Opportunities for decarbonising

existing hydrogen production

Decarbonising existing SMR-based hydrogen production units is possible, and each
solution has advantages and disadvantages related to the required modifications

Omar Bedani
Wood

T
he effects of climate change are becoming Reforming has been proven at scale for
increasingly apparent. As a result, the decades within the refining and chemical
energy and materials industries have sectors. However, the amount of CO₂ produced
been given a strong mandate to take clear and by this process is large: each steam reforming
decisive actions to reduce dependency on oil unit produces in the range of 8.5-10 tons of
and cut greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate CO₂ for each ton of hydrogen product. To
the effects of climate change. achieve the full promise and scale of hydrogen
Hydrogen can be a key enabler of the using steam reforming in the near to medium
transition to a lower carbon future for heavy term, there is no doubt that new assets must
industry. With minimal modifications to existing be coupled with a carbon capture system. The
assets, hydrogen can be used as a fuel with zero low-carbon hydrogen produced through the
carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. It can also be combination of these technologies is often
used as a means for low-carbon energy storage, called blue hydrogen.
and new value chains are emerging for the
transportation and consumption of hydrogen,
including ammonia, methanol, and methane. To achieve the full promise and
However, the hydrogen available to us scale of hydrogen using steam
naturally is bound to other elements, for reforming in the near to medium
example, oxygen in water or carbon in
term, new assets must be coupled
hydrocarbons. Hydrogen production via
water electrolysis is costly as it needs power,
with a carbon capture system
and these power sources must be produced
renewably if we want to really consider our What about existing hydrogen production
hydrogen as low or zero carbon emitting. While facilities?
electrolysis has been in existence for a long In 2021 alone, the world produced 94 million
time, it can be argued that the process is not tons of hydrogen – 74 million tons as pure
yet technologically or commercially mature at hydrogen and 20 million tons as hydrogen
the scale required to provide the huge amount mixed with other gases (IEA, 2022). More
of energy we currently use, despite several than 50% of this hydrogen was produced via
gigawatt-scale projects planned globally. steam reforming, resulting in approximately
Extracting hydrogen from hydrocarbons 900 million tons of CO₂ emissions. To put this
using a process called reforming is less energy into perspective, the total CO₂ emissions of
intensive, but the primary by-product of this Spain, Italy, and France combined in the same
process is CO2, which we want to avoid. year equalled 850 million tons (European
Therefore, for this process to be reasonably Commission, 2022). These economies
sustainable, the CO2 must be recovered from the collectively represent nearly 1/12th of the
process and then either stored or reused. global GDP.

www.decarbonisationtechnology.com 1
 This example shows both the magnitude syngas stream leaving the reaction section
of the challenge and the potential benefit of the hydrogen unit (meaning, it removes
of reducing CO₂ emissions from hydrogen the CO2 before the syngas enters the final
production via decarbonising existing steam purification section).
methane reforming (SMR) facilities. Gas heated reformer: a convection-type

steam reforming reactor in which the process
Hydrogen production unit under consideration heat required is provided by cooling down the
Given its significant near-term positive syngas leaving the steam reforming furnace.
potential, this article focuses on four options  Carbon impact: is the parameter used by UK
that Wood has developed for decarbonising regulations to measure the CO₂ footprint of the
an existing hydrogen production unit based on facility under assessment.
steam reforming. For the purpose of this article, Wood has
The unit on which this analysis has been considered both the carbon capture options to
performed was designed by Wood in 2017 and be a solvent-based absorption system.
has been operational since 2020. It is designed The results described are not fully exhaustive
to produce 80,000 Nm³/h (approximately 173 of the options available on the market, and each
TPD) of hydrogen at 99.9% purity by reforming unit will have its own unique characteristics.
natural gas and does not have a pre-reforming
section or any provision for carbon capture Reference case
installation. It works on high-temperature (HT) The reference case is based on the installation
shift and is equipped with an HT combustion air of a post-combustion carbon capture on the
pre-heating system. reference hydrogen unit (see Figure 1).
In each of the four cases, reduction in CO₂ The main advantage of this system is the
emissions/carbon impact, capital expenditure, option to add carbon capture without making
operational expenditure, and project major modifications to the existing hydrogen
implementation time are compared with a unit. A post-combustion carbon capture system
reference case. The reference case is the revamp is, in fact, a completely independent unit for
of the existing unit by adding a post-combustion which the sole major modification is to create
carbon capture system. a flue gas connection point to the existing
To better understand the solutions in this hydrogen unit (typically on the stack of the
article, it is important to properly define some steam reforming furnace). Flue gas is then
terms that will be used: sent to the carbon capture system by means
 Post-combustion carbon capture: this refers of a blower, treated to separate the CO₂ from
to a solvent-based carbon absorption system the other components, and finally delivered
added to the flue gas stream leaving the to battery limits in two streams: i) a pure CO₂
hydrogen production unit by means of the stack stream that goes to storage or to reuse, ii) a
installed on top of the furnace. stream of decarbonised flue gases to be sent
 Pre-combustion carbon capture: this refers
 back to the stack of the hydrogen unit – or
to a carbon removal system installed on the to a new one – which is discharged to the
atmosphere.
CO2 for use or
While the application of post-carbon capture
Clean flue gas
to atmosphere sequestration is the simplest conceptually, it is a high Capex
Post-capture
solution, which includes washing columns,
Flue gas exchangers, and pumps. The high cost is related
Feed Steam
to the fact that the system works at very low
Hydrogen
reforming Shift PSA
product pressure ( just a little more than atmospheric
pressure). Therefore the CO₂ concentration (its
PSA tail gas
Fuel partial pressure) is low, making the specific
volumes of flue gas to be processed very
Figure 1 Reference case: post-combustion high. This also requires a high electric power
carbon capture consumption, which comes with additional

2 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
 H2 CO2 Carbon CO2 Capex2 Lead time Down time Opex2,3
production recovery impact1
Nm³/h % [gCO2eq/MJH2] KgCO2/kgH2 % Months Months %
80,000 95 <15.5 0.45 Base 24 1 Base

Table 1 Reference case: post-combustion carbon capture – carbon capture efficiency and
investment metrics

costs and potentially additional CO₂ emissions by introducing a solution that is differentiated
(depending on the power source). A second by the installation of pre-combustion carbon
shortcoming is that the system requires a capture, a gas heated reformer, and a pre-
larger plot area which can be undesirable in reformer. Hydrogen-rich gas firing will also
many brownfield applications where space displace the CO₂ emissions from the combustion
can be constrained. In addition, for chemistry side of the process.
reasons, the solvent of the post-combustion The pre-reformer and the gas heated reformer
carbon capture degrades easier than the pre- are two fixed bed reactors that exploit the ‘waste’
combustion carbon capture, also yielding heat available in the hydrogen unit to support the
higher Opex for solvent replacement costs. reforming process and reduce the need for fuel
The post-combustion capture system can firing in the steam reforming furnace.
remove 95% of the CO₂ contained in the flue The pre-combustion carbon capture brings
gas stream, and the residual CO₂ emissions at significant advantages in terms of investment
the stack are in the range of 0.45 kg CO₂ per cost, plot area, and operational expenditure. This
kg of produced H₂. The other key results of this is because the system is installed on the syngas
solution are summarised in Table 1. stream, where the pressure is in the range of
As previously stated, this is the reference case 25 barg, and therefore the concentration of the
of the study, and the decarbonisation solutions CO₂ is higher, making separation easier. The
following this case are all measured relative to equipment is smaller than is needed for the
this solution. post-combustion carbon capture used for the
reference case due to the lower specific volumes
Option 1: BlueSMR+ of gas that needs to be processed.
This option (see Figure 2) aims to significantly The solvent has limited degradation, and
increase the performance of the existing unit there is lower electric power consumption as no

Clean flue gas to CO2 for use or

atmosphere sequestration

Pre-reforming Steam Gas heated CO2 capture Hydrogen

Feed reforming reformer Shift PSA
product

H2 enriched fuel gas

Figure 2 Option 1: BlueSMR+ pre-combustion carbon capture

H2 CO2 Carbon CO2 Capex2 Lead time Down time Opex2,3

production recovery impact1
Nm³/h % [gCO2eq/MJH2] KgCO2/kgH2 % Months Months %
80,000 88 <16.5 0.96 55 18 10 22

Table 2 Option 1: BlueSMR+ pre-combustion carbon capture – carbon capture efficiency and
investment metrics

www.decarbonisationtechnology.com 3
 Clean flue gas to CO2 for use or
atmosphere sequestration

Pre-reforming Improved steam Gas heated CO2 capture Hydrogen

Feed reforming reformer Shift PSA
product

H2 enriched fuel gas

Figure 3 Option 2: BlueSMR+ (with catalyst tube revamp) pre-combustion carbon capture plus
furnace revamp

blower is required to push the CO₂-rich stream like hydrotreating or hydrocracking during
through the capture system. this time.
The potential degree of decarbonisation may
be constrained by the original design of the Option 2: BlueSMR+ (with catalyst tube
existing hydrogen unit, depending on its age. revamp)
Therefore, the benefits of this solution will This solution (see Figure 3) is mostly based
vary, and careful study is needed to confirm its on the same modifications studied for the
appropriateness for any specific asset. However, previous case but also considers the revamp of
the implementation cost associated with this the existing reaction section of the reforming
solution is significantly lower than the reference furnace with an improved catalyst tube
case (see Table 2). geometry.
Since all the above equipment must be While this brings additional investment, and
integrated within the hydrogen unit, the major the implementation time is very similar to option
disadvantage of this solution is the need to put 1, this does have the potential for reduced
it out of service for a significant amount of time operating cost. Table 3 summarises the key
(approximately 10 months). This may not be parameters of this solution.
possible if the asset does not have a back-up
hydrogen source to support critical processes Option 3: BlueSMRp
This solution (see Figure 4) utilises Wood’s
proprietary BlueSMRp technology. The ‘p’
Clean flue gas to
atmosphere stands for ‘parallel’, and the name is quite
descriptive of what the system does. In
summary, a small hydrogen production unit
Steam Hydrogen
Feed reforming Shift PSA
product equipped with a pre-combustion carbon
capture system is installed in parallel to the
PSA tail gas
BlueSMR P existing one and produces the low-carbon fuel
CO2 for use or sequestration to be fired in the steam reforming furnace of
the existing unit. The ‘parallel’ is decarbonised
Figure 4 Option 3: BlueSMRp new parallel by nature, while the existing one becomes
hydrogen unit with pre-combustion carbon decarbonised through firing a low-carbon fuel/
capture installed in parallel to existing unit hydrogen-enriched gas.

H2 CO2 Carbon CO2 Capex2 Lead time Down time Opex2,3

production recovery impact1
Nm³/h % [gCO2eq/MJH2] KgCO2/kgH2 % Months Months %
80,000 90 <15.5 0.78 60 18 10 12

Table 3 Option 2: BlueSMR+ (with catalyst tube revamp) pre-combustion carbon capture plus
furnace revamp – carbon capture efficiency and investment metrics

4 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
 H2 CO2 Carbon CO2 Capex2 Lead time Down time Opex2,3
production recovery impact1
Nm³/h % [gCO2eq/MJH2] KgCO2/kgH2 % Months Months %
80,000 97 <12.5 0.28 70 24 1 48

Table 4 Option 3: BlueSMRp new parallel hydrogen unit with pre-combustion – carbon capture
efficiency and investment metrics

H2 CO2 Carbon CO2 Capex2 Lead time Down time Opex2,3

production recovery impact1
Nm³/h % [gCO2eq/MJH2] KgCO2/kgH2 % Months Months %
80,000 99 <11 0.09 55 24 1 69

Table 5 Option 4: BlueSMRe Renewable electric power to decrease fuel firing in the parallel
hydrogen unit – reducing carbon emissions and investment metrics

The main aim of this solution is to provide

users with a plug-and-play solution similar to Clean flue gas to
atmosphere
the installation of the post-combustion carbon
capture described in the reference case. For this
BlueSMRp, there is no need for major changes Steam Hydrogen
to the existing hydrogen unit, and the resulting reforming Shift PSA product
Feed
residual CO₂ emissions are even lower than in PSA tail gas Renewable electric
BlueSMR E
the reference case. Capital expenditure as well power
(approx. 17MW)
as operational expenditure are also reduced (see CO2 for use or sequestration
Table 4).

Option 4: BlueSMRe Figure 5 Option 4: Blue SMRe Renewable

In this case, the ‘e’ stands for ‘electric’. This electric power to decrease fuel firing in the
solution (see Figure 5) is similar in concept to parallel hydrogen unit
the one proposed for the BlueSMRp, However,
it is based on integrating a renewable electric unit from the initial value of 9.1 kg CO₂ per kg
power import to decrease the fuel fired in the of H₂ produced down to less than 1 kg CO₂ per
hydrogen production unit and therefore reduce kg of H₂ produced, and even below 0.1 kg CO₂
CO₂ production. The obvious result is that per kg H₂ produced if the unit can be integrated
this solution brings very low residual carbon with renewable electric power.
emission, much lower than any of the other
cases analysed. However, the downside is a
higher operational expenditure mainly related to Notes: Tables 1-5
the cost of imported renewable electric power 1 According to UK regulation. 99% availability, grid
(see Table 5). connected power.
2 Compared to the reference case (post-combustion
capture).
Conclusion 3 Prices: Natural gas 5 USD/MMBtu; Steam: 14 USD/
In conclusion, decarbonising existing SMR- ton; Electric power: 80 USD/MWh; Carbon tax: 107
based hydrogen production units is possible, USD/ton CO₂ emitted.
and several solutions are viable. Each solution
brings advantages and disadvantages related to
the modifications required to be implemented, References
and all bring significant reductions in CO₂ European Commission. 2022. CO2 emissions
emissions. It is possible to reduce the carbon of all world countries – 2022 report. EDGAR-
intensity of the existing hydrogen production Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric

www.decarbonisationtechnology.com 5
 Research. [Online] JRC, 2022. https://edgar.jrc.
LINKS
ec.europa.eu/report_2022.
IEA. 2022. Global Hydrogen Review. [Online] More articles from the following categories:
IEA, September 2022. https://www.iea.org/ Emissions Reduction
Hydrogen
reports/global-hydrogen-review-2022.

6 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com