Accepted Manuscript

Title: Study on integrating a gas turbine in steam methane reforming process

Author: Guoqing Li, Guotian Zhong, Qing Wu

PII: S1359-4311(16)30018-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.01.068
Reference: ATE 7628

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received date: 22-11-2015

Accepted date: 22-1-2016

Please cite this article as: Guoqing Li, Guotian Zhong, Qing Wu, Study on integrating a gas
turbine in steam methane reforming process, Applied Thermal Engineering (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.01.068.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its
final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Study on integrating a gas turbine in steam methane reforming process

Guoqing Li1, Guotian Zhong*,1, Qing Wu2

1
School of Chemistry & Chemical Engineering, South China University of Technology,

Guangzhou 510640, China

2
CNOOC OIL & Petrochemical Co.Ltd.(COPL), Huizhou 516000, China

*revision is marked in red.

Highlights

 A new route is proposed to improve the steam methane reforming process

 Combined pinch and exergy is used to optimize the energy consumption

 Global optimization is used to produce more turbine power

Graphical Abstract:
s te a m 3 .5 M P a 2 9 9 0 C 5 4 .8 t/h

2 4 8 .2 0 C

fr.R 1 0 2 A B
4 9 8 .4 0 C
3 3 4 .7 0 C 2 .4 2 M P a
g a s tu rb in e W W = 2262kW

R 103

4 4 6 0C F 101
8 5 0 0C R 201
3 .0 5 M P a 8 1 4 0C
7 2 9 8 0 k g /h 2 .4 7 M P a
3 9 5 .5 0 C 2 .4 0 M P a
6 3 0 0 C 3 .2 7 M P a B 102 E202

3 .5 M P a 2 4 3 0 C s te a m 6 4 .1 5 t/h fr.E 2 0 4

Figure 9 The suggested route of steam methane reforming with turbine integration

Page 1 of 37
 h o t w ate r 8 5 0C 9 8 t/h 1 2 0C P S A 1 5 0 C 1 .7 M P a

cw
1 3 9 0C 4 2 0C 3 1 0C 1 5 0C

1 4 2 0C E209
9 8 0C E207 E208 E210

V1 0 2

f r .E 2 0 6 C hille r
V1 0 1
lo w - te m p. w ate r 7 0C 1 7 9 t/h
P 2 0 1 AB

Figure 13 The reduction of pressure and temperature in PSA device

1 .0 M P a
s te a m 1 .3 t/h 3 1 6 .6 0 C g a s fu m e 3 6 5 .8 0 C s te a m 3 .9 5 M P a 3 0 3 0 C 5 4 .8 t/h
n a tu ra l g a s 8 3 0C
3 .0 M P a g 2 4 0 C 2 4 8 .2 0 C
5 .4 8 M P a g 3 7 0 .6 0 C
1 8 1 8 0 k g /h
E101 1 4 1 0C E102 E103 3 6 7 0C
4 .4 5 M P a 3 .9 5 M P a 4 5 0 0C 4 9 8 .4 0 C
C 101 re fo rm e r fu rn a c e

h y d ro g e n 9 9 .9 % (v )
p re -h y d ro g e n a to r d e s u lfu riz e r p re -c o n v e rte r
R 101 R 102A B 4 4 6 0C R 103 F 101
PSA d e s o rp tio n g a s 3 6 7 0C 8 7 0 0 C 3 .6 3 M P a
7 2 9 8 0 k g /h
6 3 0 0 C 3 .8 5 M P a
1 .7 M P a

7 0 C w a te r cw h o t w a te r 8 5 0 C
d e s a lin a te d w a te r 5462kw
1 5 0C 3 1 0C 42¡æ 1 3 9 0C 5 9 .4 5 t/h 3 0 0 C
E210 E208 E207 E209 7 8 2 0C
1 4 2 0C
2 .1 7 M P a
V 102 12¡æ 9 8 0C 1 .7 9 M P a 3 3 4 .7 0 C 2 .1 2 M P a
1 6 6 0C 1 7 0 0C 3 9 4 .6 0 C

E206 E205 E202 B 102

V 101
d e a e ra to r 3 .5 M P a 2 4 3 0 C s te a m 5 9 .4 5 t/h
D 106
w a te r-g a s s h ift R 2 0 1
E204
P 202A B
2 5 0 .2 0 C
E203 3 9 5 .5 0 C 2 .1 0 M P a

P 201A B
3 .5 M P a 2 4 3 0 C s te a m 1 4 t/h

Figure 14 The improvement of steam methane reforming route with turbine integration

Figure 15 ΩCC of energy recovery process with synthesis gas in Fig.14 route

Page 2 of 37
 Figure 16 ΩGCC of energy recovery process with synthesis gas in Fig.14 route

Since only heat energy of synthesis gas is recovered in existing steam methane reforming

process, locating a gas turbine at the outlet of reforming furnace is proposed as a new route to

have the heat and pressure energy recovered simultaneously. A case with hydrogen yield of

7×104 Nm3h-1 shows the new gas turbine harvests power of 2262 kW. Questing for more

power generation, the integration area is enlarged from the reforming furnace into the total

route taking the transfer pressure (Pt) and operating pressure of H2 purifying PSA device (Pp)

as variables. The study demonstrates the new gas turbine harvests the power of 5462 kW

when Pt and Pp are stipulated as 3.63 MPa and 1.70 MPa, respectively. Consequently, the total

energy consumption and CO2 emission are reduced by 2.5% and 735 gCO2/kgH2, respectively

and the process exergy loss of the synthesis gas is reduced by 5.15% as well.

