Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

Analysis of hydrogen production costs in Steam-Methane Reforming

considering integration with electrolysis and CO2 capture
Mary Katebah, Ma’moun Al-Rawashdeh, Patrick Linke *
Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Education City, Doha, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Global hydrogen production is dominated by the Steam-Methane Reforming (SMR) route, which is associated
Natural gas with significant CO2 emissions and excess process heat. Two paths to lower specific CO2 emissions in SMR
Hydrogen plant hydrogen production are investigated: (1) the integration of CO2 capture and compression for subsequent
Steam-methane reforming
sequestration or utilization, and (2) the integration of electrolysis for increased hydrogen production. In both
Process integration
Techno-economic analysis
cases, the excess process heat is utilized to drive the emissions reduction options. Four different design regimes
CO2 reduction for integration of carbon capture and compression with the SMR process are identified. Techno-economic ana­
lyses are performed to study the effect of CO2 mitigation on hydrogen production costs compared to grey
hydrogen production without emissions mitigation options. Integration with electrolysis is shown to be less
attractive compared to the proposed heat and power integration schemes for the SMR process with CO2 capture
and compression for subsequent sequestration or utilization, which can reduce emissions by 90% with hydrogen
production costs increasing only moderately by 13%. This blue hydrogen production is compared in terms of
costs and emissions against the emerging alternative production by electrolysis in the context of renewable and
fossil electricity generation and electricity mixes while considering life-cycle emissions.

1. Introduction technology (Liu, 2021). Hydrogen production by SMR is associated with

Global hydrogen demand has seen significant growth in recent years,
with projections showing a tenfold increase by 2050. It is emerging as
the fuel of the future due to its clean burning, high energy density, and
long-term storage capacity (Liu, 2021). There are several routes for
hydrogen production. Most hydrogen is currently produced from hy­
drocarbons with CO2 emissions released to the atmosphere (referred to
as “black/grey hydrogen”) (Khan et al., 2021). There is increasing in­
terest to capture the CO2 emissions from the hydrocarbon production
routes for subsequent storage by an industrial carbon capture and
storage (CCS) process (referred to as “blue hydrogen”) (Khan et al.,
2021). An emerging hydrogen production route that receives significant
interest and has the potential to achieve very low or zero emissions is
electrolysis using clean or renewable electricity referred to as “green
hydrogen”) (Khan et al., 2021). Currently nearly all hydrogen is pro­
duced from fossil fuels, accounting for around 6% and 2% of global
natural gas (NG) and coal consumption, respectively (Liu, 2021).
Around 50% of the global hydrogen production is from natural gas, with
steam methane reforming (SMR) being the most prevalent production
significant amounts of CO2 emissions, ranging from 7.5 to 12 tons of CO2
per ton of hydrogen produced (Collodi, 2010; Sun et al., 2019). The
increase in global CO2 concentration globally is around ten times faster
than any sustained rise in history (IPCC, 2018). Projections show that
current CO2 emissions would lead to a breach in the 1.5-degree Celsius
global warming threshold in the next decade (Hydrogen Council, 2020),
leading to increasing pressure on the energy industry for decarbon­
ization to minimize the adverse impacts of climate change. More
countries are imposing or increasing carbon taxes to discourage emis­
sions and increase competitiveness of CO2 removal and clean energy
sources (NIC, 2021).
The production of low-carbon hydrogen can play a key role in
enabling decarbonization, primarily due to its clean-burning, high en­
ergy capacity, versatility, and efficiency (Katebah et al., 2022). Two
main options are being explored for producing hydrogen with a low
carbon intensity: fossil fuel ‘blue hydrogen’ production from natural gas,
and electrolysis driven by low-carbon electricity (Hydrogen Council,
2020). According to numerous studies, CCS will be an important
element of the carbon mitigation options portfolio as long as fossil fuels

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: patrick.linke@tamu.edu (P. Linke).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100552
Received 23 June 2022; Received in revised form 4 August 2022; Accepted 24 August 2022
Available online 29 August 2022
2666-7908/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Katebah et al.
Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of the SMR process for grey hydrogen production.
dominate the global economy. Fossil fuel-based hydrogen production
integrated with CCS is considered to be the most promising short-term
solution for mitigating CO2 from hydrogen plants (Muradov, 2015).
Several research groups have conducted techno-economic analyses on
blue-hydrogen production by SMR with CCS. Mueller-Langer et al.
assessed hydrogen production using NG SMR, coal, biomass and water
electrolysis. According to their results, large-scale SMR process is the
most efficient technology (Mueller-Langer et al., 2007). Tarun et al.
(2007) studied options for CO2 capture with minimum energy penalties
in SMR plants. They compared the performance of membrane separation
process and monoethanolamine (MEA) absorption for carbon capture,
and reported optimum operating conditions that reduced CCS energy
while maximizing hydrogen production. Khan et al. (2021) developed a
framework for analyzing economics of blue hydrogen production from
SMR using CCS and utilizing CO2 to formic acid production. Results
showed that hydrogen costs are dominated by natural gas prices, and
formic acid production reduces hydrogen production cost by up to 9%.
Salkuyeh et al. (Khojasteh Salkuyeh et al., 2017) analyzed four hydrogen
production technologies from natural gas with and without carbon
capture, reporting a new technology where cost breakeven with con­
ventional SMR plants can be achievable at a carbon price as low as $5/t
CO2. Parkinson et al. studied the costs of carbon reduction for various
hydrogen production technologies, and a comparative analysis was
conducted using different metrics including cost of carbon (Parkinson
et al., 2019). Antonini et al. (2020) presented a techno-economic anal­
ysis of hydrogen production with CCS from NG and biomethane.
Incorporating CCS to NG-based hydrogen production plants reduce its
life-cycle Global Warming Potential by 45–85%. Meerman et al. (2012)
explored the relations between cost, configuration and performance of
adding a CO2 capture unit to an SMR facility. Results showed a 60%
decrease in CO2 emissions at a cost of 41 euro/t CO2. Ewan and Allen
(2005) conducted a figure of merit assessment (FOM) of the routes to
hydrogen production and assessed fourteen technologies with respect to
CO2 emissions, power density, land usage and cost. Higher FOM was
reported for processes utilizing “high energy density” sources. A study
by Collodi et al. and the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D (Collodi et al., 2017a;
Mancuso et al., 2014) presents results of an SMR plant analysis with and
without carbon capture. Depending on the carbon capture location, re­
sults showed an increase in the levelised cost of hydrogen between
$0.2–0.7/kg H2 and a CO2 avoidance cost of $52–77/t CO2. Oni et al.
(2022) conducted a comparative assessment of blue hydrogen produc­
tion from SMR, autothermal reforming and natural gas decomposition
focusing on Canada as a case study.
Given that there is substantial excess heat available from the SMR
processes, heat and power integration can utilize this heat to either (1)
drive CO2 capture and compression, or (2) produce additional hydrogen
using power generated from excess heat to offer potential improvements
in both specific hydrogen production cost and emissions. While low-
carbon hydrogen production from SMR is widely studied in the litera­
ture in terms of high-level techno-economics, the energy integration of
2
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552
the hydrogen production process with the energy-intensive CO2 capture
and compression units of CCS systems has not been analyzed in detail.
Moreover, reported studies mainly focus on presenting hydrogen costs
for a fixed amount of carbon capture (typically 90% for post-combustion
capture). Only the work by Parkinson et al. reports the change in
hydrogen production costs with increasing emission reduction. How­
ever, the analysis does not present details on the excess heat utilization
within the SMR plant, and how that impacts the hydrogen cost (Par­
kinson et al., 2019). In terms of the integration of electrolysis with the
SMR process, there has been no reported research observed in the
literature.
This study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge by addressing
the two limitations identified above. First, the SMR process is integrated
with an electrolysis unit by utilizing excess process heat to generate
electricity for additional hydrogen production. Second, the SMR process
is energy integrated with CO2 capture and compression units and the
relationship between hydrogen production cost and decarbonization is
studied for a wide range of CO2 removal rates (0–90%). The case
investigated assumes stand-alone hydrogen production plants. Different
design regimes are presented and analyzed to calculate hydrogen pro­
duction costs as a function of emissions. The analysis is further extended
to study the impact of life-cycle emissions outside the boundary of the
hydrogen plants. Finally, results are compared with the state-of-the art
electrolysis technology for different electricity prices and mixes to
represent performance in various regions.
2. Process performance without CO2 emissions reduction (grey
hydrogen)
A conventional process for natural gas SMR to hydrogen without
carbon capture is developed as a benchmark for the study. Fig. 1 depicts
a simplified process flow diagram of the SMR process.
Natural gas and steam are fed to the pre-reformer where the heavies
are converted to methane to prevent soot and enhance the efficiency of
the process (Antonini et al., 2020). More steam is added prior to entering
the main reactor, where syngas is produced, in an equilibrium-limited
endothermic reaction (Keipi et al., 2018a; Voldsund et al., 2016):
CH4 + H2 O ↔ CO + 3H2 ΔHR = 206 KJ/mol (1)
The reactor comprises of a radiant and convective section. The
radiant segment contains reaction tubes and burners utilizing natural
gas and PSA tail gas as fuel. Flue gas leaving the radiant section enters
the convection section for heat recovery. To maximize hydrogen pro­
duction, subsequent equilibrium-controlled, exothermic water-gas shift
(WGS) reactions are carried out:
CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 ΔHR = − 41 KJ/mol (2)
While the WGS reaction equilibrium favors low temperatures, reac­
tion rates are faster at high temperatures. Therefore, in most industrial
applications, WGS comprises of two-steps: high temperature (HT) and
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Table 1 Table 3
Feed conditions and products’ specifications. Summary of the main results for SMR plant.
Property Condition Parameter Unit Value

