Next Article in Journal
Tuning the Morphology of Transition Metal Disulfides: Advances in Electrocatalysts for Hydrogen Evolution Reaction
Previous Article in Journal
Integration of Wind Energy and Geological Hydrogen Storage in the Bakken Formation, North Dakota: Assessing the Potential of Depleted Reservoirs for Hydrogen Storage
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Hydrogen Production Routes via Steam Methane Reforming and Chemical Looping Reforming of Natural Gas as Feedstock

1
Materials Engineering and Testing Group, TNB Research Sdn Bhd, Kawasan Institusi Penyelidikan, No. 1 Lorong Ayer Itam, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Generation Unit, TNB Research Sdn Bhd, Kawasan Institusi Penyelidikan, No. 1 Lorong Ayer Itam, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
4
Institute of Sustainable Energy (ISE)—HICoE, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Hydrogen 2024, 5(4), 761-775; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5040040
Submission received: 23 September 2024 / Revised: 10 October 2024 / Accepted: 14 October 2024 / Published: 21 October 2024

Abstract

Hydrogen production is essential in the transition to sustainable energy. This study examines two hydrogen production routes, steam methane reforming (SMR) and chemical looping reforming (CLR), both using raw natural gas as feedstock. SMR, the most commonly used industrial process, involves reacting methane with steam to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. In contrast, CLR uses a metal oxide as an oxygen carrier to facilitate hydrogen production without generating additional carbon dioxide. Simulations conducted using Aspen HYSYS analyzed each method’s performance and energy consumption. The results show that SMR achieved 99.98% hydrogen purity, whereas CLR produced 99.97% purity. An energy analysis revealed that CLR requires 31% less energy than SMR, likely due to the absence of low- and high-temperature water–gas shift units. Overall, the findings suggest that CLR offers substantial advantages over SMR, including lower energy consumption and the production of cleaner hydrogen, free from carbon dioxide generated during the water–gas shift process.
Keywords: steam methane reforming; chemical looping reforming; hydrogen production; feedstock purification; natural gas steam methane reforming; chemical looping reforming; hydrogen production; feedstock purification; natural gas

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohd Yunus, S.; Yusup, S.; Johari, S.S.; Mohd Afandi, N.; Manap, A.; Mohamed, H. Comparative Hydrogen Production Routes via Steam Methane Reforming and Chemical Looping Reforming of Natural Gas as Feedstock. Hydrogen 2024, 5, 761-775. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5040040

AMA Style

Mohd Yunus S, Yusup S, Johari SS, Mohd Afandi N, Manap A, Mohamed H. Comparative Hydrogen Production Routes via Steam Methane Reforming and Chemical Looping Reforming of Natural Gas as Feedstock. Hydrogen. 2024; 5(4):761-775. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5040040

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohd Yunus, Salmi, Suzana Yusup, Siti Sorfina Johari, Nurfanizan Mohd Afandi, Abreeza Manap, and Hassan Mohamed. 2024. "Comparative Hydrogen Production Routes via Steam Methane Reforming and Chemical Looping Reforming of Natural Gas as Feedstock" Hydrogen 5, no. 4: 761-775. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5040040

APA Style

Mohd Yunus, S., Yusup, S., Johari, S. S., Mohd Afandi, N., Manap, A., & Mohamed, H. (2024). Comparative Hydrogen Production Routes via Steam Methane Reforming and Chemical Looping Reforming of Natural Gas as Feedstock. Hydrogen, 5(4), 761-775. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen5040040

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop