Int. d. Hydrogen Eneryy Vol 5. pp. 21 33 0360-3199 80,(1201 0021 $02.

00/0
Pergamon Press Ltd. 1980 Printed in Great Britain
© International Association for Hydrogen Energy

INDUSTRIAL SCALE PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN FROM

NATURAL GAS, NAPHTHA AND COAL
W. BALTHASARand D. J. HAMBLETON
Kinetics Technology International B.V., Zoetermeer, The Netherlands

(Received for publication 1 June 1979)

Abstract--This paper reviews the three major routes for the production of hydrogen from fossil fuels.
Today there is considerable interest in the production of hydrogen via the gasification of coal. Existing processes
and developments are listed.
The partial oxidation processes which utilize feedstocks ranging from light hydrocarbons to heavy fuel oil
are attractive due to feedstock flexibility.
Hydrogen production based on the steam reforming of light hydrocarbons has become the most widely used
process as a result of, in general, better economics.

H Y D R O G E N F R O M COAL
THE PRODUCTIONof hydrogen from coal proceeds via coal gasification. In coal gasification a hydrogen
rich gas is produced which is then separated by various techniques into hydrogen and the other
components. Hydrogen is either recovered from coke oven gases or direct coal gasification by any
one of the autothermic or allothermic processes. Hydrogen from coal is today mainly produced via
synthesis gas from coal gasification, and in this specific instance for ammonia production. In this
application, the Koppers-Totzek-Gasification had its major success. The Koppers-Totzek-Gasifier
operates under atmospheric pressure. However, since synthesis gas and hydrogen are normally
needed under increased pressure, a trend is observed to operate coal gasifiers under increased pressure.
By this operation, compression of the synthesis gas to the necessary synthesis pressure for separation
is avoided, and in some cases like the methanol low pressure synthesis a further compression of the
synthesis gas is completely avoided.
Today, for the production of synthesis gas and hydrogen from coal three processes are proven
on an industrial scale: the Lurgi Pressure Gasification Process, the Atmospheric Koppers process
and the Winkler Process.
During the last 20 years coal gasification plants for the production of synthesis gas have basically
been designed, constructed and operated according to the processes from Koppers and Lurgi.
Because of the distribution of fossil fuels in the world--there is ten times more coal in the world than
natural gas and crude oil and the reserves are much more evenly distributed than the latter--at
many places efforts take place to develop new coal gasification processes and thus to develop processes
for the production of hydrogen from coal. Some of the new processes are reaching a stage of develop-
ment which allows commercial application. Most processes add the necessary heat of gasification
through the introduction of oxygen into the process. Of these new processes the Texaco process,
the Shell-Koppers process and the Otto-Rummel process have reached demonstration scale, and
are thus in the final stage of development. All three processes are pressure gasification type and lead
to gased type, which have a high hydrogen and carbon monoxide content and a low methane content.
For hydrogen production the raw synthesis gas is purified from sour gases by one of the available
gas treating processes, subjected to a high temperature shift and, if economically advisable, a low
temperature shift in order to remove carbon monoxide to increase the hydrogen content of the gas,
and then is further purified in a pressure swing adsorption system using molecular sieves or a low
temperature separation. All these process steps are proven technology and have been commercially
realized in industrial application.
The economic aspects of hydrogen derived from coal depend very much on the capital aspects
involved and the price of coal. Generally, the capital for the coal gasification section is the major
portion of the cost of hydrogen from a coal facility.
21
 STEAM BOILER FEED WATER

COAL _ ~ PULVERIZING
-- g GAS J..... GAS 1SYNTHESIS HYDROGEN
DRYING PLANT
>

>
o~

PURGE GAS >

_~ SOURGAS Z
--O 2 TREATMENT ""
ASH j
g SLAG
AIR SOUR WATER
AIR J STRIPPER ~--.-TREATED WASTE WATER
SEPARATION
t-~

©
Z

N2

FIG. 1. Typical flow sheet for hydrogen from coal.

 HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS, NAPHTHA AND COAL 23

Hydrogen from coal today is in most regions twice as expensive as hydrogen derived from liquid
or gaseous feedstock. Due to the high variation in capital and coal cost, no economic analysis is
performed within this review.

PARTIAL O X I D A T I O N
The partial oxidation of hydrocarbons is a major commercial route to hydrogen production.
The process requires tonnage oxygen and proceeds at moderately high pressures, with or without a
catalyst, according to the feedstock and process selected.
The chemistry of the process is complex but the overall reactions which occur can be represented
by the following equations:

C.Hm + (n/2)O 2 , nCO + (m/2)H 2

CmH . + nH20 , nCO + (n + m/2)H 2.

The hydrogen/oxygen reaction to produce carbon oxides and hydrogen is exothermic, whereas the
hydrocarbon/steam reaction is endothermic. In the catalytic partial oxidation process use is made of
this fact by combining the exothermic and endothermic reactions to sustain the reaction without
external heating of the catalyst bed (which is a feature of the steam reforming process). The auto-
thermal reactors are large diameter vessels, internally insulated and containing nickel catalyst.
A commercial example of the catalytic partial oxidation process is the Topsoe-SBA process. In
this process the hydrocarbon feed and superheated steam are mixed and preheated to about 600°C
and then mixed with oxygen. The oxygen and hydrocarbon react exothermically above the nickel
catalyst bed and the gases pass down through the catalyst bed where the endothermic steam reforming
reaction takes place.
An important feature of this process is that it consumes less oxygen than the non-catalytic process,
however, heavy feedstocks cannot be used and feed is limited to methane through to naphtha.
The non-catalytic partial oxidation processes are characterized by their ability to operate with
feedstocks ranging from methane to heavy fuel oil. This feedstock flexibility is the major attraction
of these processes, since heavy fuel oils, usually available at low cost, can be used, and also feedstocks
can be changed according to price and availability.
The two commercially important non-catalytic processes are the Texaco process and the Shell oil
gasification process. Both processes were developed independently in the mid-1950s, since which
time more than 200 commercial scale plants have been built.
Fuel oil, oxygen and steam are fed into a refractory lined reactor where combustion takes place,
through one or more burners of special design. Typical operating pressure range is 10-60 atm and
gas exit temperature is around 1400°C. The hot gases from the reactor are cooled either by direct-
quench or in a process gas waste heat boiler.
Hydrogen sulphide in the raw gas is removed in a conventional regenerative treating process
followed by high and low temperature shift conversion of carbon monoxide to hydrogen and carbon
dioxide, CO 2 removal and methanation.
Figure 2 shows a typical flow scheme for non-catalytic partial oxidation with waste heat boiler.
Table 3 gives typical investment and performance data for hydrogen production via non-catalytic
partial oxidation of fuel oil.

CATALYTIC STEAM R E F O R M I N G
Steam reforming of hydrocarbons is a proven and widely used process for the production of
hydrogen. The process is basically a catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons and steam to hydrogen
and carbon oxides. Hydrocarbon feedstock may range from methane to naphtha.
The hydrocarbon feedstock must be desulfurized to protect the catalysts in the hydrocarbon plant.
The type of desulfurization process depends on the kind of feedstock and on the type of sulfur com-
ponents in the feed.
H2S and reactive sulfur components in light feedstocks can be removed either by adsorption on
activated carbon or absorption on hot zinc oxide.
 °° ~~i

ctmq
0

L
 HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS, NAPHTHA AND COAL 25

TABLE 1. C o a l g a s i f i c a t i o n processes

Fuel Coking Weak coking Strong coking

Lump coal (6-50 ram) Small coal (1-8 ram) Dust (0- I mm)

