dcorrea • Nov 03, 2022

What are the Sources of Hydrogen That Are Used for Power Generation?

There are many ways to generate electrical power on an industrial scale, but one of the sources that are becoming more prevalent these days is hydrogen. In today’s era, some 4% of all energy worldwide is generated from hydrogen, and this percentage is growing as hydrogen can be relatively cheaply sourced.

There are four primary sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis, which account for 48%, 30%, 18%, and 4% of the world’s hydrogen production, respectively. Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen, accounting for between 95% and 98% of global supplies. Carbon dioxide can be separated from natural gas for hydrogen production with a 70-85% efficiency and from other hydrocarbons at varying degrees of efficiency.

Specifically, the six most common methods for producing hydrogen are:

• Steam Reforming of Natural Gas

• Partial Oxidation of Other Hydrocarbons

• Coal Gasification

• Electrolysis of Water

• Biomass Gasification

• Methane Pyrolysis

The details of these methods are as follows:

Steam Reforming of Natural Gas

Steam reforming of natural gas is a process by which the methane in natural gas is reacted with steam at high temperatures (700-1100°C) to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Steam reforming is one of the most common processes used to produce hydrogen, accounting for nearly half of the world’s hydrogen supply. It’s also the most energy-efficient process for hydrogen production. The process is highly endothermic and requires a catalyst; the most common catalyst that’s used is nickel.

The steam reforming reaction can be expressed as:

CH_4 + H_2O → CO_2 + 3H_2

Partial Oxidation of Other Hydrocarbons

Partial oxidation is a process by which hydrocarbons are partially oxidized at high temperatures (700-1100°C) and pressures (1-30 bar) to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The most common feedstock for partial oxidation is methane, but other hydrocarbons, such as propane, butane, and naphtha, can also be used.

The partial oxidation reaction can be expressed as follows:

CH_4 + 0.5 O_2 → CO + 2H_2

Coal Gasification

Coal gasification is a process by which coal is converted into a gas called synthesis gas, or syngas. Syngas is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and other gases. Hydrogen can be separated from the syngas and used for other purposes.

The coal gasification reaction can be expressed as follows:

C + H_2O → CO + H_2

Electrolysis of Water

Electrolysis of water is a process in which water is converted into hydrogen and oxygen by an electric current. The hydrogen can then be used for other purposes. The hydrogen produced by electrolysis is often referred to as “green hydrogen” because it can be produced from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power.

The electrolysis of water reaction can be expressed as:

2H_2O → 2H_2 + O_2

Photoelectrochemical water splitting is a process that uses solar energy to drive water electrolysis. In this process, sunlight generates electricity, which drives an electrolyzer. The main advantage of this process is that it’s completely carbon-free. The main disadvantage is that it requires much land to generate the necessary solar power.

The first photoelectrochemical water-splitting demonstration plant was built in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The plant used a parabolic trough solar collector to generate electricity, which, in turn, drove the plant’s electrolyzer. The plant was decommissioned in the early 1990s.

In 2006, the DOE started a project to design and build a new photoelectrochemical water-splitting demonstration plant. This plant will use a photovoltaic array to generate electricity, which will then be used to drive an electrolyzer.

High-temperature electrolysis (HTE) is another type of water electrolysis whereby an electrolyzer is integrated with a nuclear power plant. In this process, nuclear energy is used to generate high-temperature steam, which is used to drive the electrolyzer. A solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) could also be used instead of an electrolyzer.

The main advantages of HTE are that it can also be completely carbon-free, and the process can be powered by any heat source, including nuclear, solar, or geothermal. The main disadvantage is that it requires very high temperatures, which are difficult to achieve without a nuclear reactor.

The first HTE demonstration plant was built in the 1970s by the U.S. DOE. The plant used a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor to generate steam, which was then used to drive an electrolyzer. This plant was decommissioned in the early 1990s.

Biological water splitting is a third type of water electrolysis, which uses bacteria to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The bacteria use sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen during this process. Once again, the process is entirely carbon-free. The main disadvantage is that it requires much land to grow the necessary bacteria.

The first biological water-splitting demonstration plant was built in the 1970s by the U.S. DOE. The plant used bacteria to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This plant was also decommissioned in the early 1990s. In 2006, the U.S. DOE started a project to design and build a new biological water-splitting demonstration plant.

Biomass Gasification

Biomass gasification is a process in which biomass is converted into syngas (in this case, it is sometimes known as biosyngas). The hydrogen can then be separated from the biosyngas and used for other purposes.

The biomass gasification reaction can be expressed as follows:

C_6H_12O_6 + 6O_2 → 6CO_2 + 6H_2O

In this process, the bacteria ferments the biomass to produce methane and carbon dioxide. The main advantage of this process is that it’s completely carbon-neutral. The main disadvantage is that it requires much land to grow the necessary bacteria.

