International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

A figure of merit assessment of the routes to hydrogen

B.C.R. Ewan∗ , R.W.K. Allen
Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK

Available online 24 March 2005

Abstract
The efficient use of primary energy sources, which can be used for hydrogen production, is addressed by a consideration
of four key measures, which reflect the ability of different sources and processing routes to meet underlying needs and the
practical demands of energy on a large scale. The measures considered are carbon dioxide emission reduction, primary energy
availability, land use implications and hydrogen production costs. Fourteen pathways to hydrogen are considered involving
fossil fuels and nuclear energy as well as the range of renewable sources, and including additional strategies for carbon
sequestration.
The overall comparison of routes, based on simple figures-of-merit, shows a clear division between those using renewable
energies and those associated with the traditional ‘high energy density’ primary sources. Emerging from the work is a clearer
view of the implications of following a particular production path, the limitations of certain technologies and the research
challenges which must be met in addressing future fuel options and global warming.
䉷 2005 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hydrogen production; Renewable energy; Hydrogen economy

1. Introduction an assessment structure which aims to compare the overall

The continuing discussion over the hydrogen economy
has come to involve a number of issues that relate to the
overall energy strategy for individual countries. These in-
clude energy resources, costs and local land use, as well as
the underlying imperative relating to carbon dioxide emis-
sion reduction.
Although the principal routes to hydrogen are well known,
the consideration of renewable primary energy sources and
the re-evaluation of a new generation of nuclear reactors
has generated additional pathways which deserve integration
into any rational decision making structure. The present ex-
amination brings together four key feasibility measures into
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 114 222 7504;
fax: +44 114 222 7501.
E-mail address: b.c.ewan@sheffield.ac.uk (B.C.R. Ewan).
‘value’ of different routes to hydrogen.
2. Routes to hydrogen
Annual world hydrogen production is currently around 5×
1011 N m3 corresponding to around 2% of primary energy
demand [1]. Fig. 1 shows the principal production routes,
indicating that 96% is produced from fossil fuels.
A comprehensive discussion of future hydrogen produc-
tion should consider a wider range of primary energy sources
including fossil fuels, nuclear heat and renewables as well as
multiple pathways where these exist. Given the importance
of carbon dioxide emissions in such a discussion, pathways
should also include mitigation strategies, since these will
have an impact on some of the feasibility measures used.
Fig. 2 shows the primary energy sources considered and the
main pathways used in the subsequent analysis. In the case
of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide capture and storage has been

0360-3199/$30.00 䉷 2005 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.02.003
810 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819

Electrolysis
Other
3.9%
Coal gasification 0.1%
18.0%
Methane steam reforming
48.0%
Oil/naptha reforming
30.0%
Fig. 1. Present distribution of primary energy sources for hydrogen
production.
included as an additional route option. The recent discus-
sions within the nuclear industry on high temperature peb-
ble bed modular reactors (PBMR) [2], and the pilot plant
developments in Japan [3], have created additional options
as shown in the figure. These are specifically concerned
with the use of thermochemical cycles to split water [4] and
the use of nuclear heat in combination with methane steam
reforming.
3. Feasibility measures used
Four feasibility measures have been considered here with
regard to the production of hydrogen by different routes.
These are (a) the effect on atmospheric CO2 emission re-
duction, (b) the impact on land use (c) any power limitations
associated with primary energy resource availability and (d)
production costs.
Some of these measures are affected by global location,
e.g. latitude for solar processes or local wind and tidal re-
source, and in these cases, published data relevant to the
UK has been taken. The principles however, are generally
applicable when adjustments are made for local renewable
resources.
Different routes to hydrogen carry with them very dif-
ferent impacts with respect to the associated reductions in
CO2 emissions. These are considered here to arise through
the process of substitution of fossil fuels, i.e. by the replace-
ment of fossil fuel combustion energy by hydrogen combus-
tion energy. The starting point here is a unit of primary en-
ergy (1 GJ), which is then traced by the different processing
routes, to a resultant quantity of hydrogen energy.
Although a number of primary energy sources, such as
nuclear, wind and solar, effectively produce no CO2 directly,
they cannot be considered as equivalent since the different
routes to hydrogen, which can be envisaged from these, in-
volve significantly different conversion efficiencies of the
primary energy source. Useful comparisons can, however,
be made by calculating the CO2 emissions saved by follow-
ing different routes from the primary energy sources to hy-
drogen, based on the efficiency of the route and the normal
CO2 equivalent of a chosen reference fossil fuel. This is a
relevant comparison, since one of the main objectives is the
saving of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by substitution.
In this context, natural gas has been chosen as the refer-
ence fuel, which produces CO2 at a rate of 55 kg CO2 /GJ
of natural gas fuel energy.
The basis for comparison is represented in Fig. 3, which
shows the substitution of natural gas energy by means of
hydrogen production from an alternative source . The energy
conversion efficiency to hydrogen is
, which is the fraction
of natural gas energy substituted, giving rise to a reduced
emission of CO2 equal to (1 −
) × 55 kg.
This reduced emission is calculated for each case of inter-
est and the justification for this is given below. The residual

Primary energy sources

Coal
gasification
Solar Biomass
gas separation
Natural gas reforming

Nuclear energy process heat thermochemical cycles

Hydro power
direct turbine
generation
Tidal power water electrolysis

Wind power electric power

HYDROGEN
Solar photovoltaic

Nuclear energy Rankine cycle

Solar photocatalysis

Fig. 2. The primary energy sources considered and their routes to hydrogen.
 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819
1 GJ alternative
energy source
1 GJ natural
gas equivalent
Fig. 3. Model used to represent the residual CO2 following substitution of fossil fuel energy by hydrogen energy from an alternative energy
source.
CO2 emissions give a clear indication of the effective use
of a unit of primary energy and, for example, allow compar-
isons of all of the conversion routes arising from a particular
primary source, such as solar PV and biomass.
For the special cases of steam reforming and coal gasifi-
cation, the equivalent figures are discussed within their sec-
tion in order to provide a consistent comparison with the
other primary sources.
4. Comments on routes
4.1. CO2 emission reduction
A number of routes share a common electrolysis step,
with an associated energy conversion efficiency defined by
molar combustion energy of H2 (HHV)/
electrical energy per mol of H2 produced.
An average figure for this is taken as 0.7, based on data from
Norsk Hydro [5].
When several conversion steps are involved, then the effi-
ciencies
i for each step are multiplied to obtain the overall