Reactants direction Counter Current Co-current

Fuel during reaction Resting Fluidized bed Cloud/suspense

Autothermic With air and possibly Roast generators ~ Winkler 2 Cloud chamber--Ruhrgas 2
gasification steam, continuous Topping generators z Winkler-Flesch 2 Vibration pipe--Ruhrgas 2
BASF-Flesch-
Demag 2
With oxygen and Roast generators 3 Winkler ~ Koppers-Totzek 1
possibly steam, Tapping generators ~ Winkler-Flesch 3 Babcock-Wilcox2
continuous BASF-Flesch-Demag Du Pont 3
HTW-Winkler Otto-Rummel 2
Bureau of Mines 3
With oxygen and/or air Lurgi-pressure gasifier 1 Sythane 3 Texaco 1
and steam under Brit Gas-Lurgi-slagging IGT 3
pressure, continuous gasitier3 Bureau of Mines 3
Krupp-Koppers 3
Otto-Rummel 3
With air/steam heat Water gas generators 2
storage in fuel,
discontinuous

Allothermic Chamberwall heating Didier-Bubiag 2 Bureau of Mines 3

Koppers, Japan
Solid heat carriers Coalcon 3 Lurgi-Ruhrgas 2
CO2-Acceptors 3 Cogas 3
Liquid heat carriers Kellogg-salt bath

High temperature-- General Atom-Stone-

nuclear reactor heat Webster 3
under pressure Watergas--Bergbau
forschungs3
Hydropyrolysis-Rhein-
Braun 3

Autothermic and Hydrogenation, Bi-Gas 3

allothermic ailothermic till reaction Hy-Gas 3
gasification in starts, H2-generation Hydrane 3
multistep autothermic Co-Gas 3
processes under Agglomerating-Ash3
pressure CS-SR 3
Roeketdyne 3

t Plants in operation.
2 Plants shut down.
3 Experimental processes (see Table 2).
From Ullmann--"Encyklop~die der technischen Chemie', Vol. 14 (1977).
26 W. B A L T H A S A R A N D D. J. H A M B L E T O N

TABLE 2. D e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s ; c o a l g a s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s e s

Process and development Pressure Process Raw material Development stage

companies (bar)

Lurgi-high pressure 80-100 Fixed bed All coals run off mine Experimental reactor with
Ruhrkohle-Ruhrgas- dry ash removal 1.5 m O to be run late
Steag-Lurgi (Dorsten) 1978
British Gas-Lurgi 17 Fixed bed Lump coal 4 commercial generators in
slagging gasifier liquid ash removal engineering
British Gas Corp./Cons. of
14 US comp./Lurgi
(Westfield)
Lurgi-pressure 20 Fixed bed All coals Cogencration in operation
Lurgi Steag (Liinen) dry ash removal
Shen-Koppers > 20 Dust gasification All coals after grinding Demonstration plant in
Shell-Krupp Koppers operation 150 t/d
(Hamburg)
Otto-Rummel 25 Dust gasification All coals after grinding Demonstration plant in
Otto-Saarbergbau (Bochum) construction 150 t/d
HTW >1 Dust gasification Lignite Pilot plant in construction
Texaco 30 Dust gasification All coals after grinding Demonstration plant in
Texaco Dee. Corp. operation 150 t/d
Ruhrkohle-Ruhrchemie
(Oberhauscn)
COz-acccptor l0 Dust gasification Lignite and non-caking Pilot plant program
Consolidation Coal Co. coal finished
(Rapid City)
Synthane Bureau of 40-70 Dust gasification All coal caking after Pilot plant in operation
Mines (Bruceton) treatment 70 t/d
Hydrane Bureau of Mines 70-100 Dust gasification Preferably high volatile Demonstration plant in
multi step coals construction
Coalcon >7 Dust gasification All coals Pilot plant in operation
Batelle/UCC multi step
(West Jefferson)
Cogas 5 Dust gasification Preferably high volatile
Cogas Dee. Co. multi step coals
(I.,¢athcrhcad Princeton)
Hy-Gas 70-100 Dust gasification All coals caking after Program finished
IGT (Chicago) multi step pretreatment
Bi-Gas < 100 Dust gasification High volatile coals Pilot plant in operation
Bituminous coal Res. multi step 120 t/d
(Homer City)
HTR-gasification 40 Dust gasification High volatile coals Demonstration plant in
Bergbauforschung GmbH construction
(Essen)
Rheinische Braunkohle 80 Multi step Caking after pretreatment
(Wesseling)
KFA (Jiilich) Pilot plant in operation
2.5 t/d
 c 0~#~OV, L ~-._~
DESULPHURISER REaReR H.T.SHIFT L.T.SHIFT m

