NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Analysis of SMR Thermal Augmentation with CHP Turbine Exhaust

Michael Penev

August 21, 2013

NREL/PR-5400-66836

2

Relevant Characteristics of Typical CHP Turbine

Sources: • “Technology Characterization: Gas Turbines”, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Prepared for: Environmental Protection Agency, 2008 • Solar turbines performance specifications: Taurus 60, 5.74 MW turbine • R. Pravi, G. Moore, “Gas Turbine Emissions and Control”, GE Power Systems, March, 2001, GER-4211

Air intake Exhaust: • Temperature: 510°C (950°F) • Mass flow: 171,690 lb/h • Back-pressure allowance:

sufficient for steam generator heat exchanger (inches water column)

• Oxygen content: 15 vol%

Solar Turbines • Taurus 60 • 5.74 MW

3

Typical SMR System Configuration

Sources: • R. Elshout, “Hydrogen Production By Steam Reforming”, Chemical Engineering www.che.com, May 2010 issue, page 34

4

Typical SMR System Configuration

Sources: • R. Elshout, “Hydrogen Production By Steam Reforming”, Chemical Engineering www.che.com, May 2010 issue, page 34

Note: Internal pressure is sub-atmospheric.

5

Modeling of Typical SMR System

Process conditions source: Nexant Inc., “Equipment Design and Cost Estimation for Small Modular Biomass Systems, Synthesis Gas Cleanup, and Oxygen Separation Equipment”, May 2006

20

300

CH4-FEED

20

300

1

510

300

SMR-INTR

-480869.271

STM-HREQQ

510

0

CHP-HT01

38

1

AIR-2

38

1

OXIDANT

20

0

CH4-BURN

37

-0

RAFF-01

22

-0

BURN-IN

-503601.983SMR-HEAT

22

-0

BURN-IN2

560

-0

EXH2

815

300

REF-01

350

300

REF-02

215935.529STM-H02

412

300

REF-03

37

-0

REF-07

37

-0

REF-08

37

-0

COND-01

100

-0

REF-06

204

300

REF-04

92163.967

STM-H03

225

300

REF-05

37

-0H2

100

-0

EXHAUST

204459.200STM-H01

51185.530

STM-H04563744.225

STM-HTQ

20

15

H2O-FEED 0.304

PMP-AUXW

20

0

COMB-AIR5.648

AIR-AUXW

22

-0

3

1528

-0

4

STM-GEN

SELECTOR MANIFOLD

SMR-BRNR

SMR

SGEN02

HTSFLASH-01

CONDENSSGEN03 LTS

PSA

SGEN01

STM-HT

SGEN04

W-PUMP

AIR-BLWRF-TEMP

FLAMETST Temp eratu re (C)

Pressu re (psig)

Du ty (Watt)

Power(k W )

NREL replicated typical SMR model, using ASPEN Plus

Efficiency: 76.3% LHV (without utilities) Production scale: 1,000 kg/day Key observations: - high quality heat drives gas consumption for process heat - low quality heat exceeds steam generation demand - gas consumption reduction can be achieved by high quality heat > 880°C

6

Integration Concept

CHP Exhaust 15%O2 510°C

• SMR combustion air intake is manifolded to accept CHP exhaust • Fuel is combusted into CHP exhaust to increase heat quality

• adiabatic flame temperature ~1470°C • Hand-off pressure = ambient (consistent with SMR construction)

7 7

PraxAir Patent US 7043923 B2, May 16, 2006

8

20

300

CH4-FEED

20

300

1

510

300

SMR-INTR

-480869.271

STM-HREQQ

510

0

CHP-HT01

38

1

AIR-2

38

1

OXIDANT

20

0

CH4-BURN

37

-0

RAFF-01

22

-0

BURN-IN

-503601.983SMR-HEAT

22

-0

BURN-IN2

560

-0

EXH2

815

300

REF-01

350

300

REF-02

215935.529STM-H02

412

300

REF-03

37

-0

REF-07

37

-0

REF-08

37

-0

COND-01

100

-0

REF-06

204

300

REF-04

92163.967

STM-H03

225

300

REF-05

37

-0H2

100

-0

EXHAUST

204459.200STM-H01

51185.530

STM-H04563744.225

STM-HTQ

20

15

H2O-FEED 0.304

PMP-AUXW

20

0

COMB-AIR5.648

AIR-AUXW

22

-0

3

1528

-0

4

STM-GEN

SELECTOR MANIFOLD

SMR-BRNR

SMR

SGEN02

HTSFLASH-01

CONDENSSGEN03 LTS

PSA

SGEN01

STM-HT

SGEN04

W-PUMP

AIR-BLWRF-TEMP

FLAMETST Temp eratu re (C)

Pressu re (psig)

Du ty (Watt)

Power(k W )

Combustion oxidant can be either fresh air or CHP exhaust

SMR Model in ASPEN Plus

Operating conditions examined: • Reactor outlet temperature 815°C, 880°C • PSA hydrogen recovery extent: 90%, 97%

Performance metrics: • Natural gas consumption (process & combustor) • Low quality heat impact • Hydrogen production impact

9 9

SMR Configuration Units BaselineCHP+SMRConfig. A

CHP+SMRConfig. B

CHP+SMRConfig. C

CHP+SMRConfig. D

SMR-out temperature °C 815 815 880 815 880PSA H2 recovery % mol/mol 90% 90% 90% 97% 97%High quality heat requirement kW-thermal 563,744 616,786 673,342 585,414 678,731Steam generation heat required kW-thermal 480,869 480,869 480,869 480,869 480,869Low quality heat available (steam generation) kW-thermal 503,602 503,602 606,113 503,602 606,113Methane used in production stream mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.156 0.156 0.133 0.144 0.123Rafinate used in combustion stream mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.054 0.054 0.032 0.041 0.020Fresh methane used in combustion stream mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.010 0.001 0.022 0.008 0.030Total methane use mmBTU HHV/kgH2 0.165 0.156 0.155 0.152 0.153

Feedstock use efficiency(excluding CHP heat & electricity) HHV 81.3% 86.0% 86.8% 88.4% 87.9%Feedstock use efficiency(excluding CHP heat & electricity) LHV 76.3% 80.7% 81.5% 83.0% 82.5%Total CH4 consumption reduction 0.0% 5.5% 6.3% 8.1% 7.5%

Performance Summary

Initial indication shows as much as 8% fuel consumption reduction. Integration ratio: 1 MW CHP can augment 14,000 kg/day SMR

10

10

Supply Chain Models Examined Central Production

Forecourt Production

Semi-Central Production

H2 dispensing Delivery trucks

Central SMR

H2 dispensing Distributed SMR

H2 dispensing Semi-Central SMR H2 dispensing H2 dispensing

Distribution pipe (~2 miles/station, 0.7 inch ID)

11 11

H2A Analysis, Current Technology, Central SMR Basis

• H2A Production Model values are used for production and CSD costs (N’th plant assumption in effect) • ANL input was used for truck delivery costs • H2A Components Model values were used for pipeline costs (2 miles, 0.7 inch ID pipeline per station)

CaseCentralSMR

CentralCHP+SMR

ForecourtSMR

ForecourtCHP+SMR

Semi-CentralSMR

Semi-CentralCHP+SMR

Production Capacity (kg/day) 379,387 379,387 1,500 1,500 4,500 4,500 Per-Station Dispensing Capacity (kg/day) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Production Costs ($/kg)Capital Costs 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.58$ 0.57$ 0.42$ 0.42$ Fixed O&M 0.06$ 0.06$ 0.19$ 0.19$ 0.13$ 0.13$ Feedstock Costs 1.23$ 1.13$ 1.14$ 1.05$ 1.14$ 1.05$ Other Variable Costs (including utilities) 0.07$ 0.07$ 0.11$ 0.11$ 0.11$ 0.11$ Total 1.70$ 1.59$ 2.03$ 1.93$ 1.81$ 1.72$

Delivery Costs ($/kg)Delivery Cost to Station 2.50$ 2.50$ -$ -$ 0.08$ 0.08$

Dispensing Costs ($/kg)Compression Storage & Dispensing 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$ 2.46$

Total Cost 6.66$ 6.56$ 4.49$ 4.40$ 4.35$ 4.26$

12 12

H2A Analysis, Current Technology, Central SMR Basis

$6.66 $6.56

$4.49 $4.40 $4.35 $4.26

$-

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

CentralSMR

CentralCHP+SMR

ForecourtSMR

ForecourtCHP+SMR

Semi-CentralSMR

Semi-CentralCHP+SMR

Cost of Hydrogen by ScenarioProduction Capital Costs

Production Fixed O&M

Production FeedstockCosts

Production Other RawMaterial Costs

Delivery Cost to Station

Compression Storage &Dispensing Cost

Cost

of d

ispe

nsed

hyd

roge

n $/

kg

• H2A Production Model values are used for production and CSD costs (N’th plant assumption in effect) • ANL input was used for truck delivery costs • H2A Components Model values were used for pipeline costs (2 miles, 0.7 inch ID pipeline per station)

13 13

H2A Analysis: Benefit of Semi-Central SMR Architecture (Preliminary Results without CHP augmentation)

• Economies of scale benefits to SMR > cost of pipeline • H2A Production Model values are used for production and CSD costs (N’th plant assumption in effect) • H2A Components Model values were used for pipeline costs (2 miles, 0.7 inch ID pipeline per station)

This image cannot currently be displayed.

14

Discussion 10¢/kg is not trivial – it is in the order of magnitude of investor rate of return 8% fuel reduction = 8% reduction in GHG emissions H2 can be distributed to nearby fueling stations (lowest cost delivery method) - Less delivery GHG emissions & trucks on the road - Semi-central SMR can get lower cost Natural Gas (industrial vs. commercial) Leverage of economies of scale - on-site technical support (no travel time and expense for service) - higher up-time due to on-site technician support - available infrastructure (natural gas, utilities, cooling) - industrial zoning may allow easier permitting Adiabatic flame temperature reduction = reduction in NOx emissions

- Power to Gas (P2G) can sell high-value H2 into network - MSW gasifiers can feed into network with lower distribution cost

15 15

Questions?

16 16

17 17

$-

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

Leve

lized

H2

Deliv

ery

Cost

(200

7$/k

g)

Infrastructure StorageTube-TrailerLH2 TruckPipelineTerminalLiquefierRefueling Station

17

Levelized Hydrogen Delivery Cost Reduction Path (Input from Amgad Elgowainy, ANL)

5,000 FCVs 200 kg/day Station

100,000 FCVS 600 kg/day Station 1,000,000 FCVS, 1000 kg/day Station

18 18

Source: Parker, Nathan. "Using Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Costs to Estimate Hydrogen Pipeline Costs," Technical Report No. UCD-ITS-RR-04-3, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, January 2005.

Pipeline Cost Distribution (Total Installed Cost)