The first biomass gasification demonstration plant was built in the 1970s by the Swedish power company Vattenfall. The plant used bacteria to convert biomass into methane and carbon dioxide. The plant was decommissioned in the early 1990s. In 2006, Vattenfall started a project to design and build a new biosyngas demonstration plant. This plant uses bacteria to convert biomass into methane and carbon dioxide.

Methane Pyrolysis

Methane pyrolysis is a process in which methane is converted into hydrogen and carbon. The hydrogen can then be used for other purposes.

The methane pyrolysis reaction can be expressed as:

CH_4 → C + 2H_2

Current Market Players

By some estimates, the market for generating hydrogen will be worth $220 billion by 2028. The ten most prominent companies in the hydrogen generation business are:

1. Linde plc (UK)

2. Air Liquide International S.A. (France)

3. Messer Group GmbH (Germany)

4. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (U.S.A.)

5. Reliance Industries, Ltd. (India)

6. Cummins, Inc. (U.S.A.)

7. Parker Hannifin (U.S.A.)

8. Hydrogenics (Canada)

9. McPhy (France)

10. FuelCell Energy (U.S.A.)

The Future of Hydrogen Production

Although hydrogen production in today’s era is fossil fuel-intensive, carbon-neutral processes — primarily water electrolysis (see above) — are expected to become much more common as electrolyzers and renewable energy prices fall. According to Haim Israel, the head of thematic investing and global strategist at Bank of America Securities, “we believe [the costs of] both of these will go down another 60 to 70% before the end of the decade.” By then, Bank of America analysts believe “green hydrogen” will account for 22% of the sources of global energy production, up from today’s 4%. Some analysts expect this transition will necessitate an investment of at least $11 trillion in necessary storage, production, and transportation infrastructure.

According to ETF investment group Defiance, the three most essential companies currently involved in this green hydrogen transition are Linde plc, oil giant Shell, and Air Products and Chemicals:

• Linde has been producing green hydrogen since at least 2012 at more than 80 water electrolysis facilities worldwide. The company has plans to triple its green hydrogen production by 2028. The company is building or upgrading plants in Germany, Austria, and Norway to effect this.

• Petroleum producer Shell has been buying electrolyzers for use at its green hydrogen production facilities in Wesseling, Germany, which began operations in 2021. Shell currently has a 20MW hydrogen plant in Zhangjiakou, China, and it’s contracted to build another electrolysis plant in Rotterdam in the Netherlands by 2026. Shell plans to eventually scale this hydrogen production up to 10 times the current levels.

• Air Products and Chemicals is the world’s biggest supplier of merchant hydrogen (hydrogen traded on the open market). The company has plans to build green hydrogen production facilities in Saudi Arabia and the Southwestern U.S.A. shortly.

Sources

The post Hydrogen as an Energy Source appeared first on DAC Consulting.

