GREEN HYDROGEN POWERING GAS TURBINES: REALISTIC STRATEGY? By S. C. Gillen, Bechtel Fellow, ASME Fell Posted on August 18, 2022 ~ and-aprepte > Bel lps Pur, da aE Pt Spe : att Gas Turbines fueled by & Green Hydrogen: etal fine “oh -do deg, tn, +H wa the numbers don't add up *** the Coule at Gag Turbine World aa “ AeRb-d52etoom = EB ek B22 C8) te At the time of wrting, after nearly a decade of media bitz and hype, even laypeople are readily conversant in colors of hydrogen and ‘what wonders they can do in decarbonizing global economies including electric power generation, transportation, and the industrial ssoctor(a.g., coment and steel-making). The focus ofthis article is exclusively on ulity or gtc-seale electre power generation with gas turbines buming hydrogen. Other Uses of hydrogen of any “color, including existing andlor projected, e.g, fuel cells for transportation and distributed power generation, at different scales and concomitant infrastructure needs, are outside the scope of the article, ‘Also this discussion is strictly quantitative based on publicly available information and simpliied caleulations using frst principles without resorting to stary-eyed “opinions" or “prognostications", How hydrogen (H2) can help decarbonization in technologies involving combustion is obvious: the product gas does not contain CO (except the minuscule amount that came in with ambient air). This, of course, is wonderful news. The bad news is that, unlike natural gas (mostly methane), H2 Is not naturally avallabe for extraction and utilization; it has to be manufactured frst ‘The worse news is that manufacturing H2 Is extremely expensive, nt only in terms of dollars and cents but also in terms of kilowatts. Finally, to make matters truly worse, presently, about 95% of H2 production in the U.S. (globally, more like 75%) is via steam methane reforming (SMR), which is a very complex thermo-chemical process and, while producing the sought-after hydrogen, generates a significant amount of CO2 emissions. This article looks atthe various processes used to manufacture hydrogen by referring tothe “color” of hydrogen associated with each process, and offers an analysis of hydrogen strategies that further the goal of decarbonization. Green Hydrogen This is where electrolysis of water comes into play. Itis a “green” technology because no CO? is produced inthe process. The Underlying chemical ceaction is very simple but cansumes a lt of energy, which is supplied by a battery (in the laboratory) or by a power plant (in a commercial-scale application)Ian be shown thatthe minimum theoretical energy requisite forthe electrolysis of water to take place is 237.1 ki/mol of H20, hich translates into approximately 33 KWhikg of H2. This is the yardstick that one must use to gauge the claims made by electrolyzer manufacturers For example, Proton exchange membrane (PEM) elecrolyzers are commercially available today and are rapidly gaining market traction as, among other factors, they are more flexible and tend to have a smaller footprint compared to their forerunner technology, the quid alkaline electrolyzer Published numbers for PEM and other electrolysis technologies cover a broad range and, with litle or no commercial-scale ‘experience, verifying them is quite difficut, A conservative number for state-of the-art PEM electrolyzers is 55 KWh/kg, which willbe used herein. Future developments can (maybe) bring it down to 45 kWhikg. Interested readers can easily modify the findings below using the ‘number that they think is “correct’. Rest assured thatthe proverbial needle will not move significantly. The objective in green hydrogen production isto utilize renewable resources, e.g, Solar of wind, to run large electrolyzers to make 2, and then store, transport, and burn itn gas turbine combustors. Easier said than done. Lotus consider an advanced class 60-Hz gas turbine rated at 400 MWe and 43% net LHV efficiency, with 400 / 0.43 = 930 Mth of heat (fuel energy) consumption (see Figure 1). In other words, ignoring small changes inefficiency when changing fuel from natural {928 to hydrogen, this gas turbine with a modem Dry-Low-NOx (DLN) combustor, fit could handle 100% H2 fuel (nt possible presently), would consume 930 / 120 = 7.75 kgls of H2 (with 120 MJIkg LHV}. To produce H2 at this rate in an electrolyzer, one would need 55 KWhikg x 3,600 sth