from 3.6 to 4.9 MW.
These improvements are applicable not only to HTGR steam reforming systems but also to other HTGR
hydrogen production systems. This is because a heat exchanger type of endothermic chemical reactor is an essential
technology for the production of hydrogen through the use of nuclear heat. The heat demand drastically increases
when the endothermic chemical reactions start the reforming process. On the nuclear side, the helium temperature
‘conventionally’ increases linearly with power output. Because of this mismatch between heat demand and heat
supply during startup, an additional heat exchanger component, a so-called heat load controller, with a capacity of
2.8 MW is integrated into the steam reforming system. Control is achieved by adjusting the helium flow rate.
Figure 64 shows the relationship between nuclear power and helium temperatures during the startup phase [207].
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL DESIGN
Steam reformer
Parameter Helium heated

Helium heated
Natural gas heated improved design
for HTTR/SMR
(bayonet type)
Process gas pressure (MPa) 1–3 >4 4.5
o
Maximum temperature of process gas ( C) 850–950 750 800
2
Maximum heat flux to catalyst zone (kW/m ) 50– 80 10–20 22
Heat transfer Radiation Forced convection
Efficiency (%) 80–85 50 63
CO2 emission (t/h) (basis: 10 MW) 3 ~2
104
FIG. 63. New concept of a helium heated steam reformer [208].
FIG. 64. Nuclear power and helium temperature during the startup phase [207].
105
The effective consumption of the nuclear process heat input of 10 MW can be seen from Table 11 [207].
TABLE 11. CONSUMPTION OF 10 MW NUCLEAR

HEAT INPUT IN THE TEAM–METHANE
REFORMING SYSTEM OF HTTR
Heat loss 0.5 MW

Air cooler 0.7 MW
Feedwater preheater 0.8 MW
Reboiler 2.7 MW
LNG preheater 0.2 MW
Superheater 1.0 MW
Process gas heater 0.5 MW
Steam reformer 3.8 MW
Σ 10.2 MW
Partial pressure conditions of the process gas components for the catalyst zone inside the reformer tubes are
given in Table 12 [207].
TABLE 12. PARTIAL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR

PRODUCT GASES IN THE CATALYST ZONE
Gas component Partial pressure (MPa) in catalyst zone

Inlet Outlet
CH4 0.82 0.28
H2O 3.42 1.95
H2 0.13 1.72
CO 0.03 0.27
4.1.3.3. Experiments in mock-up test facility
The steam reforming process was tested in out-of-pile experiments under simulated nuclear conditions at
JAEA, Oarai [209]. For this purpose, a 1:30 downscaled mock-up facility was constructed. Schematics of the test
plant and the splitting tube used are given in Figs 65 and 66. In order to enhance heat transfer from the helium
through the tube walls, disc type fins of 2 mm height and 1 mm width were attached to the splitting tube, which
increased the heat transfer area by a factor of 2.3 compared with a smooth surface.
The test programme started in 2002 and, after fulfilling its objectives, was terminated in 2004. The test facility
was basically used to investigate the process control technology. It comprises normal startup/shutdown tests to
investigate temperature and pressure fluctuations and its controllability as a function of the steam to methane ratio,
in order to optimize feed flow of methane and steam according to the temperature and pressure of the helium gas.
In a system controllability test, potential thermodynamic disturbances at the pressure boundary between helium and
methane are examined by the stepwise change of the methane and steam flow rates, in order to optimize the control
system for the pressure difference.
In steady operation, average flow rates of methane, steam and helium gas in the mock-up system were 12.0,
46.6 and 91.0 g/s, respectively [210]. The hydrogen production rate was stable and an average value between 14
and 40 h was 120.2 m3/h. At that time, the maximum reaction temperature and pressure of the process gas were
around 756°C and 4.0 MPa, respectively. The methane conversion rate observed was 55%.
106
FIG. 65. Schematic of steam reforming mock-up model test facility at JAEA [210].
FIG. 66. Bayonet type steam reformer tube used in the mock-up facility [210].
107
Safety related tests were conducted with the mock-up facility to examine malfunctions and accident
sequences in the process gas line, including emergency shutdown. The focus was on the examination of potential
thermal turbulences from the hydrogen production system to the nuclear side. In the case of an accident in the
process line, the HTTR should be shut down by the normal operation procedure rather than by a reactor scram. In
such a case, the heat of the helium is to be removed via the steam generator, which limits the temperature
fluctuations in the helium. Characteristic data of the splitting tube in the mock-up facility are also listed in Table 9
in comparison with the steam reformer design to be used in connection with the HTTR. Results of these safety
related tests are described in more detail in Section 7.5.1.
Experimental results obtained with respect to the temperature fluctuations were as follows [211]:
Startup: ΔT = 2.5 at steam generator outlet

ΔT = 110 at steam reformer outlet
Shutdown: ΔT = 0.5 at steam generator outlet

ΔT = 88 at steam reformer outlet
The results demonstrate that the steam generator is capable of mitigating thermal disturbances arising from
the chemical reactor in the form of temperature fluctuations of the helium or pressure fluctuations of the process
gas. The defined target of ±10°C for the steam generator was met.
4.1.3.4. Nuclear steam reforming at lower temperatures
Another, unconventional idea of applying nuclear to steam reforming is the use of the heat of spent LWR fuel
to run the endothermic process at a (lower) temperature level of 600°C. After separation of the uranium, the
remaining spent fuel is packed in rods (100/80 mm outer/inner diameter) and stored in vessels (5.8 m diameter, 9 m
height). Heat transferring fluids could be helium or molten salts. The decreasing decay heat production with time is
compensated for by reducing the coolant flow rates to maintain the temperature level for the reforming process. The
amount of 5000 t of spent fuel corresponding to about 15 MW(th) was estimated to yield ~13 000 Nm3/h of
hydrogen [212].
4.1.4. The Russian Federation’s approach: Nuclear steam reforming
In the Russian Federation’s concept for nuclear steam reforming of natural gas, as is suggested in Ref. [69], a
215 MW(th) nuclear plant (MHR-100SMR) provides primary helium at 950°C to the thermal conversion unit. It is
composed of three individual high temperature steam reformer sections (Fig. 67) where the heat is transferred to the
feedgas mixture.
The arrangement of the heat exchangers is in parallel with regard to the primary helium and in series with
regard to the process gas on the secondary side. The product gas leaving the third stage, highly enriched in
hydrogen and still containing a steam fraction of 55%, finally passes the usual post-processing systems (separation,
purification), with the return fraction being mixed with natural gas and recycled to the thermal conversion unit.
Operating conditions of the thermal conversion unit are given in Table 13.
4.1.5. China’s approach: Nuclear steam reforming
The INET in Beijing has developed a concept for a hydrogen production system based on steam–methane
reforming with the HTR-10 test reactor. In this case, the HTR-10 will be equipped with an IHX where primary
helium of 950°C transfers heat to a secondary helium gas loop, which is then transported to the steam reformer.
Characteristic operational data of the HTR-10 steam reformer are listed in Table 14.
A diagram of the steam reformer to be connected to the HTR-10 is illustrated in Fig. 68. It is a tube-shell type
reformer consisting of reformer tube bundles. The process gas enters at the top with a temperature of 500°C and
flows downwards through the annular catalyst bed, where the reforming reactions take place. The maximum
temperature of the process gas is reached in the bottom part of the catalyst bed (840°C), before the gas flows
upwards through the central tube and exits at the top. On the primary side of the reformer, the hot helium with a
108
FIG. 67. MHR-100SMR thermal conversion unit with three heat exchangers for SMR [69].
temperature of 890°C enters at the bottom and flows upwards through the annular space formed by the catalyst tube
and the outer guide while transferring heat to the reacting process gas. Fins are attached at the outside of the catalyst
tube in order to enhance the heat transfer.
4.2. NUCLEAR-ASSISTED COAL GASIFICATION
Nuclear coal gasification has been studied in Germany within the German PNP project over more than two
decades. The project was a cooperative effort between the HTGR industries (Hochtemperatur-Reaktorbau GmbH,
Mannheim, and Gesellschaft für Hochtemperatur-reaktortechnik mbH, Bensberg), the coal industries
(Bergbauforschung GmbH, Essen, and Rheinische Braunkohlenwerke AG, Cologne), and the Nuclear Research
Centre Jülich (today: Forschungszentrum Jülich, FZJ). The project was funded by the Federal Government, the
State Government of North Rhine-Westphalia, and the participating industries.
The main objective was the development, design and construction of an energy system based on a
combination of coal and nuclear power, including the developing and prototype testing of a nuclear heat generating
system to be operated at a 950°C gas outlet temperature, intermediate circuit, heat extraction, coal gasification
processes and nuclear energy transport.
109
TABLE 13. MAIN PARAMETERS OF THERMAL CONVERSION UNIT IN THE
MHR-100SMR [69]
MHR-100SMR steam reforming system
Primary helium inlet temperature 950°C

Primary helium total flow rate 81.7 kg/s
HX-TCF 1
Heat input 31.8 MW(th)
Primary helium flow rate 12.1 kg/s
Process feedgas inlet temperature 350°C
Process feedgas outlet temperature 650°C
Process feedgas flow rate 43.5 kg/s
HX-TCF 2
Process feedgas flow rate 60.9
HX-TCF 3
Heat input 125 MW(th)
Process feedgas flow rate 101 kg/s
TABLE 14. MAIN OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS OF THE STEAM REFORMER

FOR HTR-10 [213]
Parameter HTR-10 steam reforming system

Primary helium circuit
Outlet temperature 950°C
Secondary helium circuit
Inlet temperature 890°C
Outlet temperature 600°C
Pressure 3.0 MPa
Flow rate 1.6 kg/s
Process gas side
Steam-to-carbon ratio 4
Feedgas inlet temperature 500°C
Feedgas flow rate 1.0 kg/s
Temperature in catalyst 840°C
Pressure inlet catalyst 3.7 MPa
Pressure outlet catalyst 3.2 MPa
Hydrogen yield 2500 Nm3/h
110
FIG. 68. Schematic of nuclear steam reformer to be connected to the HTR-10 [213].
FIG. 69. Schematic of steam gasification of hard coal with nuclear process heat plant PR-3000 [216].
4.2.1. Nuclear steam gasification of coal
Figure 69 shows the flowsheet of the PNP nuclear steam–coal gasification process. For this process, the heat
from the reactor coolant was foreseen to be transferred to an additional intermediate circuit via a helium–helium
intermediate heat exchanger (He–He IHX). The main reason was to avoid the handling of coal and ash in the
primary system of the reactor, as well as much more complex repair and maintenance work. The primary helium of
111
FIG. 70. Schematic of gas generator for allothermal coal gasification (left) [214]; photograph of the immersion heat exchanger
(right) [217].
950°C flowing on the outside of the IHX tubes passes its heat to the secondary helium entering the steam gasifier at
900°C. Also, the pressure is slightly higher than on the primary side for the purpose of preventing radioactivity
from entering the secondary circuit in the case of a leak. The hot steam produced is routed into the coal bed to be
gasified. Unlike conventional fossil fuelled components, the helium heated components of the HTGR have to meet
the more stringent requirements of a ‘nuclear’ component in terms of construction, quality assurance and scheduled
retesting. They have the important function of forming a radioactivity barrier between the primary helium and the
process gas.
For nuclear steam–coal gasification, a new component to be developed was the gas generator with allothermal
heating. In 1973, a first device with electric heating and a volume of a few litres was tested on a small technical
scale (~1 kg/h) using a fixed bed at temperatures up to 1000°C and pressures up to 7 MPa to investigate kinetics and
heat transfer characteristics, gas composition and other parameters. The height of the fluidized bed was 0.37 m.
The follow-on plant, on a semi-technical scale, operated from 1976 at Bergbau-Forschung, Essen, was a first
of its kind gas generator with a fluidized bed of about 1 m2 base area and a height of up to 4 m, laid out for a coal
throughput of ~200 kg/h. This unit was constructed as a vertically arranged cylindrical vessel (Fig. 70), with the
outer dimensions of 7.75 m (max.) diameter and 21.13 m height, designed for pressures up to 4 MPa. Its concept
differed from the conventional one in that the coal was gasified indirectly by means of a tube type immersion heater
which was placed into the fluidized bed to transfer heat from a separate helium circuit. The helium was electrically
heated up to 950°C, with the heat transferred at a power of 1.2 MW. The heat transfer from the hot helium to the
fluidized bed was found to be about 500 W/m2, sufficient to allow for the gasification process to be conducted in
technically reasonable dimensions [214]. The conversion rate was 83%. Other characteristic data of the semi-
technical plant are listed in Table 15 [215].
The semi-technical plant was used for testing components, feeding devices and insulation, investigating broad
ranges of operating conditions, and applying different types of coal. Reaction rates were observed to decrease with
the height of the fluidized bed, which can be explained by the inhibiting effect of the product gases, whose
concentration increases with height. The operation of the immersion heat exchanger in a fluidized bed was
successfully demonstrated. Due to the good heat transfer, half of the heat exchanging surface was already sufficient
to decouple almost all of the heat from the helium.
112
TABLE 15. CHARACTERISTIC DATA OF SEMI-TECHNICAL GAS
GENERATOR FOR STEAM–COAL GASIFICATION
Thermal power 1.2 MW(th)

Helium inlet temperature <1000°C
Helium flow 1.1 kg/s
Heat exchanging surface 33 m2
Height of fluidized bed <4 m
Cross-section of fluidized bed 0.8 × 0.9 m2
Density of fluidized bed 344 kg/m3
Coal input 233 kg/h
Coal particle size <1 mm
Steam velocity 1.13 m/s
Gasification temperature 700–850°C
Pressure 4 MPa
Raw gas production rate 816 Nm3/h
FIG. 71. Influence of catalyst on reaction rates (left); interaction between heat transfer and gasification kinetics in allothermal gas
generator (right) [215].
Compared with the conventional case, the temperature provided by the helium is limited. Consequently
reaction rates are slower, which, however, could be enhanced by adding a catalyst. The catalytic coal gasification
was also tested in the plant (Fig. 71, left). The addition of 4 wt% of the catalyst potassium carbonate enhanced coal
throughput by 44%. At the same time, the fluidized bed temperature was decreased. As the right hand side of
Fig. 71 indicates, for constant helium temperature, the heat transfer decreases with increasing gasification
temperature. On the other hand, heat transfer increases with increasing reaction rate (due to the addition of a
catalyst). This is compensated for by a decrease in the gasification temperature [215].
113
TABLE 16. RESULTS FROM CATALYTIC AND NON-CATALYTIC STEAM–COAL GASIFICATION [215]
Non-catalytic Catalytic
Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Gasification
Helium temperature (°C) 895 895
Gasification temperature (°C) 805 701
Reaction enthalpy (kJ/kg coal) 2192 5678 2058 5148
Coal throughput (t/h) 27.3 69.3
Raw gas production rate (Nm3/h) 234 000 659 500
Gas composition fractions (%) H2: 44.2 53.5 57.6 57.2
CO: 11.1 12.7 1.1 2.4
CO2: 19.2 25.8 25.9 32.7
CH4: 23.7 7.4 14.5 7.3
Furthermore, residence times could be reduced from 7–9 h (anthracite) down to about 1.5 h. In addition, the
hydrogen production was significantly increased at the expense of CO (Table 16). The catalyst, however, was found
not to be effective until a certain threshold value of ~2 wt% owing to bonding on the coal. Also, corrosion effects
were enhanced, showing strong inner oxidation at temperatures above 800°C. On the other hand, adding the catalyst
K2CO3 to the coal (as a kind of impregnation) resulted in an enhanced hydrogen permeation rate through the heat
exchanger walls, obviously due to a change of quality of the protective oxide layer on the metal surface.
The semi-technical plant was in hot operation for approximately 26 600 h, with more than 13 600 h under
gasification conditions (750–850°C, 2–4 MPa). The maximum capacity was 0.5 t/h of coal, and the total quantity of
coal gasified was 2400 t [215]. Some results are summarized in Table 16 regarding derived reaction enthalpy and
product gas composition, distinguished between the non-catalytic and the catalytic process and between the
pyrolysis and the gasification phase, and also compared with the autothermal process. The results show that the
primary pyrolysis products are further converted in the steam atmosphere in the gasification phase. The overall
result of the semi-technical scale operation was that an industrial scale gas generator in connection with a nuclear
heat source was considered feasible.
Coal conversion programmes were accompanied by a qualification programme for high temperature metallic
materials. Investigations under typical steam–coal gasification conditions have shown that the degradation by
corrosion is strongly dependent on the contents of chromium and other elements. A minimum chromium content
was identified to be necessary for maintaining a sufficient protective layer on the metal surfaces. Thinning by
corrosion in the order of 0.01 mm/a should allow a satisfactory stability.
A commercial size gas generator was considered technically feasible with a coal throughput of ~50 t/h. This
size would require an estimated 4000 m2 of heat transfer area and a 300 m3 volume for the fluidized bed. The design
that was eventually elaborated was foreseen to have a thermal power of 340 MW, requiring three units for a
1000 MW nuclear process heat plant [214]. Unlike the semi-technical plant, it was designed as a horizontal pressure
vessel (Fig. 72) to contain a fluidized bed with the shape of a long, stretched channel to allow for long residence
times. It consists of four parts (modules) plus the two ending pieces. The coal is introduced through several inlets in
the first module, where mainly the pyrolysis process takes place. It moves longitudinally through the reactor as a
plug flow. The gasification zone spreads over the other three modules. In the fourth module, the remaining ash is
cooled and removed. Each module contains steam inlets in the bottom section and an immersion heat exchanger
bundle, through which heat is transferred from the hot helium to the fluidized bed. For coal gasification with
nuclear process steam, the steam is used for drying and preheating the reacting materials, and for generating
electricity and oxygen.
From the pyrolysis to the gasification zone, a sharp increase of the fluidized bed density from 150 to
250 kg/m3 is expected. Therefore an overflow weir is foreseen, to avoid back-mixing of the pyrolyzed coal. Also,
the dust formed in the pyrolysis zone is collected in a sieve before passing on to the gasification zone and
recirculated. Some characteristic data of the prototype gas generator for both the catalytic and non-catalytic version
are given in Table 17.
114
FIG. 72. Schematic of an industrial-scale gas generator for allothermal steam–coal gasification [218].
TABLE 17. MAIN DATA OF PROTOTYPE GAS GENERATOR

FOR PNP STEAM–COAL GASIFICATION [218]
Non-catalytic Catalytic
Thermal power (MW) 340
Length (m) ~33
Outer diameter (m) 7.2
Heat exchanging surface (m2)
1st module (pyrolysis) 425
2nd module (gasification) 535
3rd module (gasification) 612
4th module (gasification) 612
Helium flow (kg/s) 94.4
Helium inlet temperature (°C) 895
Helium pressure (MPa) ~4.1
Height of fluidized bed (m) 1.9–3.4
Coal input (t/h) 27.3 69.3
Steam flow (t/h) 177 190
Catalyst (t/h) — 3.27
Gasification pressure (MPa) ~4.3
Gasification temperature (°C) 800–900
Raw gas production rate (Nm3/h) 77 923 219 818
Degree of gasification (%) ~93
With the concept of an ‘Industrial Plant Coal Gasification Ruhr’, it was that the market introduction of nuclear
take place in several steps: (i) construction of an autothermal Ruhr 100 gas generator with a coal throughput of
1 million t/a of coal for SNG production at a rate of 0.6 billion Nm3/a; (ii) expansion to three gas generators, with
one to be based on hydrogasification; (iii) connection with a 700 MW(e) coal power plant for the supply of process
steam and electricity; and (iv) replacement of the coal power plant with an 1800 MW(th) HTGR to supply 400 t/h
of process steam (400°C, 10 MPa) plus 600 MW of electricity.
In the 1980s, there was also a concept elaborated to convert the existing AVR reactor in Jülich to a process
heat plant for steam–coal gasification. The gas generator was planned to be integrated into the confinement of the
AVR. Its vertical arrangement has the advantage that in combination with a lower gasification pressure of 2 MPa
less steam is required. Coal throughput was foreseen to be 7.8 t/h. Due to the low conversion rate of ~50%, a higher
coal throughput and the production of a significant amount of fine coke (4.2 t/h), besides the 11 000 Nm3/h of
product gas, were expected.
115
FIG. 73. Schematic of hydrogasification of lignite with nuclear process heat plant PR-3000 [216].
4.2.2. Nuclear hydrogasification of coal
The hydrogasification process can also be combined with a nuclear heat source. But unlike steam–coal
gasification, the nuclear heat is not coupled directly to the gasification reactor. Different from the steam–coal
gasification process, for the PNP nuclear hydrogasification of coal it was planned to directly use the steam–methane
reformer for heat transfer from the hot helium to the methane–steam mixture. An intermediate heat exchanger was
— at least in those days — not considered necessary. The drawback seen was the more complicated exchange of the
catalyst in the nuclear steam reformer. Figure 73 shows the flowsheet of the PNP hydrogasification process.
Since two variants of hydrogen production exist, there are two alternatives of nuclear involvement [219]. The
one variant is steam–methane reforming, where a part of the product gas methane is drawn off and the high
temperature nuclear heat is used for the endothermic reforming reaction and to dry the lignite feed. The remaining
low temperature nuclear heat is taken for steam and electricity generation. The hydrogen produced is routed at a
relatively low temperature (~400°C) to the gas generator, where the gasification of coal takes place in an
exothermic reaction at 800–900°C and 8 MPa. The partial pressure of the hydrogen strongly influences the methane
production rate. About 40% of the H2 reacts with the coal to methane, while 60% is recycled after gas treatment to
the gasifier. The CO is added to the raw and process gas, while the methane is mixed with steam and fed to the
steam reformer. Residual sulphur free coke can be either utilized as high-grade coke or further gasified in a
pressurized coal gasification plant.
In the second variant, the nuclear heat is taken to preheat the hydrogen produced during the gasification
process itself, i.e. by the water gas shift reaction, which occurs at 100%. Due to the endothermic character of the
shift reaction resulting in much lower heat production in the reactor, the gasification agent hydrogen needs to be
preheated to 800–950°C. Nuclear heat is also used for steam production and the residual power for electricity
generation. Compared with the first variant, it has a simpler process scheme. A drawback is the fact that high
gasification pressures (8 MPa) are needed, at least if the focus is on SNG production and high gasification rates,
whereas the HTGR (PR-3000) would be operated at 4 MPa.
Between 1976 and 1982, the Rheinische Braunkohlenwerke, Wesseling, investigated the hydrogasification
process in a 1.5 MW semi-technical test facility with both lignite and hard coal [219, 220]. The vertically arranged
reactor of 8 m height contained a fluidized bed of 0.2 m diameter where the gasification agent hydrogen was
injected. The hydrogen was electrically preheated to 750°C and could, if necessary, be further heated to 1000°C by
116
partial combustion. System parameters could be varied in a broader range. For temperatures between 820 and
950°C and pressures between 5.5 and 9.5 MPa, carbon gasification degrees of up to 75% and methane contents in
the product gas of up to 50% were achieved. A part of the hydrogen was used as a carrier medium for the coal input.
Due to the exothermic character of the reactor, a direct heat input is not required. With residence times varying
between 20 and 40 min, gasification degrees (for lignite) were up to 75%. The main data of the experimental
facilities and the design of a commercial size hydro-gasifier are listed in Table 18 [215].
The test facility was operated for about 27 000 h, with more than 12 000 h under gasification conditions. The
throughput was 100 kg/h of carbon, corresponding to about 320 kg/h of lignite or 160 kg/h of hard coal, the total
quantity gasified was 1800 t.
From 1983 to 1985, a follow-up pilot plant was operated over 8300 h, with half of the time under coal
gasification conditions with high availability. Unlike the semi-technical plant, the follow-up plant included all post-
processing components of gas treatment up to the stage of SNG production. The plant had a throughput of 9.6 t/h,
corresponding to a total thermal power of 50 MW. Gasification of more than 38 000 t of brown coal was made to
yield a total of 19 million Nm3 of SNG, whose fraction in the raw gas was between 22 and 36%. The SNG
production was at a rate of up to 6400 Nm³/h. For catalytic gasification conditions, material problems ultimately
were not solved [221].
Both the semi-technical and the pilot plant were, apart from lignite, also used for testing whether or not
hydrogasification is feasible with the mostly caking hard coal using a gasification agent of either pure hydrogen or
mixtures of H2, CO and steam. Results have shown that the reaction capability of hard coal is significantly smaller
than that for lignite. Due to the specific kinetics of hydrogasification, residence times for complete gasification
were comparatively long. Therefore, a degree of gasification of ~65% was considered reasonable, requiring
residence times of about 30 min at 9 MPa and 900°C. Beyond this value, residence times would be uneconomically
long. Gasification degrees were higher for lignite and lower for anthracite coal. Caking coals were also found to
lead to agglomeration near the coal inlet resulting from poor mixing with the fluidized bed and eventually
preventing further operation.
TABLE 18. MAIN DATA OF HYDRO-GASIFIERS AT DIFFERENT SCALES [215]
Semi-technical plant Pilot plant Large scale plant
Operation 1976–1982 1983–1985 —

Thermal power (MW) 1.5 50 3000
Length (m) 8
Inner diameter (m) 0.2 1.0 3.2
Dry coal input (t/h) 0.32 (lignite) 9.6 2200 (lignite)
0.16 (hard coal)
Coal grain size (mm) <1
Residence time (min) 9–80 (lignite)
28–38 (hard coal)
Hydrogen flow (Nm3/h) 6 000–12 500
Height of fluidized bed (m) 1.9–3.4 3–6 4.0
Gasification pressure (MPa) 5.5–9.5 (lignite) 6.5–12 8
8.0–8.7 (hard coal)
Gasification temperature (°C) 820–950 (lignite) 850–930 850
940–960 (hard coal)
Raw gas production rate (Nm3/h) <16 000 380 000 (methane)
with fraction (%) of CH4 ≤48 22–36
Degree of gasification (%) ≤82 (lignite) 50–60 <60
≤47 (hard coal)
117
FIG. 74. Schematic of wood gasification with HTGR [222].
4.3. THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION OF BIOMASS WITH HTGR
As an alternative option, nuclear process heat from an HTGR can also be utilized for the production of energy
alcohols from biomass, representing a CO2 neutral production process by means of a CO2 free primary energy
input. For the generation of methanol (H:C ratio of 4) from biomass, e.g. wood (H:C ratio of 1.5), additional H
atoms are needed, which means additional energy. The process could also be used for SNG production; however,
energy alcohol has the advantage of being created in the user friendly liquid state.
A possible process flow scheme is shown in Fig. 74. Apart from the HTGR as the nuclear process heat source,
the principal component is the gasifier for wood (SGW) heated by the primary coolant helium, and also receiving
steam from the steam superheater (STS). The methanol synthesis unit (MES) receives the input flows synthesis gas
from the SGW plus hydrogen from an electrolyser (ELY). The efficiency of the total process proposed has been
assessed to be 52%; the product yield would be about 140% [222].
4.4. LOW TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS
Nuclear energy in the form of the electricity generated from current and evolutionary water cooled reactors can
be directly used for splitting water to produce hydrogen. Low temperature water electrolysis is a currently available
technology (see Section 3.3.1). Since the electrolysis process can be decoupled from the power plant, electrolysis
allows for decentralized production of hydrogen. Water electrolysis, however, is attractive only during off-peak hours
at power plants, when electricity prices and demand are lowest, or when high-purity hydrogen is needed.
The obvious advantage of water electrolysis is the fact that the infrastructure in the form of electricity grids is
already widely available and the source for the electricity can be changed without the need to replace the hydrogen
production unit. Oxygen and heat by-products are considered to improve the system economy.
An option for the transition stage is small scale production of hydrogen using the hydrolysis process together
with electric power systems. A blend of nuclear and wind energy (‘Nuwind’) to provide emission free and
118
economically feasible hydrogen production has been suggested [223]. The nuclear plant is assumed to deliver
electricity in periods of low wind electricity production.
The intermittency of renewable energy sources coupled with varying demand for electricity requires a kind of
energy mediator in the form of storage, conditioning and regeneration. The ‘Hydrolyser’ currently being developed
by H2Green, Inc. can effectively mediate energy production and consumption. It uses electricity to charge
materials, generates kinetic or potential energy, separates and stores the H2 and O2 from water, and generates heat.
The intermittent peaks and valleys of electricity supply and demand can be smoothened with H2 as a storage
medium [224].
4.5. HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS
In the meantime, several countries are reconsidering high temperature electrolysis of steam (HTSE) as a
promising option for a future large scale hydrogen production based on nuclear energy to provide steam and
electricity, and have started or resumed experimental activities in this area. Research is concentrated on the
development and optimization of planar and tubular electrolysis cells, stack design, selection of appropriate
materials, and finally the coupling to a nuclear heat source.
4.5.1. Experimental activities in China
In 2005, INET started a five phase R&D work programme on nuclear hydrogen production by HTSE. Phase I
concentrated on project initiation and construction of the test facilities. Research activities within the second phase
are mainly focused on: a demonstration of the feasibility of using planar SOEC technology for HTSE; development
of new materials with corrosion resistant and high performance HTSE; analysis of degradation mechanisms of
SOEC cells; optimization of electrolysis cells and cell stacks; and studies of system design to support cycle life
assessment and cost analysis for HTSE plants. The achievements so far are the final determination of the fabrication
process and the successful development of a single cell of 7 cm × 7 cm size. Stacks with 1, 3, and 5 cells have also
been assembled, with the latter to demonstrate a hydrogen production rate of 1.7 L/h over 40 hours. The future
phases include design and construction of pilot plant scale equipment to demonstrate H2 production at a rate of
5 Nm3/h. The final phase will be coupling of the process with a commercial HTGR plant [225–227].
Figure 75 presents the results achieved with regard to the oxygen electrode materials investigated, showing
the ASR parameter, which is low for high performance of the electrode. Data reveal that the BSCF/YSZ material is
a strong candidate compared with the commonly used materials LSM, LSC, and LSCF.
4.5.2. Experimental activities in the European Union
Within the European Union’s FP-6, the research project Hi2H2 studied water electrolysis at high
temperatures. Experimental work was concentrated on the performance of two types of planar SOFC design. Steam
electrolysis was successfully demonstrated at high current densities and high efficiency on single cells. Record high
values of ~2 A/cm2 at a cell voltage below thermal-neutral voltage and ~3.6 A/cm2 at 1.48 V in a reversely operated
YSZ electrolyte based SOFC cell have been achieved so far [228]. In durability tests of up to 2500 h of operation of
single cells, a maximum degradation of about 2%/1000 h at 0.5 A/cm2 and temperatures between 800 and 950°C
has been observed. Performance tests have also been conducted with electrolyser stacks of 250 and 600 cm2 of
active area for more than 3500 h at 800°C. An increase of steam content was observed to improve stack
performance and to lower the degradation rate to 6% per 1000 h [229].
4.5.3. Experimental activities in France
CEA in France has been pursuing a major HTSE development programme since 2004. Both planar and 3-D
cells have been manufactured and mechanical behaviour was tested under typical HTSE conditions [230]. Three
experiments of more than 650 h were conducted using a 20 HTSE cell stack with 600 cm2 of active cell surface.
Problems to be investigated are the chromium evaporation, which leads to cell pollution and thus performance loss,
and thermal cycling [231].
119
FIG. 75. Comparison of different oxygen electrodes [226].
4.5.4. Experimental activities in Germany
High temperature electrolysis of steam was investigated in the 1980s by the German company Dornier in the
process called ‘HOT ELLY’. An electrolysis tube consisting of 10 solid oxide cells (10 mm length each, 13 mm
diameter) in series with porous thin layers as electrodes was used to produce H2 at a rate of 6.78 NL/h at 997°C with
an applied power of 21.7 W, achieving an efficiency of 92% [232, 233]. The top right part of Fig. 76 shows the
German design of a 2 kW HOT ELLY module [232]. The module demonstrated longer term stability of the
hydrogen electrode at 995°C with practically no degradation over 1000 h. It also confirmed the lower electricity
requirements. Still, total production costs, of which 80% were for electricity, were deemed too high. As technology
progressed, Dornier and others moved to the fabrication of planar electrolysis cells. The two design concepts,
planar and tubular, are shown in Fig. 76.
4.5.5. Experimental activities in Japan
JAEA has tested both planar and tubular versions of high temperature electrolysis cells. The planar design
appeared to be the most effective, but also the most fragile one. The limits of the performance of the tubular design
were attributed to the presence of the tube, which limits the vapour flow, and ohmic losses in electrical connections.
Current densities were demonstrated between 0.3 and 1 A/cm2.
The constraint induced by thermal cycling and the variation of dilatation coefficients are major remaining
problems. Also, equipment costs are still very high: current evaluation reveals investment costs to be around twenty
times those for low temperature electrolysis, but these are expected to decrease rapidly.
HTSE was later also tested by JAEA in a bench scale facility, with the main aim being to test steam
electrolysis under HTGR typical conditions of 850–950°C and to derive design data on the process characteristics
[49]. The experiments were conducted in a serial arrangement of 12 tubular cells, each cell with a length of 19 mm,
and a YSZ electrolyte between a porous Ni cermet cathode and a porous LaCoO3 anode. Steam was supplied at a
rate of 0.32 g/min. Hydrogen yield at a temperature of 850°C was 4 NL/h, which increased with temperature (and
120
FIG. 76. Concepts of tubular (top) and planar (bottom) SOEC [232, 233].
voltage) from 3.8 NL/h at 850°C to 4.3 NL/h at 900°C and 6.9 NL/h at 950°C. The steam conversion ratio was
below 40%.
Tests were also started with planar electrolysis cells. The planar cells consisted of a 0.3 mm thick, 100 mm2
YSZ plate, with electrodes less than 0.03 mm thick attached on either side. The maximum hydrogen production rate
achieved at 850°C was 2.4 NL/h; the specific production rate per cm2 was even higher than for the tubular cell at
950°C. Efficiencies achieved were still at a very low level, e.g. from a solar furnace or a high temperature nuclear
reactor. This activity at JAEA has also been terminated in the meantime.
The Toshiba company is working on an SOEC based hydrogen production plant with a nuclear reactor to
deliver the steam [234]. The SOEC is of the tubular type, with an yttria-stabilized zirconia electrolyte. An
appropriate hydrogen electrode catalyst for the 800–900°C operation temperature range is a mixture of metallic Ni
and YSZ, while for the O2 electrode, strontium-doped lanthanum manganite is taken. A prototype single cell with
an approximate diameter of 12 mm is shown in Fig. 77. A prototype unit contains nine single cells. Each of the nine
cells has an active electrode area of 50 cm2. The hydrogen production efficiency is estimated to be ~50% at
800–900°C operating temperature.
4.5.6. Experimental activities in the United States of America
4.5.6.1. Electrolysis of steam
In the USA, INL in conjunction with the SOEC stack manufacturer Ceramatec Inc. has been conducting a
comprehensive experimental programme since 2003 aimed at testing SOEC stacks combined with materials
research and detailed modelling with computer fluid dynamics (CFD) codes and with process flowsheet analyses.
Starting with 2 W, 2.5 cm2 button cells, both cell and stack sizes have gradually increased. A bench scale
121
FIG. 77. Design of prototype unit with nine tubular type SOECs [234].
experimental facility has been used at INL for testing steam electrolysis and co-electrolysis in both button cells and
stacks with cell surface areas of 64 cm2 (100 mm × 100 mm) or 324 cm2 (200 mm × 200 mm). In a test in 2005, a
hydrogen production rate of 162 NL/h over 197 h could be verified using a 22 cell stack with no problem in stack
performance observed. Post-experiment examination has been conducted at ANL [235]. Another test with a 25 cell
stack was conducted over 1000 h at ~830°C and achieved a hydrogen production rate of 177 NL/h. The overall
performance degradation observed was 20%.
Within the USDOE NHI, an integrated laboratory scale (ILS) HTSE test facility has been developed and
constructed at INL. It consists of a total of 720 planar electrolysis cells in three SOEC stack modules with a total
power of 18 kW. Unlike previous testing, it also addresses the integration of thermal management, such as
preheating of inlet gas flow, high temperature gas handling, heat recuperation, steam generation or hydrogen
recycling, and other support systems. Some of the essential parameters of a module are summarized in Table 19.
Slightly superheated steam from the steam generator is mixed with hot hydrogen (to avoid condensation) and
then raised to a temperature level of 800–830°C by six electrical heaters before being routed to the electrolysis
cells. The module has a cross-flow arrangement in perforated flow channels. The gas mixture leaving the SOEC is
composed of at least 50% residual steam which is removed in a condenser.
In 2006, one half of an ILS module (i.e. two 60-cell stacks) was operated over 2000 h, with some parts being
sent to ANL for post-test examination (Fig. 78). In 2007, initial testing operations were performed with a single
module (~5 kW) over 420 h, yielding an H2 production rate of about 0.9 Nm3/h with a certain performance
122
TABLE 19. OPERATIONAL PERAMETERS OF THE HTSE-ILS [95, 236]
Number of modules 3
Number of stacks per module 4
Number of cells per stack 60
Active area per cell 64 cm2
Operating temperature 800–830°C
Operating voltage per cell 1.283 V
Inlet stream (mole fraction) 0.9 steam + 0.1 hydrogen
Total power 18 kW
Input flow rates 160 Nl/min of steam
17.4 Nl/min of hydrogen
H2 production rate 5.65 Nm3/h
FIG. 78. Single ILS module (left), cell stacks after first test in ILS (right) [95].
degradation observed during the first 250 h and no further degradation observed afterwards [95]. In 2008, the ILS
was expanded to operations with all three modules, with three parallel gas heating and delivery loops, and
activation of the H2 recycling loop. The test was conducted for 1080 h with an average H2 production rate of
1.2 Nm3/h peaking at 5.7 Nm3/h after about 17 h. Degradation was observed over the first 480 h, probably due to
condensation in the H2 recycling system. The condensation led to gradual delamination of the oxygen electrode
from the electrolyte, and thus to an increase in the cell resistance and a decrease in hydrogen production. After
modification of the hydrogen recycling system, the degradation stopped in two modules, while it continued in the
third one [83].
4.5.6.2. Co-electrolysis of CO2 and steam
Since 2006, efforts have been made to demonstrate co-electrolysis, the simultaneous electrolysis of CO2 and
steam, to produce synthesis gas. In the 2055 h half-module test, a set-up of two stacks with 60 planar cells each
123
FIG. 79. Ten-cell stack (left) and its performance during a 2500 h test (right) [240].
operated initially at a temperature of 800–825°C with a steam-hydrogen-nitrogen feed stream. During the time
period between 168 and 1168 h, the feed was changed by replacing half the steam with CO2. Performance
degradation was found to be ~46% over the whole test, apparently not influenced by the operation with CO2 [237].
As part of the HYTEST programme for testing hybrid energy systems at INL, the HTSE apparatus was
coupled to a new reverse shift reactor and methanation reactor to produce synthetic methane. In a first phase set-up,
the total process was demonstrated over 60 h as part of a longer term HTSE test where the CO2 was taken from a
simulated flue gas stack and the H2 produced in a 10 cm x 10 cm ten cell HTSE stack. The resulting synthesis gas
was then routed to the methanation reactor. The integral test included recycling of the streams in order to attain high
conversion efficiency and to investigate system dynamics and stability [238].
Extensive post-test analyses of the SOEC components from the above mentioned 1000 h and 2055 h tests
have been conducted at ANL and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to elucidate the degradation
mechanisms. It has been observed that SOEC stacks exhibit a larger degradation rate compared with SOFCs [237].
The interconnect material was recognized to be a source of different elements (Cr, Mn, Ti, Si) that can form non-
conductive interlayers, which may contribute to degradation. On the oxygen side, cracks were identified in the bond
layer, which may cause stack degradation. Chromium, which diffuses from the flow field into the bond layer
attached to the oxygen electrode, was observed to replace cobalt in the bond material and also to react with it, thus
reducing conductivity in the bond layer. Also after long term operation, the oxygen electrode was seen to have
densified and delaminated together with the bond layer from the YSZ electrolyte [239].
Chromium diffusion behaviour on the oxygen electrode side of an SOEC is different from that of an SOFC. In
an SOEC, oxygen emanating from the electrolyte is moving upwards to the flow field while the gaseous chromium
is diffusing against the O2 flow, meaning that the Cr is concentrating in the upper part of the bond layer. In contrast,
in an SOFC, the oxygen (from the air) is moving from the flow field downwards to the electrolyte and carrying with
it chromium, which may come from the flow field, deeper into the electrode material.
In 2009, 2500 h of operation of a ten cell stack (Fig. 79) with improved materials demonstrated a significantly
reduced degradation rate of 8.2% per 1000 h, which is, however, still higher than that for SOFC.
For high temperature electrolysis, the research efforts were mainly focused on the development of materials
for SOECs, including electrolyte and electrode materials. The immediate goal was to reduce the rate of degradation
of the cells during long term operation caused by interdiffusion of materials between the electrodes and the
electrolyte and by the delamination of the electrodes from the electrolytes due to the formation of oxygen-filled
voids near their mutual interfaces. In addition, two key sets of instrumentation for HTSE studies were designed and
constructed. One is a laboratory scale HTSE testing loop that can simulate the actual running conditions of HTSE,
the other is a high temperature electrochemical analyser used to evaluate electrochemical properties of SOEC
124
FIG. 80. Diagram of combined system of HTGR plus Westinghouse HyS cycle [198].
components at very high temperatures up to 1200°C. Future steps will be to design, construct and test a pilot scale
HTSE facility in long term continuous (~2500 h) operation. Performance criteria have been set at H2 production
rates of 6, 15 and 150 kg/h of hydrogen, corresponding to power sizes of 200, 500 and 5000 kW, respectively. The
pilot plant should operate at high pressures and include energy management and product purification [144].
Since the selection in the USA in 2009 of HTSE as the preferred concept for nuclear hydrogen production,
various modifications and refinements have been proposed for a further improvement of the original INL reference
HTSE design. These modifications include changes in plant configuration, operating conditions and individual
component designs. The optimized design operates at a system pressure of 5 MPa and an electrolysis temperature
of 800°C. It uses a steam sweep system instead of the original air sweep system in order to facilitate the recovery of
the oxygen product gas, which represents a valuable commodity. Also, heat (from the HTGR) is delivered to the
HTSE process through an intermediate helium loop to the two steam generators [91].
4.6. THERMOCHEMICAL CYCLES
Thermochemical cycle technology is at a relatively early stage, and only a few cycles have been demonstrated
on the laboratory scale. Promising cycles have been or are being analysed in detail with regard to their partial
reactions and also with regard to their coupling to a solar or nuclear heat source.
One cycle considered with a high priority is the S–I process (also known as the Ispra Mark 16 cycle)
originally developed by the US company General Atomics and later taken up and modified by different researcher
groups like the JAEA. Coupling of the HyS cycle with a nuclear power reactor appears to be easier, since heat
transfer to the electrolysis cell occurs at a low temperature level. This configuration can help to improve the overall
efficiency of the process. A schematic of the potential connection to an HTGR is shown in Fig. 80 [198].
Solar is an intermittent source, therefore an intermediate storage (thermal and/or chemical) would be needed
for a continuous process. It would be difficult to drive a thermochemical cycle with a critical phase change.
However, solar can be well suited for hybrid cycles if chemical storage at some interface is possible. The electrical
part would be still driven by nuclear or another electricity source, while the thermochemical part is driven by solar.
A good example is the hybrid S cycle with easy H2SO4 storage at the entrance of the sulphuric acid decomposition
125
FIG. 81. Schematic of the nuclear assisted Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle [180].
section. However, the S–I cycle can not be readily adapted for use with a solar heat source because one of the
reactions, the Bunsen reaction, is carried out near the solidification point of iodine.
4.6.1. Experimental activities in Canada
In a collaborative effort between AECL, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and other
universities, and ANL, Canada is investigating the copper–chlorine cycles for producing hydrogen from nuclear
energy (Fig. 81) (or solar energy or waste heat). Cu–Cl cycles with different numbers of process steps have been
examined in the laboratory, and various alternative configurations have been proposed [241]. AECL has
experimentally demonstrated a CuCl electrolyser where hydrogen is produced at the cathode and Cu(I) is oxidized
to Cu(II) at the anode. The reactions at the oxygen electrode worked without a noble metal catalyst, whereas the
hydrogen production at the cathode required a noble metal catalyst. Cell reactions were found to be feasible at
reasonably low potentials (0.7 V) and with relatively inexpensive electrode materials. One candidate material is
carbon because of its high surface area and durability. A test facility with a capacity of 3 kg/d of hydrogen is
currently under development [19, 224, 242]. A key component in the electrolytic step developed at AECL is the
cation exchange membrane, which needs to have high conductivity for hydrogen ions but low conductivity for
copper, as well as good mechanical properties to withstand the aggressive concentrated chloride environment.
ANL has shown the thermodynamic viability of all reactions of the Cu–Cl cycles. In particular, the principle
of CuCl decomposition in the electrochemical step was proven in experiments. ANL developed enabling
technologies for the Cu–Cl cycle and created a flowsheet of the hydrogen production plant using the Aspen Plus
model [178]. An assessment with Aspen Plus yielded a heat to hydrogen efficiency of 54%, which was based on
ideal heat transfers. A figure of 43%, however, might be more realistic [19].
In the ANL analysis of the Cu–Cl cycle with the above given efficiency of more than 40%, the CuCl2 enthalpy
of mixing with water was — in the absence of relevant data — not considered. However, based on some
experimental values of the enthalpy of mixing of CuCl2 with HCl in aqueous solutions [243], the missing enthalpy
of mixing is estimated to range between 100 and 200 kJ/mol. This would reduce the efficiency of the cycle to a
maximum value around 30%. Indeed, calculations conducted at UNLV [244] have led to a revision of the efficiency
below 30%.
126
FIG. 82. H2 and O2 production (left) and conversion efficiencies of HI and H2SO4 versus time (right) in IS-10 test runs at Tsinghua
University [246].
A challenge for material development is the high temperature oxidizing atmosphere in the reactor for copper
oxychloride decomposition where pure oxygen is produced at 450–550°C. The most promising materials were
found to be alloys with high contents of Ni–Cr, which are expected to form corrosion resistant oxide layers on the
metal surfaces [19].
4.6.2. Experimental activities in China
Research efforts on the S–I cycle at the Tsinghua University in Beijing have concentrated so far on
fundamental studies of the three basic reactions, and related techniques such as separation, concentration and
purification are being carried out. In the Bunsen section, the kinetics, separation characteristics of the H2SO4 phase
and HIx phase formed and their purification were studied. In the HI section, for the concentration of HI, EED was
developed; various parameters affecting the concentration effect were investigated. Platinum catalysts were loaded
on different supporters by chemical plating or impregnation and used in the HI decomposition reaction to compare
their catalytic effects. The catalyst containing 5 wt% Pt (with a minimum diameter of ~5 nm) supported on alumina
prepared by electroless plating shows the optimum catalytic properties for HI decomposition. In the sulphuric acid
section, new catalysts were developed and employed in SO3 decomposition. A performance ranking order was
observed to be Pt ≈ Cr2O3 > Fe2O3 > CeO2 > NiO > Al2O3. For economic and technical reasons, however, the focus
is on the development of non-Pt catalysts. Copper chromate and copper chromite with good catalytic performance
to SO3 decomposition reaction present promising catalysts.
Based on the knowledge acquired through these studies, a closed loop apparatus, named IS-10, made of glass
and Teflon, with the designed hydrogen generation rate of 10 NL/h was constructed in 2007 to verify the processes
for all sections of the S–I cycle. The first phase of the R&D programme has been completed with the successful
demonstration of the closed cycle operation in 2009. Figure 82 shows the results of a test run over 7 h with regard
to H2 and O2 production (left) and the achieved efficiency of 20% for the decomposition of H2SO4 and HI to H2 and
I2 (right) [245]. The test was conducted at atmospheric pressure with temperatures in the Bunsen, HI and H2SO4
sections maintained at 80°C, 500°C and 850°C, respectively [160, 246].
Subsequent steps will be dedicated to the demonstration of the whole cycle at larger scales. Phase II will
comprise bench scale testing at atmospheric pressure in glass equipment with 100 NL/h H2 production capacity.
Pilot scale testing will be done at high pressure in industrial material equipment with a 100 Nm3/h H2 production
capacity and a design of an HTR-IS plant will be developed within phase III. Phase IV has the goal of
commercialization of the process, expected after 2020 [160].
4.6.3. Experimental activities in France
In France, CEA R&D activities with regard to the Bunsen section are concentrating on a further reduction of
excess H2O and I2 to dehydrate the HIx phase by optimizing phase separation, and to minimize side reactions and
127
FIG. 83. New development of Bunsen section in France [230].
heat losses. Developed in 2008, a new design for the Bunsen reactor has been proposed. A characteristic feature is
its operation in the countercurrent mode (Fig. 83), different from the co-current design of the Japanese and the
former GA approach, by using a single reactor for the Bunsen reaction. Better yield, better purity of the phases and
a lower level of side reactions are expected from the new design. Data were collected for Bunsen reactor operation
at increased pressures [230].
4.6.4. Experimental activities in Germany
In Germany, the Aachen University introduced a reactive distillation column, in which concentration and
decomposition processes occur simultaneously [247]. Upward along the distillation column, the HI content in the
liquid phase gets richer, and so more HI molecules are likely to escape. Then the vapour phase HI content in the
upper region of the column is higher than in the lower region.
4.6.5. Experimental activities in India
In India, studies of fluid mixing and heat/mass transfer in the Bunsen reaction are being conducted using two
different reactor designs, a jacketed stirred vessel Bunsen reactor, made of glass, and a jacketed oscillatory baffled
Bunsen reactor (OBBR), consisting of a tantalum tube in a steel jacket. In the latter type of reactor, the baffle
arrangement creates turbulent eddy mixing and vortices, which lead to a radial movement of the fluid and enhanced
heat/mass transfer rates to the reactor wall. The goal is the comparison of energy performance of oscillatory flow
mixing versus conventional stirring and the derivation of heat transfer coefficients for the Bunsen reaction fluids
[248, 249].
A multistage countercurrent contactor such as the oscillatory baffled column reactor (Fig. 84) is being
considered, to enhance mass transfer, heat transfer and product purity [248, 249]. A theoretical analysis indicated
better gas–liquid volume mass transfer coefficients. The preliminary design of the Bunsen reaction system can be
128
FIG. 84. Indian design of an oscillatory baffled Bunsen reactor [248].
done using simple, analytical and modelling tools, while for a detailed design and scale-up, comprehensive data on
the physicochemical behaviour of the reacting system generation need to be obtained.
4.6.6. Experimental activities in Italy
Within the TEPSI project, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development (ENEA) has been investigating the S–I cycle. For the purpose of demonstration of the
cycle and examination of many aspects of basic and applied research, a laboratory scale integrated loop facility has
been constructed, which is designed for a hydrogen production rate of 10 NL/h. The next step will be the realization
of the S–I cycle at a pilot plant scale with a production rate of 80 NL/h of H2 [250].
4.6.7. Experimental activities in Japan
4.6.7.1. S–I cycle with high temperature reactor
In the mid-1980s, Japan began R&D activities on the S–I cycle. In 1997, JAEA verified the feasibility of the
S–I cycle in small scale experiments with a continuous hydrogen production rate of about 1 NL/h over 48 h [251].
In the follow-on step of bench scale testing, continuous hydrogen production in a closed loop over one week was
successfully demonstrated [48]. The facility consisted of more than ten process units made primarily of glass and
quartz, with a hydrogen production rate achieved of 30 NL/h at an efficiency of 6.4%. The low efficiency was
mainly due to the large heat loss in the HI decomposition section. Also, an automatic control system for the Bunsen
reaction was applied. The focus was on the automatic control of a long term stable hydrogen production, membrane
technology for the HIx decomposition and screening tests on corrosion resistant materials. The thermal efficiency of
the bench scale test, however, was less than 10% due to large heat losses in the HI section [252].
The next step, starting in 2005, was the design and construction of a pilot plant with a production rate of
31 Nm3/h of H2. The pilot plant will be operated under the simulated conditions of a nuclear reactor [48] using an
existing helium gas circuit to provide helium of 880°C at a system pressure of 2 MPa. A schematic of the test
facility is shown in Fig. 85 [253].
129
FIG. 85. JAEA hydrogen production test plant [253].
To ensure component integrity in the S–I process, JAEA has initiated a three year construction plan for an S–I
process engineering test facility. The facility is to be made of practical materials such as ceramics and glass-lined
metals, and will be operated under high pressure up to 1 MPa. All components of the three sections — the Bunsen
reaction, the sulphuric acid decomposition and the hydrogen iodide decomposition — are to be verified for their
integrity independently by the end of fiscal year 2012. After component verification, the sections will be connected
to produce hydrogen at a rate of 0.1 Nm3/h. The experimental data obtained through these tests will be used to
design a nuclear hydrogen demonstration plant for coupling to the existing HTTR plant at JAEA, Oarai.
Precise control of the composition of the reaction product solution is essential for the Bunsen reaction, since
deviations from the nominal values may result in, for example, a breakdown of the liquid–liquid separation process
or an iodine precipitation. JAEA has developed an on-line monitoring system for composition measurement and
control of the reactant feed rates [254].
A survey of other Bunsen reaction routes to overcome excess iodine and water in the cycle is also being
undertaken. The electrochemical route, vigorously being pursued at JAEA and ENEA is considered to be an
attractive option [255–257]. This route combines reaction and product separation steps and vastly reduces the
iodine load of the cycle. However, membranes of required properties have to be developed to generate concentrated
product solutions without cross-contamination by eliminating permeation, electro–osmotic drag, etc.
The sulphuric acid decomposer concept for the pilot plant at JAEA is shown in Fig. 86, and some
characteristic parameters are listed in Table 20 [258]. The decomposer consists of two vertically stacked multihole
heat exchanger blocks made of Si–SiC ceramics with a total height of 1.5 m. The helium gas flows through the
inside channels. Test fabrication of the SiC blocks was successfully completed by Toshiba. Helium leak tests
verified the seal performance. Other tests were also conducted, such as in a SO3 decomposer test loop or a H2SO4
flow test loop. The dimensions of the SO3 decomposer component for the pilot plant are a diameter of ~0.7 m and a
total height of 3.1 m.
For the HTTR-IS plant, this H2SO4 vaporizer component would presumably have a diameter of several metres
and a height of ~10 m. Limitation in size also limits the hydrogen production, making a modular concept for this
component more practicable. Current investigations are dedicated to single aspects of the S–I cycle. Tests were
conducted with a H2SO4 purifier to remove the impurities HI, I2 and H2O. In leak tests, a helium leakage rate of
1.5 × 10–8 (Pa·m3)/s at the connection of the SiC blocks was measured [259].
130
FIG. 86. JAEA prototype heat exchanger for sulphuric acid vaporization [258].
TABLE 20. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JAEA H2SO4 DECOMPOSER

FOR THE PILOT PLANT [258]
Primary side
Inlet/outlet temperature 710/535°C
Pressure 4 MPa
Helium flow rate 330 kg/s
Secondary side
Pressure (MPa) 2 MPa
Sulphuric acid flow rate 240 kg/s
Sulphuric acid concentration 90 wt%
Quantity of exchange heat 82.7 kW
Maximum heat flux 80 kW/m2
Number of heat transfer channels 32 (H2SO4), 38 (He)
Heat transfer channel inner diameter/length 1.5/148 m
For the SO3 decomposition step in the pilot plant, a shell and tube type heat exchanger has been selected, as
shown in Fig. 87. The decomposition reaction progresses in the SiC tube filled with a catalyst. In order to prevent
corrosion and to enhance heat exchange, SiC was adopted as material for the tube. Some important parameters of
the SO3 decomposer are given in Table 21 [259].
131
FIG. 87. JAEA shell-and-tube type SO3 decomposer [253].
TABLE 21. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SO3 DECOMPOSER
Heat duty 72 kW
Helium coolant flow rate 0.113 kg/s
Inlet temperature 880°C
Pressure 4.0 MPa
Process gas inlet flow rate 566 mol/h
Inlet composition 90 wt%-H2SO4
Process gas inlet/outlet temperature 560/850°C
Pressure 1.5 MPa
Tube inside/outside diameter 30/40 mm
Tube length 2m
Number of tubes 100
Heat transfer area 18.6 m2
Overall heat transfer coefficient K 0.656 W/(m·K)
Volume to fill catalyst 0.139 m3
132
FIG. 88. The JNC cycle as modification of Westinghouse cycle [59].
Since only efficient control of the composition in the HI section guarantees stable hydrogen production, in
situ composition measurement techniques are being studied. One option is the employment of radiation (gamma,
neutron) probes to measure transmittance through a multicomponent solution [260].
Studying the improvement of the HI section, Japan is concentrating on EED to increase the HI concentration
in the azeotropic HIx mixture solution by applying membrane technology [161]. Its technical challenges arise from
the fact that EED demands much electrical energy (thus decreasing cycle efficiency) and that the low mechanical
strength of the required membranes causes difficulties for scaling up the facility to a larger plant. Experimental data
so far have shown a concentration increase from 10 to 15 mol of HI per kg of H2O. Also the HI conversion ratio
could be increased from 22 to 61% at 450°C using special silica permselective membranes to separate the slightest
amount of H2 produced through catalytic activation in the reactor in order to shift the equilibrium toward the
decomposition of HI. Unreacted HI, remaining H2 and I2 is then cooled down, resulting in partial condensation of
I2. The liquid I2 is then separated and returned to the Bunsen section, while the rest is recycled to the hydrogen
permselective membrane reactor [252].
4.6.7.2. HyS cycle with fast breeder reactor
In Japan, the former JNC (now JAEA) suggested a modified Westinghouse cycle. It is a thermochemical and
electrolytic Hybrid Hydrogen Process in the Lower Temperature Range (HHLT), also called the JNC process, to be
connected to a sodium cooled fast breeder reactor (FBR) [261]. At a coolant outlet temperature of 500°C, typical of
an FBR, the decomposition fraction of SO3 is not more than ~8%, which, however, can be raised significantly if
electrolysis by ionic oxygen conductive solid electrolyte is applied (Fig. 88). The reaction equations are:
(1) 2 H2O + SO2 → H2SO4 + H2 (>100°C, E = 0.55 V)
(2) H2SO4 → H2O + SO3 (>450°C)
(3) SO3 → SO2 + 0.5 O2 (>500°C, E = 0.13 V)
where the required voltage for the SO3 splitting reaction is expected to be less than 0.2 V (0.13 V theoretical) at 500°C.
For the conceptual design of an FBR providing 395 MW(th) and 82 MW(e), hydrogen could be produced at a
rate of 47 000 Nm3/h assuming an overall efficiency of 42% [262]. A drawback of this cycle, however, and adding
to the investment cost, is the use of two electrolysers, one in a high concentration acid at lower temperatures and
one in a corrosive atmosphere at higher temperatures.
133
FIG. 89. Effect of ion beam mixing on corrosion resistance [266].
4.6.8. Experimental activities in the Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea began investigation of the S–I cycle in 2004 with the construction and operation of a
small scale process loop made of glass components for a hydrogen production rate of 40–100 Nm3/h. A simple
process for HIx decomposition based on EED and using a Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) silica based
catalyst was demonstrated in 2008 in three tests, each of 5 h continuous operation at atmospheric pressure and at a
hydrogen production rate of 3.5 L/h including iodine recycling. The next step will be a 200 L/h laboratory scale
facility to be operated under pressure [63, 263]. More experimental data are needed to fully understand the HI
process and to develop and validate thermophysical models. To avoid corrosion problems for HI components, the
materials selected are SiC and Hastelloy C.
The process heat exchanger for H2SO4 decomposition currently under investigation in the Republic of Korea
is composed of helium channels and sulphuric oxide gas channels. Due to the highly corrosive environment, a
composite material with a high temperature superalloy was chosen, where the surfaces in contact with the sulphuric
oxide gas are coated with a corrosion resistant, silicon carbide ceramic material. To avoid possible delamination
along the interface caused by different material properties between the basis material and the coating, the ion beam
mixing technology has been developed to smooth the change of material properties (Figs 89 and 90). This is a
process where, in a vacuum, the surface is treated with a beam of high energy ions to pass through the thin SiC film
and cause intermixing of the atoms in the surface area, forming a new solid phase different from the substrate or
film. Regarding the channels, a hybrid concept is being considered. The helium channels on the primary side have
a compact semicircular shape similar to PCHX. The sulphuric acid gas channels on the secondary side are of a plate
fin shape, providing sufficient space to install and replace the catalyst for the SO3 decomposition [264].
An H2SO4 decomposition unit was constructed and operated at 900°C and 1.5 MPa using a non-noble catalyst
(Cu/Fe/Al2O3) and ionic SO2 absorber. The O2 production rate was greater than 150 L/h [265]. The demonstration
of a pressurized S–I cycle is planned as the next step in 2009–2011, with H2SO4 decomposition at 1.7 MPa.
At KAERI, a 10 kW process heat exchanger test facility has been erected to study the component lifetime
(Fig. 91). It consists of a gas circulator, heaters, hot gas duct, PHX, air cooler and gas supply system. It is operated
on the primary side with nitrogen of temperatures up to 1000°C at 4–6 MPa at flow rates of 2 kg/min. On the
secondary side, the working fluid is SO3 gas of 950°C at 1 MPa and a rate of 1 kg/min, which is decomposed in the
PHX to SO2 and O2. The larger gas channels also take the catalyst. The material is SiC coated Hastelloy, with an ion
beam (N2) treatment applied to fix the ~1 µm SiC layer onto the substrate. So far the PHX has been tested over 88 h
with 250°C sulphuric acid [267].
134
FIG. 90. Mock-up for process heat exchanger investigations in the Republic of Korea [266].
CFD analysis has been applied to develop the concept of a direct heat exchanger for SO3 decomposition, as
shown in Fig. 92. It is based on a ceramic hollow fibre membrane module where the SO3 mixture (with SO2, O2,
H2SO4 and H2O) at 450°C is mixed with 920°C hot helium and catalytically (Al2O3) decomposed. This requires,
however, the successful development of a properly working ceramic membrane for separation of the He–SO2
mixture [268].
Since the equilibrium conversion yield of hydrogen iodide is very low, to obtain a high decomposition rate the
Republic of Korea has suggested the employment of a tank-in-series model for the HI decomposer (Fig. 93). This
consists of multiple cascade reactors where each is connected to a selective membrane in a helium chamber, in
order to maintain non-equilibrium conditions and thus enhance the decomposition rate [269].
4.6.9. Experimental activities in the United States of America
4.6.9.1. Sulphur–iodine cycle
As part of NERI and in collaboration with General Atomics, CEA and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL),
an integrated laboratory scale (ILS) loop for the S–I process has been designed, constructed and operated. A
S–I cycle ILS test loop at prototypical pressure and temperature conditions has been constructed by General
Atomics in collaboration with SNL and CEA-Saclay (Fig. 94) [270, 271]. CEA designed and tested the Bunsen
reaction section, while General Atomics took care of the HI decomposition section and SNL took care of the H2SO4
decomposition section. Construction and test operation of all sections was completed in 2008.
In the first phase, the ILS sections were operated in an open loop arrangement under design conditions, i.e. at
temperatures between 120 and 850°C and at pressures up to 2 MPa. The new countercurrent flow design of the
Bunsen reactor by CEA laid out for H2 production at a rate of ~110 NL/h was described in Section 4.6.3. For the
sulphuric acid decomposition, a bayonet type reactor was selected composed of an outer and inner SiC tube and
heated by an electric heater. HI decomposition was based on extractive distillation taking HIx feed with a 2:8:10
molar ratio of HI:H2O:I and using phosphoric acid for I removal.
The second phase dealt with initial integrated shakedown operations, control verification, transient response
tests and further process improvements. The system achieved a production rate of up to 75 standard litres of H2 per
hour. A flowsheet optimization made by France based on the reference model has shown efficiencies of around
135
FIG. 91. Photograph and schematic of the 10 kW gas loop for process heat exchanger testing at KAERI [265, 267].
40%. Recent results on HIx thermodynamic properties will probably lead to a lower efficiency. After successful
demonstration of closed loop operation at General Atomics, the project was concluded in April 2009 [271].
At SNL, as part of the NHI programme, a bayonet type heat exchanger and silicon carbide integrated catalytic
decomposer (SID) combining the functions of a boiler, superheater, decomposer and recuperator in a single unit has
been developed, as shown in Fig. 95 [272, 273]. The bayonet type decomposition reactor features internal
recuperation and allows all of the connections to be made at relatively low temperatures. While the materials
Teflon, Viton or steel are used in the low temperature regions (<200°C), SiC is used in the high temperature region.
136
FIG. 92. Concept of a directly heated SO3 decomposer system [268].
FIG. 93 . Tank-in-series model for a hydrogen iodide decomposer [269].
The components have non-wetting metal surfaces to avoid severe corrosion problems in contact with the hot acid.
The continuous recuperation of the exiting gas heating up the incoming acid gases provides an increase in
efficiency.
The bayonet decomposer consists of one closed-end tube coaxially aligned with an open-end tube to form two
concentric flow paths. A flow of concentrated sulphuric acid enters the SID and flows upwards through the outer
annulus of 2.7 mm width, is heated up in the boiler and superheater sections (total length: 622 mm) to ~700°C and
gasified into the components SO3 and H2O before reaching the catalytic region. Further heating to the maximum
operating temperature decomposes the acid vapours to SO2 and O2, which then flow downwards through an inner
annulus between the central quartz wall and the inner SiC tube of 0.56 mm width. The porous medium catalytic
region with a height of 229 mm is filled with spherical pellets, 4 mm in diameter, made of silicon with 1% Pt. Two
types of tests were conducted with SID, the first with variation of catalyst temperature and flow rate at atmospheric
pressure, and the second with variation of the pressure at constant flow rate.
Theoretical studies have been conducted with the CFD code FLUENT for the numerical simulation of the SID
unit, including the aspects of fluid flow, heat transfer and chemical reactions in the decomposer region. Different
shapes of catalyst pellets were examined as well as the effects of variation of flow rates, showing that numerical
results were consistent with the experimental results [273].
137
FIG. 94. ILS loop demonstration of S–I process at General Atomics [270].
FIG. 95. Schematic of the SNL silicon carbide integrated catalytic decomposer SID [272].
The bayonet acid decomposer approach was also used as the basis of the HyS process design in the related
study (see Section 3.4.3). The next steps will include testing of the multitube bayonet decomposer and the design,
construction and testing of a pilot scale plant with demonstration of a helium heated decomposer [274].
General Atomics proposed an extractive distillation technique that uses phosphoric acid (H3PO4) as a medium
to concentrate the HI solution by separating the iodine from HI/H2O and breaking the HI/H2O azeotrope [275].
138
FIG. 96. Glass–metal system for initial experiments in reactive distillation column [276].
However, the need for a third compound (phosphoric acid) in extractive distillation unfavourably complicates the
cycle. The phosphoric acid itself should be recovered through a separate cycle consuming a large amount of energy,
which reduces the efficiency. Due to the extreme corrosiveness of boiling phosphoric acid, the choice of materials
is essential. Ta alloys and Ag appear to have acceptable corrosion resistance.
In the USA, initial reactive distillation experiments have been conducted in a glass–metal system (Fig. 96) at
temperatures of 250–300°C and pressures of 2–4 MPa. Hydrogen generation could be measured continuously [276].
Catalysts applied to this reaction are platinum, palladium and ruthenium, but also others such as ceria (CeO2),
nickel and carbon. A theoretical analysis with reactive distillation has shown that the overall conversion will be
enhanced by 10–15% if the decomposing gas is replenished with much higher moles of liquid. This reflux liquid
also improves the reactive distillation column performance by taking iodine away from the reacting system. The
assessment of the energy consumption in this section of the S–I cycle, however, is still uncertain. Efforts have been
put into the development and validation of a reliable simulation with the Aspen Plus tool. The model developed has
been demonstrated to fairly describe phase equilibria of the HI–H2O–I2 ternary system, and it can be effectively
applied for mass and heat balance assessment [156].
139
FIG. 97. Electrolyser installed in SRNL test facility [163].
4.6.9.2. The hybrid sulphur cycle
Starting in 1976 with experimental activities, Westinghouse has proven the feasibility of all basic chemical
steps. By 1978, Westinghouse had demonstrated in a closed loop a 120 NL/h production on a laboratory scale. FZJ
in cooperation with JRC Ispra successfully realized the operation of a three-compartment electrolysis cell at 80°C
and 1.5 MPa in a 600 h run. The H2 production rate was 10 NL/h. FZJ also verified the heat consuming step of
sulphuric acid splitting on bench scale under HTGR conditions at 4 MPa and with 950°C heat from an electrical
furnace [277].
SRNL has based its work on the use of PEM technology which promises high electrochemical efficiency and
competitiveness of capital costs. SRNL completed a 100 h test on a single-cell SO2 depolarized electrolyser (SDE)
for use in the HyS cycle, and started testing of a multicell electrolyser (Fig. 97). Recent work at SNL also resulted
in further process improvements. A flowsheet study using the process analyser software Aspen Plus resulted in a
net efficiency for hydrogen production by the HyS hybrid cycle connected to a helium cooled reactor of 48.8%
(HHV) [278]. This assessment is based on a nuclear heat input at 900°C, an SDE operation at 100°C and 2 MPa, an
H2SO4 concentration of 65% and a cell voltage of 0.525 V [163].
The next steps will be the scaling up of the electrolyser active cell area to 400 cm2, and later 1000 cm2, the
demonstration of a full scale single tube decomposer, the operation of a 300 kW pilot plant, and eventually the
engineering scale demonstration of the HyS cycle [274].
140
5. NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
5.1. REQUIREMENTS OF A NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION SYSTEM
5.1.1. New generation nuclear reactors
The next generation of nuclear reactors (Generation IV) is expected to be introduced in about 20–30 years
from now. The concepts of such reactors, however, are being developed today based on requirements leading to
further progress of the nuclear technology by addressing the areas of safety and reliability, proliferation resistance
and physical protection, economics, and sustainability [279].
5.1.1.1. Safety and reliability
In the future, nuclear power will require a further enhancement of the safety standards. Safer operation of
nuclear reactors can be obtained by designs with a very low probability and degree of core damage, minimal
consequences even after severe accidents and limitation of the consequences to the plant site. The accident
management will be further improved such that the public will not be affected and off-site emergency response will
be almost unnecessary. This can be achieved through a robust design, a high level of inherent safety and transparent
safety features, and by sharing experience on an international basis. In order to be competitive, reliability and
performance must be at a very high level that is achievable by considering both technical improvements and the
improvement of individual and organizational performance.
5.1.1.2. Proliferation resistance and physical protection
International safeguards must be strengthened against misuse of fissile material by diversion of weapons-
usable material during enrichment and reprocessing activities. Controlling and securing nuclear material can be
provided for by modified design features or other innovative measures and international policies to make potential
diversion or theft or a sabotage act unattractive, and to make dispersion of material more difficult. A robust design
is also a means to protect against actions related to war or terrorism.
5.1.1.3. Sustainability
Sustainability as the ability to meet the needs of both the present and future generations is mainly looked at in
terms of nuclear fuel supply over a long period of time and spent fuel management with the requirement of meeting
environmental objectives. The fuel resources available are essential, as is and reactor deployment for each potential
fuel cycle such as the once-through approach, modified open cycle or fuel reprocessing. Prolonged availability of
resources can be achieved by breeding new fissile material or by recycling used fuel. Future radioactive waste
management must include processes leading to significantly reduced quantities of waste to be safely stored,
transported and disposed of. Furthermore, a considerable reduction in toxicity and a lifetime not significantly
longer than its natural limits will simplify the requirements of a safe operation of the repositories.
5.1.1.4. Economics
The development toward a simpler reactor design, economical plant sizes and life cycles, and improvement of
the plant’s efficiency will help in achieving costs competitive with those of other energy options. The economic risk
can be reduced by employing modular reactor designs and using improved or innovative construction techniques.
Future nuclear reactors must also be flexible in meeting the need for energy products other than electricity. The
penetration of non-electricity markets by supplying process heat/steam for district heating, seawater desalination or
hydrogen generation will enhance efficiencies and thus competitiveness.
141
5.1.2. The Generation IV International Forum initiative
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was founded in 2000 as a joint initiative of nine countries
(Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, United Kingdom, USA), later joined
by Switzerland (2002), Euratom (2003), China and the Russian Federation (both in 2006). The main objective is the
development of the fourth generation of nuclear reactors between 2030 and 2040; apart from being safer, more
reliable, more economically viable and more proliferation-resistant, these reactors are also expected to penetrate
non-electrical markets such as the supply of process heat (e.g. for hydrogen production) on a large scale.
After the evaluation of some 100 potential Generation IV designs that had been suggested, the GIF agreed in
2002 to continue studies on six selected nuclear reactor designs that were deemed to meet the above requirements
and to be deployable in due time [279]:
— Gas cooled fast reactor (GFR) system;

— Lead cooled fast reactor (LFR) system;
— Molten salt cooled reactor (MSR) system;
— Sodium cooled fast reactor (SFR);
— Supercritical water cooled reactor (SCWR) system;
— Very high temperature reactor (VHTR).
The Generation IV concepts are designed for higher coolant temperatures than most of today’s nuclear
reactors. This will enable future reactors to generate electricity at a higher efficiency as well as heat or steam, which
can be transferred to various processes depending on the temperature level provided. All proposed Generation IV
systems are able to supply heat for lower temperature industrial processes (< ~500°C).
All systems are intended to have a long service lifetime of 60 years. Except for the VHTR and one of the two
types of SCWR with a once-through cycle, all systems are designed for a closed cycle allowing an actinide
management by generating fissile material and using recycled fuel, thus alleviating the radioactive waste issue. The
three fast reactor designs offer the possibility of burning all actinides to further reduce waste. All six reactor
concepts could produce hydrogen.
In expectation of significantly increased demand for hydrogen in the future, mass production of hydrogen is a
major goal for Generation IV systems. Due to the need for high temperature heat, the systems of interest in this
context will be basically the helium cooled reactors GFR and VHTR, the MSR and also one of the LFR designs
appropriate to be linked with a H2 production system. The principal methods of future nuclear hydrogen generation
considered are the water splitting processes of thermochemical cycles and high temperature steam electrolysis.
The overall advancement in the development of individual road maps for all Generation IV nuclear reactor
systems will be made based on long term R&D in three distinct phases:
— The viability phase to investigate whether the basic concepts and key technologies and processes are feasible
under the given conditions;
— The performance phase to verify and optimize processes, phenomena and material capabilities at an
engineering level;
— The demonstration phase to licence, construct and operate a prototype plant.
5.1.2.1. Gas cooled fast reactor
The GFR system (Fig. 98) features a fast spectrum helium cooled reactor and closed fuel cycle. The high
outlet temperature of the helium coolant of 850°C makes it possible to deliver electricity and process heat with high
conversion efficiency. The GFR uses a direct Brayton cycle helium turbine for electricity and can provide process
heat for the production of hydrogen. Through the combination of a fast neutron spectrum and full recycling of
actinides, GFRs minimize the production of long lived radioactive waste isotopes.
The active core is composed of prismatic blocks. A potential fuel design is composite ceramic–ceramic fuel
(cercer) with closely packed, coated (U,Pu)C kernels or fibres, or, alternatively, ceramic clad, solid solution metal
(cermet) fuels. The reference fuel design currently being considered is a ceramic plate matrix with a honeycomb
inner structure containing small fuel cylinders. The need for a high density of heavy nuclei in the fuel leads to
142
FIG. 98. Generation IV gas cooled fast reactor system [279].
actinide–carbides (mixed Pu–U carbides) as the reference fuel and actinide–nitrides. The matrix material is silicon
carbide. The reference power size is 600 MW(th)/275 MW(e) to be utilized for electricity production, hydrogen
production and cogeneration.
5.1.2.2. Lead cooled fast reactor
LFR systems are Pb or Pb–Bi alloy cooled reactors with a fast neutron spectrum and closed fuel cycle for
efficient conversion of fertile fuel and actinide management. The favourable neutronics of Pb and Pb–Bi coolants
enable low power density, natural circulation cooled reactors with fissile self-sufficient core designs that hold their
reactivity over their very long refuelling interval. The plant sizes considered are small (50-150 MW(e)), medium
(300-400 MW(e)) and large (1200 MW(e)). The small battery option operates on a very long refuelling interval
(15–20 a), with a cassette core for electricity production on small grids contributing to proliferation resistance. On
the other hand, this concept has the largest R&D needs and longest development time.
The LFR is cooled by natural convection with a reactor outlet temperature of 550°C. The longer term option
seeks to further exploit the inherent safety features and controllability advantages of a heat transport circuit with
large thermal inertia and a coolant that remains at ambient pressure. The coolant outlet temperature should be raised
sufficiently to enter markets for hydrogen and process heat, possibly as merchant plants. LFRs hold potential for
advances compared with state of the art liquid metal fast reactors in the following areas.
The nearer term options use metal alloy fuel or nitride fuel if available, containing fertile U and transuranics.
Metal alloy fuel pin performance at 550ºC and U/TRU/Zr metal alloy recycling and remote refabrication
143
technologies are already substantially developed in sodium cooled systems. Mixed nitride fuel is also possible for
the 550ºC options; however, it is clearly required for the higher temperature option.
Low pressures in the primary system allow a decrease of thickness of the vessel walls. The favourable
properties of Pb coolant and nitride fuel, combined with high temperature structural materials, can extend the
reactor coolant outlet temperature into the 750–800ºC range in the long term. In this option, the Bi alloying agent is
eliminated, and the less corrosive properties of Pb help to enable the use of new high temperature materials. The
required R&D is more extensive than that required for the 550ºC options because of the new structural materials
and nitride fuel to be developed.
A safety relevant drawback of Pb and Pb–Bi coolants (unlike Na) is the tendency of erosion and corrosion of
steels. Therefore, it has to be ensured that steel surfaces are always covered with a protective oxide layer.
Furthermore, fast reactor structural materials are exposed to a much stronger neutron flux and a harder neutron
spectrum than the structural materials of thermal reactors [280].
5.1.2.3. Molten salt reactor
MSRs are being considered for a reference electric output of 1000 MW(e) and can be used for electricity
production, hydrogen production and cogeneration. Furthermore, they can be used for transmutation (almost to
completion). MSRs are fuelled with uranium or plutonium dissolved in a mixture of molten fluorides, with Na and
Zr fluorides as the primary option. This molten salt fuel flows through graphite core channels and creates an
epithermal neutron spectrum. The coolant with an outlet temperature of ~700°C transfers the heat via intermediate
heat exchangers to a secondary and then to a tertiary circuit before arriving at the power conversion system. MSRs
have the following unique characteristics, which may afford advances:
— Good neutron economy, opening alternatives for actinide burning and/or high conversion;
— Low fissile inventory, increasing resistance to proliferation;
— Inherent safety afforded by fail-safe drainage, passive cooling and a low inventory of volatile fission products
in the fuel;
— Refuelling, processing and fission product removal that can be performed on-line, potentially yielding high
availability;
— Actinide feeds of widely varying composition to the homogenous salt solution without the blending and
fabrication needed by solid fuel reactors.
Fluoride salts with higher solubility for actinides such as NaF/ZrF4, but also for thorium, are preferred for this
option. Salts with lower potential for tritium production would be preferred if hydrogen production were the
objective. Lithium and beryllium fluorides would be preferred if high conversion were the objective. The reactor
may be started using LEU, but can also use 238U or 232Th as a fertile fuel dissolved as fluorides in the molten salts.
Operating temperatures of MSRs range from the melting point of eutectic fluorine salts (about 450°C) to below the
chemical compatibility temperature of nickel based alloys (about 800°C). The high melting point of the coolant
implies the requirement of external heating devices and the need to prevent freeze-up during operation.
The main objective of the fuel characterization research is to determine the optimum process for separating fission
products, including lanthanides, without removal of minor actinides. The fuel salt has to meet requirements that include
neutronic properties (low neutron cross-section for the solvent components, radiation stability, negative temperature
coefficient), thermal and transport properties (low melting point, thermal stability, low vapour pressure, adequate heat
transfer and viscosity), chemical properties (high solubility of fuel components, compatibility with container and
moderator materials, ease of fuel reprocessing), compatibility with waste forms, and low fuel and processing costs.
(A) Experience with MSRs
An extensive database on molten salt reactors was built up in the 1950–1970s in the USA (ORNL) and the
then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In the USA, MSR systems were tested in two experimental reactors.
Molten salt reactors were first proposed in 1943 for a nuclear powered aircraft. In the ‘Aircraft Reactor Experiment’
of 1954 with 2.5 MW(th) power, which operated for several days with a fluoride molten salt (NaF/ZrF4) system,
peak temperatures up to 880°C were achieved [281].
144
In order to be used as a breeder, the MSR must have a low fission product inventory, i.e. it must be purified
frequently by liquid extraction methods. In the two-fluid breeder version, U and Th were kept in different fluids
separated by graphite walls. An 8 MW(th) MSR experiment (MSRE) with a thermal neutron spectrum and a
thorium fuel cycle was constructed and was operated from 1965 until 1969. It demonstrated safe operation with a
Li/Be fluoride salt as well as flexibility and ease in handling of the 233U fuel. The problems encountered were
radiation hardening of the Hastelloy N material and tritium production from the lithium. The early MSR
programme was eventually discontinued, since it was in competition with the more supported fast breeder
programme [281].
(B) Aqueous homogeneous reactor (AHR)
The so-called AHR was originally designed in Los Alamos [197]. Its characteristic feature is the fuel, which
is uranium sulphate or uranium nitrate dissolved in either light or heavy water and acting as a coolant and
moderator, and circulating continuously between the reactor core and a processing plant where unwanted
radioactivity was removed. Due to its self-controlling features, it is considered a very safe reactor. The first
homogeneous liquid fuel reactors, operated since 1944, were mainly used for nuclear experiments, benefiting from
the high neutron fluxes that at the same time caused the problem of metal corrosion. AHRs, however, never
developed to the commercial stage. As of 2006, only five AHRs were being operated, mainly for the production of
medical isotopes, which can be easily extracted directly from the nitric acid base fuel solution. One example is the
20 kW(th) ARGUS reactor in operation at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow since 1981.
These reactors were originally given the name ‘water boiler’ due to the observed bubbling of the liquid fuel.
The bubbles are hydrogen and oxygen gas formed by radiolytic dissociation of the water from ionizing irradiation
of fission products or, accounting for a small percentage, of neutron and gamma radiation. Based on this
phenomenon, hydrogen production by diverting thermal neutrons into an aqueous blanket was considered, but
never matured. The principal problems of AHRs were the corrosive nature of the fuel, the retention of radioactivity,
the continuous fission product removal and the explosive nature of the radiolysis products.
5.1.2.4. Sodium cooled fast reactor
The interest in SFRs is principally guided by their ability in terms of management of uranium resources, high
level wastes, and particularly plutonium and other actinides. Fast reactors with a fully closed cycle promise a
reduction in uranium demand and transuranium (TRU) waste by two orders of magnitude compared with
conventional LWRs. SFRs also offer, of course, the option of electricity production, which may be extended later to
hydrogen production and cogeneration, although interest in process heat applications with liquid metal cooled
reactors is relatively new. Plant sizes range from modular systems of a few hundred MW(e) to large monolithic
reactors of ~1500 MW(e). The sodium coolant allows efficient heat transfer and ensures high fuel power rates with
core outlet temperatures of typically 530–550ºC. Fuel options for the SFR are MOX and mixed U–Pu–Zr metal
alloy. Further studies will investigate the behaviour of the fuel containing minor actinides, processes for their
recycling and refabrication into new fuel, and decay heat removal from the core under accident conditions.
Another major safety feature is that the primary system operates at essentially atmospheric pressure,
pressurized only to the extent needed to move the fluid. Potential hazards are given due to its chemical reaction with
air and water, and due to boiling if accident temperatures exceed 900°C. To improve safety, a secondary sodium
system acts as a buffer between the radioactive sodium in the primary system and the steam or water that is
contained in the conventional Rankine cycle power plant. A large margin to coolant boiling could be achieved by
design.
Sodium cooled liquid metal reactors are technologically well developed. Demonstration plants in several
countries ranged from 1.1 MW(th) (EBR-I in 1951) to 1200 MW(e) (Superphénix in 1985). Today, SFRs are
operating in Japan, France and the Russian Federation. In 1988, the European fast reactor (EFR) collaboration was
founded aiming at the design of a large scale, MOX fuelled monolithic SFR. But there is also interest in smaller
modular type units, and even battery type (< 100 MW(e)) units. Most of the experience available is from Russian
submarine reactors and the former US Integrated Fast Reactor programme [280].
145
FIG. 99. Generation IV supercritical water cooled reactor system [279].
5.1.2.5. Supercritical water cooled reactor
The supercritical water cooled reactor (SCWR), originally proposed by the University of Tokyo in 1989, is a
high temperature, high pressure water cooled reactor with no flow recirculation system and a direct cycle primary
system (Fig. 99), and can be seen as the evolutionary development of today’s conventional LWRs. SCWRs are
operating above the thermodynamic critical point of water (374°C, 22.1 MPa). These systems have an epithermal
neutron spectrum, but depending on the core design, may have a thermal or fast neutron spectrum. Reference power
size is an output of 1700 MW(e). High pressure coolant of 25 MPa is heated from 280°C to about 510°C and
delivered to a power conversion cycle. SCWRs have unique features that may offer advantages compared to state of
the art LWRs, including:
— Excellent economy with high thermal efficiencies of up to 44%;

