Techno-economic Assessment of Membrane Reactor Technologies for Pure Hydrogen Production for Fuel Cell Vehicle Fleets

Abstract

In the evolution toward a “carbon-neutral” energy economy, among the most promising solutions for replacing today’s greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting vehicles is the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier. In the pathway toward a future infrastructure based on renewable energy sources, a medium-term step would rely on the use of fossil fuels for on-site production of hydrogen, feeding small fleets of fuel cell vehicles. Great interest is on natural gas as a primary source because of its high hydrogen/carbon ratio. State of the art technology for the production of hydrogen from natural gas includes a series of reacting steps typically involving steam reforming (at 800 °C or above), a water-gas shift reactor, and a final purification of hydrogen through pressure swing adsorption (PSA). An alternative that has been the subject of growing interest is the use of thin (2–50 μm thick) Pd-alloy materials as hydrogen perm-selective membranes for the embedded extraction of pure hydrogen from the chemical reactor; this system is usually known as the “membrane reactor”. This paper studies the adoption of palladium-based membrane reactor technologies for pure hydrogen production from natural gas. In particular, three system layouts are analyzed and compared to the traditional option: (i) autothermal reforming membrane reactor, (ii) steam reforming membrane reactor (externally heated), and (iii) water-gas shift membrane reactor downstream of a steam reformer. The comparison is made in terms of performances and techno-economic considerations for the design of compact systems for on-site production of hydrogen at filling stations. The systems are designed for 50 m3/h (1766 cfh) of hydrogen, which corresponds to refilling 25 vehicles a day with 4 kg of hydrogen (approximately 418 km driving range on fuel cell vehicles with a 70 MPa storage tank).

Social cost-benefit analysis of hydrogen mobility in Europe

“…The supply scenario is constructed by two main assumptions. First, the current dominance of steam methane reforming (SMR) process from natural gas will be progresively replaced by cleaner alternatives [21]. The SMR is considered as a transition technology.…”

“…However, the deployment of hydrogen-based transport raises new challenges for production infrastructures that need to evolve towards flexible small scale on-site production facilities. It is considered that on-site production at the hydrogen refueling stations (HRS) are designed to 50 Nm 3 /h of H 2 , which corresponds to the refilling of 25 vehicles per day [21] and a daily storage capacity of 100 kg of H 2 .…”

Preliminary techno‐economic analysis of a multi‐bed series reactor as a simultaneous CF4 abatement and utilization process

“…A techno‐economic analysis (TEA) combining process simulation and economic analysis has been considered as a good method to assess the feasibility for the proposed processes in advance and to provide a direction for future R&D . In this study, a preliminary cost estimation based on simulation results from Aspen HYSYS ® was performed in terms of natural gas usage for the proposed systems, S‐1, S‐2, and S‐3.…”

Cost‐competitive methane steam reforming in a membrane reactor for H 2 production: Technical and economic evaluation with a window of a H 2 selectivity

“…A stream factor was assumed as 1 and electricity was calculated considering annual electricity consumption of compressor for reactants and pretreatment of PSA for a PBR with electricity price of $0.06 kWh −1 . The US Department of Energy target price of H 2 separation membranes ($5382 m −2 ) was adopted to calculate operating costs for membranes . Annual costs for labor were calculated on the basis of labor for a part‐time worker in Korea ($16 667 y −1 ).…”

“…48 The US Department of Energy target price of H 2 separation membranes ($5382 m −2 ) was adopted to calculate operating costs for membranes. 44 Annual costs for labor were calculated on the basis of labor for a part-time worker in Korea ($16 667 y −1 ). Maintenance and other operating costs were 2% and 1% of TCI, respectively.…”