A METHANATOR
STACK HEATRECOVERY
~llfl
I) HEATREOOVERY
ANDCOOLING
FEED FUEL HYDROGEN
PRODUCT
PROCESS
STEAM
2-A "
DESULPHURIS1ER ~FORMER H.T.SHIFT

I ~ ~.~. PURGEGASDRUM
SYSTEM
P.S.A ~_~[ l

HEATRECOV
FEED FUEL HYDROGEN
PRODUCT

FIG. 3. Flow scheme for PSA hydrogen plant.

 28 W. BALTHASAR AND D. J. HAMBLETON

TOP FIRED SIDE FIRED COMBINED BOTTOM

AND SIDE FJ.RED
FEED FEED FEED
+ t f +
n FLUE FLUE
"~AS "~AS

.1~ FLUE
GAS
+
PRODUCT PRODUCT PRODUCT

FIG. 4. Types of reformers.

FEED REFORMER P S.A. HYDROGEN

AND SYSTEM
h..._
H.T, SHIFT v

PRODUCT

P.S.A. PURGE GAS

MAKE_UP FUEL

FIG. 5. Block diagram of PSA Hydrogen Plant.

Non reactive sulfur components in feedstocks can be removed by hydrogenation to H2S over a
Comox or Nimox catalyst and subsequent absorption on hot zinc oxide.
The desulfurized feedstock is mixed with process steam and reformed over a nickel based catalyst
in the reformer furnace, where the following reactions take place:

C,H m + nH20 , nCO + (n + m/2)Hz, (1)

CO + H20 < r C O 2 + n 2, (2)

CO + 3H 2 , ~ CH+ + H20. (3)
The catalyst is contained in vertical tubes with a diameter of 8-13 centimeters, and the process gas
passes inside the catalyst tubes downwards from the top to the bottom. The overall reforming reaction
 HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS, NAPHTHA AND COAL 29
TABLE 3. Investment and performance data--non-catalytic partial oxidation

Feedstock and Utilities

Typical hourly feedstock and utilities consumptions for hydrogen production via the partial oxidation of heavy fuel oil are as
follows:

Feedstock
Heavy fuel oil kg/h 43,450

Utilities
Cooling water m3/h 1,020
Boiler feed water m3/h 63

Produced
Hydrogen Nm3/h 89,000 (98 %)

Capital Investment
Included is oxygen plant and power generation:
U.S. $ x 103 = 53,000

is strongly endothermic. It is therefore necessary to position the catalyst tubes in a furnace and supply
the heat of reaction by a number of burners.
The conversion of hydrocarbons to hydrogen and carbon oxides is restricted by three different
physical and chemical phenomena.
The first restriction is the chemical equilibrium between the constituents in the reformer effluent.
Reverting to the reaction schemes we see that (1) goes to completion whereas (2) and (3) are equilib-
rium reactions. Consequently the conversion of hydrocarbons can never proceed further than to the
equilibrium concentration of CH 4 in the reformer effluent.
The equilibrium composition of the reformed gas is determined by three parameters. These are:
The steam to carbon ratio, commonly expressed as mol steam: atom carbon in the hydrocarbon
feed at the reformer inlet.
Outlet pressure.
Outlet temperature.