Abstract: Since only heat energy of synthesis gas is recovered in existing steam methane

reforming process, locating a gas turbine at the outlet of reforming furnace is proposed as a

new route to have the heat and pressure energy recovered simultaneously. A case with

hydrogen yield of 7×104 Nm3h-1 shows the new gas turbine harvests power of 2262 kW.

Page 3 of 37
Questing for more power generation, the integration area is enlarged from the reforming

furnace into the total route taking the transfer pressure (Pt) and operating pressure of H2

purifying PSA device (Pp) as variables. The study demonstrates the new gas turbine harvests

the power of 5462 kW when Pt and Pp are stipulated as 3.63 MPa and 1.70 MPa, respectively.

Consequently, the total energy consumption and CO2 emission are reduced by 2.5% and 735

gCO2/kgH2, respectively and the process exergy loss of the synthesis gas is reduced by 5.15%

as well.

Keywords: hydrogen production integration turbine simulation optimization

1.Introduction

The gas turbine and heat recover steam generator (HRSG) are generally applied in the

thermodynamics integration to recover the energy of high-temperature and high-pressure

fluid[1], which is a prevalent method in the academic research and engineering

application[2-5]. Perold et al. improved a phthalic anhydride process by letting the reaction

gas (320 ℃、1.6 MPa) into the turbine first to expand, which achieved the 2651 MJ/ton

phthalic anhydride export and 4.5% exergy loss reduction[6]. Greeff et al. made the methanol

synthesis through the turbine expander and the new route consumed overall 24% less energy

than the original one[7]. Sahafzadeh et al. integrated a gas turbine in the process associated

with ammonia synthesis loop. It was shown that 4 MW of electricity can be produced and the

total amount of exergy loss is reduced by 3323 kW[8]. Janssen et al. described the reaction for

the synthesis of ethane from methane, which occurred in a gas turbine combustion chamber.

Page 4 of 37
The expansion work from the combustion products in the turbine is used to drive the methane

and combustion air compressor[9]. Marechal and Favrat used a mixed integer linear

programming formulation to optimize the utility system by heat pump and Pinch

technology[10]. Kralj et al. utilized nonlinear programming (NLP) to optimize the methanol

process with turbine and regarded the maximum annual profit as target function. As a result,

the optimal outlet pressure of turbine is 3.5 MPa and the electricity produced from the turbine

is 12.7 MW[11].

However, all of these researches regarded the parameters of high-temperature and

high-pressure stream and downstream route after turbine as constants, resulting in the

limitation in improvement when placing a turbine in the original route, which, of course, is

not a global optimization. On one hand, the parameters of high-temperature and high-pressure

stream can change, for example, the temperature (T1) of oil from the separation drum (D1) in

the Hydro-Cracking plant will increase with the lower heat transfer in the feed heat exchanger

(Q1) leading to more power export work by hydraulic turbine(Fig.1-a). On the other hand, the

parameters of downstream route after turbine can not keep constant as well, for instance, the

pressure (P2) of the product separation drum (D2) in the ammonia synthesis loop can be

reduced with the lower temperature (T2) thus leading to more energy recovered by gas turbine

(Fig.1-b). Actually, the change of parameters can create a new chance for system integration

and optimization. For example, in the ammonia synthesis loop (Fig.1-b), an effective method

to reduce the temperature (T2) of synthesis gas is to heat 25 ℃ water to 98 ℃ by using the

waste heat of synthesis gas. And then the 98 ℃ hot water drive the Br-Li absorption chiller

to produce the 7 ℃ water so that it can decrease the feed’s temperature of D2. Consequently,

Page 5 of 37
a lower pressure of D2 is achieved for producing more work by gas turbine. In addition, the

waste heat could be digested and therefore reduced the cooling load. Moreover, in the

Hydro-Cracking unit (Fig.1-a), the feed could be preheated by the diesel product which could

reduce the heat transfer Q1 and increase T1, and as a result, lead to more work produced by the

hydraulic turbine.

Hence, the energy recovery is not just to place a turbine but also to consider the global

improvement of stream parameters and system integration. The wider range heat and power

integration are, the more turbine work and waste heat can be recovered. As above mentioned,

the global system optimization with the turbine integration in the steam methane reforming

route is investigated. With the increase of reaction pressure and decrease of PSA pressure, it

can increase the inlet temperature (Tin) and pressure difference (∆P) of turbine. So with the

increase of Tin and ∆P, the power produced by the turbine is largely increased. The case shows

that the global system optimization with turbine integration route increases the power by

141% and decreases by 5.15% process exergy loss than the original route.