NG Feed condition Hydrogen Production kg H2/h (t/d) 20,830 (500)

Temperature, ⁰C 50 NG Consumption kg NG/kg H2 3.16
Pressure, bar 50 NG Price $/GJ 3.7
Water Consumption kg H2O/kg H2 9.74
NG Feed Composition Mole %
Specific CO2 Emissions kg CO2/kg H2 8.47
Methane 85.3
CAPEX $/kg H2 0.15
Ethane 7.1
OPEX $/kg H2 0.81
Propane 2.7
Hydrogen Production Cost $/kg H2 0.96
Butanes 1.6
Pentanes 0.5
Hexane 0.2
Heptane 0.1
Table 4
Octane 0.01
Assumptions of the calculation for the O&M Costs (Peters et al., 2003).
Nitrogen 0.3
Carbon Dioxide 2.2 Property Unit Value
Hydrogen Product Specifications
O&M- Variable
Temperature, ⁰C 25
Natural gas costa $/GJ 3.7
Pressure, bar 21
Cooling water cost $/m3 0.05
Purity, % 99.99
Process water cost $/m3 0.9
O&M-Fixed
Labour and supervision M$/year 1.7
Table 2 Maintenance % of FCI 7
Operating supplies % of maintenance 15
Design and Economic Assumptions for SMR plant.
Plant overhead costs % of labour, supervision and maintenance 6
Property Unit Value Reference Taxes % of FCI 2
Insurance % of FCI 1
Pre-reformer:
Royalties % of TOC 4
Temperature ⁰C 500 Salem et al. (2021)
General expensesb % of TOC 15
Pressure bar 25 IEAGHG (2017)
S/C Ratio 2.7 IEAGHG (2017) a
– Based on 2018 H Hub Price (Intratec, 2022).
Reference MWLHV NG feed 1,800 Spallina et al. (2016) b
General expenses refers to distribution, marketing, royalties, and adminis­
capacity
trative costs.
Reference costa M$b 24.8 Spallina et al. (2016)
Scaling factor – 0.75 Spallina et al. (2016)
Reformer: consists of parallel adsorbers running under cyclic operation (Haus­
Temperature ⁰C 700 Salem et al. (2021) singer et al., 2011). Hydrogen flows through the adsorption columns,
Pressure Bar 24 Jakobsen and Atland
while CO2 and other impurities are adsorbed. Lowering the pressure
(2016)
S/C ratio – 3 IEAGHG (2017) inside the column to atmospheric conditions allows impurities to be
Reference MWLHV NG feed 1,246 Spallina et al. (2016) desorbed, thereby producing high purity hydrogen. PSA tail gas,
capacity comprising primarily of unreacted methane, hydrogen and CO2, is burnt
Reference costa M$b 34.3 Spallina et al. (2016) with supplementary natural gas to provide fuel for the reactor furnace
Scaling factor – 0.75 Spallina et al. (2016)
WGS Reactors
(Keipi et al., 2018a).
High-temperature WGS In this study, a hydrogen production capacity of 500 t/d is assumed
Temperature ⁰C 320 Liu et al. (2009) as a large-scale base case scenario. Table 1 summarizes the feed NG
Pressure Bar 23 Jakobsen and Atland conditions and hydrogen product specifications (Jakobsen and Atland,
(2016)
2016). The process units are specified based on optimum operating
Low-temperature WGS
Temperature ⁰C 190 Liu et al. (2009) conditions presented in the literature. A summary of the design condi­
Pressure bar 22.5 Jakobsen and Atland tions can be found in Table 2. Inlet NG is mixed with high pressure steam
(2016) (25 bar) at a design steam to carbon ratio of 2.7 on a molar basis. The gas
PSA Unit is then mixed with a smaller second stream of steam prior to the SMR
Temperature 25 Jakobsen and Atland
reactor to adjust the steam: carbon ratio to the stoichiometric value of 3
⁰C
(2016)
Pressure bar 23 Jakobsen and Atland (IEAGHG, 2017). The pre-reformer operating temperature is 500 ◦ C to
(2016) maximize conversion (Salem et al., 2021). The main SMR reactor
H2 Recovery % 90 Jakobsen and Atland operates at an inlet of 700 ◦ C and pressure of 24 bar (Jakobsen and
(2016)
Atland, 2016). The pressure is selected such that the shifted syngas en­
H2 Purity % 99.99 Jakobsen and Atland
(2016) ters the PSA at its lowest limit of around 20 bar (Voldsund et al., 2016).
Reference kg/hr inlet 17,069 Spallina et al. (2016) The reformer, utilizing a Ni-based catalyst (Collodi et al., 2017b), ach­
capacity flowrate ieves a methane conversion of 82% with a syngas H2/CO ratio of 4.9.
Reference costa M$b 35.3 Spallina et al. (2016) Reformer furnace burners utilize 10% excess air (Crews and Shumake,
Scaling factor – 0.6 Spallina et al. (2016)
2007), and the bridge-wall temperature, or the combustion gas tem­
a
Reference costs are converted to 2018 USD using CEPCI. perature at the exit of the reformer’s radiant segment, is maintained at
b
M$ refers to million dollars. around 960 ◦ C (Carrara et al., 2010).
Syngas leaving the reformer at 871 ◦ C is cooled to 320 ◦ C, and 190 ◦ C
low temperature (LT) shift reactions. Shifted syngas undergoes separa­ before entering the high temperature and low temperature WGS re­
tion to obtain purified hydrogen. More than 85% of current global actors, respectively. In the HT shift reaction, CO concentration reduces
hydrogen production plants utilize pressure-swing adsorption (PSA) from around 10 to 2 mol%. On the other hand, the LT reaction takes
technology for hydrogen separation and purification (Liu et al., 2009). advantage of the equilibrium favored at temperatures lower than 250 ◦ C
This can be attributed to its relatively low capital and operating costs, and reduces CO concentration to 0.2–0.4%. The lower temperature
and high-purity hydrogen production (Ritter and Ebner, 2007). The PSA limit, 190 ◦ C, is determined by the water dew point at the operating