by Daniel Correa 15 Apr, 2024
In the intricate and highly specialized realm of engineering and construction, disputes and claims are not just common—they are expected.
by Daniel Correa 03 Apr, 2024
DAC Consulting Services is proud to have attended and sponsored this impressive event, which confirms our investment in the Middle East and North Africa region.
by Daniel Correa 19 Mar, 2024
Reflections on the SCCA24 Conference: Shaping the Future of Arbitration in Riyadh
by Marcus Elliott 30 Dec, 2023
Merry Xmas to everyone! May this season fill you all with hope, happiness,  kindness, wisdom, and faith.
by Marcus Elliott 21 Dec, 2023
WORLD CLASS FORENSIC & TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
by Marcus Elliott 24 Nov, 2023
Over the past year, expert witnesses have appeared in the legal press following criticism in the courts. So for this year’s Sir Michael Davies lecture, we invited The Honourable Mr Justice Williams, High Court judge and chair of The Family Justice Council Subcommittee on Experts, to share his views on such criticism. In his enlightening keynote speech – which you can listen to in full here – Mr Justice Williams explored an array of issues relating to the criticism of experts. Distinguishing between constructive criticism, destructive criticism and disagreement, he guided the audience through criticism in the context of the work he’s doing with the Family Justice Council, along with recent judicial commentary on expert evidence. He also made excellent suggestions around what to do if you find yourself being criticised as an expert, as well as how to avoid finding yourself in that situation in the first place. We’ve summarised some of the key takeaways below. Constructive vs destructive Criticism isn’t all bad, Mr Justice Williams noted. Constructive feedback to an expert can help improve the way that other experts approach courts in the future — and that can only be a good thing. But judges are aware of the importance of protecting experts from unfair, destructive criticism. “Criticism in a judgement can have adverse consequences in terms of [experts’] reputation, referrals to professional bodies, and on business”, Mr Justice Williams noted. All experts should remember, though, that disagreement from a judge is not necessarily criticism. “Don’t be too sensitive!”, he reminded the audience. Common criticism A lack of preparation, failure to abide by court directions, going beyond remit or expertise, and poor presentation on paper and on screen are all areas where experts commonly face criticism. The possibility of being criticised in court was highlighted as a barrier for attracting experts – though it’s important to note that it was by no means the biggest barrier. “As the judiciary, it’s entirely within our hands to manage criticism of experts”, Mr Justice Williams acknowledged. Efforts to change the way that criticism is managed have been made in the family law arena, with the establishment of a working group, the Family Justice Council Sub-Committee on Experts. The good, the bad and the ugly Mr Justice Williams highlighted three areas likely to put you in a positive light in the eyes of a High Court judge: the ability to express complex concepts in accessible language; objectivity and staying within the bounds of your expertise; and, of course, sticking to the facts. At the opposite end of the spectrum, being unprepared; not abiding by court directions; and going beyond your remit or expertise are all traits that are likely to attract criticism from a judge. As for the ugly – make sure that your presentation on paper and on screen is up to scratch! How to avoid destructive criticism No Expert Witnesses want to attract destructive criticism. To help avoid it altogether, Mr Justice Williams’ top tips included: don’t take on too much; comply with timetables; and communicate any difficulties. “Can’t complete the work in the time you thought you would? Let us know and we can do something about it”, Mr Justice Williams pointed out. Importantly, he said, remember the fundamentals of being an expert: comply with your subject matter expertise and with procedural codes. Managing criticism “If you’re being criticised in court, the best position to take is to remain as objective as possible and try to give considered answers”, is Mr Justice Williams’ advice for managing criticism. “If you need it, ask for time to respond.” If you’re facing criticism, seek support: the Expert Witness Institute fulfils that mentoring and support role. “Destructive criticism can also be valuable as a learning process in itself”, Mr Justice Williams reminded us. “It illustrates to the broader community that bad practice is a part of everyone learning.” The happy judge Judges are very busy people – that’s partly why the presentation of expert reports, with an executive summary of four pages, is so important. “If you’re clear in your conclusion with clear and practical advice with a range of opinions, where relevant, the judge is going to be on your side to start with”, Mr Justice Williams said. “If you’ve got a happy judge, even if you’re robustly cross examined, having the judge on side is something to value.” The audience were reminded that criticism is not all bad. In fact, it is rare, and it is relatively easily avoided. Ultimately: “The judiciary want experts to continue being experts, we want you to enjoy being an expert, and we don’t like criticising (although we all like a robust exchange of views).” Listen to the full lecture Access the recording of the Sir Michael Davies Lecture 2023 – you’ll also get a CPD Certificate worth ¾ hour.
by Marcus Elliott 13 Oct, 2023
WORLD CLASS FORENSIC & TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
by Marcus Elliott 20 Sept, 2023
¿Qué repercusiones tendrá en el sector asegurador? Empecemos señalando que, hasta el momento, en México, específicamente en la Ciudad de México, no había un lineamiento claro sobre cómo se deben evaluar las estructuras y, posteriormente, cómo deberían ser rehabilitadas. La falta de una norma específica no implica que, hasta ahora, este proceso se hiciera mal, sino que la variedad de criterios para considerar que los daños en un edificio son sujetos de un proyecto de rehabilitación es muy grande y depende enteramente de la experiencia del ingeniero a cargo. Para dar un poco de contexto, la CDMX tiene varias Normas Técnicas Complementarias (NTC) que, como su nombre lo dice, complementan de forma técnica al Reglamento de Construcciones. Dichas NTC, proporcionan los requisitos y criterios para el diseño de los elementos estructurales de un edificio, por ejemplo, una columna de concreto, un contraviento de acero o una pila en la cimentación. Durante agosto y septiembre, el Gobierno de la Ciudad de México realizó un ciclo de conferencias en el Colegio de Ingenieros Civiles de México, para presentar las actualizaciones a las NTC publicadas en 2017 y para presentar una norma nueva que es muy necesaria y que, desde mi punto de vista, tendrá un gran impacto en la forma en la que el sector asegurador revisa las propiedades ya sea para evaluar el riesgo o para cuantificar los daños. Lo que pretende la nueva norma es proveer la metodología para evaluar una estructura y los requisitos mínimos para su rehabilitación, en caso de ser necesaria. Aunque esta NTC es aplicable a todos los EDIFICIOS (no aplica a otras estructuras como puentes o tanques de almacenamiento) en la CDMX, independientemente de si tienen daño visible o no, en este artículo me enfocaré únicamente en lo que ocurrirá con los que sí tienen daños, es decir, los que se verán involucrados en una reclamación de seguros. La NTC está dividida en 13 capítulos y 2 apéndices, los cuales, a su vez, hacen referencia a las NTC aplicables del material estructural a rehabilitar. En los siguientes párrafos abordaré de forma general el objetivo de cada uno y sus implicaciones más relevante.
by Marcus Elliott 11 Sept, 2023
We're proud to announce that our Managing Director, Mr Daniel Correa is a guest speaker at this year's Istanbul Arbitration Week 2023
by Marcus Elliott 29 Aug, 2023
Carbon Capture: The Real Energy Transition. What is carbon capture, and why should we focus on that as a climate solution rather than end our reliance on fossil fuels right now?
More posts
Share by: