i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Analysis of MTH-System (Methylcyclohexane-

Toluene-Hydrogen-System) for hydrogen
production as fuel for power plants

Abdul Hannan Zahid a,b,*, Naila Amin b, Fahid Nisar b, Summaira Saghir a
a
Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, Jiangsu, PR China
b
University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan

highlights

MTH-System was used to produce hydrogen fuel for power production.

A sustainable PFD of MTH-System based power plant was firstly developed.

Minimum 70% MCH dehydrogenation was required for optimum heat requirement of system.

Electricity production cost was competitive with other conventional technologies.

MTH-System based power plant works well for gas turbine only.

article info abstract

Article history: The utilization of hydrogen (H2) gas as green energy fuel in power plants is a great chal-
Received 30 June 2020 lenge due to its storage, deployment and transportation. Herein, we propose a simulation
Received in revised form based study of H2 fueled power plant by using Methylcyclohexane-Toluene-Hydrogen-
25 August 2020 System (MTH-System). A 266 MW gas turbine was selected and the performance of MTH-
Accepted 27 August 2020 System for power plant was investigated. The process for methylcyclohexane (MCH) pro-
Available online 20 September 2020 duction was not discussed here. However, the conversion of MCH into gaseous H2 for
power generation was discussed in detail. A sustainable process flow diagram (PFD) was
Keywords: developed. The heat integration b/w power plant and dehydrogenation reactor reveal that,
MTH-System minimum 70% MCH conversion is required to accomplish the heat demand of whole
Hydrogen fueled power plant system. The effect of addition of H2 recycle stream to dehydrogenation reactor and com-
Methylcyclohexane bined cycle power plants was investigated. The sensitivity and economic analysis reveal
Aspen-HYSYS 2291.4 $/kW capital cost based on dehydrogenation of MCH for power production and
Sustainable technology 0.186 $/kWh output electricity cost based on complete MTH-System.
© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

worldwide [1]. High energy demand eventually results in

Introduction decreasing fuel reservoirs day by day [2]. Conventional fossil
fueled based power plants are producing expensive electricity
Shortage of energy due to increasing number of industries, with harmful emissions leading to high import bills to the
vehicles and population is the most challenging problem

* Corresponding author.University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan.

