Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Energy, environment, and economic analyses on a novel hydrogen

production method by electrified steam methane reforming with renewable
energy accommodation
Huchao Song a, b, Yinhe Liu a, b, *, Hao Bian a, b, Mengfei Shen a, b, Xiaolong Lin a, b
a
State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
b
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

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

Keywords: More and more attention has been paid to hydrogen due to its cleanity and high energy density. However,
Electrified Steam methane reforming hydrogen production from conventional steam methane reforming has high CO2 emission and heat loss in the
Renewable power accommodation flue gas. Hydrogen from water electrolysis has the defects of high cost and low efficiency. Electrified steam
Power to gas
methane reforming (E-SMR) process is proposed by integrating power to gas technology with steam methane
Hydrogen production
Techno-economic analysis
reforming based on the principle of efficient electrothermal conversion and energy cascade utilization. Electrical
equipment is used in the process to eliminate the above drawbacks and accommodate renewable electricity. The
novel process is simulated by chemical equilibrium and mass-energy conservation methods and analyzed from
energy, environment, and economy. The optimal performance of E-SMR processes is investigated by adjusting
the steam carbon ratio and reforming temperature under appropriate pressure. The optimal thermal efficiency
(97.27 %) is improved by 18 percentage points at least compared to current industrial steam methane reforming
processes. The optimal electrical efficiency (88.68 %) is at least 11.48 percentage points higher than that of
running commercial water electrolysis systems. The novel process achieves low carbon emission (even zero-
emission with CCS) since the required reforming energy is electricity instead of combustion. The cost of the
proposed process can be minimized to 2.47 $/kg H2 through economic analysis. This work may provide an
efficient, low-carbon, and economical option for hydrogen production.

electrolysis is a way of PTG, which converts renewable electricity into

1. Introduction
With the development of the international economy, population and
urbanization, the global energy demand keeps rising continually.
However, fossil fuel, as the main energy at present, has limited reserves.
The massive use of fossil energy results in serious climate problems,
which cannot meet the requirement of green energy in the future [1].
Recently the scale of renewable energy such as wind power and pho­
tovoltaics is expanding rapidly. However, the fluctuation and intermit­
tence of renewable energy have led to the low-grade utilization and even
partially abandonment of wind and solar energy. The development of
renewable energy depends on not only resources but also
accommodation.
Energy storage systems can help solve the accommodation problem
of renewable energy [2,3]. Power to gas (PTG), which is one of the
energy storage technologies, has received widespread attention. Water
hydrogen without CO2 emission for stable, long-term, and high-density
storage [2,4]. As an ideal clean energy carrier, hydrogen can play a
buffering and bridging role in the power system, transforming and uti­
lizing the surplus electricity from renewable energy [5]. Hydrogen can
be used in various fields such as transportation, construction, power
generation, and industry [6]. In addition to promoting demand for
hydrogen, hydrogen transport infrastructure and low-cost and large-
scale production of hydrogen are also critical factors for hydrogen
development.
On the one hand, hydrogen transportation encounters problems of
the poor economy and small scale due to its low density, corrosion of
metal, and wide explosive range [7]. Nowadays, wide attention has been
attracted to mixing hydrogen in natural gas pipelines for hydrogen
transportation owing to its advantages of large-scale, long-distance, and
low-cost [7,8]. Demonstration projects with a hydrogen mixing ratio of
up to 20 % have been launched worldwide, such as HyDeply [9] and

* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China.
E-mail address: yinheliu@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (Y. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115513
Received 13 January 2022; Received in revised form 6 March 2022; Accepted 16 March 2022
Available online 23 March 2022
0196-8904/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Nomenclature Cfuel Fuel cost, $

CF Capacity factor
Abbreviations E-SMR Electrified steam methane reforming
CCS Carbon capture and storage GWP Global warming potential
COP Coefficient of performance HTHP High temperature heat pump
FCF Fixed charge factor NCF Net cash flow
HEX Heat exchanger ODP Ozone depression potential
NBP Normal boiling point WGS Water gas shift
NPV Net present value PTG Power to gas
LCOH Levelized cost of hydrogen SMR Steam methane reforming
PSA Pressure swing adsorption
S/C Steam carbon ratio Symbols
η Efficiency, % HHV Higher heating value, MJ/kg
ε Compressor pressure ratio μi The chemical potential of each component i
G Free Gibbs energy N Total number of components
△H298 The heat of reaction (298 K) ni Moles for each component, mol
M Mole mass, kg/mol Tref Reforming temperature, ◦ C
tcr Critical temperature, ◦ C pcr Critical pressure, bar
to Evaporation temperature, ◦ C po Evaporation pressure, bar
tk Condensation temperature, ◦ C pk Condensation pressure, bar
q Mass flow rate, kg/s nx Mole flow rate, mol/s
Etot Total electrical energy, MW Pa Production capacity, t/h
RCH4 Methane conversion, % n Economic lifetime, year
r Discount rate, % CO＆M Operating and maintenance cost, $
Ct Annual cost, $ Ci Investment cost, $

Ontario [10]. H2 mixing ratio in natural gas can be in a fluctuation of 0
~ 20 % in the hydrogen injection in natural gas project of Ameland in
The Netherlands [11]. On the other hand, the cost of hydrogen produced
by water electrolysis is much higher than those of steam methane
reforming (SMR) due to its high energy consumption [12,13]. Moreover,
the scale of the commercial water electrolysis project is still small.
Hydrogen production from water electrolysis takes up only about 4 %
[14]. The primary process of hydrogen production is SMR, which ac­
counts for 48 % of the global hydrogen demand [15,16]. SMR process
produces hydrogen by the reaction of steam and methane under high-
temperature catalysis, which is a conventional and cost-effective
method. The reforming reaction in SMR process is strongly endo­
thermic, as shown in Eqs. (1) and (2), requiring extra methane to be
burned in the combustion chamber for heating [17]. The burning of
methane not only brings significant heat loss but also induces additional
CO2 emission.
CH4 + H2 O ↔ CO + 3H2 ΔH298 = 206.2 kJ/mol (1)
CH4 + 2H2 O ↔ CO2 + 4H2 ΔH298 = 164.9 kJ/mol (2)
To improve the thermal efficiency of the reformer, some scholars
have done a variety of optimizations on the SMR process. Simpson et al.
[18] performed energy and exergy analyses of SMR process and found
that 42.8 % of exergy loss is caused by combustion in the reformer, and
19 % of exergy loss results from exhaust flue gas. The thermal efficiency
can reach 71.1 % by optimizing the reactor temperature, pressure, and
steam carbon ratio (S/C). Peng [19] optimized the heat exchange pro­
cess of SMR process through pinch point analysis and obtained a thermal
efficiency of 88.82 % for the new process. Lee et al. [20] used artificial
neural network to optimize the thermal efficiency of SMR system under
different working conditions and found that the optimal thermal effi­
ciency is 91.26 %, which is higher than that of the original system by
8.40 percentage points. In general, the thermal efficiency of SMR pro­
cess has reached a bottleneck due to the low efficiency of combustion in
the reformer and the energy carried away by flue gas discharge [18].
Besides, CO2 emission from SMR process without carbon capture and
storage (CCS) device reaches 9.4–11.4 kg/kg H2 [21]. For the SMR
process with CCS technology, the CO2 emission is still more than 1 kg/kg
H2 [22–24]. The additional CO2 emission and inefficiencies associated
with combustion in conventional SMR processes have not been funda­
mentally addressed.
Suppose the electricity produced by renewable energy is introduced
into the SMR process instead of combustion. Firstly, the flue gas heat loss
of the conventional SMR process can be eliminated, avoiding the CO2
released by the combustion of methane as fuel. At present, a large
amount of industrial hydrogen comes from SMR. SMR with renewable
electricity can significantly reduce the energy consumption and CO2
emission of hydrogen production. Centi et al. [25] proposed that the
integration of renewable energy in chemical production can effectively
replace part of fossil energy. Secondly, the scale and efficiency of electric
hydrogen production can be improved, and the SMR process can also be
optimized. Spagnol et al. [26] proposed using electricity to provide heat
energy for the reformer in the SMR process. Their experimental studies
showed the size of the reforming reactor could be reduced by the electric
heating method, and the methane conversion rate reached 80 %. Palma
et al. [27–29] conducted SMR experiments using Joule heating or mi­
crowave heated reactors and found that electric heating could enhance
catalyst activity and suppress the polymeric carbon formation. Tang
et al. developed a reactor with hybrid concentrated solar and electric
heat supply for steam methane reforming and found the methane con­
version rate approached the thermodynamic equilibrium of SMR [30].
Morten et al. [31] introduced induction heating method into the
reformer and found that the catalyst can be heated evenly in this
configuration. The methane conversion rate and thermal efficiency can
both be improved significantly. Ambrosetti et al. [32] reviewed the
study of different electrified SMR technologies and concluded the im­
provements brought by electrification on structural and efficiency of
reformer. Thirdly, hydrogen produced by natural gas can be mixed into
the natural gas pipeline network for transportation. Large-scale ac­
commodation of renewable electricity and long-term energy storage can
be realized at the same time. Wismann et al. [33] conducted experi­
mental verification on an electric reformer. The results showed that the
volume of reformer could be reduced by two orders of magnitude,
making it easier to achieve wider capacity scale. Another advantage of

