Teesside University: School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies
Teesside University: School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies
Teesside University: School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies
Research Project
2022-2023
1
Abstract
2
1 Table of Contents
1Table of Contents ................................................................................................. 3
2Introduction........................................................................................................... 6
2.1Overview: ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1Hydrogen production:............................................................................ 10
2.2.2Hydrogen storage:................................................................................. 11
2.4Scope: .......................................................................................................... 17
4Methodology ....................................................................................................... 33
4.2Economic Analysis:...................................................................................... 33
3
5.1Cost parameters involved:........................................................................... 35
5.3Uncertainty: .................................................................................................. 45
7.2Coal Gasification:......................................................................................... 55
7.6.4Electrolysis: ........................................................................................... 68
4
8Result and Discussion ....................................................................................... 69
8.2Sensitivity: .................................................................................................... 71
8.2.4Electrolysis: ........................................................................................... 73
5
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview:
With global energy entering a new period of energy concern and multiple
options for energy sources, there is worldwide agreement to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, posing the issue of determining strategies to reduce
emissions and supporting sustainable energy sources. The expected growth in
global energy consumption, as well as the economic and geopolitical
ramifications of potential oil supply shortages, have been important factors in
the debate over future energy supply. That’s why hydrogen has received
attention as the future clean energy fuel. According to the International Energy
Agency (IEA), the upcoming decade will see an increase of 50% in global
energy demand, with fossil fuels continuing to dominate the energy sector.
There are two important factors for the future energy industry: supply security
and climate change. This raises the problem of determining the best strategy to
reduce emissions while delivering energy needs, which has an effect on global
policymaking. The transport sector uses 18% of energy and contributes 17% of
global CO2 emissions; until 2030, this sector will be responsible for 20% of
energy consumption and green gas emissions. Since oil continues to be the
primary source of energy for the world and accounts for more than 95% of
transportation energy demand, any problems with oil supply distribution will
result in higher prices for the industry, which is almost entirely dependent on oil
(Ball and Wietschel, 2009). Data reveal global hydrogen consumption was 120
Mt/a in 2020 and is suggested to increase to 530 Mt/a by 2050, with over 70
Mt/a of hydrogen used in oil refineries and 39 Mt/a used in ammonia production.
Additionally, around 50 million metric tonnes per year (Mt/a) of hydrogen are
employed in carbon-rich gas mixtures. Methanol synthesis processes consume
14 Mt/a of hydrogen. while the steel production process consumes 5 Mt/a.
Notably, the energy sector consumes 30 Mt/a for power generation and heat
(Hermesmann and Müller, 2022).
There has been lots of study on using hydrogen as a fuel; it can be employed in
the automotive sector with fuel cells. It has an advantage due to the lack of
carbon in hydrogen fuel, which reduces gas emissions, so there will be no CO2
emissions at the end of combustion. A study estimated that hydrogen-powered
vehicles could significantly impact the reduction of CO2 emissions, predicting a
6
decrease of 35% by 2040. Furthermore, if this clean energy source is utilised in
public transportation, the reduction in CO2 emissions could be as high as 40%.
On average, this would translate into a substantial decrease of 44.8 grammes of
CO2 emissions for every kilometre travelled (Efstathios E., 2014). By 2050,
hydrogen will contribute approximately 10% of global energy usage, derived
from low-carbon sources, as delineated by the International Energy Agency for
the global energy sector.
7
abundantly accessible. These primary energy sources encompass coal, natural
gas, biomass, and other forms of waste materials.
In 2019, 70 Mt of hydrogen were produced, with natural gas accounting for 76%
and coal contributing 23%. This production level consumes 205 billion m3 of
natural gas and 107 Mt of coal. The cumulative CO2 emissions from the United
Kingdom and Indonesia are estimated at 830 Mt CO2/year from hydrogen
production. Currently, electrolysis accounts for about 2% of worldwide hydrogen
production; there is potential for electrolysis to create additional low-carbon
hydrogen (The Future of Hydrogen, 2019).
8
Fig. 1. Cost of Hydrogen at different region (Yukesh Kannah et al., 2021).
The current challenge is to meet growing energy demand without polluting the
environment. As shown in Figure 2, the annual demand for H2 is rising,
countries are transforming towards eco-friendly energy to mitigate the
environmental impact associated with energy consumption (Yukesh Kannah et
al., 2021).
9
It is important to find ways to increase H2 production to meet future energy
demand.
It is seen as an energy carrier for the future to mitigate carbon emissions; it can
produce heat and power for houses and industries; and it can be used as an
alternative fuel for cars to reduce environmental impact. Hydrogen production
from renewable sources provides a stable energy supply during the year. The
current hydrogen production from steam methane reforming is not sustainable
because of the depletion of natural gas and CO2 production during the
reforming process. Renewable resources must be utilised for sustainable
hydrogen production. Hydrogen is produced from renewable and non-
renewable sources; non-renewable sources dominate. Producing from natural
gas is likely to dominate because it offers low-cost production. The
commercialization of solar methods is expected in the distant future due to the
high expenses associated with photovoltaics and equipment. Coal gasification
is favourable in the US due to the high availability of coal (Mah et al., 2019).
2- Coal gasification: Coal as feedstock reacts with O2 and steam under high
pressure and temperature to produce CO and H2 as syngas. Impurities are
eliminated before proceeding to the next stage.
10
3- Biomass gasification: it use biomass any carbon based substance as
feedstock, it converted to H2, CO, and CO2 at high temperature with steam or a
limited amount of oxygen.
Producing hydrogen from renewable sources like wind turbines and solar
panels is still expensive. It is expected to be commercial in the long term. While
electrolysis uses grid electricity, it depends on electricity prices.
Coal gasification with CCS is favourable in the United States due to coal
availability.
11
Cryogenic liquid At exceedingly low The process of transforming
temperatures, specifically hydrogen into its liquid state is
below -253 degrees Celsius, energy-intensive, accounting
liquid hydrogen can be for 30% of the total energy
conserved. contained in the hydrogen.
The storage tank is thermally
insulated and maintained The materials required to
under vacuum conditions. construct the storage tanks for
hydrogen are costly.
Compared to its compressed
gaseous form, hydrogen can Evaporation losses occur in
be stored at a much higher these storage tanks, varying
density in its liquid state. between 0.1% to 1% per day.
Physical storage in hydrides Certain metals or alloys can Optimal storage capacity is
absorb hydrogen, creating typically attained at extremely
metal hydrides that release the low, cryogenic temperatures.
hydrogen upon heating.
It's essential to identify
Metal-organic frameworks, adsorbents that possess higher
carbon-based and other adsorption enthalpies.
nanostructures, and clathrates
are examples of such
materials.
This method of storage is safe,
quick, and reversible under
moderate conditions.
Chemical storage in hydrides Hydrogen forms a chemical -Irreversibility.
bond with the storage
materials. -Impurities absorption.
Metal hydrides, formic acid,
carbohydrates, ammonia, -Reaction kinetics and cost
synthetic hydrocarbons, and
liquid organic hydrogen
carriers are potential materials
for this process.
Compared to metallic hydrides,
these materials could
potentially achieve higher
energy densities.
12
For large-scale hydrogen storage, underground storage and cryogenic liquid
storage are the most feasible strategies. Hydrogen liquefaction is energy-
consuming and used only when there is downstream utility to benefit from the
availability of liquid hydrogen, such as its use in rocket fuel or maritime
transportation. For automobiles and energy storage, there is no need for
hydrogen liquefaction. The most suitable hydrogen storage for hydrogen-
powered vehicles is compressed gas at 700 bar. Hydrogen is stored at between
875 and 1000 bar and -40 °C in refuelling stations. During dispensing, additional
precooling is required to permit a quick replenishment time (3-5 minutes)
without overheating the storage tank.
Underground storage provides the highest hydrogen storage; salt caverns are
promising for storage because they're unreactive with hydrogen. Natural gas-
depleted reservoir or aquifer formations are less favourable for hydrogen
storage because of the possible interaction between hydrogen and minerals or
microorganisms in these formations.
13
are preferable. Therefore, pipeline distribution is preferable for large-scale
production, whereas vehicle transport is appropriate for small-scale production
(Mah et al., 2019).
Hydrogen produces energy through two methods. The first requires controlled
combustion of hydrogen, whether in gaseous or liquified form. This combustion
generates energy as heat and results in water vapour as a byproduct. Second,
hydrogen reacts with oxygen in fuel cells, producing electricity along with water
and heat. Its operation is characterised by silence and efficiency, with stationary
parts. As a pure source, it can reduce carbon emissions in a variety of sectors,
including transportation, heating, and energy storage, as shown in Table 2 (Mah
et al., 2019).
14
include models like the Toyota
Mirai, Hyundai Nexo, and
Honda Clarity.
Residential and industrial H2 can be utilised to generate Adding hydrogen to natural
heating thermal energy. gas, up to a concentration of
30 mol%, can reduce CO2
emissions by up to 18% from
domestic appliances such as
burners and boilers, without
any need for modification.
15
Table 3. Various hydrogen application.
Application Description
Hydrocracking Converts heavy oil products into lighter ones using hydrogen.
Hydrotreating Removes contaminants such as S and N from refinery
feedstocks with the help of hydrogen.
Ammonia Hydrogen is a crucial component in the industrial production of
Production ammonia which has diverse applications like in fertilizers,
chemical synthesis, explosives, fibre and plastics, refrigeration,
pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, mining and metallurgy,
cleaning.
Hydrogenation Involves the addition of hydrogen to vegetable oils under the
of Fats presence of a catalyst.
Iron Production Hydrogen used as a reductant substitute in the production of
(DRI) Direct Reduced Iron (DRI).
Methanol Hydrogen is used to produce methanol, a key component in the
Production chemical industry and fuels.
Heat Treatment Hydrogen is used in manufacturing processes for aerospace,
Processes automotive, and petrochemical industries.
Plastics Future route to manufacture PET from hydrogen and captured
Production CO2.
Forming Gas Hydrogen is used in catalyst regeneration, Photographic
and hypersensitization, semiconductor applications etc.
Semiconductor
Glass Hydrogen used in glass manufacturing though more research is
Production needed for optimization.
Cooling of High heat capacity of hydrogen makes it suitable for cooling
Generators applications.
Cement Hydrogen has been used to substitute some of the fossil fuels in
Production cement production.
Transportation Hydrogen fuel cells are used for powering vehicles. This
includes buses, trains, and airplanes. Also, hydrogen-derived
16
fuels like ammonia and methanol can be used in the maritime
sector.
Heating Hydrogen could be used to decarbonise heating, replacing fossil
fuels.
Energy Hydrogen is used as an energy vector and can provide flexibility
in the power grid.
1.4 Scope:
This study focuses on the economic feasibility of hydrogen production systems.
It will consider all aspects of hydrogen production, including different
technologies, feedstocks, and processes.
17
2 Literature Review
This chapter looks at the technical aspects of hydrogen production
technologies.
18
hydrocarbons using
microbes in the
subsurface (i.e., depleted
oil reservoirs)
Purple H2 Water electrolysis based Zero or minimal CO2
on nuclear energy emissions
Fig. 3. Diagram of the SMR process for the production of grey hydrogen.
The pre-reforming procedure is fed natural gas and water steam, where the
natural gas is transformed into methane. This process prevents soot and
enhances efficiency. Additional steam is added before the mixture enters the
main reactor. This stage is an endothermic reaction, producing carbon
monoxide and hydrogen (eq. 1) (Katebah, Al-Rawashdeh and Linke, 2022).
19
Radiant and convective are the two components of the reactor. The radiant has
tubes in addition to a burner, which is fueled by natural gas and PSA (pressure
swing adsorption) exhaust gas. The flue gas is channelled to the convective
section to recover heat. To further hydrogen production yield, exothermic water-
gas-shift is employed; this reaction transforms carbon monoxide into hydrogen
and carbon dioxide (eq. 2).
In SMR plants, 75% of the CO2 emissions come from the reforming process
and the water-gas shift reaction. In the reformer furnace, the combustion of PSA
20
combustion gases and additional combustible gas produces the remaining 25%.
The capture strategy can be implemented at three distinct points: from shifted
syngas as it exists in the low-temperature water-gas-shift reactor; from PSA,
steam contains unreacted methane, H2, and CO2; and from the reformer
furnace, which results from burning the fuel and tail gas. These options are
represented in the diagram in Fig. 4 (Katebah, Al-Rawashdeh, and Linke, 2022).
21
Fig. 5 represents the CO2 removal process. This process requires an absorber
and a regenerator. In the absorber, the CO2 is captured by a lean solvent,
producing a CO2-rich solvent. This solvent undergoes heating and
depressurization before being sent to the regenerator to separate CO2. The
refreshed solvent is recycled back to the absorber. The CO2 from the amine
unit is compressed and stored. Sulfinol-X and ADIP-X have been identified as
the leading solvents for post-combustion carbon capture. due to their loading
capacity, chemical resilience, minimal corrosiveness, vapour pressure, and
energy demands. However, monoethanolamide (MEA) remains the
conventional choice for CO2 capture from flue gas (Katebah, Al-Rawashdeh,
and Linke, 2022).
22
Coal gasification is currently a commercial method for producing hydrogen for
the chemical sector. This method has been successfully adopted in areas where
natural gas is not available, Müller-Langer et al. (2007).
Fig. 6 Shows the process. The procedure of coal gasification involves the high-
temperature interaction of pulverised coal with air and steam in a gasifier,
forming syngas consisting of H2, CO, CO2, traces of CH4, and residual steam.
The raw gas contains contaminants like carbonyl sulphide and hydrogen
sulphide. The raw gas is treated to generate two streams, one enriched in
hydrogen and the other in CO2.
Step 1: The gasification process transforms coal into syngas, heated up to 1800
°C. The syngas is comprised of CO, H2, CO2, and minor quantities of gases
and particulates.
Step 2: Cleaning: The syngas is then cooled and purified to eliminate any other
gases and particulates. This leaves only CO,H2, and CO2. During the syngas
purification stage, mercury, trace contaminants, and particulate matter are
removed.
23
Step 3: Shifting : After the cleaning stage, the syngas is processed in a shifting
reactor, where the carbon monoxide reacts with steam to form CO2 and
additional hydrogen.
Step 5: Usage: The pure hydrogen stream is ready for use in a variety of
applications; it can be combusted in a gas turbine to produce electricity or via
fuel cells. It can be employed in an internal combustion engine or used in
chemical production.
With carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide emissions can be mitigated to
near zero. For example, a coal plant with 500 MW produces 444 tonnes of CO2
per hour; deploying carbon capture mitigates emissions to 36 tonnes, which is
reduced by 90%. Carbon capture can be applied to electrical power plants.
Coal gasification plants are more complex than steam SMR plants due to:
(ii) The need for an air separation unit that is used to produce oxygen for an
oxygen-blown gasifier.
(iii) The need for multi-stage cleaning of raw syngas, which includes the
removal of particulate matter, dust, and sulphur.
(iv) The requirement for further syngas processing beyond the conversion of
CO.
Small-scale coal plants are not feasible due to their complexity, which requires
high capital costs (Muellerlanger et al., 2007).
24
undergoes partial oxidation, resulting in the gas charcoal. This charcoal is
decomposed to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and
methane (Ni et al., 2006).
The produced gas can be reformed by steam to produce hydrogen and can be
improved by using the water-gas shift reaction.
Fluidized bed (FB), fixed bed, and entrained flow (EF) gasifiers are among the
types that have undergone thorough research and practical testing for
commercial applications (Salkuyeh, Saville, and MacLean, 2018).
FB gasifiers have the advantage of reducing the time frame for temperature
distribution. They are flexible with feedstock variation and composition, which
makes them a viable choice for large-scale operations. Another option, an
indirect circulating FB gasification system, has been innovated to prevent
syngas combustion within the gasification reactor, to prevent dilution of syngas
with nitrogen, and to eliminate the use of high-purity oxygen. FB gasifiers
operate at low temperatures, resulting in low conversion of biomass to syngas.
This requires an additional downstream unit dedicated to reforming tar and
other hydrocarbons to hydrogen and carbon monoxide (Salkuyeh, Saville, and
MacLean, 2018).
25
Entrained flow (EF) gasifiers have a lengthy history of use in coal and petcoke
gasification and are a well-established commercial technology. When using this
technology to gasify biomass, the biomass is partially combusted within the
gasifier, resulting in a higher temperature than FB gasification technology. This
elevated temperature guarantees that the internal tar cracks, resulting in the
formation of syngas without tar. In addition, EF gasifiers can achieve a high
carbon conversion rate in a short amount of time. This reduces the size of the
gasifier, resulting in reduced costs. For the partial combustion of feedstock, EF
gasifiers require high-purity oxygen (Salkuyeh, Saville, and MacLean, 2018).
Figures 7 and 8 provide simplified block diagrams for the FB and EF gasification
processes, respectively, detailing configurations with and without carbon
capture and liquefaction integration. Option (a) shows a configuration in which
the produced CO2 is discharged into the atmosphere. Option (b) shows a
carbon capture system in which all CO2 coming from the syngas (via the Amine
unit) and the CO2 from the exhaust gas stream of the power and steam
generation module are isolated and then liquefied (Salkuyeh, Saville, and
MacLean, 2018).
gasification system. Option (a): Without carbon capture, Option (b): With carbon
capture.
26
Fig. 8. Entrained bed for hydrogen production
gasification system. Option (a): without carbon capture, Option (b): with carbon
capture.
2.1.4.1 Electrolysis:
Humanity first produced hydrogen through water electrolysis. The resurgence of
electrolysis was prompted by the energy crisis that occurred throughout the
1970s. Currently, electrolysis is being used on a small scale. Water electrolysis
is used, especially in renewable energy sources, to balance the demand and
availability of solar and wind power (Ji and Wang, 2021).
27
2H2O → 2H2 + O2 (4)
AEL and PEM electrolysis are commonly used for commercial purposes and
performed in several tens of degrees; they are the most mature electrolysis
technologies. In alkaline electrolysis (AEL), two electrodes are immersed in a
concentrated alkaline solution composed of KOH. Hydroxide ions, carrying
negative charge, travel from cathode to anode through the porous diaphragm,
allowing only negative ions to pass. This movement results in the production of
water from the hydrogen ions generated at the anode (Ji and Wang, 2021).
28
(345 million m3 of water for 52 MtH2 from SMR) (The Future of Hydrogen,
2019).
2.1.4.2 Thermolysis:
Thermolysis, or thermochemical water splitting, involves heating to decompose
water into hydrogen and oxygen. The decomposition process requires a very
high temperature, above 2500 °C. Due to the high energy required that cannot
be provided by a sustainable heat source, several thermochemical water-
splitting cycles have been suggested to reduce the required temperature and
enhance heat. Thermochemical cycles are sequences of chemical reactions to
enhance efficiency and reduce the required temperature. The thermochemical
cycle, which consists of a sequence of chemical reactions occurring at different
temperatures, is promised as a method to convert heat to chemical energy in
hydrogen form (Nikolaidis and Poullikkas, 2017).
29
CuO*CuCl2(s)→2CuCl(l) +0.5O2 T=500 °C (9)
There are several reactor types: Advanced Pressurised Water Reactor (APWR),
High-Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR), Gas Turbine High Temperature
Reactor (GT-HTR), and HTR-PM (High-Temperature Reactor—Pebble Module).
30
2.1.5 Methane pyrolysis (Turquoise H2):
Methane pyrolysis is a method to produce hydrogen in the absence of oxygen
at low emissions. It is an endothermic reaction that requires high temperatures
(800–1600 °C) to break bonds between carbon and hydrogen. It produces
hydrogen and solid carbon. Solid catalysts, molten metals, and molten salts are
among the approaches used to overcome operational challenges and increase
thermal efficiency (Shashank Reddy Patlolla et al., 2023). Pyrolysis is the
process of breaking down molecules of methane using heat. The hydrogen
produced from methane pyrolysis is known as turquoise hydrogen. The process
produced solid carbon as a byproduct, which is easy to store and use in various
industries. Methane pyrolysis reaction (18)
31
2.2 Environmental effects of CO2 sequestration:
Fossil fuel usage main issue is producing carbon dioxide emissions, causing
climate change and global warming. In Qatar, a staggering 96% of all
greenhouse gas emissions is produced from energy industries, including crude
oil and natural gas. As per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), around 40% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are
produced by the top 8,000 emission points. Nations worldwide are deploying
various mitigation strategies to reduce CO2 emissions by 50–90%, to achieve
greenhouse gases stabilization to 450–550 ppm CO2 equivalent in the
atmosphere by mid-century, in alignment with the Paris Climate Accord.
Strategy is require employing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to sequester
greenhouse gas emissions from power generation plants, followed by the
compression and liquefaction of CO2, and its subsequent underground
injection. Carbon dioxide sequestration is widely known as one of the vital
technologies to reduce carbon dioxide and combat global warming. Proper CCS
installation has the potential to lower CO2 concentrations to 450 ppm by the
turn of the century (Massarweh et al., 2023).
Although benefits of CCS, certain concerns are associated with its use.
Foremost among these is the potential risk of accidental CO2 leaks from
pipelines, which can lead to groundwater acidification and underground water
pollution and alter the PH of underground CO2. It has been observed that a
high rate of CO2 injection can stress on geological formations, resulting
fractures. For effective carbon dioxide sequestration, specific criteria need to be
met by the geological formations: they must have a large capacity to store large
CO2 volumes, they must contain seal rock to prevent CO2 from reaching the
surface, they should allow high CO2 injection rates through sufficient
permeability, and they must be deep enough to reserve the stored CO2
securely. Moreover, they must be devoid of leakage channels such as fractures
and faults. Under typical gas reservoir conditions (i.e., temperatures above
31 °C and pressures above 73.8 bar), CO2 acts as a supercritical fluid,
suggesting that the injection of CO2 into deep, depleted gas fields could present
an effective approach for geologic CO2 storage (Massarweh et al., 2023).
32
3 Methodology
To determine the technical and economic feasibility of different hydrogen
production system, the study provides literature review, economic analysis, life
cycle assessment, and carbon capture cost.
33
3.5 Data Interpretation and Conclusion:
All collected and analysed data are interpreted to draw conclusions regarding
the technical and economic feasibility of each hydrogen production technology.
This is based on their cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, and the key
cost drivers identified.
34
4 Economic Evaluation
This chapter explores the economic aspects of the production of hydrogen by
various technologies.
In the steam methane reforming method for hydrogen production, capital costs
primarily include reactor and land costs. Operating costs are comprised of
electricity, water, labour, and raw material costs.
The capital cost of the electrolyser and the electricity cost during operation have
a significant impact on the cost of producing hydrogen via electrolysis. In a
water electrolysis system, the cost parameters include direct capital costs (such
as the electrolyser, storage system, and compressor), fixed operational costs,
material costs, labour costs, variable operating costs, and the costs of steam,
nitrogen, potassium hydroxide (KOH), and deionized water.
For solar and wind turbine electrolyser systems, the capital cost will be higher
due to the expensive installation of solar panels and wind turbines.
35
operations and maintenance (O&M), feedstock, fuel, catalysts, and chemicals.
These costs saw an escalation from £88.87 million annually to £101.19 million.
The most significant contributors to the increased operating cost of the plant
integrated with CO2 capture include feedstock and fuel expenses, maintenance
costs, and the potential revenue losses from electricity sales that are being
used to capture and sequestration processes. Natural gas to hydrogen: 3.3
kg/kg H2, and natural gas price: 9 £/GJ (Collodi et al., 2017).
(Bartels, Pate, and Olson, 2010) they have conducted several studies, and they
found SMR with CCS of capital cost of 286.84 M£ (without CCS 228.8 M£), the
plant capacity of 341,448 kg/day H2, natural gas price of 11.45 £/GJ, the
production cost is 2.87 £/kg H2 (without CCS 2.63 £/kg H2).
Table 6. Summarize SMR plants with their production cost and capacities.
36
Capital cost with 343.3 Million 819.225 286.84 M£
CCS £ Million £
Feedstock cost 9 £/GJ 6.25 £/GJ 5.5 £/GJ 11.45 £/GJ
(Natural gas)
Production cost 1.42 £/kg H2 £1.4/kg 2.63 £/kg H2
without CCS
Production cost 2 £/kg £1.7/kg 1.64 £/kg 2.87 £/kg H2
with CCS H2
Reference (Collodi et al., Varbanov et (Lee et al., (Bartels, Pate,
2017) al. (2020) 2021). and Olson,
2010)
The primary cost determinant is the expense of feedstock. The second is the
cost associated with CO2 capture. The hydrogen production cost is mainly
influenced by natural gas price. This is considerably higher than the capital
expenditure. For larger plants, the feedstock cost constitutes roughly 52% to
68% of the total, whereas for smaller plants, it accounts for about 40%. An
equation developed by Grey and Tomlinson to demonstrate that the cost of
hydrogen is highly sensitive to the price of natural gas as follows:
The equation applicable for plants with a capacity of 236,239 kg/day and a
capital cost of 0.65–0.80 $/SCFD. Penner provides a similar equation for the
cost of hydrogen as follows:
This equation did not include plant size and operating assumptions (Bartels,
Pate, and Olson, 2010).
Several factors significantly influence the cost of hydrogen production via SMR,
including the feedstock price, capital cost, operational cost, and whether or not
CCS technology is integrated. Among these, the feedstock price and the CO2
capture cost emerge as the two most critical cost drivers. The implications of
37
these findings suggest a need for strategies to manage feedstock prices and
improve CCS technologies' cost-effectiveness.
38
at 31 £/t, and the highest in Tianjin, at 47.7 £/t. The carbon avoidance cost has
a highly significant effect on production costs, which contribute about 33% of
total production costs.
(Bartels, Pate, and Olson, 2010) They have conducted several studies, and
they found a coal gasification plant has a capital cost of 691 M£ and a plant
capacity of 276,900 kg/day H2. The coal price is 1.29 £/GJ, the production cost
is 2.06 £/kg H2.
39
The above table shows the effect of the high capital cost of gasification
compared with SMR, but it can benefit from low coal prices. It is also shown that
a larger scale is more economic than a smaller scale. This is due to the
complexity of coal gasification plants, which make less feasible in a small scale.
The findings from these studies highlight the variability in hydrogen production
costs, largely influenced by regional energy prices, feedstock prices, and the
inclusion or exclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS). It is primarily
affected by the high capital cost of the coal gasification plant. However, while
coal gasification plants have high capital costs due to their complexity, they can
be economical with low coal prices.
(Bartels, Pate, and Olson, 2010) They have conducted studies about biomass
gasification. A plant with a biomass gasification capacity of 139,700 kg H2/day,
the capital cost of 189 million £, feedstock costs of 3.17 £/GJ, and production
costs of 2.24 £/kg H2. The second study plant with capacity of 194,141 kg
H2/day, a capital cost of 272.4 Million £, feedstock costs of 2.9 £/GJ, the
production cost is 1.62 £/kg H2.
40
Table 9. Summarize biomass gasification plants.
From the above studies and data, it can be seen that the cost of hydrogen
production from biomass gasification varies significantly depending on the
feedstock cost, gasifier type, and the inclusion of carbon capture and storage
41
(CCS). Additionally, the scale of the operation appears to have an impact on the
production cost.
Table 10. Hydrogen production cost in different region via grid electrolysis.
42
Bartels, Pate, and Olson (2010) undertook evaluations of various technologies.
Their findings indicated that solar photovoltaic electrolysis, with a capital cost of
£6,600 million, produces 354,359 kg of H2 per day. The production cost is £7.18
per kg of H2. On the other hand, wind turbine electrolysis, with a production
capacity of 50,000 kg/day of H2, demands an initial capital investment of £671
million. The cost of producing hydrogen via this method is £7.8 per kg of H2.
These observations explain the high capital cost associated with renewable
sources for hydrogen production.
4.2.4.2 Thermochemical:
Several studies on nuclear hydrogen plants (El-Emam and zcan, 2019) have
determined that the cost of nuclear hydrogen using the S-I cycle for a large
capacity plant (1200 tonne/day) is 2 £/kg, while the cost of hydrogen produced
from HyS-MHR for a daily hydrogen production of 580 tonne is 2.23 £/kg. This
relatively reduced cost is most likely due to the large plant capacity.