E-mail address: engr.hannan@uog.edu.pk (A.H. Zahid).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.248
0360-3199/© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2
individual countries and environmental devastation [3]. The
need to fix the energy shortage problem with environmental
friendly technology is the most demanding issue. H2 being
pure gaseous fuel can be used as green energy fuel in sta-
tionary power plants [2]. However, the storage of H2 in gaseous
form or cryogenic liquid form requires high pressure vessels
(70 MPa) or expensive insulated tanks (253  C), respectively
[4]. As a result, its utilization as green energy fuel is considered
far away from practical point of view due to its storage,
transportation and utilization. Now days, the on-site produc-
tion and supply of H2 have received much attention among
researchers, as it could provide a practical solution of H2 based
power production. MTH-System is a promising technique,
which could provide a practical solution of H2 production,
storage and utilization as fuel for power plants in the form of
liquid organic hydrides. It composed on the following endo-
thermic reversible reaction [4, 5].
MCH (C7H14) # Toluene (C7H8) þ H2 DH ¼ 205 kJ/mol MCH, at
25  C (1)
A complete MTH-System comprises on reversible cycle of
MCH dehydrogenation and hydrogenation reaction for the
release and storage of H2 gas, respectively. Previously, many
alternate solutions were proposed to chemically store H2 in
the form of NH3 and liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC’s),
i.e., Dibenzyl-toluene-, Benzyl-toluene-, Benzene-
cyclohexane- and Naphthalene-Decalin-System. Among
these systems, NH3 is a poisonous gas, that contains 17.65 wt%
of H2 and produced globally over 100 million ton, annually.
The direct burning of NH3 in gas turbine could release
poisonous gases (NOx) and could negatively affect the envi-
ronment. Conversely, the decomposition of NH3 into N2 and
H2 is a carbon free reversible and endothermic reaction. Many
researchers demonstrated the decomposition of NH3 for H2
production with and without catalyst in various reactors, i.e.,
fixed bed reactor, single fixed bed membrane reactor and
multi-stage membrane reactor [4,6]. However, low pressure
but high temperature reactor system is required for effective
NH3 decomposition. On the other hand, excessive tempera-
ture has destructive effect on reactor and the catalyst. More-
over, high catalyst cost limits the practical use of fixed bed
reactors for NH3 decomposition [6,7]. Conversely, in addition
to high maintenance cost of membrane reactors, the drop in
temperature along length of reactor revealed negative effect
on the kinetics of NH3 decomposition reaction and thus
limited the practical use of NH3 as energy carrier [4]. Dibenzyl-
toluene pair reported recently as carrier of H2 energy with
focus on dynamism of system for supplying of electricity [8].
However, this system was reported on laboratory scale for fuel
cell applications and no sufficient data is available for large
scale operations. On the other hand, dibenzyl-toluene/
perhydrodibenzyl-toluene based LOHC mixture revealed
6.2 wt% of H2 volumetric density [9]. Nevertheless, the higher
energy requirement, i.e., 27% H2 bound energy makes this
system not suitable for practical applications [7,10,11]. The
carcinogenic property of benzene and the presence of cyclo-
hexane traces in the decomposition of benzene-cyclohexane
products limit the H2 storage in large scale Benzene-
Cyclohexane-System. Whereas, in case of Naphthalene-
32235
Decalin-System, the solid nature of naphthalene, high en-
ergy demand of dehydrogenation reaction and difficulties in
transportation and storage makes Naphthalene-Decalin-
System unfavorable for the large scale H2 storage and utili-
zation. The MTH-System revealed 6e8% H2 contents and
evaluated on a pilot plant by a Japanese company and has
reported to be effective for large scale H2 storage and utiliza-
tion [12]. The liquid phase of MCH and toluene over a wide
range of temperatures makes it favorable for long term H2
storage. The lower boiling point of MCH (101  C) and toluene
(111  C) than naphthalene, decalin, dibenzyl-toluene and
benzyl-toluene gives advantage to MTH-System over other H2
storage technologies. Therefore, the MTH-System is practi-
cally applicable and theoretically promising technique for H2
storage at an industrial scale. The idea of MTH-System for
seasonal energy storage in the form of chemically bound H2
was firstly proposed by Scherer [13,14] and reported that, it is
competitive with new hydropower projects [13]. Later, the
conversion of MCH to toluene and H2 in the presence of
various catalysts, i.e., Pt/ZSM-22, Pt/Al2O3, Pt catalysts sup-
ported on pyrolytic waste tire char, Pt/V2O5 and Pt/Y2O3 were
reported [15e18] on laboratory scale. The application of MTH-
System for on-board use of H2 revealed that, hybrid MTH-
gasoline system could be a practical solution of H2 fueled in-
ternal combustion engine [19]. The use of MTH-System for
100 MW electricity production in combined cycle power plant
revealed 50.19% energy efficiency. However, the hydrogena-
tion aspect of MTH-System and cost of electricity produced
was not discussed [20]. The development of H2 fueled com-
bined cycle power plant with various plant utility for pure H2
feed was reported but the production of H2 gas was not dis-
cussed [21e23]. The effect of condenser pressure, gas turbine
inlet temperature and pressure on the efficiency of MCH
dehydrogenation reaction revealed significant influence on
overall system efficiency. However, the main focus of study
was on the dehydrogenation part of MTH-System and com-
parison with Graz cycle-based system [24]. Later, the dehy-
drogenation of MCH into H2 by using microstructured
prototype membrane reactor at 400  C and 13 bar pressure was
investigated [25]. The integrated concept of H2 production
from low-rank coal and chemically stored in the form of MCH
by hydrogenation of toluene revealed a promising technology
for H2 storage and power production. However, the dehydro-
genation part of MTH-System was not discussed [26].
Recently, a simulation based study of MTH-System for small
scale power production by using various catalytic and kinetic
data was reported. However, the main focus of study was to
produce H2 in fuel cell using closed loop hydrogenation and
dehydrogenation process. Nevertheless, the energy demand
of dehydrogenation reactor was accomplished from
exothermic hydrogenation reaction and the effect of com-
bined cycle power plant was not discussed [27].
In the present study, we address the research gap present
in already published work and reported a novel sustainable
design and simulation based study of H2 fueled power gen-
eration by using MTH-System. The main problem arise for
MCH dehydrogenation is that, it is highly endothermic (380  C)
in nature [16]. Herein, the heat energy requirement of main
dehydrogenation reactor was accomplished by the energy of
turbine exhaust flue gases, by novel scheme. Various options
32236 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2
for H2 fueled power plant using MTH-System were considered
and the effect of different parameters on the efficiency of
MTH-System based power production was discussed in detail.
A sustainable PFD was developed for base case and the
simulation was carried over Aspen HYSYS® process simu-
lator. To the best of our knowledge, no work is reported on the
MTH-System based power production for large scale indus-
trial gas turbine (266 MW). The effect of combined cycle power
plant on the heat integration of whole system was explored
and the cost of output electricity was calculated. The effect of
H2 recycle stream on MCH dehydrogenation reactor and
power production was discussed in detail. Furthermore, the
impact of fuel-air equivalent ratio on power output and its
effect on the performance of MTH-System was also discussed
for the first time. The sensitivity analysis revealed the acute
points of project, while economic analysis presented the
application and comparison of MTH-System with former
power production technologies through practical prospect.
Proposed MTH-System for stationary application
The PFD of proposed MTH-System based power plant for base
case is shown in Fig. 1. The overall process was divided into
hydrogenation and dehydrogenation part of MTH-System,
while the main focus of this study is the simulation and
designing of dehydrogenation part of MTH-System for power
production. However, the hydrogenation part was considered
to calculate the cost of electricity by using MTH-System. The
process starts with electrolysis of water to produce H2 gas. The
energy demand for the start-up of water electrolysis unit was
Fig. 1 e PFD of proposed MTH-System based power plant for base case.
accomplished with wind, solar or surplus grid energy. The H2
gas was than compressed and reacted with toluene in hy-
drogenation reactor. The hydrogenation of toluene produces
MCH via following exothermic reaction.
3H2 þ Toluene (C7H8) / MCH (C7H14) DH ¼ 205 kJ/mol MCH,
at 25  C (2)
The process produces high heat energy and used to pro-
duce electricity in steam turbine to fulfil the energy demand of
water electrolysis. The hydrogenation product MCH could
store in storage tank as a carrier of energy. The MCH from
storage tanks at ambient temperature was firstly preheated in
feed preheater, feed vaporizer and feed super heater, which
increases the feed temperature to 190  C, 272  C and 380  C,
respectively. The preheated MCH feed was directed to radial
flow fixed bed shallow dehydrogenation reactor and the
endothermic dehydrogenation reaction was carried at 380  C
and 9 bar pressure [16,28]. The heat energy of gas turbine
exhaust flue gases from flue gas heat exchanger was used to
carry the steady state dehydrogenation reaction. The heat
requirement of feed preheater and feed vaporizer was
accomplished from the heat energy of dehydrogenation
products, while the heat demand of feed super heater was
achieved by the turbine exhaust flue gases. The product from
dehydrogenation reactor contains mainly H2 and toluene with
some unconverted MCH (Table 1) was cooled down to 30  C in
product cooler and directed to product separator to separate
H2 and toluene. The as-obtained toluene from bottom of
product separator was stored in storage tank and could use to
produce MCH again, in the hydrogenation reactor (Eq. (2)). The
H2 gas obtained from top of product separator was mixed in
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2 32237