2
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Fig. 1. Process of Conventional SMR (a); Case 1: Process of the E-SMR with electric evaporator(b); Case 2: Process of the E-SMR with HTHP system(c).

electrified SMR is proposed in their study that electrical heating sub­ The electricity-coupled reformer is technically feasible, but the sys­
stantially improved temporal response, pushing start-up times to within tem design of the electricity-coupled SMR process is still blank at pre­
minutes, allowing the process to handle the intermittency of renewable sent. Specifically, the following questions should be answered via the
energy. studies on the SMR process electrification. (1) What are the problems

3
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Table 1 Table 2
Main parameters and assumptions for process simulation. Main parameters and assumptions for heat pump simulation [45].
Parameters Value Unit Parameters Value Unit Position

Reformer pressure [42] 10 bar Superheat degree of the evaporator 5.0 ◦

C /
Reformer temperature [42] 750–1000 ℃ Subcooling degree of the condenser 5.0 ◦
C
Steam to carbon (S/C) ratio [42,43] 3–5 – Parameters of water/steam
Water pump efficiency [41] 85 % Feedwater inlet temperature 25 ◦
C 1
Isentropic efficiency of Steam and heat pump compressor 83 % Feedwater inlet pressure 1 bar
[41] Feedwater pressurization pressure 4.5 bar 2
Mechanical efficiency of Steam and heat pump compressor 98 % Feedwater evaporation temperature 149.0 ◦
C 4–5
[41] Feedwater evaporation pressure 4.5 bar
Thermal efficiency of reformer 98 % Compressed steam pressure 10 bar 6
Separation rate of PSA [22] 90.9 % Ready steam pressure 10 bar 7
WGS temperature / ◦
C Ready steam temperature 363 ◦
C
WGS pressure 10 bar Parameters of HTHP
Feed natural gas inlet temperature 25 ◦
C Evaporation pressure 7.5 bar 3′
Feed natural gas inlet pressure 10 bar Evaporation temperature 90 ◦
C
HHV of H2 [44] 141.7 MJ/ Condensation pressure 32.0 bar 4′
kg Condensation temperature 163.0 ◦
C
HHV of CO [44] 10.10 MJ/
kg
HHV of CH4 [44] 55.5 MJ/ such as heat pumps, steam compressors, and electric evaporators pro­
kg
vide the heat required in water evaporation. Second, energy analysis is
performed to optimize the proposed E-SMR processes and obtain the
optimal operating parameters. Moreover, the feasibility and economic
performance of the novel process is evaluated by the techno-economic
and sensitivity analyses. This study provides a novel, economical, effi­
cient, green hydrogen production method, and renewable power ac­
commodation scheme, revealing the vital role of E-SMR in the energy
structure transition. E-SMR system may provide abundant hydrogen
sources for application scenarios such as the gas supply chain, synthetic
ammonia industry, and hydrogen refueling stations.

2. Process configuration and modelling

2.1. Process description of E-SMR

The flowchart of conventional SMR is shown in Fig. 1 (a). The feed

Fig. 2. The iterative logic diagram of the gas cycle and water flow matching.
with the SMR process electrification for system integration design, and
how to solve them? (2) Is the thermal and economic performance of the
SMR process after electrification better than that of the conventional
hydrogen production process? (3) What are the application scenarios
and prospects for electrification for the SMR process?
In this paper, a novel hydrogen production system named electrified
SMR (E-SMR) process is proposed by combining PTG technology with
the conventional SMR process. First, the problems existing in the system
integration design of SMR electrification are solved. Two different E-
SMR configurations are proposed based on the principle of efficient
electrothermal conversion. Waste heat recovery system is designed
based on cascade utilization principle of energy. Electric equipment
natural gas is divided into two parts, one as fuel and the other as the
reactant. Firstly, the reactant part is preheated to 363 ◦ C for refining
desulfurization reaction to eliminate the H2S in natural gas [34]. The
reforming reaction is accomplished by refined natural gas and steam
over a high-temperature catalyst in the reformer. The reaction is endo­
thermic and typically achieved over a nickel-based catalyst operating at
elevated temperatures (630–930 ◦ C) and pressures (5–25 bar) [18].
After cooling down, the outlet gas of the reformer performs a water gas
shift (WGS) reaction. The WGS reaction is exothermic, as shown in Eq.
(3), which occurs at the temperature of approximately 400 ◦ C in the
WGS reactor [35].
CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 ΔH298 = − 41.1 kJ/mol (3)
The final step in SMR is the separation of the hydrogen from the
syngas exiting the WGS reactor, which includes H2, H2O, CO2, CH4, and
CO. This separation process can be accomplished through several tech­
niques. The most common method is pressure swing adsorption (PSA),
which can separate high purity hydrogen and CO2 (up to > 99 %)
[18,36]. The separated CO2 can be captured after being compressed.
Hence the product needs to be cooled before entering in PSA. As shown
in Fig. 1, H2 product is separated in PSA-A and CO2 is separated in PSA-
B. Unreacted CH4 and CO are burned for heat demand in the reformer.
From the viewpoint of energy conservation, three challenges are
presented to electrify the SMR process:
(1) The waste heat of flue gas and reaction products is recovered to
evaporate water in SMR. However, the heat of products is not
enough to evaporate water in the E-SMR system, the evaporation
energy should be replaced by electricity.

4
H. Song et al.
Fig. 3. Model results and literature values [27] for CH4 conversion (a) and H2 yield(b) (S/C = 3, P = 1 bar).
Table 3
Parameters and assumptions for economic analysis.
Parameters Value Unit
Equipment costs
Specific cost of reformer [46] 76.29 $/kW
Specific cost of Sulphur removal unit [47] 52.84 $/kW
Cost of PSA unit [46] 0.81 M$
Cost of WGS reactor [46] 0.07 M$
Electric boiler [48] 54 $/kW
Cost of steam compressor [49] 0.014 M$
Cost of heat pump [49] 0.051 M$
Cost of CO2 compressor [50] 0.15 M$
Cost of CO2 storage [50] 22.08 $/t
Design and engineering 20% of total direct capital
costs of equipment
Contractor’s fee 5% of total direct capital
costs of equipment
Contingency allowance 5% of total direct capital
costs of equipment
Fuel costs
Natural gas price [51] 0.373 $/Nm3
Electricity price [51] 0.06 $/kWh
Operating and maintenance costs
Process water (Including waste water treatment) [52] 4.278 $/m3
Operating labor cost 10% of total production
cost
Direct supervisory and clerical labor costs 10% of operating labor
cost
Utilities 10% of total product cost
Maintenance and repair costs 5% of fixed capital
investment
Operating supplies 10% of maintenance and
repair cost
Laboratory charges 10% of operating labor
cost
Plant-overhead 50% operating labor,
supervision, and
maintenance costs
Administrative costs 30% Plant-overhead costs
Distribution and selling costs 2% of total product cost
Research and development costs 2% of total production cost
Operation conditions
Capacity factor (CF) 0.95
Inflation [53] 8.78%
Plant lifetime, year [46] 30
(2) The reactant natural gas in SMR is preheated to 363 ◦ C by
exhausted flue gas. Therefore, a new heat source for reactant
preheating should be applied in E-SMR.
(3) Since combustion is not used in E-SMR, unreacted CH4 and CO
treatment need to be considered.
This paper proposes two cases by coupling electric evaporator and
5
Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513
high temperature heat pump (HTHP) to address the above challenges.
2.1.1. Case 1- E-SMR with electric evaporator system
E-SMR system with an electric evaporator is named Case 1, of which
the simulation flowchart is shown as Fig. 1 (b). Heat required from water
evaporation is provided from electric evaporator, which can be realized
by using an electrode boiler or resistance boiler. WGS is an exothermic
reaction at 400 ◦ C, in which the released heat can be used for the natural
gas preheating. Therefore, a heat exchanger (EX4, flow 1′ -2′ ) is adopted
in the WGS reactor to absorb the WGS reaction heat. The unreacted CH4
and CO return to the mixer for cyclic reaction (flow 15), which can
improve the reaction conversion rate, decarbonize the CH4 that enters
the system and satisfy the needs of pure hydrogen users. More detailed
design considerations are as follows.
Case 1 is equipped with three heat exchangers (EX1, EX2, EX3) to
realize the cascade utilization of product waste heat. The preheating
process of reactants in the mixer outlet (flow 6–7) is performed by
recovering the heat load of the hot product gas from reformer (flow 8–9)
in EX1. The exit gas from the WGS reactor (~400 ◦ C, flow 10) is cooled
down to ~ 110 ◦ C (flow 11) by superheating the saturated steam (flow
4–5) in EX2 and preheating water to saturation in EX3 (flow 2–3).
Finally, the product gas is cooled from ~ 110 ◦ C to 40 ◦ C (flow 13–14) by
a cooler to satisfy PSA working temperature.
2.1.2. Case 2-E-SMR with HTHP system
Although three heat exchangers have been set up in Case 1 to recover
the waste heat of the product, the exit product temperature of EX3 in
Case 1 is still higher than 100 ◦ C, resulting in a significant waste heat
loss. HTHP and steam compressor are introduced in the system to
recover more waste heat of the product. The simulation flowchart of the
E-SMR with HTHP system is presented in (c). Different from Case 1, the
evaporation of water in Case 2 is realized by the HTHP system. The
HTHP comprises the evaporator, condenser, compressor, and expansion
valve. Waste heat is absorbed by the evaporator to evaporate the
working fluid at low pressure. The high temperature heat is released in
the condenser from the condensation of the working fluid at high
pressure. In Case 2, the HTHP absorbs the waste heat from outlet
products (flow 14–15) of EX3 and releases high temperature heat to
saturated water (flow 4–5) to complete the water evaporation.
The evaporation heat of water is provided by the condensation heat
of the working fluid of the heat pump. Hence the condensation tem­
perature of the working fluid should be higher than the evaporation
temperature of the water supply to satisfy the heat transfer re­
quirements. At present, HTHP can provide a heat source up to 160 ◦ C
[37], which corresponds to the saturation water temperature of 150 ◦ C
(saturation pressure of 4.76 bar) considering the heat exchange tem­
perature difference of 10 ◦ C. However, the pressure of 4.76 bar cannot
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Fig. 4. Effect of S/C and T on the thermal efficiency in Case 1 (a) and Case 2 (b).

Fig. 5. Effect of S/C and Tref on electric efficiency in Case 1 (a) and Case 2 (b).

Fig. 6. Effect of S/C on energy inlet/outlet in Case 1 (a) and Case 2 (b) (Tref = 850 ◦ C) (1 kg H2 production).

satisfy the pressure requirements of the reforming reaction. In this
paper, 4.5 bar is selected as the evaporation pressure. The water in Case
2 is evaporated by an HTHP and then compressed to reaction pressure by
a steam compressor.
R1233ZD (E) is selected as the working fluid of the heat pump in this
system due to its remarkable environmental friendliness (GWP = 1),
Safety (Safety Group: A1), and high temperature adaptability. The
properties of R1233ZD (E) and other widely used HTHP working fluids
are shown in Table 9 (in Appendix A).
2.2. Process modelling
H2 production by E-SMR with different electric devices is proposed
and modelled by the process simulation software. Reactor modeling in
the present study is based on theory of chemical equilibrium. The
calculation method is based on the minimization of the Gibbs free en­
ergy, which makes the phase and chemical equilibrium achieved in the
process without specification of the possible reactions. For the given
temperature and pressure, the differential form of the Gibbs free energy
is described in Eq. (4). A more detailed description of the methodology

6
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Fig. 7. Effect of S/C on electric consumption in Case 1 (a) and Case 2 (b) (Tref = 850 ◦ C).

Table 4
Comparison of E-SMR performance with current SMR research and plants.
Vendor Year Thermal efficiency (HHV, %)

Osaka Gas [55] 2014 79

Air Liquide [56] 2015 75
Case 1 / 92.90
Case 2 / 97.27

Table 5
Comparison of E-SMR performance with water electrolysis technology [57,58].
Vendor Cummins Cummins Case Case
(HySTAT) (HyLYZER) 1 2

Year 2021 2021 / /

Type AEL PEM / /
Electric efficiency (HHV, 72 77.2 74.16 88.68
%)
Electricity consumption 55 51 11.89 9.74
(kWh/kg H2)

Fig. 8. Effect of Tref on electricity consumption in Case 2 (S/C = 3) (1 kg

H2 production).
Table 6
Main results of economic analysis of E-SMR hydrogen plants.
Parameters Unit Case 1 Case 2

with without with without

CCS CCS CCS CCS

Total investment costs M$ 2.34 2.21 2.41 2.28

Fuel Natural gas M$/a 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76
costs cost
Electricity M$/a 1.17 1.14 0.95 0.92
cost
Total operating costs M$/a 1.20 1.18 1.16 1.13
LCOH $ /kg 2.82 2.65 2.65 2.47
H2

can be found in references [38,39].