2.Thermodynamic Analysis

Thermodynamic analysis is an effective way applied in chemical process. For example,

oxygen-enriched combustion[12] and natural gas reforming used in the gasifier[13] are

investigated in the steam methane reforming process to demonstrate the utility of exergy

analysis[14]. Besides, Pinch analysis is one of the methods for energy optimization[15]. All

the hot streams composite a virtual hot stream as well as all the cold streams composite a

virtual cold stream combining them into composite curves (CC) and grand composite curves

Page 6 of 37
(GCC) (Fig.2). Based on the minimum temperature difference (∆tmin), CC and GCC can show

the minimum cold and heat utilities and optimize the energy consumption[16]. For example,

Lara et al. optimized the carbon capture route by Pinch technology and increased the total

energy efficiency by 0.91%[17]. Foenell et al. applied the Pinch analysis in an ethanol

production plant for heat integration, which decreased the energy consumption by 35% to

40%. In addition, more and more researches are related to the Pinch technology applied in the

petrochemical yield[18]. With the consideration of heat recovery, total cost and heat exchange

areas, Bakhtiari et al. decreased the utilities cost by 39.4% with the Pinch technology in the

catalytic cracking unit[19]. Joe et al. showed that 34% drop of energy consumption was

achieved by optimizing the heat exchange network of the crude oil distillation by the Pinch

technology[20]. However, more and more practices indicate that though Pinch analysis can

effectively deal with the heat exchange problems, it is unable to solve the pressure change

problems during the process [21]. Conventional pinch analysis determines the most

economical energy consumption about heat loads and provides practical design guidelines.

However, in analyzing systems involving heat and power, for example, steam and gas turbines,

etc., pure heat load analysis is insufficient[22].Hence, the techno logy combined Pinch and

exergy analysis is developed to solve above problems. Exergy is the maximum work of the

stream that include the heat energy and other energy such as pressure energy[23,24].

The basic tool of combined Pinch and exergy analysis are Carnot composite curve (CCC)

and Carnot grand composite curve (CGCC). Its ordinate is Carnot factor (ηc=1-T0/T) and

shaded areas represent the maximum heat exergy recovery (Ehx,max) of stream with high

temperature (Fig.3).

Page 7 of 37
 T T
E hx , max  T0
(1  T 0 / T ) dH  
T0
(1  T 0 / T )c p dT (1)

Compared to CC and GCC, CCC and CGCC improved but it only showed that the

maximum heat exergy (Exh, max), and it still can not indicate other forms of energy such as

pressure energy. So the exergy level is developed[20].

exergy Ex H  TS
    (2)
energy H H

By the ΩCC and ΩGCC (Fig.4), the maximum work of the system can be directly

described. The higher exergy level is, which refers the stream has higher temperature and

pressure, the more work can be produced. The shaded areas represent the maximum energy

recovery from the streams with high temperature and pressure.

 T
E hx , max    dH   (1  TS / H )c p dT （3）
 0 T0

Hence, with the adjustment of process and heat exchange network (HEN) as well as

optimization of process parameters and ΩCC/ΩGCC figures, the chemical system will

achieve maximum energy recovery (Ehx, max) and reduce the cooling load (Qcu, min).

3.A 7×104Nm3/h steam methane reforming route

This is the typical route of the steam methane reforming route (Fig.5). It is the case from

the refinery that use the natural gas to produce 7×104 Nm3/h 99% (v) hydrogen.

To recover the energy of high-temperature synthesis gas from the outlet of reformer furnace

(F101), the heat recovery steam generator (B102) and steam generator (E203) are placed in

the route and both of them totally produce 83.37 t/h saturated steam of 3.5 MPa. Further, the

rest of energy is also recovered by demineralized water and sour water through the heat

exchange (E203/E204/E205/E206), which can reduce the cooling load. Eventually, the inlet

Page 8 of 37
pressure of synthesis gas in the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) is 2.58 MPa. The heat

exchange process of synthesis gas in Fig.5 route is shown as Table 1.

Figure 6 is the heat exchange network (HEN) based on the Tab.1.

From the Tab.1 and Fig.6, there are 8 heat exchangers in the heat exchange process of

synthesis gas and its cold utilities is 13357 kW. There are the ΩCC (Fig.7) and ΩGCC (Fig.8)

based on the HEN.

The shaded areas represent the total exergy loss of the heat exchange process of synthesis

gas and it is about 9714.50 kW. The exergy loss of HRSG (B102) is 6569.09 kW, about

67.62% of total. The main reason is that there are large temperature difference in the HRSG

and mismatch between the energy level of synthesis gas and 3.5 MPa steam(synthesis gas:

850 ℃, 3.05 MPa, Ω=0.73. saturated steam: 243 ℃, 3.5 MPa, Ω=0.42, ∆Ω=0.31).

Hence, the root causes of large exergy loss are: (1) the high level pressure energy of

synthesis gas can not be utilized only by producing the steam. (2) the energy level of 3.5 MPa

steam is low, and synthesis gas is suitable to produce higher level steam, such as 9.8 MPa

steam, Ω=0.48. To solve these two problems and try to remain the original route (Fig.5)

unchanged, the better way is turbine integration. It indicates that the synthesis gas goes into

the turbine to produce electricity firstly and then into the HRSG to produce steam.

4.Steam methane reforming route with turbine integration

4.1 New route

Figure 9 is the steam methane reforming route with turbine integration. The data of the

Fig.9 is simulated by Aspen Plus. The basic parameters of the new route is the same as

Page 9 of 37
original route: the flow of natural gas is 18180 kg/h, the water-carbon ratio is 3.2, the inlet

temperature and pressure of furnace is 630 ℃ and 3.27 MPa, the outlet temperature and

pressure of furnace is 850 ℃ and 3.05 MPa, the inlet and outlet temperature of reactor (R201)

is 334.7 ℃ and 395.5 ℃ and the pressure drop from F101 outlet to V102 is 0.47 MPa.

Compared to the original route (Fig.5):

(1)Setting a gas turbine before the HRSG (B102) for recovering the heat and pressure

energy of the synthesis gas (850 ℃, 3.05 MPa) and driving the feed compressor C101 (its

shaftpower is 521 kW).

(2)Setting the back pressure of gas turbine as 2.47 MPa for several reasons:

a. the PSA operating pressure in the steam methane reforming route of refinery is about

1.25 MPa~2.76 MPa[25]. And the relationship between PSA operating pressure and

hydrogen recovery rate in this case is shown in Figure 10.

b. the inlet pressure of B102 and E202 will drop about 0.58 MPa, but it has small effect.

c. the pressure change does not affect the reaction balance happened in R201 because it

is the equimolar reaction [26].

4.2 The result of energy recovery

Based on the isentropic efficiency of about 75%, the power produced from the gas turbine

is 2262 kW setting the outlet temperature and back pressure as 814 ℃ and 2.47 MPa.

Table 2 is the comparison of process parameters between the Fig.5 route and the Fig.9

route.

From the Tab.2, the yield of hydrogen and R201 parameters keep unchanged in order to

have no effect on product yield and distribution. Further, the Fig.9 route with turbine

10

Page 10 of 37
integration produces 2262 kW electricity but reduces the 3.5 MPa steam by 4.7 t/h. If the

plant runs by 8400 hours per year, the annual gross profit is about 8.45 million dollars on the

condition that the price of electricity is 0.10 US$/kWh and steam is 28.99 US$/ton.

5.The improvement of turbine integration in steam methane reforming route

The design of Fig.9 route is based on remaining the temperature and pressure of synthesis

gas (850 ℃, 3.05 MPa), temperature of R201 (395.5 ℃) and V102 (31 ℃) unchanged. But

as above mentioned, it is only the local optimization. From the viewpoint of system

integration and global optimization, there are many improvements in Fig.9 route.

5.1 The increase of reaction temperature and pressure

Steam methane reforming route is the process of translating the hydrocarbon into H2、CO、

CO2 and CH4 by some reactions of decomposition, cracking, dehydrogenation, oxidization,

methanation and so on. The reaction equation is as (4) shown.

CH 4
 H 2 O  CO  3 H 2
206000 J / mol (4)

This is the reaction of volume increase as the eq.(4) showed. So, the decrease of reaction

pressure contributes to H2 yield but it is harmful to produce more turbine power. Hence, it is

essential to optimize the reaction pressure. Since the eq.(4) is also a highly endothermic

reaction, the increase of reaction temperature (within the acceptable range of equipment

material) can improve the H2 yield and turbine work.

Different temperature and pressure have fateful effect on the hydrogen yield and turbine

power in the simulation of Aspen Plus (Fig.11).

From the Fig.11, with the reaction temperature 850 ℃ unchanged, reaction pressure

11

Page 11 of 37
increases from 3.05 MPa to 3.63 MPa, meanwhile, turbine work increases 1747 kW and the

yield of H2 reduces from 5806 kg/h to 5465 kg/h. But if the reaction temperature increases

from 850 ℃ to 870 ℃ (the tube life is very sensitive to changes in operating temperature,

but it is much less than the material acceptable temperature of 1093℃ and tube wall

temperature of 930℃[26]), the yield of H2 (5806 kg/h) is regained and stays unchanged as the

original route. Hence, the reaction temperature and pressure are designed as 870 ℃ and 3.63

MPa in the new route.

5.2 The reduction of the operating pressure and temperature in PSA

As the Fig.12 shown, based on the same H2 recovery efficiency, lower pressure can be

achieved by lower PSA temperature. With the reduction of PSA pressure, back pressure of

turbine can become lower leading to more power produced from turbine. Consequently, more

power can be harvested through the lower PSA temperature. It illustrates that when the PSA

temperature and pressure are 31 ℃/2.0 MPa or 15 ℃/1.7 MPa, it can both get the same H2

recovery rate. Hence, it can reduce the PSA pressure through the decrease of PSA

temperature.

In order to decrease the PSA temperature, a new route is designed below. The hot water

heat exchanger (E209) can be placed before the air cooler E207 so that the waste heat can be

recovered from the synthesis gas of V101 and heat the water of 98 ℃ (Fig.13). Then, the

98 ℃ hot water drives the Br-Li absorption chiller to cool the low-temp water of 7 ℃.

Further, the 7 ℃ water is used to cool the feed of V102 and makes the operating temperature

of V102 decrease from 31 ℃ to 15 ℃ so that lower operating pressure of PSA can be

achieved.

12

Page 12 of 37
 The E209 heats 98 t/h hot water of 98 ℃ and recovers 1486 kW waste heat. Meanwhile,

Br-Li absorption chillier cools 179 t/h low-temp water of 7 ℃. With the new cooler E210 set,

the temperature of V102 is decreased to 15 ℃ and its pressure reduces from 2.0 MPa to 1.7

MPa.

5.3 The improvement of turbine integration in steam methane reforming route

With the improvement and optimization of 5.1 and 5.2, the new and improved route of

steam methane reforming with turbine integration is showed in the figure 14.

