Hydrogen From Natural Gas Via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) : John Jechura - Jjechura@mines - Edu Updated: January 4, 2015
Hydrogen From Natural Gas Via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) : John Jechura - Jjechura@mines - Edu Updated: January 4, 2015
Hydrogen From Natural Gas Via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) : John Jechura - Jjechura@mines - Edu Updated: January 4, 2015
from Natural Gas via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)
John Jechura – [email protected]
Updated: January 4, 2015
Energy efficiency of hydrogen from natural gas
• Definition of energy efficiency
• From basic stoichiometry
CH4 + 2 H2O → CO2 + 4 H2
Fuel to satisfy the heat requirements
• From “real” processes
SMR – Steam methane reforming
Water shift reactions
Heat integration
CO2 removal or PSA?
2
Energy Efficiency
• Usable energy out of a process compared to all energy inputs
Eout
Ein i
• Energy values could be heat, work, or chemical potential (heating value)
HHV (Gross): Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O (liquid)
LHV (Net): Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O (vapor)
GPSA Data Book Derived from Aspen Plus 2006.5
Compound HHV LHV HHV LHV
Btu/scf Btu/scf kcal/g.mol Btu/scf kcal/g.mol Btu/scf
Hydrogen 324.2 273.8 68.7 325.9 57.7 273.9
Methane 1010.0 909.4 213.6 1013.1 191.7 909.1
Carbon Monoxide 320.5 320.5 67.6 320.6 67.6 320.6
Carbon Dioxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
• Energy values may have to be discounted when combining different types
Should the HHV be discounted when combining with heat values?
3
Basic Stoichiometery – CH4 + 2 H2O → CO2 + 4 H2
• Production: NH2 mol
4
NCH4 mol
• Apparent efficiency (HHV basis)
Just from stoichiometry: 4 68.7
1.29
1 213.6
Include heat of reaction: 4 68.7
1.00
1 213.6 61.3
METHANE
MAKE-H2
WATER
H2-CO2
Q
Q-RXN
4
How do we provide the heat of reaction?
• Could use additional methane – 0.29 mol fuel/mol reactant (HHV basis)
NH2 4 mol
• Production: 3.1
NCH4 1 0.29 mol
• Efficiency including fuel (HHV basis) METHANE
MAKE-H2
4 68.7 WATER
1.0
H2-CO2
1.29 213.6
Q-RXN
FUEL
BURNER
AIR
FLUE-GAS
5
Steam Methane Reforming & Water Gas Shift
Reforming High Temperature Low Temperature Hydrogen Methanation
Reactor Shift Reactor Shift Reactor Purification Reactor
Steam
Fuel Gas
Hydrogen
CO2
6
SMR Alternate Designs
• Traditional with 2 stages shift
reactors – 95% to 98% purity
• Newer designs with PSA
(Pressure Swing Adsorption) –
lower capital costs, lower
conversion, but very high purity
(99%+)
7
Process Considerations
Kaes [2000] Molburg & Doctor [2003] Nexant Report [2006] Other
Desulfurization Model as conversion reactor Model as equilibrium reactor.
Reactors Sulfur compounds converted to H2S &
adsorbed in ZnO bed.
Small temperature increase 500 - 800°F depending on technology.
700°F most typical.
Typically up to 725 psi (50 bar)
Reformer 1450 - 1650°F exit 1500°F 20 - 30 atm (295 - 440 psia)
Equilibirium Gibbs reactor with 20°F Model as equilibrium reactor. 850-1000°F (455-540°C) inlet
approach (for design). 1470-1615°F (800-880°C) outlet
High Temperature 650 - 700°F entrance for HTS + LTS 660°F entrance 940°F (504°C) inlet
Shift Reactor 500 - 535°F entrance when no LTS
Equilibirium Gibbs reactor Fixed 90% CO conversion
All components inert except CO, H2O,
CO2, & H2.
Low Temperature 400 - 450°F entrance 400°F entrance
Shift Reactor Equilibirium Gibbs reactor 480-525°F (249-274°C) outlet
All components inert except CO, H2O, Fixed 90% CO conversion
CO2, & H2.
Methanation 500 - 550°F entrance
Equilibirium Gibbs reactor
All components inert except CH4, CO,
H2O, CO2, & H2.
Amine Purification Model as component splitter Model as component splitter MDEA circulation, duty, & work estimates
from GPSA Data Book
Treated gas 10 - 15°F increase, 5 - 10 Treated gas 100°F & 230 psi (16 bar) Rejected CO2 atmospheric pressure &
psi decrease, water saturated exit water saturated
95% CO2 recovery
PSA Model as component splitter Model as component splitter
100°F entrance 90% H2 recovered 75 - 85% recovery for "reasonable"
capital costs (higher requires more beds)
8
Basic SMR Process
W Q
Remember, direction of arrow indicates whether AspenPlus has calculated,
NOT whether it is heat in/out
15 16 231
1 28 28
Q
WATER 273 815
377 28 19
STEAMGEN REFORMER
28
WATPUMP
349
18
Q HTS
15 W
1
GASCOMP
38
HVAL-1 1
FEED 427
HIERARCHY 18
CO2
Q
Q-HEAT1
Q 204
17
LTS
33 260
15 14
AMINE
Temperature (C) HIERARCHY
213
Pressure (atm) 16 38
15
COND1 METHANTR
335
HOTPROD 14
Q
38
Q
14
HVAL-2
PRODUCT
HIERARCHY
9
SMR Basic Process Energy Requirements
W Q
Q
WATER
HTS
GASCOMP
HVAL-1
FEED
HIERARCHY
HOTPROD
CO2
Energy Inputs Energy Removal
kcal/hr kW kcal/hr
Steam Boiler 3,742,371 Post Reformer Cooler 2,238,933 Q
Sub-total 522,246
Total 16,831,286 Q
Q
10
SMR – Heat Recovery for Steam Generation
W Q
Q
WATER
HTS
GASCOMP
HVAL-1
FEED
HIERARCHY
HOTPROD
CO2
Energy Inputs Energy Removal
kcal/hr kW kcal/hr
Steam Boiler 3,742,371 Post Reformer Cooler 2,238,933 Q
11
Reformer Furnace Design
“Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming”
Ray Elshout, Chemical Engineering, May 2010
12
Direct Fired Heaters for Reformer & Amine Unit
Total 16,831,286
13
Pre‐Heat the Reformer Feed?
Total 16,831,286
14
SMR Alternate Designs
• Traditional with 2 stages shift
reactors – 95% to 98% purity
• Newer designs with PSA
(Pressure Swing Adsorption) –
lower capital costs, lower
conversion, but very high purity
(99%+)
15
Alternate Hydrogen Purification Processes
“Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming”
Ray Elshout, Chemical Engineering, May 2010
16
Use of PSA for Product Purification
W Q
Total 10,471,865
17
Use of PSA for Product Purification
W Q
18
Integrated Process
“Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming”
Ray Elshout, Chemical Engineering, May 2010
19
What should be the price of hydrogen?
• Hydrogen sales should cover all costs plus • Example
profit
Natural gas $4.36 per million BTU (as of
Raw material costs (primarily natural March 30, 2011) = $3.68 per kmol CH4
gas)
Electricity 6.79 ¢/kW‐hr (for 2010 per
Electricity EIA for Industrial customers)
Other operating expenses (staff, …) PSA production scenario
Recovery of capital invested • 104.5 kmol/hr CH4 $385 per hr
• Minimum is to cover cost of natural gas & • 461.1 kW $31 per hr
power
• 263 kmol/hr H2 $0.79 per kg
Electrolysis comparison – 80%
electrolysis efficiency & 90%
compression efficiency
• $3.80 per kg
o $6.80 per kg with capital costs
included
A Realistic Look at Hydrogen Price Projections, F. David Doty
Mar. 11, 2004 (updated Sept 21, 2004)
20
Other References
• Refinery Process Modeling, 1st ed.
Gerald L. Kaes
Kaes Enterprises, Inc., 2000
• “Hydrogen from Steam‐Methane Reforming with CO2 Capture”
John C. Molburg & Richard D. Doctor
Paper for 20th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, September 15‐19, 2003
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/hydrogen_clean_fuels/refshelf/papers/pgh/hydrogen%20from%
20steam%20methane%20reforming%20for%20carbon%20dioxide%20cap.pdf
• Equipment Design and Cost Estimation for Small Modular Biomass Systems, Synthesis Gas
Cleanup, and Oxygen Separation Equipment; Task 1: Cost Estimates of Small Modular
Systems
NREL Subcontract Report, work performed by Nexant Inc., San Francisco, CA
May 2006
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39943.pdf
21