∑
N
dG = μi dni (4)
i=1

Physical properties are calculated using Peng–Robinson’s equation

[35], which is particularly suitable for non-polar or mildly polar com­
ponents and mixtures such as hydrocarbons and light gases (e.g., carbon
oxides, hydrogen, methane, etc.). To simplify the model, following as­
Fig. 9. Effect of S/C and Tref on CH4 return ratio. sumptions are proposed in this paper:

7
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

To verify the reliability of HTHP model, this modeling is compared

with the HTPT with R1233zd working fluids in the reference [45]. As
shown in Table 10 (in Appendix A), the error between the simulated COP
and the reference is less than 0.5%, which indicates that the calculation
of the HTHP model is accurate.

2.4. Performance parameters

With the aim of finding the optimal condition of the E-SMR pro­
cesses, the following performance indices are considered.
(1) Thermal efficiency
Thermal efficiency refers to the ratio of output energy to input en­
ergy in the hydrogen production process, reflecting the overall energy
conversion efficiency of the system. The thermal efficiency is calculated
according to Eq. (5) [43], which represents the ratio of the energy
contained in hydrogen to the total energy inlet, in which the total energy
inlet includes methane energy and electricity.
(qHHV)H2, (qHHV)H2,
Fig. 10. Distribution of different costs of LCOH for E-SMR processes. ηthermal = out
× 100\% = out
× 100\% (5)
ΔHtot (qHHV)CH4,in + Etot

Table 7 where q is the mass flow, kg/s, HHV is the higher heating value, MJ/kg,
Comparison of investment cost and lifetime of E-SMR and electrolytic water Etot is the total electrical energy, MW.
hydrogen production [59]. (2) Electric efficiency
Investment cost, $/kg H2/ Lifetime, year To investigate the storage efficiency of renewable electricity, the
h electrical efficiency is defined as ηE and shown in Eq. (6). Electric effi­
AEL 45000–84000 7–11
ciency is expressed as the ratio of gas chemical energy increment to inlet
PEM 79000–120000 3–7 electric energy. The electrical efficiency is less than 100% because of the
E-SMR equipment (Case 2 with 8772 greater energy loss in electric equipment and the heat loss of the product.
CCS) than30
(qHHV)H2, − (qHHV)CH4,
ηE = out in
× 100\% (6)
Etot
(1) The equipment is adiabatic, and the heat loss at the system
boundary is negligible. Pressure loss in pipelines and hydrogen (3) CO2 emission
production units is negligible [40]. The CO2 emission of the E-SMR processes all comes from hydrogen
(2) The simulations are in a steady state [41]. production reactions. The equation for CO2 emission per unit hydrogen
(3) The reference-environment temperature is 25 ◦ C and the pressure production is as follows:
is 1.013 bar [35]. mco2, out
RCO2 = (7)
(4) The isentropic efficiency of the heat pump compressor and steam mH2, out
compressor is 0.83, and the mechanical efficiency is 0.98 [41].
(5) Carbon deposition in the reactor is not considered [35]. where m is the mass flow rate, kg/s.
(6) Natural gas consists entirely of methane [35]. (3) CH4 return ratio
(7) Due to the low heat of reaction, the desulfurization reaction is not The CH4 return ratio means the proportion of unreacted CH4 back to
considered in modelling [35]. the process, and the equation is shown in Eq. (8).
nCH4,return
Two variable parameters of reforming temperature and steam carbon RCH4 = × 100% (8)
nCH4,in
ratio (S/C) are investigated to find the optimal operation condition of
the E-SMR processes. S/C means the molar ratio of steam to methane.
where nx is the mole flow rate, mol/s.
The ranges of variation for the two parameters are shown in Table 1. (4) Steam carbon ratio (S/C)
As shown in Fig. 1 (b) and Fig. 1 (c), the unreacted CH4 and CO re­
The steam carbon ratio means the molar of H2O to CH4. CH4 contains
turn to the system and react again. This process involves cyclic iterative the inlet part and return part is shown as follows:
calculation. The returned CH4 affects the given S/C condition, and the
feedwater flow rate needs to be changed to match the additional CH4. n H2 O
S/C = (9)
The logic diagram of iterative calculation is shown in Fig. 2. nCH4,in + nCH4,return
Hydrogen production capacity in the simulation is chosen to be 189
kg/h. The main parameters and assumptions used to simulate Case 1 and 3. Economic modelling
Case 2 are summarized in Table 1. The corresponding pressure and
specific parameters are given in Table 2. 3.1. Economic analysis

Detailed cost estimation of the above two E-SMR configurations is

2.3. Model validation
The reactor model validation is proposed to verify the reliability of
the reformer model. The calculated results of CH4 conversion and H2
yield are compared with reference [27] as shown in Fig. 3, which sug­
gests that the reformer model is reliable when temperature is above 700
◦
C.
conducted to compare their economic performance. The electric
equipment is adopted in two E-SMR systems, which leads to additional
investment. The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), net present value
(NPV), and payback period are selected as the economic performance
indicators, and relevant calculation assumptions can be seen in Table 3.
The equipment cost is estimated by empirical formula and reference cost
in the literature. It should be noted that the cost of the electric reformer

8
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analyses a) Electricity Price vs LCOH, b) Nature gas Price vs LCOH, c) Carbon tax vs LCOH.

is referred to the cost of the reforming furnace of conventional SMR E-SMR for hydrogen production. Hence, a sensitivity analysis is con­
process. In fact, the size of the electric reformer is much smaller, and the ducted to evaluate the impact of changes in electricity price, natural gas
structure is much simpler. Therefore, the cost of reformer adopted here price and CO2 tax on LCOH.
should be conservative. To evaluate the system profitability, NPV has been calculated ac­
The levelized cost of hydrogen is defined as the ratio of the annual cording to Eq. (13), and different H2 selling prices are used to reflect the
cost to the annual hydrogen output [54], as shown in Eq. (10). profitability performance of the proposed cases.
Ct ∑
n=t
LCOH = (10) NPV =
NCFn
(13)
(CF × 8760) × Pa (1 + r)n
n=1

where Pa is the production capacity, t/h, Ct is the annual cost, $.

where NCF is the net cash flow, $, which is calculated as follows:
Ct = FCF × Ci + Cfuel + CO&M (11)
NCF = Ct − CF × 8760 × Pa (14)
where Ci is the investment cost, $, Cfuel is the cost of fuel, which
includes nature gas cost and all electricity cost, $, CO＆M is the operating 4. Results and discussion
and maintenance cost, $, FCF is the fixed charge factor as defined in Eq.
(12). In this section, the effects of reforming temperature and S/C on the
performance of Case 1 and Case 2 were analyzed to find the optimal
r(1 + r)n
FCF = (12) operating conditions and process configurations for the high-efficient
(1 + r)n − 1
hydrogen production. Economic analysis was conducted to evaluate
where n is the economic lifetime of the plant relative to its base year (n the feasibility of the E-SMR processes.
= 30 years), and r is the discount rate, %.
4.1. Performance evaluation of E-SMR
3.2. Economic sensitivity analysis method
4.1.1. Thermal and electric efficiency analysis
It is necessary to find the key parameters and consider their un­ The thermal efficiency of the two Cases under different reforming
certainties that can influence the economic performance of the proposed temperatures and S/C conditions is shown in Fig. 4. The thermal

9
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Fig. 12. Cumulative discounted cash flow of E-SMR plants under different hydrogen selling prices.