The conversion is favoured by a high steam to carbon ratio, high outlet temperature and low pressure.
It should be mentioned that steam is added to the hydrocarbon feed in excess of the stoichiometric
quantity not only to improve the conversion but also to prevent carbon formation on the catalyst.
The second restriction is the rate of the reforming reactions which are related to the activity of
the catalyst. If the catalyst has lost its activity, for instance due to sulfur poisoning, the conversion of
the feedstock is adversely affected.
The last restriction is the transfer of heat from the burners in the reformer furnace to the process
gas inside the catalyst tubes. As mentioned before, the overall reforming reaction is strongly endo-
thermic and about 750 kcal must be transferred/normal m 3 H 2 and CO produced.
Heat is released by the burners in the furnace and transferred by radiation and convection to the
outer surface of the catalyst tubes. The heat is then conducted through the tube walls and finally
transferred from the inner walls to the process gas and catalyst by convection and radiation. The
temperature profile may look as follows:
2000°C theoretical flame temperature,
1200°C bulk flue gas temperature,
860°C outside tube skin temperature,
830°C inside tube skin temperature, and
700°C bulk process gas temperature.
 30 w. BALTHASAR AND D. J. HAMBLETON

The actual temperatures of the process gas and tube metal at any point along the tubes are deter-
mined by the rate of heat transferred to the gas and the rate by which heat is used for the chemical
processes. A complete picture of the steam reforming process is only obtained ff heat transfer and
reaction rates are considered simultaneously. In practice this is done by a computer program which
includes mathematical models of the different steps of heat transfer from the burners to the process
gas inside the tubes as well as information on the reaction kinetics. By stepwise calculations along
the tubes from inlet to outlet of the reformer the program predicts heat transfer, temperatures of
flue gas and process gas, process gas composition and tube wall and refractory temperatures.

The reformer furnace

The catalyst tubes are positioned in a fired heater, the burners of which provide heat for the strongly
endothermic reforming reaction.
Different types of reformer furnaces are in use. The heat can be supplied by radiant or flame
burners and the burners can be located either in the furnace ceiling, the floor or in the side walls.
The two most common types are the side fired and the top fired reformer, or a combination of both.
These types are shown schematically in Fig. 4.
In the side fired reformer the catalyst tubes are positioned in the firebox in one single lane. A
number of radiant burners are located on the side of the furnace, evenly distributed over the entire
wall. The heat is transferred to the catalyst tubes mainly by radiation from the hot burner blocks
and refractory, and to a certain extent by convection. The flue gas leaves the firebox at the top.
The top fired reformer contains two or more lanes of catalyst tubes, and flame burners are located
in the furnace ceiling between the tube lanes.
Heat is transferred from the burners to the tubes by flame radiation and to a lesser degree by
convection. The flue gas leaves the firebox at the bottom.

Conventional process (See Fig. 3)

The raw process gas from the reformer is cooled down to about 350°C before entering the high tem-
perature shift catalyst, where the major portion of CO is converted into hydrogen as per the equation

H 2 0 -I- CO , ' CO 2 + H 2. (4)

Since this reaction is exothermic, there is a temperature increase along the catalyst bed. The high
temperature shift effluent is cooled down to 220°C before entering the low temperature shift reactor,
where the CO conversion reaction proceeds further to reduce the CO content in the gas to about
0.2 vot. %.
The low temperature shift effluent is cooled and fed into a CO 2 absorber, where the CO 2 is removed
to a level of 0.1% or less by countercurrent stripped of CO 2 in a stripping tower.
The heat in the low temperature shift effluent gas is used to reboil the CO 2 stripper.
Several carbon dioxide removal processes have been commercialized. These include:
Monoethanolamine (MEA),
Hot potassum carbonate processes as Vetrocoke, Catacarb or Benfield and
Sulfinol.
The MEA and Sulfinol processes operate at about 35°C, whereas the hot potassum carbonate pro-
cesses work at about 125°C.
The choice between these processes varies from case to case, depending on the product specification
and overall steam balance. However, with the present day stress on maximum heat recovery, processes
which use less heat for regeneration are generally preferred.
Figure 6 shows the heat requirements for different CO 2 removal systems.
The residual CO and CO 2 in the hydrogen after CO 2 removal is methanated at 350°C as per the
following reactions:

CO + 3H z < ' CH+ + H 2 0 , (5)

CO 2 + 2H 2 , ' CH+ + 2H20. (6)
 HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS, NAPHTHA AND COAL 31

SULFINOL

BENFIELD

VETRO COKE

M.E.A.
jm
0 1000 2000 3000 LO00 KCOII Nm3 CO2

FIG. 6. Heat requirements for C O 2 stripping.

The residual CO and CO 2 can be reduced to about 5-10 ppm. The product hydrogen is cooled and
sent to downstream units. When the feedstock does not contain nitrogen, the product hydrogen
purity for optimum plant investment is in the range 97-98 %. Slightly higher purities can be achieved
at the expense of extra investment and operating costs.

PSA process
The conventional process as described above is well-proven, and improvements in design together
with operating experience over the past 15 yr ensure reliability and reasonable efficiency. However,
there are inherent weaknesses because this technology embraces six separate and distinct unit
processes in series. Any new system which can reduce the number of unit processes has the advantage
of reducing the complexity of the operation and the risk of downtime.
One such process which is gaining growing recognition is the purification of raw hydrogen with
molecular sieves. The regeneration of these molecular sieves is achieved by adiabatic depressurisation
at ambient temperature, and hence the process is called the "Pressure Swing Adsorption" (PSA)
system.
A hydrogen plant with such a purification system will have the following process steps:
Feed desulfurization,
Steam reforming,
High temperature shift conversion, and
Purification in a "PSA" system.
(Please refer to Figs 3 and 5.)
As can be seen, the first three process steps are the same as for a conventional plant, whereas
low temperature shift CO 2 removal and methanation are replaced by one process unit--the PSA
system.
As opposed to the conventional process, the high temperature shift product is cooled down to
ambient temperature before purification.
The feedgas passes through one of the beds and all components except the hydrogen are prefer-
entially adsorbed, thus producing hydrogen with a purity of 99.9 % or higher. After an adsorption
cycle of 4-6 rain, the feedgas is passed through another adsorber which has just been regenerated,
purged and repressurized. The desorbed off-gases are accumulated in the purge gas drum before
going to the reformer burners as fuel.
The system is completely automatic, being regulated by cycle timers which set the adsorption,
desorption, purge and repressurization cycles at optimum conditions.
A quite recent development in the PSA process is the "Polybed PSA Unit" which allows the pro-
duction from a single train unit to increase by a factor of 3 and at the same time increase the hydrogen
recovery by about 10 % over the 4 bed system.
The Polybed PSA has 10 beds with 3 beds on adsorption at any given time while the remaining
are in different stages of regeneration.
32 W. BALTHASAR AND D. J. HAMBLETON
By the use of Polybed PSA, high purity hydrogen can be produced on a large scale with attractive
economics.
The choice between the conventional and the PSA process depends on a number of factors and has
to be evaluated from case to case. In such an evaluation the following points are to be considered:

Product purity
The most pronounced difference between the conventional and the PSA process is that the PSA
process produces hydrogen with a purity of 99.9 vol. % or higher. The product purity remains un-
affected even if the feedstock contains nitrogen. This high purity is mostly an advantage for the down-
stream hydrogen consumer.
An optimized conventional plant produces 97-98 % pure hydrogen. If the feed contains nitrogen,
the purity will be lower. The impurity in the product is mostly methane. This methane represents
a considerable amount of potential hydrogen, and in fact should be regarded as a loss of feedstock.
Further, this impurity calls for increased hydrogen consumption in processes using recycle loops to
compensate for purge losses.