— Lower coolant mass flow rate per unit thermal power, offering a reduction in pumping power and reactor
equipment;
— No risk of boiling crisis (i.e. dry-out) owing to the absence of a second phase in the reactor, thereby avoiding
discontinuous heat transfer regimes during normal operation;
— Simpler design, since steam dryers, steam separators, recirculation pumps and steam generators are
eliminated;
— Extension to hydrogen production and cogeneration at a later stage.
A number of SCWRs are currently under development. The two main lines being followed are a large reactor
pressure vessel with ~0.5 m wall thickness to contain the core, and reactor designs that use distributed pressure
tubes analogous to the CANDU reactors. Operating pressures are about 25 MPa with coolant outlet temperatures of
625°C, which facilitates process heat applications. Direct supercritical water cycles with the turbine technology are
already available [282].
146
FIG. 100. Generation IV very high temperature reactor plus hydrogen production system [279].
State of the art supercritical steam cycles in conventional power plants are mostly designed with a single
steam reheat and regenerative feedwater heating reaching efficiencies of up to 54%. In principle, each steam reheat
process increases the thermal efficiency of the cycle. It also reduces the amount of moisture in the last stages of the
turbine that must be removed. A single steam reheat raises the efficiency by about 3–4% compared with no-reheat.
However, more than two reheat processes are not practicable, since equipment cost would increase with each reheat
stage. Therefore, using the high temperature heat from an SCWR to heat water in the hydrogen production loop is a
viable option. Recuperator type heat exchangers have to be used [283].
5.1.2.6. Very high temperature gas reactor
A highly promising Generation IV reactor concept is the VHTR (Fig. 100). Its characteristic features are a
helium cooled, graphite moderated, graphite reflected, thermal neutron spectrum reactor core with a reference
thermal power production of 600 MW(th) and an electricity output of 275 MW(e). The reactor core type of the
VHTR can be a prismatic block core or a pebble bed core. Coolant outlet temperatures of 900–1000°C are ideally
suited for a whole spectrum of high temperature process heat applications. For electricity generation, the helium gas
turbine system can be directly set in the primary coolant loop. The employment of a direct cycle gas turbine allows
for a high efficiency of more than 50%. The basic technology for the VHTR has been well established in former
HTGR plants and in the broad experience from research projects (see also Section 5.3.1).
The safety basis for all VHTR concepts is to design the reactor to a very high degree of passive safety to avoid
release of fission products under all conditions of normal operation and accidents, including beyond design basis
events. The VHTR system is a nuclear reactor concept with an easily understood safety basis that permits
substantially reduced emergency planning requirements and improved siting flexibility compared with other
nuclear technologies. Still, further R&D efforts are necessary, including on the performance of graphite and fuel.
The proliferation resistance feature of the VHTR is mainly given by the fuel itself. To obtain a significant quantity
of either uranium or plutonium from the LEU fuel requires large quantities of 14C-contaminated carbon to be
removed and further efforts by grind–leach, burn–leach or electrolysis in nitric acid to obtain a small amount of
nuclear material from the TRISO coated particles. For irradiated LEU fuel, the high burnup of spent fuel provides
highly radioactive fuel with poor plutonium isotopic composition for weapons usage.
The VHTR system is considered the prime candidate for large scale hydrogen production. Furthermore,
cogeneration of heat and power makes the VHTR an attractive heat source for large industrial complexes. The
147
VHTR could be deployed in refineries and petrochemical industries to substitute large amounts of process heat at
different temperatures, including hydrogen generation for upgrading heavy and sour crude oil. Core outlet
temperatures of 1000°C and higher would expand nuclear heat applications to such processes as steel, aluminium
oxide and aluminium production. Heat application processes are generally coupled with the reactor through an
intermediate heat exchanger.
5.1.2.7. Generation IV reactor summary
The principal characteristic features of the above Generation IV nuclear reactor systems are summarized in
Table 22.
5.1.3. The INPRO initiative
An international initiative complementary to GIF started in 2000 by the IAEA, called the International Project
on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). As of 2009, 30 Member States plus the European
Commission were participating in INPRO. Both the IAEA and OECD/NEA are participating as observers to GIF.
While the GIF is serving essentially as a designers’ initiative, INPRO also includes other countries and has a
longer time horizon. It incorporates IAEA safeguard considerations more directly, encompassing both designers
and end users and their requirements. Nuclear energy is considered in the broader perspective of future energy
needs, and problems are addressed from the point of view of potential users — especially those in developing
countries, for example, with small grids and/or those interested in desalination and nuclear cogeneration of heat and
power — by identifying their specific needs. A methodology for the assessment of innovative nuclear reactors and
fuel cycles has been developed [284], which is currently being applied on a national basis by Argentina, India, the
Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation.
5.2. REQUIREMENTS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
Most industries need to rely on a secure and affordable supply of energy to guarantee continuous and reliable
operation of their process units. Ensuring supply security by diversifying the primary energy carriers and, at the same
time, limiting the effects of energy consumption on the environment will become more important goals in the future.
The industrial requirement of full availability and reliability must be realized by an additional plant. Having a
large scale plant and a second large one as a backup system might be an unreasonably high investment. Backup
units could, of course, also be provided by fossil fired boilers. While gas fired boiler fuel costs are high, the capital
costs are low compared to those of extra nuclear capacity. Also, the ramp-up time for a gas fired boiler idling at
temperature and pressure is very short [285]. A modular arrangement of 2–6 nuclear units, depending on the
industrial plant size, will be necessary for redundancy, reliability and reserve capacity, all reasons that again reduce
the power size per modular unit. The arrangement could comprise multiple identical reactor modules or multiple
reactor modules of differing ratings and configurations. Smaller power sizes allow for simplicity and robustness by
higher safety margins, even at higher operational temperatures. One of the reactors would be typically operated for
electricity generation, but could easily and quickly be switched to process heat supply if necessary [286]. The
facility power plants may dispatch electrical power to the grid or take power from the grid depending on the price
of electricity from the grid and the cost of facility generation. Power is also taken from the grid to augment the
facility power supplies if necessary to meet facility demand. The demands for steam, electricity and high
temperature gas will vary within certain ranges. Further design capabilities are [287]:
— Acceptance of a full load rejection from either steam, electrical or high temperature gas demand;
— Acceptance of zero steam flow demand, zero power demand and/or zero high temperature gas demand;
— Accommodation of coincident steam, electrical and high temperature gas demand.
A pebble bed reactor design would further enhance availability because of its on-line refuelling capability,
which eliminates the requirement for periodic refuelling outages. The small power size of modular HTGRs is also
favourable for operation in less developed electrical grids.
148
TABLE 22. MAIN FEATURES OF THE SIX GENERATION IV NUCLEAR REACTOR CONCEPTS
GFR LFR MSR SFR SCWR VHTR
Reference thermal 600 125–400 2250 1000–3800 3900 600

power (MW) 3600
Power density 100 ~70 22 350 100 6–10

(MW/m3)
Reference electric 275 50 1000 150 1700 275

power (MW(e)) 1200 1500
Efficiency (%) 48 33–40 44–50 39 41–44 >50

Neutron spectrum Fast Fast Epithermal-thermal Fast (a) Thermal  Thermal
(b) Fast
Fuel cycle Closed Closed Closed Closed (a) Open Open

(b) Closed
Conversion ratio Self-sufficient 1.0 0.5–1.3
Coolant Helium Lead,  Fluoride UF salt Sodium Water Helium

lead-bismuth
Coolant inlet/ 490/850 /550 565/700–850 /530–550 280/510 640/1000

outlet temp. (°C) /750–800
Pressure (MPa) 9 0.1 ~0.1 25

238
Fuel U and 20% Pu Metal alloy or nitride Liquid mixture of MOX, minor actinides, UO2, MOX stainless UO2 ZrC-TRISO coated
in composite ceramics with 238U and TRU Na-, Zr-, U-fluorides Zr oxide or metal alloy steel or Ni alloy cladding particles in pebble or prism
Main purpose Electricity, actinide Electricity, actinide Electricity, actinide Electricity, actinide Electricity, actinide H2 production, electricity,
management management management management management actinide management
149
FIG. 101. Temperature ranges in production and use for Generation IV reactor systems [289].
In industrial applications of nuclear process heat, the hot coolant will transfer its heat to the chemical process
via an intermediate heat exchanger. The main purpose of the intermediate circuit is to clearly isolate the chemical
from the nuclear island. In this way, the direct access of primary coolant to the chemical plant and, in the reverse
direction, of product gases to the reactor building can be prevented. Thus it is possible to design the chemical side
as a purely conventional facility and to have possible repair works being conducted under non-nuclear conditions.
The operation of the nuclear and the industrial facilities will be taken care of by separate companies, with each
being liable for its own activities and meeting the respective regulations. On the chemical side, there are certainly
many companies operating different chemical facilities.
The reactor coolant and its maximum temperature are essential criteria for determining which nuclear
concepts are appropriate for coupling with hydrogen production processes. Figure 101 shows coolant outlet
temperatures of the Generation IV concepts ranging between 550 and 1000°C compared with the process heat
temperature ranges needed for various chemical processes. Coolant exit temperatures of the reactor at full load must
be maintained at all levels of partial load. The coolant outlet temperature needed for the chemical processes should
be about 50°C above the bulk process temperature [288]. As far as the maximum helium temperature is concerned,
a value of 900°C is already suited for steam reforming applications. A value of 950°C, however, would significantly
reduce the heat transfer area and improve efficiency, which is a potential for the future. The maximum coolant exit
temperature of 1000°C remains a challenge to both reactor fuel and metallic materials (reactor pressure vessel,
thermal barriers, etc.).
In contrast to electricity generation, the needs and requirements of industrial end users for process heat
applications are much more versatile in terms of power, temperature, transient capability, availability, reliability and
flexibility. The nuclear plant should be able to be switched between the operation modes of heat production only or
electricity production only. Furthermore, a variation of the nuclear power output should be possible within a
reasonable range. The transient capabilities of the reactor under normal or accident conditions have to match with
the transient loads imposed by the industrial processes, requiring a common control strategy for both islands. Buffer
capacities need to be provided. The difference in lifetime requirements should also be considered, which is in the
range of 60 years for a nuclear plant and about 20 years for processing plants.
Of particular significance is the consideration of conceivable operation disturbances or accidents in such
combined nuclear and chemical facilities. Apart from their own specific categories of accidents, a qualitatively new
150
class of events, characterized by interacting influences, will have to be taken into account. The problems that need to
be addressed by an appropriate overall safety concept are the question of the safety of the nuclear plant in the case of
an explosion of a flammable gas on the chemical side, or vice versa, the question of what influence an accident-
induced release of radioactivity will have on the continuation of operation of the chemical plant. But there are also the
more frequently expected cases of thermodynamic feedback in the case of a loss of heat source (nuclear) or heat sink
(chemical).
The main safety concern in oil refineries is fire and explosion. For this reason, nuclear plants should be
located in separate zones, away from hazardous areas, and should be operated independent of the conventional
refinery side. Other constraints on the choice of location of the nuclear plant will be given by the need to be close to
the industrial site, i.e. feedstocks, fuel, transportation or other resources [81]. Due to the limitation of the
consequences to the plant site, as is expected from a Generation IV nuclear reactor, the typically defined evacuation
area will not overlap with the industrial site.
5.3. PROCESS HEAT HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTOR DESIGN
5.3.1. Experience with HTGRs
Graphite moderated, gas cooled reactors (GCRs) have been in operation since the 1950s, with unit sizes of up
to 670 MW(e). The first commercial plant was Chinon in France, a CO2 cooled Magnox type reactor with
70 MW(e) starting in 1957. The next generation of GCRs was the advanced gas cooled reactor (AGR) operating
with CO2 as the coolant at higher outlet temperatures (~650°C) and a pressure of 4.3 MPa, and with higher
efficiencies. The first commercial plant, Dungeness B in the United Kingdom with 1110 MW(e) in two units, was
started in 1983. The final stage of GCR development is represented by the HTGR. GCRs have accumulated more
than 600 operation years so far. A comprehensive outline of the historical development of GCRs in the world is
given in Ref. [290].
HTGRs are characterized by an all-ceramic core, a core structure made of graphite as a moderator and
reflector, helium gas as a single phase inert coolant, coated particle fuel and a low power density core. The use of
refractory core materials combined with a helium coolant allows high coolant temperatures up to 950°C or even
higher, and a high thermal efficiency results in a number of significant advantages. The low power density and large
heat capacity of the graphitic core, the absence of coolant phase changes and the prompt negative temperature
coefficient represent inherent safety advantages.
Direct experience with HTGR plants up to now has been gathered in the United Kingdom, Germany, the
USA, Japan and China. A total of seven units have been constructed. Their main characteristic features are given in
Table 23. Experience with HTGR plants started in the 1960s with the construction of experimental reactors — the
20 MW(th) Dragon in Winfrith, UK, which was a joint project of the OECD countries, the 46 MW(th) AVR reactor
in Jülich, Germany, and the 115 MW(th) Peach Bottom power plant in the USA. All three mainly served as research
instruments and were operated with high availability. In addition, the plants in Germany and the USA were also
able to generate a significant amount of electricity. There was also an experimental GCR in the USA designed for a
very high coolant outlet temperature of 1320°C. The 3 MW(th) He cooled Ultra High Temperature Reactor
Experiment (UHTREX) built at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in the late 1960s was mainly used for high
enriched uranium (HEU) UC2 fuel testing.
Two HTGR prototype plants have been developed as a follow-on step: the 330 MW(e) Fort St. Vrain (FSV)
reactor in the USA and the 300 MW(e) Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR-300) in Germany. The former
used a prismatic core, while the latter used a pebble bed core, both being connected to a conventional steam cycle.
These demonstration units, however, were not very successful during their several years of operation, mainly
suffering from technological problems (which could be solved), and they eventually lacked the political and
financial support at a time where the severe accidents of Three Mile Island in the USA and, in particular, of
Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union strongly influenced worldwide public acceptance of nuclear energy. But both
plants proved the feasibility of larger sized HTGRs and the operation of related system components, and provided
experience from an additional 17 years of operation, which is beneficial for future designs. None of the five HTGRs
is currently in operation. The only HTGRs currently in operation are the test reactors in Japan and China.
151
The Japanese High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) is a 30 MW(th) experimental reactor
which became critical in 1998. The active core, with 2.9 m of total height and 2.3 m in diameter, is composed of
150 hexagonal fuel assemblies. The average outlet temperature of the helium coolant is 850–950°C. The heat is
removed by a water cooler only or, in a parallel operation mode, 20 MW(th) by water cooler and 10 MW(th) via an
IHX to a secondary helium circuit. The latter is for testing process heat application conditions. JAEA demonstrated
the feasibility of reaching an outlet temperature of up to 950°C, with ~900°C heat transferred through the IHX to
the secondary circuit that could be coupled to a heat utilization process.
The Chinese HTR-10 with a pebble bed core producing a power of 10 MW(th) was built at the Institute for
Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) of the Tsinghua University and is also basically a research tool. First
criticality was achieved in 2000. The active core consists of some 27 000 fuel spheres with low enriched (17%) UO2
TRISO particles. Coolant outlet temperatures are 700 and 900°C. The reactor core and steam generator are housed
in two steel pressure vessels in a side-by-side arrangement. Operational experience has been acquired with regard
to system and component performance. Experiments have been conducted to demonstrate the safety features of
modular HTGR designs. Experience has been obtained in the design, construction, operation and licensing of
modular HTGRs. In addition, active R&D programmes are being carried out on helium turbine technology
(HTR-10GT). By the end of 2007, the HTR-10 had been in operation for 569 d and had accumulated 2503.4 MW·d.
A modernization of the HTR-10 is planned in terms of more instrumentation. The experimental working
programme includes long term operation of the reactor, fuel irradiation and more steam cycle investigations.
The experience achieved with HTGR operation so far has shown a steady improvement of components and
fuel. Safety tests in the AVR and more recently in the HTTR and HTR-10 confirmed the predicted excellent
physical behaviour of the core under abnormal operating conditions.
5.3.2. General design of a process heat HTGR
The trend toward large sized plants, originally following the size of commercial LWRs, was gradually
abandoned in the 1980s in favour of small modular type HTGRs which have been used since in many variants for
future reactors. Although lacking the advantage of economies of scale, modular type HTGRs are attractive because
of the simplicity of design, lower capital costs and the fact that they serve the lower-power market, with a number
of appropriate candidates in deregulated industrial countries or developing countries. In particular, the tall and slim
core geometry allows for the inherent temperature limitation of the fuel temperature due to a self-acting decay heat
removal which works on the physical processes of heat conduction, radiation and free convection such that the
maximum fuel temperature under loss of forced convection (LOFC) accident conditions remains below 1600°C, a
level that can be sustained by the fuel without further damage.
The production of high quality steam at 530°C and 15 MPa in an HTGR allows the operation of a steam
turbine prior to the ‘normal’ steam application system for electricity production. The operation of such a process
heat HTGR is flexible in the choice of the coolant temperature at steam generator inlet such that the product steam
could be adjusted to the needs of the chemical industrial plant. The efficiencies possible are 40–43% for the
electricity generating system with steam turbine, up to 48% with a closed cycle gas turbine and even up to 50% with
a combination of both. In the CHP mode, the efficiencies are estimated in the range of 80–90%.
The traditional power conversion cycle is the Rankine steam cycle, where temperatures of ~550°C are
achieved. An advanced feature introduced for various HTGR concepts is the direct Brayton power cycle
technology, where high temperature heat is directly converted to electricity, with efficiencies of over 50%
achievable, depending on the temperature.
There are two main parameters in the regulation concept for the nuclear process heat production system:
— The life steam temperature at the steam generator outlet, which can be regulated with helium flow rate
(blower), which is sufficiently flexible;
— In the case of larger changes, the helium temperature at the reactor outlet, which can be regulated with a
change of thermal power production (position of control rods).
Also in the case of accidents, a reactor core designed for a 950°C gas outlet temperature will operate at higher
fuel element temperatures than an identical reactor designed for only a 700°C gas outlet temperature.
152
TABLE 23. MAIN FEATURES OF HTGRs WHICH WERE OR ARE BEING OPERATED
Dragon AVR Peach Bottom Ft. St. Vrain THTR-300 HTTR HTR-10
(OECD) (Germany) (USA) (USA) (Germany) (Japan) (China)
Reactor type Experimental Experimental Experimental Prototype Prototype Experimental Experimental
First criticality 1964 1966 1967 1974 1983 1998 2000
Out operation (status) 1975 1988 1974 1988 1988 — —

(safe encl.) (defuelled) (safe encl.) (defuelled) (safe encl.) (operation) (operation)
Thermal power (MW) 20 46 115 842 750 30 10
Electric power (MW) — 15 40 330 300 — —
Power density (MW(th)/m3) 14 2.6 8.3 6.3 6 2.5 2
He inlet/outlet temp. (°C) 350/750 270/850, 950 377/750 405/784 270/750 385/850, 950 250, 350/700
He pressure (MPa) 2.06 1.1 2.5 4.9 3.9 4.0 3.0
Fuel element type Pin Spherical Pin Prismatic Spherical Pin-in-block Spherical
Fuel Oxide Carbide/Oxide Carbide Carbide Oxide Oxide Oxide
Enrichment HEU, LEU HEU, LEU HEU HEU HEU LEU LEU
Coating BISO, TRISO TRISO BISO TRISO TRISO
Pressure vessel Steel Steel Steel PCRV PCRV Steel Steel
153
In the OTTO (once through then out) loading scheme of a pebble bed reactor, the power production is such
that high power densities are obtained in the upper, cold part of the core, while small power production is given in
the lower, hot part. Temperature differences between fuel and coolant are proportional to the power density and
therefore small in the lower part of the core. This allows higher coolant outlet temperatures to be achieved at
reduced maximum fuel temperatures. Other advantages are the increased efficiency of control rods in the upper part
of the core due to the higher neutron flux and the avoidance of a burnup measurement system which reduces the
complexity of the fuel loading system. The OTTO scheme, however, is only good for a core height of 4–6 m. For
larger core heights, as encountered in small modular reactor concepts, the multipass scheme for the fuel pebbles is
preferred. Therefore, due to higher temperatures in the lower part of the core, power density is reduced for the
process heat HTR-Modul.
Some adjustments are required with regard to maximum temperature and pressure levels in the primary circuit
of a process heat plant, because the chemical processes are mainly expected to be operated at a lower pressure than
would be the case, for example, in the direct gas turbine design. Another general difference is the fact that the cold
gas temperature in the process heat applications is generally much lower (250–300°C) than in gas turbine
applications (450–550°C), having a beneficial feedback on the pressure vessel design and material choices. Fuel
temperatures during normal operation should stay below 1200°C to avoid an impact on the fuel performance and
larger release rates of fission products.
In comparison with the electricity generating nuclear plant, several modifications are necessary for the
process heat variant:
— Reduced power density to compensate for the higher core outlet temperature level;
— Reduced system pressure as compromise between a high pressure desired for its favourable effect on
operating and accident conditions of the nuclear reactor and a low pressure desired for chemical process
reasons in the secondary and tertiary circuits;
— Two-fuel zones in the pebble bed to minimize the occurrence of hot/cold gas strains in the core to achieve a
radial temperature profile that is as uniform as possible;
— Ceramic (graphite) liner to replace the metallic liner because of the higher temperatures.
A part of the safety concept is the employment of a non-integrated arrangement with separate vessels for the
generation and conversion of heat, and a containment to enclose the total primary circuit. Placement of the nuclear
unit underground ensures enhanced protection against atmospheric explosions of gas clouds, fire or aircraft crash.
For the German PR-500 process heat reactor concept, an underground construction of at least 6 m was foreseen.
All new modular HTGR concepts use steel vessels as the primary enclosure with water or air cooled reactor
cavity cooling systems. The reactor building as protection against outer impacts is designed as a filtered
confinement, which is not necessarily gas-tight (unlike a containment). This is a controversial issue, since the
containment is ‘traditionally’ recognized as a necessary safety barrier. This concept makes the fuel element an
eminently important component as the principal containment for radionuclides.
5.3.3. Fuel and fuel cycles
The key areas of known strength in the VHTR concept at this time are its robust fuel, high burnup and the use
of the once-through LEU fuel cycle. The basic fuel-containing unit is given in the form of a tiny coated particle with
a fuel kernel containing LEU or plutonium. The kernel is surrounded by a TRISO coating which consists of a
porous buffer layer plus an interlayer of SiC between two layers of high-density isotropic PyC. The coating
represents the primary barrier to the release of fission products, which are generated in the kernel during operation.
A reactor core for 400–600 MW(th) will contain between 109 and 1010 individual fuel particles. The particles are
embedded in a graphite matrix to form the fuel elements. The type of fuel element has developed in two directions:
(1) The pebble bed concept pursued in Germany, the Russian Federation, China and South Africa consists of a
60 mm diameter sphere composed of a 50 mm diameter fuel zone with some 104 coated particles (or 1 g of 235U)
uniformly dispersed in a graphitic matrix, surrounded by a fuel free carbon outer zone. Hundreds of thousands of
pebbles are required to fuel a nuclear plant. They can be continuously given to and withdrawn from the reactor.
The uranium concentration in the fuel is an order of magnitude less than in traditional nuclear fuels.
154
(2) The prismatic core concept pursued in the United Kingdom, the USA, Japan and the Russian Federation is
based on a hexagonal graphite block with boreholes which are, in the US design, either coolant channels or
loaded with fuel compacts containing the coated particles. In the Japanese block core design, the boreholes of
a fuel assembly are filled with fuel rods (‘pin in block’) to contain the compacts (with the coated particles),
and the coolant flows through the annular gap between rod and inner surface of the borehole. Burnable poison
zoning is applied for power flattening. Neutron burnable poison is needed in the prismatic reactor core with
the fissile material where distribution is tailored such that maximum power density is toward the top of the
core where the cooling gas has the lowest temperatures, and power density is minimal in the core bottom
where the coolant temperatures are highest, and peak fuel temperatures are below the design limit for normal
operation (1250ºC).
Plant configuration and operating conditions are such that fuel temperatures during both normal operations
and accident conditions are limited to preclude radionuclide release. High burnups of up to 60–70% FIMA may be
achievable with a single-pass, multicycle irradiation in VHTR. Spent fuel from such a ‘deep-burn’ design could be
either given to a final disposal or reprocessed to fast reactor fuel. Current concepts, however, are based on an initial
once-through irradiation without recycling. But technologies to reprocess and recycle TRISO fuel are also under
consideration. The ongoing R&D and the past experience provide a good basis to be able to close the VHTR fuel
cycle in the future, if needed.
One of the attractive features of the HTGR is its flexibility in the use of fuel cycles. While the baseline fuel
cycle is the once-through LEU fuel cycle, other fuel cycle options are possible and have been successfully tested in
both prototype HTGRs and materials test reactors.
The fuel is fissile material, which may be 235U, 233U or plutonium, and fertile material, which may be 238U or
232
Th. Combinations lead to possible fuel cycles with:
— LEU with or without Unat fertile particles;

— Plutonium/thorium or plutonium/uranium in mixed oxide (MOX);
— Plutonium-only fuel particles;
— Thorium based fertile particles and uranium based fuel particles;
— TRU and/or minor actinide (MA) fuel particles.
The LEU cycle uses uranium with a minimum enrichment of 5–6%, rising to up to 19% depending on the
reactor type. All current commercial HTGR projects are based on this fuel.
A thorium–plutonium (Th–Pu) cycle with Pu to replace the HEU was considered at a very early stage, with
initial studies conducted in the UK in the early 1960s. Similar to PWRs, the use of a mixed plutonium/depleted
uranium fuel can also be envisioned. The mixture could be in the form of an oxide (MOX), carbide or nitride. The
solution of ‘plutonium-only’ cores, a unique feature of HTGRs, was investigated by the USA and the Russian
Federation as part of a programme to examine consumption of excess weapons-grade plutonium.
Thorium based cycles are the HEU/Th cycle with or without 233U recycling where the thorium generates 233U
representing the best fissile isotope for thermal spectrum reactors. The main advantage of this fuel cycle, which has
been extensively studied for HTGRs, is the considerably reduced natural uranium consumption when operated in a
closed cycle at very high conversion factors. For the above reasons, the HEU cycle was considered as the reference
cycle from the beginning of HTGR development in both the USA and Germany. Studies of the medium enriched
uranium (MEU)/thorium cycle began in the USA in the late 1970s as a result of efforts to minimize the proliferation
risks.
5.3.4. Hot gas duct
The primary hot gas duct is a horizontal pressure vessel to provide the connection between reactor pressure
vessel and IHX, i.e. between core and heat sink. It has the task of transporting the hot helium from the reactor to the
heat exchanger. Design options for hot gas ducts are based on either coaxial ducts or separate tubes. In the coaxial
double-tube design, the hot helium flows through the inner heat-insulated tube, and cold helium flows back to the
core through the annular space between inner and outer tube (Fig. 102). The pressure tube is water cooled and
insulated by metal foils, the hot gas tube has carbon insulation.
155
FIG. 102. Hot gas duct in the German KVK loop test facility [291, 292].
In the design with separate tubes, coolant circulates along two separate heat-insulated tubes. The coaxial
design is the most widely applied, which ensures higher mechanical stiffness, better compactness and lower heat
losses to the environment. However, this design is more complicated and has lower reparability. Intermediate
(secondary) circuits, as well as other circuits with lower temperatures may utilize the simpler design with separate
tubes.
The coaxial ducts are designed as pressure vessels according to the leak-before-break principle, where the
early detection of a leakage would allow immediate plant shutdown. Furthermore, the inside pipe containing the hot
156
helium is also designed for a pressure of 4 MPa, although the pressure difference to the annular space around
containing the returning cold helium is not more than 100 kPa during normal operation. The nominal lifetime of the
hot gas duct component should be the entire reactor operation period of ~60 years. Correspondingly, there is a
secondary hot gas duct in the secondary circuit between IHX and the process heat exchanger.
The hot gas duct for the PNP reactor was designed for 950°C and 4 MPa with a helium mass flow of 37 kg/s
(flow velocity of ~60 m/s) [291]. Inner insulation was given in the form of either metallic foils or solid fibres, or
carbon ceramics. A number of investigations regarding fracture mechanics of the duct were carried out. The leak-
before-break criterion was met, even at room temperature. Testing of this component was conducted with air and
helium in the high pressure helium component test loop facility KVK (see also Section 6.3.2).
For the coaxial ducts connecting nuclear and chemical reactors, design data were 900°C maximum
temperature at a pressure of 4.2 MPa and a mass flow of 37 kg/s. Dynamic effects of an LOFC accident can be
mitigated by so-called burst diminishers installed inside and outside the ducts. This is the idea of having a tube
inside a pressure tube, which is capable of taking up the blast pressure to allow the depressurization to proceed more
gently, e.g. due to many small boreholes in the walls [293].
Intermediate heat exchangers and other issues of coupling are described in detail in Section 6.
5.3.5. Helium coolant
Under normal circumstances, helium is a highly pure coolant with impurities in the ppm range. At higher
temperatures, however, these impurities, typically O2, H2O, CO2, N2, H2 and CH4, may lead to enhanced corrosive
interactions with graphitic and metallic materials in the primary circuit. The essential reactions are those with the
oxygen containing impurities and the graphite, resulting in dust formation. CO and CH4 may decompose under
certain conditions, with the carbon dust depositing and releasing the ‘original’ impurities, which could start a new
corrosion cycle, thus leading to a carbon transport with the helium through the primary circuit. Depending on how
much of the helium is routed through the purification system, a certain part of the coolant activity is also directly
being removed from the circuit. Under steady state normal operating conditions, the activity in the coolant is low.
With an increasing temperature level in the core during normal operation, the coolant chemistry will change
as well. Due to the higher temperatures at the metallic heat exchanger surfaces in process heat plants, there will be
enhanced reactions of gaseous impurities resulting in corrosion, carburization and decarburization. The type of
process depends on the temperature, the gas composition and the metal used. PNP-helium is a standardized testing
gas that was defined as indicated in Table 24.
Maximum allowable change rates for the reactor coolant temperature under normal operation depend on the
temperatures of the reactor coolant and the metal structures in contact with the coolant. An acceptable stress is
limited to the lower level at higher temperatures due to creep damage on the structures. For the example of the
HTTR, based on a parametric analysis of the structural integrity of the IHX hot header and reducer, the maximum
allowable change rate for the coolant temperature is limited to 15°C/h at temperatures of 650°C or above.
5.3.6. Examples of process heat HTGR concepts
A variety of conceptual designs for follow-up HTGRs have been developed, differing mainly in their core
type (pebble/block) and power conversion system (direct cycle/steam cycle/intermediate heat exchanger), but also
in their application target (electricity/CHP/process heat/district heating), and with thermal powers ranging between
10 and 1600 MW.
The following subsections provide descriptions of examples of future nuclear reactor concepts dedicated to
the (co-)production of hydrogen, or — in an initial demonstration project — to electricity production and modified
in follow-on projects to additional industrial applications. These concepts have been elaborated by different
countries within their national research programmes and presented in detail in papers and at conferences.
TABLE 24. COMPOSITION OF PNP-HELIUM
Composition H2 CH4 CO H2O
Partial pressure in 4 MPa PNP-helium (Pa) 50 2 1.5 0.15
157
FIG. 103. Temperature ranges in production and use of nuclear energy [282].
5.3.6.1. Canada
The Generation IV concept pursued in Canada is the CANDU-SCWR (Fig. 103). According to preliminary
specifications [282, 294], the CANDU-SCWR will produce a thermal power of 2540 MW and an electric power of
1220 MW, corresponding to an overall efficiency of 48%. The moderator is heavy water, while the coolant is light
water. The UO2/Th fuel has a 235U enrichment of 4%. Coolant inlet/outlet temperatures are 350/625°C at a pressure
of 25 MPa. There is also the idea of a CANDU-X superheat version which would have additional steam superheat
channels capable of further heating up the coolant to 750°C or higher [294].
The Canadian ACR-700 is a pressurized light water cooled, heavy water moderated reactor with a thermal
power of ~2000 MW. Similar to CANDU reactors, the ACR design is based on the use of modular horizontal fuel
channels surrounded by a D2O moderator. Major differences are the use of light water coolant and slightly enriched
uranium fuel (2.1 wt% 235U), which results in a more compact reactor design. The design also features A higher
coolant pressure of 13 MPa at the inlet and a higher outlet temperature of 326°C. Pressure tube reactors are more
flexible with regard to flow, flux and density changes; flow rate adjustment and fuel reloading can be handled more
easily. The more recent Canadian design is the ACR-1000, similar to the ACR-700 in the use of D2O moderator and
H2O heat transport and other general features, but a 1200 MW(e) system.
5.3.6.2. China
Based on the experience with the HTR-10, an industrial scale modular HTGR demonstration plant (Fig. 104),
the Shidaowang nuclear power plant, HTR-PM, featuring 2 × 250 MW(th) pebble bed reactor units driving one
Rankine steam cycle turbine–generator set of 200 MW(e), is being projected as one of the key national
technological projects [295]. Corresponding design and R&D work started in 2004. Site preparation and
construction permit licencing are currently under way. Manufacturing of long lead components is under contracting.
The plant will serve as a starting point to further develop and deploy advanced nuclear technology for the purpose
of process heat application, including for hydrogen production.
The design of the HTR-PM demonstration plant is characterized by a ‘two reactors with one generator’
scheme. Two standardized reactors with a total thermal power production of 500 MW collocating one steam turbine
generator set have an electric power output of 200 MW. The average thermal power density is about 3.2 MW/m3
with a maximum value of 6.4 MW/m3 in the equilibrium core. The average helium coolant outlet temperature is
750°C and the average inlet temperature is 250°C. The rated mass flow rate of the coolant in the primary circuit is
158
FIG. 104. Schematic of the 250 MW(th) HTR-PM reactor building with steam generator [295].
TABLE 25. HTR-PM MAIN CORE DESIGN PARAMETERS
Thermal power of two units 500 MW(th)

Electric power 200 MW(e)
Average/maximum thermal power density 3.2/6.6 MW(th)/m3
Reactor coolant inlet/outlet temperature 250/750°C
Core upper plenum inlet pressure 7.0 MPa
Core pressure drop 0.058 MPa
Helium mass flow rate per unit 96 kg/s
Active core height/diameter 11/3.0 m
Reshuffling scheme Multi-pass, 15 cycles
Average/maximum burnup 90/100 GW·d/t
Reactor pressure vessel inner diameter/height 5.7/24.9 m
Power conversion efficiency 42%
Steam outlet temperature/pressure 566°C/13.2 MPa
Superheated steam flow rate per unit 96 kg/s
96 kg/s, with about 6% flowing as bypass through the control rod channels and gaps between the graphite segments.
The rated system pressure is 7.0 MPa. Table 25 gives some key design parameters of the HTR-PM.
The primary pressure boundary is composed of the reactor pressure vessel, the steam generator pressure
vessel in a side by side concept, and the hot gas duct pressure vessel, which connects the other two vessels. The
helium circulator is a vertical compressor installed on top of the steam generator. A feature of the HTR-PM design
is the novel steam generator, which does not consist of a series of nestled helical coil tubes within the steam
159
generator shell, but rather a number of individual, small helical tube bundles connected at the top and bottom.
Designed for 250 MW of thermal power, the steam generator is vertically seated and consists of 19 helical type heat
transfer assemblies in a countercurrent flow arrangement. The secondary feedwater is heated and live steam of
538°C at 13.5 MPa is generated to drive the turbine–generator system. In the side reflector, eight control rod units
are arranged as the primary shutdown system, which allows the quick hot shutdown of the reactor. The side
reflector also includes the 22 small absorber ball units as the second independent and diversified shutdown system.
The primary confinement contains all the equipment of the reactor primary circuit. It includes columnar
cavities for both the reactor pressure vessel and the steam generator connected by the hot gas duct. Total volume of
the confinement is 3700 m3. The design pressure in the confinement is 0.13 MPa.
5.3.6.3. France
Based on principles of the HTR-Modul concept and evolving from the US GT-MHR concept, AREVA-NP has
been developing the conceptual design of ANTARES, a flexible, modular concept for high, medium and low
temperature heat applications and power. In the VHTR concept for electricity generation in a combined cycle power
conversion system, the block type core generates a power of 600 MW(th) with a helium outlet temperature of
850°C at a pressure of 5.5 MPa (Fig. 105) [35]. ANTARES uses an annular core consisting of 102 columns with
10 fuel blocks each. This reference configuration, however, may be subject to future changes depending on further
optimization studies on the feasibility of a larger fuel block size. ANTARES employs an indirect cycle power
conversion system which can be adapted to different cogeneration schemes.
The reference design for the IHX is a plate type heat exchanger for a heat load of 635 MW(th) with
inlet/outlet temperatures for the primary helium of 850/390°C at a flow rate of 240 kg/s. The secondary coolant is a
nitrogen–helium mixture with inlet/outlet temperatures of 300/900°C at a rate of 614 kg/s. Maximum pressure loss
should not exceed 0.1 MPa on the primary and 0.2 MPa on the secondary side. The feasibility of the components
has either been proven already or has been deemed achievable at a low technological risk [296]. The general
arrangement is based on a single IHX. In contrast, the tubular IHX considered as a fall-back solution would require
at least a two loop configuration due to its reduced heat transfer capability compared with a compact plate heat
exchanger.
Based on the ANTARES concept, AREVA has developed the preconceptual design of an HTGR for hydrogen
production within the USDOE NGNP programme. From that, a modified NGNP version for near term realization
was created. The plant has two primary loops, each coupled to a steam generator via a hot gas duct. The lower
coolant outlet temperature of 750°C allows an increase in thermal power to 625 MW(th). The steam cycle concept
is flexible in that, in addition to electricity production, cogenerated high temperature steam can serve a wide range
of process heat facilities. The key parameters of the plant are listed in Table 26 [37].
5.3.6.4. Germany
The use of the basic reactor design for both electricity and process heat generation was a fundamental request
in former German industrial HTR development programmes. This applies to the past projects on direct gas turbine
cycles (e.g. HHT Nuclear Plant with High Temperature Reactor and Helium Turbine of Large Power), steam cycles
(THTR-300, HTR-500) and the related nuclear process heat projects (Prototype Nuclear Process Heat (PNP), NFE)
which only required some adjustments with regard to the maximum temperatures and pressure levels of the primary
circuit, because the chemical processes are mainly operated at lower pressures than is the case, for example, in the
direct gas turbine design. Another general difference is the fact that the cold gas temperatures in the process heat
applications are generally much lower (~250–300°C) than those in the gas turbine application (450–550°C), having
a beneficial feedback on the pressure vessel design and material choices.
A wide variety of nuclear process heat HTGR concepts were proposed in Germany between the 1970s and
1990s, initially of larger size and later of smaller size. Among them were the modified version of the HTR-500, the
170 MW(th) HTR-Modul concept and the AVR-50. All were characterized by a supply of energy at high
temperature levels in the order of 950°C, which allows the achievement of high chemical reaction rates. Of special
importance was the 45 MW(th) AVR test reactor in Jülich, which was operated between 1967 and 1988. It became
the world’s first pebble bed reactor to successfully achieve a coolant outlet temperature of 950°C, proving the
feasibility of the pebble bed HTGR concept under high temperature process heat conditions with a high availability.
160
FIG. 105. AREVA-NP’s VHTR nuclear heat source ANTARES primary circuit with reactor pressure vessel (left) and plate type IHX
(right) [297].
TABLE 26. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREVA NEAR

TERM NGNP CONCEPT FOR STEAM PRODUCTION
Prismatic core 102 columns × 10 blocks

Thermal power 625 MW(th)
Helium inlet/outlet temperature 325/750°C
Helium pressure 6 MPa
Secondary coolant water/steam
Steam temperature 566°C
Steam pressure 16.7 MPa
(A) Prototype nuclear process heat (PNP) reactor
Within the German PNP project, a significant part of the effort was dedicated to the design and demonstration
of the ability of HTGRs to be used for process heat applications. The concept for a nuclear process heat plant with
161
FIG. 106. Schematic of the prototype nuclear process heat plant PR-500 for hydrogasification of lignite (left) and steam gasification
of hard coal (right) [293].
a pebble bed high temperature reactor was originally based on thermal power sizes of 500 MW (PR-500) and
3000 MW (PNP-3000). The PR-500 pebble bed reactor, closely corresponding to the THTR-300, was designed to
produce 523 t/h of steam at a temperature of 265°C and a pressure of 2 MPa, plus an electric power of 55 MW. The
coolant helium is heated up from 265 to 865°C. The hot gas plenum is designed such that maximum gas
temperature differences should be not higher than 60 K. The reactor was placed in a pre-stressed concrete pressure
vessel (also similar to the THTR-300) surrounded by three units, each containing a heat exchanger and blower in an
external arrangement [298].
The PR-500 demonstration reactor was designed for both types of coal gasification (Fig. 106) employing an
IHX for steam–coal gasification or a steam–methane reformer for the nuclear hydrogasification of coal. The
operation of this nuclear system was designed to yield 41 000 m3 of SNG for steam gasification of 50 t/h of hard
coal and 26 500 m3 of SNG and 18.4 t/h of charcoal for hydrogasification of 166 t/h of lignite.
Part of the safety concept is the employment of a non-integrated arrangement with separate vessels for the
generation and the conversion of heat, and a containment to enclose the total primary circuit. Placement of the
nuclear unit at least 6 m underground provides enhanced protection against external impacts.
For adaptation of the reactor design to the chemical process, the reactor pressure had been fixed in the PNP
project to 4 MPa, well below the pressure for electricity generating plants (~7 MPa). The choice of the pressure is
also important to reduce the loads on the high temperature barriers in case of depressurization accidents either in the
primary or in the secondary circuit. Other important aspects of reactor design are the amount of cogenerated
162
electricity, high availability and optimization toward significant simplification of the nuclear island. Heat transfer
under varying operational load conditions, hot gas mixing in the core bottom and the lifetime of the hot gas thermal
insulation have been comprehensively investigated in experiments. When starting up the fully cold plant, the
steam–coal gasification plant will reach full operation after ~50 h and the hydrogasification plant after about
60 h [293].
The large size reactor concept of the PNP-3000 with a thermal power of 3000 MW was foreseen to be
connected to steam reforming with 1071 MW of heat input to six main loops with each containing either a steam
reformer plus steam generator or an intermediate heat exchanger, and electricity cogeneration with
540°C/19.5 MPa turbine steam. In the pebble bed with an OTTO loading scheme, the coolant was heated up from
300 to 950°C. Additional systems required were four active decay heat removal systems. All components were
positioned in a pre-stressed concrete pressure vessel. The key parameters of both PNP plants are listed in Table 27.
(B) Process heat HTR-Modul
The baseline concept in this development was the electricity producing 200 MW(th) HTR-Modul pebble bed
reactor designed by Siemens-Interatom with a tall (9.4 m) and slim (3 m diameter) core. An arrangement of the
active core in an annular geometry permits the thermal power output to be raised from 200 to 600 MW without
changing the basic philosophy of the 1600°C limit.
A variant of the HTR-Modul for process heat production has been designed for a thermal power of 170 MW
to deliver helium at temperatures of 950°C. The key parameters of the plant are also given in Table 27. In
comparison with the electricity generating nuclear plant, several modifications are necessary for the process heat
variant:
— Reduced power and power density to compensate for the higher core outlet temperature level due to the
requirement of self-acting decay heat removal from the core, i.e. for the maximum fuel temperature to stay
below 1600°C in the case of an LOFC accident (for the process heat HTR-Modul: 3 → 2.55 MW(th)/m3,
200 → 170 MW(th)).
— Reduced system pressure as a compromise between a high pressure desired for its favourable effect on operating
and accident conditions of the nuclear reactor and a low pressure desired for chemical process reasons in the
secondary and tertiary circuit. The pressures in the different circuits should be in the same range, slightly
increasing toward the outside (for the process heat HTR-Modul, 7 → 5 MPa; with IHX, 4 MPa).
— Two fuel zones in the pebble bed to minimize the occurrence of hot/cold gas strains in the core to achieve a
radial temperature profile as uniform as possible, in order to avoid additional loads on the high temperature
heat exchanging components operating under extreme conditions.
— Ceramic (graphite) liner to replace the metallic liner because of the higher temperatures.
TABLE 27. MAIN CORE DESIGN PARAMETERS OF GERMAN PROCESS HEAT REACTOR CONCEPTS
PR-500 PNP-3000 HTR-Modul
Pebble bed core (# fuel spheres) 550 000 3 360 000 260 000
Thermal power (MW(th)) 500 3000 170
Thermal power density (MW(th)/m3) 5 5 2.55
Helium inlet/outlet temp. (°C) 265/865 250/950 300/950
Helium pressure (MPa) 4 4 5 (with IHX: 4)
Helium mass flow rate (kg/s) 159 820 50
Active core height/diameter (m) 5/5 6/11.3 9.4/3
Reshuffling scheme OTTO OTTO Multipass
Steam outlet temperature (°C)/ 265/2 540/19.5 540/11.5
pressure (MPa)
Steam flow rate per unit (kg/s) 145 150 38
163
FIG. 107. Arrangement of modular HTR with a steam reformer/steam generator loop.
For nuclear process heat plants connected to steam–methane reforming (Fig. 107), the primary helium coolant
is directly fed to the steam reformer, which consumes 71 MW, and to the steam generator, which is operated with
99 MW. The reduction of the helium temperature will be conducted at a slow rate (~1 K/min) to avoid thermal
stresses of the heat consuming components. Partial load conditions of the steam reforming process can be regulated
by changing the feedgas flow. A requirement, however, is that product gas quality, i.e. composition, should remain
constant, which can be accomplished by keeping the reforming temperature constant.
5.3.6.5. India
Under the high temperature reactor programme, BARC is currently developing a compact high temperature
reactor (CHTR) as a technology demonstrator for associated technologies [299]. The CHTR is a small-sized,
molten heavy metal (Pb–Bi) cooled, beryllium oxide-moderated reactor for the production of a thermal power of
100 kW and a core outlet temperature of 1000°C (Fig. 108). It may therefore serve as a compact power pack in
remote areas not connected to the electrical grid, but also be connected to high temperature process heat
applications such as water splitting hydrogen production. The reactor is characterized by several advanced passive
safety features [300].
The core of the CHTR is composed of 19 prismatic BeO moderator blocks. Each of these blocks has a
centrally located graphite fuel tube which contains the fuel in the form of compacts in nine boreholes arranged
around the coolant channel in the centre, as can be seen from the cross-section of the CHTR core shown in Fig. 109.
Fuel tubes are made of high density, isotropic, nuclear grade carbon–carbon composite or graphite and protected
with oxidation resistant coatings. The moderator blocks are surrounded by 12 movable and 6 fixed blocks of BeO
reflector, which again are surrounded by graphite reflector blocks. The core is contained in a reactor shell made of
a material resistant to corrosion against the Pb–Bi coolant and suitable for high temperature applications.
Top and bottom closure plates of similar high temperature and corrosion resistant material close this reactor
shell. Above the top cover plate and below the bottom cover plate, cylindrical vessels called coolant plenums are
provided for coolant exit and entry into the core. The upper plenum has a graphite block for guiding coolant flow
between the fuel tube and the downcomer tube provided for return of the cold coolant to the lower plenum. The
reactor shell is surrounded by two gas gaps that act as insulators during normal reactor operation and reduce heat
loss in the radial direction. These gas gaps help in dissipating neutronically limited power to an external sink, in
164
FIG. 108. Schematic of the Indian CHTR [299].
FIG. 109. Cross-section of the CHTR core [299].
case of a postulated accident. A passive system has been provided to fill these gas gaps with molten metal in case of
an abnormal rise in coolant channel outlet temperature. Nuclear heat from the reactor core is removed passively by
natural circulation based flow of coolant between the two plenums, upward through the fuel tubes and returning
through the downcomer tubes.
On top of the upper plenum, the reactor has heat utilization vessels to provide an interface to systems for high
temperature process heat applications. A set of sodium heat pipes passively transfers heat from the coolant to these
heat utilization vessels. To shut down the reactor, a set of seven tantalum alloy based shutoff rods has been
provided, which fall by gravity in the central seven coolant channels. Twelve control rods of the same material have
been provided in the balance fuel tubes. Appropriate instrumentation like neutron detectors, fission/ion chambers
165
and sensors, and auxiliary systems such as cover gas system, purification systems, etc., are being incorporated into
the design.
The fuel concept is based on compacts with TRISO coated particles containing a (233U–Th) mixed carbide
kernel. The fuel is designed to operate up to 1000°C during normal operation. The expected core lifetime is
15 years. The heat is removed by molten Pb–Bi eutectic alloy coolant which circulates through the core by natural
convection, flowing upwards through the coolant channels in the moderator blocks into the upper plenum, where it
is heated up from 900 to 1000°C. Downward flow is through the downcomer tubes in the graphite reflector blocks
into the lower plenum. Both plenums have graphite flow guiding blocks.
Heat utilization vessels are located on top of the upper plenum; heat from the hot coolant is passively
transferred to the vessels by means of 12 sodium heat pipes. Heat pipes are also activated under accident conditions
to transfers heat to the atmosphere. The reactor is shut down by 18 floating annular B4C elements as the primary
system and by seven shutoff rods made of tungsten, which fall by gravity in the central seven coolant channels as
the secondary system. The major characteristic design and operating parameters of the CHTR are listed in Table 28.
At present, a detailed design of the CHTR has been established after completing the conceptual design of the
reactor and associated systems. Experimental facilities are at various stages of development to carry out a wide
array of studies related to liquid metals, passive safety and heat removal systems. The manufacturing capabilities
for BeO, carbon components and TRISO coating based particle fuel have been successfully achieved. Subsequent
to the manufacture of fuel, materials and other systems, a critical facility for the CHTR will be set up.
The principal objective of the CHTR is the demonstration of the various innovative technologies such as
fuels, materials and various passive safety features applied in this concept.
In order to generate hydrogen on a large scale using high temperature thermochemical processes (>850°C), a
follow-up nuclear plant, called the Indian High Temperature Reactor for Hydrogen Production (IHTR-H), is
currently being designed for a thermal power output of 600 MW(th). The design is based on a pebble bed type fuel
configuration using a molten salt based coolant with several inherent and passive safety features. The main goal is
the supply of heat at ~1000°C for large scale hydrogen production at a rate of 80 000 Nm3/h, 18 MW(e) of
electricity generation, plus the production of desalinated water at a rate of 375 m3/h [299].
TABLE 28. CHARACTERISTIC PARAMETERS OF THE CHTR [299]
Thermal power 100 kW(th)

Core configuration Prismatic block type
Core diameter/length 1.27/1.0 m
Loop height 1.5 m
Moderator BeO
Reflector BeO, graphite
Coolant Pb–Bi eutectic alloy (44.5% Pb and
55.5% Bi)
Flow rate 6.78 kg/s
Fuel tubes 19 (one per moderator block)
Inner/outer diameter 35/70 mm
Tube length 1.4 m
Compact diameter/length 10/35 mm
Fuel (233U,Th)C2 TRISO coated particles
Enrichment 33.75%
233
Heavy metal contents U: 2.7; Th: 5.3 kg
Burnup ~68 GW·d/t
Lifetime 5500 equivalent full power days
166
FIG. 110. Core configuration of the Indian 600 MW(th) IHTR [300].
For this reactor various design options for fuel configurations, such as a prismatic bed and pebble bed, were
considered for thermal hydraulics and temperature distribution analysis. Coolant options such as molten lead,
molten salt and a gaseous medium like helium were analysed. Furthermore, other criteria such as ease of component
handling, irradiation related material and fuel degradation, better fuel utilization and passive options for coolant
flow, etc., were also considered. Initial studies carried out led to the selection of a pebble bed reactor core with a
molten salt based coolant. Figure 110 shows a schematic of the IHTR reactor.
5.3.6.6. Japan
(A) Commercial nuclear hydrogen production with GTHTR300C
In the GTHTR300C (C for cogeneration), the reactor is operated with an outlet temperature of 950°C. A
thermal power of 170 MW is transferred from the primary to the secondary helium in the IHX. The secondary
helium can be heated up to 900°C. The helically coiled He–He intermediate heat exchanger is installed between the
reactor pressure vessel and gas turbine system. The outlet helium gas of 135°C from the compressor is used to cool
the reactor pressure vessel so that the vessel can be made of LWR steel. The recuperator recovers turbine exhaust
heat. The efficiency of the recuperator affects the electricity cost significantly. Compact and high efficient plate heat
exchangers operating in high pressure helium gas are employed.
Helium heat in the secondary circuit is then passed via a compact process heat exchanger to a third loop of
hydrogen production. The hydrogen production system will be designed according to existing non-nuclear
industrial standards [55]. The reactor will be connected to an S–I thermochemical water splitting process. The
requirement from utilities for the GTHTR300C is two year continuous operation. The reactor design specifications
of the GTHTR300 and the GTHTR300C are the same except for the reactor outlet and inlet helium temperature and
the helium flow rate. Major design specifications of the GTHTR300 and the GTHTR300C are listed in Table 29.
167
TABLE 29. MAJOR DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE GTHTR300 AND GTHTR300C
GTHTR300 GTHTR300C
Reactor thermal power (MW(th)) 600
3
Thermal power density (MW(th)/m ) 5.8, maximum 13–15
Core coolant flow (kg/s) 439 322
Core inlet/outlet temperature (°C) 587/850 594/950
Gas turbine inlet temperature (°C) 850
Core coolant pressure (MPa) 6.9 5.1
Average/maximum fuel burnup (GW·d/t) 112/140
Electricity generation (MW(e)) 274 202
Intermediate heat exchanger (MW(th)) — 170
FIG. 111. Design of Japan’s VHTR system GTHTR300C for hydrogen production with S–I cycle [54].
Figure 111 shows the system layout of the GTHTR300C. It consists of four system modules: a reactor module, a gas
turbine module, a heat exchanger module and an intermediate heat exchanger module.
JAEA has conducted a compressor development programme to investigate helium compressor aerodynamics
compared with air compressors. For the magnetic bearing development, a test rig has been constructed which is a
one third scale mock-up for the generator rotor [55]. The secondary helium pipes in the heat transfer loop penetrate
the reactor confinement building. Failure of heat transfer tubes in the IHX and the secondary helium pipe outside
the reactor building can create a flow path to release helium coolant to the environment and to flow air into the
reactor. However, multiple isolation valves are installed on the secondary helium piping near the penetration of the
reactor building to mitigate the consequences of beyond design basis events.
Assuming a hydrogen conversion efficiency of 50% and an availability of 90%, the average amount of
hydrogen is 24 000 Nm3/h, corresponding to the supply of some 100 refuelling stations (assuming ~6000 Nm3/d per
station) to keep a total of about 160 000 FCVs (~3.6 Nm3/d) operating [301].
The hydrogen production system coupled to the HTGR should be a non-nuclear-grade chemical plant to
reduce construction and maintenance costs, because hydrogen produced by the cogeneration HTGR system must be
economically competitive with hydrogen produced by the conventional fossil system. Figure 112 shows the design
classification of the GTHTR300C [55].
168
Nuclear grade IS Process Non-nuclear
grade
Recuperator
Generator
IHX Turbine Compressor

Reactor
Precooler
FIG. 112. Design classes of the VHTR-IS system GTHTR300C [302].
(B) Hydrogen production with fast reactor
The so-called ‘FR-MR’ concept has been suggested [105, 303] for performing methane–steam reforming at
much lower temperatures, ~550°C, by employing membrane reformer technology. Thus it would be possible to
utilize the nuclear heat of sodium or lead cooled FBRs or of supercritical water cooled reactors. The FR-MR is
designed to be a sodium cooled fast reactor with a thermal power of 240 MW(th) and coolant inlet/outlet
temperatures of 500/580°C and, at an advanced stage, 450/600°C. Heat is transferred via an IHX to the membrane
reformer at temperatures of 565 and 580°C. H2 production is assessed to be 200 000 Nm3/h using a feedstock (CH4)
input of 50 000 Nm3/h. Membrane reforming heated by nuclear energy can also be applied in the refining
industries, helping to save hydrocarbon feedstock. Furthermore, it would allow coal gasification at reduced
temperatures [105].
5.3.6.7. Republic of Korea
The reference concept of a nuclear process heat reactor currently planned in the Republic of Korea is a VHTR
with a thermal power of 200 MW(th) and a coolant outlet temperature of 950°C at 7 MPa. It will be an underground
reactor with an intermediate heat exchanger and a process heat exchanger to be connected to a five train
S–I thermochemical plant (see Fig. 15 in Section 2.7.2). A limiting factor for the power level is the size of the
reactor pressure vessel, which should not have longitudinal welding and is to be fabricated by domestic suppliers.
Four different core designs are currently being discussed for the demonstration plant, two based on a pebble bed and
two on a block core design. The power size is 200 MW(th), making it the proper size to be connected to an oil
refinery plant or a hydrogen production plant [266].
Based on the German HTR-Modul concept, a pre-conceptual design of a 200 MW(th) pebble bed reactor for
process heat applications, NHDD-PBR200, has been developed at KAERI. Coolant inlet and outlet temperatures
are 490°C and 950°C, respectively. Two-zone fuel reloading and the placement of a neutron absorber material in the
upper part of the side reflector have been proposed to flatten the axial power profile and lower the fuel
temperatures.
Unlike in the concepts of other countries, the Republic of Korea is pursuing the NHDD project as a hydrogen
dedicated nuclear plant. The hydrogen production methods actively being investigated are the S–I cycle, high
169
temperature steam electrolysis and the hybrid-sulphur cycle [266]. The previously pursued methane–methanol–
iodomethane thermochemical cycle [304] has been discontinued.
The chemical plant is expected to need more scheduled shutdowns due to replacement of components (valves,
seals, etc.) or catalyst. Therefore, the hydrogen section is divided into five trains to allow for a continuous operation
of the VHTR reactor. This concept requires a manifold of hot gas ducts to distribute heat from the reactor to the
trains [266].
5.3.6.8. Russian Federation
(A) MHR-100GT concept as process heat reactor
The reference design for a nuclear process heat complex is the so-called MHR-T energy-technological
complex composed of 4 × 600 MW(th) reactor modules and designed for the production of electricity and hydrogen
through steam reforming of methane or high temperature steam electrolysis [305]. Some important parameters are
listed in Table 30.
Also other preconceptual studies for various process heat applications have been conducted based on the
small modular MHR-100 high temperature reactor (Fig. 113), which again is based on the well developed, joint
US–Russian GT-MHR concept [69]. The MHR 100GT reactor is designed for a thermal power capacity of 215 MW
with a helium outlet temperature of 850°C and employs a direct Brayton cycle for electricity production at a 46.1%
efficiency.
The process heat options being investigated are:
— Heat and power cogeneration (MHR-100GT);

— Hydrogen production by means of SMR (MHR-100SMR);
— Hydrogen production by means of HTSE (MHR-100SE);
— High temperature heat supply to crude oil refinery (MHR-100OR).
The MHR-100GT reactor is designed for a thermal power capacity of 215 MW and employs a direct Brayton
cycle for electricity production with an estimated 46.1% efficiency. Helium inlet and outlet temperatures are 558
and 850°C, respectively. In the heat and power cogeneration plant, additionally water is delivered at a temperature
of 145°C [69].
(B) Metal cooled fast reactor for steam reforming of methane
Another technology has been developed in the Russian State Scientific Centre Institute for Physics and Power
Engineering in the frame of activity on non-electricity applications of advanced liquid metal cooled fast reactors
realized since 1990 [72]. One of the proposed applications is hydrogen production by methane thermal
disintegration through direct contact heat transfer from the liquid metal coolant Pb–Bi to a hydrogen containing
gaseous raw material such as methane. In direct contact heat exchangers, heat transfer takes place between two
immiscible fluids coming into direct contact.
TABLE 30. CHARACTERISTIC PARAMETERS OF THE MHR-T
Thermal power 600 MW(th)

Helium outlet temperature 950°C
Power for hydrogen production 
Electric  205.5 MW(e)
Thermal 160 MW(th)
Hydrogen output 54 050 t/a
Lifetime 60 a
170
FIG. 113. Schematic of MHR-100GT [69].
As is shown in the schematic in Fig. 114, the Pb–Bi (secondary) coolant is heated up from the primary reactor
coolant (Pb–Bi, Pb, or Na) in a metal–metal IHX and circulates through a reactor vessel. Methane is given into the
lower part of the vessel, where it bubbles through the hot coolant and is partially decomposed (pyrolysis). A
separation device then separates the hydrogen from the solid carbon and still un-decomposed methane. The method
foresees the use of a liquid metal heated by reactor coolant up to 700°C and methane under atmospheric pressure.
The assumed yield of hydrogen in this process is up to 95%.
In a similar process, instead of pure methane, a mixture of methane and water vapour enters the reactor vessel.
In this case, hydrogen is generated via the reforming reaction while bubbling through the hot secondary liquid metal
coolant. At 700°C, a methane partial pressure of 0.05 MPa and a steam to methane ratio of 2, the hydrogen yield
was estimated to be ~85%.
5.3.6.9. South Africa
The demonstration power plant proposed by the PBMR company is a 400 MW(th) pebble bed modular
reactor (PBMR) in a filtered confinement with a direct cycle gas turbine to convert the heat into 175 MW of electric
power (Fig. 115) [306]. Its pebble bed core is to be annular with a solid inner reflector column of prismatic graphite
reflector elements. The PBMR uses the closed Brayton cycle with a recuperator and intercooler arranged in a non-
integrated design with the reactor and the power conversion unit in two different vessels side by side in a filtered
confinement. The PBMR turbine plant is of a horizontal, single shaft design. Coolant inlet and outlet temperatures
are 500°C and 900°C, respectively, at a pressure of 9 MPa. Operation targets are a 40 year nominal lifetime and
95% availability.
171
FIG. 114. Hydrogen production by methane thermal disintegration in the reactor coolant [72].
A later change in the market strategy has led to a modified PBMR plant concept, NPP200 for cogeneration
(Fig. 116), with lower technological risk and more credit taken from existing HTGR technologies, in particular, the
extensive pebble bed experience from Germany. The power size has been lowered to 200 MW(th) in a core of about
3 m diameter and about 10 m height in order to better meet the needs of process heat/steam customers and to
compete with smaller scale energy plants.
5.3.6.10.United States of America
The GT-MHR (Fig. 117) consists of a set of four 600 MW(th) MHR modules with each unit coupled to an
IHX to transfer the heat to a secondary helium loop. The heat is then transferred to the S–I based hydrogen
production system. The IHX design is based on the PCHX (see Section 6.2.2.1). The IHX design consists of
40 modules and associated manifolds within an insulated steel vessel, with each module transferring about
15 MW(th) [158].
In the S–I cycle based H2-MHR, each of the four modules is coupled to an IHX, through which heat is
provided to the thermochemical cycle at temperatures above 800°C, whereas the remaining heat is used for
electricity production to operate pumps and compressors on the H2 production side. The primary helium loop and
H2SO4 decomposition unit will be operated at a 7 MPa system pressure, the secondary helium loop at a slightly
higher pressure. Nominal peak process temperature for the H2 production is 900°C. Assuming a H2 production
efficiency of 45% and a plant capacity factor of 90%, the annual H2 production rate will be 3.68 × 105 t delivered at
a pressure of 4.0 MPa. Several different concepts for coupling the H2-MHR to the S–I process are being evaluated.
The option to run the H2SO4 and HI decomposition reactions in series, as shown in Fig. 118, is favoured over the
option of parallel operation. The reason is that the design conditions are more optimized with respect to heat
utilization and heat exchanger pinch points, and because the power topping cycle used with the parallel
172
FIG. 115. Schematic of the 400 MW(th) PBMR [307].
FIG. 116. NPP200 concept with nuclear steam supply system [75].
173
FIG. 117. NGNP preconceptual design based on the GT-MHR [270].
High Temp HX -
590ºC 950ºC H2SO4 Decomposer
O2
900ºC
SO2+H2O
Intermediate HX
H2O
600MW
thermal I2
H2SO4
Modular
Helium
Reactor HI
Bunsen
Reactor
565ºC
H2
Low Temp HX-HI Decomposer
FIG. 118. Concept of the US H2-MHR coupled with the S–I cycle [158].
174
configuration adds complexity without significant improvements in the overall efficiency [149]. Overall efficiency
is expected to be 45%.
In the HTSE-based H2-MHR (see Fig. 23), 68 MW of heat is transferred through a printed circuit IHX to
produce superheated steam, while the remaining power is taken for electricity production. The concept of the HTSE
section is to have 12.5 kW(e) 500-cell stacks with 100 mm × 100 mm cells. The efficiency of the HTSE system
coupled to an advanced reactor has been estimated by INL to be 45–50%. An electrolysis module would contain 40
of the 500-cell stacks consuming 0.5 MW(e). Eight such modules could be installed in a structure that could be
mounted on a typical truck trailer, with 292 trailer loads required for a full scale plant consisting of four
600 MW(th) MHR plants [308]. About 90% of the nuclear heat generated is used to produce electricity. The
remainder of the heat is transferred through an IHX to a steam generator. Both electricity and steam are supplied to
the electrolytic cell. The steam generator supplies very superheated steam to the cells at a temperature of
750–950°C, and a pressure of 1–5 MPa [309]. Design parameters for the HTSE cells are given in Table 31 [310].
The reference design (Fig. 119) [311] considers a large size cylindrical core of 2400 MW(th) with a power
density of 10.0 MW/m3 made of 265 fuel columns with ten blocks each. This design differs from an earlier design
which had an annular fuel arrangement. The fuel is 15% enriched UCO for a maximum burnup of 156 GW·d/t. The
active core inside a 9.2 m diameter reactor vessel is cooled by a liquid fluoride salt (2LiF–BeF2) at near atmospheric
pressure. The large power size, which can be selected up to 4000 MW(th), represents the main difference from a gas
cooled reactor whose decay heat removal capability limits its size to ~600 MW(th). The closed primary loop
immersed in a tank contains a separate buffer salt to be used as a heat sink for various transients [312].
The safety goals of the AHTR are identical to those of an MHTGR. In an LOFC scenario, the liquid salt will
develop a significant natural convection, through which a much larger quantity of heat can be transported to the
reactor vessel compared with a gaseous coolant. This limits the maximum fuel temperature to an estimated 1160°C
in such a case. Another difference is the small difference in the coolant between core inlet and outlet of
approximately 100°C. Reactor inlet and outlet temperatures of the primary FLiBe coolant are 600ºC and 704ºC,
respectively. Operation of the LS-VHTR is at near atmospheric pressure. The coolant inventory of a 1000 MW(e)
plant is ~280 m3 [312].
During normal power operation, when the primary loop operates in forced circulation, heat is transferred to
four intermediate liquid salt loops using a modular, compact IHX, before it is utilized for electricity or hydrogen
generation. Upstream of the IHX modules are the four primary pumps. The primary loop including the reactor
TABLE 31. ELECTROLYSIS CELL CHARACTERISTIC DESIGN OF CONCEPTUAL

HTSE PLANT
Active cell area 100 cm2

Electrolyte Scandia-stabilized zirconia of 10 μm thickness
O2 electrode Strontium-doped lanthanum–manganite of 1500 μm thickness
H2 electrode Nickel–zirconia cermet of 50 μm thickness
Bipolar plate Nickel–aluminium of 2500 μm thickness
Total cell height 4.06 mm
Number of cells per stack 500
Stack height 2.03 m
Total number of cells 12 × 106
Total active area 120 000 m2
Total hot volume 26 × 15 × 5 m3
Cell operating conditions 850°C, 5 MPa, 0.2 A/cm2, 1.1 V
Water consumption 22.3 kg/s
Hydrogen production (LHV) 2.5 kg/s or 238 t/d at 50% overall efficiency
175
FIG. 119. Cross-section of the 2400 MW(th) LS-VHTR [311].
vessel, IHX, pumps, and connecting pipes, is immersed in buffer salt (NaF–NaBF4) with an average temperature of
500ºC. Electrical efficiencies are expected to be near 50%. Further R&D activities are seen in areas such as the
development of a more detailed reactor design and of a refuelling concept, qualification of a coolant that does not
contain the toxic beryllium and study of coolant properties at temperatures above 1000°C [313].
Also a pebble bed version of a molten salt cooled advanced high temperature reactor (PB-AHTR) with
900 MW(th) and 410 MW(e) has been designed and analysed [314]. It is characterized by a power density of
20–30 MW(th)/m3, much higher than the 4.8–6.0 MW(th)/m3 typical of modular helium reactors, and thus has a
much smaller size. The core delivers a low outlet temperature of 704°C, with an average temperature of 652°C. In
the proposed PB-AHTR fuel design, the spheres have (only) a 30 mm diameter, with a 2.5 mm thick outer graphite
shell and a low density graphite kernel at the centre of the pebble.
The pebbles move through channels located inside seven hexagonal so-called pebble channel assemblies
(Fig. 120). The primary coolant is FLiBe (7Li2BeF4) flowing at an average speed of 0.38 m/s through the core to
heat up from 600 to 704°C. The intermediate coolant selected is FLiNaK (LiF–NaF–KF).
176
FIG. 120. Plan view of the modular PB-AHTR at the pebble-channel elevation [314].
6. ISSUES OF COUPLING
Coupling of a nuclear heat source to various hydrogen production processes or other process heat applications
can basically be done in two ways, with heat transfer:
— Via an intermediate helium circuit from the reactor to the process heat plant;
— Directly to the high temperature heat exchanger in the primary circuit.
In HTGR plants such as Fort St. Vrain (USA) or THTR-300 (Germany), but also in a number of former
concepts, the heat of the primary circuit helium was transferred directly to the steam generator for steam
production. Within the German PNP project, the nuclear steam reforming concept was based on direct heat transfer
to the process gas in the reformer tubes. Most new concepts of nuclear hydrogen production, however, particularly
those using thermochemical cycles, are based on the concept of an intermediate circuit, in which heat from the
secondary helium is transferred in a process heat exchanger to the application process.
6.1. CONCEPT OF A NUCLEAR HEAT EXCHANGER
Heat exchangers play an important role in the cycles, since they connect reactors and pipelines to transport
reactants and allow for heat input or recovery. Any combination of an HTGR with chemical processes will most
probably need an IHX for a decoupling between the primary circuit and the heat utilization system for the following
reasons:
— Separation of the nuclear island for safety reasons, reducing the risk of interaction with the chemical plant;
— Limitation/exclusion of radioactive contamination of the product (e.g. tritium);
177
FIG. 121. Generic reference configuration for NGNP [90].
FIG. 122. Primary circuit of a modular HTGR with IHX principle flow diagram (left); T–Q diagram for use of nuclear heat (right).
— Exclusion of ingress of corrosive process media into the primary circuit;

— Near-conventional design of heat utilization system with ease of maintenance and repair;
— Flexibility in system design, e.g. in the choice of coolants for intermediate circuit.
The clear physical separation allows for the heat application facility to be conventionally designed and for
repair work to be conducted under non-nuclear conditions. Also, an intermediate circuit which separates the nuclear
reactor helium coolant from the power conversion system is attractive, since it gives flexibility in the design and
allows the use of CO2 as a fluid in the secondary circuit [315]. The flow diagram of the combination of a primary
and a secondary circuit is shown in Fig. 121.
The employment of an indirect cycle, however, is connected with some disadvantages:
— Requirement of an IHX as an additional component, which increases capital costs;

— Decrease of temperature potential of heat transferred to production facilities due to additional heat losses,
which reduces plant efficiency.
The concept of an indirect cycle HTGR with IHX is illustrated in Fig. 122, showing the flow diagram of the
combination of a primary and secondary circuit together with the respective T-Q diagram.
The IHX has to work under the harsh conditions of high temperatures and temperature differences, and
also of high pressures and pressure differences putting stringent requirements to the materials selection.
178
Heat exchanging components in the temperature range of 700–1000°C have long been state of the art in
conventional technologies of the process industries. Also, pressure conditions in the heat exchangers and heat
transport lines can go up to high values. Their limitations are principally dictated by the available materials,
whereas the optimal choice is defined by economics. Particular to nuclear applications in an HTGR are the aspects
of helium as a coolant, similar pressures on the primary and secondary sides, operating times of more than
100 000 h, the assumption of abnormal operational or accident states, the presence of process gases and the
limitation of activation of product gases.
As a result of analysis of design experience and operating heat exchangers [316–318], the following general
recommendations on optimization of IHX designs can be formulated:
— The IHX parameters at 100% power strongly depend on the application process and process circuit. The IHX
design must be simple, compact, and easy to install and operate, with a possibility of detecting and
eliminating damage. Unit power sizes up to 300 MW appear to be convenient.
— The IHX design must have the required strength characteristics, including long term strength, and a lifetime
of up to 100 000 h.
— The design of the IHX and its elements must have high reliability and meet all safety requirements to ensure
operability in all reactor plant operating modes. The simultaneous impact of maximum temperatures and
maximum pressure differences on heat exchanger elements should be avoided.
— The IHX structure forming the boundary between primary and secondary helium must withstand a creep
buckling load as the result of an accidental pipe rupture within the secondary helium piping system. This
accident is considered the severest to these structures.
— At helium temperatures up to 950°C, the IHX heat exchange surface can be made of proven metallic nickel
based alloys. At temperatures of 1000°C and above, it is necessary to use ceramics (SiC based materials).
— In order to reduce thermal stresses, IHX large load bearing elements must be shielded against the impact of
high temperature gas flows.
— Connections between IHX elements must be leaktight to prevent intercircuit and bypass leaks and must
ensure compensation of thermal structural deformations.
— Inhomogeneous temperature distribution in the heat exchanger cross-section, temperature pulsations in
elements, and element vibrations induced by high velocity gas flows must be eliminated or minimized.
— The principal designs of the IHX must be validated by both theoretical and experimental analyses.
Much work has been dedicated to the development of a design philosophy for components at VHTR
temperatures. No present technology can actually meet the anticipated requirements in terms of long life
performance, pressure drop and mechanical resistance. Additional work for nuclear applications and qualification
of these methods is needed. The final choice will be made according to criteria such as local stress/strain conditions,
corrosion, dust susceptibility, in-service inspection, qualification and, of course, cost [274]. For those to be applied
to future nuclear systems, i.e. for high temperatures and pressures, appropriate material selection will be essential
[319]. The main difficulties in IHX development are seen in the proper choice of structural materials that can be
operated over longer times at temperatures up to 1000°C (see Section 6.6).
The IHX in an HTGR represents the pressure boundary of the primary circuit, which sets stringent
requirements on the boundary integrity and must be provided through implementation of prerequisites and
conditions eliminating brittle fracture of this component. In the case of possible primary circuit leaks, radioactive
fluid will therefore be retained in a leaktight reinforced concrete containment. Coolant leakage from the primary
circuit into the secondary circuit is typically prevented by a pressure gradient, with the higher pressure on the
secondary side to keep radioactivity in the primary system. A further coolant leakage beyond the containment will
be limited by closing quick-response shutoff valves.
Table 32 lists the primary and secondary system pressures for various IHX designs of nuclear process heat
reactor concepts, with all having the higher pressure on the secondary side, except for the ANTARES concept
(which corresponds to the European concept developed within the EU project RAPHAEL (see Section 2.3.3.2)).
The decision for the opposite pressure gradient in the ANTARES/RAPHAEL IHX design is based on the choice of
a plate type heat exchanger, for which potential pressure transients on the secondary side are particularly
challenging. The choice can also be defended with a safety argument, namely the advantage of quickly and easily
detecting an IHX failure by radioactivity measurements in the secondary circuit.
179
TABLE 32. PRESSURE DIFFERENCES FOR SELECTED HTGR CONCEPTS
Concept Primary pressure (MPa) Secondary pressure (MPa)
HTTR 3.91 4.02

HTTR-IS 4.0 4.1
GTHTR300 5.00 6.15
GTHTR300C 5.1 5.13
KVK 3.99 4.19/4.35
HTR-Modul process heat plant 3.99 4.38
PNP-500 4.0 4.2
H2-MHR (S–I) 7.0 7.1
VG-400 4.9 5.4
MHR-100SMR 5.0 5.3
NGNP-GA 6.23 6.23
ANTARES (PHP) 5.5 5.0
6.2. TYPES OF INTERMEDIATE HEAT EXCHANGER
Various technologies for heat exchanging components designated for nuclear applications have been
developed in the past. Different heat exchanging configurations are currently being pursued. Apart from the classic
design of shell and tube (U-tube, helical) representing the more established technology, there are also plate, plate
fin, and printed circuit or plate-machined type heat exchangers (PMHX). But two-stage heat exchangers are also
possible, employing separate sections with different configurations and materials, and designed for different
lifetimes. Potential fluid flow configurations are single-stream, parallel-flow, counter-flow, cross-flow, serpentine-
flow or multistreaming. The proper selection will be the result of optimization, apart from the necessary operating
conditions, e.g. in terms of volume, weight or cost. A strong incentive for a compact IHX, i.e. heat exchangers with
large surface area densities of greater than 700 m2 per m3 of heat exchanger volume and specially designed heat
transfer surface geometries, favours these novel designs [320].
6.2.1. Shell and tube
The characteristic feature of a shell and tube heat exchanger is the convective heat transfer through the tube
walls. The helix type IHX (Fig. 123) consists of a bundle of helical tubes arranged around a central return gas duct
for the hot secondary helium. Coiled tubes enlarge the heat transfer area and allow thermal expansion. The support
system for the tubes consists of support cylinders with star shaped, welded-on support plates serving to take the
weight of the bundle. A segmental design of the support structure limits the axial relative expansion caused by the
operation temperature. In the upper cold area, the mechanical loads are carried by the vessel cover. This ensures
access to the secondary system for in-service inspection and repairs without the need to open the primary circuit.
In the helical IHX, primary hot helium (950°C) entering the heat exchanger flows via a mixing and deflecting
device at the bottom of the component upwards through the bundle and is cooled up to 300°C. The cooled primary
helium flows back into the gap between the wall of the reactor pressure vessel and the gas shroud of the heat
exchanger to the blower at the bottom of the component. The secondary helium enters the component at the top.
After entering into a ring conduit, the helium with a temperature of 200 °C is uniformly distributed over the tube
bundle and heated up to 900°C in counterflow. The cycle is closed by the hot header which is insulated on the
inside. The hot helium leaves the IHX at the top of the component. The maximum wall temperatures in the tubes in
normal operation are 920°C; the maximum pressure difference between the primary and secondary sides is 0.2 MPa
under operational conditions. In depressurization accidents, they have to withstand the full pressure difference in a
limited time period.
180
FIG. 123. Intermediate heat exchanger for nuclear applications [198]. Helical tube bundle (left); details of hot gas collector tube and
support structures (right).
The advantages of the shell and tube IHX are that repair works can be done relatively easily and its thick walls
will result in a larger corrosion resistance, and thus a longer lifetime. The major drawbacks of tubular heat
exchangers are the large size of the component connected with higher costs, and the relatively low heat transfer
density. The technology has been proven in the VHTR temperature range in the operational experience gained
within the German PNP project (see Section 6.3.2) and as a real nuclear component in the HTTR (see
Section 6.3.3).
6.2.2. Plate heat exchanger
Plate type IHX concepts representing the more advanced technology are promising because of their small,
compact design and their high integration possibilities; the large variety of geometric configurations and complexity;
and their high heat transfer density, and therefore their high efficiency. The IHX is composed of elementary modules
in the power range of, for example, 1–5 MW each. A module consists of a stack of plates. The flow of primary and
secondary fluids is in channels between the plates. The primary surface of the plate heat exchanger consists of
corrugated plates formed by shock waves. The hydraulic diameter of the flow channels is in the range of 2–10 mm, but
181
FIG. 124. Printed circuit heat exchanger (PCHX) [321].
wide gap plates for viscous fluids are also manufactured. Experience exists with the manufacture of large plates with a
width of up to 2 m and a length of up to 12 m. A plate IHX can be operated at pressures of up to 50 MPa. Operating
conditions achievable so far are temperatures up to 200°C and pressures up to 2.5 MPa.
The development of a plate design IHX is challenging since it should meet the criteria of compactness, high
thermomechanical resistance, high thermal efficiency (95%), low pressure drop, no leakage, inspectability, long
lifetime and cost effectiveness. Thin walls may cause a corrosion problem, leading to a potentially shorter
component lifetime. The available experience with plate IHX modules is, unfortunately, not under the conditions or
at the size required for an HTGR. Final qualification must be made in larger scale (MW range) test facilities under
representative operation conditions [38]. Compared with the shell and tube type, plate IHX modules are less easily
repaired. Rather than inspection of individual coolant passages, only integral leak tests can be conducted, with IHX
modules isolated from the system when leaking.
6.2.2.1. Printed circuit heat exchanger
A printed circuit heat exchanger (PCHX) module is composed of machined metal plate layers of ~1 mm
thickness containing coolant channels for the primary fluid alternating with those for the secondary fluid (Fig. 124),
flowing, for example, counter to each other (top right). The flow channels with a semicircular profile (top left) are
electrochemically edged into the plates using a technique similar to that for printing electrical circuits.
182
FIG. 125. Two variants of plate fin IHX [36] with Brayton Energy design (left); Nordon design (right).
This manufacturing technique makes complex streams possible. Channels may be straight or wavy and can
have hydraulic diameters as small as 0.7 mm, leading to laminar flow on both sides. The metal plates are stacked
(top right) and then diffusion bonded. The bond between the metal surfaces is formed by applying heat and
pressure, promoting a grain growth across the boundary between the plates, thus becoming a solid all-metal core
(bottom left) [320].
PCHX designs have been developed that are highly robust and have high thermal efficiencies, allowing
pressures of 50 MPa and temperatures of 900°C. The ability to etch very small channels leads to a highly compact
component. Surface area densities may be as high as 2500 m2/m3. So far, PCHX modules have been made of
stainless steel and nickel alloy. The basic modules can be taken to construct heat exchangers to any desired scale.
Extensive experience with PCHX exists in gas processing in the petrochemical industries.
6.2.2.2. Plate fin heat exchanger
In the plate fin heat exchanger (PFHX), the fins are corrugated sheets separated by the plane plates (Fig. 125).
Fins have the tasks of extending the surface for heat transfer given by convection and conduction, and providing
channels for the coolant flow. Different fin forms are possible, such as straight or wavy fins, or offset strip fins. The
latter tend to enhance flow turbulence and thus improve heat transfer. A concern with regard to corrosion is given
with the small fin thickness, which may be 0.2 mm or even less, and may limit the lifetime at high temperatures.
Testing has been done under steady state and transient conditions. Plate fin heat exchangers appear more
economical, but less robust than PCHX modules, representing a low technological risk if used at temperatures
below 500°C [296].
Two variants are pursued for the plate fin IHX. The one proposed by Brayton Energy has wavy or straight fins
on a flat support plate. The independent cells (Fig. 125, left) allow an arrangement for the IHX module which is
flexible under thermal loads. Using flow channels with 0.3 mm hydraulic diameter and a high fin density, a high
compactness (~10 m3) could be achieved. The second variant, from Nordon (Fig. 125, right), employs a different
type of fins, serrated offset strip fins, on a support plate.
6.2.2.3. Hybrid plate heat exchanger
Hybrids of different plate heat exchanger concepts are also possible and can be chosen if attributes of different
concepts are to be combined. An area of application of such hybrid heat exchangers (H2X) is heat transfer between
two very different fluids. An example is a sodium–CO2 IHX, with low pressure, large heat transfer, and the
requirement for larger channels to avoid plugging on the sodium side, and with poor heat transfer and therefore high
pressure favouring smaller channels on the CO2 side [322].
183
6.2.3. Spiral heat exchanger
Spiral heat exchangers of the ACTE design have a cylindrical shape where the fluids circulate in a
countercurrent flow in spirals around the longitudinal axis. Flow is highly turbulent, which enhances the heat
transfer. Also, the heat transfer area is very high at 1600 m2/m3.
6.2.4. Direct contact exchanger
In advanced fast reactor designs, direct contact heat exchange from a liquid metal to water is currently being
considered for steam generation in power production, and could economically eliminate the need for the
intermediate loop in a liquid metal reactor design. The vigorous agitation of the two fluids, the direct liquid–liquid
contact and the resultant interfacial heat transfer area give rise to large volumetric heat transfer coefficients and
rapid steam generation. Further R&D is needed to optimize heat transfer and flow stability and to minimize aerosols
for direct contact heat exchange systems.
6.3. INTERNATIONAL R&D ON IHX CONCEPTS FOR HTGRS
6.3.1. France
For the IHX of France’s ANTARES indirect cycle concept by AREVA NP, several novel technologies have been
reviewed and tested [36, 323]. The technologies identified for compact IHX currently under investigation are [36]:
— Plate machined, stamped or chemically etched heat exchanger and assembled by diffusion bonding;
— Plate fin heat exchanger;
— Corrugated plate heat exchanger;
— Spiral heat exchanger.
The plate IHX modules are located in a pressure vessel. Due to the limited possibility for in-service
inspection, leaktightness of the plate IHX is not strictly required. Instead, closure valves will be implemented on the
secondary inlet and outlet piping. Leak detection can be done at a very low mass flow rate by measuring fission gas
activity in the secondary He–N2 coolant, which is at lower pressure than the primary helium. The plate IHX
modules must be easily removable. The lifetime is planned for 20 years, compared with 60 years for the plant [297].
Figure 126 shows a potential design of an IHX vessel for ANTARES containing, in a symmetrical arrangement,
eight plate type IHX modules with 75 MW(th) each.
A PCHX or plate type IHX is also being considered for the recuperator component in a Brayton (direct)
cycle HTGR. This IHX is used to transfer the remaining heat in the coolant at the turbine outlet to heat up the high
pressure gas at the compressor outlet [296]. Since the modules are relatively stiff, their active height is limited to the
order of 1 m. The total volume required for ANTARES is about 25 m3. The AREVA specifications for the
recuperator heat exchanger component of ANTARES are listed in Table 33.
Within the French programme, PCHX tests were conducted in the air test loop CLAIRE where the Reynolds
similarity was used to simulate helium. The thermal and mechanical performance of PCHX modules was
investigated under steady state and transient working conditions. The main difficulty is to obtain a homogeneous
flow pattern in the channels. The heat transfer density achieved was 26 MW/m3. Other results of the plate IHX
investigations were high efficiencies of greater than 95% and the potential for further design optimizations. The
assessment of lifetimes, however, appears to be difficult owing to lack of creep and creep-fatigue test data [324].
Carburization and decarburization reactions may be critical to the thin heat transfer walls in the plate type
IHX regarding the particular environment with the helium–nitrogen mixture as the coolant on the secondary side
[38]. The preferred material for the hot section of the IHX is Alloy 617, with alternatives being Alloy 230 and
Hastelloy XR. A large materials programme includes experimental studies to qualify materials at high temperatures
and to define the acceptable impurity contents in the coolant (to be controlled by the helium purification systems).
Dedicated helium loops are, for example, the CORINTH loop at CEA, Saclay, or are still under development at
CEA, Electricité de France (EdF) and AREVA [297]:
184
FIG. 126. ANTARES IHX vessel with integrated plate IHX modules [36].
TABLE 33. PRECONCEPTUAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE

PLATE TYPE INTERMEDIATE HEAT EXCHANGER FOR THE
FRENCH ANTARES CONCEPT [296]
IHX in ANTARES
Thermal capacity 635 MW(th)
Thermal efficiency 95%
Material Alloy 230, Alloy 617
Size of vessel  
PMHX  25 m3
PFHX (Brayton Energy) 10 m3
PFHX (Nordon) 30 m3
Primary helium 
Inlet temperature  850°C
Outlet temperature  390°C
Design pressure  5.5 MPa
Design pressure drop  <0.1 kPa
Flow rate 240 kg/s
Secondary helium/nitrogen mixture 
Outlet temperature 900°C
Design pressure  ~5.5 MPa
Design pressure drop <0.2 kPa
Flow rate 614 kg/s
185
FIG. 127. Planned HELITE loop for the ANTARES IHX investigation [38].
— The CLAIRE air loop at CEA, Grenoble, with a low flow rate on either side of ≤0.2 kg/s, high temperatures
up to ~950°C at a maximum inlet pressure of 0.8 MPa for thermohydraulic component testing and mechanical
fatigue testing;
— The PAT air loop at EdF, Chatou, with a large flow rate and low temperature;
— The HEFUS helium loop at ENEA, Brasimone, with low flow and medium temperature;
— The HELIOKA loop currently under development at FZK, Karlsruhe;
— The 1 MW HELITE helium loop (Fig. 127) to be built at CEA, Cadarache, to provide 850°C helium to a high
temperature test section and 500°C helium to another, medium temperature test section;
— A helium loop of at least 10 MW for final qualification.
While the plate type IHX has been selected as the reference concept for ANTARES, the multiloop tubular
type IHX is considered as a backup solution [36]. The preliminary design proposed for the tubular type IHX
(Fig. 128) consists of four 152.5 MW(th) units located around the reactor vessel. A total of 2411 helically wound
tubes made of Inconel 617 and with an active length of 28.2 m, an inner diameter of 16.6 mm and a tube wall
thickness of 2.2 mm will be employed in the four modules. The secondary fluid is 80% nitrogen based (‘air’), to
allow use of components derived from existing CCGT technology, and 20% helium, to enhance the IHX thermal
performances.
6.3.2. Germany
The example given in Fig. 129 represents the German reference design of a process heat HTR-Modul in a side
by side arrangement of nuclear reactor and IHX vessel for each modular unit.
The thermal power of the nuclear reactor and of the IHX is 170 MW, the limitation of power is given by the
requirement of self-acting decay heat removal in accidents with a total loss of active cooling. If larger thermal
powers were needed, an annular core would be required. The limitation in this case is caused by the dimensions and
type of reactor pressure vessel.
The employment of an IHX was also suggested within the PNP project with regard to the steam gasification
of hard coal, for which the main characteristic data are given in Table 34 for comparison. A facility for large
186
FIG. 128. ANTARES tube type heat exchanger as a backup solution [36].
TABLE 34. OPERATIONAL DATA OF THE COMPONENT

TEST LOOP KVK
Thermal power 10, maximum 12.8 MW(th)