The IAEA HEEP software was used by El-Emam and Khamis, (2017) for
different nuclear hydrogen generation schemes, PEM electrolysis is integrated
with Advanced Pressurised Water Reactor (APWR), HTGR is used to operate a
High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE)-based hydrogen plant, and a S–I
43
plant is evaluated based on various reactor technologies. They reported that the
Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GT-HTR) with S–I plant has the lowest
production cost among S–I cycles at 2.48 pounds per kilogramme of hydrogen
(H2). PEM integrated with nuclear (APWR) has the lowest production cost per
kilogramme of hydrogen at £3.58 and the highest capacity per day at 1,382
tonnes. And High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) integration with
(HTSE) is the lowest production cost at 2.26 £/kg H2 and lower than integration
with S-I cycle at 2.65 £/kg H2 with the same 345.6 tonne-per-day capacity.
(Mehrpooya and Habibi, 2020) They found that large-scale hydrogen production
can reduce capital costs and improve the economics of thermochemical cycles,
making them more competitive with other hydrogen production methods such
as direct electrolysis and steam methane reforming (SMR). They noted that
solar energy is a promising power source for these thermochemical cycles, its
high capital cost currently leads to an increase in the total cost of hydrogen
production. However, they also suggested that anticipated advancements in
44
technology, resulting in cheaper and more efficient processes, are expected to
lower these production costs in the future.
(Orhan, Dincer and Rosen, 2010) they also have observed that Cu-Cl plant
become more economic with larger capacity. They conducted several studies, a
plant with 200 tons/day production cost was 2.25 £/kg, and a plant with 2
tons/day, the production cost was 3.93 £/kg. below table presents these studies.
The hydrogen production cost from nuclear is derived by plants scale, the larger
scale is more economic. Integrating different reactor types with different
hydrogen production units shows various production costs.
4.3 Uncertainty:
As mentioned before, the economic performance is affected by input
parameters. The uncertainty discusses the variation of input parameter cost.
The prices of natural gas vary from place to place; they are lower in Russia,
which is a producer, and higher in importer countries, so the cost of steam
methane reforming is affected by region prices Fig. 11 below shows hydrogen
costs in different regions.
45
2.5
GBP/kg 1.5
0.5
0
no CCUS with no CCUS with no CCUS with no CCUS with no CCUS with
CCUS CCUS CCUS CCUS CCUS
Fig. 11. Levelized hydrogen production from natural gas regionally (IEA,
Hydrogen production costs using natural gas in selected regions, 2018, IEA,
Paris).
The above figure shows that production costs are lowest in countries that
produce natural gas.
Coal gasification is affected slightly by coal prices; China has abundant coal
mines, which have many coal gasification plants and produce hydrogen at
economic costs.
In electrolysis, the price of electricity has the greatest impact on the cost of
hydrogen production. The price of electricity can vary significantly from region to
region, depending on factors like the source of electricity, governmental policies,
and local taxation.
47
5 H2A Model
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) created the H2A model,
which is a standardised analysis methodology for calculating and comparing the
cost of producing hydrogen using various technologies and pathways. The
"H2A" name stands for hydrogen analysis. The H2A model is designed to allow
for flexible, transparent, and consistent comparisons of the costs of different
hydrogen production technologies. It's a spreadsheet-based model that allows
researchers to examine the impact of different factors on hydrogen production
costs, such as capital costs, operating costs, efficiency, feedstock costs, and
other parameters.
48
Other Variable Costs £0.245 13.3%
(including utilities)
Total £1.82
49
Total £2.86
50
The environmental impact is represented by emissions, the total well-to-pump
emissions are 27.5 kg CO2-eq/kg H2.
Electrolysis process itself does not emit carbon, the associated carbon
emissions stem from the energy source, estimated at 29 kg CO2-eq/kg H2.
51
The analysis of various hydrogen production models reveals distinct
characteristics and potential applications, each subject to specific constraints
and advantages. The Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) model, with a capacity
ranging from 241,500 to 966,000 kg/day, offers the lowest production cost
(£1.82) and is highly sensitive to natural gas prices. The coal gasification model,
with a capacity between 330,000 and 1,320,000 kg/day, necessitates high
capital investment due to its complexity but remains a favourable option in
regions with abundant coal resources, such as China and the U.S. The biomass
gasification model, limited to 20,000–200,000 kg/day, leverages renewable
resources like woody residue and crops, yet faces challenges related to
biomass availability. Lastly, the electrolysis model, also with a capacity of
20,000–200,000 kg/day, produces green hydrogen with minimal emissions.
Though these emissions are tied to the energy source, this model has the
highest production cost. Environmental impact results show SMR with CCS,
coal gasification with CCS, biomass gasification without CCS, and grid
electrolysis are 3.042, 3.4, 27.5, and 29 kg CO2-eq of carbon emissions,
respectively. SMR has the lowest; coal gasification comes next due to
employing CCS. As shown, biomass gasification without CCS produces high
emissions; the electrolysis process has very low emissions, but emissions come
from energy sources. The cost contributions for SMR, coal gasification, biomass
gasification, and electrolysis are natural gas (52.6%), capital costs (40.9%),
feedstock costs (56.9%), and electricity costs (85%), respectively. The
comparative analysis of these models underscores the intricate interplay of
factors such as resource availability, capital requirements, environmental
impact, and regional considerations in the pursuit of efficient and sustainable
hydrogen production solutions.
52
6 Life Cycle Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique used to evaluate the environmental
aspects and potential impacts of a product. LCA will be conducted on various
hydrogen production technologies. This analysis will include renewable
methods like water electrolysis and biomass gasification, as well as non-
renewable methods like natural gas steam reforming and coal gasification. By
conducting an LCA, the study aims to provide insights into the environmental
impacts of these technologies, such as resource consumption, waste
generation, and carbon emissions. Furthermore, the LCA will also encompass
the carbon capture cost related to each technology, where applicable. This will
ensure a more thorough comprehension of the global environmental effects
associated with each hydrogen production technology.
Air System
Emission total
g/kg of
H2
-Benzene 1.4
-Carbon 10,620
Dioxide
-Carbon 5.7
Monoxide
-Methane 59.8
53
-Nitrogen 12.3
Oxide
-Nitrous 0.04
Oxide
-Non- 16.8
methane
Hydrocarbon
-Particulates 2
-Sulphur 9.5
Oxides
CO2 10,621
CH4 1256
N2O 11
Assessing the global warming potential (GWP) of the system requires the
quantification of total greenhouse gas emissions, even though CO2 is the
primary greenhouse gas and accounts for the majority of emissions from the
system under evaluation. Considering that the GWP is a cumulative effect of
CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, this is crucial in this respect. Remarkably, the
warming capacities of CH4 and N2O are 21 and 310 times greater than those of
CO2. Natural gas was the most extensively utilised resource, comprising 94.5%
of the total resources on a weight basis. This was then followed by coal (4,1%),
iron (including ore and waste, 0.6%), limestone (0.4%), and gasoline (0.4%).
54
Iron and limestone were utilised predominantly in the construction of the power
plant and pipeline (Spath and Mann, 2000). Table 20 presents average
consumption.
Resource total % of
(g/kg Total in
H2) this
table
Limestone 16 0.40%
Water consumption was 19.8 litres per kilogramme of hydrogen, with 95.2% of
the water consumed by the hydrogen plant for reforming and shift reactions, as
well as steam production. Regarding water pollutants, the total volume was
calculated to be 0.19 g/kg of H2, with hydrocarbons (60%) and dissolved matter
(29%) being the most prevalent contaminants. As for waste, the system
generated primarily non-hazardous waste at a rate of 201,6 g/kg of hydrogen
produced. The vast majority (72.3%) of this waste originated from the
production and distribution of natural gas. Further analysis revealed that
pipeline transportation accounted for fifty percent of the total system waste, with
natural gas extraction accounting for twenty-two percent (Spath and Mann,
2000).
55
Canada. This is the additional distance between the Nanticoke coal-fired power
plant and Toronto. The coal gasification plant, which does not include CO2
capture, is characterized by a daily hydrogen production of 284 tonnes, a daily
coal feed of 2268 tonnes, and a net power output of 38 MW. A surface mine
provides all of the plant's coal requirements. (Cetinkaya, Dincer, & Naterer,
2012) Table 14 displays a negative value for electric power production,
indicating the plant's electricity export to the grid. The life cycle energy
consumption per kg of hydrogen product is estimated 213.8 MJ (Li and Cheng,
2020).
Table 21. Coal gasification plant air emissions (Cetinkaya, Dincer and Naterer,
2012).
Resource
Consumption
Biomass 13822.2 (g/kg-H2)
Table 23. Air emission from gasification process (Li et al., 2020).
Emission g/kg-H2
O2 2367.8
N2 32437.1
H2O 2796
CO2 6971.7
CH4 11.3
N2O 2.69
NOx 17.9
SO2 11
CO 7.84
HC 2.53
PM10 2.05
57
COD 2.76
Solid 261.6
waste
TN 33.8
NH3–N 0.88
Pesticide 6.2
58
Table 24. Cumulative consumption of resources in the wind electrolysis system
(Bhandari, Trudewind and Zapp, 2014).
The average energy consumption per kilogramme of hydrogen was 9.1 MJ. A
substantial portion of this energy consumption, specifically 72.6%, was
attributable to the wind turbine manufacturing process. The amounts of energy
consumed by electrolysis and storage were significantly lower, at 4.8% and
31.1%, respectively. In terms of emissions, CO2 was the major contributor,
accounting for approximately 95% by weight. The majority of these air
emissions were produced during the manufacturing and installation of wind
turbines. Table 25 provides a comprehensive summary of the air emission
values for the system.
Table 25. Cumulative air emissions from electrolysis driven by the wind
(Bhandari, Trudewind and Zapp, 2014).
59
Nitrous oxides 0.05 67 6 27
Non-methane 4.4 63 7 30
hydrocarbons
Particulates 28.7 94 1 5
Sulfur dioxide 6.1 62 26 12
Various studies have examined the global warming potential (GWP) associated
with wind-based electrolysis. Remarkably, these studies have all reported a
consistent GWP value of 0.97 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of hydrogen.
This consistency across different research efforts underscores the
environmental efficiency of wind-based electrolysis in hydrogen production
(Bhandari, Trudewind, and Zapp, 2014).
Table 26. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and solar energy plant energy
equivalents (Cetinkaya, Dincer and Naterer, 2012).
60
Wiring 602.41 60.24
Installation 2679.68 37.18
Operation and maintenance 2285.00 161.20
Decommissioning and 893.23 61.70
disposal
Total 33,444.24 2412.13
The cumulative emissions from this system are the sum of the nuclear plant and
the HTE production unit. For each 1 kg of produced hydrogen, the emissions
are 450g of CO2, 730 mg of SO2, and 1600 mg of NOx. The primary source of
emissions is the lifecycle stage of fuel extraction, processing, and
transportation, which represents 63% of total emissions. Other stages such as
materials procurement, construction, operational activities, and waste
management contribute 5%, 8%, 15%, and 9%, respectively (Utgikar and
Thiesen, 2006).
The emissions associated with manufacturing solid oxide fuel cells, including
materials required for construction and equipment for the balance of the unit,
are delineated as follows: CO2 levels ranging from 45 to 25 g, SO2 levels
ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 g, and NOx levels ranging from 0.2 to 2.7 g. The
61
extraction and processing of metals like iron, nickel, and chromium emerge as
major contributors, accounting for 40% of the total carbon footprint and half of
the acidification effects. Nuclear-HTE plant emissions are measured to be 700g
CO2, 1.8 SO2, and 4.3 NOx for each 1 kg of H2. NOx possesses a global
warming potential (GWP) 310 times that of CO2. Consequently, for this system,
the GWP is tabulated at 2 kg CO2-equivalent per kilogram (Utgikar and
Thiesen, 2006).
62
The GWP and AP reported from life cycle assessment are in table below:
Fossil fuel-derived processes, such as coal gasification (CG) and the reforming
of natural gas, are observed to have the most detrimental environmental
impacts due to their extraordinarily high GWP and AP values. Specifically, CG,
with its GWP of 22.99 kg CO2 equivalent, ranks second among all hydrogen
production methods. Implementing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
technology in the fossil fuel hydrogen production process could lead to
significant reductions in greenhouse gases. It's projected that the use of CCS
could reduce the GWP of CG by between 71.7% and 81.7%. For steam
methane reforming (SMR), a decrease in GWP of around 69.1% is expected on
average. The actual impact depends on the effectiveness of CO2 sequestration.
The primary energy consumption calculations of 153 MJ for steam methane
reforming (SMR) and 213.8 MJ for coal gasification (CG) suggest that SMR is a
more energy-efficient choice.
63
MacLean, 2018), biomass gasification plant use Canadian Pine wood. The CO2
emissions from FB gasification without carbon capture is 27.3 kg CO2/kg H2,
and with CCS is 11.4 kg CO2/kg H2. For EF the CO2 emissions without carbon
capture is 21.4 kg CO2/kg H2, and with CCS, is 0 CO2/kg H2. When a
CCS unit is used in conjunction with an EF gasification process, there are
virtually no CO2 emissions. This is because EF gasification achieves high
temperatures and allows for more complete conversion of feedstock into
syngas, with reduced CO2 emissions. In the FB gasification process, only about
60% of CO2 is captured and liquefied. The CO2 emission from biomass is
varied depending on biomass composition.
64
such as the five-step Cu–Cl cycle. In particular, the GWP for HTE was
calculated at 0.477 kg CO2-eq per kg of hydrogen, while for the five-step Cu–Cl
cycle, it was significantly higher at 1.346 kg CO2 eq per kg of hydrogen.
65
associated with the SMR process, making it a more sustainable option for
hydrogen production.
Fig. 13. Time series cost of avoided carbon ($2016 t1 CO2) (Parkinson et al.,
2019).
66
closely correlated with the rate of carbon capture within the system, which
spanned from 53% to 90%. This highlights the influence of the capture rate on
the overall cost-effectiveness of carbon avoidance in the operation of SMR
plants.