Plant reliability
Due to the fewer unit processes employed in a PSA plant and the absence of rotary equipment,
a simple and reliable plant operation is ensured. Further, no corrosion problems are experienced in
a PSA plant.
The operation of a PSA plant is easy to monitor, thus enabling the operators to recognize possible
troubles and to take action before a plant shut down is encountered.
When hydrogen rich gas is used as feed, with a PSA process it is possible to produce hydrogen at
reduced rate, even if the former is down, by introducing the feed directly to the PSA unit.
Large hydrogen plants having "Polybed" PSA units can operate on a reduced number of adsorbers.
The on/off valves in a PSA unit, closing or operating every 4-6 min, are critical items and hence
valve selection must be done with great care.
The expensive low temperature shift catalyst used in the conventional process is extremely sensitive
to sulfur and to condensing steam. The poisoning of this catalyst means a plant shutdown, at least
for a few days.
CO 2 removal systems often give corrosion problems in equipment and piping. Further, any
operational upset in the CO 2 removal system which allows excessive quantities of CO 2 to enter the
methanator reactor will cause rapid overheating of the catalyst. The result is a thermal trip out, which
may put the plant off line for several hours.

Process economics
For large plants, the investment for the PSA process is higher than for the conventional process.
However, normally the extra investment is offset by the better economics of the PSA system. This,
of course, depends largely on the feedstock and utility pricing.
Lower steam to carbon ratio can be used in a PSA plant without affecting the product purity.
In the conventional process a steam to carbon ratio of 4.5 to 6.0 is usually required to ensure hydrogen
purity, and also to provide enough heat for CO 2 stripping. In the PSA process the steam to carbon
ratio can be as low as 3 to 4.
A lower quantity of the process steam improves the thermal efficiency of the plant by making more
steam available for export.
The absence of a CO 2 removal system with absorbent regeneration and a methanator step, which
requires preheat, means that all the residual waste heat in the process and flue gases can be used for
steam raising.
Further, the heat losses in a PSA unit are considerably less than those in a conventional system
due to less equipment operating at high temperatures.
Hence the overall thermal efficiency in a PSA plant can be higher (about 2 %) than in a conventional
system.
Table 4 gives a comparison of the investment and performance data for a large hydrogen plant
(126,000 Nma/h) using alternative conventional and PSA purification routes.
 H Y D R O G E N F R O M N A T U R A L GAS, N A P H T H A A N D COAL 33

TABLE 4. I n v e s t m e n t a n d p e r f o r m a n c e d a t a - - c a t a l y t i c s t e a m r e f o r m i n g

Feedstock and Utilities

The hourly feedstock and utilities consumptions of the plant, when operating at the design capacity of 126,000 Nma/h using
naphtha feedstock, are as follows:

Route Conventional PSA

Feedstock
Naphtha, kg/h 27,876 40,262
Utilities
Fuel, Mcal/h (Naphtha) 171,900 59,500
Cooling water m3/h 300 370
Boiled feed water mS/h 162.6 260.8
Electricity, kW 5,600 3,200
Instrument air, Nm3/h 350 400
Produced
Hydrogen, Nma/h 126,000 (97 %) 126,000 (99.9 %)
M.P. saturated steam, t/h 0 101
Condensate, t/h 75.2 71.6
Blow down, t/h 5 7
Capital Investment
U.S. $ × l03 30,000 33,000

REFERENCES

1. K. S. RAGHURAMANand T. JOHANSEN,The role of hydrogen in the chemical, petrochemical and petroleum

industries, K T I Newsletter (April 1975).
2. J. L. HECK and T. JOHANSEN, Improvement in large scale hydrogen production, Petrol. Refin. p. 175 (January
1978).
3. M. J. MILNER and D. M. JONES, Hydrogen production by partial oxidation, Proc. 8th Worm Petroleum Con-
gress (June 1971).
4. S. STRELZOFF,Partial oxidation for syngas and fuel, Hydrocarb. Procea's. Petrol. Refin. (December 1974).