HP March 2022 eBook—Energy Transition - 26

Process Optimization
This competitiveness between blue
and gray H2 (when considering CO2
costs) is based on SMR technology, but
other technologies are available to further
increase blue H2
field projects.
6
5
4
3
2
1
Green H2
FIG. 1. Estimated H2
Gray H2
Blue H2
production costs in 2030.
CO2 price
Fuel cost
OPEX
CAPEX
Sensitivity
affordability for greenGreenfield
technology options. This
article considers three technology options
for greenfield blue H2
projects:
SMR, autothermal reforming (ATR)
and a proprietary gas POX technologyb
(FIG. 2).
SMR. SMR, a proven catalytic technology
widely applied for gray H2
production,
uses steam in a multi-tubular
reactor with external firing for indirect
heating. More than 48% of H2
is from natural gas, with SMR being the
most common production technology.13
Post-combustion carbon capturec
retrofitted to convert gray H2
combustion flue gas.
However, for greenfield blue H2
plications, oxygen (O2
ap)-based
systems,
such as ATR and gas POX technology,
are more cost-effective than SMR (FIG.
3), a conclusion backed by numerous
studies and reports.14
of CO2
makes gray H2
expensive than blue H2
nology. The cost advantage of O2
Note: The cost
via SMR more
from SGP tech-based
production
can
be
production
to blue and is proven to capture nearly all
the CO2
(99%) from low-pressure, postsystems
over SMR increases with scale
because the relative cost of the air separation
unit decreases with increasing capacity.
Another advantage is that more
than 99.9% of the CO2
and steam with
can be captured
using a lower-cost, pre-combustion solvent
technology.d
ATR. ATR uses O2
direct firing in a refractory-lined reactor
with a catalyst bed. It is more cost-effective
than SMR, but it requires a substantial
feed gas pre-treatment investment,
and the fired heater produces CO2
emissions
(FIG. 2). ATR can be combined with
pre-combustion carbon-capture technology
to convert gray H2
production to blue.
-based system with
Gas POX technology. Gas POX technology
is also an O2
direct firing in a refractory-lined reactor,
but it is a noncatalytic process that does
not consume steam and has no direct CO2
emissions. It, too, can be combined with
pre-combustion carbon-capture technology
for blue H2
production. Compared
with SMR, gas POX technology saves
money by maximizing the carbon-capture
efficiency and simplifying the process
lineup, both of which offset the cost
of O2
production (FIG. 4).
POX vs. ATR for blue H2
over ATR for blue H2
. As O2
production.
-
based systems offer clear benefits over
SMR, this article considers the advantages
of the proprietary gas POX technologyb
A
key advantage is that the POX reaction
does not require steam as a reactant.
Instead, high-pressure steam is generated
by using waste heat from the reaction,
which can satisfy the steam consumption
within the blue H2
process, as well as
some internal power consumers.
With no need for feed gas pre-treatment,
gas POX technology has a far simpler
process lineup than ATR (FIG. 2).
Also, as a noncatalytic, direct-fired system,
it is robust against feed contaminants
such as sulfur and can accommodate a
large range of natural gas qualities, thereby
giving refiners greater feed flexibility
to decarbonize refinery fuel gas.
Gas POX technologyb
provides sub(FIG.
5).
stantial savings compared with ATR-a
22% lower levelized cost of H2
These savings come from a 17% lower
CAPEX owing to the potential for a higher
operating pressure leading to a smaller
H2
FIG. 2. Blue H2
technologies and process lineups.
sion), CO2
Hydrocarbon Processing | JUNE 2021 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
compressor (single-stage comprescapture
and CO2
compressor
units, and a 34% lower OPEX (excludProduction
cost, $/kg H2
http://www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
HP March 2022 eBook—Energy Transition

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of HP March 2022 eBook—Energy Transition
