Numerical evaluation of hydrogen production by steam reforming of natural gas
Abstract view|192|times PDF download|93|times
Abstract
Industry-scale hydrogen is mainly produced by steam methane reforming (SMR), which uses natural gas as the feedstock and fuel and co-produces CO2. This study aims to numerically evaluate hydrogen production by SMR under various reacting conditions. Unlike the previous studies with limited scenarios, the performance of SMR is continuously evaluated in a high-dimensional input-parameter space. The SMR plant including a combustor, a reformer, and a water-gas shifter is modeled in Aspen HYSYS software. The four key parameters, including methane fraction of the feedstock, reformer pressure and temperature, and shifter temperature, are treated uncertain and 50 samples are drawn from a four-dimensional parameter space defined by their ranges. Each sample is input to HYSYS model and mass ratio of each component in product streams is obtained as the output variables. Based on the 50 pairs of input-output data, response surfaces of the outputs are developed to surrogate HYSYS models. The fast response surface models are then used to calculate global sensitivity indices and evaluate SMR processes. Results show the reformer performance is controlled by temperature rather than pressure, and a temperature higher than 900 °C can maximize the reaction rate. The water-gas shifting reaction is inhibited in the reformer but significantly enhanced in the shifter. Hydrogen is mainly produced in the reformer while the major function of the shifter is to convert CO to nontoxic CO2.
Document Type: Original article
Cited as: Chen, M., Al-Subhi, K., Al-Rajhi, A., Al-Maktoumi, A., Izady, A. Al-Hinai, A. Numerical evaluation of hydrogen production by steam reforming of natural gas. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2023, 7(3): 141-151. https://doi.org/10.46690/ager.2023.03.01
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ansari, D. The hydrogen ambitions of the Gulf States: Achieving economic diversification while maintaining power. Paper Presented at SWP Comment, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, July, 2022.
AspenTech. Aspen HYSYS V12.2, Bedford, MA 01730, USA, 2022.
Ball, M., Weeda, M. The hydrogen economy-vision or reality? International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2015, 40(25): 7903-7919.
Balta, M. T., Dincer, I., Hepbasli, A. Potential methods for geothermal-based hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35(10): 4949-4961.
Bicer, Y., Dincer, I. Development of a new solar and geothermal based combined system for hydrogen production. Solar Energy, 2016, 127: 269-284.
B¨uhlmann, P. Bagging, subagging and bragging for improving some prediction algorithms, in Recent Advances and Trends in Nonparametric Statistics, edited by M. G. Akritas, D. N. Politis, and Greenwich, USA, pp. 9-34, 2003.
Cancela, A., Sanchez, A., Maceiras, R., et al. Simulation of natural gas steam reforming to obtain high-purity hydrogen. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, 2015, 51: 529-535.
Chen, M., Abdalla, O. A., Izady, A., et al. Development and surrogate-based calibration of a CO2 reservoir model. Journal of Hydrology, 2020, 586: 124698.
Chen, M., Al-Maktoumi, A., Izady, A. Assessment of integrated CO2 geologic storage and geothermal harvest in a semi-closed thin reservoir. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2022, 49: 101773.
Chen, M., Sun, Y., Fu, P., et al. Surrogate-based optimization of hydraulic fracturing in pre-existing fracture networks. Computers & Geosciences, 2013, 58: 69-79.
Chiu, Y., Chiu, H., Hsieh, R.-H., et al. Simulations of hydrogen production by methanol steam reforming. Energy Procedia, 2019, 156: 38-42.
Friedman, J. H. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Annals of Statistics, 1991, 19(1): 1-67.
Hermesmann, M., Müller, T. E. Green, turquoise, blue, or grey? Environmentally friendly hydrogen production in transforming energy systems. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2022, 90: 100996.
Hjeij, D., Biçer, Y., Koc¸, M. Hydrogen strategy as an energy transition and economic transformation avenue for natural gas exporting countries: Qatar as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(8): 4977-5009.
Ihoeghian, N. A., Oyinkuro, K. C., Osagiede, C. A., et al. Steady-state simulation and optimization of hydrogen production by steam reforming of natural gas. Journal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 2018, 44: 323-330.
Inayat, A., Raza, M., Khan, Z., et al. Flowsheet modeling and simulation of biomass steam gasification for hydrogen production. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 2020, 43(4): 649-660.
Mathworks. MatLab & Simulink: Simulink Reference R2022b, 2022.
McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., Conover, W. J. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 1979, 21(2): 239-245.
Mokheimer, E. M. A., Hussain, M. I., Ahmed, S., et al. On the modeling of steam methane reforming. Journal of Energy Resources Technolog, 2015, 137(1): 012001.
Mostafaeipour, A., Khayyami, M., Sedaghat, A., et al. Evaluating the wind energy potential for hydrogen production: A case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(15): 6200-6210.
Peng, X., Jin, Q. Molecular simulation of methane steam reforming reaction for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(12): 7569-7585.
Picard, R. R., Cook, R. D. Cross-validation of regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1984, 79: 575-583.
Pourali, M., Esfahani, J. A., Sadeghi, M. A., et al. Simulation of methane steam reforming in a catalytic micro-reactor using a combined analytical approach and response surface methodology. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(44): 22763-22776.
Razavi, S., Tolson, B. A., Burn, D. H. Review of surrogate modeling in water resources. Water Resources Research, 2012, 48(7): W07401.
Saleem, M. S., Abas, N., Kalair, A. R., et al. Design and optimization of hybrid solar-hydrogen generation system using TRNSYS. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(32): 15814-15830.
Sandler, S. I. Chemical and Engineering Thermodynamics (Third Edition). Hoboken, US, John Wiley & Sons, 1999. Scovell, M. D. Explaining hydrogen energy technology acceptance: A critical review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(19): 10441-10459.
Seyitoglu, S. S., Dincer, I., Kilicarslan, A. Energy and exergy analyses of hydrogen production by coal gasification. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(4): 2592-2600.
Sobol’, I. M. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2001, 55(1-3): 271-280.
Ulleberg, Ø. Modeling of advanced alkaline electrolyzers: A system simulation approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2003, 28(1): 21-33.
Veziroglu, T. N., Sahin, S. 21st century’s energy: Hydrogen energy system. Energy Conversion and Management, 2008, 49(7): 1820-1831.
Yue, M., Lambert, H., Pahon, E., et al. Hydrogen energy systems: A critical review of technologies, applications, trends and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 146: 111180.
Zhang, T., Liu, J., Sun, S. Technology transition from traditional oil and gas reservoir simulation to the next generation energy development. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2023, 7(1): 69-70.
Zhang, T., Zhang, Y., Katterbauer, K., et al. Phase equilibrium in the hydrogen energy chain. Fuel, 2022, 328(15): 125324.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46690/ager.2023.03.01
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.