Li et al. (2022) report that, given China's present electricity prices, the cost of
CO2 capture is relatively low, at approximately 23.63 £/t CO2. The CO2
conveyance system consists of the main pipeline connecting the hydrogen
facility to the storage location, as well as branch pipelines leading to each
injection well. With a main pipeline extending over 200 kilometres and a branch
pipeline spanning 30 kilometres, the projected transportation costs are 7.9
pounds per tonne of carbon dioxide. representing 8.25% of total CCS
expenditures. The avoided cost is 40,8 £/t CO2, which is greater than the sum
of the costs associated with capture, transport, and storage. This is due to the
fact that fewer greenhouse gas emissions were produced.
Regional variations in the avoided costs associated with carbon capture and
storage (CCS) across different provinces in China The differences in these
costs are primarily influenced by electricity prices. The regional distribution
shows an increase from west to east in China. Qinghai, located in the western
part of China, boasts the lowest avoided cost of 30.64 £/ton CO2. In contrast,
provinces in East China, North China, and Northeast China display higher
67
avoided costs. The highest is found in Tianjin, where the avoided cost is 47
£/ton. This regional variance is essential for policymakers and industries to
consider when planning and implementing CCS projects across China. Li et al.
(2022).
Due to the similarities between the processes of coal and biomass gasification,
the Carbon Avoidance Cost (CAC) determined for coal gasification, which is £40
per tonne of CO2, is also applied as the avoidance cost for biomass gasification
(Parkinson et al., 2019).
Poluzzi, Guandalini, and Romano (2022) have assessed biomass for hydrogen
production plants. Their research revealed that the plant can achieve a carbon
capture efficiency ranging between 64% and 90%. The cost associated with this
carbon capture process was estimated to be within the range of 48-51 £ per
tonne of CO2.
6.6.4 Electrolysis:
The direct emissions associated with the electrolysis process are notably low.
However, this doesn't account for the indirect emissions that arise from the
electricity feedstock and the electrolyser system, which must be included in any
comprehensive assessment. The theoretical minimum energy requirement for
this process is about 39.3 kWh per kg of H2. Nevertheless, real-world
commercial applications generally require a more substantial energy input,
usually ranging from 50 to 60 kWh. This energy requirement can lead to
significant emissions when the electricity comes from a grid that's largely
powered by fossil fuels. In such cases, the total emissions related to the
electrolysis process can even exceed those associated with hydrogen
production via natural gas reforming (Parkinson et al., 2019).
68
7 Result and Discussion
7.1 Production Cost:
20
15
10
0
SMR Coal Gasification Biomass Grid Electrolysis Electrolysis Nclear-based
Gasification based on hydrogen
renewable
sources
Production method
Fig. 13. Hydrogen production costs for different methods collected from
literatures.
Hydrogen sources derived from SMR offer a cost-effective method for producing
hydrogen and are expected to continue to dominate this field. Even though coal
plants have a higher capital expense than SMR plants, their feedstock is less
expensive. In addition, the United States' confirmed coal reserves have the
potential to last for centuries. In contrast, natural gas plants have relatively low
capital costs, but the cost of the feedstock is significantly higher, and proven
reserves are considerably lower than those of coal. Given the relative
affordability of coal, the cost of hydrogen production in coal plants is primarily
based on the plant's initial capital cost. In contrast, the cost of hydrogen
production in natural gas plants is highly dependent on the price of natural gas.
69
price of hydrogen. SMR and gasification methods produce a significant amount
of CO2. Employing CCS can capture about 70-90% of emissions, which adds
an additional cost of about 30%.
4
3
2
1
0
SMR with CCS CG with CCS Biomass Gasification Grid Electrolysis
no CCS
Production Method
70
Fig. 14 represents the production cost and cost contribution for each parameter
for each technology in the H2A models. Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)
stands out as the method with the lowest hydrogen production cost at 1.82 £/kg
H2. SMR is primarily dependent on natural gas prices, which contribute 52.6%
to the total cost, and operates at an efficiency of 65.9%. Meanwhile, coal
gasification is associated with a production cost of 2.86 £/kg H2 and is heavily
dependent on capital costs, constituting 40.9% of the total cost. The process
operates at an efficiency of 59.5% and may reap benefits from the low prices of
coal.
7.2 Sensitivity:
7.2.1 Steam methane reforming:
SMR Sensitivity
3.5
Production cost £/kg H2
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
5.5 6.25 9 11.45
Natural gas price £/GJ
Fig. 15. SMR sensitivity with natural gas prices from collected data.
71
Fig. 15. Representing the sensitivity of hydrogen production costs from natural
gas, it shows increasing production costs with increasing natural gas prices and
also shows the effect of employing CCS.
1.5
0.5
0
276 770
Production Capacity tonne H2/day
Fig. 16. Coal gasification production cost with different scales from collected
data.
The above figure shows that the large scale is more economical, but due to the
complexity of the coal gasification plant, the small scale is less feasible. Even
the larger-scale plant operates with a higher coal price of 1.72 £/GJ than the
smaller-scale plant at 1.29 £/GJ. This shows that plant scale is the biggest
contributor to production costs.
72
7.2.3 Biomass gasification:
Fig. 17. Biomass gasification sensitivity with biomass price from collected data.
The above figure shows the effect of an increase in biomass prices on hydrogen
production costs. Production costs increase with increased biomass prices. The
biomass price is the main contributor to the production cost.
7.2.4 Electrolysis:
Electrolysis sensitivity
5
Production cost £/kg H2
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
7.16 8.74 9.5
Electricity prices £ p/kWh
The above chart shows increasing production costs with increasing electricity;
electricity costs contribute about 85% of total production costs.
73
Integrate electrolysis with renewable sources (wind turbines, solar panels);
capital costs are the main contributor to the high cost of infrastructure.
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2 10 50 200
Plant Capacity tonnes/day
The above figure shows that the larger scale of a nuclear hydrogen plant is
more economical. Also, the configuration of different reactor types with different
hydrogen plan units has an effect, as discussed in the economic evaluation
chapter.
74
GWP, AP for different production methods
70
CO2-eq kg/kg H2/ SO2-eq g/kg H2 60
50
40
30
20
10
Production method
CO2-eq kg/kg H2 AP g SO2-eq/kg H2
Fig. 19. Environment impact assessment for different production methods GWP
and AP values.
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
has CO2-eq emissions of 11.98 kg/kg H2 and an AP of 15.2 g SO2-eq/kg H2.
With CCS, the CO2-eq emissions for SMR reduce significantly to 3.7 kg/kg H2.
Coal gasification (CG) without CCS presents a higher environmental impact
because coal contains more contaminants than natural gas. With CO2-eq
emissions of 22.99 kg/kg H2 and an AP of 59.7 g SO2-eq/kg H2, when CG is
coupled with CCS, the CO2-eq emissions decrease to 4.87 kg/kg H2.
75
For biomass gasification (BG), there are multiple scenarios. Without CCS and
using wheat straw as feedstock, the CO2-eq emissions are 8 kg/kg H2, and the
AP is 23.53 g SO2-eq/kg H2. Using woody biomass (H2A Model) without CCS,
the CO2-eq emissions are significantly higher at 27.5 kg/kg H2, due to
compositional variation. However, BG with CCS shows the lowest CO2-eq
emissions of 3.54 kg/kg H2 among all gasification and reforming methods, and
its AP is 22.5 g SO2-eq/kg H2. Salkuyeh, Saville, and MacLean (2018) have
assessed EF gasifiers with carbon capture, resulting in zero emissions due to
EF gasification, which achieves high temperatures and allows for a more
complete conversion of feedstock into syngas.