x 7,75 kgJs = 1,535,000 kWe, Le, 1,535 MWe or more than 1.5 GWe, electric power. That's nearly four times the electric power produced by the hydrogen-buming gas turbine itself and amounts to a roundtrip efficiency (RTE) of about 26%. Gas Turbine 195 MWe 400 MWe, 43% Net (LHV) Samana Sao yeh lat up According to the 2021 Land-Based Wind Market Report of U.S. DOE's Office of Eneray Erfciency & Renewable Energy, selected 2020 statistics were as follows: 122 GW of installed wind capacity, 36% fleet-wide capacity factor, and 3.4% curtailment across al US. Independent System Operators (10s), with 5% in Midcontinent ISO (MISO) and 4.6% in ERCOT, Texas. Thus, in 2020, total wind curtailment can be calculated as 122 GW x 8,760 h x 96% x 3.4% = 13,000 GWh. Consequently if the entre curtailed wind generation in the U.S, was dedicated to H2 production via electrolysis, it would sustain only two (2) advanced class gas turbines with 4,000 hours of annual operation, ie, 13,000 GWh / (1.5 GWh per GT x 4,000 h) = 247 GT, It these two gas turbines were operating in combined cycle (GTCC) with 63% net LHV efficiency, their output would be 586 MWe leach. Thus, 13.000 GWh of power expenditure would support 5,000 GWh of electricity production for an RTE of 5/13 = 38.5% (ignoring the energy consumed to store and transport H2 plus leaks, losses, and miscellaneous inefficiencies)Gaiitornia CAISO Texas ERGOT. aes Sere z= wea 2 go 200 g 40 é ri i= i= ms ‘Ss iS io .— ee oO; 7 goa ae Se me a wen al yen came of 13,000 cn and estmaned solr crate of 908 GWM bout sot ef wind creation. (Source: US, DOE OMe of Ehetgy Enlony & Renewable Ereeay Inthe calculation above, ISO base load rating numbers were used. According to 2020 final) EIA Form 923 data, the most efficient GTCC power plantin the U.S. generated 8.5 milion MWh at an effective LHV efficiency of 59.4%. I this power plant could repeat the same performance with 100% H2 fuel, it would consume 478,300 metric tons of H2, which would require 26,300 GWh of power to produce via electrolysis (corresponding to 36% RTE — again, ignoring everything between the electrolyzer and the gas turbine combustor) ‘As calculated above, in 2020, only half ofthis amount of "surplus" GWn were available via the enti U.S. curtaled wind generation. Lot us assume that this plant bumed a blend of H2 (equal to the amount that can be generated with 13,000 GWh of ~ maximum possible in 2020 ~ curtailed wind generation) and methane (a proxy for natural gas) for the same exact, fld-recorded performance, This would lead to a reduction in CO2 stack emissions by about 1.6 milion metric tons, bringing the specific plant CO?2 emissions down to about 168 kg/MWh (370 Ib/MWh) from 334 kglMWh (735 Ibi. According to the U.S. EPA, in 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions totaled 6,222 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent after accounting for sequestration from the land sector, (Electricity production accounted for 25% of that amount.) Thus, the reduction that could have been achieved by using the entire U.S. wind curtallment for H2 production, to be used inthe most efficient GTCC power plantin the country, would result in a reduction of 1.6 / 5,222 ~ 0.03% in total GHG emissions. [As a yardstick, consider that, per U.S. EPA, GHG emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 by 11%. The primary major diver for the decrease was attributed to reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, primal by replacing coal-fired generation with natural gas, Extrapolation of the growth trend in wind generation ofthe ast four years suggests that, by 2030, expected generation will be between 700 (linear growth) and 1,000 (exponential growin) billion kWh (see Figure 3). Assuming 5% curtailment rate, this corresponds to 35,000 to 50,000 GWh of curtailed wind generation Going withthe higher number, assuming 50 kWhikg electrolyzer technology and 60% annual average (eld performance) GTCC efficiency, 20 milion MWh of electricity could be generated with 100% H2 fuel. This would save about 8.5 milion metric tons in CO? stack emissions, which is equivalent to 6.5 5,222 ~ 0.13% of 2020 tolal U.S. GHG emissions (or 0.62% of GHG omissions from electricity production) Projected Wind Generation Exponential Extrapolation, Using ast 4 years Using last 6 years Linear Extrapolation Using ast 4 years Year 2018 ©2018 2020 2022 2024 2028 2028 2000 Figur 2 U.S wind pereraton 2090, Curva show varios seraros for grown of US wind 48 capaty acor m8 atl oda) ts rau T88 9bon Ah of goneaton tk bove lowest carve. tallea capac) ca each S00 GW, 1050 bilon Kha ina orarauans possi at 4% capney fact: op cave), Deployment of srargystrage on lage eae concn those nomborsGray Hydrogen Let us now tum to manufacturing hydrogen via SMR, a more-than-a-century old technology ullized around the world to make H2 to be used in the chemical process (for production of ammonia) and refining (for hydrocracking and desulturization of fuels) industries. From the chemical reaction formulae, on a theoretical basis, each kilogram of H2 produced comes with 5.5 kg of CO2 production. In the actual SMR plant (see simplified flow diagram, Figure 4), one must include the fuel burned in the reformer as well, This can raise the CO2/H2 ratio to about 9.2 (it can be as high as 10 or 11). Lotus apply this to our sample gas turbine (400 MW at 43% LHV) burning 7.75 kgs H2. The SMR process supplying the requisite amaunt of hydrogen would generate 257,000 kglh of CO2. On a simple cycle basis, this corresponds to about 642 kg/MWh (1,415 low) CO2 generation. On a combined cycle basis, the number is 438 kg/MWh (966 Ib/MWh), In comparison, for the best feld-performer natural gas fred GTCC of 2020 cited earller in the article, with ~60% LHV efficiency instead of 63%, which isthe basis of the SMR numbers cited above, the corresponding number is 333 kg/MWh (735 IbIMWh), or ‘more than 30% less than the one fired on 100% gray hydrogen. Tho author is confident that the readers will agree that no futher discussion is necessary; ‘gray’ hydrogen is a non-starter. Natural Gas Stack a “all Gas (mainly He, CHs and COs) COs proceseng "tg ot natural got oprosoe 0.9 kao hydrogen. Assosog CO generates by Felomershateaclona stg por kp Ha. Acatanl CO2 ror bung al fetomer mace Sing tal ange tor 9 “Teg CO2 por kg 2 dapenang.on roca ficiency. Toll ee aon eatrs (CC) sabons shown, Pressure Suing Adsorption (PSA) unt separate te pure fyarogen produ om De al gas, whi cytosine tomer nace Blue Hydrogen (SMR + CCS) Of course, the SMR plant can be retrofted with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to produce "blue" hydrogen. Inan SMR plant, C02 could be captured at three locations: () from the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit’ tal gas, (i) fom the reformer flue gas with about 90% efficiency (~45% (v) and ~20% (v) concentration, respectively and less than one bar partial pressure), or (i) rom the raw H2 at the shift reactor ext wth 294% efficiency (~15% (v) concentration and ~3.5 bar partial pressure}. The removal technologies available include amine-based scrubbing, physical solvents and membranes and there is widespread ‘experience in chemical process industry in CO2 removal from raw H2 at high pressure, In contrast, CO2 scrubbing from the GTC. ‘ue gas at low partial pressures and high volume flows requires larger and more expensive equipment and consumes more parasitic ower. In any event, from a purely CO2 emissions perspective ifthe SMR plant i fited with 90% CCS, for our example GTCC firing “blue” hydrogen produced in that plant would have 44 kg/MWh (97 InIMIWh) CO2 emissions (ignoring everything between the SMR hydrogen delivery point and the gas turbine combustor). The last number is quite attractive, however, there is absolutely no reason why our "best in class” (based on eld performance) GTC cannot itslf be retrofitted with a 90% post-combustion carbon capture (PCC) system as wel, In that case, its CO2 stack emissions would drop to 33 kgiMWh (74 IbIMWh), almost 30% better than blue hydrogen case with SMR, plus CCS. (Note that, CO2 production of the SMR generating the requisite H2 for this plant would be 485 kg/MWh or 46.5 kg/MWh with 80% capture.)In other words, unless a compsling CAPEX/OPEX argument can be made in favor of blue hydrogen (via SMR plus CCS), itis impossible to see how it can be a viable alternative to natural gas-fired GTC with PCC. Even then, to bring the latter to a par wth blue hydrogen in terms of kg of CO2 per MWh of generation (assuming 90% capture), 86% capture is sufficient with concomitant savings in PCC block size and CAPEX/OPEX. Considering the fst-ofa-kind nature ofthe final systems with CCS (not SMR or GTCC on thelr