Table 1 e List of stream properties for base case.

Stream Temperature ( C) Pressure (bar) Phasea Stream Temperature ( C) Pressure (bar) Phasea
M1 25 1.013 L M9 27.2 9.0 g/l
M2 25.6 9.0 L M10 27.2 9.0 g
M3 190 9.0 Sl M11 1450 40 g
M4 272 9.0 Sv M12 1450 40 g
M5 380 9.0 G M13 735 22 g
M6 380 9.0 G M14 364 10.7 g
M7 265 9.0 G M15 238 4.2 g
M8 117.3 9.0 G M20 27.2 9.0 l
a
l: liquid, sl: saturated liquid, sv: saturated vapor, g: gas.

mixer with compressed air with l ¼ 2.0 (where, l is reciprocal
of equivalent ratio) and equivalent ratio of 0.5 (equivalent
ratio is ratio of theoretical air to fuel ratio/actual air to fuel
ratio) [19,29]. The as-obtained compressed H2 and air mixture
was burned in combustion chamber of gas turbine. High
temperature flue gases leaving gas turbine was directed to the
flue gas heat exchanger followed by flue gas cooler to
accomplish the energy demand of dehydrogenation reactor.
To study the effect of various options in base case,
following parameters are discussed in this study;
Following assumptions were made for the base case;

Assuming 100% conversion of MCH in dehydrogenation
reactor at 380  C and 9 bar pressure absolute [19],
1319 kmol/h of pure MCH is essential to produce the
required output.

100% combustion of H2 in combustion chamber was
assumed in all cases.

The base case will be same for all following objectives.

(i) The effect of MCH percentage conversion on power Simulation setup

output.
(ii) Energy integration analysis on combined cycle power
generation.
(iii) The effect of addition of H2 recycle stream to dehydro-
genation reactor.
(iv) The effect of fuel-air equivalent ratio on performance of
MTH-System.
Nevertheless, heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) fol-
lowed by steam turbine and H2 recycle stream to dehydroge-
nation reactor was added in the base case to study the effect of
combined cycle power generation and effect of addition of H2
recycle stream to dehydrogenation reactor, respectively.
Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis on production cost as
objective function was used. The overall system was
economically analyzed and compared with established tech-
nologies in terms of capital and production cost.
Simulation of MTH-System for stationary
application
The PFD of simulation scheme for MTH-System based power
plant presented in Figs. S1eS3. Following assumptions were
made accordingly;

The Peng-Robinson (PR) equation of state based on exper-
imental data was applied for the calculation of thermody-
namic properties [19,21].

The pressure drop in all equipment was assumed as zero.

The adiabatic efficiency of MCH feed pump and
compressor was assumed 90%.

No leakage of flue gases or water from HRSG was
considered.

Considering no heat loss from the heat energy trans-
mission line in overall system.

Constant flow of inlet cooling water to the condenser was
assumed.

For combustion of unconverted MCH and remaining
toluene in the combustion chamber of turbine, theoretical
amounts of air based on moles were used (because these
gases were highly dispersed with H2 gas).

