A technoeconomic analysis of different options for cogenerating power in hydrogen plants based on natural gas reforming

Steam methane reforming is the most common process for producing hydrogen in the world. It currently represents the most efficient and mature technology for this purpose. However, because of the high investment costs, this technology is only convenient for large sizes. Furthermore, the cooling of syngas and flue gas produce a great amount of excess steam, which is usually transferred outside the process, for heating purposes or industrial applications. The opportunity of using this additional steam to generate electric power has been studied in this paper. In particular, different power plant schemes have been analyzed, including (i) a Rankine cycle, (ii) a gas turbine simple cycle, and (iii) a gas-steam combined cycle. These configurations have been investigated with the additional feature of CO 2 capture and sequestration. The reference plant has been modeled according to state-of-the-art of commercial hydrogen plants: it includes a prereforming reactor, two shift reactors, and a pressure swing adsorption unit for hydrogen purification. The plant has a conversion efficiency of ∼75% and produces 145,000 Sm 3 /hr of hydrogen (equivalent to 435 MW on the lower-heating-volume basis) and 63 t/hr of superheated steam. The proposed power plants generate, respectively, 22 MW (i), 36 MW (ii), and 87 MW (iii) without CO 2 capture. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the optimum size for each configuration and to investigate the influence of some parameters, such as electricity, natural gas, and steam costs.

[1]  Pamela L. Spath,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming , 2000 .

[2]  Giovanni Lozza,et al.  Low CO2 Emission Combined Cycles With Natural Gas Reforming, Including NOx Suppression , 2001 .

[3]  S. Zhang,et al.  Hydrogenation characteristics of TI6AL4V cast alloy and its microstructural modification by hydrogen treatment , 1997 .

[4]  André Faaij,et al.  Future prospects for production of methanol and hydrogen from biomass , 2002 .

[5]  R. H. Williams Methanol and hydrogen from biomass for transportation with comparisons to methanol and hydrogen from natural gas and coal , 1997 .

[6]  D. R. Simbeck,et al.  Hydrogen costs with CO2 capture , 2005 .

[7]  R. Gualy,et al.  General reactor model improves HPI applications , 1999 .

[8]  V. Putsche,et al.  Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen Technologies , 1999 .

[9]  Jens R. Rostrup-Nielsen,et al.  Large-Scale Hydrogen Production , 2002 .

[10]  R. Williams,et al.  Co-production of hydrogen, electricity and CO2 from coal with commercially ready technology. Part B: Economic analysis , 2005 .

[11]  K. Aasberg-Petersen,et al.  Membrane reforming for hydrogen , 1998 .

[12]  Giovanni Lozza,et al.  Using Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel , 2003 .

[13]  A. M. Adris,et al.  Economics and simulation of fluidized bed membrane reforming , 1998 .

[14]  Jay S. White,et al.  Hydrogen Production Facilities Plant Performance and Cost Comparisons , 2002 .

[15]  F. Kessler,et al.  Across-the-fence hydrogen plant starts up at California refinery , 1994 .

[16]  Stefano Consonni,et al.  Decarbonized hydrogen and electricity from natural gas , 2005 .

[17]  Giovanni Lozza,et al.  Natural Gas Decarbonization to Reduce CO2 Emission From Combined Cycles: Part A — Partial Oxidation , 2000 .

[18]  Umberto Desideri,et al.  CO2 Capture and Removal System for a Gas-Steam Combined Cycle , 2002 .

[19]  R. Williams,et al.  Hydrogen production from natural gas, sequestration of recovered CO2 in depleted gas wells and enhanced natural gas recovery , 1997 .

[20]  Olav Bolland,et al.  Comparison of two CO2 removal options in combined cycle power plants , 1998 .