Compared with the Fig.9, the inlet parameters of turbine are increased from 850 ℃/3.05

MPa to 870 ℃/3.63 MPa while the outlet parameters of turbine are decreased from 814 ℃

/2.47 MPa to 782 ℃/2.17 MPa. Besides, the inlet parameters of PSA are decreased from

31 ℃/2.58 MPa to 15 ℃/1.7 MPa. Through the above change and improvement, the new

route increases the turbine work by 141% and from 2262 kW to 5462 kW. But, the shaftpower

of feed compressor C101 also increases from 521 kW to 650 kW and the yield of 3.5 MPa

steam reduces 9.92 t/h. Eventually, by contrasted with the Fig.9, the Fig.14 route makes gross

profit 14.12 million US$/y.

5.4 The effect of energy recovery

Fig.15 and Fig.16 are the ΩCC and ΩGCC of energy recovery process with synthesis gas in

Fig.14 route, respectively.

Due to the system optimization and improvement of temperature and pressure of turbine, it

not only increases the level of energy (from 850℃/3.05MPa Ω=0.73 to 870℃/3.63MPa

Ω=0.74), but also increases the pressure difference from 0.58MPa to 1.46 MPa

(3.63-2.17=1.46), which produces more 3200kW turbine work than the Fig.9 route. Besides,

13

Page 13 of 37
as the energy level of synthesis gas into B102 reduces from Ω=0.73 (850 ℃/3.05 MPa) to

Ω=0.71 (782 ℃/2.17 MPa), the exergy loss of B102 reduces by 18.14% from 6569.09 kW to

5377.76 kW. Hence, the total exergy loss of expansion and heat exchange process reduces by

5.15% from 9729.68 kW to 9228.76 kW. But the cold utilities increases by 36.46% compared

to the Fig.5 route because the flow of synthesis gas increases from V101.

Table 3 is the main process parameters comparison of Fig.5, Fig.9 and Fig.14 routes

As the Tab.3 shows, based on the same product yield and distribution, there are much

improvement in the recovery work and process exergy loss. The turbine integration routes

(Fig.9 and Fig.14) show the great advantage and competitiveness on energy and exergy

recovery.

5.4 The reduction of energy and CO2 emission

Steam methane reforming route is a prevalent example of an energy consuming process. It

takes about 15.5 GJ energy to produce 1000 Nm3 H2 in this plant. Due to increasing the

turbine power output from Fig.14 route, the energy consumption of Fig.14 route reduces by

2.5%. And the reduction of CO2 emission of steam methane reforming route can be calculated

by equation (5) [27].

 E net  
  (5)
mH
2

With the calculation (β is usually 800gCO2/kWh in China[27]), α=735 gCO2/kgH2. Hence,

there is about 735 gCO2/kgH2 reduction of CO2 emission and 2.5% reduction of total energy

consumption in Fig.14 route.

6.Conclusion

14

Page 14 of 37
(1) In view of only recovering the heat energy and not recovering the pressure energy of

synthesis gas, a new route is suggested in this paper. It locates a gas turbine at the outlet of

reforming furnace to have the heat and pressure energy recovered simultaneously.

(2) Based on the typical case of 7×104 Nm3/h steam methane reforming route and turbine back

pressure set as 2.47 MPa, the Fig.9 new route harvests 2262 kW turbine power output and

remains the yield of hydrogen unchanged.

(3) With the intention of producing more power, this paper enlarges the integration area from

the reforming furnace into the total route, and takes the transfer pressure and operating

pressure of H2 purifying PSA device as variables. Keeping the yield of H2 unchanged, the

pressure of reaction and PSA are optimized as 3.63 MPa and 1.70 MPa, respectively. Hence,

the Fig.14 route produces the 5462 kW turbine power, increasing by 141% than the only

turbine integration route (Fig.9). It reduces by 2.5% energy consumption and 735 gCO2/kg H2

CO2 emission in Fig.14 route.

(4) From the ΩCC (Fig.15) and ΩGCC (Fig.16), because the turbine parameters of the Fig.14

route change from 850 ℃/3.05 MPa to 870 ℃/3.63 MPa and the HRSG parameters change

from 850 ℃/3.05 MPa to 782 ℃/2.17 MPa, the exergy loss of B102 reduces by 18.14% and

the exergy loss of expansion and heat exchange process reduces by 5.15%.

Nomenclature

T the stream temperature (K)

T0 standard temperature (K)

Cp the heat capacity (MW/K)

15

Page 15 of 37
 ηc carnot factor

Ω exergy level

S the entropy (J/kg/K)

Exh, max the maximum heat exergy (J/kg)

Qcu, min cooling load (kW)

∆Enet the electric energy saving (kW)

α the reduction of CO2 emission (gCO2/kgH2)

β the CO2 emission per producing 1kWh electric energy (gCO2/kWh)

mH2 the yield of hydrogen (kg/h)

Author information

Guotian Zhong: 86 15899956892 619014224@qq.com

References

[1]Poul, Alberg Ostergaard, Henrik Lund. A renewable energy system in Frederiskshavn using

low-temperature geothermal energy for district heating, Applied Energy, 2011, 88, 479-487.

[2]I.L. Greeff, J.A. Visser, K.J. Ptasinski, F.J.J.G. Janssen, Integration of a turbine expander

with an exothermic reactor loop-flow sheet development and application to ammonia

production, Energy, 2003, 28, 495-1509.

[3]J. Manninen, X.X. Zhu. Optimal gas turbine integration to the process industries, Ind. Eng.