Temperature 950, maximum 1000°C
Pressure 4, maximum 4.6 MPa
Helium flow rate 3, maximum 4.3 kg/s
Helium velocity 60 m/s
Temperature transient ± 200 K/min
Presssure transient 0.5 MPa/s
component testing (KVK) was constructed and successfully operated by Interatom within the PNP project [326]. In
a heating system consisting of a heater with steam, a natural gas burner and an electrical heater with a total thermal
power of 10 MW, helium was heated up to 950°C at 4.0 MPa (Figs 130 and 131). Some operational parameters are
listed in Table 34.
Two IHX components were constructed and tested in the KVK loop, one with a helical tube bundle by the
company Steinmüller and another one with U-tubes manufactured by the company Balcke–Dürr (now, Babcock
AG). Figure 132 shows schematics of both components, and Fig. 133 shows both IHX components under
construction. The KVK plant also allowed testing of large diameter hot gas ducts, a steam generator, valves for hot
helium and other components like the hot header, or auxiliary plants as for gas purification.
187
FIG. 129. Arrangement of HTR-Modul (left) with Helix-IHX (middle) or U-tube-IHX (right) [325].
The relevant data of the IHX test components are listed in Table 35 compared with the data of an IHX
component to be connected to the two German concepts of a process heat nuclear reactor. Each component had a
thermal power of 10 MW. The most critical part in the design of a helical tube concept with regard to temperature
loads, the hot header for the secondary helium, was tested in the 10 MW component in a 1:1 scale related to the
large component. The tube systems had the same dimension in the test and for the nuclear application. The
materials for the tubes, headers, supporting structures and gas ducting on the primary side were the same as planned
for the nuclear application. A uniform flow distribution through the helix tube bundle necessary to minimize
relative movements between the tubes is achieved by an integrated flow distributor. The connection to the
secondary helium circuit is identical for both IHX types [327].
Both heat exchanger components were operated over several thousands of hours without any difficulty. The
table shows that the specific data of the test components were very similar to those planned for the nuclear
application. Gas temperatures, pressures and material temperatures in the KVK facility were even identical to those
of the nuclear design.
According to the BBC/HRB strategy, the IHX for a nuclear heat supply system based on the concept of the
medium-sized HTR-500 was designed as a tandem type He–He heat exchanger separated into a high temperature
and a low temperature section. This arrangement offers the chance of separate replacement of the high temperature
part if necessary, and the use of less expensive materials for the low temperature part. The materials of choice, at
that time, were Inconel 617 for the high temperatures and Incoloy 800 for the low temperatures. Selecting a split-up
temperature of ~700°C, the low temperature range would be covered by conventional material technology.
188
FIG. 130. Flowsheet of 10 MW KVK facility for testing nuclear process heat components [326].
FIG. 131. 10 MW KVK facility for testing nuclear process heat components [292].
189
FIG. 132. Two IHX components tested in KVK with helical tube bundle by Steinmüller company (left) [328]; U-tube bundle by
Balcke–Dürr company (right) [329].
A combination with the steam–coal gasification was also considered possible, further optimizing the system
and increasing its efficiency. While in a first step hydrogasification would degasify the coal, the steam gasification
could then completely gasify the remaining coke.
Apart from the KVK plant, experimental work was also conducted in the high temperature helium test facility
(Hochtemperatur-Helium-Versuchsanlage (HHV)), the EVO (Energieversorgung Oberhausen) plant, insulation test
facilities and other specific facilities (Table 36) to test, for example, friction, fretting, wear, materials and
depressurization. On the basis of the broad experimental programme, the following statements can be made with
respect to the feasibility of the shell-and-tube type IHX:
— Two helium heated IHX have been successfully tested on the 10 MW power level and at maximum helium
heating temperatures of 950°C (primary) and 900°C (secondary). So far, the process parameters have been
tested under real conditions of the nuclear application. The operating time of the helical tube bundle was more
than 5000 h and that of the U-tube bundle was more than 4000 h. Overall it was stated that an IHX following
one of the two designs investigated (helical tubes and U-tubes) can be designed for a power of 170 MW and
can be operated for 100 000 h on the basis of the available experience.
190
FIG. 133. IHX component with helical tube bundle (Steinmüller) (left); U-tube bundle (Balcke-Dürr) (right) [292].
— Parallel to the integral testing of the components, additional testing in KVK was carried out for a hot gas
header of the helical tube bundle, hot gas ducts (including bends and expansion bellows), hot gas valves and
a steam generator.
— The thermodynamic data of the heat exchanger designs have been confirmed by the experiments. Average
heat fluxes of ~40 kW/m² can be realized at reasonable pressure drops.
— The components were tested in steady state operation and under transient conditions. Transients of ±7 K/min
were tolerated by the components without failure.
— The measured vibrations did not result in serious loads to the heat exchanger tubes.
— The bearing forces for the load transfer system of the cold header and the bundle were within the range of
calculated values.
191
192
TABLE 35. COMPARISON OF DATA OF IHX TESTED IN KVK FACILITY WITH DATA OF IHX FOR NUCLEAR APPLICATION
KVK 170 MW(th) HTR-Modul 500 MW(th) PNP

IHX in [325] [330]
Helical U-Tube Helical U-Tube Helical U-Tube
Heat capacity (MW) 10 10.1 171.7 171.7 125 125
Material
Tube Nicrofer 5520 Nicrofer 5520 Alloy 617 Alloy 617
Size 
Bundle outer diameter (m) 1.5 2.0 2.78 1.512 2.52 2.098 (hot)
 /2.815 (cold)
Tube outer diameter (mm) 22 20 22 20 22 20
Tube wall thickness (mm) 2 2 2 2 2.2 2
Tube length (m) 38.2 30.0 40.7 32.7
Number of tubes 117 180 1612 2470 1444 1900
Primary helium
Inlet temperature (°C) 950 950 950 950 950 950
Outlet temperature (°C) 293 300 292 292 293 293
Inlet pressure (MPa) 3.99 3.99 3.99 4.05 4.0 3.99
Outlet pressure (MPa) 3.935 3.94 3.97 3.99
Flow rate (kg/s) 2.95 3.0 50.3 50.3 36.9 36.9
Secondary helium
Inlet temperature (°C) 220 220 200 200 220 220
Outlet temperature (°C) 900 900 900 900 900 900
Inlet pressure (MPa) 4.19 4.35 4.38 4.35 4.2 4.35
Outlet pressure (MPa) 4.025 4.25 4.19 4.19
Flow rate (t/h) 2.85 2.9 47.3 47.3 35.6 35.6
2
Heat transfer area (m ) 3500 4254 4700 4000 3900
Lifetime (h) — — 140 000 140 000 140 000 140 000
TABLE 36. LARGE HELIUM TEST FACILITIES
Facilities
EVO HHV EVA II KVK
Purpose Test of total Test of gas turbine and Test of steam Test of IHX
power plant large components reformer bundle components
Location Oberhausen Jülich Jülich Bensberg
Electric power (MW) 50 45 10 10
Thermal power (MW) 150 45 — —
Heating device Fossil burner Compressor Electric heater Electric heater
Maximum helium 750 850 950 950
temperature (°C)
Helium pressure (MPa) 2.87 5 4 4
Helium mass flow (kg/s) 200 3.8 3
Operation time (h) 50 000 1000 10 000 10 000
— Ultrasonic inspection of IHX tubes after 4700 h of operation did not reveal any deviations.
— As many as 656 cycles from 950°C to 710°C and the reverse with a transient of ± 40 K/min did not cause any
damage to the header.
— Tests with a pressure difference of 4.3 MPa between the primary and secondary sides of the hot gas header at
970°C were carried out over a time period of 455 h to simulate a depressurization accident. No damaging
influence was identified.
— Insulation and gas ducting structures inside the tube bundles did not show any damage.
6.3.3. Japan
6.3.3.1. Testing of the Japanese IHX in the HTTR
The IHX used in the HTTR is a vertical, helically coiled counterflow type heat exchanger, as shown in
Fig. 134. The primary helium enters the IHX through the inner pipe of the primary concentric hot gas duct attached
to the bottom of the IHX. It flows upwards outside the tubes, transferring the nuclear heat of 10 MW to the
secondary helium cooling system, and flows back through the annular space between the inner and outer shells. The
secondary helium flows downwards inside the heat transfer tubes and flows upwards in the central hot gas pipe
through the hot header.
A double-walled shell with a thermal insulation attached on the inside surface of the inner shell provides
reliable separation of heat resisting and pressure retaining functions. Cold helium flowing through the annulus
brings uniform temperature distribution throughout the outer shell, which has a pressure retaining function.
Insulation inside and outside the central hot gas pipe keeps the heat transfer low to obtain a high efficiency.
To minimize constraints of axial and radial thermal expansion of the helically coiled heat transfer tubes, a
floating hot header combined with the central hot gas duct and passing through the central space inside the helix
bundle is adopted. A tube support allows free thermal expansion of a helix in radial direction. The differential
pressure of 0.1 MPa only acts on the heat transfer tubes to reduce mechanical loads to ≤1 MPa. An innovative type
of tube support and a coaxial double-wall shell are applied to reduce thermal loads to ≤40 MPa. Table 37 shows the
major design specifications of the IHX as operated in the HTTR [331] and as projected for the combined cycle
version of the GTHTR300C [56].
6.3.3.2. IHX concept for the GTHTR300C
The IHX of the GTHTR300C (Fig. 135) has been designed for a thermal power of 170 MW(th) on the basis
of the proven concept of the shell and tube type IHX of the HTTR operated at 950°C and 4 MPa. Pressure in the
193
FIG. 134. Schematic and photograph of the He–He intermediate heat exchanger in the HTTR [331].
secondary loop is slightly higher (5.13 MPa) than in the primary loop (5.1 MPa). The logarithmic mean temperature
difference (LMTD) is 154°C (HTTR: 113°C), which is inversely proportional to the heat transfer surface area
required. In the IHX the pressure difference is kept lower than 0.15 MPa by a differential pressure control system to
limit the creep damage. The lifetime is planned to be 20 years [55].
6.3.4. Russian Federation
An intermediate helium circuit will also be used in the Russian Federation’s HTGR designs VG-400 and
VGM [332]. Two IHX designs were developed and tested. The first design is based on straight-tube shroudless
cassettes; the second features cassettes with helical tubes [332, 333]. Pressure in the secondary circuit is higher than
in the primary circuit. The main characteristics and structural layouts of the IHX designs are given in Table 38 and
Fig. 136 [332].
The straight-tube IHX consists of cassettes inside a profiled shroud, and an equilateral triangle arrangement of
tubes in the cassettes in two rows around the central tube. Cassettes are arranged at two levels in order to reduce
pressure losses at the heat exchange surface inlet and outlet and to improve helium flow formation at the shell side
194
TABLE 37. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE He–He INTERMEDIATE HEAT EXCHANGER IN THE HTTR
IHX in HTTR IHX in GTHTR300C
Type Shell-and-tube, helical Shell-and-tube, helical
Heat capacity (MW) 9.94 170
Shell material 2.25Cr–1Mo steel SA 533 (Mn–Mo)
Tube material Hastelloy XR Hastelloy XR
Size 
Inner/outer shell diameter (m) 1.352/2.0
Shell height (m) 11.0
Inner/outer bundle diameter (m) 0.84/1.31 1.84/4.57
Effective tube bundle height (m) 4.87 2.94
Tube outer diameter (mm) 31.8 45.0
Tube wall thickness (mm) 3.5 5.0
Tube length (m) 22 14.2
Number of tubes 96 724
Heat transfer area (m2) 244 1448
Maximum temperature 
Shell (°C) 430 <350
Tube (°C) 955 955
Maximum pressure (MPa)
Shell 4.81 6.0
Tube (differential pressure) 0.29 0.29
Primary helium (shell side)
Inlet temperature (°C) 850–950 950
Outlet temperature (°C) 389 850
Inlet pressure (MPa) 4.06 5.00
Pressure drop (kPa) 1 31
Secondary helium (tube side)
Outlet temperature (°C) 775–860 900
Inlet pressure (MPa) 4.21 5.15
Pressure drop (kPa) 20 58
Design lifetime (a) 20 20
inlet. In the helical-tube design, the heat exchange surface consists of 19 cassettes arranged in a triangle inside a
hexahedral shroud. Tubes are wound around the central load-bearing tube and form four coils with a diameter
ranging between 232 and 406 mm.
The IHX in the MHR-T plant is used to transfer heat at temperatures of up to 1000°C to the hydrogen production
application and is separated into two heat exchangers due to limitations on the heat exchanger casing size. The heat
exchanger is vertically arranged, pressurized and modular, with the possibility of constructing separate modules. One
IHX contains 121 modules. In order to reduce wall temperatures, the inner surface of the casing is fitted with thermal
insulation and an air cooling system at the outer surface. Candidate materials for the IHX removable internals are the
steels 12Cr18Ni10Ti, 08Cr18Ni9, 08Cr16Ni11Mo3, and high nickel alloy CrNi55MoWZr.
For the GT-MHR plant, which uses an indirect (in the intermediate circuit) gas turbine cycle, an IHX was
developed based on the design with helical tubes wound in one coil. The IHX is inserted into the heat transfer unit
casing where the primary circuit helium blower is located. Internal metal structures shape the circulation path
between the IHX and the gas blower. This IHX design is more compact than the modular one. However, with the
IHX power equal to the GT-MHR power, the IHX tube bundle does not fit into a casing of acceptable size and
weight; this is why the IHX is divided into two parts. Moreover, in the helical-tube IHX, hydraulic resistance in the
secondary circuit (on the tube side) is 3–5 times higher than in the primary circuit (on the shell side).
195
FIG. 135. Conceptual drawing of the IHX for GTHTR300C [55].
196
TABLE 38. MAIN PARAMETERS OF THE IHX DESIGN OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S REACTOR
CONCEPTS [332]
Parameter VG-400 VG-400, VGM MHR-T GT-MHR

Power (MW) 110.5 76.9 105.5 302.5
Mean LTD (°C) 154 171 136 34.5
Primary Circuit
Coolant Helium Helium Helium Helium
Flow rate (kg/s) 85 59.1 135.5 159.3
Inlet/outlet temperature (°C) 950/700 950/700 1000/850 849/484
Inlet pressure (MPa) 4.9 5.0 6.42 7
Pressure loss (kPa) 23 12.8 33.4 16.2
Secondary Circuit
Coolant Helium Helium Helium Helium
Flow rate (kg/s) 38.6 24.2 38.65 171.4
Inlet/outlet temperature (°C) 350/900 290/900 450/975 460.8/800
Inlet pressure (MPa) 5.4 5.2 6.92 7.46
Pressure loss (kPa) 46 18.6 45 210
Geometrical Characteristics
Type of heat exchanger and tubes Modular, straight-tube Modular, helical Modular Coiled, helical
Size of tubes 
OD × δ (mm) 14 × 2 21 × 2.5 4 30 × 4
length (m) 5.38 10.9 49
Number of tubes 163 × 42 19 × 132 252 × 121 2300
Tube material CrNi55Mo WZr CrNi55Mo WZr SiC-based ceramics CrNi55Mo WZr
Bundle OD/ID (m) 0.435/0.20 3.35 4.88/1.544
Bundle height (m) 10.1 2 10.0
Casing OD (m) 2.3 5.7 ~6
LTD = Log temperature difference δ = wall thickness
OD = outer diameter ID = inner diameter
6.3.5. United States of America
6.3.5.1. Conceptual design of IHX for the US H2-MHR
In the USA, the reference design for a next generation HTGR is the 600 MW(th) modular helium reactor
(MHR). For the purpose of hydrogen generation, the concept of an H2-MHR has been developed, which is to be
coupled to a hydrogen production technology based on either an S–I thermochemical cycle or high temperature
electrolysis. The IHX for this facility is based on the PCHX design [334]. The characteristic data of the IHX design
for the H2-MHR are listed in Table 39.
For the S–I cycle based H2-MHR, the IHX as currently planned will consist of 40 modules of PCHX with
each module transferring 15 MW(th). All modules plus associated manifolds will be placed into an insulated steel
vessel of a size similar to that of the MHR vessel. For the HTSE-based H2-MHR, the IHX component would be
much smaller due to the small amount of heat being transferred. The IHX could be either composed of PCHX units
or follow the more conventional helical coil design [335].
197
FIG. 136. Structural diagram of the straight-tube IHX design for the VG-400 [332]: (a) VGM power plants; (b) straight-tube cassette;
(c) helical-tube IHX.
TABLE 39. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE He–He IHX FOR THE

H2-MHR CONCEPT [335]
IHX in H2-MHR
Type Printed circuit heat exchanger
Heat capacity 600 MW(th)
Material Alloy 800H materials
Size of vessel 
Diameter  6.9 m
Active heat transfer height  8 m
Wall thickness 2 mm
Size of module 
Length  0.6 m
Width  0.65 m
Height  1.5 m
Number of modules 40
Primary helium 
Design pressure drop  40.7 kPa
Flow rate 320 kg/s
Secondary helium 
Design pressure drop  13.1 kPa
Flow rate 222 kg/s
Heat transfer area 5230 m2
198
FIG. 137. Salt–salt IHX design developed for the former MSBR project (left) [336] and for the PB-AHTR (right) [337].
6.3.5.2. Conceptual design of IHX for the US AHTR
The salt–salt intermediate heat exchanger design for the modular 900 MW(th) PB-AHTR has been adopted
from a former development within the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) programme at ORNL [314, 336]. In the
MSBR, the heat exchanger was designed as a 563 MW(th) shell and tube IHX (Fig. 137, left), in order to facilitate
in-service inspection and reliability. Each IHX in the MSBR had 5900 tubes with a length of 6.6 m and an outer
diameter of 9.5 mm. To minimize the salt inventory, knurled tubing was proposed to enhance heat transfer. The
velocity of the salt fluid was maintained at 3.0 m/s in the tubes and 2.3 m/s in the shell. A large LMTD of 95°C was
used, resulting in a high power density of 120 MW/m3. For the PB-AHTR, a lower LMTD is desired, to increase the
power conversion efficiency, and thus a significantly larger surface area will be used [314]. The PB-AHTR [337]
will have four IHX modules with 225 MW(th) each and two primary pumps in the intermediate loop (Fig. 137,
right).
The IHX is a one-pass vertical exchanger with disk-and-doughnut baffles to hold the L-shaped tubes, to
control cross-flow and to minimize the flow-induced vibration. The tubes have a helically knurled surface to
improve heat transfer and to minimize salt volume. The primary salt on the tube side flows downwards, while the
intermediate coolant flows upwards on the shell side. The tube material may be a high temperature structural alloy
sandwiched between thin layers of a corrosion resistant cladding material. Some characteristic data of the IHX are
listed in Table 40.
199
TABLE 40. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SALT–SALT IHX
FOR THE PB-AHTR CONCEPT [337]
IHX in PB-AHTR
Type Shell-and-tube one-pass

vertical heat exchanger
Heat capacity 225 MW(th)
Material Alloy 800H/Hastelloy N
Size of shell 
Diameter  2.16 m
Height  7.98 m
Wall thickness 12.7 mm
Size of tubes 
Length  8.54 m
Outer diameter  9.525 mm
Wall thickness  1.335 mm
Number of tubes 9465
Central tube (upcomer) diameter 0.55 m
Primary salt FLiBe (Li2BeF4)
Design pressure drop  139 kPa
Flow rate 905.87 kg/s
Secondary salt Finak (LiF–NaF–KF)
Design pressure drop  143 kPa
Flow rate 823.60 kg/s
Heat transfer area 2418.99 m2
The aircraft and other industries have developed compact heat exchangers with buffer gas zones to separate
different fluids that may react explosively, such as hot gases vaporizing fuels in aircraft. The same technologies
enable trapping of tritium from the primary system in the heat exchanger of an MSR for hydrogen production [338].
6.4. PROCESS HEAT EXCHANGER CONCEPTS
The development and qualification of a compact IHX is challenging; even more challenging is the IHX on the
process side, where heat is decoupled in specially designed heat exchangers to be directly transferred into the
chemical process feedstock. The process heat exchanger (PHX) is a component working under conditions of high
temperatures, large pressure differences and a corrosive environment on the secondary side. PHX developments in
various countries are described in Section 4.6. For process steam production, typically a tertiary cycle will be
employed, with heat transfer via a steam-to-steam heat exchanger providing an additional barrier against tritium
migration to the process system.
6.5. COOLANTS FOR INTERMEDIATE CIRCUITS
6.5.1. Candidates
The coupling of a nuclear process heat plant to any process requires the economic, safe and reliable transport
of high temperature heat from the primary heat source to the process. The choice for the appropriate secondary
200
TABLE 41. PROPERTIES OF SOME NUCLEAR REACTOR COOLANTS [311]
Tmelt Tboil Density Capacity Conduct. Viscosity

Coolant
(°C) (°C) (kg/m3) (kJ/(kg·K)) (W/(m·K)) (10–6 m2/s)
Helium a –269 3.8 5.2 0.29 11.0

a
Water 0 290 732 5.5 0.56 0.13
Sodium 97.8 883 820 1.27 62 0.12
Lead b 327 1740 10 540 0.16 16 0.13
c
Bismuth 271 1564 9 467 0.1645 15.6 0.083
b
Pb–Bi 124 1670 10 530 0.151 ~9.5 0.30
FLiBe d 459 1430 1 940 2.42 1.0 2.9
FLiNaK d 454 1570 2 020 1.886 0.92 1.43
a
at 7.5 MPa
b
at melting point
c
at 760°C
d
at 700°C and 0.1 MPa
coolant will be made depending on its thermophysical properties (melting point, vapour pressure, density, heat
capacity, viscosity, thermal conductivity), as well as on its availability, material compatibilities, cost, nuclear
performance, toxicity, purification capability (e.g. tritium removal), piping/valving complexity, recovery after
primary system depressurization and ingress of large quantities of coolant into the reactor, maturity of development,
and last but not least, safety concerns. Candidates for secondary coolants are steam, inert gases like He, He/N2,
molten/liquid salts, or liquid metals. Table 41 summarizes relevant properties for a number of coolants [311].
The industrial process heat market in the lower and medium temperature range is very large. At temperatures
below 600°C, the demand is mainly in the form of steam. It is inexpensive, and the large latent heat of vaporization
of water is advantageous for many applications. In addition, steam is often used as a reactant and to supply
mechanical work like driving pumps. As process applications use higher temperatures, steam and water become
less appropriate as a heat exchange medium, since they are highly corrosive at this level, and other heat carriers
such as gases, liquid salts, or liquid metals will be used [311].
Attractive materials for heat exchange and coolants at higher temperatures have low circulation costs and are
non-chemically reactive. Materials with high temperature and pressure are unattractive because of the high
containment material costs and pressurization equipment. The chemical industry uses molten fluoride salt for heat
transfer because of its high boiling point and positive reaction properties with water and air [339]. Another
parameter influencing the choice of a heat transport fluid is distance. Over longer distances, liquid salts and steam
are expected to have lower heat transport costs. A general problem of intermediate circuit coolants, which are
different from the primary coolant, is the possibility of ingress of an external medium into the primary system (like
a water ingress accident in an HTGR). In the event of a heat exchanger leak, chemical ingress into the primary
system is dependent on the chemical composition and pressure gradient between the primary and secondary system
fluid. The ingress of He or a He–N2 gas mixture will not cause a problem to the fuel. Higher pressures will enhance
heat transfer, but a limitation may be required with regard to the strength of materials exposed to a corrosive
environment. The rate of heat transfer through the PHX determines chemical reaction rates and sizing of the
chemical reactor.
6.5.2. Gaseous coolants
Gaseous coolants include fluids such as helium, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and air. Helium is a well understood
fluid and considered the fluid of choice in the secondary circuit for many HTGR concepts. It has a high specific heat
and provides optimal performance due to the absence of neutron moderation and absorption. Unlike sodium that
violently reacts with water and air, helium, as an inert medium, does not exhibit chemical interaction. The low
thermal conductivity of helium results in poor heat transfer even at high coolant velocities. Helium purification and
contamination detection on the primary coolant are essential systems for the identification of leaks and mitigation
201
or prevention of chemical attack. A helium intermediate circuit is characterized by high costs for large sized coolant
circulators and other process equipment. Heat losses are higher than those for the liquids due to the larger pipe
diameter leading to a larger heat exchange surface. The larger diameter also results in greater pipe wall thicknesses.
Helium pumping requirements and heat loss have been found to increase more with separation distance than is the
case with liquid salts (and liquid metals) [340]. But the He as an intermediate circuit coolant has minimum mass and
the lowest cost compared with other options, although the capital costs of the inventory storage required are rather
high. Gases require high pressures and may cause problems in the case of leakage, with potential transportation of
radioactivity to the outside and loss of the ability to effectively remove decay heat by natural circulation.
Another suggestion for a working fluid is a mixture of 80% nitrogen and 20% helium, which has a density
near those working fluids that are used in current turbine designs [315]. An N2–He mixture has been suggested as a
working fluid in the secondary circuit for the French ANTARES concept. The mixture with nitrogen eases the
selection of the turbine, but is at the expense of a higher risk of nitridation of the metal surfaces at high
temperatures.
Experience with the coolant CO2 has been gathered to a large extent within the British advanced gas cooled
reactor programme. The higher density of CO2 compared with helium is of advantage because it allows smaller
velocities for the same pressure drop. Under accident conditions, CO2 efficiently transports heat by a stronger
natural convection compared with helium. The CO2 circuit components can be designed to be smaller and are
therefore less expensive. Also, leakage rates are smaller than those of helium. The main issues are seen in the CO2
radiolysis under normal operating conditions and the control of coolant chemistry due to the presence of the large
amounts of graphite structures [341].
For short separation distances between the nuclear plant and the process plant, a near term solution would be
helium as transfer coolant [340].
6.5.3. Liquid/molten salt coolants
The use of liquid and molten salts in nuclear systems has been subjected to extensive R&D. Liquid salt means
a clean salt, whereas a molten salt refers to a primary coolant in nuclear applications where the fissile material and
the fission products are contained in the salt, which involves a much higher challenge to materials with regard to
corrosion.
6.5.3.1. Molten salts
Molten fluoride salts have a wide solubility range for U and Th, are thermodynamically stable, do not undergo
radiolytic decomposition, have a low vapour pressure, do not attack nickel based alloys, have a higher heat capacity
than sodium (allowing for smaller components) and have a low heat conductivity (slow temperature changes) [281].
Molten salt candidates that meet basic criteria such as sufficient chemical and radiation stability and
compatibility with graphite and high temperature alloys (e.g. Hastelloy N) can be categorized into alkali fluorides
or mixtures of these with either BeF2 or ZrF4. Mixtures of two or sometimes three compounds are required to
achieve a sufficiently low melting point. The need for materials with low vapour pressure limits the share of BeF2
or ZrF4 to less than 40–45% [312].
Molten fluorite salts have the advantage of great stability with respect to both high temperatures and radiation.
Activation levels of molten salts appear to be acceptable. Coolant disposal after 60 years of operation should be
possible as low level waste. Neutronic performance of the liquid salt is strongly dependent on the isotopic and
elemental composition. The disadvantage is that molten salts (also molten metals) carry the risk of corrosion of
structural core materials, which proceeds at high rates with increasing temperature. All salts except for LiF–BeF2
exhibit a positive coolant density coefficient and coolant void ratio [312].
6.5.3.2. Liquid salts
At lower temperatures, nitride salts have been widely used in the chemical industries. The coolants
demonstrated in high temperature systems are helium and liquid fluoride salts, which have shown chemical stability
and relatively non-corrosive behaviour. The heat transfer properties are similar to those of water. Experience with
fluoride salts has long existed in the alumina production industries, where aluminium oxide is dissolved in a
202
FIG. 138. Coolants for different reactor types [338].
mixture of sodium and aluminium liquid fluoride salts (cryolite: 3NaF·AlF3) at ~1000°C. In high temperature
reactors, both helium and liquid fluoride salt coolants have been applied. Liquid fluoride salt coolants are
economically strong because of their enormous heat transport capability compared with gases, therefore allowing a
minimization of equipment. The liquid salt is at atmospheric pressure, whereas the helium is at high pressure
(Fig. 138) [342]. Compared with sodium coolant, liquid and molten salts have an advantage because of their much
larger heat capacity.
A salt cooled loop can operate at any desired pressure by installation of a pressurizer with an inert gas. The
salts are essentially incompressible; thus the gas pressure in the pressurizer, which determines the system pressure,
could be easily adjusted to the needs of the potentially connected chemical factory. Liquid fluoride salt coolants
have good material compatibility and low corrosion rates with high nickel alloys, when proper chemistry control is
used. As a baseline concept, the so-called FLiBe has been selected and is being suggested for use in the US concept
STARH2. FLiBe is a mixture of lithium fluoride (LiF) and beryllium fluoride (BeF2) in a molar concentration ration
of 67 to 33: 7Li2BeF4. It is expensive because of the high cost of Be and the enriched Li (isotopic concentration
>99.995% of 7Li). Another candidate, Flinak, (LiF–NaF–KF), is a well characterized, inexpensive mixture with
excellent heat transport properties, but with a high melting point of 454°C [340].
Beryllium salts are less attractive due to high costs and toxicity concerns, requiring industrial safety
standards. A NaF–BeF2 or LiF–NaF–BeF2 salt has excellent heat transfer characteristics, but it would be neither
economically viable nor practical. Chloride salts, e.g. LiCl–KCl, have an advantage due to their low cost and low
melting points, but the thermodynamic properties of chloride salts in contact with metallic alloys are not as
favourable as those of fluoride salts [340]. Furthermore, chloride salts need isotopically separated chlorine to avoid
nuclides with high cross-sections. The highly mobile activation product 36Cl causes a problem for waste
management.
The salts are mixtures of different fluorides to optimize their physical properties. All lithium salts use (almost)
pure 7Li because of its low nuclear cross-section. The salts have melting points between 300 and 500°C and
atmospheric boiling points typically above 1200°C. In order to avoid freezing of the molten fuel salt and the liquid
salt coolants in the intermediate circuit, they must stay at a sufficiently high temperature [338]. A startup from
atmospheric temperature needs a preheater to melt the salt before circulation can start. This preheating would
require the design and installation of a centralized handling and storage unit in order to facilitate the melting and
203
introduction of the salt to the loop. A loss of circulator power may cause the liquid salt to freeze. A major concern
with using compact heat exchangers in combination with these fluids is plugging of the flow channels [340].
In emergency cases, the liquid fuel is dumped to passively cooled critically safe tanks. The liquid fuel allows
on-line refuelling and a wide choice of fuel cycle options. Fission products can be removed on-line. For actinide
burning, the advantage is that there is no fuel fabrication step. Proper materials may have upper temperature limits
of <750°C.
The coolant for the LS-VHTR (or AHTR) is a mixture of fluoride salts that does not contain fuel. A salt
coolant is also considered an option for the intermediate circuit in sodium fast reactors and with a supercritical CO2
power cycle. Besides a reduction in equipment size, a major advantage is that there are no chemical reactions
between the three different coolants.
For long separation distances between the nuclear plant and the process plant, there might be an advantage for
liquid salts compared with helium in terms of cost and efficiency.
6.5.4. Liquid metal coolants
Liquid metal coolants (Na, NaK, Pb, Pb–Bi) are generally considered for fast reactor systems (also N2O4 has
been studied in the Russian Federation) because of their high thermal conductivity, indifference to radiation and
useful temperature range at low pressure. All have a high boiling point compared with water and therefore do not
need to be pressurized at higher temperatures as water, leading to less stringent requirements on vessels and piping.
Sodium coolant is easy to handle, has favourable thermophysical properties and is practically not corrosive to
metals. But it is not inert and explodes violently in contact with water. The main advantage is the excellent heat
transfer. A drawback is the formation of 24Na, requiring radiation shielding against its intense neutron radiation for
the primary loop.
Lead and lead–bismuth (Pb–Bi) eutectic alloy are chemically inert heavy liquid metal coolants, but they
require higher pumping power. Lead does not react with water, nor does it burn in air. Due to its relatively high
melting point, the use of pure lead generally requires operation at higher temperatures to reduce the risk of the lead
freezing and also to avoid excessive embrittlement of structural material subjected to fast neutron flux at low
temperatures. as lead exhibits an excellent resistance to corrosion, it was one of the first metals used as a material in
chemical engineering. Channels with oxide protective coatings are unwettable by lead. Favourable characteristics
are the very low vapour pressure and the very high boiling point of 1740°C precluding accidents with coolant
boiling. Lead has good heat transfer characteristics. Corrosive attack on ferritic–martensitic and stainless steels
remains negligible up to 400°C owing to the low solubility of impurities. Lead provides excellent radiation
shielding against gamma radiation and allows high temperatures. Any leaked lead would solidify without
significant chemical reactions. While helium is favoured for large plants, lead is advantageous for smaller
plants [280].
A lead–bismuth eutectic (LBE) mixture has a reduced melting point, but corrosion rates are enhanced, which
limits the maximum coolant temperatures (to ~550°C) and coolant velocity. For exposure times up to 7000 h,
austenitic steels can be employed in an LBE with the appropriate oxygen activity up to a temperature of 500°C.
Martensitic steels can probably be used in this environment up to 550°C, but for a limited time because of the high
oxidation rate. Another major concern is a certain radiation problem that arises from the bismuth. The activation of
209
Bi to the volatile gamma emitter 210Po becomes a radiological hazard, which can be alleviated by the employment
of an intermediate circuit [280]. The mass and cost of the Pb–Bi coolant are higher than with other coolants, but the
necessary heat exchanging surface is smaller.
Unlike with lead, a major disadvantage could be the limitation of bismuth resources, supposing there is a
significant deployment of LFRs in the future. One SVBR-75/100 reactor system as suggested in Ref. [343] would
require a specific mass of bismuth of ~1100 t/GW. World resources of Bi are currently estimated to be ~5 million t.
The estimated annual world mine production of bismuth is ~5600 t (as of 2006) with the main producer countries
being China, Mexico and Peru.
Experience with lead based coolants is mainly from the Russian Federation, where these coolants were used
in the reactors of eight nuclear submarines, each powered by a compact, Pb–Bi cooled 155 MW(th) reactor, and in
two prototype nuclear power plants with an accumulated experience of 80 reactor-years (quoting a reference of
1999) [343].
204
6.6. MATERIALS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE HEAT EXCHANGERS
6.6.1. Requirements
Structural materials for both in-core and out-of-core components in Generation IV reactors experience higher
temperatures, higher neutron doses and a much more corrosive environment than do those for existing reactors. Of
the utmost importance is the choice of suitable heat exchanger materials in order to guarantee good heat transfer and
safe and reliable reactor performance. Materials undergo degradation if exposed to high temperatures, neutron
irradiation or corrosive environments. Therefore good resistance to oxidation, corrosion, fouling, creep, thermal
shocks and thermal fatigue, but also adequate mechanical properties such as strength and toughness, are required.
Other important issues are availability, workability and cost of materials.
Materials should be resistant against thermal stresses during repeated heating and cooling cycles and have
good structural stability to avoid graphitization, grain growth or phase changes. Creep–fatigue interaction and creep
rupture strength of base metals and weldments causing unacceptable dimensional changes and distortions as well as
final rupture are the most important factors determining the integrity and structural lifetime of components at
elevated temperatures. Other R&D is concentrating on primary helium coolant chemistry and acceptable ranges of
impurities. Considering the protective effect of oxide layers on metal surfaces, a slightly oxidizing chemistry may
result in an extended component lifetime. Also, the development of less brittle ceramic materials is being pursued.
At the high temperatures of a VHTR, even small amounts of impurities such as H2O and CO2 in the primary coolant
will cause degradation in the mechanical strength of the metal as a result of chemical reactions with these
impurities.
The basic requirements of Generation IV reactor materials are [344]:
— Geometric stability against thermal and irradiation creep, void swelling;

— Favourable mechanical properties such as strength, ductility, creep rupture, fatigue and creep–fatigue
interactions;
— Resistance to irradiation damage (hardening, embrittlement) at high neutron doses;
— Chemical compatibility between materials and coolant and fuel, respectively;
— Good workability and weldability;
— Low cost.
The safe operation of components requires methods that can predict materials degradation. Their
development is necessary to allow extrapolation to operational parameter ranges outside the ones covered by
experiments, and to better understand the physical mechanisms responsible for the observed behaviour. Higher
confidence in lifetime assessments of VHTR materials requires an understanding of related microscopic and
macroscopic physical phenomena. Long term performance is determined by the complex operational conditions.
Up to now, rather simple damage rules in connection with large safety margins have been applied, ideally to already
well known materials. This methodology, however, is insufficient when new materials or modified service
conditions are considered. Materials modelling can provide physically based input and valuable contributions to
design rules and code cases for damage interactions. Multiscale (length, time), multicode simulations and
corresponding multidimensional validation experiments were undertaken to understand the mechanical properties
of the materials. States of stress in the material, actual environment, local microstructure, stress–strain temperature
history and exposure time are important aspects to be studied [345].
6.6.2. Damage mechanisms
Various mechanisms for materials damage exist in a VHTR environment (Table 42). The problem is related to
the fact that the thermal stability of the HTGR graphite core is higher than that of the IHX structural materials. Wide
data distribution requires a large number of tests for qualification. At lower irradiation temperatures, the dominant
mechanism is irradiation creep due to point defects. At higher temperatures above 650°C, it is thermal creep. Local
mechanical properties can be determined with microhardness, nano-indentation and nano-pillar-compression tests.
Structural, electronic and magnetic analysis of the material can be undertaken using synchrotron radiation with a
powerful X ray source. Near surface areas can be analysed without damaging the material [345].
205
TABLE 42. DAMAGE MECHANISMS IN A VHTR ENVIRONMENT [345]
Type of exposure Expected type of damage
Temperature Phase reactions (precipitations, particle dissolution, segregation)

Neutron irradiation Displacement damage (point defect clusters like black dots, loops and voids leading to swelling,
hardening, embrittlement)
Helium damage (bubble formation at particle–matrix interfaces or grain boundaries)
Radiation induced segregation and ion beam mixing (local alloying)
Environment  Oxide layer (eventual softening of matrix, weakening of grain boundaries)
(He + CO/CO2, H2, H2O, O2, Carburization (hardening and embrittlement due to carbide formation)
impurities) Hydrogen embrittlement
Degradation of fibre–matrix interface
Mechanical load Creep damage (irradiation and/or diffusion controlled dislocation movement, void formation
along different types of boundaries) leading to plastic deformation, fibre pull-out, and rupture
Constant load creep tests at different load levels and test temperatures provide the basic data for deriving the
time dependent allowable stresses considering creep rupture and creep strain limitations, including specified safety
margins such as extended operating time or increased temperature. Creep laws and design values are normally
derived from creep rupture tests on uni-axially loaded specimens and applying certain hypotheses to calculate
equivalent stresses or strains.
For the lifetime and wall thicknesses of real components, multi-axial loading situations must also be
considered. A multi-axial stress state is often characterized by an effective stress, which represents a measure of the
material stressing. Important for the failure is also the deformation behaviour and the orientation of the principal
stresses, which determine the pattern of the cracks formed at the outer surface [346]. Cyclic stresses of components
are simulated by strain-controlled fatigue tests at constant temperature in both helium and air environments. For
components exposed to multi-axial loadings, lifetime is the essential parameter determined in tests with pressure,
tension or torsion loads.
In oxidizing environments and at high temperatures, metals are prone to oxidation processes; also hot
corrosion, carburization, sulphidation and nitridation may be possible. If carburization occurs, the ductility will
decrease; if decarburization occurs, the strength will decrease; and if internal oxidation occurs, the potential for
crack initiation increases with the associated decrease in ductility and toughness. As a result of oxidation, a non-
metallic oxide layer is formed on the metal surface, while reducing the amount of certain alloying elements in the
material that react with the oxygen, connected with a loss of material thickness. Alloying elements in the metal are,
for example, chromium, aluminium and silicon. Improvements can be made by modifying the alloy compositions
by adding reactive elements such as Y, Ce and La, in order to enhance adhesion of the oxide layer, particularly
under thermal cyclic conditions. For many commonly used metals (such as iron, nickel and cobalt), sulphur is a
highly aggressive oxidant. Reaction rates are orders of magnitude faster than those in oxygen [347].
An oxide layer on the surface can be an advantage if it protects from further oxidation and corrosion by not
allowing constituents such as C, N and S to permeate, which are made responsible for internal corrosion. It may,
however, not be stable under all conditions due to mechanical loadings or thermal cycling. The oxidation resistance
of most high temperature metallic materials, such as stainless steels and superalloys, is based on a protective
chromium oxide (Cr2O3) layer, which is thermodynamically stable even at elevated temperatures and resists
sulphidation. However, in environments with an unbalanced carbon activity versus the oxidation potential, the
oxide scale is reduced by reacting with the carbon from the alloy.
At temperatures above 600°C, the material structure changes, e.g. carbides are deposited. Carburization attack
taking place in conditions with low oxygen partial pressures generally causes the formation of internal carbides,
leading to alloy embrittlement and degradation of mechanical properties. The only acceptable corrosion mode
appears to be passive oxidation, characterized by the slow and sustainable growth of an external oxide scale which
can protect the alloy from direct interaction with the gas environment. This, however, requires that the primary
coolant chemistry be controlled by a purification system to adjust the impurity contents in the helium [348].
Graphite deposition has destructive effects due to the growth of graphite in the cracks and pores of the oxide layer,
206
leading to spalling of the oxides. Dense oxide scales of alumina, chromia and — most effectively — SiO2 can
generally protect from internal carburization [347].
Chromium, which is an essential constituent of the alloy, has been identified as an essential element in the
various chemical processes [349]. In the presence of water molecules, chromium reacts to yield the oxide, while
chromium carbides (Cr23C6) are decarburized to yield Cr and CO. A carburization reaction of Cr occurs in the
presence of CO to yield chromium carbide and chromium oxide, with the latter acting as a stable protective layer.
Therefore, a certain CO partial pressure in the helium would be important. For bright metal surfaces, chromium
carbides can be formed at temperatures below 850°C. For high CO concentrations, carbon deposition is possible at
temperatures below 650°C. Another important alloying element is aluminium, which improves the high
temperature performance of steels. Silicon improves the high temperature corrosion resistance of high alloy steels,
especially in carburizing conditions.
During long term service at high temperatures, metallic materials inevitably undergo ageing processes which
result in microstructural evolution and changes in mechanical properties, such as ductility. Experimental
programmes are conducted to characterize the ageing capacity, corrosion resistance, and mechanical behaviour
before and after irradiation. Different ageing treatments are tested with regard to their influence on the
microstructure.
Fouling is the deposition of unwanted species or layers from flue gases on component surfaces. It is often
accompanied by corrosion and erosion, whose products may decrease heat transfer efficiency.
6.6.3. Materials for intermediate heat exchangers and nuclear steam reformers
6.6.3.1. Candidate materials
There are various types of materials under consideration [347].
(A) Ferritic–martensitic steels
Advances in the development of ferritic–martensitic (F–M) materials by alloy and microstructural

modifications have made these materials appropriate for applications at elevated temperatures in power generation
and the chemical industry, and possibly also in some Generation IV designs. Their maximum service temperatures
depend on the steel type, alloying and surface stability. However, ferritic stainless steels lose their strength at
temperatures above 650°C. The advantages are good void swelling resistance and creep resistance. Oxidation
resistance of ferritic stainless steels is superior to that of Cr–Mo steels. Martensitic and ferritic stainless steels have
better thermal conductivity and lower coefficients of thermal expansion than do austenitic grades. Therefore, they
are more suitable to be used under thermal cycling conditions. They also exhibit a reduced activation, meaning a
rapid radioactive decay of activation products. The drawbacks are the low long term creep rupture strength at higher
temperatures and irradiation embrittlement at temperatures up to 400°C.
(B) Austenitic stainless steels
Nickel alloying transforms the ferrite crystal structure to the austenite structure. Cr–Ni steels have relatively
low cost, good mechanical properties and moderate oxidation resistance. Therefore they are commonly used in low
performance high temperature applications. Austenitic stainless steels show good creep resistance up to the higher
temperature range and reasonable resistance to corrosion. Stainless steels can be used up to 800–900°C. Above that
temperature, the protective Cr2O3 layer starts to decompose. Corrosion resistance is improved in so-called
superaustenitic grades by alloying with a sufficient amount of molybdenum, nitrogen or nickel [347]. The drawback
is void swelling at already moderate neutron doses, which is much higher than in F–M materials. Knowledge on
irradiation behaviour is still poor for many metals.
(C) Nickel based superalloys
Nickel based alloys are predestined for high temperature applications up to 1050°C. New developments have
excellent creep rupture properties and high temperature strength, in addition to good oxidation resistance and
207
surface stability. Nickel based superalloys can be strengthened by alloying them with Al and Ti. These oxide
particles stabilize the protective oxide layer and reduce creep at high temperatures. The major problems are
radiation embrittlement, swelling and phase instability, which make them rather the material of choice for out-of-
core applications such as heat exchangers. Furthermore, high-nickel alloys are particularly susceptible to
sulphidation attack.
(D) Oxide dispersion strengthened alloys
Oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) steels are made through a mechanical alloying process. They have good
high temperature properties and show resistance to swelling and radiation embrittlement. Mechanical properties of
ferritic and martensitic steels at elevated temperatures can be improved by dispersion hardening with oxide particles
(e.g. Y2O3 or TiO2). For example, with yttrium alloyed ODS steels, creep resistance of ferritic ODS steels is good
up to 1100°C [347]. Compared with conventional superalloys, ODS steels have a higher resistance to cyclic
oxidation and scale spallation. There is concern about the long term microstructural stability. The advantageous
properties still need to be confirmed for the higher dose range.
(E) Intermetallics
Intermetallics, a new class of materials between metals and ceramics, are compounds which are chemically
bonded together and form a solid phase that significantly differs from the single elements in terms of crystal
structure, and chemical, mechanical and electrical properties. Titanium aluminides belong to the promising
compounds in high temperature and structural applications. They are characterized by a low density, high specific
yield strength, high specific stiffness, good oxidation resistance and good creep resistance at high temperatures up
to 700°C, and even higher temperatures with coating. The limitations are the low ductility and fracture resistance.
Intermetallics have strong potential for replacing superalloys and stainless steels in moderate and high temperature
structural applications.
(F) Refractory alloys
Refractory alloys such as niobium, molybdenum, tungsten and tantalum characterized by melting
temperatures above 2000°C are appropriate for high temperature applications up to 1400°C with good creep and
swelling resistance and no phase transformations below the melting point. They show, however, poor corrosion
resistance, a lack of low temperature ductility, very weak oxidation resistance and radiation embrittlement at lower
temperatures. Their use at high temperatures is limited to reducing environments or vacuum. In addition, high cost
and difficult manufacturing processes make them inappropriate for Generation IV reactors.
(G) Ceramics
Due to their high melting point and modulus of elasticity, structural ceramics, such as silicon nitride silicon
carbide zirconia (ZrO2) and alumina (Al2O3), are superior to metals in that they exhibit high resistance to oxidation,
corrosion, abrasion and creep. The disadvantages are poor thermal conductivity (with the exception of SiC) and
toughness. SiC based ceramics are suitable for high temperature heat exchangers due their relatively low cost,
developed manufacturing technology, good thermal conductivity and high thermal shock resistance. SiC and Si3N4
have a good oxidation resistance because of a protective SiO2 layer that forms in oxidizing environments. Deposits
and gaseous species can react with the SiO2 layer and restrict utilization of SiC. Otherwise, SiC can be used up to
1400°C in air and up to 1650°C in inert environments. Their resistance to high temperature attack by molten salts
and slags must be ensured.
(H) Composites
Composite materials, metal–matrix or ceramic matrix materials (CMCs), combine the desired properties of
different types of materials. Metal–matrix composites typically have a light metal matrix of Al, Mg or Ti. Because
of the sufficiently high melting point, only Ti–matrix composites are potential materials for elevated temperatures.
208
A continuous SiC fibre reinforced Ti-alloy has been developed for temperatures up to 800°C. Ceramic matrix
composites consist of a ceramic matrix reinforced with ceramic fibres. There application range is at high
temperatures of 1000–1500°C due to their good thermal stability and high melting points. The advantage of using
composites instead of monolithic ceramics is the improved toughness. On the other hand, composite materials are
inhomogeneous and anisotropic. Examples for such ‘thermostructural materials’ are Al2O3 matrix SiC particle
reinforced CMCs developed for high temperature heat exchangers having a maximum service temperature of
1500°C. Although all constituents are intrinsically brittle, they can exhibit non-brittle mechanical behaviour. Since
CMC materials always have a certain degree of porosity (~10%), if used as a heat exchanger material, they exhibit
leakage rates (for helium) which might become unacceptable, a problem that can be overcome by impervious SiC
protective coatings.
6.6.3.2. International research efforts
No industrially developed material is currently available for sustained operation at very high temperatures
[324]. Nickel based alloys such as Haynes 230 (Alloy 230), Inconel 617 (Alloy 617) and Hastelloy XR are the
principal candidate materials for high temperature components in the primary system (IHX, turbine blades) of a
VHTR. The IHX is a component outside the reactor, and therefore irradiation effects on materials performance are
less significant. The material choice for a nickel based alloy for long operation periods of the IHX implies a
maximum operating temperature in the range of 400–450°C for the core inlet and about 850°C for the core outlet,
including potential transients. Regarding the definition of the main materials, Table 43 summarizes the chemical
composition of the main candidate materials.
(A) France
Within the French materials programme, IHX candidate materials have been selected on the basis of
mechanical properties, corrosion properties in impure He, and welding and forming ability. Candidate IHX
materials in the 850–1000°C temperature range are nickel based alloys (Alloy 617, Alloy 230), ODS, and SiC
Alloys 617 and 230.
The IHX reference materials selected for the French ANTARES reactor concept are Alloy 230 and Alloy 617,
which are currently undergoing comprehensive characterization studies [36]. Figure 139 shows experimental data
on the key parameter — creep resistance — for both candidates.
Corrosion tests with Alloy 230, Alloy 617 and Hastelloy X conducted in the CORALLINE facility with a
duration of up to 800 h have shown that at 750°C, Alloy 230 oxidized less than the other two materials, whereas
Alloy 617 oxidized most, exhibiting internal and intergranular oxidation. Creep strength for Alloys 230 and 617
was about the same, and both were higher that of Hastelloy X [350]. Fatigue relaxation tests must be conducted
under vacuum and impure helium. Especially the extensive wall material testing for high temperature alloys at a
temperature of 950°C showed that this component can be applied in connection with process heat HTGRs.
With regard to the long term oxidation resistance of Alloy 617 at 950°C under oxidizing helium representative
of a chemically controlled VHTR environment, corrosion tests performed at 950°C up to 5000 h showed that
Alloy 617 oxidized with the growth of a surface chromium oxide scale that included titanium and with internal
oxidation of aluminium. Corrosion also induced formation of a carbide-depleted zone below the surface [348].
(B) Germany
With the development of HTGR concepts in the 1980s producing heat at temperatures of up to 1000°C,
comprehensive research programmes were conducted at FZJ on IHX candidate materials. For the steam cycle
HTGR, the iron base Alloy 800H was qualified up to 750°C; for the steam generator, nickel based alloys with
higher creep rupture strength are required for the high temperature components in process heat nuclear systems.
Within the frame of the PNP project, the corrosion resistance of materials to PNP-typical helium (see Section 5.3.5)
was investigated with the goal being to predict material behaviour for a 40 year operation period. The expected
types of corrosion were oxidation and (de-)carburization.
209
210
TABLE 43. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF MAIN CANDIDATE MATERIALS
(average wt%)
Al B C Co Cr Cu Fe La Mn Mo Ni P S Si Ti W
Alloy 617 1.12 0.002 0.08 11.58 22.16 0.08 1.49 0.11 9.80 Bal. 0.003 ≤0.002 0.06 0.35
Alloy 800 0.54 0.074 0.27 20.65 0.13 Bal. 0.94 0.17 30.55 0.34 0.0004 0.40 0.53
Alloy 800H 0.15 0.05 19.0 Bal. ≤1.5 30.0 ≤0.015 ≤1.0 0.15
–0.60 –0.10 –23.0 –35.0 –0.60
Alloy 230 0.38 0.002 0.11 0.30 22.38 0.08 0.77 0.014 0.49 1.28 Bal. 0.005 ≤0.002 0.39 ≤0.01 14.07
Hastelloy X ≤0.5 ≤0.01 0.05 0.5 20.5 ≤0.50 17.0 ≤1.0 8.0 Bal. ≤0.04 ≤0.03 ≤1.0 ≤0.15 0.2
–0.15 –2.5 –23.0 –20.0 –10.0 –1.0
Hastelloy XR ≤0.05 ≤0.01 0.05 ≤2.5 20.5 ≤0.50 17.0 0.75 8.0 Bal. ≤0.04 ≤0.03 0.50 ≤0.03 0.2
–0.15 –23.0 –20.0 –1.0 –10.0 –0.25 –1.0
Note: Bal. — balance.
FIG. 139. CEA experimental data with Alloy 230 (red symbols) and Alloy 617 (blue symbols) [36].
No deleterious high temperature gas corrosion effects have been found at temperatures up to 750°C. At higher
temperatures, compositions of the impurities with excessively high or very low carbon activities may cause
carburization or decarburization, respectively. By keeping the CO partial pressure of the cooling gas helium in a
well defined range, unacceptable carburization/decarburization reactions can be avoided. The impurity
concentrations in the primary circuit helium are expected to lie within this range without the need for conditioning
[351], and no negative influence on mechanical properties is expected.
The most extensively investigated high temperature materials in the German PNP material programme were
Alloy 800 (or Incoloy 800: X10NiCrAlTi3220), Alloy 800H and Alloy 617 (or Inconel 617: NiCr22Co12Mo). With
regard to materials for splitting tubes, the experimental work was concentrated on the four iron based alloys Incoloy
800H, Incoloy 802, Alloy IN519 and Manaurite 36X. Also considered were the nickel based wrought alloys
Inconel 617, Nimonic 86, Hastelloy X and Hastelloy S. Alloy 617 already has a very large database of numerous
mechanical properties and creep data measured in air and a helium atmosphere [324].
For the purpose of measuring creep resistance and the 1% time elongation limit of all materials, long term
tests were done over 10 000 h in air and HTGR helium, and over 5000 h in product gas of the methane reforming
process (Figs 140 and 141). The longest test durations were 34 000 h for Incoloy 800H, ~70 000 h for Alloy 617
and ~100 000 h for Alloy 800. The creep resistance for Alloy 800H after 30 000 h at 850°C was measured to be
16.5 N/mm2 with an expected value of 11 N/mm2 after 100 000 h. The respective data for Alloy 617 after 30 000 h
at 950°C were 13 and 7 N/mm2.
Of the investigated candidate materials, Alloy 617 exhibited the highest level of creep strength. There is no
influence of the simulated HTGR helium on the 1% creep strain limit or on the creep rupture strength for this
material up to about 20 000 h. This observation is valid for all alloys investigated. The rupture elongation of
specimens in the simulated HTGR helium atmosphere was in the scatter band of values obtained in air [352]. In the
PNP environment, however, Alloy 617 corrodes actively above ~920°C.
An increase of the temperature from 800 to 900°C will result in a reduction of the 100 000 h creep rupture
strength by 40–50%. The conceivable use of ceramics-made splitting tubes was, in those days, not deemed feasible
due to inappropriate material properties (strength, brittleness, porosity) and the manufacturing and connecting
technologies, but was considered an option for the future.
As a result of the PNP materials programme, materials information, design data and analysis methods for the
metallic structural components needed in process heat HTGRs have been made available, and the recommendation
was given that the heat exchanger tubes of helix type IHX modules could be operated for up to 100 000 h at 950°C.
211
FIG. 140. Creep properties of Inconel 617 [352, 353].
FIG. 141. Creep rupture strength versus temperature for materials under consideration for advanced HTGRs [352].
212
FIG. 142. Creep rupture life for Hastelloy XR [354].
(C) Japan
In the HTTR, a nickel based, heat resistant superalloy, Hastelloy XR, was selected for the IHX, a further
development from the nickel based Cr–Mo–Fe superalloy Hastelloy X, which is used for the heat transfer tubes and
hot header in the IHX [354]. The difference is an improved compatibility attained by:
— Optimizing the manganese and silicon contents to promote the formation of a stable and adherent
MnCr2O4 layer;
— Lowering the aluminium and titanium contents to minimize internal oxidation and intergranular attack;
— Lowering the cobalt content to reduce radioactive contamination in the primary coolant;
— Optimizing the boron content to improve creep strength.
Figure 142 shows measurements of creep rupture strength at different temperatures, revealing that trends in
stress dependence and data scattering are quite similar at 1000°C and at lower temperatures. Therefore Hastelloy
XR appears to be stable at or below 1000°C. Hastelloy XR suffers no degradation in creep rupture strength, except
in a decarburizing environment [354]. Hastelloy XR exhibits very good stability in a VHTR environment, but it is
not so good in terms of creep resistance.
Hastelloy XR-II represents a further refinement on Hastelloy XR, with increased creep rupture strength [355].
Boron, having a significant effect on the creep rupture lifetime of Hastelloy XR, was found to be optimal at contents
of 0.004–0.007%. Above this limit, however, the chance of weld cracking became unacceptable.
(D) Republic of Korea
For most metallic internal structures, Alloy 800H or Hastelloy X materials have been verified for higher
temperatures. For very high temperatures, ceramics or carbon fibre reinforced carbon composites are considered.
The technical problems with those materials are the low machinability due to low toughness, insufficient bonding
methodology, the lack of an internationally accepted design code, and the lack of long term and high temperature
irradiation data [266].
Westinghouse’s Advanced Energy Systems Division performed a screening test to select a structural material
for the SO3 decomposer, and they recommended SiC and some other alloys from the viewpoint of their absolute
213
weight change. One of the recommended alloys is RA330 which is an austenitic heat and corrosion resisting alloy.
According to their experimental results, RA330 has good corrosion resistant properties below 800°C [268].
(E) United States of America
In the USA, technology development has been started to qualify a material for the IHX that can be used as a
heat transfer and structural material at 850–950°C and that can sustain a lifetime of up to 60 years in a helium
environment. For the NGNP, the prime candidate materials considered are the nickel based Alloy 617 and
Alloy 230. Current tests are dedicated to the measurement of creep and creep/fatigue life, the effects of impurities
in NGNP helium on alloy microstructure and performance, and the development of a database necessary for the
ASTM International/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code qualification. The goal of the
measurements is to determine differences in alloys for ultimate use in materials selection and establishment of
safety margins [356].
From reviews of the existing Alloy 617 data collection, it was found that many of the datasets are incomplete,
missing important information such as the material pedigree and original test data curves necessary for studies and
modelling [356]. Picking up on the German 100 000 h results for Alloy 617, it was judged that these data, if
extrapolated to the nominal 60 year lifetime of a VHTR and including a safety factor, would result in a too low a
stress to rupture value. Another major drawback was seen in the wide scatter of the mechanical properties data,
probably due to the relatively broad ranges specified by ASTM/ASME for the chemical elements Al, Ti, Co, Mo
and others, and due to the differences in the steelmaking techniques and procedures employed by the various
manufacturers. For the development of a nuclear grade Alloy 617, a refinement of the manufacturing process and
the alloy chemistry within the current specified limits was recommended [357].
Compared with Alloy 617, Alloy 230 is a relatively new alloy with partially improved properties (e.g. yield
strength, tensile strength). Although Haynes has provided ORNL with a large number of raw creep curves for
Alloy 230 for use in ASME codification requirements, a comprehensive established database is still lacking at
present [356].
Ageing experiments were conducted to investigate the dynamic process of microstructure evolution to predict
material degradation for long term reactor operation. The ageing tests were undertaken in laboratory air at
temperatures of 900 and 1000ºC for up to 3000 h. The ageing tests performed on Alloy 617 and Alloy 230 were
aimed at examining the influence on hardness and tensile strength after different ageing periods up to 3000 h. It was
observed that hardness increased during the early stages of ageing, but softened after extended ageing times. From
corrosion studies at 900 and 1000ºC, it was concluded that Alloy 230 exhibited better corrosion resistance at
elevated temperatures than Alloy 617. Penetration of Al2O3 causing internal oxidation was found to be more severe
in Alloy 617 [358].
6.6.4. Materials for process heat exchangers
6.6.4.1. Materials research
A severe problem is the extreme corrosiveness of the materials in contact with the acids at high temperatures
and pressures. Screening tests have been conducted in various institutions for corrosion resistant materials in
environments typical of the operation conditions of the S–I cycle. Ceramic and quartz have excellent corrosion
resistance, but exhibit manufacturing problems due to their brittleness, particularly if exposed to thermal stress.
Quartz cannot be used at pressure above 0.3 MPa due to its fragile characteristics. Also, ceramics can only be
applied in a limited pressure range of 0.1–2 MPa [264].
6.6.4.2. International research efforts
(A) European Union
For the concept of a European VHTR coupled to an S–I cycle, as was proposed by the HYTHEC project (see
Section 2.3.4.2), a tube and shell type H2SO4 decomposer has been suggested. Incoloy was the selected material for
the tubes and shell, while SiC was chosen for the high temperature heat exchanging tubes. SiC will also be used for
214
the heat exchanger tubes in the HI section. The material assumed for the pressure vessels and heat exchanger shells
is carbon steel with acid brick liners for the internal shielding [359].
(B) Germany
For the gas generator of a nuclear steam–coal gasification plant, the heat exchanger walls are exposed to hot
helium, with its unavoidable corrosive impurities, on the primary side, and to an oxidizing atmosphere (due to
steam surplus) with the hot fluidized bed including different gases and carbon ash components on the process side.
An additional effect to be considered is erosion by fluidizing carbon particles. Resulting from numerous long term
tests with a large number of alloys in a laboratory scale fluidized bed (50–100 g/h of coal throughput) conducted by
the Mannesmann Research Institute (MRI), the material AC66 was found to show a favourable corrosion resistance
in the presence of the sulphur containing process gas in coal gasification, whereas a corrosion rate of 0.2 mm in
3000 h due to grain boundary oxidation was observed in Alloy 800, too high for an economic lifetime of the
immersion heat exchanger [360]. AC66 (X5NiCrCeNb 32 27), a new development by the MRI, is an alloy with
high chromium content and additions of cerium and niobium, but no aluminium or titanium.
(C) Japan
The candidate materials for the sulphuric acid decomposition are, for example, Alloy 800 and Hastelloy.
Other materials considered are SiSiC, SiC and SX (Fe–Cr–Si). For the hydroiodic acid decomposition section,
Hastelloy is foreseen, and for the Bunsen reaction, Ni alloys, ceramics, Zr, Ta and glass lining are favourites.
The severest condition in the HI section is boiling at 400°C and high pressures of 2 MPa, with silicon
containing materials showed the highest corrosion resistance.
The main results can be summarized as follows:
— In the gaseous environment of sulphuric acid decomposition, refractory alloys that have been used in
conventional chemical plants show good corrosion resistance.
— In the gaseous environment of HI decomposition, a Ni–Cr–Mo–Ta alloy presents good corrosion resistance.
— In the case of the Bunsen reaction section, glass-lining materials show suitable corrosion behaviour.
— In the environment of HIx distillation, tantalum shows excellent corrosion resistance.
— For the severest environmental condition — the boiling of concentrated H2SO4 under high pressure,
e.g. 2 MPa — ceramic materials containing silicon as SiSiC, SiC or Si3N4 are the only materials that show
good corrosion resistance [361].
The decomposition of H2SO4 at high temperatures results in a very aggressive chemical environment. The
class of candidate materials for the decomposer is based on SiC.
(D) Republic of Korea
For heating of the sulphuric acid preceding the decomposition step, a two stage heating device has been
designed, as shown in Fig. 143. A combination of Teflon lined parts, SiC tubes and a Hastelloy C276 outlet plenum
are being used to enable a good corrosion resistance to the SO3 environment [264].
Resulting from immersion coupon corrosion tests with corrosion resistant materials (refractory metal, reactive
metal, superalloys and ceramics), only Ta and Nb based refractory metals and ceramic mullite were found to
withstand the extremely corrosive environment in the HI section [362]. Severe pitting and dissolution was observed
in reactive metal zirconium alloys and in the nickel based superalloy C-276.
(E) United States of America
Regarding the S–I thermochemical cycle, corrosion testing of metals exposed to HI, I2 and water resulted in
the selection of Hastelloys B and C to be suitable for vapour phase exposure to HI and steam, while Ta, Ta–2.5W
and Ta–10W should be used for HIx liquid solutions. Figure 144 shows the material selection for the H2SO4
decomposition section [276]. Corrosion testing of ceramic materials exposed to H2SO4, SO2 and water vapour at
215
FIG. 143. Two-stage device for heating sulphuric acid [264].
FIG. 144. Material candidates for components in the H2SO4 decomposition section.
800ºC showed that SiC, Si3N4 and Al2O3 all have excellent corrosion resistance to these chemicals. Exposure of
metallic samples to FLiNaK molten salt at 800ºC showed that nickel coated Incoloy 800H and pure nickel resisted
corrosion.
Multiple heat exchanger designs for a high temperature sulphuric acid decomposer were analysed using
thermohydraulic codes and finite element analysis, including the Sandia bayonet design, the Ceramatec ceramic
compact decomposer design and a traditional tubular reactor design [363].
216
7. SAFETY OF NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
7.1. INTEGRATION OF NUCLEAR–CHEMICAL PLANTS
The principal requirement of a nuclear plant is that radioactivity is completely retained inside the plant, even
in extreme accidents, with no severe consequences outside the fence. Following the severe nuclear accidents at
Three Mile Island (partial core melt) and Chernobyl (completely destroyed plant), the search for new solutions in
nuclear technology began. Potential solutions can be approached from different directions. Concepts pursued
include those where a core melt is not necessarily excluded, but its probability is reduced with improved decay heat
removal systems. Others try to limit the consequences to the reactor building by means of a core catcher and cooling
device. Finally, there are concepts where melting of the core is excluded by nature, characterized by low power
densities and passive decay heat removal in connection with the preservation of the barriers against fission product
release.
Fulfilling certain principles implies concrete safety related requirements, from which general safety concepts
can be derived (Fig. 145). The development of an acceptable level of safety, however, is a dynamic process. Its
further and steady improvement should be a top priority of research efforts at any time [364].
For nuclear process heat plants, which are typically linked with a chemical factory, e.g. for hydrogen
production, the safety concept has to comprise the particular aspects given by the close connection of the two plants
and their potential interactions. It will consider general features such as a non-integrated design (i.e. heat generation
and heat conversion in separate vessels), underground placement of the nuclear island and inertion of the
containment/confinement. But it will also include special features such as filters and shutdown and
isolation/separation systems to disconnect the chemical from the nuclear plant in the case of major operation
problems on the nuclear or chemical side. The IHX component is one of the principal barriers which will be
exposed to different temperature and stress levels under normal operation and accident conditions. Reducing the
stress level can be achieved by keeping pressure differences between the primary and secondary circuits small.
Secondary ducts within the boundary of the reactor building will be enclosed by additional guide pipes.
FIG. 145. General safety requirements [364].
217
A first phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) study has been recently conducted in the USA
[311] to address the safety challenges of a coupled HTGR and hydrogen production facility and to evaluate the
importance of effects on equipment or people as primary consequences, with a focus on the nuclear plant. A
fundamental difference in the safety design philosophy is seen between chemical and nuclear plants, which is given
by the nature of the hazardous materials (radioactive, toxic, combustible) in the plant. While nuclear reactors are
designed to contain fuel and generated radioactive materials inside the reactor building under all circumstances,
most chemical plants, which handle combustibles, are built without a containment structure, in order to prevent the
accumulation of explosive concentrations [365].
7.2. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR A HYDROGEN SYSTEM SAFETY
7.2.1. Safe design of the nuclear reactor for process heat applications
The primary goal is the safe use of hydrogen and the control of the risks associated with its use. Inherent in all
hydrogen designs are:
— Consideration of the conditions in which the system is operated;

— Fail-safe operation that accounts for the potential modes of failure;
— Long term plans that cover the operational life of the system.
The potential hazards from the hydrogen plant are determined by the input and output of the chemical plant
and by the process chemistry [365]. Processes always include the handling of hydrogen. Depending on the
production method, oxygen as a by-product is also involved. Steam reforming of methane requires the handling of
large inventories of natural gas feedstock and synthesis gas product. In thermochemical cycles, hazardous
chemicals are used internally and recycled within the process. Under accident conditions these chemicals may be
released to the environment. Depending upon the temperature and pressure, each of these chemicals can be a liquid,
a mist or a gas. The primary hazards associated with hydrogen systems are combustion, pressure, low temperature,
hydrogen embrittlement and exposure. Quantities greater than 7500 m3 under standard conditions are usually
located outside or in specially designed structures. Storage vessels that contain liquid hydrogen use special
insulation or vacuum jacketing.
The most common mechanical components for controlling the flow of hydrogen are valves, check valves and
regulators. These may be manual or remotely controlled using electric or pneumatic actuators, which must be of an
explosion proof design. Check valves are used to prevent unwanted backflow. Regulators control the system
pressure. Controls also include fluid sensors such as pressure gauges, flow meters, liquid level indicators and the
control system.
Vessels and piping that confine or may confine hydrogen should be protected against over-pressurization with
a pressure relief system. The relief system typically consists of relief valves and rupture disks, usually used in
parallel as a fail-safe path to direct overly pressurized hydrogen to the vent system. Emergency venting at rates
sufficiently high for gas cloud formation can be placed such that ignition can be excluded. Outside the hydrogen
containing system, the control system may monitor for gas or fire. Hydrogen detectors are typically placed above a
likely leak point where hydrogen may accumulate, and at the intake of ventilation ducts. Infrared cameras can
image heat over a wide field of view. Ultraviolet detection is used to specifically detect hydrogen flame. Hydrogen
systems may also use catalytic converters and getters to remove unwanted or excess hydrogen. Filters may be used
to remove impurities from hydrogen in the system.
In a risk assessment, a systematic approach is made to identify risk factors and potential hazards, to determine
frequencies of abnormal event scenarios, to quantify consequences and to evaluate mitigation measures to control
or minimize the risk. Risk management measures include efficient leak/fire detection, isolation and shutdown
systems, efficient natural ventilation, grounding, safety distances and fire walls.
218
7.2.2. Identification of hazard sources
Safety items can be categorized into several classes. The items associated with the accidental release of
radioactive materials and core damage from thermal turbulence are categorized into the class with the largest
hazards. In relation to these items, the system must be designed with high reliability and redundancy to avoid the
loss of safety functions. On the other hand, the items associated with continuous normal operation are categorized
into the class with lowest hazards, for which such a high level of reliability and redundancy is not required.
The hydrogen production system connected to a nuclear plant will most probably not be designed as a nuclear
grade system. Therefore, particular safety items other than the ‘conventional’ safety features will not be provided in
the chemical part of the combined system. There are three areas of concern associated with combined
nuclear–chemical plants:
— The hydrogen production system is the final heat sink for the nuclear reactor.
— Flammable substances are present in the system.
— The product hydrogen is handled outside the nuclear plant.
The potential hazardous events in connection with the hydrogen production system are:
— Tritium transportation from the core to the product hydrogen and methanol;
— Thermal turbulence induced by problems in the chemical system;
— Fire and explosion of flammable mixtures with the process gases;
— Release of toxic material.
A safety related issue is the operability of the production process system during a nuclear reactor scram.
According to the actual safety regulations, the ultimate heat sink of a nuclear power plant is limited to water and/or
air, and cannot be electricity or chemical energy as the result of a conversion process. Therefore the production
process system is not designed to take over safety functions for the nuclear system; these are exclusively left to the
reactor cooling system.
In case of a scram of the HTTR, the power output immediately falls to such a low level that the reactor safely
shuts down and remains in a sub-critical state. Concerning the steam reforming system, the abrupt cut in heat input
is usually followed by an instantaneous disconnection of the feedstock supply and filling of the steam reforming
loop with nitrogen to prevent carbon deposition on the catalyst. Also, the large heat capacity of the catalyst allows
for a reduced rate of temperature decrease [207].
7.2.3. Hazards in electrolysers
The risks of (alkali) electrolysis plants are given by [366]:
— A potential explosion of the hydrogen contained in the system;

— A leakage of electrolyte following overpressure;
— A failure of the cooling water system possibly connected with a mixing of H2 and O2;
— Corrosion of parts of components with potential release and mixing of H2 and O2 and/or electrolyte liquid;
— Mud formation in the gas piping and subsequent change of operational behaviour (e.g. increased operation
temperature leading to enhanced corrosion, sudden pressure changes, abnormal heat exchanges, blockage of
circuits);
— Damaging of hydrogen containing pipelines.
Initiating events are typically given by, for example, component failure due to corrosion, a sudden
disconnection from electricity supply where downstream components may not be shut down right in time, or human
error (supply faults, confusion of cell polarity, etc.).
219
7.2.4. Hazards in thermochemical cycles
The hazardous potential in thermochemical cycles is given by the H2 and O2 produced and by the presence of
hazardous chemical compounds in the cycle processes. Process intermediates include large amounts of sulphur
dioxide, sulphur trioxide and sulphuric acid. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is used as a scrubbing agent. All
chemicals, interim products and products resulting from side reactions or improper conditions are mainly
characterized by their corrosiveness and toxicity. Corrosiveness is particularly enhanced by the given high
operation temperatures and pressures. Accumulation of impurities will affect the heat release process in the reactor
components and may lead to overheating or overpressurization of the reactor with exothermic reactions [19]. Also,
in the O2 production section, the high operating temperature of 450–530°C is an important safety issue [367]. To
ensure the safety and health of workers and to protect the environment, a safety concept must concentrate on
minimizing the quantities released in the case of inadvertent pipe ruptures, system spills or leaks.
Multiple step thermochemical cycles produce hydrogen and oxygen in separate reactions, which can be
realized at different locations, thus isolating the H2 containing systems and reducing the chance for explosions.
Lower temperature thermochemical cycles operate at temperatures lower than the auto-ignition temperature of
hydrogen. In the case of an air ingress, no clean operation can be achieved. In the case of loss of integrity of either
hydrogen storage or any other hydrogen handling subsystem, the hydrogen generation reactor must be shut down
immediately. This will have an influence on all parts of the whole system.
Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methods are able to analyse plant designs and identify weaknesses of the
system. Qualitative analyses try to find event sequences which can cause system failure, while quantitative analyses
calculate the probabilities of a system failure. Facilities with nuclear hydrogen production will need specific
approaches and detailed analysis.
The consequences of accident scenarios can be investigated in more detail if precise information on the
process streams and energy flows is available. Due to the different chemical processes applicable, the involved
quantities of the hazardous materials may vary. Chemical dispersion events are difficult to contain.
Since the hydrogen handling section does not need the high process temperature, it can be located at the
farther end of the chemical plant, away from the nuclear plant. Subsequent handling of the H2 such as compression,
storage or, if appropriate, liquefaction, can be easily done at sufficient safety distances.
HyS is a process in which 50 wt% of sulphuric acid from the electrolysers, which contains dissolved SO2, is
stripped of the sulphur dioxide, and further concentrates the sulphuric acid to 75 wt%. The sulphuric acid is then
decomposed to steam, oxygen and sulphur dioxide at high pressure and high temperature. The product and stripped
SO2 is dissolved in water and sent as an anolyte to the electrolyser. Water is supplied to the cathode where it is
separated into hydrogen and oxygen ions, converting the SO2 water solution into sulphuric acid.
The HyS process involves many hazardous chemicals that are commonly used in chemical processing and
manufacturing, and the process products are either explosive or are oxidizers. The hazards to be considered are:
— Loss of containment of highly corrosive acid;

— Loss of containment of toxic gas;
— Loss of containment of flammable gas;
— Enhanced flammability of materials in pure oxygen;
— Loss of containment of high pressure helium.
7.2.5. Hazardous materials in the chemical plant
Depending on the accident scenario, a chemical plant may release flammable or corrosive or toxic species.
Gaseous species may form heavier than air gas clouds in the environment, enhancing the risk of damage to people
and equipment. The physical and chemical properties of hydrogen and its potential hazards are described in detail
in the Appendix.
7.2.5.1. Oxygen
The hazards associated with the presence of pure oxygen are considered even more serious than those when
handling hydrogen. Oxygen is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Unlike air, compressed air, nitrogen and other
220
inert gases, oxygen is very reactive. Many materials that are usually considered non-combustible (such as carbon
and stainless steels, cast iron, aluminium, zinc and Teflon) can burn in the presence of pure oxygen. Also, oxygen
makes normal fuels burn much more quickly and easily, potentially causing fires to burn out of control and risk
severe injury to personnel and total system loss. Organic materials may even react explosively with oxygen.
Furthermore, oxygen accelerates degradation of most materials. Oxygen is an effective oxidant and will form
oxides with all other elements except helium, neon, argon and krypton. The risk of ignition and sustained
combustion within oxygen systems is considered to be an inherent hazard. The presence of an oxygen enriched
atmosphere cannot be easily detected by the human senses.
Future large scale production of H2 from water splitting processes will require the handling of huge masses of
oxygen, for which there is still a lack of experience [365]. Standard methods for oxygen system design, materials
selection, oxygen cleaning, and oxygen compatibility testing of materials and components need to be further
developed. Oxygen pipelines require extreme cleanliness of the wall surfaces to avoid oxygen fire.
There is a concern about the possible impacts of long term locally elevated levels of oxygen from the
continuous release of oxygen from the hydrogen production facility. Oxygen, like other gases in the atmosphere,
can be considered as a pollutant if the concentrations are significantly different from normal atmospheric levels.
Oxygen permeates many materials, and increases in the oxygen content of materials could significantly change
their characteristics in a fire and some of their other properties. There are no regulatory or industrial standards for
the continuous release of large quantities of oxygen, because there never has been a need for such a standard.
7.2.5.2. Carbon monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a colourless, tasteless, odourless, but highly toxic and flammable gas and requires special
precautions in handling and storage. Its toxicity in humans and animals is caused by the extraordinary affinity for
haemoglobin (210–240 times greater than that of oxygen), which is responsible for the O2 transport in blood. If
inhaled for a sufficient period of time, it results in unconsciousness and death at higher levels. An atmosphere
containing 0.2% CO is lethal after about two hours. It is a chemical asphyxiant with a recommended threshold limit
of 0.01 % in air.
CO is not corrosive and not an irritant; it is rapidly oxidized to form CO2. CO is slightly lighter than air at
ambient conditions. CO is an unwanted by-product of all oxygen-undersaturated combustion processes involving
carbon. At high pressures, CO reacts with steel to produce small quantities of iron carbonyl.
A pure (dry) CO–air mixture does not burn at standard temperature and pressure, but in the presence of small
amounts of H2O or H2, it can significantly enhance the rate of CO oxidation reactions. CO burns in air with a non-
luminous, bluish flame. The flammability range is 12.5–74 vol% in air and 15–94 vol% in oxygen; it widens with
increasing temperatures. A CO mixture with air does not detonate. In a mixture with oxygen, the detonation range
is 38–90 vol%. The maximum detonation velocity in oxygen is around 2800 m/s.
7.2.5.3. Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide is an inert, colourless and odourless gas. It is non-toxic at physiological concentrations,
becomes narcotic above 5% and results in unconsciousness at levels of 7–10% after a few minutes; the
recommended threshold limit for an eight hour day is 0.5%. CO2 is universally present in fires. It is also present at
an approximately 5% concentration in exhaled air. CO2 is heavier than air and therefore tends to flow into low lying
areas.
7.2.5.4. Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is very toxic and may be fatal if inhaled. Vapours are corrosive and cause extreme
irritation. Fire will produce irritating, corrosive and/or toxic gases. The gas may burn, but will not ignite readily. It
may react violently with water. Containers may explode when heated (ruptured cylinders may rocket). Vapours
from liquefied gas are initially heavier than air and spread along the ground.
221
7.2.5.5. Sulphuric acid
Sulphuric acid, H2SO4, is a non-combustible, strong mineral acid. Pure sulphuric acid is an oily clear liquid
which does not burn but which may decompose upon heating to produce corrosive and/or toxic fumes. It has a high
electrical conductivity. In spite of the viscosity of the acid, the effective conductivities of the H3SO4+ and HSO4-
ions are high, making sulphuric acid a good conductor. It is also an excellent solvent for many reactions. Sulphuric
acid is soluble in water at all concentrations. Its hydration reaction is highly exothermic. Containers may explode
when heated or if contaminated with water. The H2SO4 vapours are toxic by inhalation, ingestion or contact and
may cause severe injury, burns or death. Burns from sulphuric acid are potentially more serious, as there is
additional tissue damage due to dehydration and release from the reaction with water. The dispersal of acid aerosols
and gaseous sulphur dioxide is an additional hazard of fires involving sulphuric acid.
Sulphuric acid reacts with most metals via a single displacement reaction to produce hydrogen gas and the
metal sulphate. Contact of sulphuric acid with metal drums may cause the release of flammable and explosive
hydrogen gas. Hot concentrated acid reacts with tin, zinc and copper to produce a salt, water and sulphur dioxide,
whereas the dilute acid reacts with metals high in the reactivity series (such as Zn) to produce a salt and hydrogen.
Therefore storage drums should be coated with acid resistant material. Lead and tungsten are resistant to sulphuric
acid. Also, explosion-proof electrical equipment and fittings should be used wherever sulphuric acid is handled or
stored.
In a number of hydrogen production processes, sulphuric acid is a gas at high temperature and pressure and
presents a significant risk of becoming a major potential accident source term where its release would form a plume
or fine aerosol.
7.2.5.6. Hydroiodic acid
Hydroiodic acid or hydrogen iodide is a clear to yellow liquid with a characteristic pungent sulphide-like
odour. The boiling point is 127°C. It is a non-combustible substance that does not burn but that may decompose
upon heating to produce corrosive and/or toxic fumes (they are toxic by inhalation, ingestion or skin contact, likely
to cause severe injury or death). Contact with most common metals may liberate hydrogen gas. Containers may
explode when heated.
7.3. TRITIUM CONTAMINATION
Tritium balancing is an important aspect of the planning, operation and decommissioning of any nuclear
plant. Tritium is a weak beta emitter (18 keV) with a half-life of 12.3 years and is generally present in the form of
tritiated water (HTO). It is radiologically relevant by incorporation with a biological half-life of 12 d for ‘free’
tritium and up to 400 d for T in organic compounds. Less radiologically relevant is the gas HT or tritiated methane
(CH3T).
For HTGRs, what is most important is the capability of tritium to pass through metallic walls, penetrating the
water/steam and/or product gas cycle. Its extreme mobility requires effective retention mechanisms in a process
heat plant. Specific concerns refer to the:
— Tritium permeation into the secondary circuit for product contamination;

— Accumulation of tritium in the purification system for waste removal issue;
(a) Tritium inventory of spent fuel for disposal issue.
7.3.1. Tritium sources in the primary circuit
There are various sources of tritium in the reactor core of an HTGR during normal operation:
— Ternary fission product [235U (n,f) T] with a fission yield of 1.2 × 10–4 (UO2 fuel) and, to a lesser extent, from
the ternary fission product 6He (fission yield ~3 × 10–5) which decays immediately to 6Li. Ternary fission
accounts for ~50% of total tritium production.
222
— Activation reactions of traces of lithium [6Li (n,) T] and boron [10B (n,2) T] in the graphite components and
control rods (and burnable poison) and from other reactions [10B (n,) 7Li] → [7Li (n,n) T], [12C (n,) 9Be]
→ [9Be (n,) 6He]. These reactions account for ~35% of the total tritium production.
— Activation of the 3He fraction in the helium coolant (share of 1.38 × 10-6 in natural composition produced
from air) and the 3He as the decay product of tritium [3He (n,p) T]. A permanent source of 3He is given by the
introduction of make-up helium to compensate for the coolant leakage ,estimated to be ~0.1%/d (for the
THTR-300). Helium-3 activation accounts for ~15% of the total tritium production.
The tritium produced in a fission process in the HTGR will be completely retained within intact TRISO
coated fuel particles. Only a small fraction originating from fuel particles with a broken coating or from uranium
contamination of the core graphite is expected to escape into the coolant. On the other hand, tritium originating
from boron is usually assumed to be completely released into the coolant. Tritium produced from lithium impurities
in the graphite can rapidly diffuse through the graphite components into the coolant. The expected value of lithium
concentration in the fuel element matrix A3-3 (used for the THTR-300 fuel) was found to be 10 wt-ppb; for A3-27,
it was even down to less than 1 ppb, much lower than the design value fixed at 50 ppb to cover uncertainties and
different graphite grades.
Tritium production in the first year of operation of an HTGR is higher by 70% compared with the equilibrium
value due to the not yet burned up 6Li in the graphite and 3He in the coolant, as was estimated for a 2250 MW(th)
plant [368]. In the equilibrium core, there will be no further contribution from the lithium in reflector graphite.
Lithium from the fuel element matrix will only come from the fresh fuel. The amounts of tritium from 3He depend
on the helium leakage rate and the supply of new coolant.
The principal forms in which tritium exists in the primary circuit are HT, CH3T and HTO due to isotope
exchange reactions. Each hydrogen atom in a potential final product could act as an exchange partner for a tritium
atom. The specific tritium activity is therefore proportional to the number of H atoms per molecule and inversely
proportional to the molecular weight. HT is the dominant part and mainly created by the reaction of water
impurities with graphite. From AVR experience with 950°C operation, an H2:CH4 ratio of about 100:1 can be
expected. At lower outlet temperatures, the ratio will become smaller (~10:1 for 750°C).
In a nuclear heat exchanger (steam reformer, steam generator), tritium can migrate through tube walls directly
into product gas, and vice versa, H2 from the secondary side to the core. Furthermore, the steam generated on the
secondary side and used in the reforming process contains tritiated water (HTO) that may find its way to the product
gas. In the case of an indirect cycle plant where process steam would be delivered through a steam converter,
another effective barrier against tritium transfer is given.
In connection with an HTSE process, gaseous HTO may escape the system with the H2 product gas, while the
remaining liquid HTO accumulates in the circuit and partially leaves the system with the drain water. In H2
production plants based on thermochemical cycles, tritium that permeates the tertiary circuit can react with
hydrogen containing process chemicals by isotopic exchange reactions to form, e.g. in the S–I cycle, tritiated
compounds like HTSO4 and TI.
Before hydrogen or any other product from a nuclear process will be usable as a normal commodity, it must
have a tritium contamination below the tolerated limits specified by the national legislation. Therefore one safety
requirement is to correspondingly reduce tritium penetration of the products. In this case, the required safety items
are not directly related to reactor safety and thus can be classified at the lowest safety level.
7.3.2. Tritium removal
7.3.2.1. Radioactive decay
The decay product of tritium is 3He, which will result in the production of new tritium. Therefore this sink
term is often conservatively neglected in the modelling of tritium behaviour.
7.3.2.2. Helium purification system
Most impurities in the helium coolant, including tritium, are effectively removed from the primary system by
the gas purification system, through which a partial stream of the coolant is routed. The degree of removal depends
223
on how much of the coolant is bypassed through the purification system. The system is characterized by a gas
purification constant:
 ps
m
a ps =
m He
where α can reach a value of 0.05 h–1.
With regard to tritium, purification is practically 100%. It is done in two steps:
— Oxidation bypassing a CuO-based catalyst bed (in AVR: Pt; in Peach Bottom: gettering by Ti) where HT
reacts at 180–240°C to HTO which is captured in a molecular sieve (higher temperatures up to 800°C are
needed to efficiently burn the methane);
— Low temperature absorption at 20–30°C.
The captured tritium will go to the waste disposal.
7.3.2.3. Adsorption
An important sink for tritium in the HTGR is the graphite structures where the tritium is bound by adsorption,
chemisorption and eventually diffusion into the inside of the graphite. The tritium might later, with decreasing
production, be desorbed again. Complex processes are taking place in the adsorption of tritium on graphite and its
influence by the presence of hydrogen. Experimental evidence of this sorption effect was given by measurements of
tritium in the Peach Bottom reflector, where the tritium contents exceeded the amount expected to be generated in
the reflector by a factor of four.
The sorption effect is increased with increasing neutron fluence. From the graphite, it can be released again by
desorption at higher temperatures (>800°C) or by exchange reaction with non-radioactive hydrogen. Essential for
the buffer effect of the graphite for tritium is its solubility in the graphite lattice as a result of the high excess H2
versus HT in the coolant, whose concentrations are directly linked. For the AVR, the partial pressure ratio was
estimated to be ~105.
The equilibrium was experimentally found to be reached within several hours, which is a short period of time
compared with the reactor operating time. It can be described by a Langmuir isotherm [369]:
bp
A= A
m 1 - bp
where
A is the number of adsorbed tritium molecules per gram of graphite; 