Aspen HYSYS® being capable to simulate both dynamic and

steady state performance of fluid-based complex hydrocar- Parametric study
bons processes by connecting energy and material streams
was used for the simulation of MTH-System based power Change in percentage conversion of MCH in conversion
plant [30e35]. reactor

Design basis and base case
A 266 MW Siemens V94.3A gas turbine was selected as design
basis for the stoichiometric calculations. The gas turbine
having nominal rating of 260 MW (ISO Standard) and was
attached with 50 Hz generator [36].
The effect of MCH percentage conversion (X) on power output
for base case (X ¼ 1.0) and for X ¼ 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 is pre-
sented in Table 2, while the simulation scheme is shown in
Fig. S1. 148 MW of electricity was produced for base case
revealed the maximum output for MTH-System based power
plant. As shown in Table 2, the power output of gas turbine
32238 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2

Table 2 e Effect of MCH conversion on power output.

MCH conversion X H2 produced Toluene produced Unconverted MCH Turbine feed Power Output
(%) (kmol/h) (kmol/h) (kmol/h) (kmol/h) (MW)
1.0 3953 20.9 e 3974 148
0.9 3557.1 17.20 3.25 3577.3 134
0.8 3161.2 13.51 5.71 3180.4 120
0.7 2765.3 10.40 7.4 2783.12 105
0.6 2369.4 7.69 8.36 2385.5 90.3
0.5 1973.5 5.39 8.64 1987.5 75.4

depends on the efficiency of MCH conversion reaction illus-
trates that, MCH conversion exerts positive and substantial
impact on power output. It is important to note that for every
10% rise in X, about 15 MW more power output was obtained.
Fig. 2 shows the effect of X on the efficiency of gas turbine. The
gas turbine revealed 55.6% efficiency for base case (X ¼ 1.0).
However, the efficiency decreases to 50.3%, 45.1%, 39.4%,
33.9% and 28.3% for X ¼ 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 and 0.5, respectively.
The study on operational aspects of H2 fueled gas turbine by P.
Chiesa et al. [36] reported 38.2% gas turbine efficiency revealed
that, MCH conversion at X ¼ 0.67 is best suited for MTH-
System based power plant. Moreover, since MCH possess 6%
of H2 content by molecular weight, some toluene and un-
converted MCH was still present in turbine feed. Nevertheless,
0.37% toluene and 0.24% unconverted MCH was present in
turbine feed at X ¼ 0.67, revealed the presence of 23.6 gCO2/
kWh emissions in flue gases. This is far less than that of
natural gas (360e410 gCO2/kWh) and coal (900 gCO2/kWh)
fueled power plants [37] suggest that, MTH-System based
power plant can be a good addition to green power production.
Energy integration analysis
Energy integration analysis is the key part of MTH-System
based power plant. To study the effect of heat integration b/
w dehydrogenation reactor and gas turbine for base case, the
heat energy obtained from power plant was utilized to fulfill
the energy demand of dehydrogenation reactor and feed
Fig. 2 e Effect of MCH conversion on the efficiency of gas
turbine.
super heater. Since, heat and electrical energy was produced
in power plant, the efficiency of whole system was calculated
by energy and exergy analysis. In fact, the energy is equal to
exergy in case of electricity but in case of chemical sub-
stances, the energy and exergy corresponds to its combustion
enthalpy and the combustion Gibbs potential, respectively. As
exergy analysis provides the thermodynamic feature of en-
ergy stream and chemically bound energy is type of potential
energy. The difference between Gibbs potential or free energy
of reactants and the combustion products is equal to total
exergy of the combustion fuel. Therefore, the energetic and
exergetic efficiency for energy conversion plant can be defined
as
energy of valueable outputs
Energetic efficiency ¼
energy of inputs
exergy of valueable outputs
Exergetic efficiency ¼
exergy of inputs
Herein, input corresponds to MCH feed and heat obtained
from turbine flue gases, while outputs corresponds to H2 and
toluene. Nevertheless, 0.381 enerergetic efficiency and 0.380
exergetic efficiency for base case was obtained, which is
similar (0.382) to previously published report [36]. In addition,
no outside energy was required to carry out the most energy
demanding dehydrogenation reaction for single cycle gas
turbine revealed the sustainable approach of MTH-System
based power plant. However, the efficiency of gas turbine
can increase up to 58% in combined cycle power plant [36].
Therefore, in order to find the effect of combined cycle, the
flue gases from gas turbine were directed to HRSG for steam
production followed by steam generator (Fig. S2). Here, 96 bar
of steam having temperature of 200  C was produced in HRSG
after attaining energy demand of dehydrogenation reaction.
Which have not sufficient energy to run the high pressure
steam turbine for appropriate power production explored
that, the MTH-System works well for gas turbine and is
consistent to previous publish report [13]. However, by using
back pressure or condensing steam turbine revealed 12.3 MW
and 23.2 MW more power production, respectively. Never-
theless, the efficiency of condensing steam turbine (35%) is
twice than that of back pressure turbine (18%) [38] suggests
that, simulation results well matched with published litera-
ture. In addition, if dehydrogenation efficiency decreases less
than 0.7, the optimum energy demands to run steam turbine,
feed vaporizer and dehydrogenation reactor was not ach-
ieved. On the other hand, if heat is supplied to the dehydro-
genation reactor after steam turbine instead of gas turbine,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2 32239

Table 3 e Effect of addition of H2 recycle stream to dehydrogenation reactor.