Fig. 13. Application scenarios of E-SMR process in gas supply chain.

efficiency of two cases increases with the decrease of S/C. The thermal
efficiency increases firstly and then decreases with the rise of tempera­
ture, and the optimal thermal efficiency is 92.56 % (S/C = 3, Tref = 950
◦
C). The change of thermal efficiency of Case 2 with temperature is
shown in Fig. 4 (b) and the trend is similar to Case 1. The optimal
thermal efficiency of Case 2 is 97.27 % (S/C = 3, Tref = 850 ◦ C).
The storage efficiency of electricity to chemical energy is illustrated
by analyzing the electric efficiency as shown in Fig. 5. The trend of
electric efficiency is the same as that of thermal efficiency. The electric
efficiency of Case 2 reaches the maximum when S/C = 3 and the
reforming temperature is 850 ◦ C (ηE = 88.68 %). Further analysis of the
effect of S/C and Tref on efficiency is shown below.
(1) S/C analysis
Tref = 850 ◦ C is taken as an example to analyze the variation of en­
ergy inlet and outlet under different S/C in Fig. 6. Electric energy ac­
counts for less than 30 % of the energy input, which greatly reduces the
electric energy input in hydrogen production compared with electrol­
ysis. The inlet CH4 and the outlet H2 are stable because of the principle of
matter conservation, thus the only factor that affects thermal efficiency
is electricity. Fig. 7 illustrates the electricity consumption of various
electrical appliances under different S/C. Electricity consumption in
Case 1 is shown in Fig. 7 (a). The power consumption of the electric
evaporator increases with the increase of S/C, resulting in a sharp
decrease in thermal efficiency. As shown in Fig. 7 (b), the steam

10
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Table 8 4.1.2. Comparison of E-SMR performance

The capacity of E-SMR (Case 2 with CCS) to accommodate renewable energy in The proposed systems are compared with the current advanced SMR
China. and water electrolysis to evaluate the performance of the E-SMR pro­
Unit Value cesses. Table 4 shows the several SMR processes vendors. The compar­
Unit hydrogen production power accommodation kWh/kg H2 10.1
ison results indicate that the thermal efficiency of the system is 18.27
Unit hydrogen production methane accommodation kg/kg H2 2 percentage points higher than the maximum thermal efficiency of SMR
Power accommodation of methane kWh/Nm3 3.6 demonstrated in the available report.
CH4 Table 5 shows the comparison results of the E-SMR processes with
Annual natural gas consumption in China [60] Billion Nm3 328
the water electrolysis process, which includes alkaline electrolysis
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in China Million ton/ 117.5
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year (AEL), polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis, and solid
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in China Billion kWh/ 1185 oxide electrolysis (SOEL). SOEL is not compared because it is still far
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year from commercialization due to issues such as service life, scale and cost,
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in China Million ton/ 22.4 while AEL and PEM are commercialized for hydrogen production. The
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
hydrogen)
electric efficiency of the E-SMR is at least 11.48 percentage points higher
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in China Billion kWh/ 225.6 than that of commercial water electrolysis systems currently in opera­
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year tion, which indicates that the E-SMR processes are more efficient in
hydrogen) storing electrical energy as chemical energy.
Photovoltaic power installations in China [60] GW 253.6
Wind power installations in China [60] GW 281.7
Annual supply of wind and photovoltaic energy in China Billion kWh 662
4.2. Economic evaluation

E-SMR has no additional carbon emission caused by combustion

Table 9 during hydrogen production compared with SMR process. The CO2
Properties of working fluids for high temperature heat pumps [61].
emission obtained by PSA separation is 5.5 kg/kg H2 and can be com­
Working fluid Unit R1233ZD R245fa R365mfc pressed and stored directly, which brings additional investment costs
(E) (CO2 compressor cost, electricity cost, and CO2 storage cost). Therefore,
Chemical formula / CF3CH = CHF2CH2CF3 CF3-CH2-CF2- four cases of Case 1 (with/without CCS) and Case 2 (with/without CCS)
CHCl CH3 are discussed in the economic analysis.
Group / HCFO HFC HFC
M g/ 130.50 134.05 148.07
mol 4.2.1. Economic analysis
tcr ◦
C 166.5 154 186.9 The operation consumption and capital cost for each hydrogen pro­
pcr bar 37.7 36.5 32.5 duction process option with and without carbon capture are summarized
NBP C 18.3 15.3 40.2
in Table 6. Case 1 has a subtle cost advantage over Case 2 due to its lower
◦

GWP / 1 1030 890

ODP / 0.0002 0 0
equipment cost. However, the electricity cost of Case 1 is 23.15 % and
Safety group (ASHRAE / A1 B1 A2 23.91 %, respectively, higher than that of Case 2 with and without CCS,
Standards) respectively. Hence, Case 2 without CCS has the lowest LCOH (2.47 $/kg
H2). The cost details are listed in Table 11 (in Appendix B).
Fig. 10 shows the LCOH and its cost composition in two Cases. The
compressor consumes significantly more energy than the pump used in
fuel cost accounts for more than 60 % of the total cost in all four Cases,
Case 1, while using HTHP can bring more waste heat recovery so that the
which reflects that fuel prices obviously have a massive impact on the
electricity consumption of Case 2 is lower than Case 1. In addition, it can
cost of hydrogen production. It also can be concluded that the system
be concluded that the increase of S/C leads to the increase of energy
with CCS reduces CO2 emission from 5.5 kg/kg H2 to zero, and its lowest
consumption on water evaporation and thus the decrease of efficiency.
LCOH is 2.65 $/ kg H2. Table 7 compares the investment cost and life­
(2) Temperature analysis
time of E-SMR and water electrolysis. It proves that the investment cost
S/C = 3 is taken as an example to analyze the change of the thermal
of E-SMR is much lower than that of electrolytic water. Electric heating
efficiency as shown in Fig. 8. The increase in thermal efficiency is due to
is used in E-SMR process and the body of reformer is heated evenly.
the reduction in energy consumption of HTHP and steam compressor.
Thus, the lifetime can be longer than the SMR plant (30 years), which
The reason can be further analyzed in Fig. 9, which depicts the CH4
uses combustion as the heat resource.
return ratio curve in Case 1 and Case 2. The temperature decrease pre­
vents the reforming reaction and increases the CH4 return ratio. Ac­
4.2.2. Economic sensitive analysis
cording to the definition of S/C, the molar flow of water increases with
As described in Section 4.2.2, fuel prices impact dramatically on the
the increase of returned CH4, resulting in the increase of water evapo­
economics of the process. In addition, in the general trend of carbon
ration energy consumption. The promotion of the reaction is not
emission reduction, the carbon tax is important in industrial production,
apparent when the temperature continues to rise, while the reformer has
which can be used to evaluate the economy of installing CCS in this
more efficiency loss and the product takes away more waste heat so that
process. Hence, a sensitivity analysis including the effects of uncertainty
the thermal efficiency declines.
in the fuel prices and CO2 tax on the LCOH is conducted to investigate
the economic performance of E-SMR processes.

Table 10
Model results and literature values [45] for COP of HTPT with R1233zd as the working fluid.
t0 tk p0 pk ε qk Ecomp COP COPref Error

30 110 1.54 12.90 8.38 76.19 26.19 2.9092 2.9164 − 0.2479%

40 120 2.15 15.75 7.33 76.50 26.51 2.8857 2.8818 0.1352%
50 130 2.93 19.80 6.76 76.80 27.09 2.8351 2.8369 − 0.0617%
60 140 3.90 23.00 5.90 78.63 28.64 2.7455 2.7388 0.2448%
70 150 5.10 25.70 5.04 80.30 30.33 2.6474 2.6367 0.4062%

11
H. Song et al. Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513

Table 11 Table 12
Main results of economic analysis of E-SMR hydrogen plants. The capacity of E-SMR (Case 2 with CCS) to accommodate renewable energy in
Parameters Unit Case 1 Case 2
Japan, the United States, and Europe.
Unit Value
with without with without
CCS CCS CCS CCS Annual natural gas consumption in Japan [62] Billion Nm3 107.8
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in Japan Million ton/ 38.6
Investment costs
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year
Specific cost of reformer M$ 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in Japan Billion kWh/ 389
Specific cost of Sulphur M$ 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year
removal unit
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in Japan Million ton/ 7.4
Cost of PSA unit M$ 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
Cost of WGS reactor M$ 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
hydrogen)
Cost of steam compressor M$ / / 0.01 0.01
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in Japan Billion kWh/ 74.2
Electric boiler M$ 0.03 0.03 / /
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
Cost of heat pump M$ / / 0.05 0.05
hydrogen)
Cost of CO2 compressor M$ 0.15 / 0.15 /
Photovoltaic power installations in Japan [63] GW 67
Design and engineering M$ 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.35
Wind power installations in Japan [63] GW 4.2
Contractor’s fee M$ 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Annual supply of wind and photovoltaic energy in Japan Billion kWh 105
Contingency allowance M$ 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Annual natural gas consumption in USA [63] Billion Nm3 754
Total capital costs M$ 2.34 2.21 2.41 2.28
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in the USA Million ton/ 269.9
Fuel costs
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year
Natural gas price M$/a 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in the USA Billion kWh/ 2722
Electricity price M$/a 1.17 1.14 0.95 0.92
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year
Operating and maintenance costs
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in the USA Million ton/ 51.4
Process water (Including M$/a 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
waste water treatment)
hydrogen)
Cost of CO2 storage M$/a 0.19 / 0.19 /
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in the USA Billion kWh/ 518.5
Operating labor cost M$/a 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.26
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
Direct supervisory and M$/a 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
hydrogen)
clerical labor costs
Photovoltaic power installations in USA [63] GW 73.8
Utilities M$/a 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.26
Wind power installations in USA [63] GW 117.7
Maintenance and repair M$/a 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11
Annual supply of wind and photovoltaic energy in USA Billion kWh 228.4
costs
[63]
Operating supplies M$/a 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Annual natural gas consumption in Europe [63] Billion Nm3 490
Laboratory charges M$/a 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in Europe Million ton/ 175.5
Plant-overhead M$/a 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year
Administrative costs M$/a 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in Europe Billion kWh/ 1770
Distribution and selling M$/a 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
(Convert all methane to hydrogen) year
costs
Annual hydrogen production with E-SMR in Europe Million ton/ 33.4
Research and M$/a 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
development costs
hydrogen)
Total operating costs M$/a 1.20 1.18 1.16 1.13
Annual power accommodation with E-SMR in Europe Billion kWh/ 371.5
LCOH $ /kg 2.82 2.65 2.65 2.47
(Convert methane to hydrogen-rich gas mixed with 20% year
H2
hydrogen)
Photovoltaic power installations in Europe [63] GW 167.8
Wind power installations in Europe [63] GW 216.6
As illustrated in Fig. 11 (a), the lowest LCOH of E-SMR is 2.7 $/kg H2 Annual supply of wind and photovoltaic energy in Europe Billion kWh 468.3
under the current electricity price in China (0.084 $/kWh). While the [63]
application of this system is to accommodate surplus renewable electric
energy, in which the price of electricity can be regarded as zero.
Accordingly, the LCOH of Case 2 (without CCS) is as low as 1.89 $/kg H2. reach 12.28 M$ in 30 years.
Fig. 11 (b) shows the sensitivity analysis of LCOH to natural gas
price. It is evident that current natural gas price in China is relatively 5. Application prospects
high (0.373 $/Nm3), therefore, this process is more economical in areas
with a lower natural gas price. The influence of carbon tax on the LCOH, 5.1. Application in gas supply chain
shown in Fig. 11 (c), manifests that systems with CCS are immune to by
carbon taxes by reason of the characteristic of their zero CO2 emission. The excellent performances in energy, environmental, and economic
When carbon tax exceeds 32.4 $/ton CO2, Case2 (with CCS) costs is less aspects of the E-SMR process are verified in the above discussion.
than that of Case 2 (without CCS) and becomes the most economical Therefore, this process may play an important role in gas production and
hydrogen production process. supply.
Discounted cash flow analysis is an important technique to convert Fig. 13 shows the possible application scenarios of E-SMR equipment
the net future cash flows of the project into NPV, which indicates the in both gas supply end and gas consumption areas. Generally, areas with
resources required and the time to give a profit. Fig. 12 displays the rich natural gas resources are far from gas-consuming areas in most
cumulative discounted cash flow of proposed E-SMR processes with the cases. Therefore, E-SMR equipment can be used in gas supply areas to
hydrogen selling price of 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 $/kg H2. Case 1 (with CCS) is reform part of natural gas into hydrogen, and hydrogen can be mixed
difficult to achieve profit with 2.8 $/kg H2, while Case 2 (with CCS) has into natural gas pipelines to produce the H2-rich gas. Several advantages
a payback period of 7.5 years. Case 2 (without CCS) has the shortest of this method of hydrogen transport could be summarized as follows.
payback period due to low fuel costs, as shown in Fig. 12. Fig. 12 (b) First, the reuse of natural gas infrastructure can reduce the initial capital
shows that all E-SMR processes are profitable with a payback period of investment and facilitate the transformation of large and medium-sized
within 10 years at the hydrogen price of 3.0 $/kg H2. Fig. 12 (c) shows oil and gas companies. Second, the natural gas pipeline network is
that all the cases proposed have considerable economic benefits when installed in a wide range, which facilitates long-distance hydrogen
the hydrogen price is 3.2 $/kg H2, especially Case 2 (without CCS), transportation and significantly reduces transportation costs. At the
which can realize investment recovery in 2.6 years and whose NPV can same time, the natural gas pipeline allows fluctuations in the proportion

12
H. Song et al.
of hydrogen mixing, which perfectly fits the characteristics of the
volatility of renewable energy power generation. Many countries have
tried mixing hydrogen in natural gas pipelines and implemented several
pilot demonstration projects mentioned before. This process can
accommodate renewable energy from the area and inject captured CO2
into the oil well to enhance oil recovery. The hydrogen-rich gas reaches
the urban gas station through the natural gas pipelines. The E-SMR
equipment can be arranged in the gas station to convert part of the H2-
rich gas to hydrogen. Then the produced hydrogen can be sent to the
hydrogenation station, or ammonia plant, or mixed into the urban gas
pipelines to supply high hydrogen-rich gas. The CO2 produced during
the process can be stored in CO2 tanks and geological reservoirs or used
for industrial CO2 utilization. E-SMR equipment helps decarbonize
natural gas while achieving large-scale accommodation of renewable
energy and large-scale transmission of hydrogen, providing a solution
for global green energy transition and carbon neutrality.
5.2. Capacity estimation of application
The popularization of this technology could contribute to hydrogen
supply, transportation, and renewable energy consumption. The
renewable energy accommodation capacity and hydrogen production
capacity can be achieved in China with E-SMR is displayed in Table 8,
and that of Japan, the United States, and Europe are estimated in
Table 12 (in Appendix C). The annual wind power generation is calcu­
lated according to the installed capacity of 1500 h, and photovoltaic
power generation is calculated according to the installed capacity of
1000 h. The results show that this technology can achieve large-scale
renewable energy accommodation and produce considerable hydrogen
in various countries and regions.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, a novel hydrogen production system called E-SMR was
proposed by combining PTG technology with SMR. Renewable electric
energy was introduced into SMR process through the electric reformer,
electric evaporator, and high temperature heat pump. Two E-SMR
configurations (Case1 and Case2) were put forward and analyzed. Case 1
is integrated with an electric evaporator, and Case 2 is combined with a
high temperature heat pump and a steam compressor. Energy analysis
was performed in this paper to evaluate and optimize the performance of
the proposed processes. The techno-economic and sensitivity analyses
were carried out to assess the economic performance of the E-SMR
processes. Simulation results highlighted that the high temperature heat
pump in Case 2 could recover more waste heat of production and
evaporate water efficiently, making the energy consumption of Case 2
lower and the efficiency higher than Case 1. Meanwhile, economic
analysis shows that Case 2 has a shorter payback period and higher NPV.
The following conclusions have been drawn:
1) In Case 2, the optimal thermal efficiency is 97.27 % (S/C = 3, Tref =
850 ◦ C), which is improved by as high as 18.27 % points compared to
industrial steam methane reforming processes. The optimal electric
efficiency of E-SMR is 88.68 %, which is 11.48 % points higher than
that of current commercial water electrolysis systems in operation.
As evaporating water brings high energy consumption, both thermal
efficiency and electrical efficiency are negatively correlated with S/
C.
2) Economic and environmental analyses results show that Case 2
(without CCS) got the minimum LCOH of 2.47 $/kg H2 and CO2
emission of 5.5 kg/kg H2. With installing of CCS, the carbon emission
of E-SMR is zero, and the lowest LCOH is 2.65 $/kg H2. Hydrogen
produced by electricity can be reduced to a lower cost than water
electrolysis. The investment cost of electric hydrogen production also
can be significantly reduced.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513
3) Sensitivity analysis shows that electricity and methane as fuel greatly
influence the cost of the E-SMR process. The price of electricity can
be regarded as zero when the application of E-SMR is to accommo­
date the surplus renewable electric energy. The LCOH of Case 2
(without CCS) is as low as 1.89 $/kg H2. Configurations with CCS are
more economical when the carbon tax is higher than 32.4 $/ton CO2.
When the hydrogen price is 3.2 $/kg, Case 2 (without CCS) invest­
ment can be recovered within 2.6 years. In the lifespan of 30 years,
the net present value of this design is 12.28 M$.
4) This paper proposed the application scenarios of the E-SMR process
in the natural gas supply chain. First, E-SMR uses natural gas and
surplus renewable electricity to generate hydrogen and passes it into
the natural gas pipeline in the gas supply area, which can realize
large-scale renewable energy storage and hydrogen transportation.
E-SMR at the gas consumption area can provide hydrogen for gas
users, reduce the carbon emission of gas and accommodate renew­
able electricity.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Huchao Song: Writing – original draft, Data curation, Investigation,
Validation, Methodology, Software. Yinhe Liu: Writing – review &
editing, Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision. Hao
Bian: Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Mengfei Shen: Writing
– review & editing, Software. Xiaolong Lin: Writing – review & editing,
Investigation.
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.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Key Research and Development Plan
of Shaanxi Province (No. 2021GXLH-Z-088).
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
References
[1] Mehrpooya M, Habibi R. A review on hydrogen production thermochemical water-
splitting cycles. J Cleaner Prod 2020;275:123836.
[2] Baykara SZ. Hydrogen: A brief overview on its sources, production and
environmental impact. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:10605–14.
[3] Guandalini G, Campanari S, Romano MC. Power-to-gas plants and gas turbines for
improved wind energy dispatchability: Energy and economic assessment. Appl
Energy 2015;147:117–30.
[4] Pan G, Gu W, Hu Q, Wang J, Teng F, Strbac G. Cost and low-carbon
competitiveness of electrolytic hydrogen in China. Energy Environ Sci 2021;14:
4868–81.
[5] Li X, Mulder M. Value of power-to-gas as a flexibility option in integrated
electricity and hydrogen markets. Appl Energy 2021;304:117863.
[6] Longden T, Beck FJ, Jotzo F, Andrews R, Prasad M. ‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing
the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity based hydrogen.
Appl Energy 2022;306:118145.
[7] Ma Y, Wang XR, Li T, Zhang J, Gao Ji, Sun ZY. Hydrogen and ethanol: Production,
storage, and transportation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(54):27330–48.
H. Song et al.
[8] Schlund D, Schönfisch M. Analysing the impact of a renewable hydrogen quota on
the European electricity and natural gas markets. Appl Energy 2021;304:117666.
[9] Isaac T. HyDeploy: The UK’s first hydrogen blending deployment project. Clean
Energy 2019;3:114–25.
[10] Abdalla AM, Hossain S, Nisfindy OB, Azad AT, Dawood M, Azad AK. Hydrogen
production, storage, transportation and key challenges with applications: A review.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;165:602–27.
[11] J.C.D.L. M.J. Kippers, Hermkens RJM. Pilot project on hydrogen injection in
natural gas on island of ameland in the netherlands. International Gas Union
Research Conference (2010).
[12] I.E. Agency. The Future of Hydrogen. 2019.
[13] Ji G, Yao JG, Clough PT, da Costa JCD, Anthony EJ, Fennell PS, et al. Enhanced
hydrogen production from thermochemical processes. Energy Environ Sci 2018;11:
2647–72.
[14] Anwar S, Khan F, Zhang Y, Djire A. Recent development in electrocatalysts for
hydrogen production through water electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:
32284–317.
[15] Lee B, Heo J, Kim S, Sung C, Moon C, Moon S, et al. Economic feasibility studies of
high pressure PEM water electrolysis for distributed H2 refueling stations. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;162:139–44.
[16] Abdin Z, Zafaranloo A, Rafiee A, Mérida W, Lipiński W, Khalilpour KR. Hydrogen
as an energy vector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;120:109620.