Am is the saturation coverage of graphite surface, = 2.8×1018 T molecules per gram of
graphite at 1000°C; 
b is the adsorption coefficient, = 7.53 mbar–1 at 1000°C; 
p is the T partial pressure (mbar).
An intermediate circuit purified by a sweep gas flow serves as an additional boundary between the primary
and secondary circuits. If oxygen or steam is added to the sweep gas, part of the tritium could be bound as HTO,
which does not permeate according to the exchange reaction:
H2O + HT → HTO + H2
But the effectiveness of the conversion to tritiated water in helium at low concentrations still needs to be proven [370].
224
7.3.2.4. Leakage
Another possible path for a transition of radionuclides into the product gas is by leakage in the heat
exchangers. A leakage of radioactivity from the primary to the secondary circuit requires a pressure drop from the
primary toward the secondary loop, in contrast to the plant’s condition during normal operation. A measure to
prevent a major risk is the installation of gas supervising systems to trigger the disconnection of the product gas
lines from the grid.
7.3.3. Tritium/hydrogen permeation
7.3.3.1. Transport mechanisms
Under the operating conditions of a process heat HTGR with its high coolant exit temperatures, hydrogen and
tritium are highly mobile, resulting in permeation through the walls of heat exchanging components. Tritium can be
transported from the primary side through the metal walls of heat exchanger tubes to the process side by
permeation, and can eventually contaminate the products hydrogen or methanol.
The permeation process through a metallic wall is thermally activated. It begins with the dissociation of the
diatomic gases H2, HT at T2 at the surface. Transport through the wall is as atoms until recombination takes place at
the exit side. All single processes (adsorption, penetration, diffusion, desorption) strongly depend on material and
surface effects as well as on temperature and pressure conditions. The permeation rate Φ for tritium through a metal
can be described by a combination of Fick’s diffusion law Φ = D(c1 – c2)/d) and Sieverts’ solubility law
–
c = L p [371]:
F ⎡
)T 2 = KT 2 × × p (1) − p T 2 ( 2) ⎤⎥
d ⎣⎢ T 2 ⎦
F
= K T 2 ´ ´ pT 2 (1) for p(2) << P(1)
d
where K = D·L is the permeation coefficient:
K = D0 L0 ´ exp {-(QD + QL ) / (RT )} = K 0 ´ exp {-Q / (RT )}
where
D is the diffusion coefficient; 

L is the solubility; 
F is the permeation surface; 
d is the (effective) wall thickness of the permeation barrier; 
p(1) is the partial pressure at entrance side;
p(2) is the partial pressure at exit.
The above equation is valid for concentration equilibrium between the gas phase and surface, and shows that
the driving force for the permeation process is the partial pressure difference between the two gas spaces.
Measurements reveal a relationship of
Φ ~ pn with 0.5 ≤ n ≤ 1 for p ≤ 0.1 MPa, and n = 1 for p > 0.1 MPa.
In the opposite direction, hydrogen on the process side can permeate through the tube walls into the primary
circuit, causing corrosion reaction with the graphite structures. Additionally, by transport of carbon in helium
circuits, carbon deposition surfaces of high temperature alloys could result in changes of material properties.
Therefore measurements of hydrogen permeation rates have been carried out depending on wall temperature, type
225
of material, wall thickness and partial pressure of hydrogen. The influence of steam is especially important, because
a layer of oxide is formed on the surfaces of the metallic walls on the process side.
For hydrogen permeation from the process side, there will always be the linear dependency due to pH2 > 0.1
MPa. Countercurrent permeation of tritium (to the outside) and of hydrogen (to the inside) was observed to have no
influence upon each other.
Considering the reaction 0.5 T2 + 0.5 H2 ↔ HT and the law of mass action:
pT 2 ´ p H 2
2
k eq = 2
p HT
the permeation of tritium through a tube wall is given by [368]:
⎡ p (1) p (2) ⎤⎥
× k eq × ⎢⎢ HT
F
)T 2 = KT 2 × − HT ⎥
d ⎢⎣ p H 2 (1) p H 2 (2) ⎥⎦
where keq is the equilibrium constant, its value is ≈ 0.5 in the primary circuit.
Assuming that excess hydrogen is available in the primary circuit and there is a negligible amount of tritium
on the secondary side, the total permeation rate is proportional to the square root of the hydrogen partial pressure,
and the permeation rate related to tritium is correspondingly reduced according to the partial pressure ratio pHT:pH2
[368]. Since the permeation rate is inversely proportional to the square root of the atomic mass, the permeation of
tritium will be lower by a factor of 3-1/2 compared with hydrogen.
7.3.3.2. Growth of protective oxide layers
In nuclear process heat plants, gas composition at the heat exchanger walls is such that the metals typically
react with the in situ formation of an oxide layer. While permeability is high for bright surfaces, oxide layers on the
heat exchanger surfaces were found to significantly reduce the tritium (and hydrogen) permeation rates through the
metal walls in the temperature range of interest (T >600°C). The barrier effect depends on a variety of parameters,
among which are process gas compositions, pressure, temperature and material. Oxide layer thickness, growth rate,
quality and behaviour under changing loads can only be investigated in experiments.
Chromium oxide (Cr2O3) is responsible for the oxide formation on austenitic and nickel based metals, while
magnetite (Fe3O4) is responsible for the oxide formation on ferritic steels. The protective layer formation takes
place mainly on the process side in the highly oxidizing atmosphere, while on the helium side, the forming layer
may remain porous and instable. Rather than the layer thickness, what is important for large reduction factors is
dense and homogeneous coverage. Under steam reforming conditions, an oxide layer will rapidly develop on the
tube surface. A drawback of protective oxide layers is their poor stability against temperature cycling. The
controlled addition of water vapour may enhance the formation or repair of oxide layers. Pre-oxidation of the
metals could also be an option.
The permeation rates of tritium through the walls of high temperature heat exchangers have been measured as
a function of temperature, the type of materials and the process conditions of the steam reformer, steam generator
and IHX. Selective filter systems to take up tritium from helium circuits have been developed, consisting of hydride
forming materials such as Ti, Ce or Zr, or cerium mixed metals.
A protective coating could also help reduce permeation of tritium. Figure 146 presents the permeability of
various metals to tritium in the 400–700°C temperature range. The metal coating as a permeation barrier can
principally be applied to the outside or the inside of a tube. Such a coating solution, however, still needs to be
developed and validated in terms of the coating material and the coating process, with an emphasis on ensuring the
homogeneity of the coating. Furthermore, coating integrity must be ensured over the IHX lifetime and after
exposure to thermomechanical cyclic loadings. Candidate coating materials are SiC or Y-stabilized ZrO2. Potential
coating processes are the ion beam mixing technology and the atmospheric plasma thermal spray technology.
226
FIG. 146. Permeability of various metals to tritium [370].
7.3.4. Tritium studies in Germany
7.3.4.1. Permeation of hydrogen through metal walls
At the Research Centre Jülich, the first permeation experiments were conducted at the beginning of the 1970s
focusing on steam generator materials and operation conditions of a two cycle HTGR. With regard to a layout of the
purification system, carbon deposition on the gas (primary) side, corrosion reactions on both the gas side and the
steam side, and the permeation of hydrogen generated on the steam side by metal corrosion were studied.
Decreasing hydrogen permeation rates were observed starting at a high initial value and later reaching an
equilibrium value about two orders of magnitude lower. The transient behaviour was explained with the oxide layer
formation on the ferritic steel surfaces. Peaks and other anomalies observed in the permeation profile are
presumably the result of an oxide layer not completely free of cracks and pores [372].
For process heat plants studied within the PNP project in Germany, experimental investigations were made on
the hydrogen permeation process through reformer tube walls made of high temperature alloys. The experimental
device AUWARM (Facility for the Investigation of Hydrogen Permeation through Reformer Materials) (Fig. 147)
was operated from 1976 and allowed long term (1000–3000 h) testing at temperatures up to 1000°C and pressures
up to 3.2 MPa. Short term analyses were used for pre-selection of materials. Permeation rates were measured as a
function of various parameters such as wall temperature, gas composition, material, oxide layer and transient
temperatures [373].
Results have shown that in situ oxide layers show a large inhibition of permeation at temperatures above 650°C.
Decreasing permeation rates following temperature increases demonstrated the accelerated growth of the oxide layer.
In particular, the behaviour of Cr2O3 was identified as being decisive for the permeation resistance [374]. Still, the
uncertainty is relatively large at lower temperatures, also when looking at measurements from operated HTGRs.
In Fig. 148, a typical permeation test run in AUWARM under nuclear coal gasification conditions is given
where the time dependent hydrogen permeation flux was measured on two tube specimens made of Incoloy 800H
[375]. The temperature curve and the times where the specimen was exposed to the process gas are also given in the
figure. The experiment was made in the pressure range from 0.5 to l MPa and the temperature range from 450 to
950°C. The strong reduction in the permeation rate is due to the growth of the protective oxide layer. Furthermore,
227
FIG. 147. Test facility AUWARM of FZJ for measurements of hydrogen permeation.
FIG. 148. Hydrogen permeation flux measurements for two Incoloy 800H samples [375]. Testing gas composition — representing that
for steam–coal gasification — was: 8.8–13% CO, 4.3–6.5% CO2 , 0.9–1.05% CH4 , 18–27% H2 , and 53–69% H2O.
228
FIG. 149. Arrhenius diagram of H2 permeation for clean and oxidized Alloy 800 surfaces [378].
impairment of this protection layer can be observed, concluded from the increasing permeation flux following the
decrease of temperature, and also its healing behaviour. In contrast, temperature peaks of ±50°C were observed not
to have a significant effect on the oxide layer [374]. The effects of temperature and partial pressure on hydrogen
permeation through Incoloy 800 have been examined experimentally, confirming the expected tendency of
increasing permeation rates with increasing H2 partial pressures and temperatures [376].
Defining an inhibition factor, H, as the ratio of permeation flow through a bright material over that of an
oxidized material, factors of around 2000 were measured for high temperature alloys at 900°C (Fig. 149).
Particularly good results were achieved for Hastelloy X, where the development of a homogeneous, dense
chromium oxide layer with a chromium–manganese spinel coating was observed. Factors are lower (~100) for
ferritic steels [371]. For the nuclear steam–coal gasification semi-technical plant (see Section 4.2), a reduction
factor of up to 520 was measured [377]. From experience with the AVR steam generator made of ferritic steel, a
factor of ~50 was derived. This value could be raised to 600 by doping the feedwater with oxygen. This process,
however, may have a deteriorating effect on austenitic materials. The lower limit of 20 was eventually fixed as a
design value for ferritic steels [371].
For the hydrogen transportation process, permeation coefficients have been derived from the experiments as a
function of temperature for a number of metals. With regard to the PNP reactor design, the Arrhenius relationship
of KH2 for high temperature alloys was set with the constants [371]:
Lower limit: Ko,H2 = 3.2×10–2 (cm3 H2/(cm·s·bar1/2)) Q = 74.1 kJ/mol
Upper limit: Ko,H2 = 7.0×10–2 (cm3 H2/(cm·s·bar1/2)) Q = 66.2 kJ/mol
229
and with the experimentally confirmed relationship
K o,T 2 1
=
K o, H 2 3
As a typical result, around 50 mL/(m2·h) of hydrogen was measured at 900°C for typical steam reformer
applications. These quantities of hydrogen could be easily removed by the gas purification plant. The stability of
oxide layers during transients and other loads have to be considered and may influence the data. The above
measurements are conservatively covered by the relationships to be used in design calculations [371].
7.3.4.2. Permeation of tritium through metal walls
Prediction of tritium permeation rates remained difficult due to the extreme difference of the respective partial
pressures, with ~1.5 MPa for hydrogen on the secondary side and ~10–4 Pa of tritium in the primary coolant.
Therefore the experimental facility TRIPERM was designed within the PNP tritium investigation programme to
conduct continuous measurements of tritium permeation and, at the same time, hydrogen permeation. Due to
licensing problems with the handling of tritium, deuterium was used instead as a model gas in the experimental
programme. The facility was constructed such that two separate gas circuits were formed, representing the primary
and secondary circuits. The atmospheres in both circuits could be independently analysed and checked for
concentration changes. Permeation coefficients derived from the experimental data are given in Fig. 150 for
hydrogen and deuterium through Incoloy 802. They are compared with the calculated tritium permeation
coefficient concluded from these measurements [379]. A comparison of tritium permeation coefficients for
different metals with different surface conditions is shown in Fig. 151 [371].
7.3.4.3. Experience with tritium in AVR and THTR-300
After the water ingress incident in 1978, 290 000 GBq (7900 Ci) of tritium was found in the AVR reactor,
corresponding to the release from a ten year operation period. Furthermore, injection tests in the AVR have shown
that T concentrations in the coolant were observed to be decreasing five times faster than would have been expected
from simple operation of the purification system [368].
In order to investigate the effect of chemisorption on fuel element matrix graphite surfaces, an A3 graphite
sphere was exposed to a helium atmosphere containing tritium at a concentration of 0.56 GBq/m3 and heated at
600°C over 100 h. The resulting tritium concentration profile inside the sphere was measured in a range between
~105 Bq/g (sphere surface) and ~4 × 104 Bq/g (sphere centre) [376].
Much higher concentration levels will be reached after longer reactor operation. The level was found to be
two orders of magnitude higher in an AVR sphere after approximately six years at full power [380].
Initial operation of the THTR-300 has shown that tritium content in the coolant was less than in the AVR, but
was not yet in an equilibrium state. Load changes during reactor operation are expected to result in increased tritium
in the steam turbine cycle due to damage to the protecting oxide layer following the mechanical impact. Tritium
measurements in the THTR primary coolant are shown in Fig. 152 revealing the direct correlation with the
hydrogen containing impurities (H2, H2O, CH4, NH3) in the helium [381].
Tritium concentrations in the steam circuit were generally observed to be low. The measured concentrations
in the steam circuits of AVR and THTR-300 were in the range of 104–105 Bq/kg.
7.3.4.4. Modelling of tritium behaviour
Analogous to the US code TRITCO (see Section 7.3.8.3), the computer model TRIK was developed to
calculate tritium behaviour in a pebble bed reactor. The physical mechanisms considered in the model can be seen
in Fig. 153, which also shows the mass flows across the boundary of the helium coolant system. The integral tritium
behaviour during reactor operation can be assessed, if the complex fuel sphere flow with multiple core passages is
taken into account to provide the burnup state and thus tritium production rates. The coupled process of pebble flow
and burnup was assumed to be temporally decoupled [369].
230
FIG. 150. Arrhenius diagram for the permeation coefficients of H2 , D2 (both measured), and T2 (calculated) through bright
Incoloy 802 [379].
Calculation results [369] for the conditions and status of AVR as of mid-1975 have shown that the input for
lithium impurities in the graphite is a highly sensitive parameter. Tritium contribution from boron is relatively small
(compared with the US block type reactors), since excess reactivity which has to be compensated by absorber
spheres is low. More uncertainties are introduced due to the complex transport and release behaviour of tritium in
graphite, which require further efforts for verification and validation of the corresponding modelling approach
(Table 44).
For the example of the 170 MW(th) process heat HTR-Modul, the reactor internal tritium production and
release into the helium coolant was assessed in a conservative way, as is summarized in Table 45 [382].
A certain tritium load in the products steam or fuel gas is already given, independent of the nuclear operation.
Feedwater contamination (originating from former atomic weapons testing) contributes up to 26 Bq/kg to the
process steam and up to 56 Bq/kg to the product gases. Using fossil feedstock adds another 37 Bq/kg of natural T
contamination. For nuclear coal gasification, the tritium load of the product gas was estimated to be 185 Bq/kg for
231
FIG. 151. Arrhenius diagram of effective tritium permeation for clean and oxidized surfaces [371].
FIG. 152. Correlation between tritium and hydrogen containing impurities in THTR-300 coolant [381].
hydrogasification and 444 Bq/kg for steam–coal gasification. Under the pessimistic assumption of no protective
oxide layer, these figures increase to 1850 and 2590 Bq/kg, respectively, but with further potential for reduction
given by operational measures. All of the above figures apply to SNG and H2, but not steam [377].
According to the German Preventive Radiation Protection Ordinance, neither licensing nor announcement is
required for the use of fossil products refined by nuclear process heat whose tritium content does not exceed
5000 Bq/kg. This special case is the exception to the rule where for any fabricated product the specific radioactivity
limit is lower by a factor of ten compared with the above figure (i.e. 500 Bq/kg) [383]. The background for this
special rule resulting from discussions in the context of the PNP project is the fact that, depending on the origin of
232
FIG. 153. Physical mechanisms of tritium behavior considered in the TRIC code [369].
TABLE 44. CALCULATED AND MEASURED SPECIFIC TRITIUM

ACTIVITIES IN THE AVR IN 1975 [369]
Tritium in:
Calculated Measured
Graphite spheres (Bq/g) 7 500 000 6 600 000–7 400 000
3
Helium coolant (Bq/cm ) 10 4–400
Life steam (Bq/g) 160 150–260
the feed natural gas, the natural activity content would often have already reached the free limits given by the law.
In the new German Preventive Radiation Protection Ordinance issued in 2001, the free limit for tritium has been
raised to an activity of 1 TBq or, alternatively, a specific activity of 1 GBq/g [384].
As a result of the PNP-project, it was found that hydrogen permeation for steam reformer application
represents a problem that can be solved. For processes using an IHX the permeated quantities of hydrogen can be
reduced even more. As long as the heat exchangers remain intact, even under conservative assumptions, the
233
TABLE 45. TRITIUM PRODUCTION AND RELEASE FOR THE 170 MW(th) PROCESS HEAT
HTR-MODUL [382]
Tritium production rate Tritium release rate into coolant

Tritium source (103 Bq/s) (%) (103 Bq/s) (%)
Initial phase Equilibrium Initial phase Equilibrium
Fission, direct 895 (14) 1057 (43) 89 (4) 126 (12)
6
Fission, He 0 (0) 184 (8)
6
Li, particle 838 (14) 313 (13)
6
Li, matrix 1256 (20) 449 (18) 1341 (63) 481 (47)
6
Li, reflector 2613 (42) 81 (31) 68 (3) 47 (5)
10
B, absorber 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0)
3
He primary 626 (10) 366 (15) 626 (30) 366 (36)
Total 6234 (100) 2456 (100) 2130 (100) 1025 (100)
expected radioactivity on the secondary side remains small compared with the tritium concentration by permeation.
Results were assumed to be tolerable in the PNP project in comparison with other allowed levels of radioactive
contamination. With regard to the 5 Bq/g limit (according to the former Radiation Act of 1989), it would not be
exceeded in any of the operational states in the PNP-500 [330].
7.3.5. Tritium studies in Japan
7.3.5.1. Permeation of tritium through metal walls
For hydrogen produced with nuclear energy in Japan, the target value of tritium contents is 11.8 Bq/g of H2.
This upper limit value would lead to an exposure rate of <10 mSv/a for the consumer, which is lower than the
exposure rate by natural radioactivity by a factor of 100 [385].
For the case of the HTTR in combination with a steam reforming system, the flow paths of the tritium (HT)
and hydrogen (H2) have been identified as shown in Fig. 154. Tritium removal from the helium coolant is only
partially effective, since in the HTTR, the purification systems are installed in the bypass loop and their flow rates
are selected based on the concentrations of other impurities.
Preliminary calculations were performed to determine tritium concentration at steady state for the HTTR
steam reforming system. These results indicate that the combination of the self-grown oxide layer effect and a
reasonable flow rate through the helium purification systems is sufficiently effective to restrict the tritium
concentration in the product gas to an acceptable level.
The permeability of IHX materials was investigated at JAEA in a component test facility using hydrogen and
deuterium (instead of tritium). Results have been acquired in a small scale apparatus using test pipes made of the
high temperature alloys Hastelloy X and Hastelloy XR, the designated materials for IHX heat exchanger tubes and
steam reformer pipes. Test tube dimensions were 1000 mm in length, 31.8 mm outer diameter, and 3.5 mm wall
thickness. Test conditions were tube temperatures of 600–850°C and H2 partial pressures of 0.1–4 kPa in helium
gas. The flow rate was 0.1 NL/min of the mixture gas. The test series also confirmed the phenomenon of oxide layer
formation, which reduces the permeation rates [387].
In another experimental series, the effect of counter-permeation of deuterium (to simulate tritium) and
hydrogen, i.e. the influence on permeation if hydrogen is present at the outside, was investigated. The test tube here
consisted of Inconel 600 with an inner diameter of 7 mm and a thickness of 1.2 mm. Mixtures of argon with
hydrogen and deuterium were flowed at constant rate and constant pressure through the test pipe and the outer so-
called measurement tube (inner diameter: 50 mm). With deuterium flowing inside and hydrogen outside the test
tube, it was found that for low partial pressures of deuterium <100 Pa, its permeation rate to the outside is
decreasing if the hydrogen partial pressure is >10 kPa. This is due to the fact that the dissolved H atoms are
saturated on the surface. For the real system of HTTR combined with steam–methane reforming, hydrogen partial
234
FIG. 154. Tritium (HT) and hydrogen balance in HTGR hydrogen production system [386].
pressures in the catalyst pipes will be about 2 MPa. Therefore a comparatively low amount of tritium is expected to
be transferred from the primary circuit to the hydrogen production system [388].
The reduction of permeability at the presence of an oxide film layer was again confirmed, with the observed
factor of 100–1000 enhancing with time. The ratio of hydrogen to deuterium permeability was measured to be 1.32
at 670°C; it decreases with increasing temperatures.
In another Japanese study, the oxidation effect of Alloy 800 and Alloy 617 on hydrogen permeation was
investigated. A reduction of the permeation rates by two orders of magnitude with hardly changed activation energy
was measured when using an oxidizing H2–CO gas mixture [390].
Assuming an Arrhenius type relationship for the permeability and taking the data of activation energy and
pre-exponential factor for high temperature alloys from the literature, the hydrogen permeability through Hastelloy
XR was assessed as shown in Fig. 155. The new data indicate a somewhat lower permeability compared with
previous work, presumably due to formation of an oxide layer on the IHX tube surfaces [389].
7.3.5.2. Experience from HTTR
First experience has been gained from the HTTR operation at 950°C with regard to hydrogen behaviour in the
core [389]. In this case, the sources of hydrogen are, in the primary circuit, the oxidation processes of moisture in
the graphitic core and, in the secondary circuit, water liberated from insulation material. Since the latter produced a
higher water concentration, the H2 transport was actually from the secondary to the primary circuit. Figure 156
shows the H2 and H2O behaviour during the first 950°C operation period of the HTTR.
One of the objectives of the 50 d high temperature operation test at the HTTR conducted in 2010 was to
analyse the tritium behaviour. Results are not yet available. Figure 157 shows a schematic of the device to measure
tritium activity in coolant samples at the HTTR.
For the GTHTR-300C reactor, any tritium not captured in the secondary loop purification system will
permeate through the process heat exchanger walls of the SO3 decomposer or HI decomposer and mix with the
hydrogen containing chemical compounds of the S–I process and may accumulate up to a certain equilibrium, while
the tritium bound in the product hydrogen will be removed from the system [302].
235
FIG. 155. Previous work [387] on hydrogen permeation in Hastelloy XR compared with newer results [389].
FIG. 156. Hydrogen and water behaviour in the primary cooling system during the first operation of HTTR at 950°C [389].
236
FIG. 157. Tritium measurement at HTTR, from [391].
FIG. 158. Assessment of tritium release for the GTHTR300C with S–I cycle based on conservative assumptions [302].
THYTAN, a dynamic simulation model, has been developed at JAEA to calculate tritium mass balance for the
GTHTR300C with S–I cycle, taking into account the different tritium birth, transport and release/removal processes
[302]. Figure 158 shows the results of the assessment under conservative conditions, which means application of
permeation rates valid for the metallic materials without protective oxide layer.
237
7.3.6. Tritium studies in the Republic of Korea
At KAERI, an improved version of the TRITGO code was used, which also included tritium transport via the
process heat exchanger into the S–I cycle. Based on a 600 MW(th) VHTR system, the tritium contamination level
was predicted to be 0.055 Bq/g of hydrogen product, which is three orders of magnitude lower than the respective
regulation value of 56 Bq/g of H2 in Japan [392].
7.3.7. Tritium studies in the Russian Federation
In accordance with Russian Radiation Safety Norms (NRB-99) [393], it is necessary to obey the limits of
personnel exposure to tritium shown in Table 46 [332].
In ongoing nuclear power plant projects, the annual exposure doses to the public in normal operating
conditions are limited to 10 µSv for aerosols and 10 µSv for liquid wastes [394].
Taking into account the experience of prototype HTGR operation in the USA and in Germany, and the
experience of Russian MHR-T reactor design, an HTGR with a thermal power of 600 MW can be reasonably
expected to release about 9250–11 100 GBq/a (250–300 Ci/a) of tritium into the primary circuit.
In the case of (the already existing) utilization for nuclear process heat for residential heat supply, Russian
regulations prescribe at least three protective barriers against penetration of radioactive substances from the
primary circuit to the heat supply network. Two of the above mentioned protective barriers should represent tight
heat-transmitting surfaces (a material barrier), separating working environments of adjacent circuits of coolant. In
addition, at least for one of the material barriers, the pressure of the heated up medium should be above the pressure
of the heating medium (a pressure barrier) with the difference being not less than 0.1 МPа, taking into account
errors of used monitoring systems [70].
7.3.8. Tritium studies in the USA
7.3.8.1. Experience with tritium in Peach Bottom and Fort St. Vrain
A mass balance for tritium in the Peach Bottom reactor was estimated based on calculations and observations
during reactor operation. The assumptions used were a fission yield of 1 × 10–4, a 3He:4He ratio of 2 × 10–7, and a
lithium impurity level of 0.05 ppm in the core and reflector graphite. Essentially all of the tritium that was contained
in the primary coolant was trapped in the purification system, which was based on the getter effect of the titanium.
The advantages of such a system are the easy capture of other gases (H2O, O2, N2), the avoidance of expensive
heating and cooling sections, and the possibility of regeneration of the Ti bed with a separation effect between
hydrogen and tritium.
Table 47 summarizes the tritium source estimates at the end of life of the fuel after four years [395]. The
largest source resulted, as expected, from fission in the fuel (~55%). Post-testing examination of fuel compacts has
shown that hot fuel released a significant portion of its tritium whereas colder compacts retained most of their
inventory. A surprisingly large source was given with the 10B reactions in the control rod and poison material. Some
concentration measurements, however, indicate that tritium from that origin did not migrate into the coolant. The
estimate of the tritium from 3He bound in the graphite structures is based on the assumption that half the porosity in
the graphite is assumed to be open porosity and therefore accessible to helium penetration. The tritium from lithium
impurities was estimated from measured lithium levels ranging between 1 and 10 ppb.
TABLE 46. LIMITS OF PERSONNEL EXPOSURE TO TRITIUM [393]
Allowable yearly average

Half-life Maximum yearly intake
Nuclide Compound type, inhalation volumetric activity
(a) (Bq/a)
(Bq/m3)
G1 (tritiated water steam) 1.1 × 109 4.4 × 105

3
H 12.3 G2 (gaseous tritium) 1.1 × 1013 4.4 × 109
G3 (tritiated methane) 1.1 × 1011 4.4 × 107
238
TABLE 47. TRITIUM SOURCES IN THE PEACH BOTTOM HTGR [395]
Tritium origin Amount of tritium at end of life (after four years) (GBq)
In fuel from ternary fission 44 850
In graphite from 3He reactions 1 590

6
In graphite from Li impurities 2 680
From 10B reactions 32 400
Σ ~81 520
FIG. 159. Tritium concentration in the primary coolant versus thermal power of Fort St. Vrain [334].
The observed tritium level in the helium coolant was found to be close to the level of tritium production from
3
He, indicating that most of the tritium produced in reactor core materials was retained there and did not migrate to
the primary coolant helium. This implies that essentially only tritium in the coolant contributes to release to the
environment [395]. The total amount of tritium produced in the Peach Bottom core 2 during 897 equivalent full
power days was about 70 300 GBq (1900 Ci). The total amount released to the primary coolant during three years
of operation was about 22 200 GBq (600 Ci), for an overall release fraction of 0.32 [396]. Removal of tritium from
the core was mainly given by the fission product trapping system, through which the fuel element purge flow
passed. Leakage identified was by off-gas through the stack, discharge with liquid waste or a leak to the chemical
cleanup system from steam generator purge. A small portion of around 40 GBq (1.1 Ci) per year was also estimated
to permeate from the primary coolant helium through the steam generator tube walls into the secondary coolant
water with a further release to the environment by secondary coolant water losses.
Also in the Fort St. Vrain HTGR, tritium activities have been measured by grab samples and continuous monitor
devices (Fig. 159). The measurements of tritium concentration in the primary coolant revealed low values at the level
of ~0.0004 GBq/m3, demonstrating an effective removal mechanism by adsorption on the core graphite surfaces [334].
A total of ~11 400 GBq (307 Ci) of tritium as HTO was removed from Fort St. Vrain by the purification system after
239
FIG. 160. Schematic and photograph of the INL Safety and Tritium Applied Research facility [397].
101 equivalent full power days. Another unknown amount was removed by the titanium getters, which operated
sporadically. During this initial period, most of the tritium was in the form of HTO because of the low H2:H2O ratio.
The HTO activity removed is roughly equal to the amount produced by 3He activation [396].
7.3.8.2. Permeation of hydrogen and tritium through metal
As part of the USDOE NGNP programme, INL recently constructed the Safety and Tritium Applied Research
(STAR) facility for the measurement of hydrogen and tritium permeation through structural materials (Fig. 160)
[397]. It is planned to investigate the three high temperature material candidates Alloy 617, Alloy 800H and
Alloy 230 at temperatures up to 1000°C. The test section consists of a heated tubular sample which separates two
independent counter-flowing helium gas flows, representing the hydrogen/tritium-loaded primary helium flowing
through the inside of the sample and the secondary helium flowing on the sample outside. In the case of hydrogen,
the concentration range examined is greater than 1000 ppm, whereas tritium radiation counters are able to trace
much lower concentrations. First test results confirmed existing literature data for alloys 617 and 800H.
240
The TRITGO computer model was developed in 1974 at ORNL for calculating tritium transport and
distribution behaviour from its origin in the core to the product hydrogen [398]. Sources considered are the 3He in
the coolant, lithium and boron impurities in the graphite, and ternary fission. Removal mechanisms are radioactive
decay, helium purification and sorption on graphite.
For the tritium generated by fission in the fuel particles, rapid diffusion/permeation is assumed in kernel,
buffer and PyC layers, whereas in SiC, the recommended diffusion coefficient is temperature dependent with a pre-
exponential factor of Do = 4.7 × 10–15 m2/s and an activation energy of Q = 76.5 kJ/mol [399]. These data are based
on measurements for particles with different kernel materials irradiated at up to 1575°C to burnups up to 75%
FIMA and PIE-annealed between 900°C and 1400°C [400].
The assessment of tritium contamination was made for the HEATRIC type IHX as part of the H2-MHR
concept. The calculation of tritium flux from the primary to secondary helium was based on a semi-empirical
correlation for Incoloy 800:
p exp {-6250 /T }
F = 61.02 ´C t ´ ´
CH2 t
where
Ф is the flux, μCi/(m2·h)

Ct is the tritium concentration in the primary coolant, referenced to standard temperature and pressure, μCi/m3 
P is the total primary-side pressure, atm
CH2 is the hydrogen impurity concentration in the primary coolant, vol-ppm
T is the IHX wall temperature, K
t is the IHX wall thickness, mm.
Assuming a linear temperature profile from 1000°C to 636°C of the IHX wall and a tritium concentration of
3.7 × 105 Bq/m3 (10 μCi/m3) in the primary coolant, the tritium permeation rate was calculated to be approximately
11 × 105 Bq/s (40 μCi/s). Assuming further that all tritium transferred goes into the product H2, the contamination
of the H2 gas would amount to 0.8 × 105 Bq/Nm3 (or ~890 Bq/g), which is about one order of magnitude higher than
the maximum limit specified in the US regulations. A more thorough analysis will be conducted when a more
detailed design of the total plant is available [334].
In a cooperative effort between INL and JAEA, the Japanese THYTAN code has been applied to the Peach
Bottom reactor for the purpose of validating the various submodels (sources in core, permeation, leakage,
purification) to be compared with the existing measurements and corresponding US calculations. The results in
Fig. 161 show the comparison of the published data [395] with the THYTAN results (blue dashed lines),
demonstrating that the observed maximum value in the experiments matches the new calculations. It can be
concluded that the computed solution from THYTAN is slightly conservative, but THYTAN has shown itself to be
capable of matching at least some of the experimental data. Others such as tritium concentration in the secondary
coolant (i.e. HTO in steam generator) could not be precisely estimated due to lack of data for the Peach Bottom
HTGR [401].
The THYTAN code has also been applied to predict tritium release behaviour for the NGNP plant connected
to either HTSE or S–I cycle based hydrogen production [401]. Due to existing major uncertainties with regard to
permeability through heat exchanger walls or equilibrium constants of the isotope exchange reactions on the one
side, and various possibilities for measures to further reduce tritium release on the other side, overall tritium release
is expected to be sufficiently low to meet all regulatory requirements.
INL has developed the Tritium Permeation Analysis Code (TPAC), which is based on a MATLAB/
SIMULINK software package [402]. First verification and validation efforts have been conducted by comparison of
the separate code modules with analytical solutions. Considering the total system model, results were found to
closely agree with Peach Bottom second core data, where measurements were conducted during startup, full power
and after shutdown (Fig. 161). A comparison is also planned with HTTR data acquired during operation at 950°C
241
FIG. 161. Comparison of tritium concentration in the Peach Bottom reactor, between the observed concentrations [395], THYTAN
calculations [401] and TPAC calculations [402].
gas outlet temperature. In addition to the various tritium sources, sinks, leakage and models for permeation through
pipes, vessels and heat exchangers, the model includes also electrolyser and isotope exchange models for analysing
hydrogen production systems including HTSE and S–I processes. Due to the presence of water and hydrogen in the
steam electrolysis section, HTO and HT are formed, a part of which may escape from the system with the drain
water or the hydrogen product. The other part may be recirculated into the system. In the S–I cycle, the present
hydrogen containing compounds may transform into the tritiated species HTO, HTSO4, and TI, and circulate and
accumulate in the process. Preliminary predictions have been made for a VHTR [402].
In contrast to HTGRs, the tritium in a molten salt reactor is highly mobile in the salt and tends to diffuse
through the high temperature heat exchangers into the working fluid of the power cycle. Its entering the steam cycle
will result in tritiated water. Isotopic separation of tritiated water from non-tritiated water in the steam cycle is
difficult and expensive. The potential option to use a fluoroborate coolant salt in the secondary heat transfer system
to trap the tritium appears feasible, but complex and expensive. In the liquid salt cooled AHTR, tritium production
is dominated by the 6Li(n,α)3H reaction and the 9Be(n,α)6He with subsequent decay to 6Li. For the 900 MW(th)
plant, the tritium production rate has been estimated to be ~7030 GBq/d [403].
7.4. EXPLOSION HAZARDS
7.4.1. Phenomena and modelling
7.4.1.1. Combustion modes
Essential to the consideration of accidental consequences is the estimation of hazards and hazard levels, e.g.
overpressures, thermal radiation, the throw of debris or missiles, and the damage level or the vulnerability of the
receiving objects. In chemical explosions, which are usually exothermal oxidation reactions, a great portion of the
combustion energy is carried by the developing blast wave uniformly distributed in all directions. Depending on the
various types of combustion process (slow deflagration, fast turbulent combustion, detonation), the pressure history
characterized by peak overpressure and increase/decay rate will be different. Deflagration and detonation differ in
242
Po: initial pressure; Ps: peak side-on overpressure; tp: duration of positive phase
FIG. 162. Pressure–time function for detonation shock wave (left) and deflagration pressure wave (right) [404].
peak overpressure, in the duration of the impulse (time-integrated pressure), in the steepness of the wave front and
in the decrease of overpressure with propagation distance. The different pressure transients for the two combustion
modes are shown in Fig. 162.
(A) Deflagration
In a confined deflagration with flame speeds of 1–10 m/s, the volume expansion of the gas acts like a piston
displacing the unburned gas. The deflagration pressure wave is characterized by a slow increase of pressure and
fluid velocity in the region preceding the flame front. Pressure buildup will take place even at low flame speeds and
remain at the obtained level, since the gas cannot expand beyond the confinement. The pressure inside is
independent of the location and mainly determined by the fraction of burned gas.
The static pressure loading in slow deflagration processes is described by the so-called adiabatic, isochoric,
complete combustion (AICC) pressure representing an upper bound in a confined space. Mitigation is given by
incomplete combustion, venting, radiation/conduction heat losses, or the addition of diluents. Therefore the
maximum static pressure will be generally lower than the AICC pressure. On the other hand, initial turbulence
increases the degree of combustion and thus the pressure. The pressure buildup depends on the flame propagation
and the degree of confinement. Particularly hazardous configurations are those which are heavily confined, like
tubes, pipes or channels where — if long enough — even in insensitive methane–air mixtures, high flame speeds
and pressures can be reached. Venting can reduce the pressure.
The combustion of a hydrogen–air mixture in an unconfined vapour cloud explosion (UVCE) typically liberates
only a fraction of 0.1–10% of its thermal energy content, in most cases less than 1% [405]. Depending on the
combustion mode, the explosion is connected with a more or less destructive pressure shock wave. The overpressure
to be expected in the deflagration of an unconfined hydrogen–air vapour cloud is in the order of 10 kPa.
(B) Fast deflagration
In the intermediate stage of a fast deflagration with the flame front still travelling at subsonic speed, a
preceding shock wave is developing in the still unburned mixture. The peak overpressure is lower; however, the
pressure drop takes place over a longer period of time. This means that the impulse, i.e. the integral of pressure over
time, which is a measure for the load upon a structure, is about the same in both cases. The peak overpressure
increases with increasing flame speed. Transient pressures can be locally higher than the AICC pressure.
Inhomogeneity can result in local detonations decaying to deflagrations. In the long distance range, the pressure
243
wave for both deflagration and detonation exhibits about the same shape decaying with 1/r. Local explosions like
from jet flames result in locally high pressures and can also lead to high flame speeds in less confined areas and
even trigger a detonation wave.
(C) Detonation
In contrast to a deflagration, the detonation is a combustion mode with the flame travelling at supersonic speed
in the order of 2000 m/s. The flame front proceeds by shock wave compression of the unburned gas. It is characterized
by a distinct pressure spike and a subsequent almost exponential decrease. The shock wave, which is at the same time
the flame front, is followed by the reaction zone, in which a pressure discontinuity is observed where the pressure even
drops to values lower than atmospheric pressure. Peak overpressures in the near field are typically in the range of
1.5–2 MPa. The pressure wave gradually decays and eventually turns into an acoustic wave.
In geometries which allow the transition from deflagration to detonation, pressures near the location where
detonation takes place may be much higher than the so-called Chapman–Jouguet (CJ) pressure of a stabilized (and
idealized) detonation wave which is due to a precompression effect by the propagating shock wave [406]. In confined
spaces, peak pressures can range between ‘normal’ deflagration peak pressure and very high pressures following
deflagration–detonation transition (DDT). The transfer of a detonation wave into adjacent mixtures is possible and has
been observed for planar clouds, whereas in spherical clouds, fast deflagrations are more likely to occur.
(D) Real gas cloud
In reality, a gas cloud shows the typically expected features of a non-premixed, inhomogeneous concentration
distribution, air entrainment at the boundaries and stratification. The explosion of a real gas cloud will lead to non-
ideal blast waves. Deviations from the ideal situation are able to either enhance or to attenuate the pressure buildup.
Non-stoichiometry as well as ignition at the cloud edge will certainly have a damping effect on the pressure
buildup. The flame spreading in a non-spherical cloud is spherical until it reaches the cloud edge at some point; then
it continues in the direction where still gas can be found. The pressure decreases immediately behind the flame front
because of the upward expansion of the combustion products. Near the ground, long, flat. stretched clouds of
heavier than air gases may experience multipoint ignition connected with a sequence of pressure peaks, and more
turbulence generating terrain roughness or obstacles in the flow path.
Unlike a heavy gas cloud, which would be of a pancake form, a hydrogen vapour cloud would soon cover an
area which is taller than that of a hemispherical cloud with the same explosive inventory. Only in the case of just
vaporized LH2 after a large scale spill would the cold gas cloud travel and stretch near the ground, until sufficient
air had entrained from the outside to make the gas positively buoyant, causing it to develop into a vertically
stretched cloud shape.
7.4.1.2. Blast pressure waves
The propagation of a pressure wave in a compressible medium can be described by the Rankine–Hugoniot
equations based on the conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy. From this relationship, it can be
derived that the density ratio of air, if assumed to be an ideal gas, behind and in front of the shock front is limited to
about six. For air as a real gas, however, assuming to dissociate or ionize at high temperatures, this ratio can be
significantly higher.
Accurate empirical and theoretical models exist for detonation waves. According to the Chapman–Jouguet
(CJ) theory, detonation represents a linear discontinuity, transforming the reactants completely to products at an
infinite reaction rate. Detonation velocity and pressure can be calculated from equilibrium chemistry as a function
of the gas mixture only. The data for hydrogen at NTP in an unsupported detonation are:
CJ velocity: 1968 m/s

CJ detonation pressure: 1.58 MPa
The CJ theory predicts the thermodynamic state immediately behind the detonation wave, but cannot describe
the structure of the wave. Processes inside the detonation front are extremely complex, involving multidimensional
244
shock interactions in an intensive turbulent reacting medium. Still, the simple, one dimensional CJ model prediction
of velocity and overpressure is quite close to what is observed, within a few per cent for velocity and with a 10–15%
difference for the pressure measurements [407]. CJ (and AICC) pressures of a fixed gas mixture increase linearly
with the initial pressure at constant initial temperature, and are inversely proportional to the initial temperature at
constant initial pressure. However, the CJ theory is not capable of determining the dynamic detonation parameters
such as detonatability limits, initial energy or critical tube diameter. No theory exists so far that provides estimates
of these parameters. CJ parameters of a gas or gas mixtures can be calculated with the code STANJAN developed
at the Stanford University.
In the ZND (Zel’dovich–von Neumann–Doering) theory, the detonation wave is described as a 2-D, dome
shaped shock wave where at its front both temperature and pressure rise. It is followed by a reaction zone, whose
thickness is determined by the reaction rate. Here the detonable substance reacts at high pressure and temperature
until everything is transformed into product gases. The chemical reaction causes a rapid fall in pressure (the ‘von
Neumann spike’). The reaction zone remains unchanged (steady) when moving through the substance. A variable
ranging between 0 and 1 describes the respective state and the progress of the chemical reaction. Detonation
velocities and pressures are less than for a plane shock front.
A very simple way of modelling blast effects is the ‘TNT equivalent’ method derived from the decay of shock
waves from high explosive or nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. This is an estimation of the mass of TNT per
unit mass of fuel whose detonation would result in the same blast wave at the same distance. One kg of TNT
translates into the energy of 4520 kg, meaning that 1 Nm3 of hydrogen gas corresponds to 2.22 kg of TNT. The
weakness of the TNT equivalent model, if applied to a vapour cloud explosion, is that it ignores the pressure–time
characteristic differences between a gas cloud and a detonative TNT explosion. It is deemed to overestimate near-
field and underestimate far-field effects. Furthermore, the model does not consider the influence of turbulence and
confinement.
Numerous explosion experiments have been evaluated to derive blast charts. Commonly known and accepted
are the Baker–Strehlow blast curves for vapour cloud explosion in the open atmosphere and the TNO blast waves
for hemispherical explosions. These are good engineering tools, finding there limits when real gas clouds rather
than idealized gas clouds are considered. An improvement toward a more realistic modelling was made with a new
set of blast curves, called the Baker–Strehlow–Tang curves, by considering more precise blast pressure decay
behaviour. The result is a considerable reduction at long distances. The curves were validated in all combustion
regimes [408].
The TNO multienergy method is based on the multi-energy concept, which consists in the feature of gas
deflagration that overpressure and blast develop only under appropriate boundary conditions, i.e. only where the
flammable mixture is partially confined and/or obstructed [409–411]. This assumption can be made provided that
transition to DDT does not take place. For hydrogen, this requirement is not as easily fulfilled as it is for most
hydrocarbons. Based on the multi-energy concept, a vapour cloud explosion is modelled as a series of
hemispherical model charges. Each model charge is characterized by a charge size and strength. The charge size is
related to the heat of combustion present in the source, while the charge strength is related to the explosion
overpressure. Based on these characterizations, scaled blast parameters (peak overpressure, positive phase duration)
as a function of scaled distance have been calculated (Fig. 163) [411].
The strength of the blast wave is expressed as a number between one and ten representing categories of
‘insignificant’ to ‘detonative’. Calculation results suggest that damaging explosions can occur only when flame
acceleration takes place within a plant structure [410, 411]. The charge strength can be determined either by
numerical calculation with CFD codes or by using experimentally based correlations between overpressure and
details of obstacle configurations [412]. The charge size is influenced by the so-called ‘critical separation distance’,
which is the distance between two obstructed regions above which a vapour cloud explosion can be modelled as
two separate sources of blast. Guidance has been obtained in experimental research projects [413]. It was found that
the critical separation distance between a ‘donor’ and an ‘acceptor’ increases with the explosion overpressure up to
a maximum of half the donor dimension.
The Research Centre Karlsruhe has developed the calculation models DET1D and DET3D to determine the
characteristic detonation parameters within the reaction zone and outside in the unburned mixture. These models
have been mainly applied to assess the load on a nuclear containment upon confined combustion of homogeneous
mixtures of H2, O2, N2 and H2O. Code validation was made against the Russian RUT experiments and balloon tests
conducted by the German Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology (FH-ICT). Parameter calculations of a
245
FIG. 163. Blast overpressure versus scaled distance for different explosion strengths according to the multi-energy method [411].
3-D detonation have shown that the 3-D structure is not important for the pressure load and that a relatively coarse
grid provides sufficient accuracy [414].
The state of the art approach to modelling of combustion phenomena are 3-D CFD codes, which need to be
adapted to the spatial and temporal lengths characteristic of chemical reactions. Typical time steps for
hydrodynamic flow calculations are in the order of 10-6 s, and 10-10 s for the H2–O2 reaction mechanism [414].
Many approaches are based on the assumption of incompressible flows and are restricted to slow deflagrations or to
pure detonations. For fast deflagrations with Mach numbers greater than 0.3, incompressibility can no longer be
assumed, since pressure waves are not negligible. Examples of CFD codes applied to combustion are AIXCO
(RWTH Aachen, Germany), AUTOREAGAS (TNO & ANSYS Century Dynamics, the Netherlands), CFX
(Harwell, UK), FLACS (CMI, Norway), FLUENT (Fluent, USA), GASFLOW (FZK, Germany), PHOENICS
(CHAM, UK). The application of the computer models should be limited to cases or ranges for which the codes
were validated.
7.4.1.3. Interaction of blast wave with structure and structural response
The effects of an explosion which have an impact on structures are pressure changes (blast wave) and air
movement (explosion wind), as well as thermal radiation and flying missiles. Only a third of the chemical explosion
energy is involved in the generation of the detonation blast wave; the other two thirds are released at a much slower
rate during the subsequent mixing and burning of the detonation products with the air [415]. In general, structural
responses are highly dynamic, highly inelastic and highly interactive. The dynamic interaction of a blast wave with
246
the structure depends on the pressure–time history, i.e. rise time and duration of positive phase and peak pressure or
the impulse (which is the time integral of the pressure).
In a confined or partially obstructed area, an explosion will create a structure loading where two phases can be
distinguished, the reflected blast loading phase followed by the gas loading phase. When the pressure wave hits the
(rigid) wall, gases are brought to a rest and the wave is reflected. At normal incidence, the reflected shock wave
further compresses the burned gases, increasing the pressure by about a factor of 2.3. The mixture of reflected
pressure waves and deflected airflows is the result of reverberation of the initial high pressure, short duration
reflected wave, with the amplitude decaying with each reflection until eventually pressure levels out at gas pressure
loading. The less venting there is available, the longer the latter phase lasts. The more complex the structure, the
more difficult is the prediction of the critical conditions for mechanical failure for a given load history.
Forces acting on a structure will lead to a deformation the extent of which depends on the material properties
and structure composition. For a static or quasi-static load, i.e. a constant or slowly changing load like from a
simple deflagration, it will be in equilibrium with the internal forces resulting in a deformation of the structure. For
a dynamic load, i.e. a fast load transient, however, a ‘dynamic’ contribution from inertia forces will add to the
equilibrium, which can show positive or negative acceleration, i.e. the mass and stiffness of the structure will play
a major role. The load from a gas explosion is considered a dynamic load due to its short overpressure duration,
which is typically in the range of 100–200 ms. Detonations tend to excite the high natural frequencies of a building,
whereas deflagrations are more effective for the lower frequencies. It appears to be technically more difficult to
design a building against both explosion modes rather than only one.
Methods used to determine structural response and resistance are either empirical in nature, widely applied in
risk assessment and mainly based on pressure peak values or pressure–impulse (P-I) diagrams, or analytical and
numerical methods. An empirical and very global approach of determining the strength of structures is to relate
overpressures to the degree of observed damage. This very useful and easy handling method is widely used. The
relationship between pressure and damage, which is derived from TNT explosions, cannot satisfactorily be
transferred to vapour cloud explosions. The pressure decay from a TNT explosion is much faster than that from a
vapour cloud explosion. The high impulse and the suction effect due to the below atmospheric pressure phase will
certainly result in a different damage pattern. Thus damage criteria such as those derived by Schardin from TNT
explosions are not directly applicable [416].
Another global approach couples pressure peak with impulse. The impulse, i.e. the pressure — negative and
positive — integrated over time, is a measure of the explosion energy, which also varies in time and space over the
exposed structure surface. Damage to the structure resulting from a blast wave may be subdivided into direct effects
and what is called ‘progressive collapse’, a kind of secondary failure following the change of the load pattern on a
structure due to the direct effects. Features of a P–I diagram are the asymptotes in P and I direction and the
monotonic relationship between P and I, which suggests a subdivision into three regimes: impulse controlled, peak
load controlled and an intermediate dynamic stage [417]. P–I diagrams are being widely used in damage
assessments not only for structural damage, but also for predicting blast induced human injuries. They are providing
useful information on the vulnerability of targets.
An example of a P–I diagram is given in Fig. 164 showing the experimental results for the observed damage
in per cent, after different types of houses were exposed to a certain explosion (pressure/impulse) load [404, 410].
Only the impulse is important for the damage effect of a short term load (= shock wave), whereas it is the maximum
overpressure that is important for the longer-term load (= pressure wave). The solid lines in the figure indicate the
lower boundaries for light damage, for severe damage and for collapsing structures of the houses investigated.
A comparison of detonations of explosives and blast waves resulting from nuclear weapon explosions,
characterized by quasi-static pressure due to a longer impulse time, shows that, assuming the same damage, the
detonation pressure or the pressure resistance of an object is much higher than the resistance against a blast wave
from nuclear tests [418].
7.4.1.4. Heat radiation
Thermal radiation is a primary mode of heat transfer. Radiation is the dominant mechanism of heat transfer in
large fires involving hydrocarbons, producing intermediate unstable radicals (O, H, OH, N, etc.) and stable non-
luminous gaseous combustion products (CO2, CO, H2O, NOx, etc.) and soot particulates.
247
FIG. 164. Pressure–impulse diagram with experimental damage values for different house types [410].
The contribution to the radiative transfer in flames can be regarded as being due to luminous and non-
luminous radiation. The gaseous species present, such as CO2, H2O and CO, do not scatter radiation significantly,
but they are strong selective absorbers and emitters of radiant energy. The actual quantity and distribution of
combustion products and/or soot produced in fires depend on the type and configuration of fuel and local supply of
oxygen. In contrast to hydrocarbon fuels, the hydrogen burns more cleanly in air, producing a non-luminous, almost
invisible, pale blue flame due to spectral water vapour bands.
7.4.2. Release of flammable gases into the nuclear containment building
The production of hydrogen and its handling requires understanding of the fire and explosion hazards which
may result from the leakage of flammable materials that are used in the chemical processes applied, such as
methane, hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Since deflagration or even detonation have the potential of causing
significant damage to safety components, these components should be designed against fire and explosion
according to the highest safety level.
The addition of CO to an H2–air mixture increases the detonation sensitivity of the mixture. The lean limit of
H2 decreases if the CO concentration increases. The addition of 1.2 vol% CO to an H2–air mixture means a
reduction of the lower flammability limit (LFL) from 4 to 3.6 vol%; the addition of 6% CO requires only 2% H2 to
become flammable. A mixture of CO and H2 will have a flammability limit lower than that of either fuel. Not much
information is available on the auto-ignition behaviour of CO–H2 mixtures. The auto-ignition temperature of CO
drastically decreases with the addition of small amounts of H2 or moisture. Also, few data exist on burning
velocities for both H2–CO and H2–CO–steam mixtures in air [419].
Figure 165 shows flame speed measurements for a hydrogen–methane–air mixture in an explosion vessel.
Gas mixtures varied over a wide range of hydrogen contents, from pure methane–air to pure hydrogen–air fuel
compositions [420]. The flammability range of the fuel mixture was found to be widened, as expected, with
increasing hydrogen content.
248
FIG. 165. Measured flame speeds versus H2 concentration in hydrogen–methane–air mixtures [420].
In the case of accidents, the process gases are mostly light and hot, tend to rise immediately and do not form
free explosive gas clouds. However, they may increase turbulence in the containment atmosphere. Various inert
components in the gas mixture strongly reduce the chance of an ignition or reduce flame speed and overpressure.
An undesired reaction within the reforming process is the decomposition of carbon monoxide with the
formation of carbon which is enhanced with decreasing temperatures:
2 CO → C + CO2
7.4.2.1. Germany
(A) Safety of PNP plant
The safety concept is based on the postulated double-ended fracture of a single heating tube of the heat
exchanger. Ingress of process gas into the reactor building, however, is only possible after the simultaneous failure
of an IHX tube and a secondary duct of the intermediate circuit. This should be practically excluded by design
measures such as an appropriate closing valve arrangement in the secondary circuit and a double-pipe construction,
i.e. an arrangement of two concentric pipes with both the inner and outer pipes designed to withstand the process
gas pressure and with the annular gap filled with inert gas and monitored. Also, in design according to the ‘leak
before break’ criterion, a complete pipe failure should not occur. Safety measures on the primary side are the
shutdown of the reactor and of the primary circulator and the closing of the isolator valves. The leak before fracture
criterion commonly used in the nuclear field still needs to be proven for the conditions of a process gas pipe. Flow
restrictors ensure that the pressure loss time of the primary system is sufficiently long to avoid destructive dynamic
forces in the primary system [293].
In the case of the immersion heat exchanger of the steam–coal gasifier, process gas release is assumed to take
place at sonic speed through a 13 cm2 opening. Considering leak detection within 15 s results in about 80 kg of gas
mixture (process gas plus steam) entering the primary cell. Process gas mixtures of coal gasification plants are
usually composed of the fuel components CH4, CO, H2 and C2H6, and the inert gas components CO2, N2 and water
vapour under certain pressure and temperature conditions.
In the case of steam reforming with the reformer as a primary component, a pipe rupture will cause an ingress
of process gases into the core, where corrosion of the fuel element matrix and other graphite structures could take
place and generate further flammable gases. Prevention measures here are the limitation of the process gas quantity
by quickly reacting automatic valves, a dumping system to empty the steam reformer via a relief valve and a
primary gas purification system to limit graphite corrosion. The fracture of a steam reformer tube will lead to a leak
size of 80 cm2. Assuming the closure of the isolation valves in the process gas duct after 8 s, the quantity of gas
mixture entering the core will be about 600 kg [421].
249
Information on flammability ranges of mixtures of CO, water gas, inert gas (He, H2, H2O) and air as a
function of pressure and temperature, as well as on the maximum allowable fuel content and the maximum inert gas
content, has been gained from experiments within the PNP safety programme. The flame extinguishing effect was
observed to be in the order H2O > He > N2. The mixture relation according to the Le Chatelier Rule was found to be
in good agreement with experimental data and can therefore be used for calculating flammability ranges of any
mixture [419]. The effect of an addition of H2O on the flammability limits has not been verified so far, but it
presumably will not be significantly different from CO2 or N2. The influence of graphite dust on the flammability
range still needs to be examined.
(B) Hydrogen–carbon monoxide mixture explosion studies
The Research Centre Karlsruhe (FZK) conducted experiments in an explosion tube to investigate the
turbulent combustion of H2–CO–air mixtures in fully confined, partially obstructed geometry and, in particular, to
examine the influence of the CO component on flame acceleration [422]. To this end the tube was equipped with an
array of obstacles of a blockage ratio (BR) of 45% and a distance of 0.5 m. Mixture composition and initial pressure
are the parameters the test series.
Tests were performed with 11 and 18% fuel gas concentration; the results are presented in the
velocity–distance diagrams shown in Fig. 166. The curves with the circles in the two diagrams represent the case
where the fuel is pure hydrogen. Replacing half the H2 with CO (5.5% H2 + 5.5% CO = 11% fuel gas) (Fig. 166,
top) results in a subsonic flame (<200 m/s), with no acceleration, in contrast to the combustion of pure hydrogen in
air where the regime of a choked flame (500–700 m/s flame speed) is reached after an acceleration phase. Some
influence of the initial pressure can also be observed.
Analogous experiments with 18% fuel gas concentration (Fig. 166, bottom) reveal a different picture. The
combustion of pure hydrogen causes rapid flame acceleration up to the quasi-detonation regime, while more
moderate and longer lasting acceleration up to detonation speed is the outcome of the experiments with 9% H2 and
9% CO.
The results clearly demonstrate a damping effect of CO on the turbulent combustion speed of H2–CO–air
mixtures when compared with turbulent combustion in pure H2–air mixtures. This effect is probably caused by the
relatively long induction and reaction time of the complicated oxidation mechanism of CO. This process requires as
an initiating component OH-radicals, which have to be provided in a sufficient amount by the H2 oxidation. The
resulting time delay between hydrogen and CO oxidation was detected in the H2–CO–air experiments with the
installed photodiodes, which showed two spatially separated flame zones moving along the tube.
With respect to safety analysis of nuclear steam reforming systems, the mitigation effect of CO additions on
the observed flame speed and the resulting pressure loads should be taken into account. Treating CO simply as H2
in the analysis would lead to overly conservative load estimates.
7.4.2.2. Japan
Fire and explosion events inside the reactor building may cause severe damage to nuclear safety systems. It is
therefore required that the possibility of a flammable gas leak inside the reactor building should be low enough to
avoid any fire and/or explosion at this location. The potential sequence of flammable gas ingress into the reactor
building is the simultaneous failure of a secondary helium pipe inside the containment and a reformer tube in the
hydrogen production plant outside the containment (Fig. 167). To minimize explosion hazards inside, the helium
piping and chemical reactor should be designed according to the highest level of reliability and laid out against
extreme (design) earthquakes. Furthermore, a combination of the containment vessel isolation valve installed in the
helium piping and the emergency shutoff valve in the process feed line is planned.
Since the steam reforming system will be laid out as a non-nuclear facility, it is basically not equipped with
additional safety systems. In the case of an explosion event in the vicinity of the reactor building, the thermal load
and blast overpressure may be strong enough to cause some damage to the containment. Therefore it is required to
prevent significant leakage of flammable gases in the vicinity of the reactor building. A double tube was foreseen in
the HTTR steam reforming system to prevent leakage of flammable gas, which would allow for the location of the
H2 system near the reactor. Emergency shut-off valves are also provided to isolate the failure location of the pipe
and thereby limit the amount of leakage.
250
FIG. 166. Flame velocities of H2–CO–air mixtures measured in FZK detonation tube tests [422].
FIG. 167. Ingress of flammable gases into the reactor containment for the HTTR-SMR [386].
251
FIG. 168. Isolation valves in the HTTR-IS system for containment (CIV), reactor building (RIV), and S–I process (ISIV) [423].
In the HTTR steam reforming system, the HTTR containment building does not have the capacity to
withstand severe radiation heat and blast overpressure. Therefore it is necessary to minimize the risk of a huge fire
or explosion event. One possibility is the separation of the accident source and the HTTR, which may be given by
a safety distance or a fire-proof separation wall.
On the nuclear reactor side, the key component is the high temperature isolation valve. Its purpose is to
prevent the release of any radioactivity with the coolant to the chemical system; it also represents a barrier to the
ingress of combustible gases into the nuclear building. The isolation valve is to be designed for helium temperatures
of 900°C or above [385].
The containment isolation valves (CIVs) and the reactor building isolation valves (RIVs) are installed in the
secondary helium cooling system, acting as a barrier to prevent radioactive release from accidental rupture of the
IHX tubing and, on the hand, to prevent chemicals or combustible gas from passing to the primary system following
an accidental failure of hydrogen plant equipment. In addition, the S–I process isolation valves (ISIVs) are installed
to isolate the chemical process from the secondary helium cooling system in the case of abnormal events of the S–I
process (Fig. 168) [423].
Tests have been conducted at JAEA with a scaled down isolation valve of 3 m height (Fig. 169). It is an angle
valve with inner glass wool insulation and a flat valve seat made of Hastelloy X. In order to sustain the temperatures
of more than 900°C on the hot leg, the valve must be designed against unacceptable thermal deformation. Its
functionality at 905°C and 4 MPa with helium flow rates of 2.5 kg/s, and its leaktightness (leakage rates measured
were less than 0.1 cm3/s, target value was 4.4 cm3/s) in both open and closed cycles confirmed the basic structural
integrity and maintainability. In the lower part of the figure, an electric heater unit can be seen, which was installed
to heat the helium gas and the inner structure up to 900°C. The isolation valve component needs further
improvement with regard to valve seat durability [385].
As a countermeasure against explosion, the design of a coaxial pipe for combustible gases with a reduced
rupture probability has been developed. A schematic of the pipe is shown in Fig. 170. It is composed of an inner
pipe, in which the combustible gas flows, and an outer pipe filled with nitrogen to prevent leaking of combustible
gas to the atmosphere in the case of a rupture of the inner pipe. A failure of the outer pipe can be detected by a
nitrogen pressure drop, upon which hydrogen production could be stopped safely [385].
Helium gas can transfer to the process side only if the primary pressure is greater than the secondary pressure
until equilibrium. A quick activation of the shutoff or separation system is necessary to prevent radioactivity release
from leakage. In the case of repair/maintenance of the chemical reactor, the removal of possibly contaminated
process gas is done via stack by a system of catalytic burner, cooler and filter. Rupture of the reformer tube may
cause release of catalyst into the primary system, transported downwards by gravity into a catalyst capturing device.
252
FIG. 169. Schematic of JAEA high temperature isolation valve concept (left), half scale model (right) [385].
FIG. 170. Schematic of coaxial pipe for combustible gases [385].
7.4.3. Release of flammable gases outside the containment building
Due to its low probability, the scenario of an explosion wave hitting the nuclear plant from the outside is
generally assumed to belong to the residual risk, but it may gain importance for the case of nuclear process heat
plants in connection with the production and handling of flammable gases in the vicinity.
The danger of possible detonations or deflagrations of explosive gas clouds that could be released from tank
ships or trucks, or from nearby chemical plants, and that might travel toward a reactor building has been the subject
of substantial theoretical and experimental investigation. This kind of threat is strongly dependent on the local
environment and the future development plans for that area. Individual characteristics of the site and the layout of
reactor buildings will be relevant. Basic aspects to consider would be to avoid large flat surfaces; to surround the
reactor building with auxiliary equipment buildings; to use underground construction for the reactor systems, the
253
spent fuel storage systems and important connecting conduits; and to provide for sufficient hardening of the above
ground portions.
From the different types of release, the catastrophic failure of a pressure tank is the case where — for a short
time — the largest fraction of released mass would be within the flammability limits. The most likely release type,
however, is a high momentum stationary (jet) release, in which case the fraction of mass within the flammability
limits would be smallest.
7.4.3.1. Definition of safety distance
There is a wide variety of possibilities for the definition of ‘safety distance’ and it is largely dependent on the
country or document in question [424]. As commonly understood, a safety distance is the required minimum
separation distance between a potential hazard source, e.g. the location of a flammable gas leakage, and the
vulnerable object to be protected from an external impact. But apart from the difficulty in providing a precise
definition, another problem arises with the necessity to select the appropriate method for quantifying a separation
distance. Fixing of numerical values could be done by estimations assuming severe accident conditions or the
application of probabilistic risk assessment methods taking account of mitigation measures such as fire walls. And
last but not least, there is a need for harmonization of the various approaches of quantification among the countries.
The separation distance is usually determined as a function of the quantity of hydrogen involved
(‘quantity–distance relationship’). It may be fixed on the basis of credible events, taking account of — if referring
to hydrogen — the evolving flammable atmosphere as well as of the heat and pressure wave resulting from a
possible ignition. The separation distance can then be defined according to physically defined criteria, e.g. the dose
of thermal radiation or the peak overpressure, to have reached a certain threshold value. A particular aspect is the
risk of projectiles which may be thrown much further away than the blast pressure based safety distance. A basic
prerequisite is the knowledge of the source term, which is dependent on leak size and the thermal dynamic
conditions of the leaking substance. Small, hardly quantifiable leakage, e.g. from cracks in welding seams, will be
a safety issue.
It should be noted that during transportation of high temperature fluids, it is vital that the distance between the
nuclear power source and the hydrogen production site be as short as possible. This is conditioned by the need to
preserve the high temperature potential and to reduce the coolant pumping requirement and capital costs. However,
from the viewpoint of safety assurance, the hydrogen storage, hydrogen production plant and reactor plant should
be located at a distance from one another. Consequently, it is necessary to find a reasonable compromise when
analysing the economic effectiveness and safe arrangement of the mentioned objects.
7.4.3.2. France
According to Ref. [425], the recommended safety distance from nuclear buildings is 500 m to cover the risk
of a hydrogen–air vapour cloud explosion in the H2 production plant. For the assumed released mass of M =
1500 kg of H2 (flammable quantity accumulating during a 30 min production period), this translates into a k-factor
of about 44, which appears to be very conservative if compared with the German (k=8) or US approach (k=18).
Also assuming the full TNT equivalent of the H2 mass for a non-uniform hydrogen vapour cloud with a vertically
long-stretched shape may lead to a very conservative estimation.
7.4.3.3. Germany
(A) Experimental work on vapour cloud explosion
Apart from the experience obtained by observations and lessons learned from explosion accidents, numerous
experiments have been performed worldwide to investigate the transient behaviour of overpressures following the
explosive combustion of fuel–air mixtures. Tests were conducted under various conditions such as confined,
partially confined or unconfined, larger scale or smaller scale geometry, fuel type and constitution, with the main
goal of development of or comparison with simulation approaches. As expected, the most dangerous configurations
were found to be those with a major obstruction, even for less sensitive fuel gases such as methane.
254
Among the numerous experimental activities worldwide was the PNP gas cloud programme as part of the
nuclear power plant safety programme. The FH-ICT conducted various series of tests using mixtures of propane,
ethylene, methane and hydrogen with air to investigate detonation and DDT in spherical, hemispherical and tube
geometries. Unconfined hemispherically shaped hydrogen–air mixtures at volumes between 7.5 and 2100 m3 were
ignited measuring a maximum overpressure of 6.3 kPa, which corresponds to a flame velocity of 84 m/s [426–429].
Balloon tests were conducted with hemispherically shaped hydrogen–air mixtures with a volume of 50 m3 and
concentrations of 20 and 29.6 vol%. Ignition occurred at the centre on the ground by means of an explosive to
trigger detonation. Pressures were measured at various positions inside and outside the balloon. Visually measured
flame speeds agreed well the theoretical values [414]. The influence of partial confinement on the combustion
behaviour of H2–air mixtures was examined in further ICT tests employing a 10 m × 3 m × 3 m lane with parallel
walls [430–432], which resulted in one case in a DDT event [433].
The extensive experimental research programmes on gas explosions within the EU projects MERGE and
EMERGE [434] have shown that overpressures are mainly determined by the fuel type, geometric scale, and
arrangement and number of obstacles which are passed by the propagating flame.
(B) BMI guidelines for protection of nuclear power plants
A formula for the safety distance is generally acknowledged to have the form:
R = k × M 1/3
where
R is the safety distance, m;

M is the mass of the flammable substance, kg.
The relation may be modified by damping parameters if some sort of protective measure is applied (e.g. wall
or earth coverage). The k-factor depends on the building to be protected (from German recommendations: 2.5–8 for
a working building, 22 for a residential building, 200 for no damage) and on the type of substance.
The guidelines for the Protection of Nuclear Power Stations from Shock Waves Arising from Chemical
Explosions drafted by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) in 1976 [435] has defined for nuclear
power plants a k-factor of 8 in the safety distance relation (lower curve in Fig. 171), meaning that the detonation of
a mass M results in a maximum overpressure of 30 kPa in a distance of R. The mass M is either unsaturated
hydrocarbons or compressed gas, assuming a premixed stoichiometric mixture of hemispherical shape and central
ignition. If the flammable mass is a pressurized liquid, k is reduced to 6.3 (or 50% of the mass). For cryogenic
liquids or hydrocarbons under standard conditions, k is 3.7 m/kg1/3 (or 10% of the mass).
With respect to the HTTR with steam reforming system, the k-factor becomes 3.7 (for LNG). If applied to the
foreseen 400 m3 LNG tank, the result according to the above equation is a required safety distance of 205 m. Such
a safety distance would actually be fulfilled if the planned distance between reactor building and the LNG tank of
at least 300 m were realized. What is not considered here is the flammable content of the steam reformer, which is
sited in the immediate vicinity of the reactor building and thus is not in compliance with the BMI guidelines, which
require a minimum safety distance of 100 m.
The guidelines are valid for nuclear power plants of present design. It is explicitly mentioned that “no
statement can be given at present concerning its application to future nuclear process heat plants”. They were
excluded due to uncertainties in the knowledge of gas cloud explosion scenarios. It is supposed to be a concomitant
effort with the development of nuclear process heat plants to solve the problem of external vapour cloud explosions.
(C) Underground siting of the nuclear plant as an enhanced safety feature
The different nuclear components such as fuel elements, primary circuit and containment act as barriers to
retain the radioactivity inside the plant. The integrity and interdependence of these barriers is a key requirement of
reactor safety. Depending on conditions of normal operation and accidents, these barriers are efficient in different
ways. In normal operation, the function of the first barrier, the fuel element, is sufficiently good to retain nearly all
255
FIG. 171. Safety distance as a function of the quantity of released liquefied gas according to the BMI guidelines and US Regulatory
Guide 1.91.
fission products. The retention of the radioactivity inside the reactor has to be efficient enough to limit the releases
to the environment, in the case of an incident, to an amount less than a fraction of 10–5 of the overall inventory.
A further global expansion of the use of nuclear power and its public acceptance require the prevention of
catastrophic releases of radioactivity in the case of severe accidents [436]. A series of protection systems for a
nuclear power plant characterized by a complete below-ground construction and earth coverage is shown in
Fig. 172.
The total primary system enclosure is pre-stressed with radial and axial tendons to prevent bursting of the
vessel. The primary system is enclosed in an inner primary concrete cell, placed inside a reactor building to protect
the reactor against impacts from the outside. Underground siting even prevents dangerous consequences of terrorist
attacks on the plant. These new safety characteristics of the plants to be assigned to all other activities such as
installations of fuel supply and disposal in the nuclear energy economy have to be proven.
7.4.3.4. Japan
In Japan, the High Pressure Gas Safety Law, which applies also to hydrogen, defines safety distances for
chemical plants containing < 10 000 kg of flammable materials — which would apply to the combined system of
HTTR plus S–I process — as follows:
17.0 m to public buildings; 

11.3 m to residential buildings;
8.0 m to facilities which are operating burners.
(A) Safety concept for HTTR combined with SMR or S–I process against fire and explosion
Figure 173 shows for the example of the HTTR plus a steam reforming system the potential fire and explosion
hazards which may have an impact on the reactor containment. A safety distance can be selected to mitigate the
effects of thermal load from fire and blast overpressure from explosion. Comparing these effects, the explosion
pressure wave causes greater damage than does the fire itself. The explosion event is taken into account to estimate
adequate safety distances.
256
1: reactor core (here: 300 MW(th) with annular design and RPV inner diameter of 6 m), 2: prestressed reactor vessel, 3: prestressed
vessel for steam generator, 4: prestressed connecting vessel, 5: control- and shut off system, 6: helium circulator, 7: hot gas duct,
8: steam generator, 9: cell cooler, 10: inner concrete cell, 11: outer reactor building against extreme impacts, 12: fuel loading device,
13: fuel discharge device, 14: flap, 15: concrete closure, (16) storage vessel for spent fuel elements, 17: sedimentation area + filter,
18: stack with filters, 19: transport channel, 20: cover of reactor building
FIG. 172. Concept of underground siting against extreme impacts from outside [436].
FIG. 173. Possible effects of fire/explosion accidents outside the reactor containment for the HTTR-SMR [386].
257
The basic safety concept as proposed by JAEA is to provide some safety barriers between the HTTR and the
steam reforming system so as to prevent the anticipated operational occurrences for anticipated design basis events
related to the steam reforming system. Design basis events related to the HTTR system have already been
considered. It is therefore important to discuss additional anticipated design basis events that could originate due to
the connection of the steam reforming system with the HTTR. Additional safety design requirements and
corresponding countermeasures for the hydrogen production system are given in Table 48 for the different
operational conditions of the HTTR.
Adequate measures for the occurrence of an event or its propagation are provided: pressure resistance design,
combustible gas leak detection system, fire extinguishing system and emergency shutoff system. Incidents with
small or medium amounts of leakage appear to represent no hazard to the nuclear system. In terms of mitigation,
safety distance and alternatively an explosion-proof/fire-proof wall are considered to allow shorter distances.
Concerning the concrete of the building, it is expected to exhibit no significant change of its mechanical
properties over 24 h at 175°C, and is designed to not exceed a wall-averaged limit of 175°C from radiation heat, in
order to maintain the structural strength of the concrete. Overpressure of the incidental blast wave is limited to 10 kPa
(USA: 7 kPa, Germany: 30 kPa) to ensure no failure of the reinforced concrete and the steel frame components.
The computer code system P2A was developed at JAEA to analyse fire and explosion accidents for the HTTR
steam reforming system [437]. It consists of the commercially available programmes PHOENICS for leakage, pool
fire and atmospheric dispersion simulation; AUTOREAGAS for deflagration and blast wave effects; and
AUTODYN for detonation and impact on structures. The three single codes are coupled by interface programmes.
Calculations have been made considering leakage of LNG from the storage tank or a pipeline with a subsequent
large scale pool fire changing the local atmospheric wind flow pattern, or the formation of a methane vapour cloud,
its ignition and explosion with a pressure wave hitting the HTTR building.
Assuming a leak position 200 m from the reactor building and a leakage rate of 34 kg/s over 44 s
(corresponding to a total volume released of about 3.5 m3 of LNG) did not show a spreading of the vapour cloud
toward the reactor building at significant concentrations. The cloud volume within the flammability limits was
estimated to be around 2300 m3 after 69 s. The ignition of the cloud near the leak position resulted in a maximum
overpressure of 0.3 kPa, which decayed to a level as low as 0.01 kPa in front of the reactor building [437].
(B) Dispersion and explosion analysis for the GTHTR300C
A preliminary analysis to estimate the separation distance was performed by JAEA for the GTHTR300C in
the case of a hydrogen explosion [438, 439]. The 3-D computational fluid dynamics code STAR-CD was used for
the assessment of hydrogen dispersion and its transient concentration distribution in the open atmosphere applying
the standard k–ε turbulence model.
TABLE 48. SAFETY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HTTR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION SYSTEM
Operational condition Event Safety requirement Countermeasure
Normal operation Tritium transport from Reduction of tritium radiation Restriction of permeation
core to product gas H2 level in product gas through tube walls
Removal of tritium in the
coolant by purification system
Anticipated operational Thermal turbulence Prevention of thermal Mitigation of vibration of

occurrence turbulence to propagate secondary helium temperature
to primary He loop by steam generator installed
downstream
Accident Fire/explosion from Prevention of leakage inside Upgrade design category of

leakage of flammable gases and in the vicinity of reactor helium piping, reforming tubes
building Double-walled tubes
Mitigation of accident  Inerting of the compartment
consequences Safety distance
258
FIG. 174. H2 concentration contours after 10 s with the flammable portion of the cloud (≥ 4 vol% in red) [438].
Amount of hydrogen released
FIG. 175. Downwind distance as a function of the H2 quantity released [438].
In the scenario analysed, the assumption was a rupture of the H2 pipeline with the release of a pressurized
hydrogen gas jet at critical speed. The mass flow rate was assumed to be constant. The release phase was followed
by a dispersion phase in the open field until the H2 gas cloud was dissipated below the LFL. Further assumptions
were a released H2 quantity of 9.3 kg at a rate of 0.77 kg/s over 12 s, a pipe diameter of 20 mm, a release height of
2.5 m and a wind speed of 1 m/s. The maximum downwind distance of the explosive gas cloud before dissipation
after 16 s was calculated to be 44 m (Fig. 174).
Increasing the quantity of hydrogen released leads to an increased downwind distance. A variation of the
release height has shown that ground release leads to the longest downwind distance, while there is no significant
difference for the cases with 2.5 and 5 m of release height (Fig. 175). Also, a larger pipe diameter with
correspondingly shorter release time results in longer downwind distances.
Hydrogen jet flames resulting from ignition of unintended releases can be extensive in length and pose
significant radiation and impingement hazards. Depending on the leak diameter and source pressure, the resulting
separation distances might become unacceptably large. The employment of barrier walls around H2 containing
systems is an option to reduce hazards. Vertical barriers, however, may deflect jet fires down or back toward the
hydrogen facility. Therefore tilting the barrier at some angle could help reduce this effect.
259
A physical barrier is also an effective means to reduce the travel distance of the hydrogen cloud. In the JAEA
study, the effect of a wall assuming a height of 7 m at a distance of 5 m to the release point, which itself is at a height
of 5 m, is shown in Fig. 176. For a horizontal jet (Fig. 176 (top)), the H2 cloud hitting the wall is split into two parts,
resulting in a drastic decrease of the travel distance. If the jet is inclined upwards at an angle of 22.5° (Fig. 176
(bottom)), the wall is only partly touched by the gas cloud, and there is no effect for angles over 45°. But the wall
effect of the over 45 degrees of the jet angle disappears because a hydrogen cloud goes over a wall in this case. The
calculations have shown the positive effect of a protection wall which can be designed such that travel distances
will be limited to values below 100 m.
A second step in the analysis is the estimation of a safe distance beyond which the overpressure following the
explosion of the H2 gas cloud has decayed to an acceptable level. This level was assumed in the JAEA analysis to
be 10 kPa, similar to the NRC value of 1 psi (~7 kPa). The explosion overpressure is strongly dependent on the time
elapsed after the beginning of the release. Figure 177 shows the calculation results for the separation distance as a
function of time in the case of a release of 97 kg of hydrogen from a 100 mm diameter pipe. The separation distance
is defined by a sum of travel distance of the cloud and the distance of the peak overpressure of 10 kPa. The figure
exhibits the tremendous importance of consideration of the cloud travel distance (yellow part of the bars).
It was concluded from the analysis that a relatively short distance between the reactor plant and the hydrogen
production plant should not pose any risk to the overall safety, especially if the reactor and the process plant are
separated with an earth mound or any other type of wall. The employment of a blast-proof protection wall rising
2 m above hydrogen pipelines that significantly reduces the travel distance of the flammable cloud might be
sufficient to limit the safety distance between the nuclear plant and the hydrogen production-site to 100 m or less
[438]. Further studies will be conducted at JAEA to confirm the sufficiently conservative approach.
(C) Safety of fuel cell vehicles
A study to investigate the risk associated with a refuelling station based on high pressure gaseous hydrogen
and to examine accident scenarios and the relevant safety requirements has been initiated by the Japan Petroleum
Energy Centre. As a major result, the analysis has shown that, except for highly unlikely events, a minimum safety
distance of 6 m should be sufficient. It is intended to propose a revision of the existing High Pressure Gas Safety
Law, which currently requires a clearance distance of 11.3 m [440].
To investigate the safety of FCVs and then be able to establish a set of codes and standards, the Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Vehicle Safety Evaluation Facility, Hy-SEF was constructed. It includes a fire and explosion resistant,
contained area for testing hydrogen vessels and vehicles under accident conditions [42]. The investigation of the
flammable region of a hydrogen vapour cloud released from a pressure vessel was done in a wind tunnel test series
in 2001. If stored at 35 MPa and applying a 0.8 mm diameter pinhole, concentrations of >4% were observed up to
a distance of 2–3 m. If large amounts of hydrogen were released within a short period of time, the flammable cloud
sections extended to about 20 m [441]. Also explosion test series have been conducted with premixed H2–air at
different concentrations in 5, 37 or 300 m3 volumes. Measurements were made for the flame speeds and
overpressures at various distances studying the influences of ignition mode, obstruction and a barrier wall [442].
7.4.3.5. Russian Federation
According to the safety requirements for nuclear plants connected with a hydrogen production plant, technical
measures have to be taken against blast pressure waves from vapour cloud explosions. The measures include
explosion source removal or screening, building structure reinforcement (increased stiffness and inertia of cross-
sections) or other technical solutions aimed at decreasing the energy potential of explosive process units [443].
If there are (or are supposed to be) any external explosion sources at a distance of up to 5 km from nuclear
plant structures of category I (Table 49), this pressure is calculated or assumed to be equal to 30 kPa [444].
The energy potential, Qv, of the process units intended for hydrogen production through water electrolysis are
to be calculated on the basis of design solutions ensuring Qv < 27 (explosion hazard category III). The permanent
presence of the servicing personnel in the electrolysis compartment is not recommended. Continuous monitoring of
the progress of technological processes is performed by the operator from the control panel room. Automated
shutdown takes place if emergency protection thresholds are reached.
260
FIG. 176. Hydrogen concentration contours in the presence of a barrier wall [438].
261
FIG. 177. Distance from the release point with an overpressure of 10 kPa [438].
TABLE 49. EXPLOSION HAZARD CATEGORIES OF PROCESS UNITS [445]
Explosion hazard category Relative energy potential of released gas cloud, Qv Mass of released gas cloud (kg)
I >37 >5000
II 27–37 2000–5000
III <27 <2000
For nuclear power plants, pressure in the shock wave front should be assumed to be equal to 10 kPa taking
account of on-site explosion sources. If there are (or are supposed to be) any external explosion sources (oil
refineries, basic storehouses of fuel and lubricants or explosives, gas lines, etc.) at a distance of less than 5 km from
a nuclear plant structure of category I, the pressure in the shock wave front is to be calculated or assumed to be
equal to 30 kPa. Designed explosion and fire hazardous facilities are to meet the following requirements [445]:
— Buildings accommodating control rooms (operator rooms) should be constructed outside the destruction area
or be capable of withstanding shock wave impact; in the latter case, they should be equipped with independent
means to support normal systems operation and personnel activity in emergencies.
— Permanently attended administrative and other buildings should be constructed outside the destruction area.
— Plant-shared facilities (power, steam and water supply, etc.) should be constructed outside the destruction area
or be capable of withstanding shock wave impacts.
— For each object containing process units of any explosion hazard category, it is necessary to calculate zones in
which the concentration of fuel in the vapour cloud that forms in the emergency remains below the explosion
limit. The emergency response plan shall specify actions to be taken by the personnel in case of emergency to
prevent ignition of the vapour cloud sources within the calculated zones.
262
In accordance with the safety rules to be observed in the production of hydrogen by water electrolysis,
hydrogen storage should be located at a distance of at least 15–30 m from the storehouses and production buildings,
and a minimum of 100 m from administrative buildings [446]. The mass flow during the release of hydrogen or
other explosive gases located in close proximity to the reactor pressure can be reduced owing to the modular
equipment design, optimal number of fast-response isolation valves sealing off the leaking sections, and reduced
cross-sections of pipelines and overall size of equipment that may contain explosive fluids.
If possible, the reactor building should be buried relative to the process plant. In another variant, it is
necessary to arrange screening with an earth mound, a reinforced wall or (what is less costly) a rising wall in the
place of possible hydrogen leak from the pipeline. Therefore, it appears to be possible to arrange the hydrogen
process plant and the reactor building at an acceptable distance from each other (not exceeding 100 m), observing
all technical measures ensuring the safety of such arrangement.
According to the analysis of the MHR-T based SMR process, high concentrations of water steam in the steam
gas mixture transport area, even in the case of leaks, prevents the formation of explosive mixtures in any initiating
events or meteorological conditions. Detonative mixtures can form only in chemical plant compartments not
connected to the reactor plant, and therefore these compartments can be removed to the required safe distance from
the nuclear power plant main building. The modular equipment design and interfaces between the four-module
nuclear plant and the chemical plant should prevent failures that may disable more than one MHR-T module.
Therefore, an accident in one reactor module would not affect the safety of the remaining modules, and an
uninterrupted operation of the entire power complex, in turn, would support a high availability factor.
7.4.3.6. USA
In the USA, it is judged according to the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.91 [447] that structures, systems and
components important to safety and designed for high wind loads are also capable of withstanding pressure peaks
of at least 7 kPa resulting from explosions. No additional measures need to be taken if the equation
R = 18 × W1/3
is met where
R is the safety distance, m, from an exploding charge;