76
8 Conclusion And Recommendation
In conclusion, natural gas reforming is the most cost-effective method for
hydrogen production, and coal comes next with the benefit of low coal prices,
but both are non-renewable. Biomass gasification is considered a renewable
resource and provides a promising hydrogen production cost, but its limitation is
the availability of biomass feedstock. Producing hydrogen from natural gas and
gasification emits CO2 at 10–25 kg CO2/kg H2, but it can be reduced to 90% by
employing carbon capture facilities. Hydrogen production from electrolysis using
renewable resources is still expensive due to the high capital cost of wind
turbines and solar panels, but it provides very clean hydrogen with very low
emissions. Thermochemical cycles based on nuclear energy offer a competitive
solution, both economically and environmentally.
Methane pyrolysis is not yet commercial, but it will be an alternative to SMR due
to its very low emissions and lower production costs because it does not require
CCS. SMR is preferred to use when natural gas is available at low prices, while
coal gasification is preferred to use when abundant coal is available. Fossil
fuels are non-renewable sources. Wind and solar plants are expensive at this
time due to their high capital costs, so biomass gasification, considered a
renewable source, will be a transition option to renewable resources. Also, it is
important to employ CCS in SMR and gasification plants to mitigate
environmental impact, as that is the goal that led to the choice of hydrogen as
an energy carrier. Hydrogen production from wind turbines and solar panels is
used to balance the supply and demand of energy. There are times when these
sources produce more energy than is needed (like a sunny day with strong
winds) and store it as hydrogen, and times when they produce little to no energy
(like at night or on a calm day). This process is known as "power-to-gas" (P2G).
78
References :
Bartels, J.R., Pate, M.B. and Olson, N.K. (2010). An economic survey of
hydrogen production from conventional and alternative energy sources.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, [online] 35(16), pp.8371–8384.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.035.
Bhandari, R., Trudewind, C.A. and Zapp, P. (2014). Life cycle assessment
of hydrogen production via electrolysis – a review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, [online] 85, pp.151–163.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048.
Carmo, M., Fritz, D.L., Mergel, J. and Stolten, D. (2013). A comprehensive
review on PEM water electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 38(12), pp.4901–4934.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.151.
Cetinkaya, E., Dincer, I. and Naterer, G.F. (2012). Life cycle assessment of
various hydrogen production methods. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 37(3), pp.2071–2080.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.064.
79
GOV.UK. Hydrogen production costs 2021. [online] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hydrogen-production-costs-
2021
Hren, R., Vujanović, A., Van Fan, Y., Klemeš, J.J., Krajnc, D. and Čuček, L.
(2023). Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy
and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 173, p.113113.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113113.
Karaca, A.E., Dincer, I. and Gu, J. (2020). Life cycle assessment study on
nuclear based sustainable hydrogen production options. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(41), pp.22148–22159.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.030.
Katebah, M., Al-Rawashdeh, M. and Linke, P. (2022). Analysis of hydrogen
production costs in Steam-Methane Reforming considering integration with
electrolysis and CO2 capture. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, [online]
10, p.100552. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100552.
Khojasteh Salkuyeh, Y., Saville, B.A. and MacLean, H.L. (2017). Techno-
economic analysis and life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from
80
natural gas using current and emerging technologies. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, 42(30), pp.18894–18909.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.219.
Lee, S., Kim, H.S., Park, J., Kang, B.M., Cho, C.-H., Lim, H. and Won, W.
(2021). Scenario-Based Techno-Economic Analysis of Steam Methane
Reforming Process for Hydrogen Production. Applied Sciences, [online]
11(13), p.6021. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136021.
Li, J. and Cheng, W. (2020). Comparative life cycle energy consumption,
carbon emissions and economic costs of hydrogen production from coke
oven gas and coal gasification. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
45(51), pp.27979–27993.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.07.079.
Li, J., Wei, Y.-M., Liu, L., Li, X. and Yan, R. (2022). The carbon footprint and
cost of coal-based hydrogen production with and without carbon capture
and storage technology in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362,
p.132514. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132514.
Li, Q., Song, G., Xiao, J., Hao, J., Li, H. and Yuan, Y. (2020). Exergetic life
cycle as-sessment of hydrogen production from biomass staged-
gasification. Energy, 190, p.116416.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116416.
Lv, P., Wu, C., Ma, L. and Yuan, Z. (2008). A study on the economic
efficiency of hydrogen production from biomass residues in China.
Renewable Energy, 33(8), pp.1874–1879.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.11.002.
81
Mah, A.X.Y., Ho, W.S., Bong, C.P.C., Hassim, M.H., Liew, P.Y., Asli, U.A.,
Kamaruddin, M.J. and Chemmangattuvalappil, N.G. (2019). Review of
hydrogen economy in Malaysia and its way forward. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, [online] 44(12), pp.5661–5675.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.077.
Massarweh, O., Al-khuzaei, M., Al-Shafi, M., Bicer, Y. and Abushaikha, A.S.
(2023). Blue hydrogen production from natural gas reservoirs: A review of
application and feasibility. Journal of CO2 Utilization, [online] 70, p.102438.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.092.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.023.
Muellerlanger, F., Tzimas, E., Kaltschmitt, M. and Peteves, S. (2007).
Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production processes for the
hydrogen economy for the short and medium term. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 32(16), pp.3797–3810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.05.027
Ni, M., Leung, D.Y.C., Leung, M.K.H. and Sumathy, K. (2006). An overview
of hydrogen production from biomass. Fuel Processing Technology, [online]
87(5), pp.461–472. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.11.003.
82
Western Canada. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(21),
pp.8755–8776. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.177.
Orhan, M.F., Dincer, I. and Rosen, M.A. (2010). An exergy–cost–energy–
mass analysis of a hybrid copper–chlorine thermochemical cycle for
hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(10),
pp.4831–4838. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.095.
Parkinson, B., Balcombe, P., Speirs, J.F., Hawkes, A.D. and Hellgardt, K.
(2019). Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes.
Energy & Environmental Science, 12(1), pp.19–40.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee02079e.
Spath, P.L. and Mann, M.K. (2000). Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen
Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming. [online]
doi:https://doi.org/10.2172/764485.
83
The Future of Hydrogen. (2019, June). IEA.
Varbanov, P., Wang, Q., Zeng, M., Seferlis, P., Ma, T., Klemeš, J.,
Roussanaly, S., Anantharaman, R. and Fu, C. (2020). CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS Low-Carbon Footprint Hydrogen
Production from Natural Gas: a Techno-Economic Analysis of Carbon
Capture and Storage from Steam-Methane Reforming. [online]
doi:https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2081170.
Yukesh Kannah, R., Kavitha, S., Preethi, Parthiba Karthikeyan, O., Kumar,
G., Dai-Viet, N.Vo. and Rajesh Banu, J. (2021). Techno-economic
assessment of various hydrogen production methods – A review.
Bioresource Technology, 319, p.124175.
84