Chem. Res, 1999, 38, 4317-4329.

[4]M.Moya, J.C.Bruno, P.Eguia,E.Torres, I.Zamora, A.Coronas, Performance analysis of a

16

Page 16 of 37
trigeneration system based on a micro gas turbine and an air-cooled, indirect fired,

ammonia-water absorption chiller, Applied Energy, 2011, 88, 4424-4440.

[5] I.L. Greeff, J.A. Visser, K.J. Ptasinski, F.J.J.G. Janssen, Using turbine expanders to recover

exothermic reaction heat—flow sheet development for typical chemical processes, Energy,

2004, 29, 2045-2060.

[6]J. Perold, I.L. Greeff, K.J. Ptasinski,F.J.J.G. Janssen,Using a Turbine Expander to Recover

Exothermic Reaction Heat - a Case Study on a Phthalic Anhydride Process, S. Afr. J. Chem.

Eng, 2001, 13, 1-14.

[7]I.L. Greef, J.A. Visser, K.J. Ptasinski, F.J.J.G. Janssen,Utilization of reactor heat in

methanol synthesis to reduce compressor duty-application of power cycle principles and

simulation tools, Appl. Therm. Eng, 2002, 22, 1549-1558.

[8]Meysam Sahafzadeha, Abtin Ataei, Nassim Tahouni, M. Hassan Panjeshahi. Integration of

a gas turbine with an ammonia process for improving energy efficiency, Appl.Therm. Eng,

2013, 58, 594-604.

[9]F.J.J.G. Janssen, A.H.M. Verkooijen, P.J. Ploumen, Synthesis of Ethane, European Pat. NO.

0753652, 1997.

[10]“Combined exergy and Pinch analysis for optimal energy conversion technologies

integration”: F. Maréchal, D. Favrat in The 18th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost,

Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems (Trondheim, Norway),

2005

[11]A.K. Kralj, P. Glavic, Optimization of a gas turbine in the methanol process, using the

NLP model, Appl. Therm. Eng, 2007, 27, 1799-1805.

17

Page 17 of 37
[12]J. Lambert, M. Sorin, J. Paris, Analysis of oxygen-enriched combustion for steam

methane reforming, Energy, 1997, 22, 817-825.

[13]T.A. Adams II, P.I. Barton, Combining coal gasification and natural gas reforming for

efficient polygeneration, Fuel Processing Technology, 2011, 639-655.

[14]A.P. Simpson, A.E. Lutz, Exergy analysis of hydrogen production via steam methane

reforming, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2007, 4811-4820.

[15]R. Smith, Chemical Process Design and Integration, Wiley, New York, USA,2005.

[16]M.H. Panjeshahi, M. Gharaie, A. Ataei, Debottlenecking procedure of effluent thermal

treatment system, Energy, 2010, 35, 5202-5208.

[17]Yolanda Lara, Pilar Lisbona, Ana Martinez, Luis M.Romeo, Design and analysis of heat

exchanger networks for integrated Ca-looping systems, Applied Energy, 111, 2013, 690-700.

[18]R. Fornell, T. Berntsson, Process integration study of a kraft pulp mill converted to an

ethanol production plantepart A: potential for heat integration of thermal separation units,

Appl. Therm. Eng, 2012, 35, 81-90.

[19]Bahador Bakhtiari, Serge Bedard, Retrofitting heat exchanger networks using a modified

network Pinch approach, Appl. Therm. Eng, 2013, 51, 973-979.

[20]John M.Joe, Ademola M.Rabiu, Retrofit of the Heat Recovery System of a Petroleum

Refinery Using Pinch Analysis, Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, 2013, 1, 47-52.

[21]X. Feng, X.X. Zhu, Combining Pinch and Exergy Analysis for process modifications,

Appl. Therm. Eng, 1997, 17, 249-261.

[22]V.R. Dhole, J.P. Zheng, Applying combined Pinch and exergy analysis to closed-cycle gas

turbine system design, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 1995, 117, 47-52.

18

Page 18 of 37
[23]Sau Man Lai, Chi Wai Hui, Integration of trigeneration system and thermal storage under

demand uncertainties, Applied Energy, 2010, 287, 868-2880.

[24]G.P.J. Dijkema, C.P. Luteijn, M.P.C. Weijnen, Design of trigeneration systems process

integrated applications of energy conversion devices in chemical plants, Chem. Eng. Commun,

1998, 168, 111-125.

[25]XY Xu. The simulation and calculation of hydrogen production unit with the feed

changing from oil to gas, China petrochemical design, 17, 2000, 42-46.

[26]L.Barelli, G.Bidini, F. Gallorini, S.Servili. Hydrogen production through

sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming and membrane technology: A review, Energy,

2008, 33, 554-570.

[27]“Design and analysis of chemical and power co-generation energy system with

integration of turbine expander”: GJ Liu, Z Li, WD Ni in The 4th Youth Conference of Power

Engineering Society (China), 2009.

