Deliverable 3 (1)
Deliverable 3 (1)
BLUE HYDROGEN
Deliverable - 3
GROUP 17:
GAGANDEEP CH21B037
FAZAL CH21B097
1. INTRODUCTION
As the global energy landscape transitions towards cleaner alternatives, hydrogen is increasingly
recognized as a critical energy carrier. Within the various methods of hydrogen production, blue
hydrogen emerges as a significant low-carbon option, bridging the gap between hydrogen derived
from conventional fossil fuels and entirely renewable green hydrogen. Blue hydrogen originates from
natural gas through processes like reforming or oxidation, incorporating Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) technology to mitigate CO₂ emissions. This approach makes blue hydrogen a practical choice
for decarbonizing sectors with high hydrogen consumption, such as refining, chemical
manufacturing, steel production, and electricity generation.
Compositions mol%
Methane 89
Ethane 7
Propane 1
Butane 0.1
Pentane 0.01
CO2 2
N2 0.89
This simulation outlines a hydrogen production system based on partial oxidation. The model
incorporates the following key stages and components:
1. Feed System: Natural gas (or another hydrocarbon feed) is introduced into the process.
2. Partial Oxidation Reactor (B8): This is the central reactor where the oxidation reaction
occurs, producing synthesis gas (syngas) – a mixture containing H₂, CO, CO₂, and other
components.
3. Syngas Cooling & Separation: The hot syngas exiting the reactor is cooled through heat
exchangers (B6, B7) to manage its temperature before it enters separation units.
4. Compression & Purification: The cooled syngas is compressed (B1) and then fed into a
separation unit (B14). This unit isolates the hydrogen product from CO₂. The separated CO₂ is
typically vented or captured for utilization or storage.
The process adheres to the principle of mass conservation, described by the following balance
equations:
● Fundamental Equation: Total Mass In = Total Mass Out (ΣMass In = ΣMass Out)
● Input Streams:
○ Methane (CH₄): X kg/h
○ Oxygen (O₂): Y kg/h
○ Water (H₂O) (potentially for shift reaction): W kg/h
● Output Streams (Products & Byproducts):
○ Hydrogen (H₂): Z kg/h
○ Carbon Monoxide (CO): A kg/h
○ Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): B kg/h
○ Unreacted components and purge streams are also accounted for.
● Governing Reactions for Mass Balance:
1. Partial Oxidation: CH₄ + 0.5O₂ → CO + 2H₂
2. Water-Gas Shift: CO + H₂O ⇌ CO₂ + H₂
● Total Mass Balance Equation: X + Y + W = Z + A + B + mass of other components
The final product composition is directly influenced by the conversion rate of methane and the
selectivity towards hydrogen production.
The reaction rates within the partial oxidation process are governed by the following key reactions
and kinetic parameters:
3.3.1: Gasifier(B6)
Parameter Values
Design Pressure(barg) 25
Power(kW) 1500
Sizing Values
Power(kW) 1500
Economics
Maintenance B3 $30,000/year
Parameter Values
Design Pressure(barg) 25
Power(kW) 1500
Sizing Values
Power(kW) 1500
Economics
Parameter Values
Temperature(C) 156.7781500
Economics
Maintenance B3 $30,000/year
Parameter Values
Temperature(C) 156.7781500
Pressure(barg) 22.4342
Economics
Economics
Maintenance B3 $30,000/year
The F&EI analysis yielded a Process Unit Hazard Factor (F3) of 1.75, primarily influenced by toxic
material properties and operating pressure. Based on the Material Factor (MF) for the Carbon Dioxide
Mix of [Insert MF Value], the resulting F&EI is [Insert Calculated F&EI Value]. This value signifies a
[Insert Hazard Category, e.g., Moderate, Severe] degree of fire and explosion hazard associated with
this unit.
The CEI analysis focused on potential releases of the Carbon Dioxide Mix (approx. 18,990 kg inventory,
vapor phase). The governing scenario identified was a large-bore pipe failure (613 mm), yielding a CEI
of 232. Crucially, the calculated hazard distances for this event (HD-2 = 2322 m based on ERPG-2;
HD-3 = 1942 m based on ERPG-3) extend well beyond the assumed 100 m distance to public areas,
indicating a potential for significant off-site consequences. A relief valve discharge scenario yielded a
lower CEI of 22 (HD-2 = 219 m).
In summary, the RAST analysis highlights considerable fire, explosion, and toxic release risks for the
Stirred Reactor / Crystallizer unit, demanding robust safety measures, particularly concerning the
prevention of major containment loss.
● Economic Analysis:
REFERENCES
● Turton, R., Shaeiwitz, J. A., Bhattacharyya, D., & Whiting, W. B. (2018). Analysis, Synthesis, and
Design of Chemical Processes (5th ed.). Prentice Hall. (Covers process design, simulation principles,
equipment sizing, and preliminary economics).
● Seider, W. D., Seader, J. D., Lewin, D. R., & Widagdo, S. (2016). Product and Process Design
Principles: Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation (4th ed.). Wiley. (Comprehensive text on process
design, simulation, and economics).
● Peters, M. S., Timmerhaus, K. D., & West, R. E. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. (Classic text covering detailed cost estimation techniques for CAPEX
and OPEX).
● Garrett, D. E. (1989). Chemical Engineering Economics. Van Nostrand Reinhold. (Another resource for
cost estimation methods).
● Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI): Published monthly in Chemical Engineering
Magazine. (Used for updating cost estimates to current dates – specify the index value and date used if
applied).
● RAST Software: Cite the specific version (e.g., RAST Version 4.5 as shown in your image) and its
source/provider if known (often associated with Dow or specific consulting groups implementing Dow's
methods).
● Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures (3rd ed.).
(2008). AIChE/Wiley. (Covers various hazard identification techniques like HAZOP).
● Mannan, S. (Ed.). (2012). Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (4th ed.).
Butterworth-Heinemann. (Comprehensive reference on process safety and loss prevention).