own) as well as the uncertainty and “unknown unknowns" in key infrastructure items such as H2 storage and transportation (Including pipeline construction and parasitic power of compression) and CO? sequestration andlor utlization, any attempt to make economic comparisons without bona fide frontend engineering and design (FEED) studies done by credible EPC contractors involving major OEMs (a multi-year, multe milion dollar effet is a futle endeavor. (The reader can consult the DOE-funded General Electric and Southern Company FEED {or retrofiting a GTCC with PCC at Plant Barry - Alabama Power. Results are expected in early 2023. Also see page 16 of 2022 GTW Handbook.) In passing, it should be mentioned that there are other technologies to manufacture blue hydrogen from natural gas feedstock, Examples are partial oxidation (POX) and aufothermal reforming (ATR). The latter is an oxy-combustion process combining POX and SMR, The main advantages of ATR vis-A-vis SMR are the increased energy efficiency, faster start-up times, and faster response times to transient events. Developed in 1950s, ATR Is used to generate syngas for ammonia and methanol synthesis. ‘A koy drawback of ATR Is that itrequires an air separation unit (ASU) to make the oxygen for combustion. The key attractive feature Of ATR is that it generates 20% less CO? to generate the same amount of H2 as SMR, The reader can find many publishes references comparing SMR, ATR, and POX as well as thei variants in terms of cost and performance. Since none of those technologies competing with the time-tested SMR for blue hydrogen is even close to large-scale commercial application, a closer look at them in this short article Is not warranted Blue Hydrogen (Gasification + CCS) Globally, about 75% of H2 production is from SMR and the rest mainly from gasification. In gasification process, the first step is. reacting coal (or another lquidsolié hydrocarbon feedstock) with oxygen and steam under high pressures and temperatures to {form synthesis gas (syngas), a mixture consisting primarily of carbon monoxide (CO) and hyarogen. After the impurities are removed from the syngas, the CO in the gas mixture is reacted with steam through the water-gas shift reaction to produce additional H2 and CO2. Hydrogen is removed by a separation system, and the highly concentrated CO? stream can subsequently be captured and stored. In published studies, CAPEX for this technology is estimated at three times that for SMR with CCS. As emphasized earlier, without a ‘comprehensive FEED study involving both technologies, the author would refrain from commenting on such findings. The “true” ratio can be somewhat less or significantly larger. Sulice to say thatthe economic feasbilly ofthis route to hydrogen production is rather ity. ‘But, before writing gasification off, let us pause here fora moment, Steam-methane reforming uses natural gas as feedstock to ‘manufacture H2. Yet, natural gas isthe “cleanest fossil ful that can bo used directly for electric power generation in the most- oficiant combustion-based technology today, namely, advanced class GTCC. Under the light ofthe calculations presented above, itis a mystery to this author, why anyone would goto the trouble of first converting natural gas to H2 with CCS (which can be appended directly to the GTCC in the frst place) and piling complex process: upon complex process (some nonexistent and extremely costly to build and operate) to then burn the hydrogen in the same GTCC. However, there is @ rationale behind making blue hydrogen Via gasification of coal, refinery residue, or other problematic, hydrocarfons. Unlike the electrolysis or SMR (or its derivatives or close relatives), inthis case, the feedstock, in contrast to surplus electric power plus water or natural gas (mostly methane, that is), typically not considered to be a good candidate for ‘lean electric power generation ‘As an example, lat us consider vishreaker residue, which is pretty nasty stuff ils LHV is about 39 MJ/kg). Under normal circumstances, this residual heavy oll is not suitable as a gas turbine fuel. Stil, with a GTCC based on an E or (maybe) F class gas turbine equipped with diffusion flame combustors with steam injection, fuel preparation with washing and additives, and a two- pressure, non-reheat HRSG with high stack temperature (to prevent sulfuric acid