Figure

H2

re a c to r re a c to r P2
fe e d
g a s tu rb in e
D1
Q1
re a c ta n t T2
re a c ta n t
h y d ra u lic tu rb in e D2
fe e d
T1
fu r a n c e fu r a n c e
a ( h y d ro c ra c k e r) b ( a m m o n ia p la n t)

Fig.1 Two typical processes

19

Page 19 of 37
 T T
Q h u , m in

h o t c o m p o s ite c u r v e
T p in c h

 T m in
g r a n d c o m p o s ite c u r v e
c o ld c o m p o s ite c u r v e
H H
Q c u , m in Q h u , m in Q c u , m in

Fig.2 CC and GCC

20

Page 20 of 37
c c

ca rn o t co m. cu rve

 pin
th e m a x im u m h e a t
th e m a xim u m h ea t
o o e x e rg y re c o v e ry
e x e rg y re c o v e ry
H H
Q cu , m i n Q h u ,m in Q cu , m i n

Fig.3 CCC and CGCC

21

Page 21 of 37
 

ca rn o t co m. cu rve

 pin
th e m a x im u m to ta l
e x e rg y re c o v e ry
th e m a xim u m to ta l
o o
e x e rg y re c o v e ry
H H
Q cu , m i n Q cu , m i n

Fig.4 ΩCC and ΩGCC

22

Page 22 of 37
 1 .0 M P a
s te a m 1 .6 t/h 3 1 6 .6 0 C s te a m 3 .5 M P a 2 9 9 0 C 5 4 .8 t/h
g a s fu m e 3 6 5 .8 0 C
n a tu ra l g a s 720C
3 .0 M P a g 2 4 C 0 2 4 8 .2 0 C
4 .9 M P a g 3 7 0 .6 0 C
1 8 1 8 0 k g /h 0
3670C
E101 141 C E102 E103 3 .4 3 M P a
3 .8 7 M P a 4500C 4 9 8 .4 0 C
C 101 re fo rm e r fu rn a c e

h y d ro g e n 5 8 0 6 k g /h 9 9 .9 % (v )
p re -h y d ro g e n a to r p re -c o n v e rte r
d e s u lfu riz e r
R 101 R 103 F 101
R 102A B
PSA d e s o rp tio n g a s 3670C 4460C

2 .5 8 M P a 6 3 0 0 C 3 .2 7 M P a

cw d e s a lin a te d w a te r
310C 420C 6 8 .8 5 t/h 3 0 0 C 8 5 0 0 C 3 .0 5 M P a 7 2 9 8 0 k g /h

E208 E207
V 102 1420C
2 .6 7 M P a 1660C 1700C 3 3 4 .7 0 C 3 .0 M P a 3 9 4 .6 0 C

E202 B 102
E206 E205

V 101
d e a e ra to r 3 .5 M P a g 2 4 3 0 C .s te a m 6 8 .8 5 t/h
D 106 E204
w a te r-g a s s h ift R 2 0 1

1 4 .9 6 4 t/h P 202A B
0
2 5 0 .2 C 3 9 5 .5 0 C 2 .9 8 M P a

87 C 0 E203

P 201A B
3 .5 M P a g 2 4 3 ¡æ s te a m 1 4 .5 2 t/h

Figure 5 Typical route of steam methane reforming

23

Page 23 of 37
H1

H2

H3 C

E 2 0 7 /E 2 0 8
C1

B 102 E202 E204 E206

C2

E203 E205

Figure 6 HEN of the Fig.5 route

24

Page 24 of 37
Figure 7 ΩCC of heat exchange process of synthesis gas in Fig.5 route

25

Page 25 of 37
Figure 8 ΩGCC of heat exchange process of synthesis gas in Fig.5 route

26

Page 26 of 37
s te a m 3 .5 M P a 2 9 9 0 C 5 4 .8 t/h

2 4 8 .2 0 C

fr.R 1 0 2 A B
4 9 8 .4 0 C
3 3 4 .7 0 C 2 .4 2 M P a
g a s tu rb in e W W = 2262kW

R 103
0
446 C F 101
8 5 0 0C R 201
3 .0 5 M P a 8 1 4 0C
7 2 9 8 0 k g /h 2 .4 7 M P a
3 9 5 .5 0 C 2 .4 0 M P a
6 3 0 0 C 3 .2 7 M P a B 102 E202

3 .5 M P a 2 4 3 0 C s te a m 6 4 .1 5 t/h fr.E 2 0 4

Figure 9 The suggested route of steam methane reforming with turbine integration

27

Page 27 of 37
 92
(2.0,90.5)
(2.58,90.5)

90

H2 Recovery Rate / %
88

86

84

82

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Adsorption Pressure / MPa

Figure 10 The relationship between H2 recovery rate and operating pressure in PSA

28

Page 28 of 37
 6500 6200

6000 H2 Yield

Turbine Work 6000

5500
H2 Yield

Turbine Work / kW
5000 (3.05,5806) (3.63,5806)

H2 Yield / (kg/ h)
5800
4500

4000
5600
3500 o
870 C
3000
5400

2500
o
850 C
2000 5200
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2

Reaction Pressure /MPa

Figure 11 The relationship between H2 yield, turbine work and reaction pressure in F101

29

Page 29 of 37
 94

92 (1.7,90.5)