MCH conversion X H2 produced (kmol/h) Turbine feed (kmol/h) Power output (MW)
(%)
Without recycle With recycle Without recycle With recycle Without recycle With recycle
stream stream stream stream stream stream
1.0 3953 3953 3974.1 3951.1 148 148
0.9 3557.1 3867.2 3577.3 3881.7 134 141
0.8 3161.2 3656.5 3180.4 3672.9 120 135
0.7 2765.3 3366.7 2783.12 3381.7 105 127
0.6 2369.4 2941.5 2385.5 2956.8 90.3 111.5
0.5 1973.5 2567.3 1987.5 2581.1 75.4 95.9

the lower exhaust gas temperature will eventually reduce the
heat transfer rate in dehydrogenation reaction. This eventu-
ally results in increased catalyst volume and larger reactor
with more number of tubes but enhanced catalyst life [28]. All
these suggest that, MCH dehydrogenation efficiency for
X ¼ 0.7 along with use of gas turbine best suited for MTH-
System based power plant.
Addition of H2 recycle stream to conversion reactor
H2 recycle stream was added to dehydrogenation reactor in
base case and the effect of recycle stream on MCH percentage
conversion and power output was investigated (Table 3). The
H2 obtained from dehydrogenation of MCH was separated and
a part of it was recycled back to dehydrogenation reactor with
the same molar ratio as that of MCH (Fig. S3). As shown in
Table 3, the addition of recycle stream does not affect the
power output for X ¼ 1.0. However, with the decrease in MCH
conversion from 0.9 to 0.7, the power output increases from 7
to 21.8 MW respectively, reached the maximum at X ¼ 0.7 and
then decreases to 20.5 MW by further decrease in MCH con-
version (Fig. 3). This suggests that, addition of H2 recycle
stream results in more H2 production and eventually results in
more power output. However, by further decrease in MCH
percentage conversion, it does not bring positive effect on
power output. This is due to the fact that, lower MCH con-
version bring about decrease in H2 production leading to
decrease in power output. Therefore, MCH conversion at
X ¼ 0.7 seems feasible for MTH-System based power plant. It is
important to note that, many catalysts have been reported to
increase the MCH percentage conversion, which consumes
with the passage of time [15e17]. The life of catalyst could
increase, if some H2 is added along with MCH to dehydroge-
nation reactor [18] revealed that, addition of recycle stream
could play important role in MTH-system. On the other hand,
for high H2 to MCH recycle ratio, the time for MCH conversion
to H2 and toluene increases, resulting increase in timescale
and sensitivity of the process. Moreover, the addition of
recycle stream and high H2 to MCH ratio could add additional
cost in plant capital due to increase in size of dehydrogenation
reactor [39]. Therefore, addition of optimum amount of
recycle H2 is necessary for the economical process. Herein,
0.38 optimum ratio of H2 to MCH was obtained for X ¼ 0.7, in
terms of maximum power output. This corresponds to
501.2 kmol/h of recycled H2 to the MCH dehydrogenation
reactor.
Effect of fueleair equivalent ratio on performance of MTH-
System
Selecting a right equivalent ratio in gas turbine plays a key
role in the efficiency of MTH-System and power output.
Therefore, the effect of equivalent ratio on power output for
base case by using various MCH percentage conversion
(X ¼ 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0) was investigated (Fig. 4). It is