3
M. Katebah et al.
Fig. 2. Grand Composite Curve (GCC) of the SMR plant and electricity generation from excess heat.
Fig. 3. Breakdown of plant CAPEX and OPEX.
conditions to prevent catalyst damage (Liu et al., 2009). WGS reactors in
the SMR do not require additional steam since the outlet syngas contains
sufficient amounts of water. The PSA operates at 23 bar and 25 ◦ C, with
a hydrogen recovery and purity of 90% and 99.99%, respectively
(Jakobsen and Atland, 2016). While hydrogen is purified with a pressure
drop of 2 bar, tail gas leaves the system at 2.5 bar.
The flowsheet is simulated in Aspen Plus using the HYSYS Peng-
Robinson (HYSPR) equation of state (Jakobsen and Atland, 2016). The
pre-reformer and SMR reformer are modelled as RGibbs reactors [26],
whereas the WGS reactors are modelled as adiabatic equilibrium re­
actors (REquil in Aspen Plus) (Katebah et al., 2021). The PSA is modelled
as a component’s splitter with 90% recovery and 99.99% H2 purity
(Jakobsen and Atland, 2016). A summary of the main results can be
found in Table 3 (see Table 4 for costing assumptions related to opera­
tion and maintenance).
Heat Integration is performed to reduce the net energy requirement
of the process by maximizing heat recovery within the system and
generating electricity from process excess heat (Smith, 2008). A heat
exchanger network (HEN) is designed to meet the energy requirements
in the process. The grand composite curve (GCC) for the heat integration
network is shown in Fig. 2. For a minimum approach temperature of
10 ◦ C, the minimum heating and cooling demands of the SMR process
are determined to be 0 and 68 MW. Power is co-generated by producing
4
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552
steam using excess heat from the process that drives a condensing tur­
bine (Fig. 2). Very high-pressure steam is generated at 90 bar to maxi­
mize power generation, while reducing the cooling duty in the plant
(Shamsi and Omidkhah, 2012). Cooling water provides the remaining
cooling requirements. Total power demand of 0.1 kWh/kg H2 in the
SMR plant is met using co-generated electricity, deeming the plant
self-sufficient in terms of power and heating requirements. After ful­
filling the plant’s power demands, the SMR process has 61 MW of
remaining excess heat. This is because, despite SMR being an endo­
thermic reaction, the overall process is highly exothermic due to the
large amounts of heat released from combustion to drive the SMR re­
actions. The total specific CO2 emissions from the integrated SMR pro­
cess for grey hydrogen production is found to be 8.47 kg CO2/kg H2.
An economic analysis is performed to obtain specific hydrogen pro­
duction costs for the base-case grey hydrogen production process. The
analysis assumes a plant life-time of 20 years, and a plant capacity factor
of 90%. The percentage of delivered-equipment cost method is used to
calculated fixed-capital investments (FCI) and total-capital investments
(TCI) from delivered equipment costs (Peters et al., 2003). Items
included in the total direct plant costs are calculated based on per­
centages of the delivered equipment. Aspen Plus Economic Analyzer is
used to calculate equipment costs for the compressors, expanders, and
vessels. Costs of the WGS reactors and HENs are estimated using
M. Katebah et al.
Fig. 4. Integrating electrolyser with SMR plant for additional H2 production.
correlations by Towler and Sinnot (2008). The pre-reformer, reformer
and PSA are costed based on prices reported in the literature (Gas
Technology Institute, 2018; NELT, 2011). When necessary, literature
reference costs are adjusted to 2018 US dollars using the chemical en­
gineering plant cost index (CEPCI), whereas capacities are adjusted
using scaling factors reported in the literature. Scaling factors, reference
capacities, and costs applied in this analysis are listed in Table 2. A ca­
pacity recovery factor of 0.11 is used to annualize the TCI, assuming an
interest rate of 10% (Keipi et al., 2018a). Total plant CAPEX of around M
$216 is determined from the analysis, with a specific CAPEX of $0.15/kg
H2. Fig. 3 shows a breakdown of the total CAPEX. Operating costs consist
of two categories: the fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs include in­
surance, taxes, labour costs, annual operating and maintenance costs,
administrative and general overhead. Variable operating costs consist
primarily of the cost of feedstock (NG) requirements, in addition to
water requirements, and catalysts (Peters et al., 2003). Assuming a
natural gas price of $3.7/GJ, total operating costs are calculated to be
$0.81/kg H2. Taking both the CAPEX and OPEX into consideration, a
hydrogen production cost of $0.96/kg H2 is obtained (Table 3). Around
80% of the OPEX, or 60% of the total hydrogen cost, is attributed to the
feedstock, making it one of the primary contributors to the hydrogen
price.
3. Process integration of SMR with electrolysis
Electrolysis is a technology option able to produce hydrogen with
low or no specific CO2 emissions. The process uses electricity to split
water into hydrogen and oxygen in an electrolyser. The emission pri­
marily depends on the emissions associated with the electricity input.
The excess heat available from the grey hydrogen SMR plant can be
converted to electricity for additional hydrogen production in an elec­
trolyser without increasing process emissions. This will result in reduced
specific CO2 emissions and is the option studied in this section. Excess
heat from the SMR plant is used to generate electricity in a steam cycle.
For the steam cycle, high pressure (HP) steam at 90 bar is generated
from excess process heat to drive a condensing turbine, as shown in
Fig. 4. Approximately 15.3 MW of electricity is generated in the steam
cycle that can be used to produce additional hydrogen in the electro­
lyser. Fig. 4 shows the GCC and power generation scheme for the SMR-
electrolysis plant.
There are three main types of electrolysers available: alkaline (AEL),
5
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552
polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), and high temperature solid oxide
electrolysers (SOE) (Bhandari et al., 2014). Amongst the three, AEL is
the more mature technology that is considered to be the standard for
large-scale application (Mittelsteadt et al., 2015). Therefore, in this
analysis, the SMR plant is assumed to be integrated with an AEL elec­
trolyser. Assuming an electricity demand in an electrolyser of 50
kWh/kg H2 (Bertuccioli et al., 2014) and an operating pressure of 23 bar
(Navarro et al., 2015), the 15.3 MW of electricity from excess process
heat can increase hydrogen production by 306 kg/h production, corre­
sponding to a 1.5% increase in total hydrogen from the integrated
SMR-electrolysis plant. This reduces the CO2 emissions from 8.5 to 8.3
kg CO2/kg H2.
For the economic analysis, additional costs that are taken into
consideration are the electrolyser and power cycle’s CAPEX and OPEX
(primarily water requirements). Literature values are used to calculate
costs associated with the electrolyser, and Aspen Process Economic
Analyzer is used to calculate the power cycle’s CAPEX requirements.
Simulation results are used to estimate the cooling water demands in the
cycles’ condensers. Assuming a water demand of 10 kg H2O/kg H2, a
CAPEX of $1,000/kW, a lifetime of 75,000 h (ICCT, 2020), and other
O&M expenses of 3% (Keipi et al., 2018a), electrolyser CAPEX is esti­
mated to be around M$15, which when depreciated over its lifetime
amounts to M$1.6/y. Steam cycle CAPEX is calculated to be around M
$6. Additional OPEX, mainly in the form of water and electrolyser O&M
are M$0.8/y. Considering the additional costs, a hydrogen production
cost of $0.99/kg H2 is estimated for the total production of 507 t/d H2,
with emissions of 8.3 kg CO2/kg H2. Overall, the integration of an
electrolyser with an SMR process allows to reduce specific CO2 emis­
sions by increasing hydrogen production. However, due to the very high
electricity demand of electrolysis, the additional hydrogen production
and resulting specific CO2 emissions reduction is limited.
4. Process integration of SMR with CO2 capture and compression
(blue hydrogen)
In the second investigated pathway to lower specific CO2 emissions,
blue hydrogen is produced by integrating the SMR plant with a CCS
process. CCS comprises of a series of steps including separating CO2 from
energy-related industrial sources, compressing it and transporting it for
long-term storage. The CO2 capture and compression operations domi­
nate energy requirements and this work focuses on their integration
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Fig. 5. CO2 removal location options in the SMR plant.