[17] Shi X, Wang F, Cheng Z, Liang H, Dong Y, Chen X. Numerical analysis of the
biomimetic leaf-type hierarchical porous structure to improve the energy storage
efficiency of solar driven steam methane reforming. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;
46:17653–65.
[18] Simpson A, Lutz A. Exergy analysis of hydrogen production via steam methane
reforming. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:4811–20.
[19] Peng XD. Analysis of the thermal efficiency limit of the steam methane reforming
process. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012;51:16385–92.
[20] Lee J, Hong S, Cho H, Lyu B, Kim M, Kim J, et al. Machine learning-based energy
optimization for on-site SMR hydrogen production. Energy Convers Manage 2021;
244:114438.
[21] Navas-Anguita Z, Garcia-Gusano D, Dufour J, Iribarren D. Revisiting the role of
steam methane reforming with CO2 capture and storage for long-term hydrogen
production. Sci Total Environ 2021;771:145432.
[22] Shi W, Yang H, Shen Y, Fu Q, Zhang D, Fu B. Two-stage PSA/VSA to produce H2
with CO2 capture via steam methane reforming (SMR). Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:19057–74.
[23] Leung DYC, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of
carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;
39:426–43.
[24] Institute GC. Global Status of CCS: 2021. Melbourne: Global CCS Institute; 2021.
[25] Centi G, Iaquaniello G, Perathoner S. Chemical engineering role in the use of
renewable energy and alternative carbon sources in chemical production. BMC
Chemical Engineering 2019;1(1).
[26] Spagnolo D, Cornett L, Chuang K. DIRECT ELECTRO-STEAM REFORMING: A
NOVEL CATALYTIC APPROACH. International Association for Hydrogen. Energy
1992;17(11):839–46.
[27] Renda S, Cortese M, Iervolino G, Martino M, Meloni E, Palma V. Electrically driven
SiC-based structured catalysts for intensified reforming processes. Catal Today
2022;383:31–43.
[28] Meloni E, Martino M, Ricca A, Palma V. Ultracompact methane steam reforming
reactor based on microwaves susceptible structured catalysts for distributed
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:13729–47.
[29] Martino M, Ruocco C, Meloni E, Pullumbi P, Palma V. Main Hydrogen Production
Processes: An Overview. Catalysts 2021;11:547.
[30] Ma J, Jiang B, Li L, Yu K, Zhang Q, Lv Z, et al. A high temperature tubular reactor
with hybrid concentrated solar and electric heat supply for steam methane
reforming. Chem Eng J 2022;428:132073.
[31] Vinum MG, Almind MR, Engbaek JS, Vendelbo SB, Hansen MF, Frandsen C, et al.
Dual-Function Cobalt-Nickel Nanoparticles Tailored for High-Temperature
Induction-Heated Steam Methane Reforming. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2018;57:
10569–73.
[32] Ambrosetti M, Beretta A, Groppi G, Tronconi E. A numerical investigation of
electrically-heated methane steam reforming over structured catalysts. Front Chem
Eng 2021;3:747636.
[33] Sebastian JSE, Wismann T, Vendelbo SB, Bendixen FB, Eriksen WL, Aasberg-
Petersen K, et al. Electrified methane reforming: A compact approach to greener
industrial hydrogen production. Science 2019;364 (24:756–9.
[34] Parandin MS, Rashidi H. Deep desulfurization of natural gas by a commercial ZnO
adsorbent: A mathematical study for fixed-bed reactors. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2018;59:
116–23.
14
Energy Conversion and Management 258 (2022) 115513
[35] Antzara A, Heracleous E, Bukur DB, Lemonidou AA. Thermodynamic Analysis of
Hydrogen Production via Chemical Looping Steam Methane Reforming Coupled
with in Situ CO2 Capture. Energy Procedia 2014;63:6576–89.
[36] Shagdar E, Lougou BG, Shuai Y, Ganbold E, Chinonso OP, Tan H. Process analysis
of solar steam reforming of methane for producing low-carbon hydrogen. RSC Adv
2020;10:12582–97.
[37] Arpagaus C, Bless F, Uhlmann M, Schiffmann J, Bertsch SS. High temperature heat
pumps: Market overview, state of the art, research status, refrigerants, and
application potentials. Energy 2018;152:985–1010.
[38] Smith W, Missen R. Chemical reaction equilibrium analysis Theory and lagorithms:
NY Wiley. (1982).
[39] Yang Z, Liu Y, Cao Z. Study of chemical quench of high temperature syngas. Int J
Chem Reactor Eng 2011;9.
[40] Faheem HH, Tanveer HU, Abbas SZ, Maqbool F. Comparative study of
conventional steam-methane-reforming (SMR) and auto-thermal-reforming (ATR)
with their hybrid sorption enhanced (SE-SMR & SE-ATR) and environmentally
benign process models for the hydrogen production. Fuel 2021;297:120769.
[41] Zhu L, Li L, Fan J. A modified process for overcoming the drawbacks of
conventional steam methane reforming for hydrogen production: Thermodynamic
investigation. Chem Eng Res Des 2015;104:792–806.
[42] Lutz AE, Bradshaw RW, Keller JO, Witmer DE. Thermodynamic analysis of
hydrogen production by steam reforming. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2003;28:159–67.
[43] Carapellucci R, Giordano L. Steam, dry and autothermal methane reforming for
hydrogen production: A thermodynamic equilibrium analysis. J Power Sources
2020;469:228391.
[44] Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better
sustainability. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:11094–111.
[45] Mikielewicz D, Wajs J. Performance of the very high-temperature heat pump with
low GWP working fluids. Energy 2019;182:460–70.
[46] Khojasteh Salkuyeh Y, Saville BA, MacLean HL. Techno-economic analysis and life
cycle assessment of hydrogen production from natural gas using current and
emerging technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:18894–909.
[47] Cormos C-C. Economic evaluations of coal-based combustion and gasification
power plants with post-combustion CO 2 capture using calcium looping cycle.
Energy 2014;78:665–73.
[48] Akhtari MR, Shayegh I, Karimi N. Techno-economic assessment and optimization
of a hybrid renewable earth - air heat exchanger coupled with electric boiler,
hydrogen, wind and PV configurations. Renewable Energy 2020;148:839–51.
[49] Kosmadakis G, Arpagaus C, Neofytou P, Bertsch S. Techno-economic analysis of
high-temperature heat pumps with low-global warming potential refrigerants for
upgrading waste heat up to 150 ◦ C. Energy Convers Manage 2020;226:113488.
[50] Yan Y, Manovic V, Anthony EJ, Clough PT. Techno-economic analysis of low-
carbon hydrogen production by sorption enhanced steam methane reforming (SE-
SMR) processes. Energy Convers Manage 2020;226:113530.
[51] China electricity prices, September 2021 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com n.d. . htt
ps://www.globalpetrolprices.com/China/electricity_prices/, 2021.
[52] Standard rates | Anglian Water Services n.d. (accessed June 12, 2020). http
s://www.anglianwater.co.uk/account-and-bill/tariffs-and-charges/standard-rates/
2021.
[53] Wei X, Manovic V, Hanak DP. Techno-economic assessment of coal- or biomass-
fired oxy-combustion power plants with supercritical carbon dioxide cycle. Energy
Convers Manage 2020;221:113143.
[54] Finke CE, Leandri HF, Karumb ET, Zheng D, Hoffmann MR, Fromer NA.
Economically advantageous pathways for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
industrial hydrogen under common, current economic conditions. Energy Environ
Sci 2021;14(3):1517–29.
[55] Shimizu KIT, Murata K, Kawashima S, Hiranaka Y, Mori S, et al. Development of
compact hydrogen generator for on-site hydrogen station. Int Gas Res Conf Proc
2014;3:2613–20.
[56] A. Liquide. Hydrogen generators: HYOS-R. in: A.L. (n.d.), (Ed.). Air Liq. (n.d.).
[57] Cummins. Discover Cummins Electrolyzer Technologies. 2021.
[58] Sunfire. SUNFIRE-HYLINK SOEC. 2022.
[59] Lee B, Cho H-S, Kim H, Lim D, Cho W, Kim C-H, et al. Integrative techno-economic
and environmental assessment for green H2 production by alkaline water
electrolysis based on experimental data. J Environ Chem Eng 2021;9:106349.
[60] P. National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook 2021. China Statistics
Press (2021).
[61] Frate GF, Ferrari L, Desideri U. Analysis of suitability ranges of high temperature
heat pump working fluids. Appl Therm Eng 2019;150:628–40.
[62] S.B.o. Japan. JAPAN STATISTICAL YEARBOOK 2022, Ministry of lnternal Affairs
and Communications, 2021.
[63] BP. Bp Statistical Review of World Energy. 2021.