Fig. 3 e Effect of MCH conversion on power output after Fig. 4 e Effect of equivalent ratio on power output for
addition of H2 recycle stream. various MCH percentage conversion.
32240 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2
important to note that, the introduction of excess air helps
creating a leaner mixture and reduces the residence time at
peak temperature in combustion chamber. Herein, equiva-
lent ratio of 0.5, revealed maximum output for various MCH
conversions. As shown in Fig. 4, the power output increases
sharply with the increase in equivalent ratio and reached
the maximum at equivalent ratio of 0.5. However, for
equivalent ratio greater than 0.5, a small decrease in power
output was noticed for higher MCH percentage conversion
(X ¼ 1.0 and 0.9). On the other hand, with further decrease in
MCH percentage conversion (X ¼ 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 and 0.5), sig-
nificant decrease in power output was observed for equiva-
lent ratio greater than 0.5 and this effect keeps on increasing
with the decrease in MCH percentage conversion. This is due
to the fact that, lower MCH conversion results in lower H2
but higher unconverted MCH contents and higher equivalent
ratio brings out poor lean-fuel mixture. Therefore, it is
important to provide a suitable amount of excess air for
complete combustion of gaseous fuel and to obtain a suit-
able lean-fuel mixture. On the other hand, high level of
excess air is necessary in gas turbine in order to maintain
the inlet temperature of turbine below design limits and to
avoid damage to the turbine. In addition, a slight lean-fuel
mixture could results in formation of maximum COx due
to burning of unconverted MCH. Therefore, controlled stoi-
chiometry is very critical in MTH-System based power pro-
duction. In general, gas turbines works very lean with high
level of excess air and a rich mixture could obtain at
equivalent ratio of 0.5. Nevertheless, the equivalent range of
0.3e0.5 was reported for ultra-lean operation [40] and the
phenomena of backfire was observed for equivalent ratio of
0.7 [29].
Sensitivity and economic analysis
In order to recognize the modelling approach and critical point
of project, sensitivity analysis on production cost as objective
function was used to comprehend the consequence of various
alternatives. The efficiency and cost of already established
technology was assumed to calculate the future potential of
MTH-System based power plant due to the unavailability of
mature technology. However, the assumed efficiencies of
each plant plays important role in the economics of whole
system. Herein, the maximum efficiency of dehydrogenation
reaction was dependent on effective heat recovery of the
power plant. The heat demand for dehydrogenation reactor
was accomplished by heat integration b/w power plant and
dehydrogenation reactor having ~99% efficiency. Also, higher
MCH percentage conversion yields more H2 for power pro-
duction. It is important to note that, the efficiency of com-
bined cycle power plant decreases to 73% after heat
integration within the system and is nearly equal to already
published report (70%) [13]. Here specific cost has very low
influence on the electricity production cost. Therefore, the
sensitivity analysis revealed that, output electricity cost is
highly sensitive to MCH dehydrogenation reaction, heat
integration b/w dehydrogenation reactor and turbine and the
efficiency of power plant. Furthermore, lesser byproduct yield
is substantial for economical point of view. Herein, toluene as
a byproduct was produced and its utilization to produce MCH
according to Eq. (1) can play an effective role in electricity
production cost. Since, the present study focusses only on
MCH dehydrogenation for H2 production, the cost of electricity
can be reduced by seasonal use of MTH-System [5]. In order to
calculate the capital and operating cost, 10% capital rate, 4%
interest rate and 6% depreciation rate was assumed to calcu-
late the annual cost of a chemical plant with 17 years of life
[41]. 4% operating cost as well as depreciation rate was
calculated for MCH and toluene inventory and 6% mainte-
nance cost of capital cost was assumed [42]. H2 possesses only
12.5% contribution in overall combustion enthalpy of the MCH
revealed that larger MCH storage tank is essential to store
enough MCH. The cost of dehydrogenation reactor was
calculated from petrochemical literature [43] and the capital
cost of 2291.4 $/kW was estimated from above assumptions.
Which is far less than that of average capital cost of coal fired
(4767 $/kW) and nuclear energy (6800 $/kW) based power plant
but higher than natural gas (920 $/kW) and petroleum liquid
(856 $/kW) based power plants [44]. Table 4 showing 392.3 M$
capital required for MTH-System based power plant. Table 5
revealed the comparison in cost per kWh of MTH-System
based power plant with other conventional technologies. It
is important to note that, the electricity production cost of
MTH-System based power plant was calculated by adding the
electricity production cost of both hydrogenation and dehy-
drogenation plant. Herein, the input of hydrogenation plant
consists of toluene, H2 and solar energy for water electrolysis.
On the other hand, the output of the system is MCH and
generation of electricity. Therefore, by considering cost of all
inputs and outputs of hydrogenation plant, the production
cost was calculated and added to the electricity production
cost of dehydrogenation plant [5,24,27,45]. The overall MTH-
System revealed 0.186 $/kWh output electricity cost, which
is higher than other carbon free technologies i.e. wind, solar,
nuclear and hydropower plants. However, the production cost
is competitive to fossil fuel and geothermal based electricity
production. Table 6 shows the comparison in efficiency of
various power production technologies. The MTH-System
based power plant revealed 43% efficiency, which is some-
what similar (40%) to previously published report [13]. A small
increase in efficiency corresponds to the optimum heat inte-
gration and addition of steam turbine into the system. More-
over, a conventional power plant produces 360e900 gCO2/
kWh or 73 kgCO2/MMBTU in the environment [39,46,47]. Many
Table 4 e Financial analysis of MTH-System based power
plant.
Unit Capital cost (M$)
MCH storage tank 41.47
Feed pre-heating 48.52
Dehydrogenation reactor 42.43
Product cooler 11.78
Product separator 8.84
Toluene storage tank 28.6
Power plant 160.29
Flue gas cooling 35.27
Working capital 15.1
Total 392.3
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2 32241

Table 5 e Comparison in electricity production cost. Acknowledgements

Technology Production cost ($/kWh) Ref.
Nuclear energy 0.025e0.034 [43] The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Muhammad Rashid
Solar Energy 0.10 [48] Usman (University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan) and Prof.
Hydropower 0.05 [43] Dr. Naveed Ramzan (University of engineering and technol-
Wind energy 0.04e0.06 [48] ogy, Lahore, Pakistan) for their guidance and support during
MTH-System 0.186 This work this research work.
Fossil fuela 0.05e0.17 [48]
Bioenergy 0.07 [48]
Geothermal 0.04e0.13 [48]
a
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Cost depends upon country and type of fuel.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at