different gas locations in the plant: shifted syngas leaving the LT-WGS
Table 6
reactor (Option 1), PSA tail gas (Option 2), and reformer furnace flue
Gas feed to the different CO2 removal options.
gas (Option 3). These options are illustrated in Fig. 5.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Gas stream pressure, CO2 concentration, and presence of contami­
Pressure (bar) 22.5 2.5 1.2 nants are important factors that assist in selecting the location of the
Flowrate (kg/hr) 146,063 166,896 542,007 capture system (IPCC, 2005). High CO2 partial pressures increase the
Composition (mol%):
separation driving force, thereby reducing the size and cost of the sep­
CH4 3.1 10 –
H2 76.1 24.2 – aration unit (Meerman et al., 2012). Table 6 summarizes the conditions
CO 0.3 1 – of the feed to the three different locations. Options 1 and 2 are both
CO2 20.2 64.1 22.6 pre-combustion processes on the same line, with the primary difference
H2O 0.2 0.5 17 of CO2 partial pressure. Option 1 is associated with a higher partial
N2 0.1 0.2 58.8
pressure, making the separation easier. Moreover, CO2 removal prior to
O2 0 0 1.6
the PSA results in a smaller PSA system, thereby lowering its costs
(IEAGHG, 2017). Therefore, Option 2 is discarded from the analysis.
with the SMR process. Beyond the process boundary, additional down­ When comparing Options 1 and 3, it is observed that CO2 partial pres­
stream costs for transportation and storage are used to assess their sure is significantly larger in the former. Option 1 feed also has less
impact on the calculated specific hydrogen production costs. solvent-degrading impurities (i.e. O2), deeming it more favorable than
Option 3. However, since typical recoveries of CO2 capture units range
4.1. Carbon capture and compression from 80 to 95% (IPCC, 2005), and 75% of the emissions emanate prior to
combustion, maximum carbon capture from the SMR plant using Option
Although all the CO2 emissions from SMR plants are released from 1 is around 70% of the total CO2 emissions. In this analysis, carbon
the flue gas leaving the reformer, around 75% is produced during the capture from Option 1 is maximized (emissions reduction from ~8.5 to
reforming and water-gas shift reactions. The remaining 25% is gener­ 2.7 kg CO2/kg H2), after which Option 3 is included for higher CO2
ated during the combustion of the tail gas and supplementary fuel gas in removals (emissions reduction to ~1 kg CO2/kg H2). This configuration
the reformer furnace. Consequently, CO2 can be captured from three is represented in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. SMR process flow diagram with carbon capture for varying removal rates.

6
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

leaving the amine unit is compressed and sent to storage. Analysis by

Meerman et al. showed that Sulfinol-X (mixture of DIPA and MDEA in
water) and ADIP-X (mixture of MDEA and piperazine in water) are the
most promising solvents for pre-combustion carbon capture in terms of
high loading capacity, chemical stability and low corrosivity, vapor
pressure and energy requirements. Compared to Sulfinol-X, the ADIP-X
process is more widely studied and implemented (Meerman et al.,
2012). As for post-combustion carbon capture, MEA is the standard
technology used in capturing CO2 from flue gas (IEAGHG, 2017).
However, a recent study by Hosseini-Ardali et al. showed that MDEA/PZ
mixture is more energy efficient compared to the MEA solvent (Hos­
seini-ardali et al., 2020). Therefore, in this study, MDEA/PZ is selected
as the carbon capture solvent for both pre- and post-combustion carbon
capture.
After carbon capture, CO2 is compressed to 110 bar; a pressure that is
suitable for both storage and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). A typical CO2
compressor stage has a pressure ratio ranging from 1.7:1 to 2:1 (Pei
Fig. 7. Process flow diagram of a typical amine carbon capture unit. et al., 2014); therefore, a 7-stage compressor with intercoolers is
employed to achieve the target pressure.
The amine units and the subsequent compression chain are simulated
Table 7 using Promax and Aspen Plus, respectively. Optimum design parameters
Carbon capture and compression parameters. for pre-combustion (Meerman et al., 2012) and post-combustion carbon
Option 1 Option 3 capture (Hosseini-ardali et al., 2020) are selected from the literature.
CO2 Removal % 90% Solvent composition of 45 wt% MDEA/5 wt% Pz, and 18 wt%
Capture solvent wt % 45 %MDEA, 5% PZ 18% MDEA, 21% PZ ( MDEA/21% Pz, are used for pre- and post-combustion capture, respec­
(Meerman et al., Hosseini-ardali et al., tively (Hosseini-ardali et al., 2020). In both cases, the absorber pressure
2012) 2020)
is set at the feed gas pressure to avoid recompression, and the regener­
Absorber pressure Bar 22.5 (Meerman 1.2 (Hosseini-ardali
et al., 2012) et al., 2020) ator pressure operates at ~2 bar. The units are simulated using Promax,
Regenerator Bar 2 (Meerman et al., 2 (Hosseini-ardali et al., where the built-in Amine Sweetening-PR equation of state is selected as
pressure 2012) 2020) the property package. The absorber and regenerator are specified as
Fractional flooding % 80 (Meerman 80 “Mass + Heat Transfer” and “Ideal Stage” models in Promax, respec­
et al., 2012)
Condenser ⁰C 30 30
tively (Promax Bryan Research and Engineering, 2022). Details on the
temperature design and simulation results are presented in Table 7.
Reboiler ⁰C 110 125 An economic analysis is conducted to calculate the CAPEX and OPEX
temperature of the carbon capture and compression units at CO2 rates of 20,000 kg/h
Heat duty kWh/ 550 1,080
and 25,000 kg/h for the pre-combustion, and post-combustion units,
kg CO2
CO2 compression kWh/ 98 respectively. After sizing the equipment, Aspen Plus Economic Analyzer
electricity kg CO2 is used to calculate the equipment costs. Total CAPEX is estimated using
requirements multiplicative factors as discussed in Section 2. For the pre-combustion
and post-combustion carbon capture and compression, CAPEX is esti­
mated to be around 21.3 and 48.2 million dollars, respectively.
Fig. 7 shows a typical CO2 removal process consisting of an absorber
Assuming a capacity factor of 0.7, these plants are used as references to
and regenerator. Lean solvent in the absorber captures the CO2. The
calculate the CAPEX of carbon capture units for different removal rates
now-rich solvent is heated, pressure reduced and sent to the regenerator
(Jakobsen and Atland, 2016). As for the OPEX, the charges considered
where pure CO2 is separated, and the regenerated solvent is recycled
are primarily the supplementary NG when required, and cooling water
back to the absorber (“Sulfur Recovery Engineering,” 2021). CO2

Fig. 8. GCC for SMR-CCS system with condensing turbine and backpressure turbine system for the removal of 1 kg CO2/kg H2 (Design A).

7
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Fig. 9. GCC for SMR-CC system with backpressure turbine and LP steam generation system (Design C).