W is the mass of TNT (equivalent), kg, of the exploding material (upper curve in Fig. 177).
For the LNG storage tank of the HTTR SMR system, the 400 m3 of LNG correspond to a TNT equivalent of
1859 t, which then translates into a safety distance of as long as 2.2 km. This approach appears to be unrealistic for
the HTTR SMR system considering the fact that much larger stationary LNG tanks up to 200 000 m3 (→ R  18 km)
have been established worldwide. NRC Guide 1.91, however, offers additional options such as risk analysis for
further reduction of the safety distance. Other countermeasures considered are a fire wall, berm (separating hill) as
shown in Fig. 178 for the US H2-MHR concept and in Fig. 179 for the US STAR-H2 reactor concept, where the
reactor modules are located in underground silos while the primary helium circulator, the IHX, the intermediate
helium loop circulator and respective piping are located in an adjacent silo. The below-grade positioning of the
reactor core has further safety related advantages in that it is more resistant to sabotage and to damage from seismic
events; also decay heat can be dissipated to earth if necessary.
A key issue for safety and licensing of the H2-MHR is the collocation of the MHR modules with the hydrogen
production plant. From the technical point of view, the distance of high temperature heat transfer should be minimized.
In a recent study to evaluate the separation requirements, INL applied methods of probabilistic risk
assessment using the risk analysis code SAPHIRE to assess safety distances between an NGNP and a hydrogen
production plant. Calculations have shown that a distance below 110 m would result in the need to consider
regulatory issues demanding mitigation measures. Passive barriers such as an earthen wall result in a significant
reduction of the core damage frequency. The recommendation given is a safety distance between 60 and 120 m plus
a mitigation barrier against explosion events. All on-site quantities of hydrogen should be minimized to less than
100 kg. Additionally, it is recommended to transport the hydrogen gas in a coaxial pipeline with an inert atmosphere
(nitrogen) in the annular space [449].
263
4 MHR Modules,
each with IHX
Earthen Berm
Hydrogen Production Plant
Cooling Towers
FIG. 178. Safe separation of nuclear and chemical section by earthen berm [93].
FIG. 179. Underground nuclear reactor STAR-H2 [448].
Other recommendations from the INL study include a 100 kg on-site limit for hydrogen storage, a quick pipe-
out after production and the use of double-walled pipes for hydrogen transport. Also, the nuclear plant control room
should be located outside the dispersion zone for chemical release.
7.4.4. Hazard from liquid hydrogen storage
For economic reasons in terms of storage and transportation, it makes sense to transform the product gas
hydrogen into its liquid state. Also, for the concept of the HTTR combined with steam reforming, the feedstock
methane was planned to be delivered in liquid form as LNG. In these situations, the storage vessel represents the
264
largest risk for the adjacent nuclear plant if the content is inadvertently released. The instantaneous release resulting
from a catastrophic failure of the vessel can be excluded if the vessel arrangement is underground. The conceivable
accident scenario here is the vessel opened at the top with the cryogenic liquid vaporizing into the atmosphere.
According to the IAEA recommended cryogenic pool vaporization rates, 10% of the liquid flash-vaporizes, while
for the remainder, the rates are set at 10 mm during the first minute and 0.5 mm/min afterwards. Experimental data,
however, with liquid hydrogen (LH2) in a dewar (i.e. no major heat input from walls or bottom) were found to be much
higher, in the range of 30–66 mm/min [450]. Regression rates of burning LH2 pools can even be enhanced up to
1000 mm/min if solid oxygen formed at the surface to the open atmosphere reacts with the hydrogen in violent, unstable
burning. Assuming an underground storage vessel to contain about 100 t of hydrogen as LH2, it could have the
approximate dimensions of 15 m diameter and 10 m height. For the above given range of regression rates, the contents
of such a vessel if open at the top would vaporize completely within 2–5 h. This is an extremely long time in terms of
the atmospheric dispersion process for hydrogen, particularly with regard to its extremely strong positive buoyancy,
meaning that it will be impossible to have all hydrogen available involved in a potential vapour cloud explosion.
An important result from earlier experiments with the release of LH2 and subsequent ignition conducted in the
late 1950s was that neither detonation nor the tendency toward a detonation was observed. Detonation hazards from
an open LH2 pool appeared relatively slight when in contact with solid air, and were the most severe if oxygen was
accumulating. Ignition of the vapour above the pool (depth: 50–300 mm) was by either spark or flame source in the
range of up to 8 s after spillage. The later the ignition, the larger was the developing fire ball. The hydrogen flames
principally remained limited to the pool size, but were largely extended, up to 50 m, vertically. They were even able
to ignite separated flammable gas pockets creating a new fire ball. The radiation heat after ignition did not
significantly change the pool regression rate. In the case of delayed ignition, observed explosions were presumably
due to condensed air reacting with the pool [451].
Partial obstruction near the pool was found to lead to higher pressure pulses, making it advisable not to have
any barricading structures around LH2 storage vessels. A detonation in a free hydrogen–air mixture, however,
seems to be highly unlikely. Only when using strong igniters or by the initiation of a shock wave was it possible to
detonate the hydrogen–air mixture following the spillage of small amounts of LH2 [452].
In Japan, experimental work with LH2 release and subsequent ignition has led to similar results. Burning rates
expressed as liquid level regression were measured to be 24 mm/min, which was six times that for gasoline. Both
‘normal’ and the much more violent ‘abnormal’ burning with very high flames was observed, when the burning
LH2 came into contact with solidified oxygen from the air [453].
7.5. INTERACTION BETWEEN NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL SYSTEM
A system with an endothermic chemical reactor connected to an HTGR exhibits thermal dynamics which
differ significantly from those of the nuclear reactor itself.
In the Japanese HTTR core, the coolant temperature is primarily controlled by the reactor power, not by the
coolant flow rate. Nuclear heat is transferred to the helium gas with the result of a linear relationship between
reactor power and helium temperature. On the other hand, in the chemical reactor where endothermic reactions take
place, the heat input necessary to cause the reaction increases tremendously with increasing reaction temperature
due to the Arrhenius type temperature dependence of the reaction rate. Temperature fluctuations are transferred to
the nuclear plant and might affect its operation. A temperature change of more than 15°C compared to ‘normal’ will
shut down the reactor. Therefore the development of an adequate control technology is required in order to balance
the difference in the thermal dynamics between the nuclear and chemical reactor. For the HTTR, the selected design
and arrangement of the steam generator with a maximum allowable temperature change of 10°C at the outlet is
expected to fulfil this control function.
A higher probability of malfunction or failure is expected on the process side rather than on the power
generation side. Safety measures are required to mitigate potential disturbances resulting from a malfunction or
failure in the hydrogen production system to allow for a continuous reactor operation without reactor scram.
The safety design of the nuclear plant is based on the defence in depth concept. Therefore, in the case of a
reactor scram, the propagation of thermal turbulences should be stopped in the secondary loop. The safety
requirement for this event is to limit the secondary helium temperature variation within 15 K at the inlet of the
IHX to prevent a reactor scram.
265
FIG. 180. Arrangement of steam generator in HTTR circuits [454].
7.5.1. Analysis of HTTR with steam–methane reforming system
The operating procedures for startup and shutdown are similar, but reversed. Before startup, nitrogen is
supplied at a pressure of 2.2 MPa. The HTTR is then started. When the secondary helium gas is heated to above
500°C and the steam generator is controlled at the rated pressure of 5.0 MPa, steam is gradually supplied to the
system and nitrogen is released into the environment with this steam by switching the flow line. With the steam
flow rate constant at rated conditions and the helium gas temperature at the inlet of the steam reformer increased to
700°C, methane feedgas is supplied to the system. Even during low startup system operation, a stepwise increase in
the feed flow rate by 10% (as it is difficult to control the feedgas at low flow rate levels), results in a stable helium
gas temperature level at the inlet of the IHX due to the influence of the steam generator. After 60 h, the helium gas
temperature reaches 950°C and the entire system can be operated automatically.
If the methane supply system is shut down due to a loss of electric power or a malfunction of the control
system, the helium gas temperature at the steam reformer outlet will increase. The steam generator installed
downstream of the steam reformer in the secondary loop (Fig. 180) can cool the hot helium gas down to the
saturation temperature of the steam, thus providing a stable controllability for any disturbance at the steam reformer
due to the large heat sink capacity and preventing a reactor scram. However, if the feedwater supply is interrupted,
the steam generator cannot continue to operate. It is therefore proposed to re-use the generated steam as feedwater
after condensation in the radiator.
The steam reforming system is a ternary cooling system. A change of the flow rate of either the feedgas or the
water to the steam reformer induces a thermal disturbance of the helium outlet temperature on the reformer due to
the change of the amount of heat input for the reforming reaction. If the temperature of the helium returning to the
IHX exceeds the allowable limit, the reactor will scram.
In order to prevent a scram of the HTTR due to a loss of feedwater, the hot helium gas is cooled by the steam
generator and the generated steam from the steam generator flows into a natural ventilation type radiator connected
to the steam generator. The condensed water is then supplied to the steam generator as feedwater. The steam
generator can keep its water contents for normal operation. The total heat capacity is about 8.8 MW, representing
the heat capacity of the steam reformer, super heater and steam generator. Furthermore, if a pressure drop is
detected in the cooling system due to pipe failure or valve malfunction, and the water level in the steam generator is
low due to interruption of the feedwater flow, the valve in the steam line closes, while that in the radiator steam
supply line opens passively through an automatic air supply system. Generated steam is supplied to the natural
convection type radiator and is cooled down. Condensed water is recycled to the steam generator as feedwater. This
system does not require electric power or feedwater.
Static calculations of the cooling ability of the steam generator have been carried out, showing that a
reduction of the feedgas changes the outlet temperature of the reformer correspondingly. But the steam generator
mitigates the temperature variation within 5°C. The continuous cooling of the hot helium gas by the steam
generator allows the HTTR steam reforming system to continue at normal operation. A transient analysis assuming
a stepwise decrease in process gas flow rate by 20% indicated that increased heat input to the steam generator due
266
FIG. 181. Flow rates of methane, steam, nitrogen, and production rate of hydrogen during the system controllability test [454].
to increasing helium inlet temperature only results in an increase in steam quality at saturation temperature due to
boiling, but not in an increase of the steam temperature.
Performance tests were conducted in 2001–2002 in a mock-up test plant to check the ability of hydrogen
production and controllability of the experimental facility. The test of system controllability was made by
simulating the accident scenario of a loss of chemical reaction, i.e. the disconnection from the methane feed,
representing the worst case with regard to temperature fluctuations transferred to the secondary helium, and
examining the transient behaviour of the H2 production system and temperature fluctuations at the steam generator.
In parallel, the experimental data were used for dynamic analysis code validation [210].
The mock-up plant included all key components described in Section 4.1.3.3. As illustrated in Fig. 181,
nominal flow rates in the test were 12 g/s of methane and 47 g/s of steam, when — at time 0 — methane feed, and
thus hydrogen production, was shut off. The helium temperature at the steam reformer outlet increased from 632 to
837°C after 1.2 h. At the same time, the temperature at the inlet was raised from 531 to 762°C. Helium temperatures
at the steam generator outlet (nominal: 263°C) were observed to fluctuate not more than within the range of –5.5 to
+4.0 K, which is within the specified range of –10 to +10 K required for HTTR-SMR operation. The test
demonstrated that the steam generator in the HTTR-SMR system can effectively be used as a thermal absorber to
mitigate temperature fluctuations created by the chemical side.
267
7.5.2. Analysis of HTTR with sulphur–iodine process
The S–I process is classified as a non-nuclear-grade system. Safety function for continuous operation is kept
by the backup nuclear-grade equipment during S–I process abnormal conditions. The thermal load disturbance
absorption system, the steam generator, is one of the backup equipment. The S–I process does not need any safety
function for continuing reactor operation [455]. In addition, a method for preventing tritium permeation has been
proposed which allows the S–I process to be released from radioactivity control area. The only remaining abnormal
events which need to be evaluated as part of a reactor safety assessment would be the fire and explosion hazards
caused by combustible gas leakage from the S–I process and toxic gas leakage that may jeopardize the operator
room [423]. The anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs) and accident scenarios identified for the HTTR-IS are
listed in Table 50.
7.5.3. Analysis of GTHTR300C with sulphur–iodine cycle system
For the Japanese VHTR design, GTHTR300C, it is planned to have three control valves installed in the
primary circuit in order to mitigate the turbulence of inlet helium temperature of the gas turbine and keep the
rotation speed of the generator constant. In the case of pressure loss in the secondary circuit, the hydrogen
production system is disconnected from the IHX by an isolation valve. The helium pressure between the IHX and
isolation valve is recovered by the helium supply system to continue power generation operation [55].
TABLE 50. ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL OCCURRENCES AND ACCIDENT SCENARIOS IN HTTR-IS

SYSTEM [423]
AOO-1: Increase in IHX PGC revolution

The coupling of the IS process would change the operating conditions at the secondary side of the IHX from
the original HTTR safety review. Hence, the quantitative value of the evaluation items would change.
AOO-2, 3: Closing and opening of air cooler bypass flow control valve
The HTTR modification decreases the mass flow rate of the pressurized water in the primary pressurized water
cooler since the secondary pressurized water cooler would be replaced by other components, e.g. IS process,
SG, etc. Hence, the quantitative value of the evaluation items would change.
AOO-4: Opening of exhaust valve in secondary helium storage and supply system
The HTTR modification would change the inventory of the secondary helium cooling system and would
require a flow capacity increase of the exhaust valve. Hence, the quantitative value of the evaluation items
would change.
AOO-5: Closing of isolation valve in secondary helium cooling system

The event was newly identified because of the installation of isolation valves in the secondary helium cooling
system.
ACD-1: Rupture of inner tube in co-axial hot gas duct in secondary helium cooling system
The IS process coupling decreases secondary helium cooling system flow rate from the original HTTR safety
review. Hence, the quantitative value of the evaluation items would change.
ACD-2: Rupture of piping in secondary helium cooling system

The HTTR modification requires the design change of the secondary helium cooling system in order to provide
heat to the IS process. Hence, the quantitative value of the evaluation items would change.
ACD-3: Rupture of IHX heat transfer tube

The HTTR modification requires installation of the isolation valves in the secondary helium cooling system
since the secondary helium cooling system will be modified to penetrate the CV and R/B in order to provide
heat to the S–I process. Hence, the progression of the scenario would change.
ACD-4: Rupture of S–I process boundary

The rupture of the S–I process boundary would cause a leakage of combustible and toxic gases and result in an
explosion and operator poisoning. The event should be evaluated as an external event by using appropriate
design parameters.
268
The hydrogen production system is coupled with the HTGR via a heat transfer loop. The safety requirements
for all types of reactor system are to protect people and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation.
The exposure of the public remains as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) in operational states, and
radiological risk is acceptably low in accident states. The defence in depth concept is employed to prevent
accidental release of radioactive materials.
The hydrogen production system coupled with the HTGR should be a non-nuclear grade chemical plant to
reduce construction and maintenance costs, because hydrogen produced by the cogeneration HTGR system must
economically competitive with hydrogen produced by the conventional fossil system. With the following
requirements, a non-nuclear grade hydrogen production system in a cogeneration HTGR is achievable:
— The HTGR can continue safe operation independent of operational conditions of the hydrogen production
system;
— The heat transfer loop, which provides hot helium gas from the IHX to the hydrogen production system, is not
required to perform any nuclear safety function to prevent AOOs and accidents;
— Events originating in the hydrogen production plant do not affect the safe operation of the HTGR.
The functions of the heat transfer loop are primary helium cooling, pressure load control on the IHX heat
exchanger tubes and impurity concentration control during normal operation. Thermal load degradation of the
hydrogen production system can be detected as a temperature increase at the turbine inlet. Actuation of these
control valves decreases the helium flow in the core. The reactivity control system reduces the reactor power to
keep the reactor outlet helium temperature at the rated operating condition of 950°C.
7.6. RELEASE OF TOXIC MATERIALS
Similar to the nuclear site, the mandatory safety demonstration for the industrial site is based on risk
evaluation and analysis of the risk reducing measures taken by the operator. A risk analysis leads to the
‘determination’ of major accident scenarios in terms of potential impact outside the site limits.
The classic scenario involves a loss of the containment for the hazardous material by, e.g. leakage, pipe
rupture or the catastrophic failure of a tank, and may lead to:
— Pool formation with evaporation/vaporization;

— Jet or pool fire;
— Explosion as vapour cloud explosion (VCE) or boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE)
connected with pressure effects and missiles;
— Toxic dispersion with effects on human health.
The orifice through which the material escapes can vary over different shapes and sizes. The leaking fluid can
flow into different geometries. And finally it is the thermodynamic conditions of the fluid which determine its
release behaviour.
In the case where there is no early ignition, the vapour cloud shape is further determined by density
differences, atmospheric conditions and topography. Several phases of a gas cloud formation can be distinguished.
In the early phase, the gas cloud is still unmixed and usually heavier than the ambient air. Heavier-than-air
substances result in near-ground, flat clouds. The following phase is characterized by a gradual entrainment of air
from outside into the gas cloud, enlarging its volume and changing its temperature and concentration. In the final
phase, due to atmospheric dispersion, density differences between the cloud and ambient air will be levelled out.
The jet release of a substance under pressure is usually connected with the formation of aerosols characterized by
an inhomogeneous concentration distribution.
The spreading of a gas cloud in the atmosphere is strongly influenced by the wind conditions, which change
with height. Vertical wind profiles can be determined as a function of the so-called stability categories depending on
the temperature conditions. As an example, Pasquill suggested the categories A, B and C for unstable, D for neutral,
and E and F for stable conditions. The spreading mechanism of a gas in the atmosphere is mainly by mixing with
the ambient air.
269
For large amounts released, the evolving gas cloud can itself influence the atmospheric wind conditions
changing wind and diffusion profiles in the atmosphere. This so-called vapour blanket effect can be observed
particularly at low wind velocities, where the atmospheric wind field is lifted by the gas cloud and the wind velocity
inside the cloud drops to practically zero. For low wind speeds, additional effects such as further heating of the gas
cloud due to energy supply from diffusion, convection or absorption of solar radiation, as well as radiation from the
ground will play a certain role, since they reduce gas density and enhance positive buoyancy.
The turbulence structure of the atmosphere is composed of large scale turbulence described by the large scale
wind field, and of isotropic turbulence, which is a rapid variable superimposed on the medium wind field. While
larger eddies are responsible for the cloud meandering, the small eddies eventually determine the spreading of the
gas cloud. Further factors influencing the turbulence structure within a gas cloud are velocity gradient (sheer
forces), current created by buoyancy forces and heat transfer from/to the ground. The topography also has a strong
influence on the atmospheric wind field and thus on the spreading of the gas cloud. Obstacles such as buildings or
other barriers may deflect clouds and increase the degree of turbulence.
Chan [456] performed calculations for the numerical simulation of LNG vapour dispersion from a fenced
storage area and found that a vapour fence can significantly reduce the downwind distance and hazardous area of
the flammable vapour clouds. However, a vapour fence could also prolong the cloud persistence time in the source
area, thus increasing the potential for ignition and combustion within the vapour fence and the area nearby. In the
presence of buildings or other obstacles, the wind direction is also expected to play an important role for the cloud
dispersion, due to the shielding effects of these obstacles. The obstacle effect is twofold: in one way it inhibits gas
convection, but on the other hand it creates turbulence, thereby increasing gas dilution, extending the flammable
region and even accelerating flames.
Since the S–I process generates toxic gases such as SO2, SO3 and HI, toxic gas inflow into the reactor control
room must be prevented. Layout and design of systems such as the ventilation and air-conditioning system and gas-
sensing system will be performed and evaluated. Toxic gas diffusion and risk analysis are taken into consideration
in order to evaluate the toxic gas effect in the HTTR-IS system design [455].
7.7. INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR HANDLING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7.7.1. IAEA Safety Guides
Apart from the need to meet the criteria specified in the Codes of Practice on siting and design, the plant
designer has to assess the hazardous potential from external human induced events. For this purpose, the respective
IAEA Safety Guides discuss information and design criteria required for the various categories of events with
respect to siting [457] and design [458].
Fires due to human induced events may have safety significance. Adequate precautionary measures are the
reduction of the amount of combustibles in the vicinity of the nuclear plant and the installation or strengthening of
protection barriers. Additional design features may be the redundancy of safety systems, physical separation by
distance, separate fire compartments, and fire detection and extinguishing systems. Load-bearing concrete
structures are recommended to have a minimum thickness of 0.15 m to withstand a 3 h standard fire. The allowable
temperature for reinforced bars and structural steel is 500°C for short term fires of less than 6 h.
In the case of gas cloud explosions, the capacity of the plant structures to resist blast overpressures has to be
assessed. Potential secondary effects to be considered are fire, loss of off-site power, smoke and heated gases,
ground motion and missiles. The pressure–distance relationship developed for TNT can be utilized for solid
substances. Structures with reinforced concrete walls with a thickness of at least 0.5 m will normally be capable of
withstanding substantial overpressures.
Protection measures are similar to those for fire. In addition, ventilation systems should be designed such that an
ingress of flammable gases is prevented. Also, vapour accumulation in confined external areas should be prevented by
avoiding long alleys and inner courtyards or providing adequate openings. Categories of events related to fire and
explosion from flammable fluids are given in Table 51. These possible events resulting from activities nearby the
nuclear plant are strictly characteristic to the region. Therefore, both the actual facilities/activities and those anticipated
during the expected plant lifetime must be taken into account. The initial events given in the above table may trigger
follow-on events with serious impacts on the nuclear plant, as described in Table 52.
270
TABLE 51. IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCES AND ASSOCIATED INITIAL EVENTS [457]
Facilities and
Relevant features of the facilities and traffic Initial event
transportation systems
Oil refinery Quantity and nature of substances Explosion

Chemical plant Flowsheet of process in which hazardous Fire
Storage depot materials are involved Release of explosive, flammable,
Pipelines Meteorological and topographical features corrosive, toxic or radioactive clouds
Other nuclear facilities of the region Ground collapse, subsidence
Existing protective measures in installation
Railway train, wagon Frequency of passage Explosion

Road vehicle Type and quantity of hazardous material Fire
Ship, barge associated with each movement Release of explosive, flammable,
Features of the vehicle (incl. protective measures) corrosive or toxic clouds
Meteorological and topographical features
of the region
TABLE 52. IMPACT ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES [457]
Impact on the plant Parameters Consequences of impact
Pressure wave Overpressure at the plant Collapse of parts of structure or disruption of

as a function of time systems and components
Missile Mass Penetration, perforation or spalling of structures, or

Velocity disruption of systems and components
Shape Collapse of parts of structure or disruption of
Size systems and components
Kind of material
Structural features
Impact angle
Heat Flux Disruption of systems or components

Ignition of fire combustibles
Smoke and dust Composition Blockage intake filters
Concentration and quantity Habitability of control room and other important
as a function of time plant rooms and affected areas
Flammable and Concentration and quantity Permeation of the plant and fire or explosion inside
explosive gas as a function of time plant
Explosion or fire on-site
Corrosive, toxic, Concentration and quantity Permeation of the plant

radioactive gas, as a function of time Habitability of control room and affected plant areas
aerosols Corrosive, toxic limits Corrosion and disruption of systems or components
Ground shaking Response spectrum Mechanical damage
Flooding Level of water Damage to structures, systems, and components

Velocity of impacting water
Subsidence Settlement, differential Collapse of structures or disruption of systems and

displacement, settlement rate components
The evaluation of all available information should be carried out such that in a first step, a screening
procedure is carried out. This can be done by using a screening distance value (SDV) for certain sources, beyond
which these sources become insignificant, or a screening probability level (SPL) as limiting values; or it can be a
pragmatic approach based on expert judgement. The SDV and SPL must be chosen conservatively small to keep the
risk resulting from such human induced hazards at an acceptably low level. Some Member States use an SDV in the
range of 5–10 km for explosions, and a value in the range of 1–2 km for fires.
271
Sources can be stationary or mobile. If an industrial area is considered, those can be process units, storage
tanks, pipelines or on the other side tank trucks, cargo ships. Further compulsory information deals with the nature
and quantity of the hazardous materials, flowsheets of the processes, dimensions of the facilities, pipeline
characteristics, operating conditions, traffic facilities (harbours, railways, roads), meteorology of the region and its
topography. If practicable, a full quantitative risk analysis should be conducted to identify accident scenarios and
the magnitude of the associated radiological consequences.
All potential sources of explosions not eliminated by the screening process should be evaluated in further
detail. Usually it is sufficient to limit considerations to the dominant sources only. A design basis explosion should
be established. The evaluation should be based on the pessimistic assumption that the maximum amount of
explosive material is involved in the explosion (unless there are very good reasons not to do so). For mobile
sources, the analysis should include the frequency of shipments increasing the probability of a hazard.
For the establishment of a design basis explosion, the TNT equivalent is usually taken to define the relation
between the weight of the explosive material and the safety distance, unless this relationship has been directly
developed from experiments for certain chemicals. Then the parameters of pressure waves and ground shock can be
estimated. Hazards arising from flammable liquids should be evaluated in terms of the:
— Location and quantities for each facility;

— Probability of a vessel rupture or a leak;
— Maximum quantities released and respective release probabilities;
— Probability of release from a mobile source in transit;
— Places nearest to the nuclear power plant where hazardous pools may collect.
For the design basis event, the location and size of a pool of the flammable liquid and potential flow paths
should be assessed, as well as the related danger to the nuclear plant. Liquefied gases vaporize after release and
form a vapour cloud that may drift towards the nuclear plant, with the potential effects of either an external
explosion or a penetration of the building to endanger personnel or safety systems. The behaviour of the vapour
cloud strongly depends on the meteorological conditions. Therefore, source positions with predominant wind
direction away from the nuclear plant would reduce the probability of an event. The detailed evaluation includes the
assessment of the:
— Probability of occurrence of an event;

— Quantity released;
— Probability of a vapour cloud drifting to the nuclear plant;
— Dilution due to atmospheric dispersion;
— Probability of ignition of the flammable vapour cloud inside or outside the plant.
For sub-cooled liquefied or pressurized gases, particular care has to be given to the release behaviour in terms
of their transient vaporization rates.
The application of Gaussian type dispersion models to simulate cloud drifting is also mentioned; however,
this finds its limits if density differences between cloud and ambient air cannot be neglected, and if topography or
any obstruction might influence the dispersion behaviour. In this field, modern calculation tools are available such
as advanced box models or 3-D CFD codes, which might be applied for comparison purposes or for detailed
analyses of partial aspects.
Boundary conditions for the case of sub-cooled liquefied gases as recommended in the Guide are the
assumptions that:
— For small amounts of leakage, all liquid is immediately vaporized;

— For large amounts of leakage, the liquid covers all the surface area of the pool and a fraction of 10% is
assumed to vaporize spontaneously in an initial gaseous puff, followed by vaporization or regression rates of
10 mm in the first minute and 0.5 mm thereafter.
272
7.7.2. European directives
7.7.2.1. Seveso I
As a consequence of the Seveso accident in 1976, where a highly toxic vapour cloud of dioxin was released
into the atmosphere by a chemical plant, Member States of the then European Economic Community (EEC)
decided to reinforce regulation on industrial activities. The so-called Seveso Directive (82/501/EEC) [459] was
adopted in 1982 aimed at the prevention and control of similar accidents in the future. Its scope was later extended
to the storage of dangerous substances, and was subsequently reviewed in close cooperation between the European
Commission and the European Process Safety Centre (EPSC), an international, industry based organization dealing
with process safety and safety management systems.
7.7.2.2. Seveso II
In 1996, the Seveso II Directive or Council Directive 96/82/EC [460] was adopted, replacing the old one and
including new requirements related to safety management systems, emergency planning and other areas; the Seveso
II Directive was also in harmony with the IPPC Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and
control. After a certain transition period for adjustment of national laws to comply with the new directive, the
directive became mandatory in 1999 for both industry and public authorities. The main objective of Seveso II,
which also applies to non-commercial establishments, is the prevention of major accidents with the release of
dangerous substances or mitigation of the consequences to humans and the environment. The directive
distinguishes between lower tier and upper tier establishments, characterized by exceeding or not exceeding
specified threshold quantities for certain substances. Concerning hydrogen, in the directive the lower threshold was
fixed at 5 t and the higher threshold at 50 t. However, the Member States are free in adopting stricter measures than
those of the directive.
The new directive defines the general obligations of the establishment operator as well as the general duties of
the ‘competent authorities’ (CAs) of the Member States. It recognizes and accommodates a wide range of
management systems. Operators have to demonstrate in a hierarchy of written documents that technical and
organizational measures for a safe operation are being taken. The CAs have to examine these documents prior to the
start of construction or operation. The level of detail and specificity of the documentation is increasing through the
levels from a written Major-Accident Prevention Policy (MAPP) via a Safety Management System (SMS) and
Internal Emergency Plan to Working Documents. The background of the requirement of an SMS is the fact that in
90% of known major accidents, management failure such as poor organization or inadequate training was
identified.
7.7.2.3. Explosion protection
The European directive 94/9/EC [461] on Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially
Explosive Atmospheres, also known as ATEX 100a, went into force in 1996. It refers to the safety of both electrical
and non-electrical equipment, protective systems, components, or safety controlling or regulating devices which are
being put on the market and taken into operation in potentially hazardous locations. It applies to all industrial,
explosion-endangered areas and mining areas where flammable gases, vapours, mists or dusts in mixtures with air
under atmospheric conditions (temperature range from –20 to 40°C, absolute pressure range from 0.08 to
0.11 MPa) can be present. This directive divides equipment and protective systems into groups and categories.
Another European directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, named 1999/92/EC or ATEX
118a, on Minimum Requirements for Improving the Safety and Health Protection of Workers Potentially at Risk
from Explosive Atmospheres [462] was adopted in December 1999. This directive provides for a classification into
zones of the places where explosive atmospheres may occur. Hazardous locations are divided into two groups:
Group I: Mining with firedamp (= flammable gases contained in coal) or coal dust;
Group II: All other areas with potentially explosive atmospheres formed by flammable gases, liquids,
combustible dusts.
273
TABLE 53. AREA CLASSIFICATION OF GROUP II WITH POTENTIALLY EXPLOSIVE ATMOSPHERES
FOR EUROPEAN HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS
Gases Dusts Frequency of explosive atmosphere Equipment to be used
Zone 0  Zone 20 Continuously or long periods Protection level very high,
Category 1G Category 1D or frequently two independent means of protection
Zone 1 Zone 21 Occasionally Protection level high,

Category 2G  Category 2-D  suitable for normal operation and frequent
or 1G or 1D occurrence of disturbances, faults are expected
Zone 2 Zone 22 Unlikely in normal operation, but if Protection level normal,
Category 3G  Category 3-D  it occurs then only for short periods suitable for normal operation
or 2G or 1G or 2-D or 1D
Potentially explosive areas are subdivided into zones (1999/92/EC) or categories (94/9/EC) to describe the
potential frequency of the occurrence of an explosive atmosphere (Table 53).
For ignition by sparks or flames, flammable gases or vapours are classified into four groups:
—Group I: firedamp in mines (methane);

—Group IIA: least readily ignited gases (e.g. propane, benzene);
—Group IIB: more readily ignited gases (e.g. ethylene);
—Group IIC: most readily ignited gases (e.g. hydrogen, acetylene).
8. USES OF HYDROGEN
8.1. CURRENT USES OF HYDROGEN
The first industrial applications of hydrogen were in the early 19th century as a fuel gas for lighting and
heating. The hydrogen was mainly produced from the anaerobic reaction of hot coal and water vapour. It was used
for many years in commercial and residential applications until it was eventually replaced with natural gas.
Of the annual production of 8 EJ or ~190 Mtoe of hydrogen, most is in the form of ‘captive’ hydrogen
(consumed at the producer’s place) (Fig. 182). Only an estimated 5% of the total hydrogen production is supplied
as ‘merchant’ hydrogen (produced centrally und transported to the consumer), requiring the appropriate
infrastructure for transportation and distribution. Other market types are by-product and stranded hydrogen
produced in the chemical industries and either used internally as a raw material or fuel, or simply vented or flared if
no marketing infrastructure is available. Only 1% of current hydrogen production is used for direct energy
purposes. The hydrogen market in Europe is 64% captive hydrogen, 27% by-product hydrogen and 9% merchant
hydrogen [463].
There is a wide variety of industrial customers for hydrogen which require, depending on the application area,
different quantities and purities of hydrogen. The largest consumer of hydrogen is the chemical industry, with a
demand for hydrogen growing at an annual rate of 7–10% [465]. As is shown in Fig. 182, about half the total
hydrogen is used for producing ammonia (fertilizer), 35% is used in petroleum refining processes (tendency
increasing due to heavier crude oils), 8% is used in methanol production, 1% is used as a fuel in space programmes,
and the residual amount is used for other purposes [464]. The most important processes for producing hydrogen in
refineries are steam reforming of natural gas (59%) followed by off-gas purification (35%) [107]. The merchant
suppliers may operate a hydrogen plant or a hydrogen supply pipeline. Figure 183 shows the specific demand for
hydrogen in refineries in the USA over the past 25 years, revealing a strong increase in recent years due to the
increased processing of lower quality, heavy crude oils and other unconventional fossil resources. For a present
throughput of 20 Mbbl/d, this translates into a hydrogen demand of 28 000 t/d [144].
274
FIG. 182. Global hydrogen production and use (in million t) [464].
1.500
1.400
Refinery Hydrogen Use (kg/bbl)
1.300
1.200
1.100
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
year
FIG. 183. Hydrogen consumption in the US refineries between 1985 and 2005 [144].
275
8.1.1. Non-energetic and indirect energetic use
Indirect energetic use of hydrogen occurs in refineries where the H2 is used in catalytic cracking operations or
hydro-treating to upgrade heavy and unsaturated compounds into lighter and more stable species. It is also used in
the production of synthetic fuels via Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, of methanol, or of SNG. Furthermore, it is used in
the hydrogenation of coal and heavy crude oil. Hydrogen is also used to remove sulphur from crude oil and
gasoline, and to purify gases, e.g. by capture of oxygen traces in argon. Other H2 consuming processes are welding
and glass production. In the glass production process, the hydrogen is used as an oxygen scavenging atmosphere
(~6% H2 and ~94% N2), and to prevent oxidation of the large tin bath in the float glass process. Polishing and
melting of high quality optical glass is done by means of a soot free hydrogen flame. In the food industry, the
properties of fats and oils are changed through hydrogenation of organic intermediate products like amines and fatty
acids, making food less susceptible to oxidation and spoilage.
Specific applications for liquid hydrogen [466] are in the metal industries, where LH2 is used in the metal
production process directly (e.g. tungsten, tungsten carbide, molybdenum metal powder), and, if mixed with inert
gases, in secondary processes to act as a reducing atmosphere in heat treating, sintering and copper brazing. In the
electronics industry, highly pure hydrogen is mainly needed as a carrier gas for active elements such as arsine and
phosphine in the manufacture of integrated circuits, polycrystalline silicon for semiconductors, optical fibres for
communication, or fused quartz. The pure water vapour required is generated from mixing oxygen with vaporized
LH2. The hydrogen is either used as atmosphere or as a clean burning fuel. In power plants, LH2 can be used for the
cooling of large electric turbogenerators and to protect piping in nuclear reactors.
The following is a list of non-energy and indirect energy applications of hydrogen:
— Heavy oil hydrogenation for the production of preprocessed crude oil;

— Hydro-cracking of heavy distillates, which are difficult to reform, by using hydrogen and catalysts to convert
into lighter fractions (kerosene, light and heavy gas oil, fuel oil (‘naphtha’); cracking by heating or catalytic
reforming to obtain various fuel qualities;
— Hydro-treating, i.e. a process that reduces sulphur or nitrogen content of the feed;
— Hydro-processing, i.e. a process used for desulphurization and substantial removal of most other impurities
(nitrogen, oxygen, heavy metals) from the products of distillation processes; for example, desulphurization of
heating oil grade S by 80% requires approximately 146 Nm3 of H2 per toe;
— Fischer–Tropsch synthesis for the production of synthetic liquid fuels;
— Methanol synthesis, also for the production of base materials for plastics;
— Coal hydrogenation for the production of synthetic oil;
— Methanation for SNG production;
— Chemical processing to manufacture chlorine, caustic soda, and hydrogenated non-edible oils for soaps,
insulation, plastics, ointments and other chemicals;
— Hydrogenation of organic interim products for the production of polyamides, cyclohexane, fat alcohols, fat
hardening;
— Synthesis of ammonia (NH3) for the production of fertilizer and synthetic materials (acrylic fibres);
— Oxo-synthesis for alcohol production;
— Pharmaceuticals to produce sorbitol, which is used in cosmetics, adhesives, surfactants and vitamins;
— Direct reduction of iron ore for sponge iron production, raw iron in the metal industries;
— Metallurgy to use pure hydrogen/oxygen flames in cutting, welding, brazing, annealing;
— Food processing to hydrogenate plant fats and oils, such as soybean, fish, cottonseed, and corn oil, for
hardening;
— Electronics to create a special atmosphere for the production of semiconductor circuits;
— Reduction gas, protection gas in high temperature operations, such as glass manufacturing to use high-purity
flames for cutting and welding, artificial gemstone/diamond production, to create high-purity atmospheres in
furnaces or protective atmospheres for float glass production, sintering processes, silicon chemistry;
— Generator cooling in power industry.
276
8.1.2. Direct use as a fuel
Hydrogen was first used at a large scale in balloons and large airships (Zeppelin) toward the end of the 19th
century, although here the hydrogen was not used directly as a fuel, but rather as a lighter-than-air gas to provide
positive buoyancy. The idea of using liquefied hydrogen as aircraft and rocket fuel was considered as early as 1918,
stressing that hydrogen had a larger heat content than any other fuel. A strong increase in the demand for hydrogen
was given with the developing space aviation programme in the USA. The first systematic experimental
investigations in the USA to investigate its use as a fuel for aircraft and to study the properties of LH2 and the low
temperature impact on materials started in the 1940s. But it was not until the 1950s that the attractiveness of LH2
gradually became evident, despite its low availability and handling hazards. This was due to incentives for the
development of airplanes for use at very high altitudes, advances in LH2 technology, and experiments indicating
that hydrogen could combust readily at low pressures. The first (of three) successful in-flight tests of an
experimental hydrogen-propelled aircraft were made in the USA in 1957 with the ‘Project Bee’, a B-57B twin-
engine aircraft. The one engine operated on hydrogen fuel for about 20 min at a speed of Mach 0.72 before the fuel
tank ran empty [467].
In 1958–1959, it was decided in the USA to use LH2 and LOX in the rocket engines of the upper stages of
Centaur and Saturn, successful programmes of unmanned space missions and manned moon voyages, respectively,
marking the first time that this high energy propellant combination was used in practical applications. The
subsequent NASA programmes Apollo and Space Shuttle then applied LH2 at a large scale. A total of 12 000 m3 of
LH2 was necessary to fill up the tanks of the Saturn V carrier rockets. For a space shuttle launch, the required
quantity of LH2 is 2380 m3, of which 1454 m3 is for loading the external tank, with the remainder mainly used for
pre-chilling of fuel lines or lost as boiloff [468].
Some 40 years ago, almost all produced LH2 was consumed in the various space programmes. Although this
share has decreased to about 25% today, the space industry still is one of the main customers for liquid hydrogen.
Numerous examples for the application of LH2 are described in more detail in Ref. [469].
8.2. USES OF HYDROGEN AS A RAW MATERIAL
8.2.1. Petrochemical industries
The refining of crude oil is a well established technology. The type of crude oil discovered and produced,
however, is changing, with the average crude oil becoming gradually heavier connected with higher CO2 emissions
from the processing, a tendency which is expected to continue [470]. Industrial processes such as oil refining, shale
oil production and tertiary oil recovery require massive quantities of hydrogen and high temperature heat/steam.
Temperatures required for petroleum refining processes are mainly in the range of 500–600°C, but may sometimes
reach 950°C.
From a typical refinery capacity of 180 000 bbl/d or 10.55 million t/a, approximately 10 million t/a of refinery
products are being generated. This corresponds to an energy consumption of about 5.5% of the energy content of
the oil processed mainly in the form of high temperature heat for distillation columns and thermal crackers for
distillation, desulphurization and many other processes. The corresponding CO2 emissions amount to about
1.73 million t/a [471]. The product spectrum of the world’s refinery production in 2005 is shown in Fig. 184.
A refinery consists of a complex system of units with highly optimized energy and mass flow structures. The
heat and power demand of a refinery depends on its size, but also on its distillation capacity and the type and
amount of downstream processing, as well as on the product balance. Table 54 gives an overview of the energy
demand for an average refinery in North America and various refinery processes, respectively, as was estimated for
the year 2005 [81].
Similar information for a somewhat different list of refinery processes for a plant capacity of 6 million t of
crude oil throughput [472] is given in Table 55 showing a typical need of about 350 MW of thermal power. For
comparison, in the Lurgi study of 1988 [473], the total process heat demand for a refinery of the same size was
estimated to be ~450 MW(th).
277
FIG. 184. World refinery production 2005 [7].
TABLE 54. AVERAGE ENERGY DEMAND FOR NORTH AMERICAN REFINERIES [81]
Energy demand per refinery (MW(th))

Process
Steam Electricity Fuel Total
Atmospheric distillation 19 14 78 111
Vacuum distillation 8 2 21 31
Coking 9 3 38 50
Catalytic cracking –18 30 50 62
Catalytic hydro-cracking 12 17 26 55
Hydro-treating 11 35 171 217
Catalytic reforming 11 10 94 115
Total: 52 111 478 641
Petroleum refineries convert petroleum from its natural state to a range of commercial products. About 90%
of petroleum products are fuels such as gasoline, aviation fuel, distillate and residual oil (diesel oil, heating oils,
industrial oils), liquefied petroleum gas, coke and kerosene. The remaining 10% goes to non-fuel products such as
ethylene, propylene and benzene.
Most industrial heat is consumed in the 400–600°C temperature range. The energy is typically supplied by
firing produced process gases. Additional natural gas firing is needed for high temperature processes. Standard
practice is to use steam in equipment considered ‘critical units’ such as turbo-machines. Non-critical equipment
usually relies on off-site electricity supply, with redundant equipment powered by steam in the case of maintenance
or accidental shutdowns. To become totally independent of external energy providers, refineries are operating
cogeneration plants which provide ‘secure’ electricity for their own needs, the surplus electricity being consumed
in other facilities or sold to the grid.
278
TABLE 55. HEAT DEMAND OF A REFINERY WITH 6 MILLION t/a OF CRUDE OIL THROUGHPUT [472]
Product temperature (°C)

Unit Thermal power (MW)
in/out
Atmospheric distillation feed 105.0 270/390
Vacuum flasher feed 38.5 270/390
Gasoline desulphurization
feed 5.7 320/370
reboiler stabilzation 10.1 230/240
Reformer 1
feed 9.7 475/543
intermediate 13.8 446/543
reformer 1 5.8 503/543
reboiler stabilization 11.7 230/250
Reformer 2
feed 9.5 450/540
reformer 2 3.7 485/540
reboiler stabilization 6.5 230/250
Middle dist. Desulphurization feed 6.9 340/380
Hydrocracker
recycle reactor 1 14.4 214/407
recycle reactor 2 1.7 340/485
reboiler debutanizer 28.7 290/370
reboiler fractionating column 21.1 260/330
reboiler vacuum fractionating 8.4 320/360
VCC plant
hydrogen 5.5 220/490
product 5.7 380/435
reboiler debutanizer 9.1 330/350
reboiler fractionating column 6.0 300/330
Total net process heat: ~350
8.2.2. Ammonia synthesis
More than 80% of the world’s production of ammonia and ammonium compound derivatives is used as
fertilizer. Of the remaining 20%, 5% is used in chemical manufacturing (explosives, fibres and plastics,
pharmaceuticals), and the remainder is used for refrigerants and in the pulp and paper industry. The total demand of
hydrogen is currently 250 × 109 Nm3 per year or about 50% of the world H2 production. Demand in the EU is 33 ×
109 Nm3/a or ~55% of the European production. The synthesis reaction runs as an exothermic catalytic reaction
according to the Haber–Bosch process which was developed between 1905 and 1913:
N2 + 3 H2 ↔ 2 NH3 +104 kJ/mol
Operating conditions are low temperatures (~400–500°C) and high pressures (up to ~50 MPa) to favour the
equilibrium toward ammonia. The catalyst is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium oxide. Still, not more than 15%
of the feedstock is converted to ammonia, while the remaining unconverted gases are recycled. The most energy
consuming part of an ammonia plant is the air liquefaction process and the compression steps. With high operation
temperatures and atmospheric pressure, the above reaction is shifted toward ammonia decomposition. The
separation step requires ~3.5 MJ of heat per Nm3 of H2.
279
The ammonia compound can also easily be utilized as a chemical energy carrier for long distance energy
transportation. The big advantage is the densification factor for the hydrogen of 1333. Ammonia is liquid at ambient
temperature and easily transportable in pipes and storable in containers.
8.2.3. Direct reduction of iron ore
Among the largest consumers of hydrogen is the steel industry, where the hydrogen is used to upgrade raw
iron to steel. The direct reduction iron (DRI) process is applied for the production of iron and steel from iron ore.
DRI is performed with either coal or synthesis gas in fixed or fluidized beds of iron ore to reduce the ore to sponge
iron, which can be smelted directly to steel in an electric arc furnace. The major chemical reaction is:
Fe2O3 + 3 CO ↔ 2 Fe + 3 CO2 +39 kJ/mol
The chemical reduction process can also be conducted with hydrogen to replace the coal, thus reducing CO2
emissions, assuming the H2 is from a nuclear or renewable source:
Fe2O3 + 3 H2 ↔ 2 Fe + 3 H2O –73 kJ/mol
While the latter process takes place at ~500°C and 3–4 MPa, the former process operates at 800°C and
0.3 MPa.
Steel production has risen sharply from 200 million t in the 1950s to about 1300 million t in 2007 [474] and is
responsible for the release of 2106 million t of CO2 into the air. The traditional primary blast furnace is a
countercurrent gas–solid reactor where the iron oxide is reduced with coke and limestone. With a typical input of
80% ore and 20% scrap metal plus fossil energy, the iron is melted and the liquid metal separated from the slag and
converted into steel by oxidation of impurities and controlled addition of alloying elements.
According to the World Steel Association, the estimated energy consumption is in the order of ~30 GJ/t of
steel for primary steel production methods and ~11 GJ/t for secondary steel production (recycling) [474]. Assuming
a nuclear assisted process with cogeneration of hydrogen and electricity, and based on a 1000 t/d production rate,
the feed required for the production of 1 million t of steel has been estimated to be about 1.43 million t of Fe2O3 plus
~65 800 t of hydrogen to obtain the iron at 900°C, plus ~8.4 MW(e) to heat the iron up to 1600°C [475].
A large blast furnace plant at a power level of ~1600 MW(th) produces a tonne of iron every 10 seconds. The
overall iron yield is very high at ~99.5%. Blast furnaces are used for about 65% of all steel making, but account for
90% of worldwide steel industry emissions. Purified iron is needed for the production of high quality steels with
electric arc furnaces, which are more environmentally benign than the traditional blast furnaces. The heat needed to
melt the metal is produced by electricity. This process requires inexpensive sources of hydrogen if the old
production methods are to be replaced with electric arc furnaces [476].
8.2.4. Coal liquefaction
8.2.4.1. Direct process
Coal liquefaction processes were developed in the first half of the 20th century. Coal has the potential to
provide almost every product that can be produced from oil. Bergius or Pott/Broche used a direct method to convert
coal by a hydrogenation process. The conversion to a liquid is done in a single step by dissolution in a solvent at
elevated temperatures and pressures followed by hydro-cracking with hydrogen:
C + H2 ↔ –CH2– –308 kJ/mol
CH + 0.5 H2 ↔ –CH2– +209 kJ/mol
As shown in Fig. 185, pulverized coal is mixed with oil and catalyst to produce an oily, medium sized interim
slurry which is either reprocessed to a coal oil or, in a subsequent step, after mixing with hydrogen, passes through
a series of hydrogenation reactors at 450–490°C and 20 MPa, and in the presence of an iron oxide powder as
280
FIG. 185. The direct way from coal to oil [217].
catalyst to a coal oil. Here the coal having a molecular weight of over 5000 splits into smaller pieces with the
concomitant accretion of hydrogen. Thermodynamic conditions determine the quantity and type of products, and
they can be adjusted to the feedstock. Coal to liquids (CTL) processes require about 5–8 kg of H2 per bbl to produce
transportation fuels. The coal demand for 1 t of ‘coal oil’ is 1.25 t to be hydrogenated plus 1.36 t for the hydrogen
plus 1 t for the process heat.
Overall thermal efficiencies for the direct method are generally in the range of 60–70% in modern processes.
Different kinds of pyrolysis (high temperature, mild, rapid) with different liquid yields have been developed and
tested in pilot plants, however, no demonstration plant has been operated so far.
Direct coal liquefaction puts stringent requirements on the type and quality of the coal, and its products need
further upgrading before being used as transportation fuel. On the other hand, it achieves favourable efficiencies.
Brought to large technical maturity by Pier, Germany operated 12 coal hydrogenation plants from 1940 to 1944 to
produce 4 million t/a of coal gasoline [117, 118]. British Coal developed a two stage direct coal liquefaction process
called ‘liquid solvent extraction’ where two reactors in series are applied. Coal dissolution with little or no catalyst
is done in the first stage, while hydro-treatment of the heavy coal liquids takes place in the second stage. The
thermal efficiency for a conceptual coal liquefaction plant based on this process was estimated to be >60% [477].
8.2.4.2. Indirect process
In contrast to the direct process, Fischer and Tropsch started from synthesis gas. In their indirect liquefaction
process, developed between 1922 and 1926, coal is gasified in a first step to synthesis gas followed by a catalytic
hydrogenation of the CO where synthesis gas is reacted at relatively low temperatures and pressures (220–340°C,
2–2.5 MPa) to high quality clean fuels:
2n H2 + n CO ↔ (–CH2–)n + n H2O + heat
or, if the production of long carbon chain alkanes is favoured:
(n/2 + m) H2 + m CO ↔ CmHn + m H2O + heat
281
FIG. 186. Schematic of conventional CTL process, from [479].
After the volatiles have been cleaned out of the gas stream, the water gas shift reaction is applied in order to
adjust the H2:CO ratio and match requirements for the hydrocarbon synthesis and produce CO2 as the main by-
product. In CTL processes, more than 40% of the synthesis gas is shifted to make the required hydrogen. Catalysts
are selected depending on the product spectrum requirements. Special catalysts are used to rebuild the molecules
into liquid hydrocarbons and remove by-products.
The product spectrum depends on the operating conditions applied with the higher temperatures/pressures to
yield synthetic gasoline and chemicals, whereas the low temperature process leads to the production of synthetic
naphtha, kerosene or high quality diesel fuel. Gasifier product gases with a H2:CO ratio of around 0.5 to 0.7 are
recommended as a feed to the Fischer–Tropsch process when using an iron catalyst. A high H2, low CO2, low CH4
content is required for chemical and fuel production. In general, liquid products are of lower quality compared with
those from direct liquefaction processes [477].
The generation of 1 kg of Fischer–Tropsch product requires an input of 4.5 kg of coal and 7.2 kg of water, and
it produces 9.3 kg of CO2 plus 0.4 kg of solid waste [478]. The tremendous CO2 emissions of CTL fuels made from
coal are a major disadvantage, being more than double of those for crude oil derived fuels.
The Fischer–Tropsch process is a preferred liquefaction process because it has a large experience basis and
yields high quality fuel (diesel) containing only very little sulphur. The drawback is that coal liquefaction is
comparatively expensive, particularly at the front end where all contaminants have to be removed before processing
to a gas or liquid. The indirect process is superior to the direct one because of the lower operational pressures
necessary and thus a higher reliability of the plant, and a higher grade product spectrum. Efficiencies are around
40%, being lower than for the direct process, and in modern plants up to about 55%. Economics demand large scale
plants with a massive demand for hydrogen and oxygen. Figure 186 shows a schematic of the conventional CTL
process.
Technical plants use solid bed (Arge process) or flue stream reactors (Synthol process). In the Arge process,
apart from gasoline, preferably solid paraffins are produced, whereas gaseous hydrocarbons are produced in the
Synthol process. The Fischer–Tropsch synthesis yields a gasoline with low octane number, but a higher value diesel
fuel compared with coal hydrogenation.
A major disadvantage is the significant quantity of CO2 that is emitted during the synthesis gas production. If
an independent source of H2 and O2 were available, e.g. from a water splitting process by nuclear or renewable
energies, processes like air separation, steam generation and shift reaction would no longer be required and process
related CO2 release would be significantly reduced [480].
282
8.2.4.3. International CTL industrial applications
Starting as early as around 1840, both direct and indirect methods of coal liquefaction were developed in
Germany to industrial maturity in the 1940s applying brown coal and stone coal. Coal liquefaction in Germany,
however, eventually became uneconomic and was later abandoned. Significant R&D work was initiated during the
oil crisis in the 1970s in the USA, the UK, Japan, and other countries. Activities in Germany resulted in the
operation of a pilot plant with a production rate of 200 kg/d. Since then, only a few joint international projects, e.g.
with South Africa, have remained, the only country to apply this technology still today at a large scale.
Recent trends have revived interest in coal liquefaction technologies as an alternative means of generating
transportation fuels and other oil products used in a number of countries as insurance against crude oil supply
problems [477]. Primarily, high oil prices, increasing demand from China and India, US refining capacity
limitations, and increasing reserve replacement costs as well as a growing desire for energy independence from
foreign sources create the political will to explore more domestic energy resources. Lignite is considered an ideal
feedstock for coal liquefaction because of its low relative cost and high hydrogen content. Newer processes convert
the syngas to methanol before transforming it to other liquid fuels. An alternative option is use of outside
(allothermal) production of hydrogen and oxygen, like from a (nuclear) water splitting process. Engineering studies
are required to optimize the modified flowsheets for a nuclear assisted hydrogen coal liquefaction plant and to
assess the economics [481].
The Mobil Oil process is principally based on a new catalyst which allows easy production of liquid fuels
from methanol. Gas to liquid (GTL) capacity, however, is expected to grow slowly due to the huge and risky
investment. By 2050, an estimated 5–10% of the transportation fuel demand may be covered by GTL fuels [470].
China, with its abundant coal reserves, is experiencing a strong growth in coal liquefaction. Fischer–Tropsch
fuels are considered feasible and practical options to replace petroleum based fuels in China in both the short and
medium terms [22], and thus reduce its dependence on oil imports. Commercial scale plants are already in the
design and construction phase. A coal liquefaction plant has been constructed in Shenhua, China, with a throughput
of 9.7 million t/a of coal to be converted into 5 million t of gasoline, kerosene, diesel and other fuels. For the next
few years, China is planning the construction of 27 coal liquefaction plants. More liquefaction plants based on the
direct process are planned, with a total capacity of 60 million t/a of oil. China will soon become the worldwide
volume leader in CTL fuel production. In cooperation with SASOL, China is currently involved in two plants
planned for Inner Mongolia to deliver an annual capacity of 60 Mt of oil. The first plant, with a 1 million t/a
capacity, is expected to produce gasoline and diesel by 2007. Also a plant able to produce 50 000 bbl of ethanol per
day is planned. Further coal to chemicals (CTC) plants are planned in regions with proven coal reserves for
ammonia and methanol production.
In Japan, the liquefaction of bituminous coal was promoted under the Sunshine project which started in 1974.
The so-called ‘NEDOL’ liquefaction technology (Fig. 187) has been developed where the three processes of direct
hydrogenation, solvent extraction and solvolysis were merged to one. The result is a light-distillate rich oil
produced under mild reaction conditions. But also the liquefaction of low-rank coal is being investigated in Japan.
The so-called brown coal liquefaction (BCL) technology is currently being tested on pilot scale in a 50 t/d plant in
Australia [128].
A 150 t/d pilot plant for bituminous coal was operated between 1996 and 1998 and provided engineering data
for a commercial plant to follow. Japan is currently the only country active in large scale process development.
The South African corporation SASOL Limited is a fuels and chemicals manufacturing company and the
largest gasification centre in the world. Since 1955, SASOL has been producing higher value oil products from low
grade coal, today at an output of 150 000 bbl/d of fuels and petrochemicals, supplying about 40% of the domestic
demand for liquid fuels [124]. The SASOL complex in South Africa consists of three facilities at two sites. Sasol
Two and Sasol Three located in Sasolburg comprise the world’s two largest gasification facilities.
Within the USDOE’s Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program, a liquefaction plant with a capacity of
1000 t/d was commissioned based on the ‘mild pyrolysis’ process. North Dakota has received recent attention
regarding coal liquefaction with the proposal of a 10 000 bbl/d facility with expansion opportunities to
50 000 bbl/d. If diesel is included in the fuel mix at the proposed coal liquefaction plant, coal based diesel could be
blended with biodiesel. Also, the KIER in the Republic of Korea is currently testing CTL in a 15 bbl./d pilot plant.
283
FIG. 187. Schematic of the Japanese NEDOL bituminous coal liquefaction process [128].
8.2.5. Methanol synthesis
The methanol industry is the third most important user of hydrogen. Methanol is a high octane alcohol, a
colourless liquid with a boiling point of 65°C that is easily ignitable, with a flammability range between 6.7 and
36.5 vol% in air. Commercial methanol synthesis involves reacting CO, H2 and steam over a copper–zinc oxide
catalyst in the presence of a small amount of CO2. Methanol is produced, e.g. through synthesis gas from coal by
clean coal technologies with CO2 from the reverse water shift reaction and the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide at
250–300°C and 5–20 MPa by:
CO2 + 3 H2 ↔ CH3OH + H2O +50 kJ/mol
Other feedstocks like natural gas or heavy oils are also possible. The product gas from coal gasification is not
appropriate for methanol production owing to its high fraction of CO2 and methane. The preceding POX step could
reduce the methane fraction. To best use the raw product syngas in methanol synthesis and limit the extent of further
syngas treatment and steam reforming, it is essential to maintain the following conditions:
— A H2:CO ratio of at least 2;

— A CO2:CO ratio of about 0.6 to prevent catalyst deactivation and keep the catalyst in an active reduced state;
— Low concentrations of N2, CH4, C2+, etc., to prevent the buildup of inert gases within the methanol synthesis
loop;
— Low concentrations of CH4 and C2+ to limit the need for further steam reforming.
Alternative methanol production occurs via direct hydrogenation of carbon monoxide:
CO + 2 H2 ↔ CH3OH +91 kJ/mol
This second reaction demands more energy, is slow and incomplete. Therefore the product gas should contain
only small amounts of CO2 and have an H2:CO ratio of ~2.2. The methanol synthesis reaction is equilibrium
controlled, and excess reactants (CO and H2) must be recycled to obtain economic yields.
Methanol is a classic basic material for chemical production chains, e.g. the production of chemicals such as
propylene, poly-propylene, phenol or acetone. The methanol to gasoline (MTG) process is an effective route for
CTL processing where methanol is directly converted to gasoline:
n CH3OH ↔ (–CH2–)n+ H2O
284
FIG. 188. Comparison of today’s petroleum fuels with alternative non-fossil derived fuels [482].
The process is simple and robust in design and operation and promises high plant availabilities. It was
demonstrated in New Zealand, but has not been conducted so far at a large scale. Still, MTG plants are currently
foreseen in China and the USA [118]. A new MTG plant with coal based methanol production in Jincheng, China,
started operation in 2009. It has a 100 000 t/a of gasoline capacity which may be extended to 1 million t/a later.
Commercial application of methanol as a fuel, however, is limited due to its high toxicity and relatively low energy
density (~65% of that of gasoline).
Methanol can be used in direct methanol fuel cells and also in higher temperature fuel cells for electricity
production or even in PEFC after a reforming stage. Methanol is also used for the production of alternative
automotive fuels such as DME (see Section 3.2.3.3). A route to transport fuels is hydro-treating/hydro-cracking to
a naphtha-like product with upgrading to diesel. But the high pressure and high hydrogen requirement of hydro-
treating routes makes this route much too expensive. A major issue is the catalyst stability and lifetime. The co-
production of chemicals and fuels undoubtedly offers the most interesting opportunities.
The world market for methanol was 40 million t/a in 2007 which is expected to increase to 80 million t/a by
2020. Most methanol is currently produced from coal and natural gas. It is used as feedstock for fuel addition and
chemical materials such as formaldehyde and acetic acid. Emerging markets are seen in the transportation sector. At
present, the largest plants with a capacity of ~5500 t/d are operational in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Trinidad.
8.2.6. Alternative transportation fuels
The transportation sector and stationary power applications are widely viewed as the two critical sectors where
there may be an opportunity to greatly expand the future use of hydrogen. Most of today’s transportation fuels are
being generated from refining crude petroleum oil. Petroleum fuels which are well qualified for widespread use and
offer a number of benefits which make it likely that they will continue to dominate the overall fuel mix:
— High energy density;

— Strong demand from the current stock of vehicles and a widely established infrastructure for delivery to users;
— Relatively low cost;
— Easy, low-cost handling and transport at atmospheric temperature and pressure;
— Extensive experience and knowledge of fuel systems, coupled with considerable progress in optimization;
— Ease of long term storage.
But petroleum fuels also have at least two major drawbacks: potential supply limitations, including significant
geopolitical dependencies for many countries, and high CO2 emissions. For both of these reasons, there are strong
incentives to develop and secure acceptable substitutes [470]. Figure 188 and Table 56 list various transportation
fuels for both ICE and FCVs, and some of their characteristics.
Not only is hydrogen considered a transport fuel which may be applied in the future on a large scale, it is also
a basic building block with increasing significance (and market potential) for the production of conventional liquid
fuels, but also — partially — for other alternative fuels or synthetic fuels. Diversification of fuel supply is the
285
TABLE 56. COMPARISON OF TRANSPORTATION FUELS
Molecular Density HHV Energy per volume

Fuel Main source
weight (kg/m3) (MJ/kg) (GJ/m3)
Hydrogen NG, oil, coal, water, 2.02 0.08988 141.9 2.6 at 20 MPa
methanol 10.3 at 80 MPa
LH2 hydrogen 2.02 70.8 141.9 9.9
Natural gas (methane) fossil resource 16.04 0.7175 55.5 8.1 at 20 MPa
32.1 at 80 MPa
LNG NG 16.04 422.6 55.5 ~20.5
LPG (propane) refining of petroleum, NG 44.1 581 50.4 25.2
~23.4
Methanol NG, coal, biomass 32.04 793 22.7 18.0
Ethanol biomass, grain, corn 46.07 794 29.9 23.5
~22.3
Gasoline crude oil 100–105 745 47.4 30.4–34.8
Diesel crude oil ~200 832 45.8 35.7–36.2
Biodiesel biological oil, animal fats 120–320 830–850 39.8 32.6–33.4
DME NG, coal, organic material 46 670 31.7 21.1
MTBE isobutylene 88.15 741 7.8 28.1
Toluene crude oil, tolu tree 112 862 42.5 26.9
Ammonia NG, heavy oil 17 771 22.5 17.4
Jet A crude oil 144–226 775–830 46.5 34.2
NG = natural gas; MTBE = Methyl T-butyl ether
driving force to move away from crude oil and gradually displace conventional petroleum products, meeting the
challenges of air pollution, CO2 emissions and supply security. If captured CO2 is used for their production, they
would even represent CO2 neutral alternatives.
Production of synthetic liquid fuels requires the input of carbon, hydrogen and energy. All three can be taken
from fossil fuels or biomass. An IEA analysis suggests that the least expensive alternative to oil based fuels is large
CTL plants, which are cost effective at oil prices above US$60/bbl. GTL and hydrogen produced from natural gas
are strongly influencing fuel production cost. Biomass to liquid (BTL) fuel is cost competitive only if low cost
biomass is available [470].
8.2.6.1. Substitute natural gas synthesis
SNG is the starting point for many industrial chemical processes. The exothermic methanation reactions are:
CO + 3 H2 ↔ CH4 + H2O +205 kJ/mol
CO2 + 4 H2 ↔ CH4 + 2 H2O +165 kJ/mol of CO2
The second reaction (Sabatier reaction) is slow and incomplete. Therefore, the product gas should contain
only small amounts of CO2 and have an H2 to CO ratio of ~3.2, conditions that are achievable in non-catalytic
steam–coal gasification, but under stringent operating conditions not possible for the catalytic process. The use of
coal gasification raw gas is less economic for on-purpose methanol or hydrogen production compared with the gas
from autothermal processes. The conversion of coal to SNG offers the option of transporting the energy content of
coal via pipeline.
286
8.2.6.2. Synthetic fuel production with atmospheric CO2
Besides storage, there is also the option of using CO2 as a raw material, i.e. taking it directly as a C1 building
block to be used as reaction partner in chemical and biotechnological processes and built into products. Storage
time would correspond to the product’s lifetime, ranging between decades for long lived polymers and practically
zero for synthetic fuels.
As of 2005, the worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels amounted to 28 Gt/a. The
main (large, stationary) sources are the energy sector with 10.5 Gt or 46%, the transportation sector with 5.6 Gt or
24%, steel production with 1.5 Gt or 6%, refineries and the chemical industry with 1.2 Gt or 5%, and others. The
CO2 sources in the transportation sector are small and numerous and therefore not appropriate for sequestration and
further use. The same holds for the firing of fossil fuels for heating purposes [118].
Different from the storage option where CO2 is taken out of the CO2 cycle, no CO2 is usually saved in the case
of using it as a carbon source. It would only be saved if the energy required for the reduction of CO2 as the reverse
process of combustion is from a CO2 emission free energy source. CO2 as a raw material is obviously available in
large amounts, but only a small quantity can be utilized and only in a few industrial processes. The industry uses
approximately 120 million t of CO2 per year. Although most of it will be consumed again (urea synthesis), at least
10 million t/a would be available for chemical conversions. Other applications are in the beverage industry, for
enhanced oil recovery, and in its supercritical state as a technological fluid. As an inert and safe gas, it is also used
as a protective gas and in its solid state for refrigeration [10].
For products of the chemical industries, the estimated substitution potential amounts to 178 million t of CO2
per year, which is not more than 0.6% of the total annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions worldwide. The use of
carbon for synthetic fuel production would increase the potential by a factor of 10, but it would not change the
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, since subsequent combustion of the fuels will immediately recycle the CO2 back
to the atmosphere. The purity of CO2 is an important prerequisite that eliminates the CO2 emitted from fossil power
plants as source candidates. Their use would require an extensive purification as a preceding step. Exceptions are
the emissions from IGCC plants.
The most common method of recovering atmospheric CO2 is by absorption using aqueous potassium
carbonate. The external energy source to be used (mainly for hydrogen production) can be, for example, in the form
of electricity. The use of nuclear primary energy would provide the option of unlimited liquid fuel production
without any greenhouse impact [476].
The CO2 or dry reforming process can be applied for the production of synthesis gas, which is then converted
by means of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis to gasoline or diesel fuels. In GTL technologies, atmospheric CO2 can be
used as a carbon source for the conversion with hydrogen to synthetic liquid fuels, such as methanol or its derivates
methyl T-butyl ether (MTBE), dimethylcarbonate, or dimethylether. Furthermore, it allows the direct production of
DME from CO2 and H2 [483]. Methanol and dimethyl-carbonate (DMC) are considered alternatives to the currently
used gasoline; DME may replace diesel fuel. The above processes, however, are only reasonable if there is a source
of (inexpensive and) ‘clean’ hydrogen feedstock. Technological challenges for the development of energetically
efficient processes are seen in the areas of catalysis and reaction kinetics.
KIST developed and demonstrated a direct methanol production process using hydrogen and captured CO2
(CAMERE-I process) with an integrated steam reformer for hydrogen production (CAMERE-II process). The
concept of nuclear methanol is now to introduce nuclear energy into the steam reforming process using an advanced
HTGR (Fig. 189). A 450 MW(th) plant would be able to produce 1 million t/a of methanol and recycle at the same
time 0.35 million t/a of CO2 [61].
8.2.6.3. Hythane
Hythane is a blend of natural gas and hydrogen with a fraction of 8–30% of hydrogen. Since methane emits
NOx and has a relatively narrow flammability range that limits the fuel efficiency, the addition of a small amount of
hydrogen extends the lean flammability range significantly. Hythane is more buoyant and more diffusive than
methane. Methane has a slow flame speed, especially in lean air–fuel mixtures, while hydrogen has a flame speed
about eight times faster and is much more easily ignited.
Hydrogen is a powerful combustion stimulant for accelerating the methane combustion within an engine, and
it is also a powerful reducing agent for efficient catalysis at lower exhaust temperatures. In the case of explosive
287
FIG. 189. Methanol synthesis flow scheme (left) and 80 kg/d capacity pilot plant operated by KIST (right) [67].
combustion, a hythane explosion is expected to be stronger than a methane explosion, but exhibits significantly
lower pressures than do pure hydrogen explosions [484].
Hythane could represent an interim step on the way to a hydrogen based economy. A big advantage is the fact
that hythane can benefit from the existing infrastructure for natural gas without major changes. The same holds for
hythane combustion in a natural gas driven internal combustion engine. Test vehicles in public transportation
running on hythane are being operated at various places in the world.
8.3. PROSPECTS FOR USE OF HYDROGEN
For future large scale applications of hydrogen, it should be kept in mind that electricity and hydrogen can
form a symbiosis, allowing an optimization of electricity generating systems with regard to the substitution of fossil
energy carriers currently being used for load following and peak demands. This is due to the fact that electricity and
hydrogen are principally interchangeable, i.e. the production of hydrogen (e.g. via electrolysis) and the re-
conversion of hydrogen into electricity (and heat) (e.g. by fuel cells). This fundamental interconnection is being
addressed as ‘hydricity’ [279].
With increasing production of electricity from renewable energies instead of fossil fuels, novel energy storage
systems are needed to compensate for the strong variations of supply and demand. Hydrogen may here play an
important role as a storage element for energy that can easily be retrieved upon demand [11]. In addition to the
industrial hydrogen demand as a chemical product, commercial growth of hydrogen production is expected, most
probably starting in the coming decades in road transport and in the residential and service sector to expand the
application as a fuel in fuel cell vehicles and stationary power generation.
Niche market applications such as hydrogen powered consumer electronics may play a role, specifically in the
area of public acceptance, in the introduction of hydrogen in the energy system [28]. All these potential applications
may contribute in the medium term to an increased need for clean hydrogen production routes. The further future
beyond 2030 may see a significant increase in hydrogen consumption due to cost reductions in the production
technologies and a stronger demand from the transport sector.
8.3.1. Near term demand for tertiary oil recovery
Crude oil is a finite resource. Conventional oil production will peak at some point and then gradually decline,
increasing the share for unconventional oil production. Therefore, there will be an increasing demand for more
capacity to refine heavier grades of oil, including other non-conventional liquids such as condensates, natural gas
288
FIG. 190. Canadian oil production (David Moe, 2008).
liquids, tar sands, bitumen, extra heavy oil and oil shales, but also synthetic fuels from anything to liquid (XTL)
processes to contribute to global petroleum supply. While the economics of heavy oil might be promising, the
harnessing of non-conventional resources is handicapped by high development costs, consumption of large
quantities of water and natural gas, and severe environmental impacts.
Heavy oil is a dense and viscous kind of oil with high contents of sulphur and metals. Extra-heavy oil
resources are mainly located in Venezuela. Large reserves of oil exist in the form of highly viscous crude oils
inaccessible by methods available at present. It is expected that the considerable oil reserves in Canada (Fig. 190)
could be recovered by improved methods. Thermal methods are the most developed technology, where steam
injection plays the overwhelming role. The type of steam required depends on, e.g. the depth of the resources,
porosity of the rock matrix or oil viscosity. For improved recovery methods, high pressures of 12 MPa and more are
necessary. Oil yield increases significantly with the steam temperature and pressure. Oil recovery steam generators
currently on the markets are in the power range of 1.5–15 MW(th), providing steam at pressures up to 17 MPa and
temperatures up to 350°C, and at rates of up to 110 t/h (250 000 lb/h) [81]. Dry saturated steam of high temperature
to be injected into deep oil wells could be produced by an HTGR.
But besides steam, large quantities of hydrogen will also be required for tertiary oil recovery (upgrading to
synthetic crude), which requires a significant increase of the present power capacity to allow for efficient large scale
hydrogen production in the future.
8.3.1.1. Shale-oil recovery
Most of the world’s oil shale resources (estimated at 75%) are located in the Green River Formation in the
USA, with estimated resources of 1.5–1.8 trillion bbl of oil [81]. The largest oil shale producer and consumer
country, however, is Estonia, with peak production of 31 million t in 1980 (today ~15 million t/a) [485]. Shale is a
289
FIG. 191. Example for underground heating of oil shale with nuclear heat [311].
fine-grained rock of sedimentary origin containing, but varying widely in content and composition (quality) of,
high-molecular organic substances (kerogen) embedded in its inorganic matrix. Criteria of oil shale reserves are
energy rating, location, depth and thickness of seams, mining technology, world price and transportation costs
compared to alternatives, and protection of the environment.
Oil and gas can be extracted by destructive distillation. Only some of these organic compounds (the natural
bitumen) are soluble. Depending on the site, the rock contains an average of 10–20% insoluble organic matter and
bitumen — in some cases the organic content can be as high as 60%. At temperatures of 350–400°C, the yield can
be 20–200 L of oil per tonne of shale. The negative aspects are the immense toxic waste which is left by the oil
shale chemical industry, the large CO2 emissions from oil shale power stations and the deterioration of water
quality [485].
The high temperature heat required to heat the oil shale could be provided by nuclear energy. Figure 191
shows a schematic of a nuclear based system where the heat transfer is made by liquid metal or liquid salt heat
transport loops. The direct use of high temperature heat avoids the conversion of electricity to heat. Another
advantage of the nuclear system is a significant reduction of CO2 compared with other methods of synthetic crude
oil production. The distances from reactor to well are sufficiently short that heat transport is practicable. About
12 GW(th) of high temperature heat would be required to produce a million barrels of oil per day. In practice, the
required temperatures would be near 700°C [311].
8.3.1.2. Tar sands oil recovery
Tar sands are a mixture of sand, clay, water and bitumen (viscous heavy oil), from which the bitumen is
extracted. They represent a major energy resource that increases in importance as world supplies of crude oil
become limited; on the other hand, they are the dirtiest fuel on Earth. The hydrogen to carbon ratio of tar sand is ~1,
which must be raised to 1.5–2 for conversion to gasoline. Oil sands are mainly located in Canada in the state of
Alberta, the regions of Athabasca, Cold Lake River and Peace River, with proven reserves of 174 billion bbl of oil,
representing about 80% of the world’s technically recoverable resources [470] and 95% of Canadian oil reserves.
Oil sands feature an intermediate density and viscosity. The methods involve the in situ steam assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD) technology, since ~80% of the deposits in Canada are not accessible for surface mining. The
290
FIG. 192. Schematic of steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) [486].
product recovered from the sands is a heavy, sour bitumen. Upgrading with hydrogen is required to transform it into
a lighter product (with lower density and viscosity) that can be transported to refineries via pipelines. The products
are synthetic crude (refinable by current technology) and petroleum coke. The Athabasca oil sands are estimated to
require 3–4 kg of H2 per barrel as well as steam (14 MPa, 340°C) and electric power for the recovery and upgrading
processes. Current production from oil sands amounts to 1300 bbl/d, which is expected to increase to 6 million
bbl/d by 2030 [470].
Producing fuels from oil sands requires large amounts of natural gas and water, and produces large quantities
of waste material and carbon dioxide. The shale can be distilled autothermically after open pit mining. This method
requires hot water of ~70°C and process steam at around 1–2 MPa and has a yield of less than 50% of the organic
matter. A second in situ method for high-permeability shales is SAGD, in which two horizontal wells of 0.5–1 km
length and at least 50 m below surface are drilled with one about 5 m below the other one (Fig. 192). Steam at high
pressure and temperature (10 MPa and 540°C) is continuously injected into the upper well, where the bitumen heats
up and flows downwards. The formed emulsion of bitumen, steam and water is drained through the lower well and
recovered. A pair of wells is able to recover in the range of 2000 bbl/d of synthetic crude oil.
Other methods are cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) or pressure cyclic steam drive (PCSD) requiring steam of
more 300°C and pressures of 8–16 MPa. Novel technologies replace the steam with either solvents, e.g. a liquid
salt, or in situ combustion. The possible yield also represents 50% of the in-place reserve. Oil shale contribution is
marginal so far, as no industrial scale recovery has yet been envisaged due to the high production costs.
Furthermore, the processing is presumed to produce five times more CO2 emissions than conventional refining. But
oil shale would roughly add another 300 billion bbl of oil to the global reserves.
8.3.2. Long term demand for fuel cells for power and heat supply
8.3.2.1. Fuel cell technologies
Various fuel cell types have been developed, usually classified according to the electrolyte used. In Table 57,
fuel cell types (Fig. 193) are listed along with their operating temperatures and anode/cathode reactions.
Certain constraints to the fuel cell do apply depending on the type of fuel cell. In low temperature fuel cells,
noble metal (Pt) electrodes are necessary to increase the reactivity. Poisoning of electrodes can be minimized by
291
TABLE 57. OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FUEL CELLS
Temperature Efficiency
Electrolyte Fuel Oxidant
(°C) (% LHV)
Low temperature
AFC Alkaline 80–200 H2 O2 50– 60
PEFC Polymer 80–100 H2 O2, air 40–45
HT-PEFC Polymer 120–180 H2, CO O2, air 40–50
DMFC Polymer 80–100 MeOH O2, air 25–30
PAFC Phosphoric acid 200 H2 O2, air 40–45
High temperature
MCFC Molten carbonate 650 H2, CO, CO2, CH4 O2, air 50–55
SOFC Ceramic 750–1000 H2, CO, CH4 O2, air 50–55
LT-SOFC Ceramic 550–650 H2, CO, CH4 O2, air 50–55
FIG. 193. Different types of fuel cells [487].
purification of the feed stream. Various methods have been developed to remove sulphur, which is a poison to many
oxygen electrode catalysts. High temperature fuel cell designs avoid expensive noble metal catalysts. Thermal
activation is insensible to pollutants. Drawbacks are performance degradation limiting lifetime and expensive plant
components. To avoid dilution of the electrolyte by the product water, it must be removed by evaporation or
vaporization. In high temperature fuel cell systems, the water is steamed off anyway.
292
If carbon containing fuel gases are used instead of pure hydrogen, oxidation must be realized first in a
reforming reaction. Internal reforming has the advantage that there is no requirement for hydrogen storage.
Incomplete reaction at lower temperatures results in the presence of carbon monoxide, which is a catalyst poison
and must be removed, at the expense of efficiency. CO causes no trouble at high operating temperatures since
reforming can take place internally. Attempts at a direct conversion of coal or oil in an integrated gasification fuel
cell system are currently at an early R&D stage, but they are considered potential primary fuels in the long run.
(A) Alkaline fuel cell
The alkaline fuel cell (AFC) is a highly efficient low temperature fuel cell (<100°C) with a very high power
density, and therefore ideally appropriate for mobile applications. The AFC, however, requires a demanding
process control that is complicated because of the corrosive liquid electrolyte, a 30% potash lye, and the need for
extremely pure fuel (no CO2), leading to high cost. Efficiencies of 60% and more have been achieved with clean
hydrogen and oxygen and noble electrode materials. The AFC was demonstrated to also work with a hydrogen–air
system. What remains unsatisfactory is its observed power decrease with operating time.
(B) Polymer electrolyte fuel cell
The polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC), or proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEM-FC), is an efficient,
compact, robust and quiet method of generating electricity. It has a 0.1 mm thick proton conducting foil as a solid
electrolyte which is coated on either side with the electrodes representing the so-called membrane electrolyte
assembly (MEA). It has the highest power density of all cell types, a relatively low operating temperature and thus
long cell lifetime, good load change behaviour and good efficiency at partial load, and good standby performance,
thus being appropriate for mobile applications. A problem in PEFCs is the need to keep the polymer electrolyte
membrane in a wet state and at higher operating temperatures to prevent a dry-out by means of external wetting
[488]. Applicable fuels are hydrogen, reformed methanol or methane with purity requirements of less than 10 ppm
of CO, less than 1 ppm of NH3 and less than 0.1 ppm of H2S. The development is concentrating on improvement of
catalysts and reduction of CO poisoning effects. The electricity output from the fuel cell depends on the availability
of oxygen. It is maximal when pure O2 is used, but can be reduced by a factor of 2–4 in the case of air [489].
The first complete PEM fuel cell system was developed in 1963 and utilized during the Gemini space flights.
The 1 kW cell stack employed sulfonated polystyrene membranes as an electrolyte, which was later replaced by the
polymer Nafion. Today, PEFCs constitute the main pillar of fuel cell technology in both transport and stationary
applications, with an emphasis being placed on system integration and demonstration programmes. The market is
generally seen in smaller scale applications, whereas those on a larger scale have mainly disappeared.
(C) Direct methanol fuel cell
Another low temperature fuel cell, the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC), runs on either liquid or, with better
performance but higher system complexity, on gaseous methanol and is normally based on a solid polymer
electrolyte. The operating temperature for DMFCs is in the range of 60–130°C, typically around 120°C, producing
an efficiency of about 40%. Due to the low temperature conversion of methanol to hydrogen and carbon dioxide,
the DMFC system requires a noble metal catalyst. Pt–Ru catalysts were found to produce the best oxidation results
at the oxygen electrode. Because of the still ten times higher loading with catalysts compared with PEFCs and the
relatively low efficiency and power density due to internal fuel leakage through the membrane, the DMFC is not
suitable for large units. Typical areas for DMFCs are in small units from a few Watts up to approximately 2 kW for
portable applications. An advantage in mobile applications is the use of the methanol in liquid form at low
pressures. But detailed development is still necessary, with major improvements to be seen in a further reduction of
degradation rates, simplification and compaction of the system, and further increase of system efficiencies.
(D) Phosphoric acid fuel cell
Most practical experience has been gained in the operation of phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs). Because of
the higher operating temperature, PAFCs have a minor CO poisoning problem, plus they offer operation in the CHP
293
mode providing good quality steam of approximately 200°C. The fuel is hydrogen or reformed methane plus CO
converter. The principal poison for the Pt catalyst is sulphur carried in the reformate stream as H2S. The PAFC has
successfully played a pioneering role in the introduction of fuel cell systems. Several hundred ONSI-delivered
PAFC stations were tested and have proven technical maturity with 8000 operating hours per year and an
availability of more than 90%. Most demonstration tests, however, were terminated after sufficient data were
collected. Investment costs are still too high to be competitive [490].
(E) Molten carbonate fuel cell
A molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) is being operated in the 500–700°C temperature range with porous Ni
catalysts and a molten binary carbonate made of Li2CO3/K2CO3 or Li2CO3/Na2CO3 immobilized in a porous matrix
of LiAlO2 as an electrolyte. Carbon dioxide yielded at the anode needs to be fed back to the cathode, where it is
consumed by conversion to carbonate ions which provide the means of ion transfer. Due to the high operating
temperature, there is no need to employ noble metals as a catalyst. A key advantage over low temperature fuel cells
is the fuel flexibility. Besides hydrogen, the MCFC can be operated with methanol or methane or coal gas, with
external or with partial or full internal reformation; the possibility of internal naphtha reforming is also being
examined. In the future, synthesis gas from (internal) coal gasification systems may be linked to MCFC electricity
generation, inducing a further increase of coal conversion efficiencies. Recently, the applicability of biomass
derived gases has also been investigated.
A number of MCFC installations with the ‘HotModule’ manufactured by the German company MTU are
being operated successfully in Germany, Italy and Spain, and have achieved an a accumulated operating time (by
2007) of more than 170 000 h, and the industrial development is expanding [491]. The drawbacks of this fuel cell
type are its low current and power densities. A problem often observed in MCFCs is the strong corrosivity of the
electrolyte and its leakage through gaskets. Long term experimental operation is still required to demonstrate that
ageing of the stack is acceptable. Also, the high serial resistance of the hot carbonate electrolyte limits the
efficiency to 40% [492].
(F) Solid oxide fuel cell
The solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) has a solid ceramic as the electrolyte, e.g. zirconium oxide stabilized with
yttrium oxide, in which oxygen ions migrate from the cathode to the anode. Heat and CO2 are also generated at the
anode. The SOFC is attractive because of its very high operating temperature range of 800–1000°C, which allows
fast chemical reactions. The high temperatures, on the other hand, imply stringent requirements for materials and
construction. Two different stack designs are currently pursued using tubular or flat cell geometry. Typical
dimensions of the tubular design are: support (cathode) with an inner diameter of 12–22 mm, 2.2 mm wall
thickness, and a length up to 1500 mm, an electrolyte layer of 20–40 μm, and outside the anode with 100 μm
thickness. For a flat cell, the typical data are: a gas-tight electrolyte of 150–200 μm thickness, electrodes with
50 μm thickness and 30–50% porosity. Most research efforts are currently conducted on planar SOFCs. With only
slight modifications, the SOFC can be operated either in the electrolysis or in the fuel cell mode.
Due to the high operation temperatures, SOFCs convert gaseous hydrocarbons either directly or after internal
reforming with a very low emission level. Utilization of the high temperature waste heat raises the overall
efficiency to a maximum. Furthermore, the waste gas at the anode, consisting of CO2, H2O, CO and residual H2,
could be utilized in other chemical processes. The time needed to heat up or cool down the system limits the use of
SOFCs in applications with rapid temperature changes. Heat release during internal reforming, creating sharp
temperature gradients, is difficult to control. Also, high temperature corrosion can sometimes be a problem and
requires the use of expensive materials and protective layers within the cell. Problems related to sealing have also
been observed.
SOFC systems are generally thought to be best suited to the generation of electricity and heat in industrial
applications, especially in combination with gas turbines. Recent SOFC development shows potential for high
electricity efficiencies of ~60% [228]. The main SOFC applications are seen in larger scale stationary power
generation and in smaller scale residential power generation (<10 kW) and auxiliary power units (APUs) for mobile
applications. Most of the SOFC power units currently being tested have a power capacity of 1 and 5 kW,
respectively. A 100 kW SOFC power plant is being operated in Italy. A 10 kW(e) SOFC stack with 60 planar cells
294
FIG. 194. A 15 kW class 60-cell SOFC stack constructed and tested at the Research Centre Jülich [493].
(Fig. 194) has been constructed at the Research Centre Jülich and operated for 1500 h. Both hydrogen and methane
fuels were tested. The next step will be a 20 kW(e) SOFC system demonstration. Goals of the future development
are the reduction of the operating temperature and the extension to larger power units.
8.3.2.2. Hydrogen vehicles
Hydrogen is being considered as a potential energy vector in the transport sector both for internal combustion
engine (ICE) and FCV applications, basically with on-board storage of the hydrogen. In recent years, car producers
have manufactured a range of prototype ICE and PEM fuel cell passenger cars using hydrogen as the fuel.
Numerous demonstration programmes for hydrogen powered vehicles with PEM fuel cell drive trains and — to a
lesser extent — with ICE have been initiated, mainly in Europe, Japan and the USA, comprising a broad spectrum
of vehicle classes for small and medium range requirements. The development of hydrogen fuelled vehicles is
mainly driven by the market, i.e. they have to compete against other technologies such as gasoline–electric hybrid
vehicles, which have already achieved a high level of efficiency [82].
For a broad application of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, however, further R&D work needs to be done, e.g. to
develop a hydrogen storage medium allowing hydrogen fuelled PEM fuel cell cars to have range capabilities
comparable with those of current baseline gasoline and diesel vehicles. Also, the infrastructure and logistics for
distribution and supply must be established, which in turn will be strongly dependent on the demand for hydrogen
in the transportation sector. Therefore, before hydrogen is broadly introduced as a fuel in the traffic sector, it may
appear in niche applications characterized by special boundary conditions such as a locally high environmental
benefit. The main niche markets for the commercial use of hydrogen as transportation fuel are seen in city buses,
passenger car fleets and light duty vehicles. Public transportation buses may represent an ideal entry point. Heavy
duty trucks may switch to other alternatives such as biofuels.
(A) Internal combustion engine
Hydrogen can be directly used as a fuel in ICEs where the hydrogen burning engine mechanically drives the
vehicle. The positive features for such a hydrogen application are the low spark energy requirement, wide
flammability range, high auto-ignition temperature and high flame speed. A disadvantage is the low volumetric
density which limits the power output of the engine. BMW and Mazda have been the only two mainstream
295
manufacturers to seriously pursue internal combustion hydrogen technology, with most others preferring to use it to
supply a fuel cell and produce electricity. Further advancements to internal combustion hydrogen units appear to be
limited in the future.
(B) Fuel cell vehicles (FCVs)
Electricity is expected to play an increasingly important role in the transport sector. PEM fuel cells can be
used for on-board supply with electricity (APUs), for uninterrupted electricity supply in decentralized applications,
and in light transport systems. The use of pure hydrogen with fuel cells in vehicle propulsion systems offers the
benefit that it produces electricity at high efficiency without combustion and, except for water vapour, with zero
emissions. It shows reliable startup and can be sized in small and large power packages.
Fuel cell technology has arrived at an advanced technological state. But a gap is apparent between the
impressive success of technologies and the development of market opportunities, especially with vehicles. A major
market introduction is hampered by the high costs and limited demonstration of reliability and longevity. According
to today’s fuel cell technology, about 60 g of platinum is necessary for a PEFC for automotive application, whose
worth is more than 30% of the current engine costs. Progress is expected from a further development of the
membrane electrolyte assembly with higher operation temperatures (>120°C), more freezing tolerance, more
impurity tolerance and reduced catalyst need (~0.2 mg/cm2 of Pt). Resulting from a USDOE field evaluation of fuel
cell vehicles from several automobile manufacturers, an average fuel efficiency for future fuel cell car production
of 60 miles (~100 km) per kg was deemed a reasonable goal [88]. About 120 fuel cell buses under various
demonstration support programmes have been or are currently being tested worldwide, along with more than 1000
prototype, concept and demonstration cars, refuelled at approximately 100 refuelling stations. But costs for FCVs
are still far too high. The current cost of a fuel cell bus averages US$1.5 million, and passenger cars cost more
than US$100 000. Extrapolating the current development status of a fuel cell stack to the production of
500 000 cars per year, the USDOE reports a value of US$61 per kW and compares this value with the target of
US$30 per kW for 2015 [494].
Research is a basis for solving many of the outstanding problems, including lifetime extension to practical
levels, cost reduction to acceptable levels in specialized markets, battery replacement, fuel supply and distribution,
and advanced fuel conversion technologies (biomass and waste). However, with increasing pressure for higher
efficiency and lower emissions, fuel cells can expect a bright future [491].
(C) Hydrogen vehicles with fuel processing
Fuel cell technology has also been considered in connection with a chemical processing unit for the use of
widely available liquid hydrocarbons as feedstock to extract the hydrogen by on-board autothermal reforming
(ATR) and operate the electric propulsion system of a vehicle. It appears, however, that potential users have moved
away from on-board fuel processing and are concentrating instead on on-board storage of hydrogen. This tendency
became obvious with the decision of the USDOE in 2004 to discontinue funding of R&D activities. The “no go”
decision was based on the expectation that decisive technical criteria such as startup time (less than 1 min at 20°C)
and startup energy (less than 2 MJ for a 50 kW fuel processor) would not be met within a reasonable time frame and
thus there was no economic advantage over the rapidly emerging gasoline/battery hybrid vehicles [495].
On-board reforming has since been concentrating on small scale fuel processors in combination with a fuel
cell for ‘power on demand’ applications. With the increasing demand for on-board electricity from about 0.8 kW(e)
in today’s cars to several kW(e) in future vehicles, it is considered to provide this electricity (plus heat) by means of
a fuel cell based APU (see also Section 3.2.2.2). Combined with a small fuel cell stack in the order of 5 kW(e),
APUs may generate all non-propulsion power in future cars to substitute for the conventional battery. They are
advantageous because of their high efficiency and low noise, vibrations and emissions. In addition, they extend the
lifetime of the main engine. If sufficiently dynamic and stable to follow all potential states of the system and if
reaction by-products and other contaminants can be kept at tolerable levels, APUs may actually represent the first
step for fuel cells to penetrate the transportation market at a larger scale, with the prime candidates being energy
consuming trucks or recreational vehicles.
Today there are numerous vehicles being tested with electricity supply from PEFC based APUs to
gradually substitute for conventional batteries. In cooperation with Delphi Automotive Systems, BMW is
296
FIG. 195. PEM-FC based APU used in the hydrogen fuelled BMW 750hl [496].
considering an SOFC based APU for their future vehicles. Its feasibility was demonstrated in 2001 with a proof-
of-concept unit. BMW has already achieved some experience with low-temperature fuel cell based APUs, where
among the 15 hydrogen fuelled vehicles of the fifth generation, a few cars were equipped with a PEM fuel cell
(Fig. 195) [496].
8.3.2.3. Marine
Marine transport worldwide currently contributes 14% of the global nitrogen oxide emissions and 7% of
sulphur emissions. Therefore fuel cells are also envisaged for use in marine applications if the specific maritime
requirements can be fulfilled. Small demonstration projects are testing fuel cells in passenger boats and submarines
[497]. An example is the European Fuel Cell Systems for Zero Emission Ships (ZEMSHIPS) project demonstrating
a 48 kW(e) fuel cell propulsion system for a ship in Hamburg. Hydrogen fuelled fuel cells may be used in ships that
do not need long ranges and can be filled up frequently, whereas ships that need longer ranges would need to use
fuel cells based on fuels with higher energy densities, such as liquid natural gas, methanol or ethanol. In particular,
the molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) with LNG as the fuel currently offers the largest potential as a power system
for maritime applications. In the EU’s MethAPU project (Validation of a Renewable Methanol Based Auxiliary
Power System for Commercial Vessels), methanol fuelled SOFCs in the power range of 250 kW have been
investigated, including on-board testing of a 20 kW SOFC. For larger sea-going ships, fuel cell application
currently would be limited to auxiliary supply of power in the 500 kW range.
A major driver for using fuel cells in ships is the possibility of reducing emissions drastically. Although, as a
rule, gas applications on ships are not permitted, discussions have started on the on-board use of natural gas. The
European project FCSHIP (Fuel Cell Technologies for Ships — Environmental Impacts and Costs of Hydrogen,
Natural Gas and Conventional Fuels for Fuel Cell Ships) indicates possible future concepts and prepares
regulations for the design and operation of fuel cell technology in the marine market [497].
8.3.2.4. Aviation
Aviation is another energy consuming sector growing at a rate of ~5%/a that is required to reduce emissions
in the future. Currently contributing a relatively low 2.6% of global CO2 emissions, this is expected to increase to
3.2% by 2020 [498], since synthetic hydrocarbons or hydrogen may play a significant role in the future.
Aviation fuels are characterized by special technical requirements in terms of energy density, flow
characteristics (freeze, viscosity) and thermal stability at higher temperatures (carbon deposition). Alternative
products to kerosene, at present the standard aviation fuel, have started either to be blended with or to even
substitute for the kerosene. The mixture of traditional Jet A-1 fuel with GTL fuel is in the testing phase. The first
commercial flight with a 1:1 mixture was in 2008. A first flight test with a 1:1 mixture of Jet-1 and BTL fuel took
297
place in 2009. In this regard, hydrogen may play a role in the long term. Another role that H2 may play in aviation
is as a fuel in PEFCs or SOFCs for ground or on-board power supply. The water at a high quality resulting from fuel
cell operation could be further used on-board. The preferred storage options are liquid hydrogen for short range
missions and JET A-1/ BTL reforming for long range missions [499]. Further development here needs to
concentrate on extreme reliability and availability.
The direct use of liquid hydrogen as a substitute for kerosene in an airplane propulsion system was
investigated in the CRYOPLANE project. This project was launched in 1990 by a joint German–Russian
consortium (DASA as the lead, with the main partners being MBB, MTU, Tupulev and Kuznetsov), and later
continued as an EU activity with 35 partners from 11 countries and coordinated by EADS Airbus GmbH. Its
objective was to study the feasibility of an aircraft propelled by cryogenic fuels [500]. The aim was to find out
whether the use of liquefied natural gas (mainly on the Russian side) or liquid hydrogen (on both sides) as an
aircraft fuel was technically possible and reasonable in terms of ecology and economy. Topics covered by the
project were scenarios for the transition to an alternative aviation fuel, infrastructure, aircraft design, fuel system
layout, engine modifications and ecological issues (e.g. water vapour and NOx emissions). The transition of
short/medium range aircraft serving routes between leading industrial nations was seen as an introduction phase,
followed by the development of the appropriate infrastructure and the operation of a demonstrator airplane.
An Airbus A310-300 was selected as the baseline aircraft to be converted to LH2 propulsion. For the new fuel
tank concept, the most favourable design was seen in the top-mounted tank configuration with four tanks, two
active ones with 40 m3 each for either engine, and two passive ones with 80 m3 each to refill the active tanks. Total
fuel weight for the Airbus cryoplane was estimated to be 15.6 t of LH2 (compared with 27 t of kerosene for the same
flight range). Due to the environmental impact on the stratosphere from the formation of long lived ice cloud
condensation trails, the typical cruising height of ~12 km would be lowered to ~10 km. The cruising range of the
cryoplane was estimated to be 2700 nautical miles (5000 km).
At a later stage in the project, a smaller airplane was chosen to precede the Airbus as the LH2 demonstrator —
a 30 passenger Fairchild-Dornier 328 regional airplane with one of the two engines to be converted to hydrogen
fuel. The fuel capacity is 420 kg (6 m3) of LH2 stored in two cylindrical tanks underneath the wings (plus 1150 kg
of kerosene for the second engine). The advantages of this intermediate step are the availability of the hydrogen
engine, the lower investment in infrastructure and the earlier introduction of a series aircraft [501].
A technological development programme for the fuel system components began in 1993, including the
selection of materials for tanks and piping, control system and sensors for hydrogen leak detection, fuel pumps, LH2
gasifier and combustion chamber. The first generation of LH2 aviation was foreseen to require a fleet of 400–500
aeroplanes and the modification of ~70 European airports. The fuel consumption was assessed to be about 2 million
t/a of LH2 or ~170 t/d for an average size airport.
8.3.3. Stationary hydrogen applications
8.3.3.1. Large scale industrial applications
Stationary applications refer to decentralized power generation by fuel cells, combustion engines or gas
turbines, including residential (1–10 kW) and community (5–50 kW) applications, public and commercial
buildings, and industrial (50–500 kW) and large scale (1 MW and above) applications. Moreover:
— Large cogeneration (combined heat and power) systems are being manufactured for large commercial
buildings or industrial sites that require significant amounts of electricity, water heating, space heating and/or
process heat. Fuel cells combined with a heat recovery system can meet some or all of these needs, as well as
providing a source of purified water.
— Uninterruptible power supply systems, in which fuel cells are used as backup power supplies if the primary
power system fails, are one of the fastest growth areas for stationary fuel cell technologies.
— Niche and power premium applications such as uninterruptible power supply and other backup systems which
require short or even instantaneous response, load flexibility, high degree of safety, reliability and availability.
For applications in power and in CHP production, fuel cells have to compete with technologies that have
already been established, such as gas and steam turbine plants. Fuel cells promise higher efficiencies at comparable
298
unit sizes. They offer the chance to reduce the pollution level in urban areas with high population density. Fuel cells
also allow for small CHP units for residential use. Many fuel cell power units may be combined to large virtual
power plants. In connexion with energy storage, the hydrogen and fuel cell system may compensate for the
mismatch between renewable energy sources and energy demand.
The general design of a fuel cell power system forms an assembly of integrated systems including:
— Fuel cell module — assembly of one or more fuel cell stacks and electrical connections;
— Fuel cell stack — assembly of cells, separators, cooling plates, manifolds and supporting structure;
— Fuel and oxidant processing system — to prepare the fuel for utilization by means of catalytic or chemical
processing equipment;
— Thermal management system — to provide cooling and heat rejection, and recovery of excess heat, and to
assist in heating the power train during startup;
— Water treatment system — to treat and purify recovered or added water;
— Power conditioning system — to adapt the produced electrical energy to the manufacturer’s requirements;
— Automatic control system — to maintain the system parameters within the specified limits by means of an
assembly of sensors, actuators, valves, switches and logic components;
— Ventilation system — to provide air.
Unlike the use of hydrogen in mobile applications, stationary power applications with hydrogen or natural gas
or coal derived gas as a fuel have advanced and have reached market penetration status already. A near term area of
demand for H2 fuel cells includes backup power units, power for remote locations, and distributed generation for
hospitals, industrial buildings and small towns.
Stationary fuel cell power systems are currently being tested in field experiments in several countries
(e.g. Germany and Norway) to show the feasibility of a combined electrical power and heat supply for households
utilizing, for example, PEM fuel cells or SOFCs. They are already commercially viable in remote areas, where they
can be installed independent of the grid and where fossil fuel transportation costs are prohibitive. By 2008, the
cumulative power capacity had reached 180 MW(e), with an average of 50 units per year installed and an average
size of 1 MW [494]. The potential flexibility of SOFCs is what is especially is important for a future strategy of
decentralized electrical power supply, as this will help stabilize the demand of electrical power.
8.3.3.2. Small scale combustion installations
The energy used for small scale combustion installations is mainly used for the heating of buildings
(residential and corporate), hot water and boilers for small industrial applications, including agriculture. A
significant amount of this heat could be replaced with hydrogen or electricity. Both could be provided by nuclear
power.
Different types of fuel cell systems are currently being demonstrated and introduced commercially in sizes
ranging from a few kW up to MW sizes, often as small, standalone cogeneration systems combining local
production of electricity with the use of waste heat for producing hot water and residential heating. For example,
1.2 kW PEM fuel cells are currently being introduced in Japan in limited volume by Ballard Power Systems [502],
and the company Vaillant is currently installing a number of PEM fuel cells in Europe. SOFCs can also be made
available for small scale CHP in the future [503].
For large generators today’s fuel cell systems do not offer higher electrical efficiencies than other
technologies that are already on the market such as gas turbines. At the utility scale, hybrid systems integrating fuel
cell systems and gas turbines could bring about systems using natural gas with electric efficiencies greater than
65%, and such systems are expected to become cost competitive with competing generating technologies within the
next decades [502]. By comparison, current state of the art power plants using combined-cycle technology
combining gas turbines and steam turbines have electrical efficiencies of around 55–60% and are currently less
expensive (400–500 €/kW) than fuel cell systems (2500–8000 €/kW).
Technologies available for distributed power generation, with electrical capacities of less than 60 MW,
include gas turbines, reciprocating engines, microturbines, wind turbines, biomass based generators, solar
photovoltaic systems and fuel cells. Some studies foresee that fuel cells might initially emerge as distributed
generators in applications where users are willing to pay an extra margin for reliable energy generators. In the USA,
299
FIG. 196. Photograph and schematic diagram of the DLR LH2–LOX steam generator [504].
10.7 million distributed generators are in place, of which 99% are small emergency/standby reciprocating engines
that are not connected to the grid. The market for distributed generation is typically in the commercial sector in
applications where reliable energy is needed or in remote locations where grid power is not available.
8.3.3.3. Peak electricity production using O2–H2 steam cycle
The oxy-hydrogen steam cycle represents the direct production of high pressure, high temperature (~1500°C)
steam and is applicable for peak electricity production. It is a system with low capital cost promising a high
efficiency of ~70% [311].
In a cooperative effort between the DLR (today the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt) and other
German companies from 1989 to 1993, the concept of a hydrogen and oxygen fuelled steam generator was
developed. This component is actually the re-configuration of an H2/O2 rocket engine which allows the
instantaneous provision of steam of any desired quality. H2 and O2 are compressed and injected into a combustion
chamber (see Fig. 196) [504].
300
FIG. 197. Concept of the Euro–Quebec Hydro–Hydrogen Pilot Project [507].
A stoichiometric mixture is necessary to generate superheated steam of high quality without any side
products. The combustion gas with a temperature of 3000°C can be cooled by adding water to achieve exactly the
desired steam condition for injection into the power plant process. The startup time of such a steam generator is in
the order of 1–2 s with a combustion efficiency of greater than 99%. The steam generator can act as a backup
system for fast power-up of steam generation plants to serve as a cold standby spinning reserve in decentralized
power production.
In a first experimental series, a total of 285 combustion tests were conducted in 1991–1992 with a prototype
operated in the power output range of between 25 and 70 MW. The second step was the construction of the
demonstration facility for H2/O2 instant reserve, HYDROSS, consisting of a modified H2/O2 steam generator of 2 m
length and 0.4 m outer diameter plus a storage and supply system [505]. Full power was obtained after 1 s, and after
3–5 s, there was stable steam production. The experimental version produced steam of 560–950°C at 4–9 MPa. This
compact, soot free and low-cost component is largely ready for the market.
8.4. EXAMPLES FOR CONCEPTS OF A LARGE SCALE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
8.4.1. Euro–Quebec Hydro–Hydrogen Pilot Project
In 1987, the concept of a clean energy system based on hydrogen as a transportable medium was presented. It
was the result of the cooperation of more than 20 companies and the starting point of the so-called Euro–Quebec
Hydro–Hydrogen Pilot Project (EQHHPP) [506]. The idea of this project, as is depicted in Fig. 197, is to use
100 MW of hydroelectric power, of which plenty is available in Canada, for the production of hydrogen via
electrolysis. The gaseous hydrogen is then liquefied (requiring another 30 MW(e) input) and transported by barge
carrier across the ocean to Europe (Hamburg harbour) for distribution and consumption in various applications. The
annual transportation of 14 600 t of LH2 corresponds to an estimated equivalent power output of 74 MW(e) plus
some 7 MW of ‘cold’ energy recovery. The main objective of the EQHHPP was the demonstration of the
possibilities of safe transport and distribution of hydrogen, as well as its safe application as a fuel.
For the maritime transportation of the LH2, concepts of barge carrier ships have been developed with the
barge-mounted mobile tanks to also be used for on-shore storage in order to minimize transfer losses (see also
Section 9.3.3). The proposed LH2 terminal in Hamburg’s harbour comprised the port for loading and unloading
301
operations, a lifting platform to transfer the tanks after being floated out of the barge carrier ship to the shore, and
the on-shore storage and distribution devices. The further distribution was planned to be done by tank trucks.
Potential uses were seen to be as fuel for the local transportation system, as fuel for aircraft, for residential heating
from fuel cell power plants, for gas turbine power plants, or for mixing with natural gas to hythane for introduction
into the grid.
The Euro–Quebec project itself-was finally terminated in 1992, but continued to live in the form of various
single sub-projects of a hydrogen demonstration programme, such as projects involving city buses, a hydrogen
refuelling station in Hamburg, a fuel cell driven boat in Italy, the manufacture and (safety) testing of a 60 m3 LH2
model tank for maritime transportation, a 5 MW(e) H2 fuel cell plant for cogeneration of heat and power in a
residential area, and many others.
8.4.2. WE-NET project
One of the most ambitious hydrogen energy research projects pursued in Japan was the International Clean
Energy Network Using Hydrogen Conversion, or the World Energy Network (WE-NET) for short. Operating under
the wider frame of the New Sunshine project, its main objective was the establishment of a large scale energy
system based on hydrogen from renewable energy sources. Starting in 1993, WE-NET was scheduled to run over
28 years in three distinct phases. Phase I (1993–1998) dealt with the survey on key technologies and elemental
research and system studies. Phase II (1999–2005) was dedicated to the development of prototype systems in the
order of 50 MW. And in Phase III, the hydrogen technologies were to be demonstrated in sub and full systems
[508]. The main hydrogen production method was considered to be solid polymer electrolyte water electrolysis.
Long distance maritime transportation as LH2, or as H2 carrier liquids like methanol or ammonia, was foreseen. On
the demand side, the hydrogen was to be used as a fuel in the transportation sector, in fuel cell power plants, in
combustion turbines, in households and as chemical feedstock. Originally based on renewable energies, later in
Phase II fossil fuels were also considered, to allow the introduction of large amounts of H2 in the short term.
In Phase I both the conceptual design of the total system and the energy balance and the electricity cost were
verified. Phase II was used to continue the development of fundamental technologies and, in particular, to prepare
distributed energy technologies. Studies were conducted on stand-alone refuelling stations (steam reforming or
electrolysis), metal hydride vehicle tank systems, low temperature fuel cells, and LH2 (magnetic) liquefaction
[509]. Investigation and research in the field of safety was aimed at the establishment of a comprehensive system
safety design including a concept of safety measures for the prevention of accidental LH2 release or the mitigation
of accident consequences. These activities included risk analysis of hydrogen subsystems, a collection of data on
accidents involving handling of hydrogen, and the review and systematization of existing safety standards. The
WE-NET project, originally planned as a long term programme, was eventually discontinued at the end of fiscal
year 2002 and replaced with a more specific hydrogen and fuel cell programme to promote commercialization of
fuel cells in mobile and stationary applications.
8.5. TRANSITION SCENARIOS
Several transition scenarios for EU25 are described extensively in Refs [510, 511], yet with a focus on the
deployment of fuel cell technology. In the 2020 scenarios, fuel cell applications were mentioned with road transport
accounting for the largest demand (Table 58).
TABLE 58. PROJECTED MAIN USERS OF HYDROGEN BY 2020 [510]
Portable FCs for hand-held Portable generators Stationary FCs