Table 6 e Efficiency of various power production
technologies.
Technology Efficiency (%)
Nuclear energy
Solar Energy
Hydropower
Wind energya
MTH-System
Coal fired plant power plant
Natural gas fired power plant
Oil fired power plant
Bioenergyb
Geothermal
a
Efficiency depends upon speed of wind.
b
Efficiency depends upon biological feed.
countries are regulating 2e10 $/tonCO2 carbon tax on carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions as a cost of damage to the environ-
ment resulting increase in production cost. Being a carbon
free technology with competitive production cost, the MTH-
System based power plants can be a good addition to power
sector through practical prospects.
Conclusion
A sustainable PFD for MTH-System based power plant was
established and various options for H2 powered electricity
generation by using MTH-System were investigated. The
results revealed that, the electricity production cost of MTH-
System based power plant is competitive to most conven-
tional power production technologies. The heat integration
b/w dehydrogenation reactor and power plant revealed the
most important step in overall system design. The sensi-
tivity and economic analysis revealed the application of
MTH-System based power plant through practical point of
view. Moreover, the MTH-System based power plants could
be a promising addition to H2 based power production
technologies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.248.
references
45
22
[1] Xu J, Wang RZ, Li Y. A review of available technologies for
95
seasonal thermal energy storage. Sol Energy
35e45
2014;103:610e38.
43
[2] Hirscher M, Yartys VA, Baricco M, Colbe JBV, Blanchard D,
35
et al. Materials for hydrogen-based energy storage - past,
45
recent progress and future outlook. J Alloys Compd
40
2020;827:153548.
20e25
[3] Ozarslan A. Large-scale hydrogen energy storage in salt
21
caverns. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:14265e77.
[4] Abashar MEE. Ultra-clean hydrogen production by ammonia
decomposition. JKSUES 2018;30:2e11.
[5] Newson E, Haueter TH, Hottinger P, Von Roth F,
Scherer GWH, Schucan THH. Seasonal storage of hydrogen in
stationary systems with liquid organic hydrides. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:905e9.
[6] Bell TE, Torrente-Murciano L. H2 production via ammonia
decomposition using non-noble metal catalysts: a review.
Top Catal 2016;59:1438e57.
[7] Makepeace JW, He T, Weidenthaler C, Jensen TR, Chang F,
Vegge T, Ngene P, Kojima Y, de Jongh P, Chen PE, David W.
Reversible ammonia-based and liquid organic hydrogen
carriers for high-density hydrogen storage: recent progress.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:7746e67.
[8] Fikrt A, Brehmer R, Milella V-O, Müller K, Bo€ smann A,
Preuster P, et al. Dynamic power supply by hydrogen bound
to a liquid organic hydrogen carrier. Appl Energy
2017;194:1e8.
[9] Heller A, Rausch Michael H, Schulz Peter S, Wasserscheid P,
€ ba Andreas P. Binary diffusion coefficients of the liquid
Fro
organic hydrogen carrier system Dibenzyltoluene/
Perhydrodibenzyltoluene. J Chem Eng Data 2016;61:504e11.
[10] Niermann M, Beckendorff A, Kaltschmitt M, Bonhoff K.
Liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC)-assessment based on
chemical and economic properties. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;44:6631e54.
[11] Preuster P, Fang Q, Peters R, Deja R, Nguyen V, Blum L,
Stolten D, Wasserscheid P. Solid oxide fuel cell operating on
liquid organic hydrogen carrier-based hydrogen - making full
use of heat integration potentials. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:1758e68.
[12] Okada Y, Yasui M. Large-scale storage and transportation
technology for hydrogen energy - “SPERA hydrogen®”
system. Surf Sci 2015;36:577e82. https://doi.org/10.1380/
jsssj.36.577.
[13] Scherer GWH, Newson E. Analysis of the seasonal energy
storage of hydrogen in liquid organic hydrides. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:19e25.
32242 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 2 2 3 4 e3 2 2 4 2
[14] Andrews J, Shabani B. Re-envisioning the role of hydrogen in
a sustainable energy economy. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:1184e203.
[15] Thybaut JW, Saeys M, Marin GB. Hydrogenation kinetics of
toluene on Pt/ZSM-22. Chem Eng J 2002;90:117e29.
[16] Usman MR. Methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation over
commercial 0.3 wt% Pt/Al2O3 catalyst. Proc Pakistan Acad Sci
2011;48:13e7.
[17] Zhang C, Liang X, Liu S. Hydrogen production by catalytic
dehydrogenation of methylcyclohexane over Pt catalysts
supported on pyrolytic waste tire char. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2011;3 6:8902e7.
[18] Shukla A, Pande JV, Biniwale RB. Dehydrogenation of
methylcyclohexane over Pt/V2O5 and Pt/Y2O3 for hydrogen
delivery applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:3350e7.
[19] Usman MR, Cresswell DL. Options for on-board use of