Fig. 10. GCC for SMR-CC system with condensing, backpressure turbine and LP steam generation system (Design D).

utility required in the capture plants’ condensers. It is assumed that no natural gas fired boilers in Regimes 2 and 3. Combined heat and power
additional charges are associated with operating labor and supervision systems are designed to meet the power and LP steam demands of the
for the carbon capture plant. integrated SMR process with CO2 capture and compression across the
three emission reduction regimes. The varying demands and ratios of
power to heat (W/Q) for the integrated processes across these three
4.2. SMR-CCS plant design and integration
regimes lead to four different combined heat and power system designs
with different combinations of steam generation (LP or HP) options from
To develop the cost of hydrogen production as a function of specific
excess process heat and gas fired boilers, power generation in
emissions, different emission reduction regimes are studied. In Regime
condensing turbines, and combined power and LP steam production
1, only excess heat from the plant is utilized to supply heat and power
from HP steam in backpressure turbines.
demands to capture and compress CO2 from the shifted syngas (Option
Starting with capturing CO2 utilizing excess process heat (Regime 1,
1). After all excess process heat has been used, supplementary energy is
Option 1), to reduce the plant’s overall emissions by the first 1 kg CO2/
provided by burning additional fuel (Regime 2). After the maximum
kg H2, the integrated SMR-CCS plant requires 4.2 MW of power and 11.5
possible amount of CO2 has been captured in Option 1, further CO2
MW of heat from LP steam. HP steam is generated from the excess
removal is performed by post-combustion capture (Option 3) in Regime
process heat and a backpressure turbine is utilized to produce the
3. In all cases, the energy system is designed to provide the required
required LP steam and power at a W/Q ratio of ~0.3. To balance the
amount of low-pressure (LP) steam for the CO2 capture process (reboiler
system’s power requirements, an additional condensing turbine is added
of the solvent regenerator) and the necessary power for the CO2 capture
to meet the remaining power demand. The total amount of HP steam
process (pump) and the CO2 compression from steam turbines. An LP
generated from the excess heat is the combined make-up of the back­
steam pressure of 3 bar is specified to heat the solvent regenerator
pressure and condensing turbines. The GCC and energy system design
reboiler. The required steam and power are generated from excess heat
for this case is illustrated in Fig. 8. Cooling water is used to remove the
in Regime 1, or from a combination of excess heat complemented by

8
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Table 8
Summary of the main results for grey and blue hydrogen production.
Unit Value

Grey hydrogen production

Hydrogen produced kg H2/h (t/d) 20,830 (500)
Power demanda kWh/kg H2 0
b
Excess heat available kWh/kg H2 2.9
Water demand (SMR + WGS) kg H2O/kg H2 9.7
Grey hydrogen production
NG demand kg NG/kg H2 3.2
Specific CO2 emissions kg CO2/kg H2 8.5
CAPEX $/kg H2 0.15
OPEX $/kg H2 0.81
c
Hydrogen production cost $/kg H2 0.96
Blue hydrogen production (Maximum Removal d)
NG demand kg NG/kg H2 3.4
Specific CO2 emissions kg CO2/kg H2 1.2
CAPEX $/kg H2 0.28
OPEX $/kg H2 0.88
e
CO2 Transportation and storage $/kg H2 0.15
c
Hydrogen production cost $/kg H2 1.31
a
Plant power demands are met using excess heat.
b
Remaining excess heat after heat integration/co-generation.
c
Assuming a NG price of $3.7/GJ.
d
Considering the case of maximum CO2 removal (90%).
e
Fig. 11. Hydrogen price as a function of emissions showing (a) the different Assumes a mid-range transportation cost of $20/t CO2 (ZEP, 2011).
design regimes and (b) varying NG prices.
demand is met by direct LP steam generation from low grade excess
heat. Doing so can reduce the specific emissions to 4.8 kg CO2/kg H2 and
sets the limit for emissions reduction in Regime 1.
In Regime 2, supplementary fuel is required to enable more carbon
capture and compression. The integrated plant is the same as that in
Regime 1, where pre-combustion CO2 capture is performed (Option 1).
In addition to Regime 1’s Design D, a natural gas fired boiler is added to
generate additional HP steam (90 bar) that is routed to the condensing
and backpressure turbines. Flowrates to the condensing and back-
pressure turbines are varied to balance the LP steam and power de­
mands of the integrated process. Regime 2 ends when the maximum CO2
removals is achieved by Option 1 carbon capture (~6 kg CO2/kg H2),
corresponding to emissions of 2.7 kg CO2/kg H2. Further CO2 removal in
Regime 3 requires a post-combustion carbon capture unit (Option 3) to
recover additional CO2 from the flue gas. As CO2 removal increases, the
system becomes heat limited; when the CO2 emissions are around 2.1 kg
CO2/kg H2, a back-pressure turbine, coupled with low pressure steam
generation achieves the W/Q ratios of the integrated process in this
Fig. 12. Impact of transportation and storage (ZEP, 2011)/utilization (Al-Mo­ regime (Design C). The maximum CO2 removal from the plant is 8 kg
hannadi and Linke, 2016) on hydrogen production price. The bottom dotted CO2/kg H2 assuming 90% CO2 recovery in the carbon capture systems.
line represents the case for short distance pipeline transportation and EOR,
This corresponds to emissions of 1.1 kg CO2/kg H2, including those
whereas the upper limit represents shipping transportation and offshore saline
associated with burning additional fuel in the boiler.
aquifer storage.
Fig. 11a shows the hydrogen production price as a function of
emissions for the aforementioned design regimes. Since the hydrogen
remaining excess heat from the plant. This energy system design is
production cost is primarily dominated by the NG price, a sensitivity
referred to as Design A throughout the paper and is implemented until
analysis is conducted to study its impact on the hydrogen costs. This is
the emissions are reduced to 6.8 kg CO2/kg H2. At this point, the power
represented by the shaded area in Fig. 11b. The lower range of the graph
to heat ratio of the integrated process matches that of the backpressure
represents the hydrogen production cost at NG price of $1.9/GJ repre­
turbine (W/Q ratio of 0.3), thereby eliminating the need of the
sentative of the lowest Henry Hub price in the past 3 decades (“Global
condensing turbine (Design B: backpressure turbine only).
price of Natural Gas, US Henry Hub Gas,” 2021), whereas the upper
Further CO2 removal reduces the W/Q ratio of the process below that
range of the graph is based on a NG price of $ 7.6/GJ as projected by
of the backpressure turbine and requires additional LP steam generation
2050 (“FRED Economic Data,” 2021).
(Design C). A maximum of 3.2 kg CO2/kg H2 can be captured and
Results show that the hydrogen price in Regime 1 is almost constant
compressed by utilizing excess process heat in Design C, as shown in
(ranging from 0.96 to 0.99$/kg at a NG price of $3.7/GJ). In other
Fig. 9, reducing the specific emissions to 5.3 kg CO2/kg H2. Additional
words, designing a plant with proper excess heat utilization allows to
CO2 can be captured and compressed using a combination of condensing
reduce the CO2 emissions by 43% compared to grey hydrogen produc­
turbine, backpressure turbine and LP steam generation from low tem­
tion for a mere 3% increase in hydrogen production costs. In Regime 2,
perature excess heat, such that the heat and power requirements are
additional fuel is required to supplement energy demands, resulting in a
balanced while maximizing excess heat utilization (Design D, Fig. 10).
steeper increase in the production cost towards lower specific emissions.
Adding the condensing turbine produces more power but reduces the HP
To reduce the emissions further to 70% of grey hydrogen emissions, the
steam available for the backpressure turbine, and the remaining heat
hydrogen cost increases by a moderate 7%. The largest price increase is

9
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Fig. 13. Life-cycle emission values for blue H2 production (90% removal) by SMR. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the Web version of this article.)