90
H2 Recovery Rate / %
(2.0,90.5)
88
15℃

86

31℃
84

82

80

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Adsorbent Pressure / MPa

Figure 12 The relationship between operating pressure, temperature and H2 yield in PSA

device

30

Page 30 of 37
 h o t w ate r 8 5 0C 9 8 t/h 1 2 0C P S A 1 5 0 C 1 .7 M P a

cw
1 3 9 0C 4 2 0C 3 1 0C 1 5 0C

1 4 2 0C E209
9 8 0C E207 E208 E210

V1 0 2

f r .E 2 0 6 C hille r
V1 0 1
lo w - te m p. w ate r 7 0C 1 7 9 t/h
P 2 0 1 AB

Figure 13 the reduction of pressure and temperature in PSA device

31

Page 31 of 37
 1 .0 M P a
s te a m 1 .3 t/h 3 1 6 .6 0 C g a s fu m e 3 6 5 .8 0 C s te a m 3 .9 5 M P a 3 0 3 0 C 5 4 .8 t/h
n a tu ra l g a s 0
83 C
3 .0 M P a g 2 4 0 C 2 4 8 .2 0 C
5 .4 8 M P a g 3 7 0 .6 0 C
1 8 1 8 0 k g /h 0 0
E101 141 C E102 E103 367 C
4 .4 5 M P a 3 .9 5 M P a 4 5 0 0C 4 9 8 .4 0 C
C 101 re fo rm e r fu rn a c e

h y d ro g e n 9 9 .9 % (v )
p re -h y d ro g e n a to r d e s u lfu riz e r p re -c o n v e rte r
R 101 R 102A B 4 4 6 0C R 103 F 101
PSA d e s o rp tio n g a s 3 6 7 0C 8 7 0 0 C 3 .6 3 M P a
7 2 9 8 0 k g /h
6 3 0 0 C 3 .8 5 M P a
1 .7 M P a

7 0 C w a te r cw h o t w a te r 8 5 0 C
d e s a lin a te d w a te r 5462kw
1 5 0C 3 1 0C 42¡æ 1 3 9 0C 5 9 .4 5 t/h 3 0 0 C
E210 E208 E207 E209 7 8 2 0C
1 4 2 0C
2 .1 7 M P a
V 102 12¡æ 9 8 0C 1 .7 9 M P a 3 3 4 .7 0 C 2 .1 2 M P a
166 C 0 1 7 0 0C 3 9 4 .6 0 C

E206 E205 E202 B 102

V 101
d e a e ra to r 3 .5 M P a 2 4 3 0 C s te a m 5 9 .4 5 t/h
D 106
w a te r-g a s s h ift R 2 0 1
E204
P 202A B
2 5 0 .2 0 C
E203 3 9 5 .5 0 C 2 .1 0 M P a

P 201A B
3 .5 M P a 2 4 3 0 C s te a m 1 4 t/h

Figure 14 The improvement of steam methane reforming route with turbine integration

32

Page 32 of 37
Figure 15 ΩCC of energy recovery process with synthesis gas in Fig.14 route

33

Page 33 of 37
Figure 16 ΩGCC of energy recovery process with synthesis gas in Fig.14 route

34

Page 34 of 37
 Table

Table 1 Stream data of Fig 5 route

Tin Pin Tout Pout Flow Enthalpy

No. Stream
/℃ /MPag /℃ /MPag / kg/h /kW

1 Synthesis gas H1 850 3.05 334.7 3.0 72980 30927

2 Synthesis gas H2 395.5 2.98 142 2.67 72980 23047

3 Synthesis gas H3 142 2.67 31 2.58 58016 13357

Demineralized 243
4 30 1.0 3.5 68850 43489
water C1 (saturated steam)

243
5 Sour water C2 87 2.58 3.5 14520 10485
(saturated steam)

35

Page 35 of 37
Table 2 The comparison of process parameters and energy consumption between Fig.5 and

Fig.9

Fig.5 route Fig.9 route

Item
Flow/kg/h T /℃ P /MPa Flow/kg/h T /℃ P /MPa

Natural gas 18180 24 3.0 18180 24 3.0

Feed
Steam 54800 299 3.5 54800 299 3.5

F101 inlet gas 72980 630 3.27 72980 630 3.27

F101 outlet gas 72980 850 3.05 72980 850 3.05

Turbine outlet gas — — — 72980 814 2.47

R201 inlet gas 72980 334.7 3.0 72980 334.7 2.42

R201 outlet gas 72980 395.5 2.98 72980 395.5 2.40

PSA inlet gas 45421 31 2.58 45446 31 2.0

Hydrogen 5806 — — 5806 — —

Product Desorbed gas 39615 — 0.007 39640 — 0.007

Sour water 27559 87 2.58 27534 69 2.0

Boiler feed water 68850 30 — 64150 30 —

Medium pressure steam 68850 243 3.5 64150 243 3.5

Turbine power/kW — 2262

36

Page 36 of 37
Table 3 The main parameters comparison of Fig.5, Fig.9 and Fig.14 routes

Fig.5 Fig.9 Fig.14

No. Item Unit
route route route

1 Turbine outlet pressure MPa — 2.47 2.17

2 Turbine outlet temperature ℃ — 814 782

3 Flow of H2 product kg/h 5806 5806 5806

4 Flow of H2 pressure MPa 2.58 2.0 1.70

5 Yield of 3.5MPa steam（B102） kg/h 68850 64150 59450

6 Yield of 3.5MPa steam（E203） kg/h 14520 14430 14000

7 Turbine work kW 0 2262 5462

8 Compressor work kW 521 521 650

9 Exergy loss in the heat exchange（E203） kW 6569.09 5854.91 5377.76

Total expansion and heat exchange exergy

10 kW 9729.68 9382.32 9228.76
loss

37

Page 37 of 37