value. Residual CO2 values are then calculated as
residual CO2 = (1 −
) ∗ 55 kg/GJ.
4.1.1. Nuclear processes
4.1.1.1. Electrolysis Thermal efficiencies of nuclear and
combustion power plants operating through a Rankine cycle
to produce electricity are widely described. Values range
from 31% for a Magnox and BWR type to around 40% for
an AGR type [6]. For the present discussion a value of 40%
has been taken giving an overall conversion
efficiency = 0.4 × 0.7 = 0.28.
4.1.1.2. Thermochemical cycles A large number of ther-
mochemical cycle systems exist for water splitting and
only a few of these have been subjected to thermal effi-
ciency analysis. Well documented information exists for
811
η GJ converte
to hydrogen
55 kg CO2
(1- η) GJ (1- η) x 55 kg equivalent
remaining CO2 remain
the sulphur–iodine cycle from General Atomics [7] and the
hybrid cycle from Westinghouse [8]. Based on the extensive
discussion around these cycles, a representative value for
the overall conversion efficiency has been taken as 0.5.
4.1.2. Solar processes
4.1.2.1. Solar PV Photovoltaic devices range from ‘off-
the-shelf’ modules, e.g. from BP Solar, with solar–electrical
conversion efficiencies up to 15%, to research devices with
efficiencies of up to 25%. Choosing a comparison value
of 15% [9] is realistic, and this can be combined with an
electrolysis efficiency leading to an overall conversion =
0.15 × 0.7 = 0.105.
4.1.2.2. Solar biomass Solar energy conversion to hydro-
gen via biomass involves normal photosynthesis followed
by a gasification process.
Typical annual dry masses for energy crops are around
10 tonnes ha/yr at 50 ◦ N. Based on measured calorific values
of around 15 GJ/tonne, this corresponds to
150 GJ/ha/yr of combustion energy and should be com-
pared to the annual insolation energy of 36, 000 GJ/ha/yr
at the same latitude, based on an average insolation rate of
120 W/m2 . This corresponds to a solar energy conversion
efficiency close to 0.5% and is the appropriate figure to be
taken forward to the next stage for analysis of hydrogen
production.
A number of studies on biomass/hydrogen conversion are
available. A representative example would be that of Turn
et al. [10], who have investigated a range of processing
conditions. For a thermal conversion efficiency defined as
Mass of H2 produced per kg biomass × combustion energy of H2
Higher heating value of biomass
experimental yields lead to a demonstrated efficiency in the
region of 47%, giving an overall solar conversion efficiency
of 0.005 × 0.47 = 0.0024.
4.1.2.3. Solar photocatalysis This is a less well advanced
subject than photovoltaic processes but leads to the direct
812 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819
splitting of water by solar photons through surface reactions
on semiconductor particles immersed in water. This tech-
nology however, is still at a development stage and although
systems are of lower cost, efficiencies are lower than avail-
able photovoltaic devices, the best literature value currently
available being 4% [11,12], which is based on a tandem
photocatalyst pair.
4.1.3. Fossil fuel processes
4.1.3.1. Natural gas and coal A comprehensive study
of hydrogen production and delivery by three of the most
common routes was completed in 2002 at NREL [13]
and this included steam reforming of methane (SMR) and
coal gasification. Based on the stream flows and standard
heating values, thermal conversion efficiencies deduced
from this work are 76% for SMR and for 59% for coal
gasification.
Applying the same reasoning for these as for the other
primary sources being converted to hydrogen, leads to
a partial substitution of the natural gas reference fuel,
corresponding to the appropriate conversion efficiency to
hydrogen, and therefore providing a residual CO2 emission
by this means. However, each of these fuels generates its
own CO2 emission during this conversion, equal to the
100% of the CO2 emission burden which it carries with
it. This is 55 kg CO2 /GJ in the case of natural gas and
110 kg CO2 /GJ in the case of coal. These values need to
be added to the CO2 residual values already established by
the substitution process. This results in the following over-
all CO2 emissions when these fuels are used to produce
hydrogen:
Natural gas − residual CO2 = (1 − 0.76) × 55 + 55
= 68.2 kg CO2 /GJ,
Coal − residual CO2 = (1 − 0.59) × 55 + 110
= 132.6 kg CO2 /GJ.
4.1.3.2. Natural gas and coal with CO2 capture The re-
duction of CO2 emissions using liquid absorption systems
has been in use for many years within the chemical indus-
try and is based around alkyl amines. Such a capture strat-
egy carries a significant energy penalty arising from the en-
ergy required for desorption and gas compression to around
150 bar. A commercially proven process is the Econamine
FG process using 30 wt% MEA solution [14], where the en-
ergy consumption rate is quoted as 0.42 GJ/tonne CO2 [15].
For natural gas and coal, this translates into energy con-
sumption values of 0.23 and 0.46 GJ, respectively per 1 GJ
of primary energy.
For comparison with the examples above, the conversion
efficiency factors for natural gas and coal are therefore ap-
plied to the primary energy values and modified by these
energy consumption figures. The CO2 emission associated
with this conversion is then set to zero as a result of cap-
ture. The residual CO2 emission is then represented by that
remaining after fuel substitution as follows:
Natural gas − residual CO2 = (1 − 0.76 × 0.77) × 55
= 22.8 kg CO2 /GJ,
Coal − residual CO2 = (1 − 0.59 × 0.54) × 55
= 37.5 kg CO2 /GJ.
where 0.77 and 0.54 are the energies remaining from the
original 1 GJ of natural gas and coal, respectively, as a result
of the CO2 removal process.
4.1.3.3. Steam-methane reforming with nuclear heat A
number of national plans for high temperature reactors in-
clude the use of nuclear heat for steam-methane reforming.
The CO2 emission saving arises from the endothermic re-
action energy, which is provided from the reactor instead of
the combustion of part of the methane input. This energy
component is around 16% of the total methane combustion
energy passing through the reactor and is therefore the CO2
which can be saved in using nuclear heat. The residual CO2
emission is then represented by
(1 − 0.76) × 55 + 55 × 0.84 = 59.4 kg CO2 /GJ.
For CO2 capture, the reduced throughput of methane re-
quires less energy consumption per GJ of primary energy,
0.19 GJ compared to 0.23 GJ, and the residual CO2 emis-
sion with capture becomes: (1 − 0.76 × 0.81) × 55 = 21.1 kg
CO2 /GJ.
4.1.3.4. Wind turbines, tidal energy and hydroelectricity
Due to the normally high electrical conversion efficiencies
for these devices, a value of 100% has been taken for
this step and the overall energy efficiency becomes that
associated with the electrolysis step, giving an effective
value of 0.7.
Fig. 4 summarises the residual CO2 impact for each of
the above cases.
4.2. Land impact
The primary power sources divide clearly into high and
low power density groups and this distinction should be
retained for any future feasibility comparison since, for the
low density group, it gives rise to significant land use issues.
The high density groups include fossil fuels and nuclear
power, and nominal values for these arise through typical
plant throughputs and associated plant areas. Plant areas are
effectively defined by their outer boundaries rather than the
dimensions of processing units, and typical power density
values (P̃ ) would be around 500 MW/km2 .
Table 1 collects together conversion efficiency values
and typical primary power source densities for the cases
considered.
For an energy conversion efficiency to hydrogen equal
to
, the effective power density is modified by this factor.
 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819 813