requirements. Increasing the CO2 removal from around 70%–90% in

Table 9 Regime 3 increases the hydrogen price by another 13%.
Assumptions used in the electrolysis calculations. The above analysis takes into account the energy intensive CO2
Parameter Unit AEL PEM SOE capture and compression steps. Further CO2 transportation and storage/
CAPEX $/kW 952-1,142 ( 1,770–2,208 ( 1,904–2,311 ( utilization costs are incurred downstream of the process. These costs
Schmidt et al., Schmidt et al., ICCT, 2020; vary depending on the transportation method (pipelines vs. ships), dis­
2017) 2017) Schmidt et al., tance to utilization or storage, scale, regional variation, and ultimate
2017)
utilization or storage (Smith et al., 2021). Literature reports trans­
Electricity kWh/kg 50-65 ( 56-72 ( 36-42 (ICCT,
Demand H2 Bertuccioli Tenhumberg 2020; Tang portation costs ranging from 1 to 17 $/t CO2 with the lowest cost for
et al., 2014; and Bu, 2020) et al., 2018) short distance pipeline transfers (180 km), and highest costs for shipping
Keipi et al., transportation (500 km). Storage costs range from $1–22/t CO2
2018b) depending on the storage area (depleted oil and gas fields vs. deep saline
Lifetime* Years 8-11 (Schmidt 3-8 (Schmidt 2-3 (ICCT, 2020;
et al., 2017) et al., 2017) Schmidt et al.,
aquifers), onshore/offshore, and whether the wells are re-useable (ZEP,
2017) 2011). Should the CO2 be utilized, an additional profit may be made
Water kg 9.1 (Simons and Bauer, 2011) ranging from $5–30/t CO2, encompassing various utilizations such as
Demand H2O/kg methanol/urea production, and EOR, amongst others (Al-Mohannadi
H2
and Linke, 2016). This work assumes that the CO2 captured from the
Water Price $/m3 0.95 (Intratec, 2022)
H2O SMR plant is sent to mature processes that offer potential revenue, with
Other O&M % of 3% (Keipi et al., 2018b) the highest being its application in EOR. The impact of the trans­
ann. portation and storage on the overall hydrogen production cost is rep­
CAPEX resented in Fig. 12.
The lower end of the range represents the case for short distance CO2
observed in Regime 3, due to the increased natural gas feedstock transportation via pipeline with including profits made by EOR. It can be

Fig. 14. Life-cycle emissions for hydrogen production by electrolysis.

10
M. Katebah et al.
Fig. 15. (a) Specific hydrogen production costs by electrolysis as a function of
electricity prices with electricity prices (2020) for different countries (“Global
Petrol Prices,” 2021) indicated for comparison; (b) Specific life-cycle emissions
for hydrogen production by electrolysis. Ranges for life-cycle emissions for
electricity generation using different fuel types are shaded in grey (fossil fuels)
and yellow (renewables) (Nicholson and Heath, 2021). GreyH2: Maximum LCA
emissions for grey hydrogen production; Blue H2: Minimum LCA emissions for
blue hydrogen production. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
observed that blue hydrogen price with 90% carbon capture could reach
levels that are 20% lower than grey hydrogen price (assuming a natural
gas price of $3.7/GJ) due to the potential profit gained from EOR.
However, should the CO2 be transported by ship over long distances and
stored in offshore saline aquifers, hydrogen price reaches around 30%
higher than base-case price.
5. Comparison with electrolysis
Table 8 summarizes the main results for grey and blue hydrogen
production via SMR. The plant is designed at a capacity of 500 t/d in a
standalone mode such that no power or steam is imported or exported
from the system.
5.1. SMR plant: life-cycle emissions
The discussion so far has focused on the boundary within the
11
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552
hydrogen plant. Examining emissions from a life-cycle perspective offers
a more comprehensive picture of the environmental impact of hydrogen
production. Fig. 13 shows the life cycle emissions of hydrogen produc­
tion. Since the global warming potential (GWP) is the impact category
analyzed by most of the studies in the literature (Bhandari et al., 2014),
GWP (kg CO2e) ranges are reported based on the literature and the
analysis done in this work. Emission sources considered are those
associated with feedstock production processing and transportation
(upstream emissions), hydrogen and CCS plant commissioning/de­
commissioning, and plant operation (i.e from flue gas).
In the case of blue hydrogen production with maximum CO2 removal
(90%), total emissions range from 2.1 to 7.6 kg CO2e/kg H2. Upstream
emissions have a substantial impact on overall plant emissions and the
dominant aspect is the methane leak rate, which can be kept low
through good monitoring and control. For a NG consumption of 3.4 kg
CH4/kg H2, reported upstream emissions range from 0.9 to 6.3 kg CO2e/
kg H2. These assume methane leak rates in very wide ranges from 0.16%
(Groski et al., 2021) to 4% (Kirchgessner et al., 1997), a methane
GWP-100 potential of 36 (EPA, 2022), and CO2 emissions ranging from
0.2 (Howarth and Jacobson, 2021) to 0.4 kg CO2/kg CH4 (Spath et al.,
2001). Other GHGs such as nitrous oxide and CO are not included as
they are substantially smaller (Howarth and Jacobson, 2021), ac­
counting for less than 1% of the overall GWP (Spath et al., 2001). As for
plant construction and decommissioning, emission rates for blue
hydrogen production range from 0.1 to 0.2 kg CO2e/kg H2 assuming
emissions from the hydrogen plant are 0.04 kg CO2e/kg H2 (Spath et al.,
2001), whereas those associated with the CCS process are 0.01 (Pehnt
and Henkel, 2009) to 0.02 kg CO2e/kg CO2 captured (Rosental et al.,
2020). Plant operations’ emissions (1.1 kg CO2e/kg H2) are those
remaining after CCS.
5.2. Electrolysis plant: life-cycle emissions and costs
The performance of the above blue hydrogen from the SMR process is
compared to state-of-the-art electrolysis technology. Table 9 summa­
rizes the main assumptions used in the electrolysis calculations, and
Fig. 14 represents life cycle emissions associated with electrolysis. The
electroyser data considers life-cycle emissions associated with electricity
generation from various energy sources (Nicholson and Heath, 2021), in
addition to those from demineralized water production (ranging from
0.001 (Shahabi et al., 2014) to 0.008 (Simons and Bauer, 2011) kg
CO2e/kg H2O) and electrolyser manufacturing (0.0008 (Nrel, 2004) to
0.0009 kg CO2e/kWh (Cetinkaya et al., 2012)).
Fig. 15a shows hydrogen production costs by electrolysis as a func­
tion of the electricity price while indicating reported electricity prices
for selected countries. These costs are significantly higher than the
production costs observed for blue hydrogen production from SMR.
Fig. 15b shows specific CO2 emissions for hydrogen production from
electrolysis driven by electricity generated from different renewable
energy and fossil fuel options. Ranges for the specific emissions for
hydrogen production from SMR are indicated to enable comparison with
electrolysis for all forms of electricity generation.
Using median values for the emission factors of different electricity
sources from Fig. 14, emission factors for various countries based on
their 2020 electricity mixes from Fig. 16a (Ritchie and Roser, 2022), are
calculated and represented in Fig. 16b.
5.3. SMR vs. electrolysis
For an alkaline electrolysis plant with a low electricity demand of 50
kWh/kg H2, specific life-cycle emissions range from around 8.5 to 41.1
kg CO2e/kg H2 for existing electricity mixes, with the lower value rep­
resenting Iceland’s energy mix of 17% fossil fuels and 83% renewables,
and the higher value representing India’s energy mix of 91% fossil fuels
and 9% renewables. These values are substantially higher than the life-
cycle emissions associated with blue-hydrogen production from SMR
M. Katebah et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552

Fig. 16. (a) Electricity mixes for different countries and (b) their respective emission factors by electrolysis.