Road transport
electronic devices and early markets for CHP
Cumulative FC sales >>250 × 106 600 000 4–8 × 105 1–5 × 106
until 2020 (units)
Average power (kW) 0.015 10 20 80
Total power (GW(e)) >>3.75 6 8–16 80–400
302
TABLE 59. COMPARISON OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MAJOR AREAS
Current annual
Application Reference
consumption (1018 J/a)
Energy value of total hydrogen production (world) 7.0 [100]
Energy value of natural gas for ammonia production 2.98 [503]

for fertilizers (world)
Energy value of natural gas for hydrogen production 2.2 [503]

for refining crude oils (world)
Passenger transport (EU25) 6.05 [512]
Small scale combustion installations 12 [513]

(domestic heating, hot water, etc.) (EU25)
Air transport (USA) 3.0 [514]
Air transport (Germany) 0.3 [514]
Air transport (UK) 0.51 [514]
Air transport (Canada) 0.24 [514]
Steel production (world) 11.8 see Section 8.2.3
Table 59 identifies the biggest consumers that currently employ almost 100% fossil resources and that could
in principle use nuclear hydrogen or synthetic hydrocarbons instead. All these sectors are linked to both population
increase and gross national product.
Figure 198 shows a projection of hydrogen production processes, although no recommendation or prediction
is given for the phase-out of fossil based production processes. The HyNet road map [27] predicts that electrolysis
from nuclear will be among the first significant sources of hydrogen. The fact that low temperature electrolysis
from baseload electricity with intermediate cavern storage of hydrogen makes economic sense was shown in
Ref. [223] for the specific case of Canada.
The most immediate possibility for the use of nuclear hydrogen — and one that is overlooked in most
strategic documents — is certainly stationary and concerns the fertilizer and petrochemical industries, which not
only consume hydrogen but also significant amounts of process heat. This combination is also easiest to implement,
as a high demand can be combined with large production and short transport distances, assuming that safety
requirements can be met. The combination can possibly be considered economically viable already with low
temperature electrolysis, on the condition that the hydrogen is produced from inexpensive baseload electricity with
intermediate storage [223]. The combination with refineries would have a twofold positive effect on natural gas and
crude oil prices, because it eliminates natural gas consumption in the refinery (the gas could be used more
efficiently in other applications) while producing lighter and cleaner liquid fuels from heavy crude oils, oil shales
and tar sands that would otherwise be difficult to process.
Due to the complex interaction of the different chemical processes optimized to a very high degree, the
potential supply of energy by nuclear power may not be dedicated to a specific process, but rather cover the overall
cogeneration of process steam, process heat and electricity. Any substitution of nuclear energy for process heat in
large scale industrial productions results in a complicated restructuring of the on-site energy supply system.
Processes may also have to be adjusted to reactor operational parameters. However, it promises significant CO2
reductions and savings of fossil resources with economic competitiveness, which are the dominant challenges for
future energy systems. This will include the generation of process steam and sensible heat for a variety of
applications beyond dedicated hydrogen production. Quite a number of processes in the different industrial
branches were selected and evaluated in Ref. [473] with regard to coupling to a nuclear energy source.
Processes for which helium temperatures of up to 700°C would be sufficient for steam production, and that
therefore were deemed to require only minor further development work, include the refining of crude oil and oil
production from tar sands and oil shale. A system of nuclear heat transfer into a refinery has been suggested (Fig. 199).
303
FIG. 198. Maturation of hydrogen production pathways [27].
FIG. 199. Heat transfer system: HTR-M refinery [473].
Other processes with operating temperatures of up to 900°C include methanol synthesis with hydrogen
production, e.g. from steam–methane reforming or the production or the production of ammonia/fertilizer. A major
challenge in most cases is the design of the heat exchanger to transfer heat from the helium into the process. For
some processes, heat transfer must take place in narrow temperature/pressure ranges with regard to the desired
product spectrum and therefore requires a sophisticated solution with strict conditions. An example is the heat
exchanger for the vacuum distillation process where operating temperatures must not exceed the cracking
temperature of the feed (see Table 54). The preliminary design of a helium-vacuum distillation feed heat exchanger
is shown in Fig. 200 [472].
304
FIG. 200. Preliminary design of a heat exchanger with nuclear-heated helium on the primary and vacuum distillation feed on the
secondary side [472].
The so-called hydrogen intermediate and peak electrical system (HIPES) has been suggested [481] as a large
scale nuclear and renewable hydrogen production system which includes:
— Hydrogen production by water splitting;

— Hydrogen and oxygen storage in large scale, low cost underground centralized storage facilities;
— Hydrogen to electricity conversion by combustion of the H2 with O2 to very high temperature, high pressure
steam for a high efficiency steam turbine or, alternatively, in lower cost fuel cells.
Given the huge number of nuclear power plants required for significant nuclear hydrogen or synthetic
hydrocarbon production, and given the growth rates of the worldwide primary energy demand, it is clear that an
increase in the nuclear contribution can only be gradual. The pressure for building nuclear plants for hydrogen
production is a direct function of the volatility of natural gas prices as the main competitor. In conclusion, and
independent of any detailed projection of energy demand and mix of energy sources, it seems almost impossible to
question the secured long term potential and need for nuclear power to penetrate into the non-electricity market.
The massive demand for heat and electricity will likely rise within the next decades when oil is increasingly
extracted from tertiary resources (tar sands, oil shale) whose exploitation requires pumping power and large
quantities of steam at above 300°C. The production of synthetic fuels and the upgrading of heavy oils require huge
amounts of hydrogen. The industrial demand for heat will be the main driving force for the development of VHTRs,
rather than their use as electricity sources [38]. But it is also clear that nuclear alone will be unable to produce the
required energy: the capacity for building nuclear plants in the world is too low and the lead-time to construction
too long to satisfy the demand, at least in the short and medium terms.
305
9. HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE
9.1. LIQUEFACTION OF HYDROGEN
9.1.1. Energy requirement
There are different pathways for cooling hydrogen gas down to its boiling point, but all require the same
minimum specific exergy. The type of process selected is dependent on different parameters such as the real energy
demand determined by the efficiencies of the single compressing and cooling steps, the amounts of irreversible
losses, and the availability of the necessary systems and their costs. The minimum specific work (exergy) required
for the liquefaction of hydrogen at ambient conditions is composed of [515]:
— The work for cooling the gas to the boiling point determined by the Carnot cycle;
— The work for condensation of the gas;
— Additional work necessary for the temperature dependent ortho–para conversion.
The total minimum (theoretical) energy required for liquefying hydrogen is 3.92 kW·h/kg or 14.1 MJ/kg
[516]. The actual technical work required, however, is a minimum of 11.1 kW·h/kg of LH2, corresponding to 33.3%
of the LHV of hydrogen.
9.1.2. Liquefaction process
The first step in the liquefaction process is the precooling of the hydrogen, usually done with liquid nitrogen.
This precooling step is necessary, because if a gas is to cool down upon expansion, its temperature must be below
the inversion temperature, which is 193 K for hydrogen at ambient pressure. Ortho–para conversion can be done
adiabatically simply using a catalyst bed, however, this is at the expense of a temperature increase of the flowing
hydrogen. There is also an isothermal method, placing the catalyst into LN2 or LH2 at boiling point with the
temperature remaining constant [517].
9.1.2.1. Linde–Hampson and Claude processes
Most liquefaction processes in practice use thermodynamic gas cycles with compression, heat exchange and
expansion. The Linde–Hampson method is the simplest one, using isenthalpic expansion as a single thermodynamic
process. Its efficiency, however, is not very high. Under optimized conditions, the liquefaction energy requirement is
13.12 kW·h/kg of LH2 plus 6.7 kg of LN2 per kg of LH2 for precooling [515]. Hampson applied the process in 1896
for the liquefaction of air, using air at ~20 MPa to be expanded to atmospheric pressure and passing the cooled air
through a heat exchanger. A power of 3.7 kW was necessary to produce 1 L/h of liquid air.
A major step in the further improvement of the process was suggested by Georges Claude in 1902 with the use
of an expansion engine, a cylinder with a moving piston, i.e. applying ‘external work’, to achieve lower temperatures
than the Linde process. Heat is removed as mechanical energy. Later, expansion engines were replaced with expansion
turbines, first introduced by Kapitsa in 1936. The Claude process has since become the commonly applied method in
large scale liquefaction plants. Refrigeration is conducted in four principal steps (Fig. 201):
(1) Compression of hydrogen gas at ambient temperature, removal of compression heat;

(2) Cooling with liquid nitrogen (~80 K);
(3) Expansion of a part of the hydrogen in an expansion turbine resulting in a further cooling of the residual
hydrogen (80 → ~30 K);
(4) Expansion of residual hydrogen in a Joule–Thomson valve until liquid state is reached.
The final cooling stage from 80 to 30 K represents the most energy intensive step. Possible solutions are either
the ‘classic’ cascade refrigeration, with cycles using different coolants (as was demonstrated by Dewar), or the
306
FIG. 201. Schematic of Claude process for hydrogen liquefaction [518].
more economical Brayton cycle, with just one gaseous coolant that is sequentially expanded before it cools down
the hydrogen in a countercurrent heat exchanger. Expansion step 3 would already be sufficient for liquefaction. But
the Joule–Thomson expansion is applied for the final step to avoid two-phase flow in the expander.
Variations of the dual-pressure Claude process as a large scale liquefaction method have proven to be the
optimal solution. The large scale plants of today usually operate with six heat exchanging stages, the first of which
is the LN2 stage. The principle of the heat exchanger is to use the adiabatic expansion with smaller temperature
drops per expansion step. The cooled gas is taken to precool the incoming gas, which then starts expansion at a
lower temperature level (‘progressive cooling’).
Heat exchangers are typically operated at pressures up to 6 MPa. They are compact to minimize heat input
from outside and made of aluminium or chromium alloy steels with sufficiently high thermal conductivity and
sufficiently low thermal expansion and that are resistant against hydrogen embrittlement. The ortho–para
conversion is also done in several stages at different temperature levels achieving a para fraction of >95%. The
maximum impurity level in re-gasified hydrogen is in the order of 1 ppm. Efficiencies are in the range of
60% [519].
9.1.2.2. Magnetic refrigeration process
A magnetic type of cooling was proposed by Debye and Giauque in 1926. The magnetic refrigeration method
takes advantage of the magneto–caloric effect, i.e. the adiabatic temperature increase in the presence of a magnetic
field in the working material, and a temperature decrease if the magnetic field is removed. The effect benefits from
the isentropic demagnetization of a ferromagnetic material as a cooling process. Materials are magnetized slowly at
the higher temperature before they are suddenly demagnetized and return to the initial state. The magnetic
refrigeration cycle consists of the following steps:
307
(1) Adiabatic magnetization in an external magnetic field causing alignment of the magnetic dipoles (thus
reducing entropy, thus increasing temperature);
(2) Transfer of the heat to a fluid (water, helium) at the same magnetic field strength;
(3) Adiabatic demagnetization with removal of the magnetic field at constant entropy, i.e. decreasing the
temperature;
(4) Heat transfer from the gas (to be cooled) to the working material (solid).
The temperature can drop by 10–15 K depending on the strength of the magnetic field. The temperature
change is maximal at ± 25 K around the material’s Curie point where it changes from ferromagnetic to
paramagnetic. Various candidate materials with reversible transition and significant adiabatic temperature change
are available covering the total range between 20 and 300 K. The most appropriate materials to show a high
magneto–caloric effect are based on gadolinium and some of its alloys, e.g. Gd5Si2Ge2 [520].
This method promises a compact cooling system design with a long lifetime, higher efficiencies and lower
capital costs, since neither expanders nor compressors are required. The liquefaction work is estimated to be at the
level of 7.3 kW·h/kg [521]. Magnetic refrigeration, however, is still at the R&D level. Within the WE-NET project,
a 10 kg/d capacity laboratory scale plant was constructed and operated [522].
9.1.3. Liquefaction efficiency
A realistic unit power value for today’s large scale liquefaction plants in the USA comprising the whole
process of cooling H2 from ambient temperature to its liquid state at the boiling point, including all thermal and
mechanical losses, is in the order of 12.5–15 kW·h/kg [523]. This corresponds to an exergy efficiency of 26–32%.
The smaller scale facility in Ingolstadt, Germany, requires an energy input of ~15 kW·h/kg of H2 or up to about
38% (45%) of the higher (lower) heating value of hydrogen. But even for the most recent liquefaction plants,
efficiency has only improved slightly.
Of the costs for a typical hydrogen liquefaction plant, capital costs account for about 63%, mainly due to the
compressors and brazed aluminium heat exchanger cold boxes. This is followed by power costs (~30%) and O&M
(~7%). Further cost reductions are seen in the development of improved expanders and compressors, lower cost
insulation and more efficient refrigeration, but also in the construction of larger scale plants with capacities up to
850 t/d and modular type systems with plant repeatability [523].
9.1.4. Present hydrogen liquefaction capacity in the world
Starting with the Apollo space programme in the USA in the 1960s, hydrogen liquefaction plants have been
designed and constructed on a large scale. Their concepts were based on the experience gained from the numerous
small scale plants previously developed in laboratories around the world, and on the requirement of economically
viable production of LH2. Also, mobile hydrogen liquefaction stations on a small capacity scale have been
constructed to meet the temporary demands, e.g. at testing sites. At present, the total global hydrogen liquefaction
capacity amounts to approximately 290 t/d.
In Europe, it was the Ariane space programme that initiated the construction of LH2 production plants in the
1980s. There are now four plants in Europe with a total capacity of ~25 t/d. In the Russian Federation, two hydrogen
liquefaction plants are reported to have been commissioned in the late 1960s at NIICHIMMASH in Serguiev Posad
(Zagorsk), north of Moscow, to serve the fuel production for rocket and space systems. The capacities of the plants
were 4.3 t/d and 7.2 t/d, respectively, for an annual production of up to 5000 t of LH2 [524]. The first plant still seems
to be in operation. Liquid hydrogen production in China and in India (since 1996) is only temporary and dedicated to
their respective space rocket developments. In India, a 1 t/d capacity plant was constructed for the Indian Space
Research Organization in Saggonda and a smaller plant for the Liquid Propulsion System Centre in Mahendragiri. One
of the first hydrogen liquefaction facilities in Japan has been operating since 1977 at the Noshiro Test Centre (Akita
prefecture) a production capacity of ~50 kg/d for rocket propulsion experiments.
Recently, in addition to the existing Japanese space programme, smaller scale production of LH2 started as
part of the current national hydrogen and fuel cell programme. There appears to be a growing market for smaller
facilities to serve the needs for LH2 fuelled vehicles. Table 60 presents an overview of the liquefaction plants around
the world.
308
TABLE 60. OVERVIEW OF WORLDWIDE ON-STREAM HYDROGEN LIQUEFACTION PLANTS
Capacity
Place Operator Operation since
(tonnes/d)
Sarnia, ON, Canada Air Products 27 1982
Bécancour, QU, Canada Air Liquide 11 1988
Magog, QU, Canada BOC 13.5 1989
Kourou, French Guiana Air Liquide 2.3 1990
New Orleans, LA, USA Air Products 32 1963
New Orleans, LA, USA Air Products 32 1978
Sacramento, CA, USA Air Products 5.5 1986
Niagara Falls, NY, USA Praxair 36 1988
Pace, FL, USA Air Products 27 1994
McIntosh, AL, USA Praxair 26 1995
East Chicago, IN, USA Praxair 27 1999
Total America 238.8
Waziers, France Air Liquide 10.5 1987
Ingolstadt, Germany Linde 4.4 1991
Leuna, Germany Linde 5.0 2007
Rozenburg, Netherlands Air Products 5.0 1987
Sergiev Posad, Russian Federation NIICHIMMASH 4.3 late 1960s
Total Europe 29.2
Beijing, China CALT 0.5 1995
Mahendragiri, India Asiatic Oxygen Ltd 0.5 1992
Saggonda, India Indian Space Res. Org. 1.0 2004
Noshiro, Akita, Japan 1.2 1977
Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan Iwatani Gas 1.2 1978
Tashiro, Akita, Japan Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. 0.5 1984
Oita, Japan Pacific Hydrogen Co. 1.5 1987
Tanegashima, Japan Japan Liquid Hydrogen Co. 1.2 1987
Kimitsu, Chiba, Japan Nippon Steel Corp. 0.2 2004
Sakai, Osaka, Japan Iwatani Gas 10.0 2006
Ichihara, Chiba, Japan Iwatani Gas 5.0 2009
Total Asia 22.8
Total World 290.8
9.2. STORAGE
Unlike electricity, hydrogen can be conveniently stored. The major storage options are at high pressures, low
temperatures, in porous materials or in the form of (complex) metal hydrides. Due to its low volume related energy
density, hydrogen requires a comparatively large volume for storage. While its gravimetric density is three times
that of gasoline, the volumetric density is only 25%. What is at first surprising is the fact that even 1 m3 of liquid
hydrogen has, at 71 kg, a lower H2 mass content than other chemical hydrogen storage media, e.g. gasoline (84 kg),
ammonia (136 kg) and even water (111 kg) (Table 61).
309
TABLE 61. HYDROGEN DENSITIES IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF STORAGE
Energy per mass Energy per vol H2 density 

Fuel Formula Density (kg/m3)
(kJ/kg) (GJ/m3) (kg H2/m3)
Hydrogen H2 0.09 141 890 0.013 0.09
LH2 H2 71 141 890 9.9 71
LNG (methane) CH4 423 55 530 ~20.5 106
LPG (propane) C3H8 581 50 400 25.2 106
Gasoline (octane) C8H18 745 47 400 30.4–34.8 118
Methanol CH3OH 793 22 700 18.0 99
Ethanol C2H5OH 794 29 900 23.5 104
Methylcyclohexane C7H14 862 42 500 26.9 96
Ammonia NH3 771 22 500 17.4 136
Water H2O 1000 — — 111
9.2.1. Gaseous storage
9.2.1.1. Pressure vessel storage
A proven technology for storage systems for stationary applications is the steel bottle/tube bundle, based on
the use of steel as a structural material and involving gas pressures up to 23 MPa. These systems are essentially
used at industrial chemical/metallurgical plants and distribution centres. The storage of compressed hydrogen in
high pressure cylinders is bulky and rather expensive compared with the small quantity of hydrogen stored.
A significant amount of energy is needed to compress the gas (e.g. 9% of the stored energy for a 70 MPa
tank). The compression process may be isothermal or adiabatic. The difference is the final temperature of the
compressed medium remaining constant in the former and rising considerably in the latter case. Multistage
compressors with intercoolers operate somewhere in between isothermal and adiabatic compression [27]. In the
near term, gaseous hydrogen storage might become possible at a mass fraction of up to 9% [525].
A classification of high pressure tanks for hydrogen storage in vehicles is given in four categories, with
Type 1 being the classic heavy, all-metal tanks, Type 2 being metal tanks with a glass fibre wrapping around the
cylindrical part, which takes approximately 50% of the pressure load, Type 3 being light-weight tanks made of
composite materials (carbon fibre) with a metallic liner inside, and Type 4 being composite tanks with a polymer
liner. The weight reduction for Type 3 and 4 tanks is 70% compared with Type 1 tanks.
The principal advantage of composite material is its light weight, reducing total weight by 25–75% compared
with a metal tank. For the new generation of pressurized H2 tanks for vehicle applications designed for 70 MPa, the
development of a thermoplastic polymer liner which ensures a maximum loss rate of 1 cm3 of H2 per litre of volume
per hour and good mechanical strength in the temperature range of –40 to +85°C are important tasks.
Compressed gas in Type III and Type IV tanks is currently the preferred method for on-board vehicular
storage. The very high gas storage pressure of 70 MPa will be a practical optimum required to contain a sufficient
driving range of fuel, whereas 20–25 MPa is the typical pressure level for stationary hydrogen storage, for instance
at a hydrogen refuelling station. Hydrogen vehicle pressure tanks for pressures of 35 MPa have already reached a
commercial stage for fleet vehicles [27]. They are relatively expensive, and the high operating pressures give rise to
safety concerns in the event of an accident. The targets set by the Strategic Research Agenda are (vehicle range of
500–600 km): 5 kg of storage at 70 MPa (~12 MPa at 20ºC), with hydrogen delivery temperatures between –40ºC
and +85ºC and a lifetime of at least 1500 cycles. Vehicle tanks are fitted with various safety and monitoring related
components.
310
9.2.1.2. Underground storage
While short term storage of hydrogen takes place in spherical high pressure tanks, long term underground
storage in geological formations may represent a low cost technology in the capacity range of 100 GW·h. Very large
quantities of hydrogen can be stored as a compressed gas in salt caverns or deep saline aquifers. Typical parameters
are 700 000 m3 of geometrical volume and a maximum operating pressure of 20 MPa. If the roof of the cavern is at
a depth of ~1000 m, the net storage capacity will be around 6000 t with a cushion gas; i.e. the gas contents at
minimum pressure ensuring easy recovery, to be around 3000 t hydrogen [526]. Maximum withdrawal rates are
about 10% of the storage capacity per day. In a natural storage volume, the ceiling structure must be additionally
sealed by water in the capillaries. Natural loss of hydrogen from diffusion through rock and operating loss are
estimated to amount to ~5% per cycle. Centralized underground bulk storage facilities favour the use of centralized
hydrogen production (such as by nuclear energy) rather than hydrogen transportation from dispersed sources [481].
The safe and economic long term storage of gases, primarily natural gas, in depleted gas fields and natural
aquifer formations has been standard engineering practice for many decades [526]. There are two existing
underground hydrogen storage sites, including an 8000 t capacity cavern in the USA and another one under
construction. In Teesside, UK, three smaller caverns with 200–300 t of H2 each have been in operation for many
years. Other examples are a large aquifer in Beynes, France, with a value of 364 × 106 Nm3 of town gas with a 56%
share of hydrogen, and an exploited natural gas field in Amarillo, TX, which contains 840 × 106 Nm3 of helium. In
addition, the co-storage of hydrogen with natural gas has been proposed. Commercial hydrogen storage technology
will be based on natural gas storage technology. There are 417 locations in the USA where natural gas is stored,
with a total storage capacity exceeding 2.4 × 1012 Nm3 [481]. Germany currently has about 170 caverns in use for
the storage of natural gas for seasonal load balancing, shutdown and trading reserve [526]. Salt caverns are the ideal
and currently the only underground facilities for hydrogen gas storage. Salt rock is highly gastight, does not react
with hydrogen (or natural gas), and has low specific construction cost. Research will look at other storage options
like aquifers or buried cavern tanks for smaller quantities [527].
9.2.2. Liquid storage
The storage of hydrogen in the liquid phase is highly beneficial due to its high energy storage density and is
practicable in many applications. Storage of larger amounts as liquid allows for lower central storage costs and
provides greater flexibility. More storage capacity leads to a higher utilization rate of a hydrogen consuming
plant [528]. Liquid hydrogen is particularly demanded where the hydrogen is needed at a high purity level and
where volume and weight are an issue such as in the transportation sector. The drawbacks are special handling
requirements, boiloff losses, the need for control of temperature stability to avoid overpressure, and, most
important, the liquefaction energy requirement. LH2 storage technology is commercially available in a wide range.
Vessels are manufactured in sizes from 0.1 to several thousands of cubic metres.
9.2.2.1. Principal tank design
Because of its low temperature, liquid hydrogen must be stored in an effectively insulated container, a dewar
or ‘cryostat’. The principal design of a storage tank is a double-walled, vacuum jacketed fluid container (Fig. 202).
The outer tank serves as protection for the inner tank against impacts from outside as well as of the neighbourhood
if the inner tank fails. The space between the two vessels serves as an insulation layer to minimize heat transfer to
the inside. The supporting structure and interconnections have to fix the inner shell, but also ensure that it can freely
undergo contraction and expansion due to the numerous temperature cycles (refills) that may occur during the
tank’s lifetime. Also, heat transfer from the outside must be minimized. An even more complex structural design is
necessary for large vessels. The ideal shape of the vessel is spherical because of the minimum surface to volume
ratio and the more uniform distribution of stresses and strains.
A multilayer foil insulation is usually chosen for tank sizes up to 300 m3 to minimize the transport of radiation
heat. It consists of some 60–100 layers of reflective foils fixed on the outside of the inner vessel, with a total
thickness of at least 20 mm. (The layered type of insulation is usually called superinsulation.) The remaining void
volume of the intermediate space basically serves as vacuum jacket to avoid air condensation on the cold surfaces
and heat transport by convection or residual gas conduction [529].
311
FIG. 202. Principal schematic of LH2 tank [529].
Maximum and minimum design temperatures are determined by the loss of strength of the storage walls at the
higher end and by loss of ductility (embrittlement) at the lower end. A relief valve should be designed to handle
abnormal operating conditions such as overfilling. It should open at pressures less than or equal to the design
pressure to allow a relief such that the pressure does not rise beyond 110% of the design pressure.
Depending on the insulation quality and the surface to volume ratio, a certain fraction of the stored cryogen is
an unavoidable boiloff to keep the rest cold. This amount is in the order of a few per cent per day for a passenger car
tank and decreases with increasing volume to 0.4%/d for a 50 m3 cryogenic tank and an estimated 0.06%/d for a
20 000 m3 LH2 tank. Overpressures exceeding specified limits after a certain time, the so-called lock-up time, are
relieved via a boiloff valve and a safety valve.
Liquid hydrogen will be expelled from the container by pressurization. This can be done by either a
pressurizing gas from an external source or a vaporizer in the form of a heat exchanger which receives liquid from
the container by means of a pump or gravity and sends the gas into the ullage space. Some of the liquefaction work
can potentially be recovered when the liquid is vaporized, which is a matter of downstream engineering technology.
The theoretical maximum is 10% of the energy invested [530]. The autonomy of the storage system, i.e. the time
without any loss of the contents, is typically 30 days.
Appropriate materials used for a cryogenic tank are carbon steel for the outer vessel and stainless steel or
aluminium for the inner vessel. Tubing from the inner vessel to the outside is generally made of stainless steel with
vacuum-sealed transition on the cold side [516]. With regard to further weight reduction, fibre reinforced
(composite) materials are being investigated to be used not only for high pressure tanks, but also for cryo-tanks, and
with a specific energy storage capacity similar to that of conventional tanks. The advantages would not only be the
higher strength compared with steel and the lower weight, but also, due to the lower pressure, the possibility to
adjust the shape of the tank to the vehicle structure. On the other hand, composites are prone to enhanced
312
embrittlement and exhibit an anisotropic thermal expansion, almost none in the fibre direction and a high one
perpendicular to the fibre direction.
9.2.2.2. Stationary LH2 tanks
Large scale LH2 tanks at the production site typically have a capacity of more than 100 t (~1400 m3). The
ullage gas carries a large refrigeration potential, which is being recovered for the liquefaction process via a vapour
return line whenever practical. Tanks at the utilization sites are usually smaller, with capacities from 110 up to
2500 kg for vertical tanks or up to 5300 kg for horizontal tanks. The vessels are usually operated at an overpressure
of 1.2 MPa.
Large stationary LH2 tanks usually have an additional outer wall with the space filled with LN2. Inner vessel
walls are preferably thin due to cost and cooling, whereas the outer walls should be thick for the purpose of stability
and stress uptake. Most of the large vessels are of a spherical shape. Lock-up times are in the order of 50 h [519].
Boiloff losses can also be reduced by making sure that most of the LH2 to be filled is para-hydrogen.
The world’s largest LH2 tank is reported to be located at the Baykonur Cryogenic Centre in the Russian
Federation with a total volume of 5600 m3 [524]. At the NASA Kennedy Space Centre (KSC) in the USA, two
identical ball shaped tanks have been constructed which are used within the space shuttle programme. The tanks are
3800 m3 double-walled, vacuum perlite insulated spherical storage vessels. The outer sphere is made of carbon steel
with an inside diameter of 21.34 m, and the inner sphere is made of austenitic stainless steel with an inside diameter
of 18.75 m. With nominal maximum LH2 contents of 3218 m3, the ullage is about 15%. The tank operated at a
pressure of 620 kPa has a boiloff rate of 0.025%/d or about 800 L/d [516].
9.2.3. Solid storage
Other advanced hydrogen storage methods include metallic and chemical hydrides, amides, alanate storage
systems and carbon nanotubes. Solid metal and chemical systems offer some unique storage solutions for hydrogen,
with the main challenges at the current time being their weight and their slow response time during refuelling. The
interstitial storage of hydrogen in carbon nanotubes is another concept with potential for very light weight hydrogen
storage, but the R&D is still preliminary. In addition, several other storage systems and mechanisms may be
promising, including the use of sponge iron and glass microspheres.
In rechargeable solid state storage, H2 is absorbed at interstitial sites in intermetallic compounds or stored via
phase transitions in complex hydrides. In both cases, the loading with hydrogen is connected with the release of
heat (hydrogenation enthalpy) which must be removed. The heat is the enthalpy (heat of formation) of the reaction
and is an indication of the strength of the metal–hydrogen bond in the metal hydride phase. When molecular
hydrogen from the hydrogen gas comes into contact with the surface of a hydrogen storage metal hydride material,
it dissociates into atomic hydrogen and distributes compactly throughout the metal lattice. For refuelling a
hydrogen driven vehicle with typically 5 kg within a few minutes, a power in the order of MW is involved [531].
Heat transfer in this order of magnitude requires large, heavy and expensive equipment. Storage materials with
acceptable H2 density are still slower than what is required for rapid refuelling. The hydrogen releasing step takes
place in the form of a catalysed hydrolysis reaction which is achieved by means of excess of water. Characteristics
to be considered are solubility, excess water, hydration of by-products, reactivity of the catalyst and lifetime.
The advantages of solid state storage are its safety, since low pressures are involved, and its high volumetric
storage capacity. The disadvantages are the low gravimetric absorption capacity (of most hydrides) and the high
cost. Volumetric and gravimetric capacities are listed in Table 62 for selected hydrides and are compared with
gaseous and liquid hydrogen.
Complex hydrides are also considered promising hydrogen storage materials with capacities of up to 5.5 wt%
of H2 (compared with 1.5 wt% of conventional hydrides). These are low density powdery substances consisting of
<10 μm particles, but with a high BET surface in the order of several tens of m2/g. An example is NaAlH4 which
was discovered to exhibit enormous hydrogen discharging and recharging ability if doped with Ti as a catalyst. In
terms of safety, hydrides have the advantage that heat is consumed in the hydrogen discharge reaction. A safety
issue with complex hydrides containing NaAlH4, LiNH2, Mg(NH2)2, LiH and LiBH4 is that they were found to be
flammable, pyrophoric and water reactive. Also, dust cloud explosions may be triggered by spark ignition [532].
313
TABLE 62. ENERGY CAPACITIES OF HYDROGEN STORAGE
TECHNOLOGIES
Volumetric capacity Gravimetric capacity

Material
(kWh/l) (% of total weight)
MgH2 3.65 7.6

FeTiH2 3.37 1.89
Mg2NiH4 3.31 3.6
LaNi5H6 3.09 1.37
H2 liquid at 20 K 2.36 100
H2 gas at 80 MPa 1.54 100
H2 gas at 50 MPa 1.11 100
An innovative hydrogen storage system developed by the Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT) uses hollow
microspheres for combined high pressure and chemical hydrogen storage. Water carrying the microspheres with a
5–200 μm diameter is injected together with NaBH4 into a reaction chamber where a catalytic reaction takes place
to produce hydrogen, NaBO2 and heat. The glass spheres, which are gas-tight at ambient temperature, store the
hydrogen at high pressures of 14–70 MPa. Such a system can theoretically reach hydrogen storage capacities of up
to 10 wt% [533].
9.3. TRANSPORTATION/DISTRIBUTION OF HYDROGEN
Centrally produced hydrogen must be transported to markets. The development of a large hydrogen
transmission and distribution infrastructure is a key challenge. The main transportation modes are water, road, rail
and pipelines which form a distribution system for the products to the final consumer. Storage structures are located
within the transportation network to accommodate the capacities of different transportation modes. The delivery
methods selected are determined chiefly by the production volume and the delivery distance. Small and medium-
sized hydrogen consumers use truck, rail and barge transportation modes for hydrogen in either liquid or gaseous
form over longer distances. Chemical and petrochemical industries, which produce/consume large quantities of
hydrogen, use pipelines and compressors for transportation of the hydrogen gas over short distances [534].
The transportation of hydrogen in the liquid state is considered practicable if it is consumed as a liquid, if the
distance is sufficiently long, if large quantities need to be stored, or if high purity hydrogen is required. For liquid
hydrogen, the costs of the equipment needed at the customer’s site (cryogenic storage tank, vaporizer) and
installation are much higher than those for handling gaseous hydrogen. On the other hand, customers that need high
pressure hydrogen would need the installation of compression and storage equipment if the hydrogen is delivered as
a liquid. Such requirements mainly determine the choice of the more cost effective transportation mode [82].
For sites where no hydrogen production plant is available and only smaller quantities of hydrogen are needed,
pipeline delivery methods usually are not competitive. Very small quantities of up to 50 kg of H2 are mostly sold
and distributed via high pressure cylinders. Larger quantities are more likely delivered by tube trailers and liquid
tank trucks. A liquid is easier to transport and easier to handle than compressed gas. But compressed gas
transportation via tube trailer has lower power requirements and slightly lower capital costs. Distance is the chief
deciding factor between liquid and gaseous hydrogen [534].
9.3.1. Pipeline transportation
Most of the hydrogen produced today is transported over short distances only, mainly by pipeline, e.g. on-site
in refineries. Pipeline distribution is most effective for large flows and currently amounts to approximately 240 t/d,
with pipeline diameters usually ranging between 10 and 300 mm and delivery pressures of up to 10 MPa. Pipelines
become competitive when the demand grows to large capacities. The pipeline option may allow carrying much
314
FIG. 203. Pressurized hydrogen supply pipeline system in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, operated by Air Liquide [535].
higher capacities of hydrogen at no additional cost. Energy loss during transportation is about 4% of the energy
content.
Several networks for the commercial transmission and distribution of hydrogen gas have been developed and
are being operated by the industrial gas industry with a good safety record. As of 2006, the US hydrogen pipeline
network totalled ~2000 km in length, not considered on-site and in-plant hydrogen piping. This, however, is still
small compared with about 475 000 km of natural gas transmission lines in the USA or more than 2 million km
worldwide. Because of concerns over potential leakage, the hydrogen pipes tend to be much smaller in diameter.
Special positive displacement compressors are also required to move hydrogen through the pipelines. The length of
hydrogen gas piping tends to be short, because it is usually less expensive to transport the hydrogen feedstock, such
as natural gas, through the existing pipeline network than to move the hydrogen itself through new piping systems.
The costs of a centralized hydrogen transmission and distribution system will depend on numerous factors
such as distance to the consumer, pipeline diameter, quality and nature of the pipeline materials, operating
pressures, rights-of-way, and how the applicable environmental and safety issues in the production, transmission,
distribution and dispensing of hydrogen are addressed [7]. Furthermore, pipelines that carry pure hydrogen will
require special construction and materials in order to avoid issues of steel embrittlement and leakage. Alternatives
to metallic pipelines are polymer and fibre reinforced polymer pipelines.
Larger grids for gaseous hydrogen connecting industrial producers with industrial consumers are being
operated in Europe and the USA. The largest agglomeration of chemical and petrochemical industries in Europe is
located in the Netherlands and Belgium (Fig. 203) where Air Liquide of France is operating a more than 900 km
pipeline grid for hydrogen transportation, currently connecting eight hydrogen units. The Ruhr-H2 pipeline, also
operated by Air Liquide, connects four large scale production plants and six industrial consumers. The capacity of
the pipeline is 40 000 Nm3/h at pressures up to 2.5 MPa. In the USA, most of the approximately 1200 miles
(~1930 km) of hydrogen pipelines are concentrated in the states of Texas and Louisiana, where the majority of the
US refinery industry is located.
If the use of hydrogen pipelines were to be expanded, possible embrittlement problems for pipes and fittings
would have to be considered. The technology is available to prevent embrittlement, but depending on the
configuration being considered, distribution costs may be affected.
315
FIG. 204. Schematic of an icefuel cable [538].
Pipeline transportation of liquid hydrogen is realized on a small scale and short range. Similar to LH2 storage
tanks, pipelines are of double-wall design and vacuum jacketed. Because of the high costs increasing linearly with
distance, LH2 pipelines are economically attractive only for short distances. The transfer is done by pressure
difference rather than by pumps. Major concerns, apart from heat leakage, are the mechanical stress imposed on the
inner line due to contraction/expansion, pressure oscillations upon cooldown and two-phase flow. The Kennedy
Space Centre uses a LH2 (and LOX) pipeline of ~600 m length with an inner pipe diameter of 150 mm. The flow
rates are up to 250 m3/min of LH2 and 100 m3/min of LOX [536].
A government funded project in Germany, Integrated Cable Energy for Fuel and Power or icefuel [537],
starting in 2006, is aiming at a new, highly efficient infrastructure for transport, storage and conversion of energy. A
system for energy storage and the transportation of both chemical and electrical energy as part of a decentralized
infrastructure will be developed and tested. The goal is to design a flexible, thermally insulated line for the
simultaneous transport of cryogenic liquids (LH2 or LNG), electricity and data via a high temperature
superconducting material (Fig. 204).
Due to the high energy density of LH2, an energy flux of ~10 MW could be realized through a low viscosity
pipeline of less than 20 mm diameter over a 10 km distance. Tests up to now on a laboratory scale have comprised
cable samples with 40 mm diameter and lengths up to several tens of metres for a transport capacity of 200–400 kW
(LHV). The project also includes the development of infrastructure components such as heat exchangers, junctions,
sensors and actuators. In a later stage, it is planned to demonstrate the concept on pilot plant scale [538].
9.3.2. Road transportation of hydrogen
Unlike conventional fuels, the transportation of hydrogen by trucks is limited with regard to volume rather
than weight. The amount of gaseous hydrogen transported in pressure tube trailers ranges between 100 kg for short
semi-trailers and 300 kg for the larger trailers, equivalent to about 3300 Nm3. The hydrogen load may even go up to
600 kg with higher volume tubes in carbon fibre composite structures, still light compared to the 40 t gross weight
of a tank truck. Distribution of hydrogen as compressed gas is mainly done for shorter distances (200–300 km) and
smaller consumers (<250 Nm3/h) [527].
Today’s modern liquid hydrogen trucks can carry up to 3.5–4.2 t, or more than 50 m3, of LH2, which is at least
ten times more than a tube trailer for gaseous H2. The typical pressure in superinsulated tanks with an additional
LN2 shield is 0.15–0.2 MPa (maximum pressure: 1.11 MPa). The potential hazard of stratification in the tank does
316
not really occur in transportation, because the liquid is stirred by the movement and kept in thermal equilibrium.
LH2 trucks will preferably be used to meet the demands of a growing market in the near future. This delivery
method is typically limited to small and medium sized quantities and distances of less than 500 km. Replacing
conventional gasoline fuel with liquid hydrogen would increase the number of tank truck transports by a factor of
three. Design criteria for a LH2 container used in transportation are essentially the same as for LH2 storage
containers. The differences involve, for example, the degree of insulation required, which is lower in short term
transportation compared with long term storage. Also, in general, geometry and weight are limited.
9.3.3. Maritime transportation of hydrogen
Barges carrying liquid hydrogen have been used for fuel supply within the US and French space programmes.
Storage containers with a capacity of 947 m3 of LH2 have been used on the way from Louisiana to Florida since the
NASA Apollo project, today serving the space shuttle. The European Ariane project was supplied with LH2 by
maritime transportation from New Orleans to Kourou, French Guiana, in 20 m3 storage vessels with vapour or LN2
cooled multilayer insulation [516]. These transports were discontinued with the beginning of the operation of the
5 t/d capacity, on-site liquefaction plant in 1990.
Various ship designs were developed in the 1990s within the Euro–Quebec project for future maritime
transportation. Future LH2 tank ships are designed for a load capacity of 125 000 m3 to take up 8150 t of LH2. The
hydrogen gas turbine propulsion system proposed will be fuelled by the LH2 as well as the boiloff losses. The
system allows regaining a part of the technical work that was introduced during the liquefaction process (Enhanced
Cryogen Exergy Recovery System (ECERS)).
Flowsheet analysis of the exergy or technically usable energy conducted within the Euro-Quebec project for
maritime LH2 transportation (from Canada to Europe) yielded an estimated overall efficiency of the system of 42%.
A fraction of 10.4% of the primary energy input is needed for the hydrogen fuelled propulsion system of the ship.
Other major losses are due to the electrolysis step and subsequent liquefaction of the hydrogen gas [539].
Studies of LH2 maritime transportation were also conducted in Japan based on their broad experience of LNG
ship construction. Within the WE-NET project, ships were conceived at a scale to deliver a 10 d supply of LH2 as
fuel to a 1000 MW(e) gas turbine power plant consuming 1200 t of LH2 per day. With the additional consumption
of H2 for the 6000 sea mile trip (~11 100 km) every 10 days plus estimated losses, one ship transport was to carry
some 200 000 m3 (or ~14 000 t) of LH2.
9.3.4. Chemical energy transmission systems
Hydrogen also can be transported using hydrogen rich carrier compounds such as ethanol, methanol, gasoline
and ammonia. Such carriers offer lower transportation costs, because they are liquids at room temperature and are
usually easier to handle than cryogenic hydrogen. But they also require an extra transformation step with costs that
must be weighed against the cost savings associated with transporting low pressure liquids.
The key components of a chemical energy transmission system (CETS) or a chemical heat pipe are a primary
energy source (fossil, renewable, nuclear) to provide heat to an input catalyst reactor. In this reactor, a mixture of
appropriate materials is chosen for the desired endothermic reaction, i.e. for storing energy in the newly created
products. After transportation of the product gas mixture at ambient temperatures, the reverse exothermic chemical
reaction in an output catalyst converter helps to extract the stored heat for consumption as high grade or low grade
heat or in a turbine. In a closed cycle, product materials are then returned to the heat source [540].
Unlike liquid hydrogen, chemical compounds with hydrogen provide an economical method of seasonal
storage of energy. The reactions must be reversible, rapid and as complete as possible to avoid unwanted secondary
products. They should have a high efficiency and a high reaction enthalpy in order to minimize the masses to be
transported, plant and pipe sizes, and operating cost. They must be controllable to allow intermittent
storage/retrieval operation. Furthermore, feedstock and products should be inexpensive, non-corrosive, non-toxic,
and easy and safe to handle. CETS have to compete against hydrogen pipeline systems or the electricity grid.
Among a wide variety of potential energy carriers, the gas based system ‘synthesis gas/methane’ is one of the
most promising and has been the subject of research, development and demonstration considering a connection to
both nuclear and solar as the primary source of process heat because of the following advantages:
317
FIG. 205. Methylcyclohexane–toluene CETS [542].
— Chemical reactions proceed in one direction under certain conditions and in the reverse direction under other
conditions.
— The reaction is heat consuming in the one direction and heat releasing in the other direction.
— The process takes place only in the presence of a catalyst, otherwise the system remains in a stable status
without any reactions.
— All (partial) reaction steps are well known and widely applied in conventional technologies.
— The pipelines required correspond to the former town gas and present natural gas systems.
This methane based CETS became known under the acronym EVA/ADAM with a nuclear energy source and
has been demonstrated in Germany, the USA and the Russian Federation (see also Section 4.1.2.3).
The CO2 reforming process of methane has been studied as a chemical transportation system since 1980 as an
alternative, in order to overcome some of the potential difficulties. In contrast to the CH4–H2O system, a third pipe
is not required since it is not necessary to clean the water. Thus an open cycle system could be adopted. At the
Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS) in Rehovot, Israel, a 480 kW solar steam/CO2 methane reformer was
designed, constructed and operated intermittently over two years as a complete solar heat pipe system [541]. The
insulated, pentagon shaped reformer box contained eight tubes (length: 6.4 m, diameter: 51 mm) in two rows made
of Inconel 617. The 4.5 m long heated section contained the catalyst. In the case of CO2 reforming, which is
thermodynamically more efficient and easier to operate under changing conditions (as in solar), the catalyst was 1%
Ru on alumina. The tubes were directly heated by the solar radiation entering through a 600 mm aperture and
reflected from the walls of the enclosure. The heat take-up was found to be quite uniform, with no local overheating
tendency. The maximum average surface temperature was ~930°C and the heat flux was in the range of
80–84 kW/m2. The flow rate of the process gas, which could be varied over a wide range of CO2/H2O/CH4 feed
mixtures, was limited to ~300 kg/h due to higher than expected pressure drop. It entered the reformer tubes at
~500°C and 1.6–1.8 MPa and left at ~800–830°C.
Another example is the hydrogenation of toluene (C7H8) on the supply site and the hydrogen evolution from
methylcyclohexane (MCH, C7H14) on the demand site (Fig. 205). This system offers the advantage of safe and easy
transportation at ambient temperatures in chemical tank ships or trucks and mild reaction conditions, with a high
yield of toluene in the reforming reaction. The gravimetric storage capacity of MCH for hydrogen is 6.1 wt% or
47 kg of H2 per m3 [542].
Many candidates for closed loop reversible chemical energy transportation or seasonal storage systems with
varying operating temperature ranges and storage capabilities have been identified, some of which are listed in
Table 63. Certain limitations of the long distance heat transport are given by its restricted storage capabilities, by the
limited temperature ranges and by the complex distribution systems required.
318
TABLE 63. ORGANIC SYSTEMS AS CETS CANDIDATES WITH ENERGY CARRIER HYDROGEN
Closed Loop CETS Temperature range (°C) Reaction enthalpy (kJ/mol)
CH4 + H2O ↔ CO + 3 H2 700–1200 250

CH4 + CO2 ↔ 2 CO + 2 H2 700–1200 247
C2H2 + H2O ↔ CH3CHO 134
C2H6 ↔ C2H4 + H2 138
C6H12 ↔ C6H6 + 3 H2 500–750 207
C7H14 ↔ C7H8 + 3 H2 450–700 215
C7H16 ↔ C7H8 + 4 H2 252
C10H18 ↔ C10H8 + 5 H2 450–700 359
10. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
10.1. EFFICIENCY
Efficiency is a factor that decisively determines the cost of the hydrogen production technology applied. A
generally accepted definition for thermal efficiency is the ratio of the HHV of hydrogen (285.9 kJ/mol) over the
total thermal energy input required for the decomposition process.
To evaluate the different hydrogen production methods, the basic thermal hydraulic relationships that govern
the efficiency of electricity generation are used in combination with electrolysis as well as that of thermochemical
processes for hydrogen production. Figure 206 shows the relationships of ΔH and ΔG, respectively, as a function of
temperature for electrolytic water splitting (Case A, left) and for a fundamental two-reaction thermochemical
method (Case B, right). As a result, the final conversion efficiency is independent of any route of conversion
technology, assuming the same conditions for input and output [543].
Both processes — electrolysis and thermochemical cycle — are governed by the same Carnot law depending
only on the upper (TH) and lower (TL) operational temperature as well as on the dissociation temperature (Td),
which is 4309 K for autothermal water splitting. The efficiency at temperatures at or above 4309 K — i.e. the ultra-
high temperature, one-step direct thermal splitting of water — is 100%. At lower temperatures, it can be determined
by [543]:
T H - TL Td
h= ´
TH Td - TC
This formula has a direct impact on the choice of technical options:
— The operational temperatures of the heat source and the process should be as high as technically feasible.
— Thermochemical processes or electricity generation at lower temperatures will always be inferior with regard
to the thermal efficiency η.
— Since the dissociation temperature is extremely high, water splitting always needs several successive
processes to provide the dissociation energy, i.e. electricity generation plus electrolysis (plus heat) or a
follow-up of different endothermic and exothermic chemical processes at lower temperatures.
The high temperature processes for the production of hydrogen are at first glance attractive due to the high
efficiency perspectives. However, all these processes also require a certain quantity of electrical or mechanical energy.
Electricity can be produced either by diverting a fraction of the heat generated from the high temperature source, from
another source or from the grid. In all cases, the electricity is produced from a heat source with an efficiency of ηel.
319
Case A: Electrolysis Case B: Thermochemical Water Splitting
FIG. 206. Analysis of hydrogen production by electrolysis and thermochemical processes [543].
An amount of work equal to W needs at least an amount of heat Q = W/ηel . In each case where the same
primary source is used to produce the work and the heat (Q) required for the splitting process, it is necessary to take
at least QT = Q + (W/ηel ) from the heat source. If these quantities are normalized to a unity of produced hydrogen,
it is possible to define a global efficiency [151]:
HHV HHV
hT = =
QT Q + (W/h el )
where HHV is the enthalpy of formation of liquid water at ambient temperature or the higher heating value. Such a
global efficiency must be compared with that of the chain:
heat source → electricity → H2 production by low temperature electrolysis
for which it is easy to estimate a global efficiency:
hT ,alkalineelectrolysis = h el * h electrolyzer
where ηelectrolyser is the electrolyser system efficiency, which can be currently fixed at 0.73.
Enhancing the efficiency for electricity generation and for electrolysis by temperature increase is one option
for enhancing hydrogen production. Electrolysis can be done remotely and decentralized or with direct coupling to
the reactor by using high temperature steam, the so-called ‘hot electrolysis’ route.
If the nuclear source is an HTGR, the complexity of the high temperature processes — either thermochemical
cycles or high temperature electrolysis — implies that capital and maintenance costs would be higher than for low
temperature electrolysis, and the financial risk would certainly be higher, because they are non-proven processes at
a commercial scale. The efficiency of the production of electricity (heat to work conversion) can be estimated in the
range 0.45 ≤ ηel ≤ 0.5.
Figure 207 shows the results of a comparative study of thermal efficiencies from four different nuclear
hydrogen production methods as a function of the temperature supplied to the process [544]. The upper curve,
representing a direct cycle advanced gas cooled reactor with supercritical CO2 as the coolant connected to HTSE,
provides the highest efficiencies over the total temperature range. The difference to the lower efficiency of HTSE
with the GT-MHR (red curve) is due to the more demanding material requirements and lower reliability. The red
curve and the blue curve represent the HTSE and the S–I cycle connected with GT-MHR. For temperatures above
800°C, the predicted efficiencies of the S–I process are similar to those of the HTSE process. The strong decrease
320
FIG. 207. Thermal efficiencies for hydrogen production with HTSE and S–I cycle [544].
toward lower temperatures for the thermochemical cycle results from the less efficient separation processes
connected with larger fluid flows. These curves intersect at ~900°C at an efficiency of slightly above 50%. The
possibility of achieving a high efficiency at lower temperatures is a significant advantage in favour of HTSE. The
efficiency of the Westinghouse HyS cycle coupled to an MHR reactor is shown in the purple curve. It is higher than
the S–I curve due to an arrangement that allows the reduction of heat losses.
The upper bound of the global efficiency of a high temperature process for hydrogen production can be
estimated to be 51% [151]. Further refinements of the flowsheet with more realistic values for component
efficiencies will lead to a lower overall efficiency. However, it will have to be greater than 33%, and preferably
36.5% or more.
10.2. HYDRICITY
Electricity is generally produced by relatively large, central station plants, although alternative technologies
may make distributed production of electricity and cogeneration of heat more feasible. However, no matter what
means of production are used, storage of electrical energy is generally costly and not particularly efficient. Much
effort has gone into battery technology, superconducting magnets, fly wheels, pumped hydro and other means of
‘storing’ electricity with no clear cost effective winner. Conversely, hydrogen offers flexibility in that it can be
stored, although with some challenges. Multiple economic approaches for storing hydrogen may become more
feasible. Electricity and hydrogen are also complementary to each other, as electricity must be produced at the time
when it is used, whereas hydrogen can be stored for stationary re-conversion into electricity or other use such as
transport fuel and mobile re-conversion for driving electric motors. When these complementary characteristics of
electricity and hydrogen are coupled with a variety of production strategies, the resulting system is extremely
flexible on a macro scale and provides a large number of degrees of freedom in designing a national energy
infrastructure by hydricity.
Current power production is normally defined as baseload (8760 h/a) or peak load (< 2000 h/a) with some
intermediate load in between. A baseload plant can have high capital costs but lower fuel and operating costs,
making nuclear ideal for this role. Alternatively, peak-shaving plants, because they operate intermittently, are
characterized by lower capital costs and by higher fuel costs (e.g. natural gas). With hydricity, however, the
321
FIG. 208. Baseload cogeneration of hydrogen and power [545].
distinctions between baseload and peak load production will disappear, and the overall system can be optimized
using different criteria. The output from a large electricity generating plant may go toward meeting the entire
demand during peak periods, but the electrical output can be directed toward generating hydrogen during off-peak
periods. Likewise, hydrogen is a potentially attractive form in which to store energy, since the hydrogen output
might be distributed or alternatively used to meet peak demand and spinning reserves through fuel cells or being
used in combustion engines as long as fuel cells are not yet technically or economically available. The cost of peak
power is significantly higher than for electricity during low demand. This fact can favour the introduction of a new
system that is predominantly focused on peak/intermediate power production, spinning reserve and load following.
Intermittent, part-time operation of hydrogen production, e.g. by using off-peak power, is economically
problematic due to the high investments of the hydrogen production facilities. In this respect, there is a direct
analogy to nuclear energy which is predominantly operated in baseload. This will also apply for large scale
hydrogen production but will only be feasible in combination with high capacity hydrogen storage to cope with
fluctuating hydrogen demands. Thus baseload cogeneration of hydrogen and power (CH2P) might be an
economically viable approach in the long term. Figure 208 illustrates the CH2P principle for a nuclear power plant
which also delivers heat for high temperature electrolysis or for thermochemical H2 production, e.g. via very high
temperature reactors (VHTRs).
Large scale CH2P technology can easily be introduced into the electricity market for substituting the
combustion of oil and natural gas. The establishment of large scale hydrogen production units may help to achieve
competitive costs. Inexpensive hydrogen (via economies of scale) will be a precondition for a mass market, but a
mass market is also required to create the incentives for investments and the development of new technologies.
Nuclear hydrogen production of the same size as that of the largest existing conventional plants (~8.5 million
Nm3/d) will need about 2400 MW(th) of high temperature heat. This is compatible with a set of 4–6 VHTR modules
(400–600 MW(th) each) assuming a conversion efficiency of 50%. With regard to the economies of scale for
nuclear hydrogen production, e.g. by the Westinghouse hybrid thermochemical process, a scaling factor of about
0.54 has been estimated. This means that an increase of the power size by a factor of four yields capital costs of only
53% per unit of capacity compared with the smaller plant.
It is obvious that this approach is highly dependent on the availability of large and inexpensive hydrogen
storage capabilities. The storage may also include hydrogen generated from regenerative energy sources and thus
may even create a symbiosis between nuclear and regenerative energy systems. Moreover, the storage requirements
for the use of hydrogen from regenerative sources are very similar to those for the CH2P system. Storage capacity
can grow stepwise from the substitution of daily peak demands toward weekly and seasonal compensations.
322
As long as CO2 is not a ‘rare resource’ (e.g. at the site of coal fired power stations), further symbioses can be
identified from the conversion of CO2 and hydrogen into methanol as a liquid transport fuel and storable medium.
In the future, methanol storage tanks could play the same role that national oil reserves currently play. It can also be
used as an alternative fuel for combustion engines as well as for fuel cells. The double use of the CO2 exhaust would
also contribute to significant reductions in CO2 emissions, which is the primary goal of a hydrogen economy and
not the production of hydrogen, per se.
The economic feasibility of CH2P generation is also dependent on the projected cost and efficiencies of fuel
cells. It is expected that the specific capital costs for fuel cells can be reduced to < US$ 100/kW(e) with an
efficiency of ~70%. Capital costs would then be much less than for gas-turbine plants (US$ 500/kW(e) and 50%
efficiency). The use of oxygen for the fuel cells could further boost their performance. The fuel cells may also be
used for traditional CHP applications when using the waste heat for district heating or industrial process heat.
For the production of transportation fuels, there are other advantages of the nuclear generated
electricity/hydrogen duality. Currently in petroleum refining, the cost of gasoline is impacted by a variety of factors.
These can include foreign production schedules, changes in shipping schedule, spot market prices, weather,
international events and many other influences. With hydricity, many of these uncertainties are eliminated. The
opportunities will be available to draw upon a stable, reliable, indigenous energy supply unaffected by many factors
that currently impact energy prices. The hydrogen and electricity produced from nuclear, also in combination with
regenerative energies, may represent an energy system that is characterized by economic stability, enhanced
security from international instability and the elimination of massive balance of payment deficits.
10.3. ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND GRID CONDITIONS
The main obstacle for abundant production of hydrogen by electrolysis is the high cost of this route compared
with petrochemical methods such as steam reforming of natural gas [546, 547]. Due to the high cost share of 80%
for electricity in conventional electrolysis, electricity must be made available at a low price level for the sake of
competitiveness. The structure of generating units is optimal if the requirements of power balance, reserve capacity,
reliability, security and other constraints are fulfilled with minimum total costs. The electricity demand fluctuates
on a daily, weekly and seasonal basis, which requires intermediate and peak electricity capacity currently supplied
by inexpensive fossil fuels. A less expensive option appears to be the use of electricity from nuclear power at off-
peak periods. This operation mode will be analysed in the following from the perspective of grid and plant
behaviour and market influence [548].
Off-peak electricity is defined by the demand duration curve of the grid under consideration. Figure 209
shows an example for baseload and partial load percentage with the typical ratio of 1:1. The overall demand is
balanced by a park of different power plant types. Nuclear power plants are operated in the baseload mode using the
advantage of low fuel cost and distribution of capital cost over continuous operation. Short temporary demand is
supplied by plants with low investment/high fuel cost shares such as combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants. As
a result, there is no off-peak situation for nuclear plants for the plant mix shown in the example. Obviously a large
share of nuclear power in the plant park is a prerequisite for nuclear off-peak electricity. A decision for deploying
nuclear plants for off-peak operation has to compare the cost of nuclear plants versus the flexible fossil-fired plants
such as gas turbine or CCGT: As fossil fuels become more expensive, the use of nuclear plants outside the baseload
region becomes more attractive.
On the other hand, the optimized selection of plants in the park is also determined by the trade-off between the
cost structures of the different plant types. A comparison between CCGT and advanced LWRs is given in Table 64
[549, 550].
Considering a simple splitting of costs into a share for the fuel and another one which is independent of
operation, the present values will result in a disadvantage of nuclear power for partial load duration shorter than
80% of the year (Fig. 210). A doubling of the fossil fuel price shifts this limit to 35%, a doubling of both fuels to
40% of the year. From this result, some partial load demand can be delivered by nuclear power plants under
economical operation, but there is obviously a need for other than nuclear sources to allow optimized operation of
the grid over the full demand range under commercial aspects. This may include the interconnection between
different grids.
323
FIG. 209. Example of a demand duration curve for a national grid [551].
TABLE 64. COST STRUCTURES IN DIFFERENT PLANT TYPES

(1 € = US $1.20)
CCGT Advanced LWR
Capital + O&M  11 25
(€/MWh (base load operation))
Fuel (€/MWh) 22 4
140,00
€/MWh
CCGT
120,00
LWR
CCGT (fuel cost doubled)

100,00
LWR (fuel cost doubled)
80,00
60,00
40,00
20,00
full load equivalent

0,00
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FIG. 210. Cost effect of partial load [548].
324
FIG. 211. Approximation of off-peak capacity [548].
FIG. 212. Example of a daily demand curve for a national grid [551].
The corresponding maximum nuclear off-peak capacity can be estimated from a linear 50% → 90%
approximation of the demand duration curve (Fig. 211). The off-peak shares compared with the overall production
are 1.1 and 10.3% for the above mentioned limit values 80 and 40%, respectively, i.e. a real off-peak share of
nuclear electricity can be expected for the case of increased fossil fuel costs and an adjusted plant park.
Although used so far in this operation mode only occasionally, nuclear power plants are capable of
following grid demand by partial load. The characteristic speed for acceptable load changes is up to 10% of full
load per minute. The full load range can be crossed in about 1 h. For faster fluctuations, the storage of the steam
generators can be used [552]. This should allow following the typical daily grid demand shown by the example
in Fig. 212 [551].
The cost of electricity for partial load operation increases for all plant types, but for the range up to the
limiting values discussed above, nuclear is the least expensive option. For the following analysis, a simplifying
assumption is used, namely that regular grid demand carries the whole constant plant costs, while off-peak
325
electricity has to cover the costs for the corresponding nuclear fuel demand only, which is not more than 15% of the
usual electricity cost as shown in Table 64.
For operation with off-peak electricity, in a first scenario, the reduced duty factor of the electrolysis system
has to be taken into account. For a full load equivalent of 40% and the linear approximation discussed above, the
hydrogen plant operates on the average at a full capacity equivalent of ≤ 30% only. This results in hydrogen
production costs which are more than twice the costs from conventional steam reforming (at present fossil fuel
costs). For a feedstock cost share of 75%, the price of feedstock has to triple to reach hydrogen production costs
from off-peak nuclear electricity. In this case, the prerequisite for the assumed plant park mix would be fulfilled.
The temporal behaviour of the electrolysis system does not favour partial load operation. It is expected that the
heating for high temperature operation has to be maintained over a longer period than the duty time from off-peak
electricity. Also there are limits for the exothermic variant of the electrolyser operation [553]. To avoid this, a second
scenario assumes continuous operation of the electrolyser plant by temporal use of electricity at the regular price. If
there is a ‘base demand’ large enough for hydrogen from electrolysis at ‘full’ price, an isolated view on hydrogen
production costs during off-peak periods results in a price competitive to that of the conventional petrochemical route.
To confirm this possibility, an analysis of — regional — hydrogen markets and applications is required.
Different schemes for using hydrogen stored for levelling source and demand fluctuations have been
discussed in connection with deployment of renewables. From the stored hydrogen, electricity can be generated by
a gas turbine. For the foreseeable future, electricity from fuel cells will not become less expensive than that from
CCGT systems.
As an approximation, the capital costs for electricity production by part time operation of a natural gas turbine
plant might be used, although the technical details vary somewhat. For calculating a lower limit for the capital
costs, an upper limit for the duty factor of 30% may be assumed. The fuel costs have to be derived for H2 generated
by off-peak electricity and stored. Using the energy content as a basis for comparison, electricity generation costs
turn out to be near the generation costs of electricity by photovoltaic systems.
As an overall conclusion, one main obstacle for the storage of electricity by intermediate load hydrogen
production is the cost of part time operation of the chain (electrolyser, turbine plant) intended for avoidance of part-
time operation of the nuclear plant. The discussion on the development of storage facilities for large volumes of
hydrogen has stimulated ideas for optimizing the use of off-peak electricity surplus from nuclear plants and from
wind (‘NuWind’) [223]. Levelling out the fluctuating generation of electricity from wind is a challenge for the grid
management when the wind share goes over 20%. The approach of NuWind has been summarized as: “Make H2
when electricity price is low; sell electricity when high; dispatch electricity when needed, otherwise make H2…;
optimize threshold price for electricity to be sold or converted”. Of course, the electrolysis and storage facilities to
be provided must handle large amounts of hydrogen: 1 GW of off-peak electrical power results in ~250 000 Nm3/h
of hydrogen to be stored if demand and off-peak electricity phases cannot be synchronized.
10.4. LARGE SCALE VERSUS SMALL SCALE AND CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
At present, most hydrogen is produced on-site in large scale, commercial SMR units dedicated to the needs of
the chemical and petrochemical industries. On-site production means flexible, on-purpose production with low or
no transportation costs, a characteristic feature of decentralized hydrogen production. In contrast, centralized
hydrogen production refers to large scale systems connected to a hydrogen delivery/distribution network
transporting the hydrogen to the point of use in gaseous or liquid state via pipeline or truck. Centralization allows
for a secure and stable supply. Centralized large facilities are usually the result of efforts to decrease specific
production costs by increasing the unit size (economies of scale) to make the product hydrogen more competitive
with other energy vectors.
The use of hydrocarbons in hydrogen production systems will require a carbon sequestration functionality in
order to realize the benefits of hydrogen production in general. The sequestration technology still needs to be
developed further and verified in the long term. The capture, collection and sequestration of CO2 from many
dispersed small reformer units appears to be prohibitively expensive and practicable only for large scale,
centralized fossil fuel handling. Distributed natural gas plants, a low cost option currently, should therefore be
replaced by electrolysis plants in the long run.
326
Also the use of nuclear primary energy as well as hydroelectric power only makes sense for centralized
hydrogen production on a large scale. Renewable energy sources (except for hydro) with their low density energy
and typically intermittent operation mode will be preferable for a dispersed system of hydrogen generation plants.
They can also be used to generate electricity and provide it to the grid at any place. The same applies to hydrogen
from biomass plants, which will be limited in size simply because of the transportation of enormous amounts of
biomass. Natural gas could be used for both centralized and decentralized production. A swift introduction of
hydrogen into the market favours central production [29], which on the other hand will exhibit the problem of
increasing the dependency on imports.
The advantage of decentralized distributive generation of hydrogen is the ability to take advantage of the
existing and widely available grids for electricity and natural gas. For future applications of hydrogen as part of the
energy economy, the installation of a network of small scale production units appears to be a good short term
approach for the introduction phase. These could be used to help usher in the hydrogen economy, which will require
some infrastructure changes for hydrogen distribution. Market prospects for stationary and mobile fuel cell
applications have already led to the development of small scale hydrogen units on the prototype level to either be
part of the required infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles or feed local grids for residential stationary fuel cell systems.
Small steam reformer or electrolyser units, which are competitors at this scale, are attractive for early low demand
stages. They require less absolute capital investment and no transport and delivery infrastructure.
On the other hand, there are drawbacks in terms of the limited efficiency and high cost of hydrogen (both
production and primary energy), because these smaller units lack the advantages of the economies of scale factor
and of the improved storage efficiency of large plants, assuming large scale demand has built up. For smaller
systems, the capital costs become more significant. Furthermore, operation and control of many small units require
an inexpensive process control and high safety standards [29]. Also, the hydrogen production plants must meet the
purity requirements of fuel cells. If connected to a pipeline grid, a problem may be seen in the mixing of H2 streams
from different sources and thus potentially different degrees of purity.
Small scale reformers, either down sized conventional units or specially designed units, are in the
development and demonstration phase and are becoming increasingly powerful and efficient. Whether POX or
autothermal reforming is an option will be dependent on economic (innovative) ways of extracting oxygen from air
or of separating nitrogen from the product hydrogen. Still at laboratory scale but highly promising is the ion
transport membrane (ITM) technology to provide efficient small scale H2 units. In areas lacking natural gas,
reforming of methanol as easily transportable and storable fuel may represent an economical way to produce H2
locally. In other small scale applications, reforming of methanol may be more cost effective, as may be electrolysis
on a very small scale.
The market for very small hydrogen capacities in the range of 50–500 Nm3/h exists but is limited. Significant
technology development has not been observed so far. On-board reforming of methanol is considered an alternative
option to hydrogen storage in a fuel cell car which could take advantage of the existing conventional transportation
fuel distribution network. Decentralized electrolysers which would be suitable for charging household vehicles
exist as a mature technology. Consumer household vehicles can be charged during off-peak house to get less
expensive hydrogen from electrolysis. However, this will result in an inefficient ‘well to wheels’ use of energy
since it requires that energy be transformed from many forms. This hydrogen will still be very expensive compared
with hydrogen produced by steam–methane reforming for which the required heat comes from natural gas. With
respect to the planned network of hydrogen refuelling stations, a comparative cost analysis study has shown that up
to capacities of 600 Nm3/h, the delivery of liquid hydrogen by tank truck represents the most economic
option [107].
10.5. MARKET INTRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN
The technologies relevant to the hydrogen market are production, storage, transportation and consumption. Of
the production technologies to be considered, some have matured for use in economic assessment models like
steam reforming and low temperature electrolysis. Other processes such as thermochemical and high temperature
electrolytic water splitting still need to be developed. Hydrogen production from biomass or waste is expected to
take place but not on a large scale.
327
The most economical way of producing hydrogen is currently steam–methane reforming. With increasing
costs of natural gas, however, this process becomes less competitive, and the generation from coal may be more
attractive. The cost of hydrogen production from centralized methane reforming is about the same as for gasoline.
It is the distribution costs that make hydrogen expensive. The most expensive production method is electrolysis
because of the high electricity cost. This may change with rising hydrocarbon prices and CO2 taxation in an anyhow
largely environmentally regulated market. Distribution costs must be reduced.
An integrated system could supply electricity directly from the reactor. Electricity supply to the process
application will result in a revenue loss from the sale of electricity. The revenue loss may not exceed the increase in
costs to the process application product due to external electricity purchase.
Additional benefits can be expected if integrating electrolysis and thermochemical hydrogen production due
to their unique advantages of decentralized off-peak and centralized baseload production. Thermochemical
production is competitive near larger cities, whereas decentralized electrolysis has lower costs farther away from
big cities. Thermochemical production also becomes more competitive with increasing capacities. Electrolysis can
take advantage of lower off-peak electricity prices as well as of intermittent and decentralized supplies of electricity
from renewable sources [224].
Present hydrogen markets are predominantly found for captive hydrogen in the chemical and petrochemical
industries. But also the establishment of new markets is on the rise, in the first stage as niche markets, e.g. in the
transportation sector, and with a demonstration character. A successful market penetration requires high quality
technologies, a corresponding infrastructure, concomitant development of policy regimes and acceptance by
consumers. Involving the existing industrial distribution system for hydrogen could lower the barrier for
infrastructure buildup and support market introduction.
According to a 2003 IEA analysis, hydrogen may acquire a significant market share only if effective policies
for CO2 mitigation and energy security are in place and if costs are reduced considerably [494]. The objective of the
International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE) founded in 2003 is the advancement of policies and
common codes and standards that can accelerate the cost effective transition to a global hydrogen economy to
enhance energy security and environmental protection. Apart from through policies and regulations, cost
competitiveness can be achieved through a combination of further technology development, more efficient supply
chain management and the scale effect of large production volumes.
For stationary fuel cell heat and power systems, the most important market segments are small PEFC or
SOFC systems for either residential CHP or UPS systems in the range of 1–10 kW, and larger systems in the range
of 10–2000 kW, using primarily PAFCs and MCFCs, with applications in commercial buildings and as backup
power units. With regard to mobile fuel cell applications, important competitive niche markets are developing. One
example is the APU for on-board power supply. The existing road maps and public/private partnerships on both the
international and regional levels focus primarily on maturing the technology through research, development and
demonstration. The main driver for all these markets is the potential to contribute significantly to CO2 mitigation
and energy security in the medium and long terms [494].
10.6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
10.6.1. Economic evaluation
The economics of hydrogen production depend on a wide variety of parameters such as scale and availability
of the plant, cost of feedstock, efficiency of the technology employed, state of development (i.e. early stage or
mature) and physical distance to end use markets (centralized or distributed production) [534].
A lot of cost analyses can be found in the existing literature, but they are not always comparable. Many
aspects of technology costs and performance have not been independently verified, but at least some trends in
production cost economics can be observed. Economies of scale clearly apply to large steam–methane reforming
plants, with a clear operating cost advantage over smaller units designed for distributed hydrogen production
applications. The decisive factor for the centralized SMR production cost is the price of natural gas, which has
shown strong variations in recent years. Various uncertainties, idealizations and simplified underlying assumptions
were used in the cost analysis, so the results provide more qualitative trends.
328
The factor ‘efficiency’ is commonly used to compare hydrogen production processes. But it is not the final
criterion to select the process. Furthermore, advanced processes often imply high investments, such that energy
consumption for the process may not necessarily be the first cost item. Final decisions will be made on production
cost grounds, which stresses the importance of reliable estimations. They will provide the basis for directing further
R&D studies helping to optimize the system design that could make a given process profitable.
Several comprehensive life cycle analyses have been conducted in recent years to quantify the external costs
associated with all forms of energy production and utilization. External costs, although often not considered in
traditional economic analyses, are accrued by society in terms of environmental damage and health impacts over
the lifetime of the energy system. The European Union project ExternE (External Costs of Energy) [554] was
dedicated to the assessment of external costs related to power production and transportation. Among other results,
it has been concluded from the studies that nuclear power has the lowest external costs comparison with coal, oil,
and natural gas based power [88].
Within the European coordination action INNOHYP, conversion efficiencies for various routes of
hydrogen production considering different types of primary energy have been investigated [34]. Results mainly
based on a literature evaluation are shown in Table 65. In addition to capital cost disadvantages because of their
size, smaller plants tend to have higher feedstock and utility costs, lower conversion efficiencies, and higher per-
unit costs for labour and other operations and maintenance costs. Smaller distributed units are likely to have a
lower capacity factor. The distributed SMR production cost is ~80% higher than the central SMR production
cost. The substantially lower feedstock costs for coal drive the relatively lower overall production cost for coal
gasification [534].
In biomass gasification, life cycle CO2 emissions may be substantially less. The energy density of the biomass
feedstock is substantially less than that of coal. And it may not be practical to build a biomass gasification unit with
a hydrogen production capacity above a certain size and supply sufficient quantities of biomass to the plant site.
The large scale production of hydrogen from water splitting processes provides a significant synergy in
marketing the by-product oxygen. An area of application is, for example, coal gasification to avoid deployment of
expensive air separation units.
TABLE 65. ELECTRICAL AND THERMAL EFFICIENCIES OF CONVERSION