condensation on ecanomizer tubes), it can be used to generate electric power with nearly 600 kg/MWnh CO? stack emissions (not fo mention SOx and other toxic stuf) In contrast, utlizing the same feedstock in a gasification plant comprising a POX reactor (utlizing 02 generated in an ASU), water- 1988 shit reactor, a Selexol process to separate H2S and CO2 from the syngas, and a PSA block to generate “blue” hydrogen for tullization as fuel in an advanced class GTC is quite attractive (ignoring CAPEX and OPEX, of course.Electric power generated this way is calculated to have about 60 kg/MWn CO2 stack emissions but no SOx. Specific electricity output is about 13.1 MJe per kg of feedstock. In comparison, forthe residual aitburning GTCC example above, with no capture, specific electricty outputs 18.8 MJefkg. With capture and extra flue gas cleanup, itcan easily drop to 1 Mdorkg Cleary, itis impossible to make a judgement call with such "back of the envelope" calculations. Itis, however, quite obvious that, if the CAPEX and OPEX numibers can be made to work out, gasification ofa “not green’ feedstock such as coal, petcoke, refinery residues, etc. (or biomass for that matter) with CCS to produce blue H2 can be a viable way to clean, sustainable electric power generation while making use of a wider range of readily available and otherwise low-value resources, Recap \What green hydrogen from renewable-powered electrolysis can exactly accomplish in terms of reducing CO2 emissions from grid- scale electric power generation is not clear at allo the author. Even using the entire curtailed wind generation in the U.S. to make H2 and burn it in GTCC cannot make a proverbial pin-prick in GHG emissions. Using the best possible assumptions, including 100% H2 buming DLN combustors, the impact is much smaller than 1% — not surprising because the generated H2 can only support a couple of state-of-the-art GTC power plants at most. One can certainly throw in curtailed solar energy into the mix, but this will not change the answer by a whole lot. (Consider that, per U.S. ElA, in 2020, CAISO curtailed 1.5 milion MW of utity-scale solar (vis-8-vis 13 milion MWh curtailed wind for the entire U.S.), which is 5% of otal production.) Hydrogen Blend Effects 3 Fuel Blend Mass Flaw Hydrogen Heat Content Percent Value at 0% Hydrgen Hydrogen Percont (oy Volume) om atte 40% 00% 80% 100% re: Relationship of CO? arson wih hydroger-ratia a el lon, Cus dpi paramete elatonenip wt rcreesing yarenen corer whers Vu pofcont oval a Sos natal ga 0% 2). Nate al Sobnyarogen oaucos CO2 obcl 20 a corte roond 20% 0 fl heat cone" he same nea pt, ul ras Now at 100% Weis 40% avo 100% natal ga Inpassing, advanced gas turbine DLN combustors can only handle 30% (by volume) H2 in fuel gas (although one major OEM claims the abllty fo use 50%(v) H2 for its latest advanced DLN combustor design). This achieves only 10% reduction in CO2 emissions on kglMWh basis (see Figure 5), For 50% reduction, H2 in fuel gas should be 75%(v) It should be pointed out that gas turbines equipped with conventional, difusion flame combustors and H20 injection for NOx control can and do burn 100%{v) H2 today (in refinery and steel mill syngas applications). Their water consumption is offered as a cisadvantage while keeping quiet about water consumed in electrolysis. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to why “thought leaders” are silent about this option, which is ready to be deployed today. Finally, per U.S. EIA (June 9, 2021), over the past 15 years, the U.S. electricity generation mix has shifted away from coal and toward natural gas and renewables, resulting in lower CO2 emissions from electricity generation. In 2019, the U.S. electric power sector produced 1,724 milion metic tons of CO2, 32% less than the 2,544 millon metric tons produced in 2005. Now, this is real docarbonization!