hydrogen based on the Methylcyclohexane-Toluene-
Hydrogen-System. Int J Green Energy 2013;10:177e89.
[20] Prananto LA, Biddinika MK, Aziz M. Combined
dehydrogenation and hydrogen-based power generation.
Energy Procedia 2017;142:1603e8.
[21] Cappelletti A, Martelli F, Marta VS. Investigation of a pure
hydrogen fueled gas turbine burner. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:10513e23.
[22] Milewski J. Hydrogen utilization by steam turbine cycles. J.
Power Technol. 2015;95:258e64.
[23] Sanz W, Braun M, Jericha H, Platzer MF. Adapting the zero-
emission Graz cycle for hydrogen combustion and
investigation of its part load behavior. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:5737e46.
[24] Juangsaa FB, Pranantob LA, Mufrodic Z, Budimand A, Odab T,
Aziz M. Highly energy-efficient combination of
dehydrogenation of methylcyclohexane and hydrogen-based
power generation. Appl Energy 2018;226:31e8.
[25] Kreuder H, Boeltken T, Cholewa M, Meier J, Pfeifer P,
Dittmeyer R. Heat storage by the dehydrogenation of
methylcyclohexane - experimental studies for the design of
a microstructured membrane reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:12082e92.
[26] Aziz Muhammad, Juangsa FB, Kurniawan W, Budiman BA.
Clean Co-production of H2 and power from low rank coal.
Energy 2016;116:489e97.
[27] Hamayun MH, Hussain M, Maafa IM, Aslam R. Integration of
hydrogenation and dehydrogenation system for hydrogen
storage and electricity generation - simulation study. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:20213e22.
[28] R Usman M, Cresswell D. Prototype reactor simulation for
on-board use of hydrogen in a hybrid MTH
(methylcyclohexaneetolueneehydrogen)egasolinesystem
and a simplified dynamic modeling for the startup. Chem
Eng Res Des 2015;104:125e38.
[29] Yi HS, Min K, Kim ES. The optimized mixture formation for
hydrogen fueled engines. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2000;25:685e90.
[30] Aspen HYSYS V9. www.aspentech.com; 2017.
[31] Taimoor AA, Muhammad A, Saleem W, Zain-ul-abdein M.
Humidified exhaust recirculation for efficient combined
cycle gas turbines. Energy 2016;106:356e66.
[32] Mehrpooya M, Zonouz MJ. Analysis of an integrated
cryogenic air separation unit, oxy-combustion carbon
dioxide power cycle and liquefied natural gas regasification
process by exergoeconomic method. Energy Convers Manag
2017;139:245e59.
[33] Wang Y, Tang Q, Wang M, Feng X. Thermodynamic
performance comparison between ORC and Kalina cycles for
multi-stream waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manag
2017;143:482e92.
[34] Alobaid F, Starkloff R, Pfeiffer S, Karner K, Epple B, Kim H-G.
A comparative study of different dynamic process
simulation codes for combined cycle power plants - Part A:
part loads and off-design operation. Fuel 2015;153:692e706.
[35] Alobaid F, Starkloff R, Pfeiffer S, Karner K, Epple B, Kim H-G.
A comparative study of different dynamic process
simulation codes for combined cycle power plants - Part B:
start-up procedure. Fuel 2015;153:707e16.
[36] Chiesa P, Lozza G, Mazzocchi L. Using hydrogen as gas
turbine fuel. J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power 2005;127:73e80.
[37] Combined heat and power technology fact sheet series. U.S.
department of energy; 2016. DOE/EE-1334.
[38] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD. Plant design and economics for
chemical engineers. McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[39] Wayne Bequette B. Process control: modeling, design, and
simulation. Prentice Hall Professional; 2003.
[40] Das LM. Hydrogen engine: research and development (R&D)
programmes in Indian institute of technology (IIT), Delhi. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2000;27:953e65.
[41] Boyce MP. Combined cycle systems for near-zero emission
powergeneration. Woodhead publishingseries inenergy;2012.
[42] Dutta S, Block DL, Port RL. Economic assessment of advanced
electrolytic hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
1990;15:387e95.
[43] Anon. Cyclohexane. Hydrocarbon Processing. Petrochemical
Handbook; 1993.
[44] U.S. energy information administration. Annual electric
generator report. Form EIA-860. 2017. https://www.eia.gov/
electricity/generatorcosts/. [Accessed 18 June 2020].
accessed.
[45] https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-
targets-hydrogen-production-electrolysis [accessed 22 Aug
2020].
[46] Jeong S-J, Kim K-S, Park J-W, Lim D-S, Lee S-M. Economic
comparison between coal-fired and liquefied natural gas
combined cycle power plants considering carbon tax: Korean
case. Energy 2008;33:1320e30.
[47] Locatelli G, Mancini M. Smallemedium sized nuclear coal
and gas power plant: a probabilistic analysis of their
financial performances and influence of CO2 cost. Energy Pol
2010;38:6360e74.
[48] International renewable energy agency Abu Dhabi.
Renewable power generation costs in 2017. IRENA; 2018.