FOR DIFFERENT HYDROGEN PRODUCTION ROUTES [34]
Conversion route Conversion efficiency (%)
Wind + electrolysis 70
Tidal + electrolysis 70
Hydroelectric + electrolysis 70
Nuclear heat +SMR+CCS 61
SMR+CCS 58
Thermal cracking 46
Nuclear heat +thermochemical cycles 45
Coal gasification + CCS 32
Nuclear heat + electrolysis 28
Solar PV+electrolysis 10.5
Solar photocatalysis 8
Solar biomass 0.5
Nuclear heat + SMR 76
Solar heat + SMR 61
SMR 76
Coal gasification 59
Solar heat + thermochemical cycles 35
Note: SMR — steam–methane reforming; CCS — carbon capture and storage; PV — photovoltaic.
329
Production costs for hydrogen are mainly determined by the investment costs. The cost structure is influenced
by the production method and the plant size. The share of fuel cost, for example, is in the order of 50–68% in large
scale SMRs, whereas it is 28–40% in small reformer units. The cost of electrolytic hydrogen is dominated by the
electricity cost (75–80%). In biomass gasification, fuel costs are about 40%. Regarding the development of
feedstock prices, the price of natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade, whereas the price of coal is
anticipated to remain stable. Electricity costs are strongly dependent on feedstock price fluctuations, in particular
fossil fuels.
Table 66 shows advantages and disadvantages of various sources of energy in terms of cost, climate impact,
efficiency and availability. Nuclear is one of the least expensive low-carbon energy sources and is less vulnerable to
fuel price changes than are the fossil energy sources [555].
Advanced nuclear fuelled thermochemical processes are unproven, but they may provide low per unit
production costs in the future. The lower feedstock cost includes the cost of nuclear fuel, net of any co-product
benefits from oxygen sales. Operating and maintenance costs include decommissioning costs in addition to the
usual labour, taxes, security and other costs.
A future system may work with electrolytic hydrogen generated from nuclear power [489] where the
hydrogen is produced when electricity demand is low, stored and then re-converted to electricity in times of peak
demand. Steam price increases with increasing natural gas prices; on the other hand, the price of steam produced by
nuclear power remains constant as gas prices go up. Even in the more pessimistic case regarding cost production
from nuclear, both methods are competitive (at the gas prices at the time of the study, early 2006). As the prices of
natural gas go back up, the price of steam production from nuclear production would be even more competitive.
The roundtrip efficiency from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity strongly depends on the total
system. LWRs combined with low temperature electrolysis will achieve a hydrogen production efficiency of not
more than ~25%. This figure, however, can be raised both with advanced nuclear plants offering higher thermal-to-
electric conversion efficiencies and with changing from low to high temperature electrolysis providing steam at the
800°C. In addition, if HTSE can be operated in the reverse mode as a fuel cell to produce electricity, the same
equipment could be used, lowering the capital cost investment. Performance will be maximal if oxygen is used
rather than air. In parallel to the fuel cell plants, highly efficient hydrogen–oxygen gas turbines for steam generation
could be operated to meet peak demand. For economic reasons, the system requires inexpensive storage of both
hydrogen and oxygen.
A candidate for a low cost storage facility is large scale underground storage in geological formations with
sufficiently low permeation rates similar to today’s storage of natural gas. Oxygen storage might be done in a
similar way, but still needs to be demonstrated. Transportation of the hydrogen still appears to be a comparatively
expensive part of the chain and could dominate the cost of delivered hydrogen. This can be minimized by focusing
on centralized production, storage and use of the hydrogen for peak electricity production. Roundtrip efficiencies of
around 60% might be achievable [489].
10.6.2. Cost estimates
The following two tables contain the results of cost estimation studies for two conventional processes of
hydrogen production: steam–methane reforming and coal gasification. A comparison is made between state of the
art plants and those anticipated for the year 2025.
Characteristic data of hydrogen production by steam reforming are given in Table 67 for two different plant
capacities, 1000 and 100 000 Nm3/h, showing that with increasing plant size, the specific costs of hydrogen are
significantly reduced. No major further reduction is anticipated due to the only minor technological progress
expected in the future [556].
The characteristic data of hydrogen production in Table 68 are based on an autothermal hard coal gasification
plant which also consumes 5% of electrical energy. For the data anticipated for the future, it was assumed that the
gasification process can be optimized by lowering the fuel input by 15% and the electricity input by 10%, thus
raising the efficiency from 59 to 69% [556].
Exact hydrogen production costs from thermochemical cycles or high temperature electrolysis cannot be
given at present, since these methods are still at an early stage of development where uncertainties are still large.
Detailed flowsheets are necessary. Investment costs for the production plant strongly depend on the technological
solutions applied and the materials selected.
330
TABLE 66. ENERGY SOURCES FOR ELECTRICITY GENERATION [555]
Projected cost Proven reserves

Cost in 2005 GHG emissions Efficiency Fuel price
Energy source Technology (for cost estimate) in 2030 at annual
(€/MWh) (kg CO2/MWh)a (%) sensitivity
(€/MWh) a production
Natural gas Open-cycle gas turbine 45–70 55–85 440 40 Very high 64 a
Combined-cycle gas turbine, CCGT 35–45 40–55 400 50 Very high
Oil Diesel engine 70–80 80–95 550 30 Very high 42 a
Coal Pulverized fuel with flue gas desulphurization 30–40 45–60 800 40–45 Medium 155 a
Fluidized-bed combustion, CFBC 35–45 50–65 800 40–45 Medium
IGCC 40–50 55–70 750 48 Medium
Nuclear Light water reactor 40–45 40–45 15 33 Low 85 a
Biomass Biomass generation plant 25–85 25–75 30 30–60 Medium Renewable
Wind Onshore 35–175 28–170 30 95–98 Zero ∞
35–110 28–80
Offshore 50–170 50–150 10
60–150 40–120
Hydro Large plant 25–95 25–90 20 Zero ∞
Small plant (<10 MW) 45–90 40–80 5 95–98
Solar Photovoltaic 140–430 55–260 100 — Zero ∞
a
Regarding 2030 costs for fossil fuel based generation, additional costs for CO2 emissions have been calculated and added, on the basis of €20 and €30/tCO2 , to the current generation costs.
331
TABLE 67. HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY STEAM REFORMING AND ITS
PROSPECTIVE [556]
State of the art Scenario 2025
Technical data
Rated power natural gas (kW) 4 500 405 000 4 275 385 000
Hydrogen production (Nm3/h) 1 000 100 000 1 000 100 000
System pressure (MPa) 1.6 3.0 1.6 3.0
3
Water demand (m /h) 2.1 58 2.1 58
Efficiency (%) 67 74 70 78
Lifetime (a) 20 20 20 20
Utilization (h/a) 8 000 8 000 8 000 8 000
Cost
Investment (€/kW of H2) 675 335 675 335
a
Specific total cost (€ Ct/kWh of H2) 3.2 2.3 3.1 2.2a
a
Based on a natural gas prize of 1.4 € Ct/kWh, not including potential CO2 taxation or sequestration
costs.
TABLE 68. HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY GASIFICATION OF HARD COAL

AND ITS PROSPECTS [556]
State of the art Scenario 2025
Technical data
Rated power hard coal (MW) 486 413
Electricity demand (MW) 25 22
Hydrogen production (Nm3/h) 100 000 100 000
System pressure (MPa) 5.0 5.0
3
Water demand (m /h) 84 84
Efficiency (%) 59 69
Lifetime (a) 20 20
Utilization (h/a) 8 000 8 000
Cost
Investment (€/kW of H2) 1 400 1 400
Specific total cost (€ Ct/kWh of H2) 3.8 3.4a
a
Not including potential CO2 taxation or sequestration costs.
JAEA evaluated the steam reforming process flowsheet and hydrogen production cost from a nuclear and an
industrial (conventional) plant [557]. The plants assume similar production rates of hydrogen, as given in Table 69.
The PSA for hydrogen purification includes three stages in order to yield a product gas of 99.99% pure hydrogen.
The heat energy is provided by combustion of natural gas in the industrial plant and by helium heating in the nuclear
plant. The nuclear plant is based on an HTGR sized at 380 MW(th), corresponding to the given hydrogen
production rate. Economic parameters assume a cost of natural gas of US$ 0.19.5/Nm3, a discount rate of 10% and
an 8% return on investment. The results of production costs are summarized in Table 70, which indicates that the
nuclear plant could have a 15% production cost advantage over the conventional plant.
Preliminary technical and economic estimates [559] of hydrogen production in advanced processes with
HTGR heat and electric power demonstrate that SMR can compete with conventional technologies at current gas
332
TABLE 69. PRODUCTION COST FOR HYDROGEN FROM CONVENTIONAL
AND NUCLEAR STEAM REFORMING [558]
Industrial (conventional) plant Nuclear HTGR plant
Hydrogen production rate (t/h) 17.9 25.9

Hydrogen product purity (%) 99.99 99.99
3
Natural gas feed rate (Nm /h) 131 118 82 193
Nuclear heat rate (MW(th)) — 380
Nuclear heat temperature (°C) — 950
Process reforming temperature (°C) 871 871
a
Process plant construction cost (US$) 305 million 309 million
a
Hydrogen production cost
(US$/kg of H2) 160 137
(US$/Nm3 of H2) 14.3 12.2
a
Original estimates were made in Japanese yen, converted at 1 US$ = 110 yen (August 2004).
TABLE 70. PRODUCTION COST AND FINAL COST FOR HYDROGEN FROM DIFFERENT
PROCESSES [558]
Cost (€/GJ)
Process hydrogen from Production mode Final (incl. storage,
Feedstock Production
delivery, dispensing)
Methane reforming centralized 3 5–8 22–30
(3 M Nm3/d)
Methane reforming decentralized 4–5 7–12 28–33
Coal gasification centralized 1.2 13–16 32–37
Biomass gasification intermediate 2.4 17–22 33–40
Electrolysis decentralized 14 20–25 35–40
Gasoline refinery 2.5 6 7
prices even without taking into account the potential taxes for CО2 emissions. In view of the tendency for further
gas price increases, the most economically efficient technology will be thermochemical water decomposition in a
S–I cycle. SMR and thermochemical water decomposition can compete with conventional low temperature
electrolysis. The advantages of HTSE are not yet clear and will ultimately depend on the capital costs of heat
application for electricity production.
Estimates were performed for processes which may be implemented with a helium temperature at the reactor
outlet not higher than 950°С. A temperature increase up to 1000°С allows an enhanced efficiency of hydrogen
production processes, but increases the cost of creating a safe reactor plant. Therefore a thorough
technical–economic analysis is to be performed when selecting the temperature level at the reactor outlet and
hydrogen production process pattern.
Based on the above efficiencies given in Table 65, Fig. 213 provides the results on the basis of the energy
required to produce 1 kg of H2. In Fig. 214, the results were translated into estimated hydrogen production costs for
the different current and future hydrogen production routes [34].
10.6.3. Cost estimate modelling
In several countries, activities on the projected economic potential of hydrogen production and cost
assessments are being performed which help to direct and prioritize research efforts, and to compare and finally
333
FIG. 213. Primary energy required for hydrogen production based on estimated conversion efficiency values. Methods in red represent
future high temperature routes [34].
FIG. 214. Estimated hydrogen production costs. Values in red represent future high temperature routes [34].
334
select the most appropriate processes. Some countries have already developed their own models such as the
German–French E3-database, the hydrogen cost analysis model in Canada, and other models in the USA such as the
H2A modelling tool developed by the USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and renewable Energy (EERE). Two
international developments are described in some more detail below.
10.6.3.1. GIF G4Econs
Guidelines for estimating costs have been published by the Generation IV Economic Modelling Working
Group [560]. Within those guidelines, a methodology also has been established for calculating costs of non-
electricity products from nuclear energy. The methodology separates costs into capital costs and annual costs.
The Generation IV Excel Calculation of Nuclear Systems (G4Econs) software is an “integrated nuclear
energy economic model” (INEEM) consisting of several nuclear–economic submodels. The modelling effort will
be a continuous activity of the GIF Economics Modelling Working Group to develop and further improve and
refine a consistent cost estimation methodology for all Generation IV reactor systems [560]. G4Econs comprises
models for capital investment/production costs, nuclear fuel cycle, O&M, optimal scale and energy products.
Construction costs are integrated into capital costs, which are borrowed, and amortized over a set time period.
Operation and maintenance costs are included in the annual costs, which are recurring over the lifetime of the
system.
The working group also suggests the use of the ‘power credit method’ for costs that may be associated with
dual-product and electricity generation. This method has been adopted by the IAEA to evaluate the economics of
nuclear desalination. The power credit method first calculates total expenses and energy from a single-purpose
electricity producing reactor and derives a cost per kilowatt-hour. Then the amount of non-electric product and
energy, and the total expenses of the dual-purpose plant are calculated. Electricity production from a dual-purpose
reactor is lower than for a single-purpose reactor, but the costs for the dual-purpose plant are higher [561].
10.6.3.2. IAEA HEEP
The IAEA has taken the first step toward the development of a common cost assessment software for nuclear
hydrogen called the Hydrogen Economic Evaluation Program (HEEP). Its structure and features are similar to those
of the existing DEEP software (for desalination) [562], which is currently being applied in 50 Member States for
economic evaluation and screening analyses for country specific nuclear desalination systems. The beta version of
the HEEP software was released in January 2010. The IAEA will maintain the software, facilitate its distribution
and coordinate further development.
(A) Development of HEEP
HEEP [563] is planned as a common cost assessment tool to consider source of energy to distribution of
hydrogen to end user, including its production and storage. HEEP uses a discounted cash flow model that calculates
the ‘levelized cost of hydrogen’. The HEEP program consists of three modules: (i) the preprocessing module,
(ii) the executing module, and (iii) the postprocessing module. The graphical user interface (GUI) provides a user
friendly feature to the preprocessing and postprocessing modules of HEEP. It is possible to model and analyse a
number of combinations among sources of heat, various processes generating hydrogen, and different methods to
store and distribute hydrogen.
A wide range of hydrogen production plants adopting different processes such as electrolysis, high
temperature electrolysis, low and high temperature thermochemical, etc., can be considered. It is also possible to
carry out economic evaluation of plants operating on conventional processes using fossil fuel. The source heat
and/or electricity required by these hydrogen generating processes can be provided by a power plant, which can be
a nuclear power plant. The hydrogen generation process plant may be collocated with the power plant or can be
isolated from the power plant and receive energy from the commercial grid. In the area of energy source for
hydrogen production, HEEP will consider the whole spectrum of nuclear reactors that are appropriate for
connection to a hydrogen plant, for instance PWRs and PHWRs for the lower temperature range, FBRs and SCWRs
for the medium temperature range, and MSRs and VHTRs for the high temperature range. The current version of
HEEP can consider a nuclear power plant delivering thermal energy alone, delivering electricity alone, or
335
FIG. 215. Example screenshot from HEEP [564].
delivering both thermal energy as well as electricity to a hydrogen generation plant. HEEP can also model various
storage conditions and methods of transporting hydrogen to the end user. An example of a screenshot from HEEP
in Fig. 215 shows the nuclear hydrogen generation flowsheet.
Communication between the IAEA and the GIF Hydrogen Production Project Management Board is aimed at
coordinating their respective efforts.
(B) Preliminary benchmarking of HEEP
Work has been initiated by a number of agencies to estimate the costs of hydrogen production. Results of a life
cycle cost analysis of the reference design for a commercial scale HTSE plant driven by a high temperature gas
cooled nuclear reactor are provided in a report published by INL [565]. KAERI has published results of a
preliminary study on cost estimates for hydrogen generated by the S–I thermochemical process coupled with the
modular nuclear reactors generating very high temperature as source of thermal energy [566]. The hydrogen
production costs using the information provided in the KAERI publication is re-calculated using HEEP and results
are compared with those reported in the publication to carry out benchmarking of the HEEP. This preliminary
benchmarking has demonstrated that the elements of hydrogen costs reproduced by HEEP were comparable with
the estimates of earlier studies.
(C) Inputs and assumptions for HEEP benchmarking
Input data required for execution of HEEP were prepared based on the information provided in the KAERI
report such as technical features of plants, time and cost required for construction and operation of plants, real
discount rate assumed, etc. Table 71 provides various technical features, time periods and cost components of
different configurations considered for HEEP benchmarking.
336
TABLE 71. HEEP BENCHMARKING CASE STUDY [566]
Cases Case I Case II Case III Case IV

Discount rate (%) 5 5 5 5
Nuclear power plant details
Nuclear power plant configuration 4 × 600 MW(th) PMR 4 × 200 MW(th) PMR 10 × 250 MW(th) PBR 4 × 200 MW(th) PBR
Capacity factor (%) 90 90 90 90
Availability factor (%) 100 100 100 100
Construction period (a) 3 3 3 3
Operating life (a) 60 60 60 60
Cooling before decommissioning (a) 1 1 1 1
Decommissioning period (a) 9 9 9 9
Spent fuel cooling period (a) 2 2 2 2
Waste cooling period (a) 2 2 2 2
Capital cost (M US$) 1835.8 867.58 2944.45 1088.75
Annual fuel cost 120.6 40.2 112.5 36.0
O&M cost (M US$) 38.0 16.8 56.4 19.5
Decommissioning cost  10 10 10 10
(% of total capital cost)
Hydrogen generation plant details
Rated hydrogen generation (t/a) 216 000 72 000 225 000 72 000
Non-process electricity (MW(e)) 815 272 849 272
Construction period (a) 3 3 3 3
Operating life (a) 60 60 60 60
Cooling before decommissioning (a) 1 1 1 1
Decommissioning period (a) 9 9 9 9
Capacity factor (%) 90 90 90 90
Availability factor (%) 100 100 100 100
Capital cost (M US$) 1 410 673.33 1 564.75 693.15
O&M cost (M US$) 77 37 77 37
Four different cases resulting from four different configurations of nuclear plants delivering thermal energy to
the S–I thermochemical process have been studied. These four configurations of nuclear power plant are (CASE I)
four modular units of 600 MW(th) PMR, (CASE II) four modular units of 200 MW(th) PMR, (CASE III) ten
modular units of 250 MW(th) PBR and (CASE IV) four modular units of 200 MW(th) PBR.
In this study, it was assumed that a nuclear power plant would generate no electricity and the entire heat
produced by a nuclear reactor would be utilized by the thermochemical process generating hydrogen. In the KAERI
publication, the availability factor for both plants was not indicated, but for HEEP benchmarking an availability of
100% for the nuclear power plant and hydrogen generating station has been considered.
The S–I thermochemical plant coupled to a 4 × 600 MW(th) nuclear power plant is assumed to be generating
216 000 t of hydrogen annually at an efficiency of 45%. The hydrogen generation capacity of plants coupled to
other nuclear power plant configurations is assumed to be directly proportional to the thermal energy generated.
The time periods for cooling before decommissioning (period between end of plant operation to start of
decommissioning), spent fuel cooling and decommissioning period indicated in Table 71 are numbers assumed for
this exercise, as these time periods were not mentioned in the Korean study.
337
It is indicated in the KAERI publication that the annual non-process electricity costs of the hydrogen
generating plant coupled to a nuclear power plant with four modular units of 600 MW(th) is 428.4 M US$. The
non-process electric power given in the above table has been worked out for electricity rates of 0.06 US$/kWh and
a plant capacity factor of 90%, as indicated in the KAERI publication. Since the nuclear power plant is not
generating electricity, it is assumed that the electricity required by the hydrogen production plant is bought from the
grid at market rate of 0.06 US$/kWh. The electricity required for hydrogen plants coupled to other configurations
is assumed to be directly proportional to the total thermal energy and thus to the annual hydrogen generation.
The KAERI publication gives capital costs for six major sub-systems of both the nuclear power plant and the
hydrogen generating plant. The capital costs for the primary and secondary heat transport system are given
separately as a common cost component of the nuclear power plant and hydrogen generating plant. The report also
gives the costs for supplementary capitalized support and contingency requirements as a common cost for both
plants. However, for HEEP benchmarking calculations, primary and secondary heat transport system costs are
considered as a component of the capital costs of the nuclear power plant. Seventy-five per cent of the contingency
and capitalized supplementary costs has been considered as a component of the nuclear power plant capital costs
and the remaining 25% as a component of the capital costs of the hydrogen generating plant. A real discount rate of
5% is assumed, as indicated in KAERI publications.
The HEEP program needs input pertaining to the hydrogen storage facility. However, hydrogen storage was
not considered in the Korean study. Hence, when estimating the hydrogen costs in HEEP, the storage period and
storage pressure for hydrogen storage system are considered to be zero. Moreover, decommissioning costs are also
considered to be zero, as these also were not considered in the Korean study.
The HEEP program is designed to estimate the comprehensive costs of hydrogen from its generation until it
is delivered to the end user. This includes hydrogen transportation costs. In this benchmarking study, vehicular
transportation of gaseous hydrogen has been considered. The output from HEEP gives the contribution of the
nuclear power plant, hydrogen generation, storage costs and hydrogen transportation. For the sake of comparing the
results of HEEP with those reported in the Korean publication, the contribution of hydrogen transportation is
deducted from the total levelized cost of hydrogen.
Table 72 summarizes technical features, various time periods and cost components of vehicular transportation
of hydrogen considered for HEEP benchmarking.
TABLE 72. ASSUMPTIONS FOR GASEOUS HYDROGEN

TRANSPORTATION IN HEEP BENCHMARKING [566]
Vehicle capacity 180 kg
Average speed of vehicle 40 km/h
Mileage of vehicle 2.5 km/L
Loading–unloading time per trip 2h
Procurement period of vehicle 3a
Life of vehicle 15 a
Refurbishment cost 100%
Number of refurbishments 4
Capital cost per vehicle 100 000 US$
Annual salary of one driver 150 000 US$
Number of drivers per vehicle 3
Price of fuel 0.75 US$/liter
Routine maintenance of vehicle 1% of total cost
338
TABLE 73. RESULTS OF HEEP BENCHMARKING FOR LEVELIZED COST [566]
Levelized cost of hydrogen (US$/kg)

HEEP results
Nuclear
Case Hydrogen KAERI
Total levelized Nuclear Hydrogen power plant
generation results
cost of power plant transportation + hydrogen
and storage
hydrogen component cost component generation
component
and storage
Case I 5.07 1.23 3.02 4.10 4.25 4.06
Case II 5.82 1.62 3.38 4.10 5.00 5.56
Case III 5.36 1.50 3.03 4.10 4.53 4.48
Case IV 6.02 1.79 3.40 4.10 5.19 5.86
Table 73 gives the levelized cost of hydrogen for the four cases described earlier.
The second column of Table 73 gives the total levelized cost of hydrogen. The next three columns indicate the
cost of the components of the nuclear power plant, the hydrogen generation plant and the hydrogen storage and
transportation facilities. Since in the KAERI study hydrogen transportation was not considered, the sum of the costs
in the third and fourth column should be used for comparing results.
10.7. ROLE OF NUCLEAR HYDROGEN IN THE ENERGY MARKET
Nuclear futures will likely include markets beyond baseload electricity. All low carbon options have high
capital costs and low operating costs, which is expensive for variable electricity production. There is an enormous
existing market potential for nuclear hydrogen, including the savings in CO2 emissions and other pollutants. As
hydrogen from natural gas is the main competitor in this area, it is understood that nuclear has to compete with
natural gas.
Nuclear power is less vulnerable to fuel price changes than is coal or gas fired generation, as uranium
represents a limited part of the total cost of generating nuclear electricity and is based on sources which are
sufficient for many decades and widely distributed around the globe. Nuclear energy is one of the least expensive
sources of low carbon energy and also has relatively stable costs. The next generation of nuclear reactors should
reduce these costs further.
All the systems related to the Generation IV concepts will need important R&D expenditures; they can be
justified only in the context of very large scale hydrogen production, for which the basic economic rules will apply.
Solar and wind power are expensive and intermittent but very clean. Coal power is dirty but inexpensive and easy
to dispatch. Nuclear power is also distributable on a large scale, relatively inexpensive and carbon free, but
radioactive waste storage and proliferation risks are unique challenges that warrant serious consideration. No
energy option will be the least expensive and the cleanest and the safest.
339
.
Appendix
PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN
A.1. GENERAL
Hydrogen is the first element in the periodic table with the atomic number 1. It is the lightest and most
abundant element in the universe representing 75 mass% or 90 vol% of all matter. On Earth, it is mostly found in
compounds with almost every other element. Considering just the compound water, the hydrogen content bound in
the total water supply of the world is in the order of 1014 t. Hydrogen exists also as a free element in the atmosphere,
but only to the extent of less than 1 ppm (by volume). Free ionic hydrogen is more reactive than molecular
hydrogen, the non-polar-covalent compound of two hydrogen atoms. In 1776, Henry Cavendish identified
hydrogen as a distinct species. It was given the name ‘water maker’ by Lavoisier seven years later, who proved that
water was composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen, with a standard atomic mass of 1.0078225 u, has three naturally occurring isotopes. The most
common hydrogen isotope is the stable protium (1H, H) with an abundance in nature of more than 99.98%. The
second isotope is the stable deuterium (2H, D) or heavy hydrogen discovered in 1932 by Urey. Deuterium has a
natural fraction of 0.014% with physical and chemical properties slightly different from 1H. Nearly all D in natural
hydrogen is in combination with hydrogen atoms, the diatomic HD with a fraction of 0.032% in natural hydrogen;
the existence of molecular D is highly improbable. The third hydrogen isotope is the radioactive tritium (3H, T) with
a half-life of 12.3 a, discovered in 1934 by Rutherford. But also the short lived isotopes 4H, 5H, and 7H have been
synthesized in the meantime.
A.2. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN
Hydrogen can be considered an ideal gas over a wide temperature range and even at high pressures (up to
~10 MPa). At standard temperature and pressure conditions, it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-toxic, non-
corrosive, non-metallic diatomic gas, which is in principle physiologically not dangerous. One of its most important
characteristics is its low density, which makes it necessary for any practical applications to either compress the
hydrogen or liquefy it. It is positively buoyant above a temperature of 22 K, i.e. over (almost) the whole
temperature range of its gaseous state.
Hydrogen gas is highly diffusive and highly buoyant; it rapidly mixes with the ambient air upon release. The
diffusion velocity is proportional to the diffusion coefficient and varies with temperature according to Tn with n in
the range of 1.72–1.8. Corresponding diffusion rates of hydrogen in air are larger by about a factor of 4 compared
to those of air in air. The rising velocity under the influence of positively buoyant forces cannot be determined
directly, since they are dependent on the density difference between hydrogen and air as well as on drag and friction
forces, shape and size of the rising gas volume, and atmospheric turbulence. The positive buoyancy of hydrogen is
a favourable safety effect in unconfined areas, but it can cause a hazardous situation in (partially) confined spaces
where the hydrogen can accumulate, e.g. underneath a roof. Both diffusion and buoyancy determine the rate at
which the gas mixes with the ambient air. The rapid mixing of hydrogen with the air is a safety concern, since it
leads very soon to flammable mixtures, which on the other hand — for the same reason — also will quickly dilute
to the non-flammable range.
Because of its small size, its small molecular weight and its low viscosity, hydrogen can cause a problem with
respect to the propensity of the gas to leak at a larger molecular flow rate than other gases. Diffusion in small
amount is even possible through intact materials, in particular organic materials, which may lead to gas
accumulation in confined spaces. Leakage rates are higher by a factor of 50 than those for water and by a factor of
10 compared to nitrogen. The addition of an odorant or colourant would ease the detection of small leaks; however,
this is not practicable in most situations, and not feasible for liquefied hydrogen.
Hydrogen gas dissolved in liquids will permeate into adjoining vessel materials. At elevated temperatures and
pressures, hydrogen attacks mild steels severely, causing decarburization and embrittlement. This is a serious
341
concern in any situation involving storage or transfer of hydrogen gas under pressure. Proper material selection, e.g.
special alloy steels, and technology is required to prevent embrittlement.
Hydrogen coexists in two different forms, ortho and para hydrogen, whose partition is dependent on the
temperature. Normal hydrogen at room temperature is 75% ortho (nuclear spins aligned) and 25% para (spins anti-
aligned). In the lower temperature range of less than 80 K, para hydrogen is the more stable form. At 20 K, the
thermal equilibrium concentrations are 99.821% para and 0.179% ortho. The transition takes place over a longer
period (about 3–4 days), until a new equilibrium state is reached. However, magnetic impurities and also small
oxygen concentrations are able to catalyse ortho–para conversions raising the rate by several orders of magnitude
(very good: Fe(OH)3) to the order of hours. Any concentration of either spin state can be created at any temperature
through the action of catalysts. Most physical properties are differing only slightly between the two spin states.
Most important is the large energy difference between the two varieties, which results in major differences for the
specific heats and thermal conductivities. The presence of a radiation field results in the generation of free hydrogen
atoms and ions, which also act as catalysts before recombining. The recombination on the other hand produces
excess ortho hydrogen.
Hydrogen also exhibits a positive Thompson–Joule effect at temperatures above 193 K, the inversion
temperature. It means that the temperature of the hydrogen gas increases upon depressurization, which may lead to
ignition. For example, the temperature change is six degrees if a sudden pressure drop from 20 MPa to ambient
pressure takes place. The chance of a spontaneous ignition just by that effect, however, is small; an explosion is
more likely to occur because of electrostatic charging of dust particles during the depressurization or auto-ignition
at high temperatures.
Liquid hydrogen (LH2) has the advantage of extreme purity and under certain conditions the more economic
type for storage and distribution (see Section 9), however, at the expense of a significant energy consumption of
about one third of its heat of combustion for liquefaction. A drawback is the unavoidable loss by boiloff which is
typical to maintain the cold temperature in the tank. The evaporation rate is even enhanced when ortho hydrogen is
stored. The heat liberated during the ortho–para conversion at 20 K is huge at 670 kJ/kg compared with a figure of
446 kJ/kg for the latent heat of vaporization at the same temperature. This represents a safety issue requiring a
design of the hydrogen loop that is able to remove the heat of conversion in a safe manner.
For open LH2 pools, it needs to be considered that cold hydrogen gas is less volatile than ambient gas and thus
more prone to the formation of a flammable mixture with air. Furthermore, LH2 quickly contaminates itself due to
condensation and solidification of air constituents, which can particularly lead to oxygen enriched zones to form
shock-explosive mixtures. In confined areas, an additional hazard is given by the fact that due to the volume
increase by a factor of 845, when LH2 is heated up to ambient conditions, the local atmosphere may change
drastically. In an enclosed space, final pressure may rise to 172 MPa, which certainly overpressurizes systems to
bursting.
A further temperature decrease below the boiling point eventually results in mixtures of liquid and solid
hydrogen or slush hydrogen, SLH2. Slush offers the advantages of a higher density and a prolongation of the storage
time of the cryogen as the solid melts and absorbs heat. A safety risk arises from the decreasing vapour pressure
even below atmospheric pressure, which demands protection against air ingress into the system. In addition, the
conversion of ortho to para hydrogen connected with the release of the heat of conversion as the solid is formed
needs to be taken into account [567]. The triple point finally is the temperature (13.8 K) and pressure (7.2 kPa) at
which all three phases can exist in equilibrium (Fig. 216).
If hydrogen or any other fluid is maintained above its critical temperature and pressure, a single phase
‘supercritical fluid’ forms. It is gas-like in that it is compressible, it is liquid-like in that it has a comparable density,
and there is some transitory state in between characterized by strong structural fluctuations causing the unusual
behaviour of fluid properties near their critical point. It also exhibits higher flow rates compared with liquids. There
is a strong dependence of the thermophysical properties of cryogenic hydrogen on temperature and pressure in the
supercritical state. They vary strongly especially in the near-critical region. Cp has a maximum at the pseudo-
critical temperature (‘thermal spike phenomenon’). Supercritical hydrogen might undergo a turbulent-to-laminar
transition due to the dependence of viscosity on temperature. Heat transfer coefficients are unpredictable in the
transition regime, and are much lower in the laminar regime.
Hydrogen at extreme but accessible pressures (2–3 × 105 MPa) and temperatures (~4400 K) will make a phase
transition to metallic hydrogen which may be superconducting at room temperature. This effect, predicted in 1935,
342
FIG. 216. Phase diagram of hydrogen.
was eventually proven in a shock compression test in 1996. Metallic hydrogen is accepted as existing in the interior
of Saturn and Jupiter, but has no practical application on Earth so far.
Hydrogen is essentially an insulator in both the gaseous and the liquid phase. Only above some critical
‘breakdown’ voltage where ionization occurs does it becomes an electrical conductor.
A.3. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN
Hydrogen reacts both with non-metals (high electro-negativity) and metals (low electro-negativity) to form
either ionic or covalent hydrides (e.g. HCl, H2O). The electro-negativity, a measure for the attraction of electrons to
the nucleus, of hydrogen is 2.20 on the Pauling scale.
Hydrogen is able to react chemically with most other elements. In connection with oxygen, hydrogen is
highly flammable over a wide range of concentrations. As a fuel it represents a clean, environmentally benign
energy source. The mass-related energy density of hydrogen is very high; 1 kg of hydrogen contains 141.86 MJ
(gross heat of combustion), which is approximately 2.5 times more energy than is contained in 1 kg of natural gas.
The energy content of hydrogen is given as either LHV of 242 kJ/mol or as HHV of 286 kJ/mol. The difference of
15.6%, which is large compared with other gases, is due to the heat liberated upon condensation of the water vapour
(which could be captured in a turbine, but not in a fuel cell).
A stoichiometric hydrogen–air mixture where all fuel is consumed upon reaction, i.e. where maximum
combustion energy is released, contains 29.5 vol% of hydrogen. The combustion product of hydrogen is water
vapour. It burns in a non-luminous, almost invisible pale blue, hot flame to water vapour, liberating the chemically
bound energy as heat (gross heat of combustion). The flame temperature of a burning premixed and stoichiometric
hydrogen–air mixture is a maximum of 2403 K.
There is a wide flammability range for hydrogen (at room temperature) between 4 and 75 vol% in air and up
to 95 vol% in oxygen. The LFL, as the minimum amount of fuel that supports combustion, is usually the ‘more
important’ limit, since it will be reached first in a continuous leakage. The flammability range widens with higher
temperatures. The influence of the temperature is expressed in the modified Burgess-Wheeler equation for the LFL,
which is for hydrogen at ambient pressure [568]:
3.14
c LFL = c LFL (300K ) - (T - 300) = 4.0 - 0.013(T - 300)[ vol%]
DH c
343
where
ΔHc is the net heat of combustion; 

T is the temperature, K.
The respective equation for the upper flammability limit (UFL) is [569]:
cUFL = 74.0 + 0.026 (T - 300)[ vol%]
valid for the temperature range 150–300 K. Measurements of upward flame propagation at higher
temperatures have shown a further increase of the UFL with initial temperature reaching 87.6% at 673 K. There are
still no experimental data available on the influence of moisture on the flammability limits. For the determination of
the LFL and UFL of mixtures of fuels, the Le Chatelier rule is the most commonly applied method:
1 y
=S i
Lm Li
where
yi is the volume fraction of fuel i; 

Li is the flammability limit of fuel i.
Le Chatelier’s rule was found to be in accurate agreement with experimental data for the system H2–CO [570].
The potential for an explosion of a flammable hydrogen–air mixture is very high. The auto-ignition
temperature, which is the minimum temperature of a hot surface that can ignite a flammable mixture, is for
hydrogen in the range of 800–1000 K dependent on the experimental conditions. It is relatively high, but can be
lowered by catalytic surfaces. Hydrogen gas does not have a flash point, as it is already a gas at ambient conditions.
This means that cryogenic hydrogen will flash at all temperatures above its boiling point of 20 K.
The minimum ignition energy, i.e. the spark energy required to ignite the “most easily ignitable hydrogen
concentration in air” (which is usually not the stoichiometric mixture), is at 0.02 mJ very low, much lower than for
hydrocarbon–air mixtures. A weak spark or the electrostatic discharge from a flow of pressurized H2 gas or from a
person (~10 mJ) would suffice for an ignition; this is, however, no different from other burnable gases. The
minimum ignition energy decreases further with increasing temperature, pressure or oxygen content. Of all
hydrocarbons, the hot air jet ignition temperature is lowest for hydrogen and decreases further with increasing jet
diameter. It is also dependent on jet velocity and mixture composition.
The maximum experimental safe gap is the maximum distance between two flat plates which still allows
flame propagation through the gap; for hydrogen it is 0.08 mm. The quenching gap in air is the distance (between
two flat plates) at which ignition of a flammable mixture is suppressed. It corresponds to the smallest diameter of a
tube through which a flame can propagate. Faster burning gases have smaller quenching gaps. Hydrogen has a
quenching gap of 0.64 mm. Because of the high explosion pressures, the maximum experimental safe gap is always
smaller than the quenching gap.
The burning velocity in a flammable gas mixture, different from the flame speed, is indicative of the speed
with which a smooth plane combustion wave advances into a stationary flammable mixture and is a pertinent
property of the gas depending on temperature, pressure and concentration. The burning velocity of hydrogen in air
(Fig. 217) at stoichiometric ambient conditions is 2.55 m/s, reaching a maximum of 3.2 m/s at a concentration of
40.1%, which would even increase to 11.75 m/s in pure oxygen. Compared with other hydrocarbon fuel–air
mixtures, it is highest for hydrogen because of hydrogen’s fast chemical kinetics and high diffusivity. The higher
the burning velocity, the greater is the chance for a transition from deflagration to detonation (DDT). In contrast, the
flame speed, which is related to a fixed observer, is much greater than the burning velocity due to the expansion of
the combustion products, instabilities and turbulent deformation of the flame. The maximum possible speed of a
deflagration burning flame is given by the speed of sound in the combustion products gas mixture, which is 975 m/s
for a stoichiometric H2–air mixture.
344
FIG. 217. Burning velocities in hydrogen–air mixtures as measured by various authors [571].
FIG. 218. Detonation cell size of hydrogen and other fuels.
The detonatability range is usually given to be 18–59 vol% of hydrogen concentration; however, the range
was found to be dependent on the system size. In Ref. [572], a detonation range of 13–70% of H2 is given for a
43 cm tube. In the Russian Federation’s detonation test facility RUT, the largest of its kind, a lower detonatability
limit of as low as 12.5 vol% has been observed. In pure oxygen, the detonation range is extended to 15–90% [570].
The detonation velocity in air reaches values in the range of 2000 m/s; in pure oxygen, it is up to 3500 m/s.
The size of the detonation cell is a measure of the reactivity; the smaller the cell, the more reactive is the
mixture (Fig. 218). It serves to some extent as an indicator for DDT and can be measured experimentally. A
stoichiometric hydrogen–air mixture with a cell size of 15 mm is highly reactive, whereas a stoichiometric
methane–air mixture with a cell size of approximately 330 mm is the least sensitive of the common fuels. Cell sizes
increase with increasing deviation from stoichiometry. It was in the late 1970s, when the usefulness of
measurements of the detonation cell size, , was well acknowledged. The first step was finding a correlation
between cell size and critical tube diameter (d=13×). This empirical law was the basis for developing a simple
345
FIG. 219. Pressure signals from different hydrogen combustion modes [573].
surface energy model which allows the derivation of a critical initiation charge weight for various hydrocarbon–air
mixtures in fairly good agreement with experimental data.
The critical tube diameter is the minimum diameter required for a detonation wave to emerge from a tube and
become a detonation in an unconfined cloud. It is a measure of minimum dimensions of an unconfined detonable
cloud. The detonation initiation energy given in mass of high explosive (TNT or tetryl) is the minimum energy
necessary to initiate a spherical detonation wave; the energy content of tetryl corresponds to 4.3 MJ/kg.
The distance in which the flame front at the ignition point develops to a detonation depends on many parameters
such as temperature, pressure, mixture composition, geometry (obstacles) and ignition source strength. For a
stoichiometric hydrogen–air mixture to detonate, a typical ratio of tube length to diameter is approximately 100.
It is known from experience that a hydrogen–air gas cloud evolving from the inadvertent release of hydrogen
upon the failure of a storage tank or pipeline liberates only a small portion of its thermal energy content in the case
of an explosion, which is in the range of 0.1–10%, and in most cases <1% [405].
The explosion of a hydrogen–air mixture cloud results in the formation of a pressure wave, which is different
dependent on the combustion mode, as is shown in Fig. 219. In the deflagration of a free hydrogen–air gas cloud,
the maximum overpressure is in the order of 10 kPa. An overpressure of 7 kPa is still deemed not dangerous; at
7 kPa, people would fall down to the ground; at 35 kPa, damage of ear drums is expected; 240 kPa is considered a
threshold value above which fatalities must be taken into account.
The thermal energy radiated from a flame corresponds to the HHV. It can be reduced due to absorption by
moisture in the atmosphere. The radiation emitted from a hydrogen flame is very low due to a strong absorption by
the ambient water vapour (emissivity ε <0.1) unlike hydrocarbon flames (ε ≈ 1) [574]. Therefore despite its high
flame temperature, the burning hazard is comparatively small. A major problem is given in the non-visibility of the
flame, even in a dark room (unless impurities in the air are present), and therefore the difficulty of recognizing and
localizing it. An advantage of hydrogen–air fires is the fact that there is no smoke generation (assuming no other
material is ignited), which is important for confined areas.
A.4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF HYDROGEN IN THE ATMOSPHERE
Currently, the major sources for hydrogen emissions to the atmosphere are the photochemical oxidation of
atmospheric methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), estimated at 50%, and the combustion of fossil fuels
and biomass, e.g. forest fires or traffic emissions (~40%). But the hydrogen content of the atmosphere is still found
to be on the trace gas level. Stratospheric hydrogen is controlled by the production from methane oxidation and the
destruction due to the OH reaction. In addition, hydrogen is exchanged with the troposphere. The main removal
346
mechanism from the atmosphere is by dry deposition and uptake in soils (~75%) or through oxidation by hydroxyl
free radicals OH (~25%) [575]. Hydrogen concentrations in the troposphere and stratosphere are constant at a level
of ~0.5 ppm, with a total H2 mass of 175 million t in the atmosphere.
Hydrogen is not a direct GHG, as it does not absorb electromagnetic radiation within the infrared spectrum.
An adverse effect is identified with hydrogen acting as a significant sink for OH, whose concentration further
decreases with increased atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen. This in turn could increase the atmospheric
lifetime of GHGs and other pollutants in the stratosphere and may reduce stratospheric ozone concentrations. On
the other hand, hydrogen constitutes only about 5% of the average OH sink, and OH has a much stronger reaction
to changes in reactive NOx emissions which are believed to significantly perturb the amount of ozone in the upper
troposphere and lower stratosphere region. The anticipated changes in OH levels due to changes in the atmospheric
hydrogen concentration are marginal when hydrogen is atmospherically degraded in the lower stratosphere where
the persistent ice (from the water) may have a cooling effect that again influences the temperature dependent ozone
depletion mechanism [576].
In a global hydrogen infrastructure, emissions of molecular H2 can occur along the whole hydrogen process
chain. A realistic upper limit for the global average leak rate is 3% for the whole hydrogen energy chain [575]. Any
diffusive, targeted or accidental release will emit predominantly into the atmosphere. Its oxidation results in the
formation of water vapour (clouds), but it is not expected to raise considerably the overall content of water vapour
in the troposphere, since also the present fossil fuel economy emits significant amounts of water vapour from
combustion and cooling.
Increased water vapour concentrations in the upper troposphere can be expected if air traffic increases as
projected, especially if hydrogen is used as aviation fuel. At these altitudes, increased water vapour may cause the
formation of cirrus clouds, which would either increase or decrease heat radiation, depending on the height and
thickness of the cloud, and so could lead to cooling or warming of the atmosphere.
It is difficult to establish reliable estimates of the potential water vapour release from aircraft, and even harder
to model the effects of extra water vapour on this highly sensitive region of the atmosphere. Emissions depend
strongly on engine design, and the effects will be very different depending on the altitude, air temperature, exhaust
temperature and background humidity. If hydrogen combustion engines were used widely in aircraft, another source
of concern could be emissions of NOx.
There is still large uncertainty around the atmospheric budget of molecular hydrogen. Therefore, except for the
expected strong reduction of CO and CO2 emissions, no final conclusions can be made at present about the potential
environmental benefits and risks of the move from a fossil fuel based to a hydrogen based energy industry [576].
A.5. HYDROGEN CHARACTERISTIC DATA
The main characteristic data of hydrogen are summarized in Table 74 [577–579].
TABLE 74. MAIN CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN
Atomic weight Standard atomic mass  1.0078225 ua

Protium  1.00782503207 ua
Deuterium  2.0141017778 ua
Tritium 3.0160492777 ua
Molecular weight 2.01594 g/mol
Stoichiometric fraction in air 29.53 vol%
Boiling point (BP) 20.369 K
Melting point (MP) 14.01 K
Triple point (TP) Temperature 13.8 K
Pressure 7.2 kPa
347
TABLE 74. MAIN CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN (cont.)
Critical point Temperature 33.145 K

Pressure 1.2964 MPa
Density 31.263 kg/m3
Electronegativity 2.20 Pauling scale
b
Density Gas at NTP 0.08376 kg/m3
Gas at STPc  0.08990 kg/m3
Gas at BP 1.338 kg/m3
Para liquid at BP 70.78 kg/m3
Normald liquid at BP 70.96 kg/m3
Slush with 50 mass% solid at TP 81.48 kg/m3
Para solid at MP 86.50 kg/m3
Solid at 4 K 88.0 kg/m3
Expansion ratio liquid/ambient 845
b
Diffusion coefficient At NTP 0.61×10–4 m2/s
Diffusion velocity At NTPb < 0.02 m/s
Buoyant velocity 1.2–9.1 m/s
Gas constant 4124.3 J/(kg·K)
b
Specific heat (constant p) Gas at NTP 14.89 kJ/(kg·K)
Gas at STPc  14.304
Gas at BP 12.15
Liquid at BP  9.69
Slush with 50 mass% solid at TP 11.4
Ratio of specific heats cp/cv At NTP 1.308
b
Thermal conductivity Gas at NTP 0.1897 W/(m·K)
Gas at BP 0.01694 W/(m·K)
Liquid at BP  0.09892 W/(m·K)
Solid at TP 0.90 W/(m·K)
Viscosity Gas at NTPb  8.948 μPa·s
Gas at BP 1.079 μPa·s
Liquid at BP 13.32 μPa·s
Surface tension At BP 1.92×10–3 N/m
Vapour pressure Normald at TP 7200 Pa
Para at TP 7040 Pa
Solid at 10 K 257 Pa
Para/ortho ratio At STP 25/75%
At BP 99.79/0.21%
Inversion temperature At 0.1 MPa 193 K
Heat of conversion From ortho to para at BP 703 kJ/kg
From normald to para 527–670 kJ/kg
Heat of melting (fusion) At MP 58.8 kJ/kg
Heat of vaporization At BP 445.6 kJ/kg
Vaporization indexe 8.9 K·cm3/J
Vaporization rate (steady state) of LH2 pool 4.2–8.3 mm/s
25–50 mm/s f
Heat of sublimation 379.6 kJ/kg
Speed of sound Gas at NTPb  1294 m/s
In stoichiometric H2-air mixture 404 m/s
In gas at BP 355 m/s
In liquid at BP 1093 m/s
348
TABLE 74. MAIN CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN (cont.)
Inversion (Joule–Thomson) temperature 193 K

Flammability limits in air 4.0–75.0g vol%
Detonatability limits in air 13–70h vol%
Minimum ignition energy  1.9×10–5 J
For detonation ~10 000 J
Auto-ignition temperature in air 793–1023 (858) K
Hot air jet ignition temperature 943 K
Gross heat of combustion  141.86 MJ/kg
or Higher Heating Value (HHV) at NTP b 12.75 MJ/m3
285.9 kJ/mol
Net heat of combustion  119.93 MJ/kg
or Lower Heating Value (LHV) at NTP b 10.8 MJ/m3
241.9 kJ/mol
Wobbe Indexh (upper) 48.34 MJ/m3
Wobbe Indexh (lower) 40.90 MJ/m3
Flame temperature (theoretical) 2318 K
Laminar burning velocity Air at stoich. 2.65 m/s
Maximum at 42.5 vol% 3.46 m/s
Visible laminar flame front velocity 18.6 m/s
Burning rate of LH2 pool 0.5–1.1 mm/s
Deflagration pressure ratio 8.15
Quenching distance At NTPb 0.64 mm
b
Maximum experimental safe gap At NTP 0.08 mm
Adiabatic flame temperature 2318 K
Emission coefficient < 0.1
Detonation velocity 1480–2150 m/s
Chapman-Jouguet (CJ) velocity 1968 m/s
CJ detonation pressure ratio pCJ/p0 15.6
Energy release 2.82 MJ/kg mixture
Detonation cell size 15 mm
Critical tube diameter 0.2 m
Detonation initiation energy 1.1 g tetrylk
Detonation induction distance At NTPb length/diameter ~100
TNT equivalent 26.5 kg TNT/kg
a -27
1 u (atomic mass unit) = 1.660 538 782 × 10 kg
b
NTP (normal temperature and pressure): 293 K, 101325 Pa.
c
STP (standard temperature and pressure): 273 K, 101325 Pa.
d
‘Normal’ hydrogen = 75% ortho + 25% para
e
Indicates the relative ease of a substance to vaporize
f
According to NASA [580].
g
LFL is valid for upward propagation of flame. For downward propagation, LFL is 5.3 vol%.
h
Valid for weak ignition. For a high-energy igniter, a range of 11.6–74.9 was quoted.
i
The upper/lower Wobbe index is defined as the ratio of the HHV/LHV and the square root of the relative density, which again is the
ratio of the fuel gas density to the density of dry air under the same pressure and temperature conditions.
k
Formula: C7H5N5O8; IUPAC name: 2,4,6-trinitrophenyl-N-methylnitramine
349
.
REFERENCES
[1] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cells — A Vision of Our Future, High Level Group Summary
Report, European Commission, Brussels (2003).
[2] FORSBERG, C.W., Sustainability by combining nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy sources, Progress in Nuclear Energy 51
(2009) 192–200.
[3] BOSSEL, U., ELIASSON, B., Energy and the hydrogen economy, 8 January 2003,
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf
[4] TSUKADA, R., “Proposal for hydrogen economy”, Proc. COE-INES Int. Workshop on Toward Hydrogen Economy, What
Nuclear Can Contribute and How, Tokyo, 2004, THEN, Tokyo Institute of Technology (2005).
[5] NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, The Hydrogen Economy — Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs.
Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, Board on Energy and Environmental
Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering of
the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2004).
[6] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, Energy Technology Perspectives 2010, Scenarios & Strategies to 2050, IEA, Paris
(2010).
[7] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, Key World Energy Statistics 2007, IEA, Paris (2008).
[8] INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007", Synthesis Report,
IPCC (2007).
[9] INTERNATIONALES WIRTSCHAFTSFORUM REGENERATIVE ENERGIEN, Cerina Plan, IWR, Münster (2009).
[10] MIKKELSEN, M., JOERGENSEN, M., KREBS, F.C., The teraton challenge. A review of fixation and transformation of carbon
dioxide, Energy & Environmental Science 3 (2010) 43–81.
[11] SCHINDLER, J., et al., Wasserstoff und Brennstoffzellen, starke Partner erneuerbarer Energiesysteme, European Hydrogen
Association (EHA) and Deutscher Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellen-Verband, Ludwig–Bölkow-Systemtechnik, Ottobrunn
(2008).
[12] WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements, WNA, London (2010).
[13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System, IAEA, Vienna (2007).
[14] ROGNER, H.H., “Kernenergieperspektiven in der zukünftigen globalen Energieversorgung“, Presentation at FZJ-STE,
April 28, Research Center Jülich (2009).
[15] MADISHA, K., “Rollout strategy for hydrogen production”, In: VERFONDERN, K. (Ed.), Nuclear Energy for Hydrogen
Production, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Energy Technology, Vol. 58, Research Center Jülich (2007).
[16] BAINDUR, S., Nuclear Hydrogen Production: Scoping the Safety Issues, Presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Society,
January 24 (2008).
[17] FINAN, A.E., MIU, K., KADAK, A.C., “Nuclear technology and Canadian oil sands: Integration of nuclear power with in-situ
oil extraction”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6442.
[18] COUPEY, J.-P., “Recovery of unconventional oil resources”, Presentation at the Post-FISA Conference on HTRs for Combined
Heat/Electricity and Hydrogen Production, Luxembourg (2006).
[19] NATERER, G., et al., Recent Canadian advances in nuclear-based hydrogen production and the thermochemical Cu–Cl cycle,
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 2901–2917.
[20] SADHANKAR, R.R., Leveraging nuclear research to support hydrogen economy, International Journal of Energy Research 31
(2007) 1131–1141.
[21] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, World Energy Outlook 2009, IEA, Paris (2009).
[22] YAN, X., INDERWILDI, O.R., KING, D.A., Biofuels and synthetic fuels in the US and China: A review of well-to-wheel
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions with the impact of land-use change, Energy & Environmental Science 3 (2010)
190–197.
[23] KNOCHE, D., et al., “Advanced nuclear reactor concepts for China”, Proc. Int. Youth Nuclear Congress IYNC 2008, Interlaken
(2008) paper 311.
[24] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, GREEN PAPER: A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy, Report
COM(2006) 105 final, {SEC(2006) 317}, European Commission, Brussels (2006).
[25] VAN GOETHEM, V., HUGON, M., BHATNAGAR, V., MANOLATOS, P., DEFFRENNES, M., Euratom innovation in nuclear
fission: Community research in reactor systems and fuel cycles, Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (2007) 1486–1501.
[26] BASINI, V., et al., “Why HTR/VHTR? A European point of view”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants
ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008) paper 8433.
[27] HY-NET, Towards a European Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, Preface to HyWays – the European Hydrogen Energy Roadmap
Integrated Project, Executive Report (2004).
[28] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, HyWays: The European Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, Final Report, Brussels (2008).
[29] EUROPEAN HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM, Strategic Research Agenda (2005),
http://www.certh.gr/dat/91BFE801/file.pdf
351
[30] LE DUIGOU, A., et al., HYTHEC: An EC funded search for a long term massive hydrogen production route using solar and
nuclear technologies, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 1516–1529.
[31] EUROPEAN HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM, Interim Implementation Plan, Draft report, HFP
(2006),
http://hy-co.certh.gr/dat/%7Ba083028a-8db4-4919-8040-d7bf4dba91be%7D/file.pdf
[32] POITOU, S., et al., “Development programme of the SO3 decomposer as a key component of the sulphur based thermochemical
cycles: New steps towards feasibility demonstration”, Proc. 17th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’17, Brisbane, Australia
(2008) paper 345.
[33] ROEB, M., et al., “HycycleS – A project on solar and nuclear hydrogen production by sulphur-based thermochemical cycles”,
Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[34] LE NAOUR, F., INNOHYP CA Final Report, INNOHYP CA –FR–CEA/07-05 (2007).
[35] COPSEY, B., et al., “The Framatome-ANP high temperature reactor concept”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear
Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5254.
[36] BREUIL, E., et al., “Development of the intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) for ANTARES”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances
in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6457.
[37] LOMMERS, L.J., SHAHROKHI, F., MAYER III, J.A., SOUTHWORTH, F.H., “AREVA HTR concept for near term
deployment”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 132.
[38] GAUTHIER, J.-C., et al., Potential applications for nuclear energy besides electricity generation: A global perspective, Nuclear
Engineering and Technology 39 (2007) 31–42.
[39] SINHA, R.K., KAKODKAR, A., “Indian programme related to innovative nuclear reactor technology”, Proc. 13th Ann. Conf.
of the Indian Nuclear Society INSAC, Mumbai (2002).
[40] FUKUDA, K., KOBAYASHI, O., OGATA, K., “A hydrogen introduction scenario in Japan”, Presentation by T. Sawada at the
INES-THEN, Tokyo, Nov. 5–6, 2004, Tokyo Institute of Technology (2005).
[41] NUCLEONICS WEEK, “JAERI wants to produce hydrogen in HTTR in 2010 — if money is there” January 20 (2005).
[42] KURIYAMA, N., “Millennium project”, Presentation at the Int. Workshop on Fuel Cell Testing and Review of Codes &
Standards Activities FCTESTNET, Ulm (2004).
[43] IWAI, Y., “Japan’s approach to commercialization of fuel cell/hydrogen technology”, Presentation at the 4th IPHE Steering
Committee, Paris, January 26–28, International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy, Berlin (2005).
[44] FUEL CELL TODAY, June (2005).
[45] WATANABE, H., KAMEYAMA, H., OKAMURA, K., NISHIZAKI, K., “Commercialization of residential fuel cell systems at
Tokyo Gas”, Presentation at the 20th World Energy Congress, Rome (2007).
[46] GEIGER, S., Cropper M., Fuel cell market survey: Small stationary applications, Fuel Cell Today, 30 July (2003).
[47] VERFONDERN, K., NISHIHARA, T., Safety aspects of the combined HTTR/steam reforming complex for nuclear hydrogen
production, Progress in Nuclear Energy 47 (2005) 527–534.
[48] KUBO, S. et al., A pilot test plant of the thermochemical water-splitting iodine–sulfur process, Nuclear Engineering and Design
233 (2004) 355–362.
[49] HINO, R., et al., R&D on hydrogen production by high temperature electrolysis of steam, Nuclear Engineering and Design 233
(2004) 363–375.
[50] SAKABA, N., KASAHARA, S., ONUKI, K., KUNITOMI K., Conceptual design of hydrogen production system with
thermo–chemical water-splitting iodine–sulphur process utilizing heat from the high temperature gas-cooled reactor HTTR,
[51] SAKABA, N., HIRAYAMA, Y., “Helium chemistry in high temperature gas-cooled reactors — Chemistry control for avoiding
Hastelloy XR corrosion in the HTTR-IS system”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global
Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba, (2005) paper 263.
[52] SAKABA, N., SATO, H., OHASHI, H., NISHIHARA T., KUNITOMI, K., Development scenario of the iodine–sulphur
hydrogen production process to be coupled with VHTR system as a conventional chemical plant, Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology 45(9) (2008) 962–969.
[53] HINO, R., “Overview of JAERI’s R&D on nuclear hydrogen production”, Proc. COE-INES Int. Workshop “Towards Hydrogen
Economy, What Nuclear can Contribute and How”, Tokyo, 2004, THEN, Tokyo Institute of Technology (2005).
[54] YAN, X.L., et al., “GTHTR300 design variants for production of electricity, hydrogen or both”, Proc. OECD/NEA 3rd
Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oarai (2005).
[55] KUNITOMI, K., et al., JAEA’s VHTR for hydrogen and electricity cogeneration: GTHTR300C, Nuclear Engineering and
Technology 39 (2007) 9–20.
[56] KUNITOMI, K., Japan’s future HTR — the GTHTR300, Nuclear Engineering and Design 233 (2004) 309–327.
[57] YAN, X.L., GTHTR300 design and development, Nuclear Engineering and Design 222 (2003) 247–262.
[58] MATSUYAMA, S., NISHIGUCHI, Y., SAKASHITA, Y., KASUGA, S., KAWASHIMA, M., “Steam producing plant concept
of 4S for oil sand extraction”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’09, Tokyo (2009) paper 9198.
[59] CHIKAZAWA, Y., et al., “Conceptual design of hydrogen production plant with thermochemical and electrolytic hybrid method
using a sodium cooled reactor”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5084.
352
[60] YAMADA, K., et al., “Hydrogen production with steam reforming of dimethyl ether at the temperature less than 573 K”, Proc.
Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5138.
[61] LEE, W.J., KIM, Y.W., CHANG, J.W., Perspectives of nuclear heat and hydrogen, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 41(4)
(2009) 413–426.
[62] LEE, C.H., “Hydrogen & fuel cell activity in Korea”, Presentation at the 4th IPHE Steering Committee, Paris, January 26–28,
International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy, Berlin (2005).
[63] CHANG, J.H., LEE, W.J., “Status of the Korean nuclear hydrogen production project” (Proc. 4th Information Exchange Meeting
on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oakbrook, IL, 2009) NEA Report No. 6805, Paris (2010) 59–66.
[64] CHANG, J.H., “Challenges for production of hydrogen using nuclear energy”, Proc. IAEA Technical Meeting on Non-Electric
Applications of Nuclear Energy, Daejeon (2009).
[65] PARK, J.K., “Nuclear hydrogen project in Korea”, Presentation at the Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants
ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005).
[66] LEE, Y.J., et al., “Preliminary study on the NHDD plant configuration, a VHTR coupled to hydrogen production systems”, Proc.
Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5315.
[67] KIM, Y.W., “Gas cooled reactor, its potential applications for process heat”, Proc. IAEA Technical Meeting on Non-Electric
Applications of Nuclear Energy, Daejeon (2009).
[68] CHANG, J.H., “Current status of HTGR development in Korea”, Plenary presentation at the 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010).
[69] ZVEREV D.L., et al., “Innovation technology for regional power industry based on HTGR”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy
Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2009, Paris (2009) paper 9527.
[70] ROSENERGOATOM, Experience with the Supply of Heat. Presentation, found on the Internet, October (2010).
[71] PONOMAREV-STEPNOY, N., STOLYAREVSKIY, A., KODOCHIGOV, N., “The concept of nuclear hydrogen based on
MHR-T reactor”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 237.
[72] GULEVICH, A.V., et al., “Hydrogen production and water desalination in nuclear power facilities with liquid metal coolants”,
Presentation at the 12th Int. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems ICENES, Brussels (2005).
[73] REITSMA, F., “Technical achievements of the PBMR project in South Africa”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 282.
[74] GREYVENSTEIN, R., CORREIA, M., KRIEL, W., South Africa’s opportunity to maximize the role of nuclear power in a
global hydrogen economy, Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 3031–3040.
[75] REITSMA, F., “Technical achievements of the PBMR project in South Africa”, Plenary presentation at the 5th Int.Top. Meeting
on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010).
[76] CORREIA, M., GREYVENSTEIN, R., SILADY, F., PENFIELD, S., “PBMR as an ideal heat source for high temperature
process heat applications”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-14, Miami, FL (2006) paper 89473.
[77] BOLTHRUNIS, C.O., KUHR, R.W., FINAN, A.E., “Using a PBMR to heat a steam–methane reformer: Technology and
economics”, Proc. 3rd Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2006, Johannesburg (2006) paper
I00000118.
[78] MATZIE, R., GREYVENSTEIN, G., “Pebble bed modular reactor project status”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear
Power Plants ICAPP’09, Tokyo (2009) paper PN4-2.
[79] SCARLAT, R., “Preliminary safety assessment of a PBMR supplying process heat to a co-located ethylene production plant”,
Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 217.
[80] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, Report to Congress,
USDOE Washington DC (2010).
[81] MPR, Survey of HTGR Process Energy Applications, Report MPR-3181, Rev. 0, MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, VA (2008).
[82] LATTIN, W.C., UTKIKAR, V.P., Transition to hydrogen economy in the United States: A 2006 status report, International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 3230–3237.
[83] STOOTS, C.M., O’BRIEN, J.E., CONDIE, K.G., HERRING, J.S., “Test results from the Idaho National Laboratory 15KW high
temperature electrolysis test facility”, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-17, Brussels (2009) paper 75417.
[84] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, The Impact on the Increased Use of Hydrogen on Petroleum Consumption
and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, EIA/DOE-Report #SR-OIAF-CNEAF/2008-04, Appendix A, USDOE, Washington DC (2008).
[85] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Hydrogen Cost Goal Announcement, USDOE, Washington DC (2005),
www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/h2_cost_goal.pdf
[86] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Nuclear Hydrogen R&D Plan, USDOE, Washington DC (2004).
[87] PARK, C.V., PATTERSON, M.W., Systematic Discrimination of Advanced Hydrogen Production Technologies, Report
INL/CON-10-18411, Idaho National Laboratory, ID (2010).
[88] O’BRIEN, J., “Review of the potential of nuclear hydrogen for addressing energy security and climate change”, Proc. ST-NH2,
San Diego, CA (2010).
[89] PETTI, D., The Next Generation Nuclear Plant, Report INL/EXT-08-15118, Idaho National Laboratory, ID (2009).
[90] COLLINS, J.W., Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Technology Development Roadmaps: The Technical Path Forward,
Report INL/EXT-08-15148, Idaho National Laboratory, ID (2009).
353
[91] MCKELLAR, M.G., HARVEGO, E.A., O’BRIEN, J.E., “Analysis of improved reference design for a nuclear-driven high
temperature electrolysis hydrogen production plant”, Proc. ST-NH2, San Diego, CA (2010).
[92] SHENOY, A., “Prismatic conceptual design”, Presentation at the VHTR R&D FY10 Technical Review Meeting, Denver, CO
(2010) paper 1–3.
[93] RICHARDS, M.B., et al., “Conceptual designs for MHR-based hydrogen production systems”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear
Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba (2005) paper 190.
[94] O’BRIEN, J.E., MCKELLAR, M.G., HERRING J.S., “Commercial scale performance predictions for high temperature
electrolysis plants coupled to three advanced reactor types”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants
ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008) paper 8244.
[95] STOOTS, C.M., CONDIE, K.G., O’BRIEN, J.E., HERRING, J.S., HARTVIGSEN, J.J., “Initial operation of the high
temperature electrolysis integrated laboratory scale experiment at INL”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power
Plants ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008) paper 8245.
[96] O’BRIEN, J.E., et al., Parametric study of large scale production of syngas via high temperature co-electrolysis, International
[97] FORSBERG, C.W., “The ddvanced high temperature reactor: High temperature fuel, molten salt coolant, and liquid-metal
reactor plant”, Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems for Sustainable Development of the World COE-
INES, Tokyo (2004) paper 71.
[98] MOISSEYTSEV, A., Passive Load Follow Analysis of the STAR-LM and STAR-H2 Systems. Dissertation Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX (2003).
[99] WADE, D., et al., “STAR-H2: Passive Load Follow/Passive Safety Coupling to the Water Cracking Balance of Plant”,
Presentation at the Symp. on Nuclear Energy and the Hydrogen Economy, Cambridge, MA (2003).
[100] FISCHEDICK, M., PASTOWSKI, A., “Fuel provision for early market applications” In: STOLTEN, D. (Ed.), Hydrogen and
Fuel Cells — Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim (2010) 149–166.
[101] SCHOLZ, W.H., Verfahren zur großtechnischen Erzeugung von Wasserstoff und ihre Umweltproblematik, Linde Berichte aus
Technik und Wissenschaft 67 (1992) 13–21.
[102] PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUTE, Hopes on hydrogen: No quick fixes, PSI, Villigen, Energie-Spiegel, No. 12, November
(2004).
[103] UHDE GmbH, Hydrogen, Dortmund (2003),
http://www.uhde.biz/informationen/broschueren.en. html
[104] EUROPEAN HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM, Strategic Research Agenda, EHFCP (2005),
https://www.hfpeurope.org/uploads/873/HFP-SRA004_V9-2004_SRA-report-final_22JUL 2005.pdf
[105] HORI, M., et al., “Synergistic hydrogen production by nuclear-heated steam reforming of fossil fuels”, Proc. 1st Int. Symp.
Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems for Sustainable Development of the World COE-INES, Tokyo (2004) paper 43.
[106] PETRI, M.C., KLICKMAN, A.E., HORI, M., “Hydrogen production options for water-cooled nuclear power plants” (Proc.
IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other
Industrial Applications, Oarai, 2007), Proceedings Series IAEA-CN-152, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2009)
133–142.
[107] RANKE, H., SCHÖDEL, N., Hydrogen production technology — Status and new developments, Oil Gas European Magazine 2
(2004) 78–84.
[108] HIKITA, T., “Hydrogen from industrial processes and reforming of fossil fuels”, Presentation at the COE-INES International
Workshop Towards Hydrogen Economy, What Nuclear can Contribute and How, Tokyo, 2004, THEN, Tokyo Institute of
Technology (2005).
[109] BARBA, D., et al., Membrane reforming in converting natural gas to hydrogen (Part 1), International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 33 (2008) 3700–3709.
[110] MUELLER-LANGER, F., TZIMAS, E., KALTSCHMITT, M., PETEVES, S., Techno–economic assessment of hydrogen
production processes for the hydrogen economy for the short and medium term, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
32(16) (2007) 3797–3810.
[111] LI, J., Wachsman, E., “Hydrogen production and separation from carbon dioxide reforming of methane”, Proc. 34th Int. Conf.
and Exposition on Advanced Ceramics and Composites, Daytona Beach, FL (2010) paper ICACC-S3-018-2010.
[112] LIU, D.-J., KAUN, T.D., LIAO, H.-K., AHMED, S., Characterization of kilowatt-scale autothermal reformer for production of
hydrogen from heavy hydrocarbons, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 1035–1046.
[113] PORŠ, Z., Eduktvorbereitung und Gemischbildung in Reaktionsapparaten zur autothermen Reformierung von dieselähnlichen
Kraftstoffen, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Reihe Energietechnik, Vol. 49, Research Center Jülich (2005).
[114] PASEL, J., SAMSUN, R.C., PETERS, R., STOLTEN, D., “Development of fuel cell systems for aircraft applications based on
synthetic fuels”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[115] RYDEN, M., LYNGFELT, A., Using steam reforming to produce hydrogen with carbon dioxide capture by chemical-looping
combustion, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1271–1283.
[116] ESWARAMOORTHI, I., DALAI, A.K., A comparative study on the performance of mesoporous SBA-15 supported Pd–Zn
catalysts in partial oxidation and steam reforming of methanol for hydrogen production, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 34 (2009) 2580–2590.
354
[117] FRANCK, H.-G., KNOP, A., Kohleveredlung an der Schwelle der 80er Jahre, Die Naturwissenschaften 67 (1980) 421–430.
[118] DGMK DEUTSCHE WISSENSCHAFTLICHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR ERDÖL, ERDGAS UND KOHLE, Kohlenveredlung,
Positionspapier, (http://www.dechema. de/dechema_media/Kohlenveredlung.pdf), DGMK and DECHEMA (2009).
[119] PETERS, W., Entwicklungs- und Forschungsarbeiten auf dem Gebiete der Kohletechnik, Technische Mitteilungen 71 (1978)
358–364.
[120] SCHMIEDER, H., HENRICH, E., DINJUS E., Wasserstoffgewinnung durch Wasserspaltung mit Biomasse und Kohle, Report
FZKA 6556, Research Center Karlsruhe (2000).
[121] MINCHENER, A.J., Coal gasification for advanced power generation, Fuel 84 (2005) 2222–2235.
[122] TEGGERS, H., JÜNTGEN, H., Stand der Kohlevergasung zur Erzeugung von Brenngas und Synthesegas, Erdöl und Kohle —
Erdgas 37 (1984) 163–174.
[123] TURNA, O., “Sasol–Lurgi fixed bed dry bottom gasification for fuels and chemicals”, Presentation at the 2nd Int. Freiberg
Conf. on IGCC & XtL Technologies, Freiberg (2007).
[124] VAN DYK, J.C., KEYSER, M.J., COERTZEN, M., Syngas production from South African coal using Sasol–Lurgi gasifiers,
International Journal of Coal Geology 65 (2006) 243–253.
[125] KAMKA, F., JOCHMANN, A., “Development Status of BGL-Gasification”, Presentation at the 1st Int. Freiberg Conf. on IGCC
& XtL Technologies, Freiberg (2005).
[126] RIIS, T., HAGEN, E.F., VIE, P.J.S., ULLEBERG, Ø., Hydrogen Production — Gaps and Priorities, IEA Hydrogen
Implementing Agreement (HIA). Special Report (2005), 
http://ieahia.org/pdfs/HIA_Production_G&P_Final_with_Rev.pdf
[127] HIGMAN, C., “European coal gasification projects”, Presentation at the FutureGen Workshop, Tokyo (2008).
[128] NEDO, Clean Coal Technologies in Japan. Technological Innovation in the Coal Industry, New Energy and Industrial
Technology Development Organization, Kawazaki, and Japan Coal Energy Center, Tokyo (2006).
[129] SUDIRO, M., et al., Improving process performances in coal gasification for power and synfuel production, Energy & Fuels 22
(2006) 3894–3901.
[130] GNANAPRAGASAM, N.V., REDDY, B.V., ROSEN, M.A., Hydrogen production from coal using coal direct chemical looping
and syngas chemical looping combustion systems: Assessment of system operation and resource requirements, International
[131] SUSTA, M.R., SEONG, K.B., “Supercritical and ultra-supercritical power plants — SEA’s vision or realtity?”, Presentation at
the Int. Conf. POWER-GEN ASIA, Bangkok (2004).
[132] LACKNER, K.S., ZIOCK, H.-J., “The U.S. zero emission coal alliance technology” (Presentation at the VGB Conf., Essen,
Germany), Report LA-UR-010423, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM (2001).
[133] LIN, S.Y., “Progress of HyPr-RING process development for hydrogen production from fossil fuels”, Proc. 16th World
Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’16, Lyon (2006) paper 249.
[134] WEIMER, T., BERGER, R., HAWTHORNE C., “Production of hydrogen from carbonaceous energy carriers”, Proc. Int.
Hydrogen Energy Congress and Exhibition IHEC, Istanbul (2005).
[135] RODDY, D.J., YOUNGER, P.L., Underground coal gasification with CCS: A pathway to decarbonising industry, Energy &
Environmental Science 3 (2010) 400–407.
[136] STEINBERGER-WILCKENS, R., TRÜMPER, S.C., “Supplying the fuel — Energy resources and infrastructure”, Presentation
at the Roads2HyCom Research & Technology Workshop, March 5–6, Brussels (2009).
[137] JURASCIK, M., SUES, A., PTASSINSKI, K.J., Exergetic evaluation and improvement of biomass-to-synthetic natural gas
conversion, Energy & Environmental Science 2 (2009) 791–801.
[138] PATEL, J., SALO, K., “CARBONA biomass gasification technology”, Presentation at the Int. Conf. on Renewable Energy
TAPPI, Atlanta, GA (2007).
[139] NORSK HYDRO, Hydro Electrolysers, Norway (2002).
[140] NILSEN, S., Personal Communication, Norsk Hydro (2006).
[141] IVY, J., Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production, Report NREL/MP-560-36734, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO (2004).
[142] HERRING, J.S., et al., “Hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis in a solid oxide cell”, Proc. OECD/NEA
2nd Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Chicago, IL (2003).
[143] HAUCH, A., EBBESEN, S.D., JENSEN, S.H., MOGENSEN, M., Highly efficient high temperature electrolysis, Journal of
Materials Chemistry 18 (2008) 2331–2340.
[144] HERRING, J.S., CONDIE, K., O’BRIEN, J.E., STOOTS, C.M., HARTVIGSEN, J.J., “Hydrogen production for transportation
fuels using nuclear energy”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008)
paper 8125.
[145] FUNK, J., Thermo–chemical hydrogen production: Past and present, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 26 (2001)
185–190.
[146] VERFONDERN, K., VON LENSA, W., “MICHELANGELO Network Recommendations on Nuclear Hydrogen Production”,
Proc. OECD/NEA 3rd Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oarai (2005).
[147] FUNK, J.E., REINSTROM, R.M., Energy requirements in the production of hydrogen from water, IEC Process Research and
Development 5(3) (1966) 336.
355
[148] BEGHI, G., A decade of research on thermochemical hydrogen at the Joint Research Centre Ispra, International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 11 (1986) 761–771.
[149] BESENBRUCH, G.E., et al., Report GA-A18257, General Atomics, San Diego, CA (1982).
[150] BESENBRUCH, G.E., et al., “Thermochemical hydrogen production with a high temperature gas cooled reactor”, Proc.
OECD/NEA 1st Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Paris (2000).
[151] VITART, X., CARLES, P., “Thermochemical production of hydrogen using nuclear heat: A survey of technical and economical
issues”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba
(2005) paper IL008.
[152] NORMAN, J.H., et al., Thermochemical Water-Splitting Cycle, Bench-Scale Investigations and Process Engineering, Report
GA-A16713, General Atomics, San Diego, CA (1982).
[153] GOLDSTEIN, S., BORGARD, J.M., VITART, X., Upperbound and best estimate of the efficiency of the IS cycle, International
[154] BAE, K.K., et al., “A study on hydrogen production by thermochemical water-splitting IS (iodine–sulfur) process”, Proc.
OECD/NEA 3rd Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oarai (2005).
[155] NORMAN, J.H., et al., Thermochemical Water-Splitting for Hydrogen Production, Report GRI-80/0105, Gas Research
Institute, Chicago, IL (1980).
[156] LANCHI, M., et al., S–I thermochemical cycle: A thermodynamic analysis of the HI–H2O–I2 system and design of the HIx
decomposition section, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 2121–2132.
[157] O’KEEFE, D., et al., Preliminary results from bench-scale testing of a sulfur–iodine thermochemical water-splitting cycle,
[158] RICHARDS, M.B., et al., H2-MHR conceptual designs based on the sulphur–iodine process and high temperature electrolysis,
International Journal Nuclear Hydrogen Production and Applications 1 (2006) 36–50.
[159] KASAHARA, S., KUBO, S., ONUKI, K., NOMURA, M., Thermal efficiency evaluation of HI synthesis/concentration
procedures in the thermochemical water splitting IS process, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 579–587.
[160] ZHANG, P., CHEN, S.Z., WANG, L.J., XU, J.M., Overview of nuclear hydrogen production research through iodine sulfur
process at INET, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35(7) (2010) 2883–2887.
[161] ONUKI, K., et al., Electro–electrodialysis of hydriodic acid in the presence of iodine at elevated temperatures, Journal of
Membrane Science 192 (2001) 193–199.
[162] BRECHER, L.E., SPEWOCK, S., WARDE, C.J., The Westinghouse sulfur cycle for the thermochemical decomposition of
water, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2 (1977) 7–15.
[163] SUMMERS, W.A., GORENSEK, M.B., BUCKNER, M.R., “The hybrid sulfur cycle for nuclear hydrogen production”, Proc.
Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba (2005) paper 097.
[164] CARLES, P., “The Westinghouse (Hybrid S) Cycle”, In: VERFONDERN, K. (Ed.), Nuclear Energy for Hydrogen Production,
Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Energy Technology, Vol. 58, Research Center Jülich (2007).
[165] GORENSEK, M., SUMMERS, W., Hybrid sulphur flow-sheets using PEM electrolysis and a bayonet decomposition reactor,
[166] VAN VELZEN, D., “Desulphurization and denoxing of waste gases producing hydrogen as a by-product” (Proc. 2nd IEA
Technical Workshop on Hydrogen Production, Jülich) Report HUF-6, Research Center Jülich (1991) 99–111.
[167] KAMEYAMA, H., YOSHIDA, K., “Br–Ca–Fe water decomposition cycles for hydrogen production”, Proc. 2nd World
Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’2, Zurich (1978) 829–850.
[168] LEMORT, F., LAFON, C., DEDRYVERE, R., GONBEAU, D., Physicochemical and thermodynamic investigation of the UT-3
hydrogen production cycle: A new technological assessment, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 906– 918.
[169] TEO, E.D., et al., A critical pathway energy efficiency analysis of the thermochemical UT-3 cycle, International Journal of
[170] SCHULTZ, K.R., et al., “Production of hydrogen by nuclear energy: The enabling technology for the hydrogen economy”,
Presentation at America’s Nuclear Energy Symp. ANES, Miami, FL (2002).
[171] LEMORT, F., LAFON, C., GIROLD, F., “Thermodynamic and technological assessment of the IS cycle”, Proc. 1st European
Hydrogen Energy Conf. EHEC, Grenoble (2003).
[172] NAKAYAMA, T., et al., MASCOT — A bench-scale plant for producing hydrogen by the UT-3 thermo–chemical
decomposition cycle, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 9 (1984) 187–190.
[173] LEMORT, F., LAFON, C., DEDRYVERE, R., GONBEAU D., Physiochemical and thermodynamic investigation of the UT-3
hydrogen production cycle: A new technological assessment, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 906–918.
[174] DOCTOR, R.D., et al., “Hydrogen generation using a calcium–bromine thermochemical water-splitting cycle”, Proc. Symp. on
Nuclear Energy and the Hydrogen Economy, Cambridge, MA (2003).
[175] DOCTOR, R.D., YANG, J.H., PANCHAL, C.B., “CaBr2 hydrolysis for HBr production using a direct sparging contactor” (Proc.
4th OECD/NEA Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Oakbrook, IL, 2009) NEA Report No. 6805,
OECD-NEA, Paris (2010) 269–278.
[176] LEWIS, M.A., Alternative Thermochemical Cycles for Nuclear Hydrogen, USDOE Report, USDOE, Washington DC (2005).
356
[177] SUPPIAH, S., “Canadian Nuclear Hydrogen R&D Programme: Development of the medium temperature Cu-Cl cycle and
contributions to the high temperature sulphur–iodine cycle“, Presentation at the 4th Information Exchange Meeting on the
Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oakbrook, IL (2009).
[178] LEWIS, M.A., MASIN, J.G., VILIM, R.B., “Development of the low temperature Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle”, Proc. Int.
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5425.
[179] LEWIS, M.A., FERRANDON, M.S., TATTERSON, D.F., “An overview of R&D activities for the Cu–Cl cycle with emphasis
on the hydrolysis reaction” (Proc. 4th OECD/NEA Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Oakbrook,
IL, 2009) NEA Report No. 6805, OECD-NEA, Paris (2010) 235–242.
[180] NATERER, G., “Environmental impact comparison of steam methane reformation and thermochemical processes of hydrogen
production”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[181] DOKIYA, D., KOTERA Y., Hybrid cycle with electrolysis using a Cu–Cl system, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 1
(1976) 117–121.
[182] LEWIS, M.A., SERBAN, M., BASCO, J. K., “Generating hydrogen using a low temperature thermochemical cycle”, Proc. Int.
Conf. on Nuclear Technology Global 2003, New Orleans, LA (2003).
[183] ROSEN, M., NATERER, G., SADHANKAR, R., SUPPIAH, S., “Nuclear-based hydrogen production with a thermo–chemical
copper–chlorine cycle and supercritical water reactor”, Proc. Canadian Hydrogen Association Workshop, Quebec (2006).
[184] EWAN, B., ALLEN, R., Limiting thermodynamic efficiencies of thermo–chemical cycles used for hydrogen production, Green
Chemistry 8 (2006) 988–994.
[185] KNOCHE, K.F., Stand der Arbeiten zur Wasserstoff-Erzeugung mit nuklearer Prozesswärme, Chemie-Ingenieur-Technik 49
(1977) 238–242.
[186] CREMER H., et al., Status report on thermochemical iron/chlorine cycles: A chemical engineering analysis of one process,
[187] GONZALES, R.B., LAW, V.J., PRINDLE, J.C., Analysis of the hybrid copper oxide–copper sulfate cycle for the
thermochemical splitting of water for hydrogen production, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 4179–4188.
[188] SCHUSTER, P., Experimentelle Untersuchung und Bilanzierung von Vanadium/ Chlor- und Vanadium/Brom-
Mehrstufenprozessen zur thermochemischen Erzeugung von Wasserstoff, Dissertation RWTH Aachen (1980).
[189] KNOCHE, K.F., SCHUSTER, P., RITTERBEX, T., Thermochemical production of hydrogen by a vanadium/chlorine cycle.
Part 2: Experimental investigation of the individual reactions, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 9 (1984) 473–482.
[190] ZHANG, P., ZHANG, L., NIE, R.J., WANG, J.C., Preparation of CuFe2O4 and its preliminary application study in two-step
thermochemical water-splitting cycle, International Journal of Nuclear Hydrogen Production and Applications 1(3) (2008)
219–228.
[191] SUBRAMANI, V., GANGWAL, S.K., “Pure hydrogen production from syngas by steam–iron process using nanoparticle iron
catalyst”, Proc. 20th North American Catalysis Society Meeting, Houston, TX (2007).
[192] MURADOV, N.Z., VEZIROGLU, T.N., From hydrocarbon to hydrogen–carbon to hydrogen economy, International Journal of
[193] BAKKEN, J.A., et al., Thermal plasma process development in Norway, Pure & Applied Chemistry 70 (1998) 1223–1228.
[194] PALM, T., BUCH, C., KRUSE, B., SAUAR, E., Green Heat and Power. Report 3, Bellona Foundation, Oslo (1999),
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=11196=1
[195] PALUMBO, R., et al., Packaging Sunlight (2004),
http://www.memagazine.org/pemar04/ pckgsun/pckgsun.html
[196] ARNASON, B., SIGFUSSON, T.I., “Application of geothermal energy to hydrogen production and storage”, Presentation at the
2nd German Hydrogen Congress, Essen (2003).
[197] KERR, W., MAJUMDAR D.P., “Aqueous homogeneous reactor for hydrogen production” (Proc. Hydrogen Economy Miami
Energy Conf., Miami Beach, FL, 1974) Report Part A, New York, Plenum Press (1975) 167–181.
[198] KUGELER, K., et al., “Technical and safety aspects of processes of hydrogen production using nuclear energy”, Proc. Int.
[199] KUGELER, K., et al., The pebble-bed High Temperature Reactor as a source of nuclear process heat, Volume 4: System
considerations on nuclear-heated steam reformers, Report Jül-1116-RG, Research Center Jülich (1974).
[200] SPATH, P.L., MANN, M.K., Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming, Report
NREL/TP-570-27637, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO (2001).
[201] NFE, Nukleare Fernenergie, Zusammenfassender Bericht zum Projekt Nukleare Fernenergie (NFE), Report Jül-Spez-303,
Research Center Jülich (1985).
[202] NIEßEN, H.F., et al., Erprobung und Versuchsergebnisse des PNP-Teströhrenspaltofens in der EVA-II-Anlage, Report Jül-2231,
Research Center Jülich (1988).
[203] HARTH, R., RANGE, J., Energietransport durch EVA und ADAM, KFA Jahresbericht 1984/85, Research Center Jülich (1985)
55–62.
[204] HÖHLEIN, B., et al., Methane from synthesis gas and operation of high temperature methanation, Nuclear Engineering and
Design 78 (1984) 241–250.
[205] BOLTENDAHL, U., HARTH, R., Wärmetransport auf kaltem Wege, Bild der Wissenschaft (1980) April.
357
[206] INAGAKI, Y., et al., “Research and development programme on HTTR hydrogen production system”, Proc. GENES4/ANP
Conf., Kyoto (2003) paper 1062.
[207] HADA, K., FUJIMOTO, N., SUDO Y., “Design of steam reforming hydrogen and methanol co-production system to be
connected to the HTTR” (Proc. IAEA-TCM on High Temperature Applications of Nuclear Energy, Oarai, 1992) IAEA-
TECDOC-761, IAEA, Vienna (1994) 124–134.
[208] HADA, K., NISHIHARA, T., SHIBATA, T., SHIOZAWA, S., “Design of a steam reforming system to be connected to the
HTTR” (Proc. 3rd JAERI Symposium on HTGR Technologies, Oarai, 1996) Report JAERI-Conf 96-010, Japan Atomic Energy
Research Institute, Oarai (1996) 229–240.
[209] MIYAMOTO, Y., et al. “Overview of hydrogen production programme in HTTR” (Proc. IAEA TCM on High Temperature Gas
Cooled Reactor Applications and Future Prospects, Petten) Report ECN-R-98-004, The Netherlands Energy Research
Foundation (1998).
[210] OHASHI, H., et al., “Experimental and analytical study on chemical reaction loss accident with a mock-up model of HTTR
hydrogen production system”, Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-12, Arlington (2004).
[211] HAYASHI, K., et al., “Experimental results of startup and shutdown test on HTTR hydrogen production system using mock-up
test facility”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba
(2005) paper 252.
[212] KARASAWA, H., et al., “Storage and hydrogen production usage of recycle materials in the flexible fuel cycle initiative”, Proc.
Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba (2005) paper 467.
[213] YIN, H., JIANG, S., ZHANG, Y., JU H., Modeling of the helium-heated steam reformer for HTR-10, Journal of Nuclear Science
and Technology 44(7) (2007) 977–984.
[214] VAN HEEK, K.H., JÜNTGEN, H., PETERS W., Wasserdampfvergasung von Kohle mit Hilfe von Prozeßwärme aus
Hochtemperatur-Kernreaktoren, Atomkernenergie/Kerntechnik 40 (1982) 225–246.
[215] KIRCHHOFF, R., VAN HEEK, K.H., JÜNTGEN, H., PETERS W., Operation of a semi-technical pilot plant for nuclear aided
steam gasification of coal, Nuclear Engineering and Design 78 (1984) 233–239.
[216] FRÖHLING, W., NEEF, H.J., “Synthetisches Naturgas aus Kohle und Hochtemperatur-Reaktorwärme“, KFA Jahresbericht
1976/77, Research Center Jülich (1977) 15–24.
[217] BERG, J., Benzin und Gas aus Kohle, Bild der Wissenschaft (1978) December.
[218] JÜNTGEN, H., VAN HEEK, K.H., Gasification of coal with steam using heat from HTRs, Nuclear Engineering and Design 34
(1975) 59–63.
[219] SCHRADER, L., STRAUSS, W., TEGGERS, H., The application of nuclear process heat for hydro gasification of coal, Nuclear
Engineering and. Design 34 (1975) 51–57.
[220] FLADERER, R., SCHRADER, L., Hydrierende Vergasung von Kohle – Neuere Betriebsergebnisse, Chemie-Ingenieur-Technik
54 (1982) 884–892.
[221] KLUSMANN, A., STELZER, M., “Future Applications of the High Temperature Reactor” (Proc. IAEA TCM on Gas Cooled
Reactors and their Applications, Jülich, 1986) IAEA-TECDOC-436, IAEA, Vienna (1987) 473–482.
[222] BARNERT, H., Energy Alcohol from Plant Biomass plus High Temperature Heat, the CO2-Neutral, Environmentally Benign,
and Consumer Friendly Future Alternative, Report Jül-3089, Research Center Jülich (1995).
[223] MILLER, A.I., DUFFEY, R.B., “Co-generation of hydrogen from nuclear and wind: The effect on costs of realistic variations in
wind capacity and power prices”, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-13, Beijing (2005).
[224] NATERER, G.F., et al., Synergistic roles of off-peak electrolysis and thermochemical production of hydrogen from nuclear
energy in Canada, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008) 6849–6857.
[225] YU, B., et al., Research advance on highly efficient hydrogen production by high temperature steam electrolysis, Science in
China Series B: Chemistry 51 (2008) 289–304.
[226] YU, B., ZHANG, W.Q., XU, J.M., CHEN, J., Status and research of highly efficient hydrogen production through high
temperature steam electrolysis at INET, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010) 2829–2835.
[227] YU, B., ZHANG, W.Q., XU, J.M., “Research progress of HTSE for hydrogen production using planar SOEC technology at
INET”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[228] JENSEN, S.H., LARSEN, P.H., MOGENSEN, M., Hydrogen and synthetic fuel production from renewable energy sources,
[229] ZAHID, M., BRISSE, A., HAUCH, A., SCHILLER, G., VOGT, U., “Highly efficient, high temperature, hydrogen production
by water electrolysis (Hi2H2)”, Proc. Fuel Cell Seminar & Exposition, Phoenix, AR (2008) paper RDP42a-3.
[230] YVON, P., “French activities on carbon-free hydrogen production by using nuclear energy”, Proc. IAEA Technical Meeting on
Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Energy, Daejeon (2009).
[231] LE NAOUR, F., “High temperature steam electrolysis for nuclear hydrogen production, interest, technological breakthroughs &
CEA’s strategy”, Proc. IAEA Technical Meeting on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Energy, Daejeon (2009).
[232] DÖNITZ, W., SCHMIDBERGER, R., Concepts and design for scaling up high temperature water vapour electrolysis,
[233] ERDLE, E., “Hochtemperatur-Elektrolyse von Wasserdampf HOT ELLY“, Proc. BMBF Status Seminar „Wasserstoff als
Energieträger“, Würzburg (1995) 1–11.
358
[234] MATSUNAGA K., et al., “Hydrogen production system with high temperature electrolysis for nuclear power plant”, Proc. Int.
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6282.
[235] O’BRIEN, J.E., et al., “High temperature electrolysis for hydrogen production from nuclear energy”, Proc. 11th Int. Topical
Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, Avignon (2005).
[236] STOOTS, C.M., et al., Integrated Laboratory Scale Test Report, Report INL/EXT-09-15283, Idaho National Laboratory,
ID (2009).
[237] MAWDSLEY, J.R., CARTER, J.D., KROPF, A.J. YILDIZ, B., MARONI, V.A., Post-test evaluation of oxygen electrodes from
solid oxide electrolysis stacks, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 4198–4207.
[238] STOOTS, C., SHUNN, L., O’BRIEN, J., “Integrated operation of the INL HYTEST system and high temperature steam
electrolysis for synthetic natural gas production”, Proc. ST-NH2, San Diego, CA (2010).
[239] SHARMA, V.I., YILDIZ, B., Degradation mechanism in La0.8Sr0.2CoO3 as contact layer on the solid oxide electrolysis cell
anode, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 157 (2010) B441–B448.
[240] HERRING, J.S., “Hydrogen production methods”, VHTR R&D FY10 Technical Review Meeting, Denver, CO (2010)
presentation 1-5.
[241] WANG, Z., et al., Comparison of different copper–chlorine thermo–chemical cycles for hydrogen production, International
[242] NATERER, G., et al., Thermo–chemical hydrogen production with a copper–chlorine cycle. II: Flashing and drying of aqueous
cupric chloride, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008) 5451–5459.
[243] KOSA, S., SHREIBER, D., The enthalpy of mixing aqueous solutions of CdCl2, CuCl2, MnCl2 and ZnCl2 with HCl at varying
ionic strength at 25°C, Journal of Solution Chemistry 4 (1994) 511.
[244] KHAN, M., CHEN, Y., “Preliminary process analysis and simulation of thermochemical hydrogen generation using
copper–chloride cycle”, Proc. OECD/NEA 3rd Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oarai
(2005).
[245] ZHANG, P., CHEN, S.Z., WANG, L.J., YAO, T.Y., XU, J.M., Study on a lab-scale hydrogen production by closed cycle
thermo–chemical iodine–sulfur process, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010) 10166–10172.
[246] CHEN, S., GUO, H., “Relationship between density and composition of HI–I2–H2O in I–S process”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen
Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[247] SAKURAI, M., et al., Experimental study on side-reaction occurrence condition in the iodine–sulphur thermo–chemical
hydrogen production process, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 23 (2000) 613–619.
[248] PRASAD, C.S.R., FANI, H.Z., MENON, S.B., “Heterogeneous Bunsen reaction: Analysis & experimental study of chemical
absorption of sulfur dioxide and dissolution of iodine into aqueous reacting system” (Proc. IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric
Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications, Oarai, 2007),
Proceedings Series IAEA-CN-152, IAEA, Vienna (2009) 270–277.
[249] PRASAD, C.S.R., Modeling and design of Bunsen reaction system — Issues, approaches and results (R&D on iodine–sulfur
thermochemical process for hydrogen), IAEA CRP No: 13932/RO on “Advances in Nuclear Power Process Heat Applications”
(2007).
[250] LIBERATORE, R., CAPUTO, G., FELICI, C., SPADONA, A., “Demonstration of hydrogen production by the sulphur–iodine
cycle: realization of a 10 NL/h plant”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[251] NAKAJIMA, H., et al., “A study on a closed-cycle hydrogen production by thermochemical water-splitting IS process”, Proc.
7th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-7, Tokyo (1999) paper 7104.
[252] KASAHARA, S., et al., Flowsheet study of the thermochemical water-splitting iodine–sulfur process for effective hydrogen
production, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 489–496.
[253] IMAI Y., et al., “Evaluation of required activity of SO3 decomposition catalyst for iodine–sulfur process”, Proc. 5th Int. Topical
Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 249.
[254] KUBO, S., NAKAJIMA, H., IMAI, Y., KASAHARA, S., ONUKI, K., “Control technology for Bunsen reaction solution to
regulate process condition”, Proc. AIChE Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT (2007) 357.
[255] GIACONIA, A., et al., Survey of Bunsen reaction routes to improve the sulfur–iodine thermochemical water-splitting cycle,
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34(9) (2009) 4041–4048.
[256] NOMURA, M., et al., Application of an electrochemical membrane reactor to the thermochemical water splitting IS process for
hydrogen production, Journal of Membrane Science 240 (2004) 221–226.
[257] NOMURA, M., et al., Development of an electrochemical cell for the efficient hydrogen production through the IS process,
AIChE Journal 50 (2004) 1991–1998.
[258] NOGUCHI, H., et al., “Development of sulfuric acid decomposer for thermo–chemical IS process”, Proc. Int. Congress on
Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6166.
[259] KUBO, S., et al., “A bench scale hydrogen production test by thermochemical water-splitting iodine–sulfur process”, Proc. Int.
Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba (2005) paper 474.
[260] KUBO, S., NAGAYA, Y., “In situ composition measurements of Bunsen reaction solution by radiation probes”, Proc. 18th
World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
359
[261] NAKAGIRI, T., et al., “Development of the thermo–chemical and electrolytic hybrid hydrogen production process for sodium
cooled FBR”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005,
Tsukuba (2005) paper 135.
[262] NAKAGIRI, T., CHIKAZAWA, Y., “Development of a new thermochemical and electrolytic hybrid hydrogen production
process for FBR”, Presentation at the HTTR Workshop on Hydrogen Production Technology, Oarai (2004).
[263] CHO, W.C., et al., “Key technology of sulfur–iodine process in Korea”, Presentation at the IAEA Technical Meeting on Non-
Electric Applications, Daejeon (2009).
[264] HONG, S.D., SEO, D.U., KIM, C.S., KIM, Y.W., PARK, G.C., “Design and analysis of a high pressure and high temperature
sulfuric acid experimental system”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague
(2010) paper 201.
[265] LEE, W.J., “Progress of nuclear hydrogen programme in Korea”, Presentation at the 3rd Nuclear Hydrogen Workshop, Jeju,
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (2009).
[266] CHANG, J.H., et al., A study of a nuclear hydrogen production demonstration plant, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 39
(2007) 111–122.
[267] HONG, S.D., OH, D.S., LEE, W.J., CHANG, J.H., “Design of a small scale high temperature gas loop for process heat
exchanger design tests”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6357.
[268] SHIN, Y.-J., CHOI, J.-H., TAK, N.-I., LEE, K.-Y., CHANG, J.-H., “Computational analysis of a packed column for SO3
decomposition in sulfur–iodine process” (Proc. IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater
Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications, Oarai, 2007), Proceedings Series IAEA-CN-152, IAEA,
Vienna (2009) 313–318.
[269] KIM, J.-H., et al., Hydrogen iodide decomposer sizing for a nuclear hydrogen production by a SI process, Transactions of the
Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting, Gyeongju (2009) 35–36.
[270] SHENOY, A., “Hydrogen process coupling to modular helium reactors”, Proc. 3rd Nuclear Hydrogen Workshop, Jeju, Korea
Atomic Energy Research Institute (2009).
[271] RUSS, B., MOORE, R., HELIE, M., PONS, N., “Results of the sulfur iodine process integrated lab scale experiment”, Proc. ST-
NH2 Conf. of the American Nuclear Society, San Diego, CA (2010).
[272] SHERMAN, S.R., “Nuclear plant/hydrogen plant safety: issues and approaches”, Proc. ST-NH2 Conf. of the American Nuclear
Society, Boston, MA (2007).
[273] NAGARAJAN, V., et al., CFD modeling and experimental validation of sulfur trioxide decomposition in bayonet type heat
exchanger and chemical decomposer of different packed bed designs, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009)
2543–2557.
[274] IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY, The Technical Path Forward, INL, USA (2009).
[275] MCQUILLAN, B., et al., High Efficiency Generation of Hydrogen Fuels Using Solar Thermo–Chemical Splitting of Water,
Report GA-A24972, General Atomics, San Diego, CA (2002).
[276] PICKARD, P., 2005 DOE hydrogen programme review sulfur–iodine thermochemical cycle, Presentation to the USDOE, May
25 (2005).
[277] WEIRICH, W., et al., Thermochemical processes for water splitting — Status and outlook, Nuclear Engineering and Design 78
(1984) 285–291.
[278] SCHULTZ, K.R., et al., The hydrogen reaction, Nuclear Engineering International (2005) July issue.
[279] GENERATION IV INTERNATIONAL FORUM, Energy Products from Generation IV Systems, Generation IV Nuclear Energy
Systems Roadmap, Energy Products Cross Cut Group, July 30 (2002).
[280] WYDLER, P., Liquid metal cooled reactors, Chimia 59 (2005) 970–976.
[281] MACPHERSON, H.G., The molten salt reactor adventure, Nuclear Science and Engineering 90 (1985) 374–380.
[282] SUPPIAH, S., “Cu–Cl cycle development for hydrogen production using Canadian SCWR”, Presentation at the IAEA Technical
Advisory Meeting with Nuclear Hydrogen Experts, Vienna (2007).
[283] MOKRY, S., et al., “Conceptual thermal-design options for pressure-tube SCWRs with thermochemical co-generation of
hydrogen”, Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-16, Orlando, FL (2008) paper 48313.
[284] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for the Evaluation of Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel
Cycles, IAEA-TECDOC-1362, IAEA, Vienna (2003).
[285] HERD, E.M., LOMMERS, L.J., SOUTHWORTH, F.H., “HTGR strategies to meet process heat reliability and availability”,
Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’10, San Diego, CA (2010) paper 10225.
[286] HITTNER, D., et al., “A new impetus for developing industrial process heat applications of HTR in Europe”, Proc. 4th Int. Top.
Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2008, Washington D.C. (2008) paper 58259.
[287] IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY, HTGR Industrial Application Functional and Operational Requirements, Report
INL/EXT-10-19706, INL, ID (2010).
[288] BROWN, L.C., et al., High Efficiency Generation of Hydrogen Fuels Using Nuclear Power, Report GA-A24285, General
Atomics, San Diego, CA (2003).
[289] VON LENSA, W., VERFONDERN, K., “Wasserstoffproduktion aus Kernenergie“, Presentation at the VDI, Düsseldorf (2006).
[290] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of and Prospects for Gas-cooled Reactors, Technical Report Series
No. 235, IAEA, Vienna (1984).
360
[291] STEHLE, H., KLAS, E., “Status of the development of hot gas ducts for HTRs” (Proc. IAEA Specialists’ Meeting on Heat
Exchanging Components of Gas-Cooled Reactors, Düsseldorf) Report IWGGCR-9, IAEA, Vienna (1984) paper 25.
[292] VERFONDERN, K., “Survey on 20 years of R&D on nuclear process heat applications in Germany“, Presentation at the IAEA
Int. Conf. on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial
Applications, Oarai (2007).
[293] FRÖHLING, W., et al., Safety concept and operational criteria of a nuclear process heat plant, Nuclear Engineering and Design
78 (1984) 167–177.
[294] DUFFEY, R.B., PIORO I.L., “Advanced high temperature concepts for pressure-tube reactors, including co-generation and
sustainability”, Proc. 3rd Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2006, Johannesburg (2006) paper
F00000167.
[295] ZHANG, Z.Y., et al., Current status and technical description of Chinese 2×250MW(th) HTR-PM demonstration plant, Nuclear
Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 1212–1219.
[296] PRA, F., et al., Promising designs of compact heat exchangers for modular HTRs using the Brayton cycle, Nuclear Engineering
and Design 238 (2008) 3160–3173.
[297] BERJON, A., et al., “Technological loops for high temperature heat exchangers”, Proc. 3rd Int. Top. Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2006, Johannesburg (2006) paper E00000027.
[298] SCHULTEN, R., et al., Industriekraftwerk mit Hochtemperaturreaktor PR 500 — “OTTO-Prinzip” zur Erzeugung von
Prozessdampf, Report Jül-941-RG, Jülich (1973).
[299] DULERA, I.V., SINHA, R.K., “The Indian high temperature reactor programme” (Proc. IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric
Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications, Oarai, 2007),
Proceedings Series IAEA-CN-152, IAEA, Vienna (2009) 85–93.
[300] DULERA, I.V., SINHA, R.K., High temperature reactors, Journal of Nuclear Materials 383 (2008) 183–188.
[301] TAKEDA, T., et al., “Deployment scenario of GTHTR300 cogeneration system”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems
for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2005, Tsukuba (2005) paper 325.
[302] OHASHI, H., SAKABA, N., NISHIHARA, T., TACHIBANA, Y., KUNITOMI, K., Analysis of tritium behavior in very high
temperature gas-cooled reactor coupled with thermochemical iodine–sulfur process for hydrogen production, Journal of Nuclear
Science and Technology 45 (2008) 1215–1227.
[303] TASHIMO, M., “FR-MR concept and its role on sustainable energy resource in 21st century”, Proc. COE-INES International
Workshop on “Toward Hydrogen Economy, What Nuclear can Contribute and How”, Tokyo, 2004, THEN, Tokyo Institute of
Technology (2005).
[304] SHIN, Y., et al., “An experiment on the methane–methanol–iodomethane cycle to produce nuclear hydrogen”, Proc. Int.
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6102.
[305] PONOMAREV-STEPNOY, N., STOLYAREVSKIJ, A., KODOCHIGOV, N., “The concept of nuclear hydrogen production
based on MHR-T reactor” (Proc. 4th Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oakbrook, IL,
2009) NEA Report No. 6805, OECD-NEA, Paris (2010) 67–75.
[306] MATZNER, D., KRIEL, W., CORREIA, M., GREYVENSTEIN, R., “Cycle configuration for a PBMR steam and electricity
production plant”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, Reno ICAPP’06, NV (2006) paper 131.
[307] KRIEL, W., “Status of PBMR process heat plant project”, Presentation at the IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric Applications of
Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications, Oarai (2007).
[308] RICHARDS, M., SHENOY, A., H2-MHR pre-conceptual design summary for hydrogen production, Nuclear Engineering and
Technology 39 (2007) 1–8.
[309] RICHARDS, M.B., SHENOY, A., CAMPBELL, M., “Pre-conceptual hydrogen production modular helium reactor designs”
(Proc. IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other
Industrial Applications, Oarai, 2007), Proceedings Series IAEA-CN-152, IAEA, Vienna (2009) 101–109.
[310] HERRING, J.S., et al., “Hydrogen production using high temperature electrolysis”, Presentation at the HTTR Workshop on
Hydrogen Production Technology, Oarai (2004).
[311] FORSBERG, C.W., “Designing the advanced high temperature reactor for low radionuclide releases in beyond-design-basis
accidents”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008) paper 8025.
[312] WILLIAMS, D.F., CLARNO, K.T., “Salt selection for the LS-VHTR”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power
Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6160.
[313] INGERSOLL, D.T., FORSBERG, C.W., “Overview and status of the advanced high temperature reactor”, Proc. Int. Congress on
Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6264.
[314] BARDET P., et al., “Design, analysis and development of the modular PB-AHTR”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear
Power Plants ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008) paper 8211.
[315] OH, C.H., BARNER, R., DAVIS, C., Evaluation of working fluids in an indirect combined cycle in a very high temperature gas-
cooled reactor, Nuclear Technology 156 (2006) 1–10.
[316] DUSHIN, Y.A., et al., Materials for high temperature equipment in the helium coolant of power plants, Nuclear hydrogen power
and technology, Energoatomizdat (1983) Issue 5.
[317] KUGELER, K., KUGELER, M., NIESSEN, H.F., HAMMELMANN, K.H., Steam reformers heated by helium from high
temperature reactors, Nuclear Engineering and Design 34 (1975) 129–145.
361
[318] JONES, A.R., BOX, P.O., “A very high temperature reactor (VHTR)” (Proc. Intersocietal Energy Conversion Engineering
Conf., Newark, NY) Technology Record 1, USA (1975) 329–337.
[319] DEWSON, S.T., LI, X., “Selection criteria for the high temperature reactor intermediate heat exchanger”, Proc. Int. Congress on
Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5333.
[320] SOUTHALL, D., LE PIERRES, R., DEWSON, S.J., “Design considerations for compact heat exchangers”, Proc. Int. Congress
on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’08, Anaheim, CA (2008) paper 8009.
[321] HEATRIC, (2006), 
http://www.heatric.com/compact_heat_exchangers.html
[322] SOUTHALL, D., “Innovative compact heat exchangers”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’10,
San Diego, CA (2010) paper 10300.
[323] TOCHON, P., MAUGET, C., PRA, F., “The use of compact heat exchangers technologies for the HTRs recuperator application
per proper design”, Proc. 2nd Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2004, Beijing (2004) paper E09.
[324] BUCKTHORPE, D., GENOT, J.-S., “RAPHAEL: Synthesis of achievements on materials and components and future
direction”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 029.
[325] INTERATOM, Nukleare Prozesswärmeanlagen mit Hochtemperaturreaktor-Modul zur Kohleveredlung, Technical Report ITB
78.10122.8, Kraftwerk Union AG, INTERATOM/GHT, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany (1983).
[326] HARTH, R., JANSING, W., TEUBNER, H., Experience gained from the EVA II and KVK operation, Nuclear Engineering and
Design 121 (1990) 173–182.
[327] DUMM, K., “Design requirements on HTR main components for process heat application” (Proc. IAEA Specialists’ Meeting on
Heat Exchanging Components of Gas-Cooled Reactors, Düsseldorf) Report IWGGCR-9, IAEA, Vienna (1984) paper 2.
[328] CZIMCZIK, A., HIRSCHLE, G., “Development of a helium/helium intermediate heat exchanger with helical coil tube bundle”
(Proc. IAEA Specialists’ Meeting on Heat Exchanging Components of Gas-Cooled Reactors, Düsseldorf) Report IWGGCR-9,
IAEA, Vienna (1984) paper 5.
[329] EXNER, R., PODHORSKY, M., “Development, construction and analysis of the URKO intermediate heat exchanger” (Proc.
IAEA Specialists’ Meeting on Heat Exchanging Components of Gas-Cooled Reactors, Düsseldorf) Report IWGGCR-9, IAEA,
Vienna (1984) paper 8.
[330] PNP, Referenzkonzept der Prototypanlage Nukleare Prozesswärme PNP, Gesamtanlage und Kraftwerk, Bergbau-Forschung
GmbH, GHT Gesellschaft für Hochtemperatur-Technik mbH, Hochtemperatur-Reaktorbau GmbH, Kernforschungsanlage
Jülich GmbH, Rheinische Braunkohlenwerke AG, Germany (1981).
[331] SAITO, S., et al., Design of High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR), Report JAERI 1332, Japan Atomic Energy
Agency, Oarai (1994).
[332] GOLOVKO, V.F., KODOCHIGOV, G.N., Conceptual studies of heat transfer systems, Contribution to IAEA Coordination
Research Programme (CRP-7) on Advances in Nuclear Power Process Heat Applications, Vienna (2009).
[333] MITENKOV, F.M., Designing of heat exchangers for nuclear power plants, Energoatomizdat (1988).
[334] RICHARDS M.B., et al., H2-MHR Pre-Conceptual Design Report: HTE-Based Plant, Final Technical Report for the the Period
September 2002 through September 2005, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Project 2002-196, Report GA-A25402, General
Atomics, San Diego, CA (2006).
[335] RICHARDS, M.B., et al., “The H2-MHR: Nuclear hydrogen production using the Modular Helium Reactor”, Proc. Int.
[336] TALLACKSON, J.R., Thermal Radiation Transfer of Afterheat in MSBR Heat Exchangers, Report ORNL-TM-3145, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (1971).
[337] LIM, H.J., PETERSON, P.F., Conceptual Design of the Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) for the PB-AHTR, Report UCBTH-
09-005, University of California in Berkeley (2009).
[338] FORSBERG, C.W., “Molten-salt-reactor technology gaps”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants
ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6295.
[339] PIERA, M., MARTINEZ-VAL, J.M., MONTES M.J., Safety issues of nuclear production of hydrogen, Energy Conversion &
Management 47 (2006) 2732–2739.
[340] TOIT, B. du, RAVENSWAAY, J. van, PLESSIS, G. du, “The impact of separation distance between reactor and process on the
choice of secondary heat transport coolant for high temperature process heat applications”, Proc 3rd Int. Top. Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2006, Johannesburg (2006) paper I00000153.
[341] MARMIER, A., FÜTTERER, M.A., WIDER, H., “HTR with downgraded specifications for high temperature process heat
applications”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’07, Nice (2007) paper 7058.
[342] FORSBERG, C.W., “Developments in molten salt and liquid-salt-cooled reactors”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear
Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6292.
[343] ZRODNIKOV, A.V., et al., Nuclear power plants based on reactor modules with SVBR-75/100, Atomic Energy 91 (2001)
957–966.
[344] MURTY, K.L. CHARIT, I., Structural materials for Gen-IV nuclear reactors: Challenges and opportunities, Journal of Nuclear
Materials 383 (2008) 189–195.
[345] SAMARAS, M., et al., “Materials modeling — A key for the design of advanced high temperature reactor components”, Proc.
Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’07, Nice (2007) paper 7207.
362
[346] BREITBACH, G., “Overview on high temperature metal development in Germany” (Proc. Soviet/German Seminar on
Extraction and Utilization of High Temperature Heat from HTR, Jülich) Internal Report HTA-IB-07/90, Research Center Jülich
(1990) 59–70.
[347] SAVOLAINEN, K., MONONEN, J., ILOLA, R., HÄNNINEN, H., Materials Selection for High Temperature Applications,
Report TKK-MTR-4/05, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland (2005).
[348] CABET, C., DUPREY, B., “Long term high temperature oxidation of alloys for intermediate heat exchangers”, Proc. Int.
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, San Diego ICAPP’10, CA (2010) paper 10316.
[349] MENKEN, G., et al., “Review of the gas/metal interactions in HTR helium up to 950°C”, Proc. BNES Conf. Gas Cooled
Reactors Today, Bristol (1982).
[350] CABET, C., TERLAIN, A., LETT, P., GUETAZ, L., GENTZBITTEL, J.-M., High temperature corrosion of structural materials
under gas-cooled reactor helium, Materials and Corrosion 57(2) (2006) 147–153.
[351] QUADAKKERS, W.J., SCHUSTER, H., Corrosion of high temperature alloys in the primary circuit of high temperature gas
cooled reactors, Part 1: Theoretical background, Materials and Corrosion 36 (1985) 141–150, Part 2: Experimental results,
Materials and Corrosion 36 (1985) 335–347.
[352] NICKEL, H., SCHUBERT, F., SCHUSTER, H., Evaluation of alloys for advanced high temperature reactor systems, Nuclear
[353] PENKALLA, H.J., “Material data and constitutive equations” (Proc. Workshop on Structural Design Criteria for HTR, Jülich)
Report Jül-Conf-71, Research Center Jülich (1989) 185–205.
[354] HADA, K., NISHIGUCHI, I., MUTO, Y., TSUJI, H., Developments of metallic materials and a high temperature structural
design code for the HTTR, Nuclear Engineering and Design 132 (1991) 1–11.
[355] KURATA, Y., OGAWA, Y., Internal stress during high temperature creep of special grade Hastelloy X alloys, Journal of Nuclear
Materials 158 (1988) 42–48.
[356] HAYNER, G.O., BRATTON, R.L., MIZIA, R.E., WINDES, W.E., Next Generation Nuclear Plant Materials Research and
Development Programme Plan, Report INL/EXT-06-11701, Revision 3, Idaho National Laboratory, ID (2006).
[357] REN, W., SWINDEMAN, R.W., SANTELLA, M.L., “Developing a nuclear grade of Alloy 617 for Gen IV nuclear energy
systems”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’10, San Diego, CA (2010) paper 10068.
[358] MO, K., LOVICU, G., TUNG, H.-M., CHEN, X., STUBBINS, J.F., “High temperature aging and corrosion study on Alloy 617
and Alloy 230”, Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-18, Xi'an (2010) paper 30207.
[359] CERRI, G., et al., Sulfur–iodine plant for large scale hydrogen production by nuclear nower, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 35(9) (2010) 4002–4014.
[360] VAN HEEK, K.H., JÜNTGEN, H., “Progress in the design of a technical scale gas generator for steam gasification of coal using
nuclear heat”, Proc. Int. Symp. on Gas-Cooled Reactors with Emphasis on Advanced Systems, Jülich (1975) paper IAEA-SM-200/5.
[361] KUBO, S., et al., “Corrosion test on structural materials for iodine–sulphur thermo–chemical water splitting cycle”, Presentation
at the AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, LA (2003).
[362] WONG, B., et al., Construction materials development in sulfur–iodine thermochemical water-splitting process for hydrogen
production, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 497–504.
[363] SHERMAN, S.R., Nuclear Reactor/Hydrogen Process Interface Including the HyPEP Model, DOE H2 Merit Review, Report
INL/CON-07-12488, Idaho National Laboratory, ID (2007).
[364] SCHULTEN, R., KUGELER, K., PHLIPPEN, P.-W., Zur technischen Gestaltung von passiv sicheren Hochtemperaturreaktoren,
Report Jül-2352, Research Center Jülich (1990).
[365] FORSBERG, C.W., GORENSEK, M., HERRING, S., PICKARD, P., “Safety related physical phenomena for coupled high
temperature reactors and hydrogen production facilities”, Proc. 4th Int. Top. Meeting on High temperature Reactors HTR2008,
Washington D.C. (2008) paper 58223.
[366] BONGARTZ, R., et al., Probabilistische Zuverlässigkeits- und Risikountersuchung der Photovoltaik-Wasserstoff-
Brennstoffzellen-Demonstrationsanlage PHOEBUS Jülich, Report Jül-3176, Research Center Jülich (1996).
[367] ZHANG, Y.P., LU, L.X., NATERER, G.F., “Reliability and safety assessment of a conceptual thermochemical plant for nuclear-
based hydrogen generation”, Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-16, Orlando, FL (2008) paper 48265.
[368] RÖLLIG, K., “Tritium — Bilanz im HTR” (Proc. Conf. on “Chemie des Hochtemperaturreaktors”, Jülich) Report Jül-Conf-43,
Research Center Jülich (1981) 95–106.
[369] CORDEWINER, H.J., Numerische Berechnung des Tritium-Verhaltens von Kugelhaufenreaktoren am Beispiel des AVR-
Reaktors, Report Jül-1607, Research Center Jülich (1979).
[370] MOIR, R.W., et al., Helium-Cooled Molten-Salt Fusion Breeder, Report UCID-20153, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (1984).
[371] STEINWARZ, W., Tritium in HTR-Anlagen, Report Jül-2138, Research Center Jülich (1987).
[372] SERPEKIAN, T., Untersuchungen an HTR-Wärmetauschermaterialien, Report Jül-1111-RG, Research Center Jülich (1974).
[373] RÖHRIG, H.D., “Überblick über die Arbeiten im IRE zur H- unnd T-Permeation und zum Tritiumverhalten in HTRs” In:
BUCHKREMER, H.P. (Ed.), Überblick über die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet des Wasserstoff- und Tritiumverhaltens in
Hochtemperaturreaktoren, Report Jül-1497, Research Center Jülich (1978) 5–33.
[374] RÖHRIG, H.D., et al., Neuere Ergebnisse aus der Anlage zur Untersuchung des Wasserstoffdurchtritts an Reformermaterialien
(AUWARM), Atomwirtschaft 23 (1978) 339–341.
363
[375] HISHIDA, M., DIEHL, W., RÖHRIG, H.D., “New experimental results from the test facility "AUWARM" ” In:
BUCHKREMER, H.P. (Ed.), Überblick über die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet des Wasserstoff- und Tritiumverhaltens in
Hochtemperaturreaktoren, Report Jül-1497, Research Center Jülich (1978) 45–60.
[376] GAINEY, B.W., A Review of Tritium Behavior in HTGR Systems, Report GA-A13461, General Atomics, San Diego, CA
(1976).
[377] KIRCH, N., SCHEIDLER, G., Stand der F+E-Arbeiten zum Tritiumpfad einer nuklearen Prozeßwärmeanlage und Bewertung
im Hinblick auf eine mögliche Anhebung der Freigrenze, Internal Report KFA-HTA-IB-3/85, Research Center Jülich (1985).
[378] RÖHRIG, H.D., et al., Studies on the permeation of hydrogen and tritium in nuclear process heat installations, Nuclear
[379] ESSER, H.G., Nachweis der Wasserstoffisotope H und T in verschiedenen Phasen und Konzentrationen an einer Versuchsanlage
zur Untersuchung der Tritium- und Wasserstoffpermeation durch Wärmetauschermaterialien unter betriebsnahen Bedingungen
(Modellversuche zu H- und T-Diffusionen), Internal Report KFA-IRE-IB-23/79, Research Center Jülich (1979).
[380] STEINWARZ, W., RÖHRIG, H.D., NIEDER, R., “Tritium behaviour in an HTR-system based on AVR-experience“ (Proc.
IAEA Specialists Meeting on Coolant Chemistry, Plate-Out and Decontamination in Gas-Cooled Reactors, Jülich, 1980)
Summary Report IAEA-IWGGCR/2, IAEA, Vienna (1981) 153–160.
[381] VEY, K., RESCH, G., Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Betrieb des THTR-300 aus der Sicht der Kraftwerk-Chemie, VGB
Kraftwerkstechnik (1988) Issue 7 (July).
[382] EICHLER, R. Reinigung inerter Gaskreisläufe nuklearer Energieerzeugungsanlagen von Tritium und Wasserstoff, Report Jül-
2008, Research Center Jülich (1985).
[383] BMU, Verordnung über den Schutz vor Schäden durch ionisierende Strahlen (Strahlenschutzverordnung – StrlSchV) in der
Fassung vom 30. Juni 1989 (BGBl. I S. 1321, zuletzt geändert 1997), Bonn (1989).
[384] BMJ, Verordnung über den Schutz vor Schäden durch ionisierende Strahlen (Strahlenschutzverordnung — StrlSchV), Version
of July 20, 2001, with latest changes made on August 29, 2008, Berlin (2001).
[385] INAGAKI Y., et al., Research and development on system integration technology for connection of hydrogen production system
to an HTGR, Nuclear Technology 157 (2007) 111–119.
[386] VERFONDERN, K., NISHIHARA, T., Valuation of the Safety Concept of the Combined Nuclear/Chemical Complex for
Hydrogen Production with HTTR, Report Jül-4135, Research Center Jülich (2004).
[387] TAKEDA, T., et al., “Study on tritium/hydrogen permeation in the HTTR hydrogen production system”, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on
Nuclear Engineering ICONE-7, Tokyo (1999).
[388] TAKEDA, T., IWATSUKI, J., Counter-permeation of deuterium and hydrogen through Inconel 600, Nuclear Technology 146
(2004) 83–95.
[389] SAKABA, N., et al., “Evaluation of permeated hydrogen through heat transfer pipes of the intermediate heat exchanger during
the initial 950°C operation of the HTTR”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005)
paper 5159.
[390] BUCHKREMER, H.P., Entwicklung und Erprobung einer Anlage zur Untersuchung der Permeation von Wasserstoffisotopen
unter nuklearen Prozessbedingungen, Report Jül-1806, Research Center Jülich (1982).
[391] RICHARDS, M., “Utilization of the JAEA HTTR to support the NGNP project”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 039.
[392] PARK, J.H., PARK, I.K., LEE, W.J., Prediction of the tritium behavior in very high temperature gas cooled reactor using
TRITGO, Bangsason Bango Hakhoe Chi (Journal of the Korean Association for Radiation Protection) 33 (2008) 113–120.
[393] RUSSIAN FEDERATION, NRB-99, Ionizing radiation, radiation safety, Norms of radiation safety, In: SP - 2.6.1., Minzdrav,
Moscow (1999) 58–99.
[394] RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Sanitary rules for design and operation of nuclear plants, SANPIN 2.6.1.24-03, Moscow (2003).
[395] WICHNER, R.P., DYER, F.F., Distribution and Transport of Tritium in the Peach Bottom HTGR, Report ORNL-5497, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (1979).
[396] BURNETTE, R.D., BALDWIN, N.L., “Primary coolant chemistry of the Peach Bottom and Fort St. Vrain high temperature gas-
cooled reactors” (Proc. IAEA Specialists Meeting on Coolant Chemistry, Plate-Out and Decontamination in Gas-Cooled
Reactors, Jülich, 1980) Summary Report IAEA-IWGGCR/2, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1981) 132–137.
[397] CALDERONI, P., EBNER, M., PAWELKO, R., “High temperature hydrogen permeation in nickel alloys”, Proc. 5th Int. Top.
Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 131.
[398] COMPERE, E.L., FREID, S.H., NESTOR, C.W., Distribution and Release of Tritium in High temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors
as a Function of Design, Operational and Material Parameters, Report ORNL-TM-4303, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
TN (1974).
[399] GENERAL ATOMICS, Fuel Design Data Manual, Document 901866, Issue F, General Atomics, San Diego, CA (1987).
[400] MARTIN, R.C., Compilation of Fuel Performance and Fission Product Transport Models and Database for MHTGR Design,
Report ORNL/NPR-91/6, Oak Ridge National Labortaory, TN (1993).
[401] OHASHI, H., SHERMAN, S.R., Tritium Movement and Accumulation in the NGNP System Interface and Hydrogen Plant,
Report INL/EXT-07-12746, Idaho National Laboratory, ID (2007).
364
[402] KIM, E.S., OH, C.H., PATTERSON, M., “Development of tritium permeation analysis code and tritium transport in a high
temperature gas-cooled reactor coupled with hydrogen production system”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power
Plants ICAPP’10, San Diego, CA (2010) paper 10207.
[403] INGERSOLL, D.T., et al., Status of Preconceptual Design of the Advanced High temperature Reactor (AHTR), Report
ORNL/TM-2004/104, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN (2004).
[404] TNO, Green book: Methods for the Determination of Possible Damage to People and Objects Resulting from Releases of
Hazardous Materials, Report CPR 16E, Voorburg, The Netherlands (1992).
[405] LIND, C.D., What causes unconfined vapor cloud explosions, Loss Prevention 9 (1975) 101–105.
[406] VAN WINGERDEN, K., Detonations in Pipes and in the Open, CMR Internal Report, Christian Michelsen Research, Bergen,
Norway (1999).
[407] TIESZEN, S.R., Effect of initial conditions on combustion generated loads, Nuclear Engineering and Design 140 (1993) 81–94.
[408] TANG, M.J., BAKER, Q.A., A new set of blast curves from vapor cloud explosion, Process Safety Progress 18(3) (1999)
235–240.
[409] CENTER FOR CHEMICAL PROCESS SAFETY, Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapour Cloud Explosions,
Flash Fires and BLEVE’s, CCPS, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York (1994).
[410] MERCX, W.P.M., WEERHEIJM, J., VERHAGEN, T.L.A., Some Considerations on the Damage Criteria and Safety Distances
for Industrial Explosions, HAZARDS XI — New Directions in Process Safety, UMIST, Manchester (1991).
[411] MERCX, W.P.M., Developments in vapour cloud explosion blast modeling, Journal of Hazardous Materials 71 (2000) 301–319.
[412] VAN DEN BERG, A.C., EGGEN, J.B.M., “GAME — Guidance for the application of the Multi-Energy method”, Proc. 2nd Int.
Specialist Meeting on Fuel Air Explosions, Bergen (1996).
[413] VAN DEN BERG, A.C., VERSLOOT, N.H.A., The Multi-Energy critical separation distance, Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries 16 (2003) 111–120.
[414] BREITUNG, W., REDLINGER, R., Containment pressure loads from hydrogen combustion in unmitigated severe accidents,
Nuclear Technology 111 (1995) 395–419.
[415] FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, “Explosive blast” Chapter 4 in: Reference Manual to Mitigate
Potential Terrorist Attacks against Buildings, Report FEMA426, FEMA, Washington D.C. (2003).
[416] GIESBRECHT, H., Evaluation of vapour cloud explosions by damage analysis, Journal of Hazardous Materials 17 (1988)
247–257.
[417] LI, Q.M., MENG, H., Pressure-impulse diagram for blast loads based on dimensional analysis and single-degree-of-freedom
model. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128 (2002) 87–92.
[418] PFÖRTNER, H., “Gas cloud explosions and resulting blast effects”, Proc. Int. Sem. on Extreme Load Conditions and Limit
Analysis Procedures for Structural Reactor Safeguards and Containment Structures, Berlin (1975).
[419] KUMAR, R.K., et al., Carbon Monoxide–Hydrogen Combustion Characteristics in Severe Accident Containment Conditions,
Final report NEA/CSNI/R(2000)10, OECD-Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris (2000).
[420] ILBAS, M., CRAYFORD, A.P., YILMAZ, I., BOWEN, P.J., SYRED, N., Laminar-burning velocities of hydrogen–air and
hydrogen–methane–air mixtures: an experimental study, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1768–1779.
[421] SINGH, Y., “Safety aspects of HTR-Module for process heat under considerations of burnable gases”, Proc. Soviet/German
Seminar on Extraction and Utilization of High Temperature Heat from HTR, Jülich, Research Center Jülich (1990) 265–278.
[422] VERFONDERN, K., MOORMANN, R., BREITUNG, W., VESER, A., “Contributions to a safety analysis for a hydrogen
production system with HTGR”, Proc. OECD/NEA 1st Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Paris
(2000).
[423] SATO, H., OHASHI, H., TAZAWA, Y., SAKABA, N., TACHIBANA, Y., “Safety evaluation of the HTTR-IS nuclear hydrogen
production system”, Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-18, Xi'an (2010) paper 29108.
[424] MARANGON, A., et al., Safety distances: definition and values, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007)
2192–2197.
[425] SOCHET, I., VIOSSAT, A.-L., ROUYER, J.-L., HEMMERICH, P., “Safe hydrogen generation by nuclear HTR”, Proc. Int.
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’04, Pittsburgh, PA (2004) paper 4261.
[426] SCHNEIDER, H., PFÖRTNER, H., Flammen- und Druckwellenausbreitung bei der Deflagration von Wasserstoff/Luft-
Gemischen, Technical Note, Institute for the Chemistry of Fuels and Explosives of the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Pfinztal,
Germany (1978).
[427] PFÖRTNER, H., et al., “Flame acceleration and pressure build up in free and partially confined hydrogen air clouds”, Proc. 9th
Int. Coll. on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems ICDERS, Poitiers (1983).
[428] PFÖRTNER, H., SCHNEIDER, H., Ballonversuche zur Untersuchung der Deflagration von Wasserstoff Luft Gemischen
(Abschlussbericht), PNP-Sicherheitssofortprogrammem: “Prozessgasfreisetzung — Explosion in der Gasfabrik und
Auswirkungen von Druckwellen auf das Containment”, Internal Report, Fraunhofer Institut für Chemische Technologie,
Pfinztal, Germany (1983).
[429] PFÖRTNER, H., The effects of gas explosions in free and partially confined fuel/air mixtures, Propellants, Explosives,
Pyrotechnics 10 (1985) 151–155.
365
[430] SCHNEIDER, H., PFÖRTNER, H., Explosion von Wasserstoff Luft Gemischen unter teilverdämmten Bedingungen und unter
dem Einfluss einer turbulenten Strömung. PNP-Sicherheitssofortprogrammem: “Prozessgasfreisetzung — Explosion in der
Gasfabrik und Auswirkungen von Druckwellen auf das Containment”, Internal Report, Fraunhofer Institut für Chemische
Technologie, Pfinztal, Germany (1984).
[431] SCHNEIDER, H., PFÖRTNER, H., Versuche zur Freistrahlzündung partiell verdämmter Wasserstoff Luft Gemische im
Hinblick auf die Skalierbarkeit des Übergangs Deflagration Detonation, Final Report for Firma Interatom, Bergisch-Gladbach,
Internal Report, Fraunhofer Institut für Chemische Technologie, Pfinztal, Germany (1984).
[432] SCHNEIDER, H., “Large scale experiments: deflagration and deflagration to detonation transition within a partial confinement
similar to a lane”, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Hydrogen Safety ICHS, Pisa (2005).
[433] BERMAN, M., A critical review of recent large scale experiments on hydrogen–air detonations, Nuclear Science and
Technology 93 (2005) 321–347.
[434] MERCX, W.P.M., Extended Modelling and Experimental Research into Gas Explosions, Final Summary Report of the Project
EMERGE, CEC Contract EV5VCT930274, European Commission, Directorate General XII., Brussels (1997).
[435] BMI, Bundesministerium des Innern, Bekanntmachung der Richtlinie für den Schutz von Kernkraftwerken gegen Druckwellen
aus chemischen Reaktionen durch Auslegung der Kernkraftwerke hinsichtlich ihrer Festigkeit und induzierter Schwingungen
sowie durch Sicherheitsabstände. Bonn, Germany, September 13 (1976).
[436] KUGELER, K., TRAGSDORF, I.M., PÖPPE, N., “Technical and Safety Aspects of Processes of Hydrogen Production using
Nuclear Energy”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005) paper 5729.
[437] INABA, Y., NISHIHARA, T., NITTA, Y., Analytical study on fire and explosion accidents assumed in HTGR hydrogen
production system, Nuclear Technology 146 (2004) 49–56.
[438] NISHIHARA, T., KUNITOMI, K., MURAKAMI, T., “Study on the separation distance in the HTGR hydrogen production
system (GTHTR300C)”, Proc. 3rd Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2006, Johannesburg (2006)
paper I00000126.
[439] MURAKAMI, T., TERADA, A., NISHIHARA, T., INAGAKI, Y., KUNITOMI K., Analysis on characteristic of hydrogen gas
dispersion and evaluation method of blast overpressure in VHTR hydrogen production system,Nihon Genshiryoku Gakkai
Wabun Ronbun Shi = Transactions of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan 5(4) (2006) 316–324. [in Japanese]
[440] KOMORI M., et al., “Safety study of hydrogen supply stations for the review of high pressure gas safety law in Japan”, Proc. 1st
Int. Conf. on Hydrogen Safety ICHS, Pisa (2005) paper 400081.
[441] WE-NET, Summary Report on FY 2002, Tokyo (2003).
[442] INSTITUTE OF APPLIED ENERGY, SRI INTERNATIONAL, MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, “Experiments on
hydrogen deflagration” (Presentation at the Research Center Karlsruhe) IAE, Tokyo (2005).
[443] RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Factoring External Natural and Man-Caused Impacts on Nuclear and Radiation Hazardous
Facilities, Regulatory document NP-064-05, “Rostechnadzor” (2005).
[444] RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Rules of Design & Development of Capital Construction Projects for Nuclear Plants with Reactors
of Different Types, Regulatory Document PiN AE-5.6 (1986).
[445] RUSSIAN FEDERATION, General Requirements for Explosion-Proof Conditions in the Chemical, Petrochemical and
Petroleum Refining Industries, Regulatory Document PB 09-540-03 (2003).
[446] RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Safety Rules to be Observed in Production of Hydrogen by Water Electrolysis, Regulatory
Document PB 03-598-03 (2003).
[447] U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur on Transportation Routes
Near Nuclear Power Plants, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.91, Revision 1, NRC, Washington, DC (1978).
[448] NUCLEAR NEWS, Argonne’s David Wade: On the development of small modular reactors, Nuclear News (2004) August
25–28.
[449] SMITH, C., BECK, S., GALYEAN, W., “Separation requirements for a hydrogen production plant and high temperature nuclear
reactor”, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants ICAPP’06, Reno, NV (2006) paper 6062.
[450] EDESKUTY, F.J., Critical Review and Assessment of Problems in Hydrogen Energy Delivery Systems, Report LA-7405-PR,
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (1978).
[451] CASSUT, L.H., et al., A study of the hazards in the storage and handling of liquid hydrogen, Advances in Cryogenic
Engineering 5 (1960) 55–61.
[452] BREWER, G.D., et al., Assessment of Crash Fire Hazard of LH2-Fueled Aircraft, Final Report NASA-CR-165525, NASA
Lewis Research Center (1981).
[453] URANO, Y., et al., Hazards of burning liquefied hydrogen, Part 1: Flame of stable burning, Part 2: Flame of abnormal burning,
National Chemical Laboratory for Industry 81 (1986) 143–157. [In Japanese].
[454] OHASHI, H., et al., “Current status of research and development on system integration technology for connection between
HTGR and hydrogen production system at JAEA”, Proc. OECD/NEA 3rd Information Exchange Meeting on the Nuclear
Production of Hydrogen, Oarai (2005).
[455] SAKABA, N., SATO, H., OHASHI, H., NISHIHARA, T., KUNITOMI, K., “Conceptual system design of non-nuclear grade IS
process to be coupled with the HTTR” (Proc. IAEA Int. Conf. on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater
Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications, Oarai, 2007), Proceedings Series IAEA-CN-152,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2009) 121–129.
366
[456] CHAN, S.T., Numerical simulations of LNG vapor dispersion from a fenced storage area, Journal of Hazardous Materials 30
(1992) 195–224.
[457] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, External Man-Induced Events in Relation to Nuclear Power Plant Siting, A
Safety Guide, Safety Series No. 50-SG-S5, IAEA, Vienna (1981).
[458] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, External Man-Induced Events in Relation to Nuclear Power Plant Design,
A Safety Guide, Safety Series No. 50-SG-D5, Revision 1, IAEA, Vienna (1996).
[459] EUROPEAN UNION, Richtlinie 82/501/EWG des Rates vom 24. Juni 1982 über die Gefahren schwerer Unfälle bei
bestimmten Industrietätigkeiten (1982),
http://www.umwelt-online.de/regelwerk/eu/ 80_84/82_501a.htm
[460] EUROPEAN UNION, Seveso II Directive (96/082/EEC), (1996), http:/www.bickgreen.co.uk /risk/seveso2/ seveso2.htm
(English) or Richtlinie 96/82/EG des Rates vom 9. Dezember 1996 zur Beherrschung der Gefahren beischweren Unfällen mit
gefährlichen Stoffen (1996),
http://www.umwelt-online.de/regelwerk/eu/95_99/96_82a.htm
[461] EUROPEAN UNION, Directive 94/9/EC on “Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive
Atmospheres” (“ATEX 100a”), (1994),
http://europa.eu.int/comm/ enterprise/atex/direct/ text94-9.htm
[462] EUROPEAN UNION, Directive on “Minimum Requirements for Improving the Safety and Health Protection of Workers
Potentially at Risk from Explosive Atmospheres” (“ATEX 118a”), (1999),
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1999/ en_399L0092.html
[463] MAISONNIER, G., PERRIN, J., STEINBERGER-WILCKENS, R., TRÜMPER, S.C., European Hydrogen Infrastructure Atlas
and Industrial Excess Hydrogen Analysis, Part II: Industrial Surplus Hydrogen and Markets and Production, Report
R2H2006PU.1 of the European Integrated Project ROAD2HYCOM (2007).
[464] HIS, S., Hydrogen: An Energy Vector for the Future? Panorama 2004, IFP, Rueil-Malmaison, France (2004).
[465] WOLF, J., Die neuen Entwicklungen der Technik — Elemente der Wasserstoff-Infrastruktur von der Herstellung bis zum Tank,
Medienforum Deutscher Wasserstoff-Tag, München (2003).
[466] SRI INTERNATIONAL, Liquid Hydrogen Production and Commercial Demand in the United States, SRI Project 8562, Final
report, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (1990), 
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/ nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/ 19910006853_1991006853.pdf
[467] SLOOP, J.L., Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel — 1945–1959. NASA History Office, Report NASA SP-4404, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington D.C. (1978).
[468] NASA, NASA facts. FS-2001-09-015-KSC, Revised Version, Kennedy Space Center (2006).
[469] VERFONDERN, K., Safety Considerations on Liquid Hydrogen, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Reihe Energie &
Umwelt, Vol 10, Jülich (2008).
[470] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, Transport, Energy and CO2, Moving towards Sustainability, IEA, Paris (2009).
[471] RUER, J., “End user requirements for nuclear process heat applications”, Presentation at the Post FISA Workshop,
Prague (2009).
[472] REIMERT, R., SCHAD, M., “Process heat from modularized HTR”, Proc. 5th Int. Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor
Technology HTR2010, Prague (2010) paper 186.
[473] SCHAD, M., DIDAS, U., EBELING, F., KREUZKAMP, G., RENNER, H., Project Study on Utilization of Process Heat from
the HTGR in the Chemical and Related Industries, Report Lurgi GmbH, Frankfurt (1988).
[474] WORLD STEEL ASSOCIATION, Steel and Energy, Fact Sheet, WSA, Brussels (2008).
[475] YAN, X.L., HINO, R., Nuclear Hydrogen Production Handbook, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL (2011).
[476] FORSBERG, C.W., Future hydrogen markets for large scale hydrogen production systems, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 32 (2007) 431–439.
[477] DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, Coal Liquefaction, Technology Status Report DTIPub URN 99/1120, DTI,
London (1999).
[478] VAN NIEKERK, W., “Status and future planning of the South Africa’s nuclear hydrogen production programme”, Proc. 3rd
Nuclear Hydrogen Workshop, Jeju, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (2009).
[479] HARTWELL, B., ISMAIL, N., KIM, D.G., MA, J.H., Design for a Coal IGCC Plant for the Co-Production of Electricity and H2
in Pittsburgh, PA, Report Penn State EGEE 580 Spring 2008, PA (2009).
[480] PENFIELD, S.R., BOLTHRUNIS, C.O., “Put a coalatom in your tank: The compelling case for a marriage of coal and nuclear
energy”, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering ICONE-14, Miami, FL (2006) paper 89605.
[481] FORSBERG, C.W., Assessment of Nuclear-Hydrogen Synergies with Renewable Energy Systems and Coal Liquefaction
Processes, Report ORNL/TM-2006/114, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN (2006).
[482] BRUSSTAR, M., “Sustainable technology choices for alternative fuels” (Int. Symp. on Alcohol Fuels, San Diego, CA) ISAF
XV, USA (2005).
[483] AUSFELDER, F., BAZZANELLA, A., Verwertung und Speicherung von CO2, Discussion paper on DECHEMA (2008),
www.dechema.de/dechema_media/diskussion co2.pdf
[484] MIDDHA, P., ENGEL, D., HANSEN, O.R., “Can the addition of hydrogen to natural gas reduce the explosion risk?”, Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. on Hydrogen Safety ICHS, Ajaccio (2009) paper ID114.
367
[485] RAUKAS, A., PUNNING, J.-M., Environmental problems in the Estonian oil shale industry, Energy & Environmental Science
2 (2009) 723–728.
[486] JONES, S., SAGD delivers healthy return on investment, Ziff Energy Group (2009).
[487] STEELE, B., HEINZEL, A., Materials for fuel cell technologies. Nature 414 (2001) 345–352.
[488] NÖLSCHER, C., Brennstoffzellen — Energiequelle für das 21. Jahrhundert? Physik in unserer Zeit 27 (1996) 52–59.
[489] FORSBERG, C.W., KAZIMI, M.S., Nuclear Hydrogen Using High temperature Electrolysis and Light-Water Reactors for Peak
Electricity Production, Report MIT-NES-TR-010, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2009).
[490] LOKURLU, A., HÖHLEIN, B., GRUBE, T., RIENSCHE, E., “Fuel cells for stationary and mobile applications — Economic
analyses and challenges”, Proc. Int. Hydrogen Energy Congress and Exhibition IHEC, Istanbul (2005).
[491] NABIELEK, H., STEINBERGER-WILCKENS, R., “Fuel cell research in Europe”, Proc. 1st Polish Forum Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Technologies, Zakopane (2007).
[492] MEISSNER, D., “Grundlagen der Brennstoffzelle”, In: HAKE, J.-F., et al. (Ed.), (Proc. 2. Ferienkurs Energieforschung, Jülich)
Konferenzen des Forschungs-zentrums Jülich, Vol. 20, Part I, Research Center Jülich (1996) 177–196.
[493] STEINBERGER-WILCKENS, R., “Overview of solid oxide fuel cell development at FZJ“, Presentation at the 216th Meeting
of the Electrochemical Society (ECS), Vienna (2009).
[494] HAUG, M., NEEF, H.-J., “Market introduction for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies”, In: STOLTEN, D. (Ed.), Hydrogen and
Fuel Cells — Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2010) 577–596.
[495] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, On-Board Fuel Processing Go/No Go Decision, DOE Decision Team
Committee Report, USDOE, Washington DC (2004).
[496] WETZEL, F.-J., “Die keramische Brennstoffzelle als Energiewandler für die Stromerzeugung im Auto”, In: Themen 2004,
Wasserstoff und Brennstoffzellen — Energieforschung im Verbund, FVS Report, ForschungsVerbund Sonnenenergie, Germany
(2004) 118–123.
[497] VOGLER, F., WÜRSIG, G., “Safety considerations and approval procedures for the integration of fuel cells on board of ships”,
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Hydrogen Safety ICHS, Ajaccio (2009) paper ID 007.
[498] RYE, L., BLAKEY, S., WILSON, C.W., Sustainability of supply or the planet: A review of potential drop-in alternative aviation
fuels, Energy & Environmental Science 3 (2010) 17–27.
[499] PETERS, R., “APUs for road vehicles, ships and airplanes”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[500] DASA, CRYOPLANE — Deutsch-Russisches Gemeinschaftsprojekt zum Einsatz kryogener Treibstoffe in der zivilen Luftfahrt
— Realisierbarkeitsstudie 1990/91/92, Feasibility study, Deutsche Aerospace Airbus GmbH, Hamburg (1992).
[501] POHL, H.-W., WILDNER, D., “Hydrogen demonstrator aircraft“, Proc. 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’11,
Stuttgart (1996) 1779–1786.
[502] NATIONAL ACADEMIES, The Hydrogen Economy — Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs, NA, Washington D.C.
(2004).
[503] NOU, Norges Offentlige utredninger, Hydrogen som fremtidens energibærer. Statens forvaltningstjeneste Informatiosjonsafdeling,
Oslo, Norway (2004).
[504] HAIDN, O.J., et al., “Improved combustion efficiency of a H2/O2 steam generator for spinning reserve application”, Proc.
11th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’11, Stuttgart (1996) 1418–1427.
[505] KUSTERER, H., Scherf, H., “HYDROSS — Einsatz von Wasserstoff zur Sofort-reservebereitstellung”, Proc. Status Seminar
Wasserstoff als Energieträger, Jülich, Projektträger Biologie, Energie, Ökologie, Research Center Jülich (1995) 95–128.
[506] GQ-CEC, Euro–Quebec Hydro–Hydrogen Pilot Project — Phase II, Feasibility Study, Final Report, Vol. I–V, Government of
Quebec, Commission of the European Communities (1991).
[507] GIACOMAZZI, G., GRETZ, J., Euro-Quebec Hydro-Hydrogen Project (EQHHPP): A challenge to cryogenic technology,
Cryogenics 33 (1993) 767–771.
[508] MURASE, M., “R&D plans for WE-NET (World Energy Network) — Hydrogen and clean energy”, Proc. NEDO Int. Symp.,
Tokyo (1995) 55–64.
[509] HIJIKATA, T., Research and development of international clean energy network using hydrogen energy (WE-NET),
[510] EUROPEAN HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM, Deployment Strategy, August 2005, EHFCP,
Brussels (2005),
https://www.hfpeurope.org/uploads/878/HFP_ DS_Report_AUG2005.pdf
[511] CASTELLO, P., et al., Techno–Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Transmission & Distribution Systems in Europe in the
Medium and Long Term, Report EUR 21586 EN, European Commission, Brussels (2005).
[512] INTERNATIONAL ROAD FEDERATION, World Road Statistics, Alexandria, VA,
http://www.irfnet.org
[513] PYE, S., et al., Cost and Environmental Effectiveness of Options for Reducing Air Pollution from Small scale Combustion
Installations, AEAT/ED48256/Final Report Issue 2, AEA Technology Development, Harwell (2004).
[514] LOCKE, M., SAGE: System for Assessing Aviation’s Global Emissions, US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington D.C.
(2005).
[515] VANDER AREND, P.C., et al., “The liquefaction of hydrogen”, In: SCOTT, R.B. et al. (Eds.), Technology and uses of liquid
hydrogen, Pergamon Press Ltd, Oxford (1964) 38–105.
368
[516] PESCHKA, W., Liquid Hydrogen: Fuel of the Future, Springer-Verlag Wien New York (1992).
[517] STANG, J., et al., “On the design of an efficient hydrogen liquefaction plant”, Proc. 16th World Hydrogen Energy Conf.
WHEC’16, Lyon (2006) paper 324.
[518] MESSER-GRIESHEIM, Wasserstoff, Broschure 0.810.009, Messer-Griesheim, Krefeld (1989).
[519] TZIMAS, E., et al., Hydrogen Storage: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspective, Report EUR 20995 EN, European Commission,
JRC Petten, The Netherlands (2003),
http://ie.jrc.cec.eu.int/publications/scientific_publications/ 2003/P2003-81=EUR20995EN.pdf
[520] BOWMAN, The Big Chill, The Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA (1998),
http://www.external.ameslab.gov/news/Inquiry/fall97/ bigchill .html
[521] FOLDEAKI, M., et al., “Material selection for magnetic refrigerator design”, Proc. 7th Canadian Hydrogen Workshop, Quebec
City (1995) 439–453.
[522] IWASAKI, W., A consideration of power density and hydrogen production and utilization technologies, International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 1325–1332.
[523] DRNVICH, R. “Hydrogen delivery liquefaction and compression”, Presentation at the Workshop on Strategic Initiatives for
Hydrogen Delivery, Washington D.C. (2003).
[524] DOMASHENKO, A., et al., Production, storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen, experience of infrastructure
development and operation, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 27 (2002) 753–755.
[525] SCHLAPBACH, L., ZÜTTEL, A., Hydrogen-storage materials for mobile applications, Nature 414 (2001) 353–358.
[526] CROTOGINO, F., DONADEI, S., BÜNGER, U., LANDINGER, H., “Large scale hydrogen underground storage for securing
future energy supplies”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[527] BARBIER, F., “Hydrogen distribution infrastructure for an energy system: present status and perspectives of technologies, In:
STOLTEN, D. (Ed.), Hydrogen and Fuel Cells — Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim (2010)
121–148.
[528] SIMBECK, D., CHANG, E., Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways — Scoping Analysis, Report NREL/SR-
540-32525, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO (2002).
[529] EDESKUTY, F.J., STEWART, W.F., Safety in the Handling of Cryogenic Fluids, The International Cryogenics Monograph
Series, Plenum Press, New York (1996).
[530] TAYLOR, J.B., Technical and economical assessment of methods for the storage of large quantities of hydrogen, International
[531] LØVVIK, O.M., Viable storage of hydrogen in materials with off-board recharging using high temperature electrolysis,
[532] TANAKA, H., et al., Hazard assessment of complex hydrides as hydrogen storage materials, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 34 (2009) 3210–3218.
[533] KEDING, M., REISSNER, A., SCHMID, G., TAJMAR, M., “Innovative hydrogen storage solutions for aerospace
applications”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[534] U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, The Impact of Increased Use of Hydrogen on Petroleum Consumption
and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Report SR/OIAF-CNEAF/2008-04, US-EIA, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C.
(2008).
[535] AIR LIQUIDE (2009),
http://www.airliquide.com/en/our-offer/products/pipelines.html
[536] EDESKUTY, F.J., WILLIAMSON, K.D., Storage and handling of cryogens, Advances in Cryogenic Engineering 17 (1972)
56–68.
[537] BMBF, Icefuel, Project V3MVT100, (2006),
http://www.icefuel.de
[538] MARKOWZ, G., DYLLA, A., and ELLIGER, T., “icefuel® — an infrastructure system for cryogenic hydrogen storage,
distribution and decentral use”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[539] PETERSEN, U., et al., Design and safety considerations for large scale sea-borne hydrogen transport, International Journal of
[540] STUCKI, S., SCHUCAN, T., “Speicherung und Transport von Wasserstoff in Form organischer Verbindungen”, In: VDI
Berichte No. 1129, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf (1994) 175–194.
[541] EPSTEIN, M., et al., “Solar Experiments with a Tubular Reformer”, Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Solar Thermal Concentrating
Technologies, Cologne (1996).
[542] NAKAGAWA K., et al., “Nippon oil’s activities toward realization of hydrogen economy”, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy
Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[543] OGAWA, M., SHIOZAWA, S., “Evaluation of hydrogen production system with high temperature gas-cooled reactor”, Proc.
GENES4/ANP Conf., Kyoto (2003) paper 1055.
[544] YILDIZ, B., KAZIMI, M.S., Efficiency of hydrogen production systems using alternative nuclear energy technologies,
[545] FORSBERG, C.W., Nuclear Hydrogen for Peak Electricity Production and Spinning Reserve, Report ORNL/TM-2004/194, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, TN (2005).
369
[546] DUTTA, S., BLOCK, D.L., PORT, R.L., Economic assessment of advanced electrolytic hydrogen production, International
[547] LIPMAN, T.E., What will Power the Hydrogen Economy? Present and Future Sources of Hydrogen Energy, Report UCD-ITS-
RR-04-10, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis (2004).
[548] SCHMATJKO, K.-J., “Electrolytic hydrogen production and present grid conditions”, In: VERFONDERN, K. (Ed.), Nuclear
Energy for Hydrogen Production, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Energy Technology, Vol. 58, Research Center Jülich
(2007).
[549] NUCNET Background No. 20 (2002).
[550] DELENE, J.G., et al., An Assessment of the Economics of Future Electric Power Generation Options and the Implications,
ORNL Report TM-1999-2443, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN (1999).
[551] NATIONAL GRID COMPANY, NGC (2001),
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/
[552] GRUHL, H., et al., In: Ullmanns Enzyklopädie der technischen Chemie, 14, 55 sqq. (1977).
[553] QUANDT, K.H., STREICHER, R., Concept and design of a 3.5 MW pilot plant for high temperature electrolysis of water
vapour, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 11 (1986) 309–315.
[554] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, External Costs — Research Results on Socio–Environmental Damages due to Electricity and
Transport, Report 20198, EC, Brussels (2003).
[555] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform, Special Report EUR 22842, EC, Brussels
(2007).
[556] DREIER, T., Wagner, U., Perspektiven einer Wasserstoff-Energiewirtschaft, Teil 1: Techniken und Systeme zur
Wasserstofferzeugung, Brennstoff Wärme Kraft 52(12) (2000) 41–46.
[557] SHIINA, Y., NISHIHARA, T., Cost Estimation of Hydrogen and DME Produced by Nuclear Heat Utilization System II, Report
JAERI-Tech 2004-057, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Oarai (2004).
[558] CEA-IFP-Total In-House Study, CEA Annual report (2009).
[559] ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, High temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors for the Production of Hydrogen: An
Assessment in Support of the Hydrogen Economy, Document # 1007802, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA (2003).
[560] GENERATION IV INTERNATIONAL FORUM, Cost Estimating Guidelines for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,
Report GIF/EMWG/2007/004, Revision 4.2, Generation IV International Forum (2007).
[561] TAYLOR, J.P., SHROPSHIRE, D., “Dynamic complexity study of nuclear reactor and process heat application integration”,
Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy Systems for Future Generation and Global Sustainability Global 2009, Paris (2009)
paper 9451.
[562] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Examining the Economics of Seawater Desalination Using DEEP Code,
Report IAEA-TECDOC-1186, IAEA, Vienna (2000).
[563] KHAMIS, I., “The development of hydrogen economic evaluation programmeme (HEEP)” (Proc. 4th OECD/NEA Information
Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Oakbrook, 2009) OECD-NEA Report No. 6805, Paris (2010) 281–287.
[564] KHAMIS, I., An overview of the IAEA HEEP software and international programmemes on hydrogen production using nuclear
energy, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36 (2011) 4125–4129.
[565] HARVEGO, E.A., MCKELLAR, M.G., SOHAL, M.S., O’BRIEN, J.E., HERRING, J.S., Economic Analysis of the Reference
Design for a Nuclear-Driven High temperature-Electrolysis Hydrogen Production Plant, Report INL/EXT-08-13799, Idaho
National Laboratory, ID (2008).
[566] YANG, K.J., LEE, K.Y., LEE, T.H., “Preliminary cost estimates for massive hydrogen production using SI process”, Proc. 4th Int.
Top. Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology HTR2008, Washington D.C. (2008) paper 58142.
[567] SONNTAG, R., et al., Slush Hydrogen, Gelled Hydrogen, and Gelled-Slush Hydrogen, NASP Contractor Report 1027, NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (1988).
[568] ZABETAKIS, M.G., Safety with Cryogenic Fluids, Plenum Press, New York (1967).
[569] EICHERT, H., et al., Gefährdungspotential bei einem verstärkten Wasserstoff-einsatz. Study for the Büro für
Technikfolgenabschätzung des Deutschen Bundestags, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Stuttgart (1992).
[570] CHOUDHURI, A.R., Investigation on the Flame Extinction Limit of Fuel Blends, Combustion and Propulsion Research
Laboratory at the University of Texas at El Paso, TX (2005).
[571] KROENER, M., FRITZ, J., SATTELMAYER, T., “Flashback limits for combustion induced vortex breakdown in a swirl
burner”, Proc. 47th ASME Int. Gas Turbine & Aeroengine Technical Congress, Amsterdam (2002).
[572] TIESZEN, S.R., et al., Detonation cell size measurements in hydrogen–air–steam mixtures, Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics 106 (1986) 205–219.
[573] KUZNETSOV, M., et al., “Effect of pressure and temperature on flame acceleration and DDT limits for methane–air mixtures”,
Proc. European Combustion Meeting ECM2005, Louvain-la-Neuve (2005) paper R24-208 (1-5).
[574] ARTHUR D. LITTLE, Final Report on an Investigation of Hazards Associated with the Storage and Handling of Liquid
Hydrogen, Report C-61092, Arthur D. Little Inc., Cambridge, MA (1960).
[575] SCHULTZ, M.G., DIEHL, T., BRASSEUR, G.P., ZITTEL, W., Air pollution and climate-forcing impacts of a global hydrogen
economy, Science 302 (2003) 624–627.
370
[576] GROOß, J.-U., FECK, T., VOGEL, B., RIESE, M., “Impact of H2 emissions of a global hydrogen economy on the stratosphere”,
Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC’18, Essen (2010).
[577] MCCARTY, R.D., HORD, J., RODER, H.M., Selected Properties of Hydrogen (Engineering Design Data), National Bureau of
Standards Monograph 168, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1984).
[578] PESCHKA, W., Flüssiger Wasserstoff als Energieträger, Technologie und Anwendungen, Springer Verlag (1984).
[579] INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, Basic Considerations for the Safety of Hydrogen Systems,
Technical Report ISO/PDTR 15916, Geneva, Switzerland (2001).
[580] NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Safety Standard for Hydrogen and Hydrogen Systems,
Guidelines for Hydrogen System Design, Materials Selection, Operations, Storage, and Transportation, Office of Safety and
Mission Assurance, Washington, DC (1997).
371
.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADAM plant with three adiabatic methanation reactors
AFC alkaline fuel cell
AHTR advanced high temperature reactor (also: VHTR-LS)
AICC adiabatic isochoric complete combustion
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
APU auxiliary power unit
ATR autothermal reforming
Bbl barrel
Btu British thermal unit
CANDU reactor Canada deuterium–uranium reactor
CCGT combined cycle gas turbine
CCS carbon capture and storage
CETS chemical energy transmission system
CFD computer fluid dynamics
CHP combined heat and power
CH2P cogeneration of hydrogen and power
CJ Chapman–Jouguet
CLC chemical looping combustion
CPOX catalytic partial oxidation
CTL coal to liquid
DDT deflagration–detonation transition
DME dimethyl-ether
DRI direct reduction iron
EED electro–electrodialysis
EPR European pressurized water reactor
373
EVA Einzelspaltrohr-Versuchsanlage (single splitting tube test facility)
FBR fast breeder reactor
FCV fuel cell vehicle
FH-ICT Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology
FP Framework Programme
GFR gas cooled fast reactor
GHG greenhouse gas
GIF Generation IV International Forum
GTL gas to liquid
HEEP hydrogen economic evaluation programme
HHV higher heating value
HT high temperature
HTGR high temperature gas cooled reactor
HTSE high temperature steam electrolysis
HTTR high temperature engineering test reactor
HTW Hochtemperatur Winkler (high temperature Winkler)
HyS hybrid sulphur
ICE internal combustion engine
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle
IHX intermediate heat exchanger
I-NERI international Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
INL Idaho National Laboratories
IP integrated project
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITM ion transport membrane
KAERI Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
KIER Korea Insitite of Energy Research
374
KIST Korea Institute of Science and Technology
KVK Komponenten-Versuchskreislauf (component test loop)
LBE lead–bismuth eutectic
LEU low enriched uranium
LFL lower flammability limit
LFR lead cooled fast reactor
LH2 liquid hydrogen
LHV lower heating value
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference
LNG liquefied natural gas
LOCA loss of coolant accident
LOFC loss of forced convection
LPG liquid petroleum gas
LT low temperature
MCFC molten carbonate fuel cell
MCH methylcyclohexane
MHR modular helium reactor
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MOX mixed (U + Pu) oxide fuel
MSR molten salt reactor
NG natural gas
NHI Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
NTP normal temperature pressure
ODS oxide dispersion strengthened
PAFC phosphoric acid fuel cell
PBMR Pebble bed modular reactor
PCHX printed circuit heat exchanger
375
PEFC polymer electrolyte fuel cell
PEM proton exchange membrane
PFHX plate-machined heat exchanger
PHX process heat exchanger
PMHX plate fin heat exchanger
PNP prototype nuclear process heat project
POX partial oxidation
SCWR supercritical water reactor
SDE SO2 depolarized electrolyser
SFR sodium cooled fast reactor
SID silicon carbide integrated catalytic decomposer
SMR steam–methane reforming
SNE-TP sustainable nuclear energy technology platform
SNG substitute natural gas
SOEC solid oxide electrolysis cell
SOFC solid oxide fuel cell
SRNL Savannah River National Laboratory
STREP specific targeted research project
TCE tonnes of coal equivalent
toe tonnes of oil equivalent (= 1.428 tce = 41 868 MJ = 11 630 kW·h)
UCG underground coal gasification
UFL upper flammability limit
UPS uninterrupted power supply
VHTR very high temperature reactor
YSZ yttria stabilized zirconia
376
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW
Herring, S.J. Idaho National Laboratory, United States of America
Khamis, I. International Atomic Energy Agency
Malshe, U.D. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), India
Suppiah, S. Chalk River Laboratories, Canada
Verfondern, K. Research Centre Jülich, Germany
Yan, X.-L. Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Japan
CONSULTANTS MEETING
Vienna, Austria: 27–30 September 2010
377
.
Structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
Nuclear Energy Basic Principles

NE-BP
Nuclear General Objectives Nuclear Power Objectives Nuclear Fuel Cycle Objectives Radioactive Waste Management
and Decommissioning Objectives
NG-O NP-O NF-O NW-O
1. Management Systems 1. Technology Development 1. Resources 1. Radioactive Waste Management

NG-G-1.# NP-G-1.# NF-G-1.# NW-G-1.#
NG-T-1.# NP-T-1.# NF-T-1.# NW-T-1.#
2. Human Resources 2. Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants 2. Fuel Engineering and Performance 2. Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
NG-G-2.# NP-G-2.# NF-G-2.# NW-G-2.#
NG-T-2.# NP-T-2.# NF-T-2.# NW-T-2.#
3. Nuclear Infrastructure and Planning 3. Operation of Nuclear Power Plants 3. Spent Fuel Management and Reprocessing 3. Site Remediation
NG-G-3.# NP-G-3.# NF-G-3.# NW-G-3.#
NG-T-3.# NP-T-3.# NF-T-3.# NW-T-3.#
4. Economics 4. Non-Electrical Applications 4. Fuel Cycles

NG-G-4.# NP-G-4.# NF-G-4.#
NG-T-4.# NP-T-4.# NF-T-4.#
5. Energy System Analysis 5. Research Reactors 5. Research Reactors — Nuclear Fuel Cycle
NG-G-5.# NP-G-5.# NF-G-5.#
NG-T-5.# NP-T-5.# NF-T-5.#
6. Knowledge Management
NG-G-6.#
NG-T-6.#
Key Examples
BP: Basic Principles NG-G-3.1: Nuclear General (NG), Guide, Nuclear Infrastructure and Planning (topic 3), #1
O: Objectives NP-T-5.4: Nuclear Power (NP), Report (T), Research Reactors (topic 5), #4
G: Guides NF-T-3.6: Nuclear Fuel (NF), Report (T), Spent Fuel Management and Reprocessing, #6
T: Technical Reports NW-G-1.1: Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning (NW), Guide,
Nos. 1-6: Topic designations Radioactive Waste (topic 1), #1
#: Guide or Report number (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
379
@

!"#
!
$
!%
&'*+
-/0"5/6768
0 9:&76;87<====>?@9:&76;87<==**

9%
C
>+
9 9EE

"!$ &
HJ%-
8<8KL77;<K
0 9:688Q6*'6<*>?@9:688Q6*<*'7

9 C
>+
9 9EELL
'*
K
'Q<7?K %!
8<<J/$8<=<&L'6'&!
0 97L*<<L*&QL6'Q=>?@97L*<<L*&QL6'Q<

9 C>+
9 9EE
-

U"J 7LQ6&;" -# #
V7H;H6
0 9:&76='Q8&&Q>?@9:&76='Q=&&<

9 C>+
9 9EE
'+

"
9"
U "
0
!
#K@87<6K

U
';'+<"! '
!"X!-#V %6'=7*<87;
0 9:'8<8&&<6Q6&'>?@9:'8<8*'*87&'&

9CY>+
9 9EEY
= !*

V
#K#Z78*[V 7\?L<<7<75

0 9:6Q*;787'7>?@9:6Q*;787''Q<

9
C
>+
9 9EE

='
?L
QH#K@8Q?L=Q;87
"@7;
0 9:667'8<7';';>?@9:667'8<7;<;<

9
C
>+
9 9EE

J%

!!7'Q%
U;'86&""@
0 9:667'='<&=<8>?@:667'='<&=<8

9 %
C %

>+
9 9EE %

$&>
#L] U]
L] U^55U 7<$LQ6776K
0 9:';88*;';<8<>?@9:';88*;';<8<:';88*;';<888

9 UCL% U>+
9 9EEL% U
+$>
J
J K #K@78&5L7&Q&K
0 9:6&78Q=====>?@9:6&78Q=='=8>
9C

*

^7 ? $57QH5
/UK /
'<<<<7
0 9:;78888&7=;8&E8=>?@9:;78888&7=;8*

9
C% >+
9 9EE

K 8E=8

" $
77<<<;
0 9:;777868&*=*&:;777868Q=8&'>?@9:;777868*767Q

9 C%
!>
J

!

_$ J

K

`#k]
"
&L8<7'&/

0 9:6;<8'*;Q'QQ8'*;Q'Q&8>?@9:6;<8'*;Q'Q'*

9
C

>+
9

JAPAN
Maruzen Company Ltd, 1-9-18, Kaigan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-0022
Telephone: +81 3 6367 6079 • Fax: +81 3 6367 6207
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.maruzen.co.jp
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
KINS Inc., Information Business Dept. Samho Bldg. 2nd Floor, 275-1 Yang Jae-dong SeoCho-G, Seoul 137-130
Telephone: +02 589 1740 • Fax: +02 589 1746 • Web site: http://www.kins.re.kr
NETHERLANDS
De Lindeboom Internationale Publicaties B.V., M.A. de Ruyterstraat 20A, NL-7482 BZ Haaksbergen
Telephone: +31 (0) 53 5740004 • Fax: +31 (0) 53 5729296
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.delindeboom.com
Martinus Nijhoff International, Koraalrood 50, P.O. Box 1853, 2700 CZ Zoetermeer
Telephone: +31 793 684 400 • Fax: +31 793 615 698
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.nijhoff.nl
Swets and Zeitlinger b.v., P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ Lisse
Telephone: +31 252 435 111 • Fax: +31 252 415 888
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.swets.nl
NEW ZEALAND
DA Information Services, 648 Whitehorse Road, MITCHAM 3132, Australia
Telephone: +61 3 9210 7777 • Fax: +61 3 9210 7788
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.dadirect.com.au
SLOVENIA
Cankarjeva Zalozba d.d., Kopitarjeva 2, SI-1512 Ljubljana
Telephone: +386 1 432 31 44 • Fax: +386 1 230 14 35
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.cankarjeva-z.si/uvoz
SPAIN
Díaz de Santos, S.A., c/ Juan Bravo, 3A, E-28006 Madrid
Telephone: +34 91 781 94 80 • Fax: +34 91 575 55 63
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Web site: http://www.diazdesantos.es
UNITED KINGDOM
The Stationery Office Ltd, International Sales Agency, PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1 GN
Telephone (orders): +44 870 600 5552 • (enquiries): +44 207 873 8372 • Fax: +44 207 873 8203
Email (orders): [email protected] • (enquiries): [email protected] • Web site: http://www.tso.co.uk
On-line orders
DELTA Int. Book Wholesalers Ltd., 39 Alexandra Road, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 2PQ
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.profbooks.com
Books on the Environment
Earthprint Ltd., P.O. Box 119, Stevenage SG1 4TP
Telephone: +44 1438748111 • Fax: +44 1438748844
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.earthprint.com
UNITED NATIONS
Dept. I004, Room DC2-0853, First Avenue at 46th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, USA
(UN) Telephone: +800 253-9646 or +212 963-8302 • Fax: +212 963-3489
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.un.org
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Bernan Associates, 4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706-4346
Telephone: 1-800-865-3457 • Fax: 1-800-865-3450
Email: [email protected] · Web site: http://www.bernan.com
Renouf Publishing Company Ltd., 812 Proctor Ave., Ogdensburg, NY, 13669
Telephone: +888 551 7470 (toll-free) • Fax: +888 568 8546 (toll-free)
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.renoufbooks.com
Orders and requests for information may also be addressed directly to:
Marketing and Sales Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone: +43 1 2600 22529 (or 22530) • Fax: +43 1 2600 29302
Email: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.iaea.org/books
12-43111
IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS
STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES
Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is
authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the
peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle,
radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues
that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and
Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports.
The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale
and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations
to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation.
Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to
achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more
detailed, information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series.
The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows:
NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive
waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are
available in English on the IAEA’s Internet site:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html
For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna
International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria.
All users of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are invited to
inform the IAEA of experience in their use for the purpose of ensuring that
they continue to meet user needs. Information may be provided via the IAEA
Internet site, by post, at the address given above, or by email to
[email protected].
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-4.2
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
No. NP-T-4.2
Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

Basic Hydrogen Production
Principles
Using Nuclear Energy
Objectives
Guides
Technical
Reports

VIENNA
ISBN 978–92–0–135110–4
ISSN 1995–7807

Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-4.

Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES

AFGHANISTAN GUATEMALA PANAMA

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION USING

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section

IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Hydrogen production using nuclear energy. — Vienna : International Atomic

1. Nuclear energy — Industrial applications. 2. Hydrogen as fuel —

1.1. World energy situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES ON THE PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN

3. METHODS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4. NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.1. Nuclear assisted steam reforming of natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5. NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5.1. Requirements of a nuclear hydrogen production system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6. ISSUES OF COUPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

6.1. Concept of a nuclear heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

7. SAFETY OF NUCLEAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

7.1. Integration of nuclear–chemical plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

8. USES OF HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

8.1. Current uses of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

9. HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

9.1. Liquefaction of hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

10. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

10.1. Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

APPENDIX: PROPERTIES OF HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

FIG. 1. Hydrogen production roadmap [1].

TABLE 1. BENEFITS AND BARRIERS OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES [1]

Technology Benefits Barriers

Gasification: Well understood at large scale; Less hydrogen-rich than methane;

Electrolysis: Well understood;  Electricity price strongly impacts cost of H2;

Biological production: Potentially large resource; Slow hydrogen production rates;

TABLE 2. ENERGY AVAILABILITY [3]

Hydrogen stages of application Energy cost in % of HHV

Packaging: compression 20 MPa 8

Distribution: road, 20 MPa, 100 km 6

Transfer: 20 MPa to 20 MPa 1

FIG. 2. Routes for nuclear assisted hydrogen production [4].

— Production rates of oil and natural gas;

1.1. WORLD ENERGY SITUATION

FIG. 4. IEA key world energy statistics 2007 [7].

1.2. HYDROGEN AS AN ENERGY CARRIER

TABLE 3. THE TEN LARGEST CO2 EMITTING COUNTRIES AS OF 2008 [9]

CO2 in 1990 CO2 in 2008 Relative change Kyoto goal by

China 2452 6809.7 +178 —

1.3. NUCLEAR ENERGY

— Energy efficiency improvements in power plant operation;

— Regulatory intervention after the accident at Three Mile Island;

1.4. DRIVERS FOR NUCLEAR ASSISTED HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

— Production rates of oil and natural gas.

1.5. SCOPE OF THE REPORT

2.1.1. Energy situation in Canada

2.1.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in Canada

2.2.1. Energy situation in China

2.2.2. R&D activities on nuclear hydrogen production in China

2.2.2.1. High temperature reactor development

2.2.2.2. Nuclear hydrogen production