‘Base Cae0 Green Grey Blue Natural Gas Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Feedotook/GT Fuel NANG Wier Natwal Gasitie | Natural Gast ‘@T0o Electrolysis and Technology i oh SMR andetoo | SMA+ cc and etoo Storage, Storage, Storage, cee is Transportation | Transportation Transporation Electricity to mako Fusl, MRK om NA 56 4 o Feedstock to make Fuel, KWitkg c NA Na 455 403 lotiiy om Fusl 83 20 20 20 (w/ PCO) kWnvg oF Fue! wy (003 Emissions 330 22 NA 480 6 {a/ PCC, 00% Co}, kaw 3, Roundtrip Eticency NA 264% NA NA Overall Fuel Feedstock Eiceney | 609% NA 471% 406% (wi PCG) 186) “ane 1 Summary of atiematve hyrogan lehnologis ve nalual gas, Sabed on pofommance nanbors or aavancea combined cyde, arn any aalionl ower cansumpton ae loses doing He strane and terepraton. Gay ae Bie Pyaroqn casos agua 75%, SM orc. Foedeogx Ber Slecrcainat to hyarogan generat process. Ful conaumes in he poner block. Le-halurl ges (NC) the base case an hyatopen forthe ah (Pe poutcoruteoncapure, GO! carbon capture; NA rot apples) The basic premise of gray hydrogen is thal one takes a perfectly “clean” (relatively speaking) feedstock like natural gas, which you can bum in a state-of-the-art GTCC at almost 60% feld-measured efficiency, use it to make H2 while pumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and then bur itn the same GTCC. One can certainly think ofa scenario where the product of an SMR facilty, whose ‘existing customers have disappeared, can be kept running and making H2 to be used as gas turbine fuel. Even then, one might wonder whether itis not better to retire the facility in the first place to help lower GHG emissions. Altematively, and this may be even a better proposition, such facies can be retofited with CCS to provide blue hydrogen for use in industrial and chemical process facilities. (Energy storage is another possibilty but uiikely because such industrial SMR plants tend to run round the clock.) Blue hydrogen eliminates the CO? disadvantage of gray hydrogen by throwing in a CCS facility into the mix. But the basic question stil remains, A GTCC equipped (or retrofitted) with PCC can burn natural gas directly and stil do better in terms of bottom line CO2 emissions. There are some arguments, primarlly based on the ease of CO2 capture (vis-a-vis PCC applied to GTCC flue gas) and its lower cost, but without a serious FEED study, the numbers, quite close to begin with, have to be taken with a grain of sal The basic premise is a5 convoluted as pointing to your let ear with your right hand while putting your right arm behind your head, Instead of just using your left hand and simply raising it Blue hydrogen from partial oxidation (POX) or gasification of caal and a variety of “nasty” feedstocks, on the other hand, is a perfectly rational proposition. it enables us to make use of an otherwise undesirable but readily and cheaply available feedstock such as coal and other waste products of chemicalrefinery industries in grd-scale electricity generation. Inthe end, itis highly likely that it wl not turn out to be economically feasible. Nevertheless, the requisite technology is avallable and deserves a close look. In fact, readers can read about a three-phase demonstration projact in Japan (Osaki CoolGen Project), which recently demonstrated the operation of an oxygen-blown, coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle. In the second phase, which is currently ‘ongoing, the designers of the facility plan to demonstrate 90% CO2 capture (29% purity) from the syngas via physical absorption (using Dows Sefexo! Max solvent). Scrubbed syngas contains about 85% (by volume) H2 and used as a fuel for the gas turbine, In the third phase ofthe project, the objective is to uilize H2 in a fuel cello produce power. ‘As a final note, it should be emphasized thatthe concept of hydrogen economy's nothing new. It popped onto the scene hatf a century ago (e.., see Chapter 18, p. 117 of "Energy and the Future’ by Hammond, Metz, and Maugh ll, AAS, 1973). There is no doubt that there is a spot for hydrogen in a comprehensive technology portfolio for sustainable energy. As more and more renewable resources are deployed, on a case by case basis, increased use of green hydragen as a storage medium and gas turbine fue will bea realy as wel However, unless the world transitions toa fully “distibuted generation” mode, the expectation that it will be the proverbial Knight in shining armor for zero-carbon electricity, specially with 500+ MWe super-heavy gas turbines buming exorbitant amounts of ‘manufactured green hydrogen fuel, isnot realistic.‘Author's Note: Th ares lgaly based on recent work done by ho autor, 2. 8 pressniaton made in May st POWERGEN 2022 in Dalas, TX, paper book that wil Be publsd by te Cambrige Unveraty Press (Ges & Steam Tuhine Power Plants Apoicaton in Sustainable Powe tha shoul be avalabe by