(2.1–7.6 kg CO2e/kg H2). Assuming an electricity price of $0.14 and
$0.08/kWh in Iceland and India (“Global Petrol Prices,” 2021), these
translate to costs of around $7.5 and $4/kg H2 production by an alkaline
electrolysis plant, respectively. The lowest level of life-cycle emissions
achieved by AEL electrolysis running on the cleanest existing electricity
mix is higher than those for blue hydrogen production (90% removal)
even with high upstream emissions, which is almost 6 times less costly
than electrolysis ($1.3/kg H2). Blue hydrogen production has signifi­
cantly lower emissions while hydrogen production costs are only
moderately increased compared to grey hydrogen production and
drastically reduced compared to hydrogen from electrolysis.
much needed to enable better technology assessments and meaningful
comparisons.
When compared to electrolysis, emissions associated with SMR blue
hydrogen production can compete with green hydrogen production
emissions and allows hydrogen production by electrolysis at emissions
lower than current energy mixes, while hydrogen production costs from
electrolysis are observed to be drastically more expensive. The research
results provide data for efficient blue hydrogen production with
maximum excess process heat recovery to reduce costs and emissions,
which may be used by the research community in systems analysis
studies considering blue hydrogen options.

6. Conclusions Data sharing

Two pathways for CO2 emissions mitigation in SMR hydrogen pro­ The authors made significant efforts to ensure that all data and in­
duction were investigated with a focus on utilizing excess process heat formation required to replicate the results presented are included in this
through integration. In the first pathway, excess heat from the SMR paper. In case any such data or information is missing, please do get in
process is utilized to drive an electrolysis unit for further hydrogen touch with the corresponding author.
production and specific CO2 emissions reduction. Excess heat manage­
ment resulted in a 2% increase in total hydrogen production, reducing
Declaration of competing interest
the CO2 emissions from 8.5 to 8.3 kg CO2/kg H2 with a 3% increase in
hydrogen production cost. In the second pathway, blue hydrogen is
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
produced by integrating the SMR process with CO2 capture and
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
compression operations. Three design regimes and four energy systems
the work reported in this paper.
designs were developed for heat and power integration across the SMR
process and CO2 capture and compression across the wide range of CO2
Data availability
removals from grey to blue hydrogen. It was shown that plant emissions
can be reduced by up to 43% using excess heat alone, with only a 3%
All data and information required to replicate the results presented
increase in hydrogen production cost. The maximum emission reduction
are included in this paper
(1 kg CO2/kg H2) increases the hydrogen price to around $1.1/kg H2. A
sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of CO2 utilization/storage on the
Acknowledgments
hydrogen production price revealed blue hydrogen prices from $0.8 to
$1.5/kg H2 depending on whether additional profit is made by CO2
This work was made possible by funding from the Qatar National
utilization, or costs are incurred by transportation and storage.
Research Fund (QNRF) project number NPRP12S-0304–190222 and co-
The analysis was then extended to include life-cycle emissions for
funding support from Shell Global Solutions International B.V. and
hydrogen production. For blue hydrogen production with maximum
Qatar Shell Research and Technology Center. The statements made
carbon capture, total emissions range from 2.1 to 7.6 kg CO2e/kg H2
herein are solely the responsibility of the author(s). Open Access funding
when considering upstream emissions associated with natural gas pro­
provided by the Qatar National Library.
cessing. Methane leakage was observed to be the most significant
contributor to upstream emission whilst ranges for these emissions vary
widely across the literature, indicating a need for further research, References
which should establish whether best practices in emissions monitoring
Al-Mohannadi, D.M., Linke, P., 2016. On the systematic carbon integration of industrial
and control have been followed for reported methane leakage values. In parks for climate footprint reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4053–4064. https://doi.
general, research to narrow the wide ranges of reported life cycle data is org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.094.

