Low-Carbon Hydrogen from Natural Gas: Global Roadmap

Publication Overview

The primary objective of this study is to conduct a techno-economic and environmental assessment of the production of natural gas-based hydrogen with accompanying carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Further, the purpose of this study is to enrich knowledge and compare the deployment of steam methane reforming (SMR), electrified SMR (E-SMR), autothermal reforming (ATR), and partial oxidation (POX) with CCS in the Netherlands. The findings of this study will be of interest to policy makers, industrial emitters, as well as technology developers.

Publication Summary

• The life cycle assessment (LCA) for the natural gas-based blue (CCS-abated) hydrogenproduction technologies reveals that a reduction of the carbon footprint ranging between 43-76% can be achieved in the Netherlands in 2020 for all the investigated technologies. Thisreduction is set against the reference grey (without CCS) hydrogen with a carbon footprint of10.13 kg CO₂ eq./kg H2.
• The carbon footprints of blue hydrogen produced using SMR (2.78 kg CO₂ eq./kg H2), ATR +GHR (3.23 kg CO₂ eq./kg H2) are comparable to that of POX, with POX (2.43 kg CO₂eq./kg H2)achieving the lowest carbon footprint. In contrast, blue hydrogen produced using ESMR hasthe highest carbon footprint (5.74 kg CO₂ eq./kg H2). This is primarily because of the significantutilisation of the carbon intensity of electricity in the Netherlands (480 gCO₂/kWh in 2020).
• Direct CO₂ emissions (reaction emissions and emissions related to combustion of natural gas),natural gas production and transport as well as grid electricity, were found to be importantcontributory factors in the carbon footprint of the blue hydrogen production pathways. Themost influential factor on the carbon footprint of hydrogen produced via SMR + CCS was thenatural gas production and transport. The largest contributing factor of the carbon footprintfor ATR + gas heated reformer (GHR) + CCS, ESMR + CCS and POX, in this study, was the sourceof electricity utilised to run these thermochemical processes.
• The carbon capture rate has a significant impact on the carbon footprint of the blue hydrogenproduction technology. The overall carbon footprint of hydrogen produced with the SMRtechnology is reduced by 8% when the carbon capture efficiency is increased from 90% to99%, this is despite the increase of electricity usage increase by 10%.
• An increase of the carbon footprint of natural gas by 171% and 29% were observed for naturalgas imported to the Netherlands from Russia and Algeria respectively.
• The projected reduction in carbon footprint for different technologies varied significantly from12% for SMR + CCS to 54% for ESMR + CCS by 2030.
• All the four investigated technologies were observed to be most sensitive to feedstock/fuelcosts and the price of CO₂ T&S. SMR was also found to be highly sensitive to increasing carbonprices because this technology exhibits the lowest CO₂ capture efficiency amongst the studiedtechnologies. In contrast, ATR, POX and ESMR are observed to be largely sensitive to electricitycosts.
• POX is the most cost-effective process for avoiding CO₂ emissions, whereas ESMR is thehighest cost in Netherlands in 2020. SMR and ATR both have a cost of CO₂ abatement of about€110/tCO₂, which is about 28% higher than POX and between 9% to 25% lower than ESMR(with grid and renewable electricity respectively).