140
132.6

120

kg CO2 /GJ Primary energy

100

80
68.2
53.9 59.4
60 52.8
49.2
37.5 39.6
40
27.5
22.8
16.5 16.5 16.5 21.1
20

0
d

ric

is

is

al
da

le

as
in

ur

ur

ur

rP
lys

lys

SM

SM

Co
ct

yc
W

Ti

pt

pt

pt

m
le

ro

la

ta

r+
Ca

Ca

oc

Ca

io
oe

So

ca
ct

cle
rb
rm

le
dr

to

la
/e

Nu
he
Hy

ho
R

al

So
SM

SM

Co
/t

ar

rp
cle
ar

la
+

cle

So
Nu
ar

Nu
cle
Nu

Fig. 4. Residual CO2 following the conversion of 1 GJ of primary energy to hydrogen by the routes considered.

Table 1 For the high density sources, this function is between

Power densities and resource limits associated with main energy 0.15% and 0.7% , arising through plant boundary defini-
sources tions, whereas for the low density sources it ranges up
Energy density of Conversion efficiency to 280% due to the nature of the primary power sources
primary resource, to hydrogen themselves. Distinctions between the high density sources
P̃ (MW/km2 )
based on land use is not considered important, and for
Nuclear/electrolysis 500 0.28 further analysis, these have been assigned a group value of
Nuclear/ 500 0.5 P̃ = 650 MW/km2 .
thermochemical The corresponding specific land areas, (1/
P̃ ) associated
Wind 4 0.7 with each production route to hydrogen are shown in Fig. 5.
Tidal 1 0.7 This introduces a significantly different view of the impli-
Solar PV 120 0.105 cations of using certain resources for hydrogen production.
Solar biomass 120 0.0024
Whilst a factor of 4.2 exists between the energy densities of
Solar photocatalysis 120 0.04
Hydroelectricity 5 0.7
nuclear power and solar biomass, this becomes a factor of
Natural gas 750 0.76 1/875 for the relative land area requirements when the ef-
Coal 750 0.59 ficiencies are included, due to the poor conversion of solar
energy to hydrogen by the biomass route.

4.3. Power availability limitations

When this density is divided into the total average national
power requirement (PTot ), the figure represents the total Whilst the above discussion on hydrogen routes has fo-
area required to provide all of this power in the form of cused on CO2 reduction and environmental footprint issues,
hydrogen. For several renewables, this area is a substantial the strategic role of the pathways must also address the ex-
fraction of a national land area (Anat ) and therefore a useful tent to which they can satisfy the average power demand,
measure of its significance would be: either directly or by means of hydrogen as an intermediate.
This is highlighted under resource limitations in Table 2
PTot For the fossil fuel and nuclear sources, it is considered
.

P̃ ANat that total average national power can be met with these, i.e.
814 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819

Area required per MW of generated hydrogen -km2

10

0.1

0.01

0.001
e

s
s
s
R

e
R

s
al
PV
al

d
le
ur

si
si
ur

ric

as
ur
SM
SM

in

d
Co

ly

ly
yc
pt

pt

ct

Ti
pt

m
ar

ta
tr o
Ca

le
Ca
oc
r+

Ca

io
r p So l

ca

oe
ec

rb
m
ea

to
+

dr
er

el
R

la
al
cl

ho

Hy
th
SM

r/

So
SM

Co
Nu

ea
r/
+

la
ea

cl
ar

So
Nu
cl
le

Nu
c
Nu

Fig. 5. Effective area required per MW of hydrogen power generated by the production routes considered and with conversion efficiencies
included.

Table 2 limits on wind, tidal and hydroelectric power are based on

Resource capacity limits for the UK associated with main energy the results of recently published government studies.
sources For the solar processes, an average insolation rate of
UK resource limitation Reference 120 W/m2 has been taken and the conversion efficiencies to
for developed power the captured energy are incorporated. These are 15%, 0.5%
(GW average) and 4% for PV, biomass and photocatalysis, respectively.
A decision on capture area must also be applied and this
Nuclear/electrolysis No resource limita —
Nuclear/thermochemical No resource limita — is a matter of judgement since no national policies exist at
Wind 20 [16,17] present. The commitment of 4% of national land area has
Tidal 7 [18,19] therefore been chosen as a realistic value for these sources.
Solar PV 175b The relevance of the above values becomes clearer when
Solar biomass 5b compared with the average power requirement for the UK
Solar photocatalysis 50b of 300 GW, inclusive of all input energy forms [21] and this
Hydroelectricity 0.3 [20] is explored further below.
Natural gas & Coal No resource limita —
a Refers to unlimited resource with respect to national average
4.4. Hydrogen production cost
power needs.
b Refers to land use limit = 4% of UK land area.
Some hydrogen production routes involve a combination
of steps, which are generic and transferable, examples being
that there is no installation limit or current limits on fuel. electrolysis, which applies to the H2 production via elec-
This refers specifically to the ability of these fuels to produce trical transduction pathways such as PV, hydroelectric and
power at the required level and makes no reference to their nuclear/electric, and CO2 sequestration, which can apply to
long-term resource availability. the fossil fuel processes. These are considered as supporting
For the renewable resources, limits apply for reasons of technologies and the costs for these are discussed initially
nature as well as practicality. Each country will be different to be used subsequently in combination with their upstream
and the UK case has been chosen as an example, where processes.
 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819 815

Table 3 compressed to 110 bar, the compression step representing

Electrolyser contribution to hydrogen costs around 25% of these costs. Underground storage of gas,
Average daily H2 production calculation basis 150 which is already compressed, was estimated to be around
(tonne/d) (a) $3/tonne CO2 . Transport costs are around $3/tonne CO2 per
Plant costs ($m) 483.6 100 km, and for a typical distance of 300 km, this gives a
Operating costs ($m/yr) (c) 111.3 total transport and storage cost of $12/tonne.
The effect of these costs on overall hydrogen cost will
Electrolyser contribution to hydrogen costs 2034
depend on the thermal efficiencies of the conversion paths
(c)/365/(a) ($/tonne H2 )
used. Using the earlier values for natural gas and coal, i.e.
76% and 59%, respectively. Table 4 shows the additional
Table 4 contribution which CO2 capture and storage makes to hy-
CO2 capture and sequestration costs for natural gas and coal drogen costs by these routes.
Natural gas Coal
4.4.3. Calculation of costs
Calorific values (MJ kg) 50.3 33 The key cost components have been extracted from avail-
CO2 produced/GJ (kg) 55 110 able published data on nuclear and chemical plant as well
H2 produced/GJ (kg) 5.3 4.2
as renewable technologies, in order to estimate the direct
CO2 emission rate (kg CO2 /kg H2 ) 10.4 26.2
hydrogen unit production cost or the electricity cost for use
CO2 capture and storage contribution to 592 1492
H2 cost ($/tonne H2 ) with electrolysis equipment. Where necessary, plant capital
and operating costs have been merged to provide an overall
estimate, e.g. biomass production and gasification, nuclear
4.4.1. Electrolysis heat and SMR. For the case of water splitting by photo-
The data from Ref. [13] has been used as the basis for cost catalysis, no large scale cost data exists and this has been
information on SMR, coal gasification and electrolysis. For constructed from in house studies combined with published
electrolysis, the cost data from this report has been used to costs for comparable direct solar heating, since hardware
estimate the electrolyser plant contribution after the removal components of the technologies are similar.
of the input electricity costs. These can be included when Tables 5 and 6 summarise the cost information and its
the upstream electrical generating system is discussed. source, which can be used to construct hydrogen costs. Any
The contribution of this cost to hydrogen production is liquefaction costs contained in the original sources have been
summarised in Table 3. An electrolysis efficiency of 75% removed for the purposes of comparison.
has been assumed. The above cost information has been used to construct a
hydrogen unit cost for each of the routes discussed above
by suitable combination of the individual contributions,
4.4.2. Carbon dioxide capture and storage
e.g. electricity/tonne H2 + electrolyser/tonne H2 , direct
Results from a recent study under the IEA Greenhouse
H2 /tonne + CO2 capture/tonne H2 , etc. The results are
Gas R&D [22] programme provide some typical cost infor-
shown in Fig. 6.
mation for the steps involved. These arise from (a) increased
capital costs for upstream SMR or gasification plant due to
loss in conversion efficiency, (b) separation and compres-
sion costs, (c) transport costs and (d) final storage costs, e.g. 5. Overall figure of merit
for sub-sea storage.
The cost of avoiding emissions, based on amine ab- Four different ‘value measures’ have been calculated in
sorption, is around $45/tonne CO2 for gas separated and the representation of hydrogen production by the different

Table 5
Main hydrogen cost components for production routes considered

H2 production route H2 production rate (tonne/d) Plant cost ($ m) Annual costs ($ m/yr) Ref.

Steam reforming of natural gas (SMR) 150 62.6 48.3 [13]

Coal gasification 150 247.4 79.8 [13]
Nuclear heat + thermochemical cycle 720 1894 336 [23,24]
Solar biomass (via gasification) 6 37.5 8.7 [25,26]
Solar photocatalysis 43 385.5 54.3 [27]
Nuclear + SMR 7640 4248 2029 [13,23]
816 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819

Table 6
Electricity cost contribution to hydrogen production routes

H2 production route Plant cost Annual costs Electricity cost Ref.

($m/100 MW) ($m/100 MW/yr) ($/MW h)

Nuclear 60 [28,29]
Solar PV 747 75.0 244 [30]
Hydroelectricity 225 22.0 51.0 [31]
Wind turbine 150 23.4 76.5 [32]
Tidal energy 166.5 22.4 68.4 [33]

16000
14950

14000

12000
$ /tonne H2

10000

8000

5625 6081
6000 5160 5197
4725
3447
4000 3114
1575 1621
2000
727 982 1270 1320

0
e

is

s
R

e
r m MR

ric

V
al
al

d
le

ur

si
ur
ur

as
SM

ys

rP
in
d
Co

ly
ct
yc

pt

pt

Ti
S

pt

W
m
l
ta

tro
le

la
Ca

Ca
oc
+

Ca

io
ca

oe

So
ar

ec
rb
+

to
+

dr
le

el
R

la
he

al
R

ho

Hy
c

SM

r/
So
Co
SM
Nu

/t

rp

ea
r

la
ea

cl
r

So

Nu
ea
cl
Nu

cl
Nu

Fig. 6. Hydrogen cost per tonne for production routes considered.

routes. These reflect the underlying objective of the hydro-
gen economy as well as other feasibility issues which must
be expected to form part of any discussion on preferred
routes. The measures have been constructed to provide nu-
merically high values under the following conditions: (i)
when the residual CO2 values are low, (ii) when the max-
imum power available for a process route is large com-
pared to national needs, (iii) when the land area required to
One of the ways in which these measures can be brought
together in an overall assessment is by use of a ‘figure-of-
merit’ (FOM). In the present case, this can be defined as
the product of the four values of interest, where these have
been suitably normalised.
The data above has been redefined in the following way:
55(kg)
FOM1 = ,
residual CO2 (kg) per GJ of primary energy

maximum collected power available within national boundary(GW)

FOM2 = ,
total national average power requirement

collect and process energy is low and (iv) when the hydrogen rate of hydrogen energy production per km2
FOM3 = ,
cost is low. maximum value within group
 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819 817

40 0.025
37.3

0.02 0.02
0.02
30
Overall figure of merit 26.2

22.9 0.015
21.0
20

0.01
3.4 x10 -3
12.3
3x 10 -4
10 6 x 10 -5
7.0 0.005
4.0 3.8 4 x 10 -5

0 0

is
re

s
re
R

ric
s

s
V

al
al

d
le

si

lys
ur

as
SM

SM

tu

rP
tu

in

d
Co

ct
ly
yc

Ti
pt

ap

W
p

ta

le
tr o

la
Ca

oc

r+
Ca

ca

io
C

oe
So
ec

rb
m

to
ea

+
+

dr
+
er

ho
el
al
R

la
cl
R

Hy
Co
th
SM

r/

rp

So
SM

Nu

ea
r/

la
r+

ea

So
cl
Nu
ea

cl
Nu
cl
Nu

Fig. 7. Overall FOM for the hydrogen production routes considered based on four feasibility criteria.

maximum value within group Power resource availability ultimately indicates the ex-
FOM4 = .
cost of hydrogen per tonne tent to which a primary source, in combination with any
transduction efficiency, can make a contribution to national
It then follows that the overall FOM = FOM1 × FOM2 × energy needs. Renewables have been considered for the
FOM3 × FOM4 . UK case, where wind power has a likely limit of 7–10%
It is noted that some of the renewables data is related to of total needs (or 30% of electricity needs), with solar
the UK energy environment where resource limitations have PV and photocatalysis having the greatest possibilities.
been applied. In this context, the denominator for FOM2 has These solar technologies have a strong latitude dependence
been taken as 300 GW. The overall FOM is shown in Fig. 7. and can readily double their capacity in moving to lower
latitudes where average annual insolation rates can reach
250 W m−2 .
6. Discussion The cost data of Fig. 6 confirms SMR as the cheap-
est route to hydrogen currently available, given that PBMR
Fig. 7 naturally divides between the low and high energy technology is not yet available, and also emphasises the ex-
density groups, with the high density group showing con- pensive nature of the electrolysis-based technologies, with
sistently higher FOMi values for all categories except for around 33% of the cost arising from the electrolyser contri-
the residual CO2 . This latter reflects the beneficial CO2 im- bution. The rank order of the technologies does not change
pact value of the wind and water-based renewable technolo- with the introduction of mandatory CO2 capture, which still
gies as shown in Fig. 4. For the other renewable pathways, continues to favour the high energy density technologies,
conversion efficiencies range from low to negligible placing in particular the nuclear/thermochemical cycle route (when
them below the nuclear-based pathways, the solar/biomass available) and those based on SMR.
route being the poorest performer. Although CO2 capture The FOM representation is intended as a basis for discus-
does not reduce the effective residual CO2 to zero, the re- sion in providing an overall measure of the relative value
sultant values are comparable to the lowest in the group, of different strategies for hydrogen and emphasising the
particularly for the natural gas processes, emphasising the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies. It is con-
overall value of this as a mitigation strategy. sidered that such an overview provides a clearer picture of
The land use impact differences of Fig. 5, brought for- the relative merits of specific pathways than an isolated mea-
ward into Fig. 7, properly reflect the relative values within sure, such as the impact on CO2 reduction or cost. The ap-
the renewables group and the significant differences with proach also allows for the preferential weighting of certain
the high energy density group, accounting for a factor of factors if they are considered more or less important, and
50–1000 between the two groups. for the inclusion of further criteria such as long-term fuel
818 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819
availability, national security of supply and social accept-
ability of certain strategies.
The present technology status allows certain conclusions
to be drawn or re-emphasised, and also points to desired
research advances, which appear reasonable objectives and
which would make a significant improvement in the posi-
tion of certain hydrogen production routes. These can be
summarised as follows:
• certain energy technologies which transduce to electric-
ity have their greatest value as electricity supply tech-
nologies, particularly in the absence of an over-supply
of these, and are unlikely to provide realistic routes to
hydrogen on the scale required for a hydrogen economy
even with significant reductions in electrolyser operat-
ing costs (excluding input electricity costs). Within this
group, solar energy appears to provide the greatest ca-
pacity, and cost reduction for PV technology remains a
major imperative;
• biomass is likely to remain a low impact technology for
hydrogen production and its greatest value is likely to
remain as a thermal source;
• hydrogen production by direct water splitting, using the
solar photocatalysis route, could become favourable if
conversion efficiencies were increased by a factor of 2–3
and this becomes a clear research objective;
• the lower primary energy cost associated with coal, com-
bined with a number of favourable FOMi components,
makes this attractive in the longer term for hydrogen
production, but the present gasification technology has
significantly higher unit costs than other high energy den-
sity sources. This would therefore seem to be an impor-
tant area for immediate development. The longer term
penalty for coal lies in the high costs for CO2 capture,
and this indicates that new processing strategies for coal,
which reduce the component CO2 removal costs are a
high priority for this technology;
• based on current measures, nuclear heat at PBMR tem-
peratures is likely to have a significant impact in most
of the future scenarios, although predicted thermochem-
ical cycle efficiencies have yet to be demonstrated. This
therefore remains an important research priority for such
future technologies.
References
[1] Hydrogen as an energy carrier and its production by nuclear
power. Report IAEA TECDOC–1085, 1999.
[2] ‘Nuclear production of Hydrogen’, first information exchange
meeting. Paris: OECD/NEA; October 2000.
[3] Saito S. Present status of the HTTR project at JAERI. High
temperature applications of nuclear energy. Report IAEA-
TECDOC-761, 1994. p. 11–19.
[4] Brown LC, Funk JF, Showalter SK. High efficiency generation
of hydrogen fuels using nuclear power. Progress report, NERI
Initiative Program no. DE-FG03-99SF21888, for the US
Department of Energy, 2000.
[5] Norsk Hydro Electrolysers—Technical Data Sheets.
[6] Hewitt GF, Collier JG. Introduction to nuclear power. New
York: Taylor & Francis; 2000.
[7] Norman JH, Besenbruch GE, Brown LC, O’Keefe DR,
Allen CL. Thermochemical water-splitting cycle, bench-
scale investigations and process engineering. DOE report
DOE/ET/26225-1, 1982.
[8] Brecher LE, Spewock P, Warde CJ. The Westinghouse sulphur
cycle for the thermochemical decomposition of water. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1977;2:7–15.
[9] Green MA. Crystalline and thin-film silicon solar cells: state
of the art and future potential. Solar Energy 2003;74:181–92.
[10] Turn S, Kinoshita C, Zhang Z, Ishimura D, Zhou J.
An experimental investigation of hydrogen production from
biomass gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23(8):641.
[11] Grätzel M. The artificial leaf, bio-mimetic photocatalysis.
Cattech 1999;3:4–17.
[12] Grätzel M, Moser JE, Solar energy conversion. In: Gould I,
editor. Electron transfer in chemistry, vol. 5, Section 3. New
York: Wiley; 2000.
[13] Hydrogen supply: cost estimate for hydrogen pathways–
scoping analysis. NREL report NREL/SR-540-32525, July
2002.
[14] Sander MT, Mariz CL. The Fluor Daniel econamine FG
process: past experience and present day focus. Energy
Conversion Management 1992;33(5–8):341.
[15] Chapel DG, Mariz CL. Recovery of CO2 from flue gases:
commercial trends. Canadian Society of Chemical Engineers
meeting, Saskatoon, 1999.
[16] Renewable Energy Advisory Group Report to the President
of the Board of Trade. Energy paper no. 60, HMSO, 1992.
[17] Energy Technology Support Unit. New and renewable energy:
prospects in the UK for the 21st Century. DTI report ETSU-
R-122, 1999.
[18] Energy Technology Support Unit. Renewable energy research
& development programme (Report R56), 1990.
[19] UK Government of Science and Technology Select Committee
Report HC291. Wave and tidal energy, 2001.
[20] Boyle G. Renewable energy. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
1998.
[21] International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics,
2003.
[22] Carbon dioxide capture and storage, UK Department of
Trade and Industry Report to the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme, September 2000.
[23] Schultz KR. Use of modular helium reactor for hydrogen
production. World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium,
London, September 2003.
[24] LaBar MP. Status of GT-MHR for electricity production.
World Nuclear Association annual symposium, London,
September 2003.
[25] Murphy-Bokern D. Miscanthus agronomy (for fuel and
industrial uses). Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
report NF0403, 2001.
[26] Iwasaki W. A consideration of the economic efficiency of
hydrogen production from biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2003;28:939.
 B.C.R. Ewan, R.W.K. Allen / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 809 – 819 819

[27] Solar Buildings Contract Summary. NREL report NREL/BK-
610-28044, 2000.
[28] International Energy Agency. Nuclear power in the OECD,
Paris, 2001.
[29] Fraser P. Nuclear power in the OECD, World Nuclear
Association annual symposium, London, September 2001.
[30] UK Department of Trade and Industry. Major Photovoltaics
Demonstration Programme. Annual report, March 2003.
[31] Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
Hydropower facts—plant costs and production expenses, US
Department of Energy.
[32] UK Department of Trade and Industry. The future
offshore—consultation document, November 2002.
[33] Energy Technology Support Unit. The commercial prospects
for tidal stream power. Report ETSU T/06/00209/REP, 2001.