12
M. Katebah et al.
Antonini, C., Treyer, K., Streb, A., van der Spek, M., Bauer, C., Mazzotti, M., 2020.
Hydrogen production from natural gas and biomethane with carbon capture and
storage - a techno-environmental analysis. Sustain. Energy Fuels 4, 2967–2986.
https://doi.org/10.1039/d0se00222d.
Bertuccioli, L., Chan, A., Hard, D., Lehner, F., Madden, B., Standen, E., 2014.
Development of Water Electrolysis in the European Union.
Bhandari, R., Trudewind, C.A., Zapp, P., 2014. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen
production via electrolysis - a review. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 151–163. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048.
Carrara, A., Perdichizzi, A., Barigozzi, G., 2010. Simulation of an hydrogen production
steam reforming industrial plant for energetic performance prediction. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 35, 3499–3508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.156.
Cetinkaya, E., Dincer, I., Naterer, G.F., 2012. Life cycle assessment of various hydrogen
production methods. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 2071–2080. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.064.
Collodi, G., 2010. Hydrogen production via steam reforming with CO2 capture. Chem.
Eng. Trans. 19, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1019007.
Collodi, G., Azzaro, G., Ferrari, N., Santos, S., 2017a. Techno-economic evaluation of
deploying CCS in SMR based merchant H2 production with NG as feedstock and fuel.
Energy Proc. 114, 2690–2712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1533.
Collodi, G., Azzaro, G., Ferrari, N., Santos, S., 2017b. Techno-economic evaluation of
deploying CCS in SMR based merchant H2 production with NG as feedstock and fuel.
Energy Proc. 114, 2690–2712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1533.
Crews, M.A., Shumake, B.G., 2007. Hydrogen production and supply: meeting refiners’
growing needs. Pract. Adv. Petrol. Process. 771–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
0-387-25789-1_25.
EPA, 2022. Greenhouse gas emissions [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.epa.
gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials. accessed 4.4.22.
Ewan, B.C.R., Allen, R.W.K., 2005. A figure of merit assessment of the routes to
hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 30, 809–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2005.02.003.
FRED Economic Data, 2021. Global price of natural gas, US Henry Hub gas [WWW
Document]. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PNGASUSUSDM.
Gas Technology Institute, 2018. Emerging and Existing Oxygen Production Technology
Scan and Evaluation.
Global Petrol Prices, 2021. Global Petrol prices [WWW Document]. https://www.globalp
etrolprices.com/electricity_prices/.
Global, 2021. Global Price of Natural Gas [WWW Document]. US Henry Hub Gas. FRED
Economic Data. URL. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PNGASUSUSDM#0.
accessed 2.14.22.
Groski, J., Jutt, T., Wu, K., 2021. Carbon Intensity of Blue Hydrogen Production
Accounting for Technology and Upstream Emissions.
Haussinger, P., Lohmuller, R., Watson, A., 2011. Hydrogen production. In: Ullmann’s
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
Hosseini-ardali, S.M., Hazrati-kalbibaki, M., Fattahi, M., 2020. Multi-objective
optimization of post combustion CO 2 capture using methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)
and piperazine (PZ) bi-solvent. Energy 211, 119035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.119035.
Howarth, R.W., Jacobson, M.Z., 2021. How Green Is Blue Hydrogen ? 1676–1687.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956.
Hydrogen Council, 2020. Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness A Cost Perspective.
ICCT, 2020. Assessment of Hydrogen Production Costs from Electrolysis: United States
and Europe. International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), pp. 1–73.
IEAGHG, 2017. Techno - Economic Evaluation of SMR Based Standalone (Merchant)
Hydrogen Plant with CCS. Technical Review 2017-02 286.
Intratec, 2022. Commodity price database [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.intrat
ec.us/products/indexes-and-data/utility-cost-database. accessed 3.28.22.
IPCC, 2018. 2018: global warming of 1.5◦ C. Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781009157940.
IPCC, 2005. Carbon dioxide capture and storage. https://doi.org/10.1002/978352781
8488.ch15.
Jakobsen, D., Atland, V., 2016. Concepts for Large Scale Hydrogen Production. Master
Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Katebah, M., Abousrafa, A., Al-Rawashdeh, M., Linke, P., 2022. Hydrogen production
using piston reactor technology: process design and integration for CO2 emission
reduction. Energy. EGY-124999.
Katebah, M.A., Abusrafa, A., Al-rawashdeh, M., Linke, P., 2021. Design and analysis of a
process for methane to hydrogen conversion using piston reactor technology. Chem.
Eng. Trans. 88, 829–834. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2188138.
Keipi, T., Tolvanen, H., Konttinen, J., 2018a. Economic analysis of hydrogen production
by methane thermal decomposition: comparison to competing technologies. Energy
Convers. Manag. 159, 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.063.
Keipi, T., Tolvanen, H., Konttinen, J., 2018b. Economic analysis of hydrogen production
by methane thermal decomposition: comparison to competing technologies. Energy
Convers. Manag. 159, 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.063.
Khan, M.H., Daiyan, R., Neal, P., Haque, N., MacGill, I., Amal, R., 2021. A framework for
assessing economics of blue hydrogen production from steam methane reforming
using carbon capture storage & utilisation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.04.104. Elsevier Ltd.
Khojasteh Salkuyeh, Y., Saville, B.A., MacLean, H.L., 2017. Techno-economic analysis
and life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from natural gas using current and
emerging technologies. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 18894–18909. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.219.
Kirchgessner, D.A., Lotf, R.A., Cowgiilp, R.M., Harrison, M.R., Shires, T.M., 1997.
Estimate of methane emissions from the U.S. Natural gas industry. Chemosphere 35,
1365–1390.
13
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552
Liu, K., Song, C., Subramani, V., 2009. Hydrogen and Syngas Production and Purification
Technologies. Wiley, New Jersey.
Liu, N., 2021. Increasing blue hydrogen production affordability. Hydrocarb. Process.
Mancuso, L., Ferrari, N., Davison, J., 2014. CO2 Capture at Coal Based Power and
Hydrogen Plants, p. 1028.
Meerman, J.C., Hamborg, E.S., van Keulen, T., Ramírez, A., Turkenburg, W.C., Faaij, A.P.
C., 2012. Techno-economic assessment of CO 2 capture at steam methane reforming
facilities using commercially available technology. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 9,
160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.02.018.
Mittelsteadt, C., Norman, T., Rich, M., Willey, J., 2015. PEM electrolyzers and PEM
regenerative fuel cells industrial view. In: Electrochemical Energy Storage for
Renewable Sources and Grid Balancing. Elsevier, MA, USA.
Mueller-Langer, F., Tzimas, E., Kaltschmitt, M., Peteves, S., 2007. Techno-economic
assessment of hydrogen production processes for the hydrogen economy for the
short and medium term. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32, 3797–3810. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.05.027.
Muradov, N., 2015. Low-carbon production of hydrogen from fossil fuels. In:
Compendium of Hydrogen Energy, pp. 489–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-
78242-361-4.00017-0.
Navarro, R., Guil, R., Fierro, J., 2015. Introduction to hydrogen production. In:
Compendium of Hydrogen Energy. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
NELT, 2011. Assessment of Hydrogen Production with CO 2 Capture Volume 1 : Baseline
State-Of- The-Art Plants.
NIC, 2021. Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US
National Security through 2040.
Nicholson, S., Heath, G., 2021. Life cycle emissions factors for electricity generation
technologies. Nat. Renew. Energy Lab. 1–4.
Nrel, P.L.S., M, M.K., 2004. Life cycle assessment of renewable hydrogen production via
wind/electrolysis. Milest. Complet. Rep. 1–13.
Oni, A.O., Anaya, K., Giwa, T., Di Lullo, G., Kumar, A., 2022. Comparative assessment of
blue hydrogen from steam methane reforming, autothermal reforming, and natural
gas decomposition technologies for natural gas-producing regions. Energy Convers.
Manag. 254, 115245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115245.
Parkinson, B., Balcombe, P., Speirs, J.F., Hawkes, A.D., Hellgardt, K., 2019. Levelized
cost of CO 2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes. Energy Environ. Sci. 12,
19–40. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee02079e.
Pehnt, M., Henkel, J., 2009. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage
from lignite power plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 3, 49–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.07.001.
Pei, P., Barse, K., Gil, A.J., Nasah, J., 2014. Waste heat recovery in CO2 compression. Int.
J. Greenh. Gas Control 30, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.09.001.
Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K., West, R., 2003. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Promax Bryan Research & Engineering, 2022. ProMax Help.
Ritchie, H., Roser, M., 2022. Energy mix [WWW Document]. Our World in Data. URL.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix.
Ritter, J.A., Ebner, A.D., 2007. State-of-the-art adsorption and membrane separation
processes for hydrogen production in the chemical and petrochemical industries.
Separ. Sci. Technol. 42, 1123–1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01496390701242194.
Rosental, M., Fröhlich, T., Liebich, A., 2020. Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and
utilization for the production of large volume organic chemicals. Front. Clim. 2,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.586199.
Salem, M., Shoaib, A.M., Ibrahim, A.F.M., 2021. Simulation of a natural gas steam
reforming plant for hydrogen production optimization. Chem. Eng. Technol. 44,
1651–1659. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.202100123.
Schmidt, O., Gambhir, A., Staffell, I., Hawkes, A., Nelson, J., Few, S., 2017. Future cost
and performance of water electrolysis : an expert elicitation study. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 42, 30470–30492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.045.
Shahabi, M.P., McHugh, A., Anda, M., Ho, G., 2014. Environmental life cycle assessment
of seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant powered by renewable energy.
Renew. Energy 67, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.050.
Shamsi, S., Omidkhah, M.R., 2012. Optimization of steam pressure levels in a total site
using a thermoeconomic method. Energies 5, 702–717. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en5030702.
Simons, A., Bauer, C., 2011. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production. Transition to
hydrogen: pathways toward clean transportation, pp. 13–57. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781139018036.006.
Smith, E., Morris, J., Kheshgi, H., Teletzke, G., Herzog, H., Paltsev, S., 2021. The cost of
CO2 transport and storage in global integrated assessment modeling. Int. J. Greenh.
Gas Control 109, 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103367.
Smith, R., 2008. Chemical Process Design and Integration. Wiley, Chichester.
Spallina, V., Pandolfo, D., Battistella, A., Romano, M.C., Annaland, M.V.S., Gallucci, F.,
2016. Techno-economic assessment of membrane assisted fluidized bed reactors for
pure H 2 production with CO 2 capture. Energy Convers. Manag. 120, 257–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.04.073.
Spath, P.L., Lane, J.M., Mann, M.K., Amos, W.A., 2001. Update of hydrogen from
biomass - determination of the delivered cost of hydrogen process analysis task
milestone type C (control). Energy, 2000.
Sulfur, 2021. Sulfur recovery engineering [WWW Document], URL. https://www.sulfurr
ecovery.com/amine-the-process. accessed 12.1.21.
Sun, P., Young, B., Elgowainy, A., Lu, Z., Wang, M., Morelli, B., 2019. Criteria air
pollutants and Greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen production in U . S . Steam
methane reforming facilities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7103–7113. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.8b06197.
M. Katebah et al.
Tang, E., Wood, T., Brown, C., Casteel, M., Pastula, M., Richards, M., Petri, R.,
Peterson, D., 2018. Solid Oxide Based Electrolysis and Stack Technology with Ultra-
high Electrolysis Current Density (> 3A/Cm 2) and Efficiency.
Tarun, C.B., Croiset, E., Douglas, P.L., Gupta, M., Chowdhury, M.H.M., 2007. Techno-
economic study of CO2 capture from natural gas based hydrogen plants. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 1, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00036-9.
Tenhumberg, N., Bu, K., 2020. Ecological and economic evaluation of hydrogen
production by different water electrolysis technologies, pp. 1586–1595. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cite.202000090.
14
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 10 (2022) 100552
Towler, G., Sinnot, R., 2008. Chemical Engineering Design. Butterworth-Heinemann,
California.
Voldsund, M., Jordal, K., Anantharaman, R., 2016. Hydrogen production with CO2
capture. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41, 4969–4992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.01.009.
ZEP, 2011. The Costs of CO2 Capture , Transport and Storage. Post-demonstration CCS in
the EU.