Economics of the Clean Fuel Hydrogen in a Novel Autothermal Reforming Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The economics of pure clean fuel hydrogen produced by steam reforming of hydrocarbons in an earlier suggested novel autothermal circulating fluidized-bed membrane reformer (ACFBMR; Chen, Z.; Elnashaie, S. S. E. H. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004, 59 (18), 3965−3979; Chen, Z.; Elnashaie, S. S. E. H. AIChE J . 2005, 51 (5), 1467−1481) is evaluated. A detailed autothermal reforming pilot plant is suggested and used for the determination of the specifications and costs of the main units/equipments. Using statistical correlations and cost factors, the total capital investment is determined. The economical analysis data show that the hydrogen production cost decreases with an increase of the plant size in the region of 100−100 000 kg of H 2 /day. Above this region, the effect of the plant capacity becomes insignificant. For a small pilot plant with a 100 kg of H 2 /day capacity, the hydrogen cost in the industrial steam methane reforming process is $9.10/kg of H 2, while using this novel autothermal technology, the costs are $2.05/kg of H 2 for the methane feed and $2.22/kg of H 2 for the heptane feed. The cost reductions are 77.5% and 75.6%, respectively. For a typical large industrial plant with 214 286 kg of H 2 /day (equivalent to 100 000 Nm 3 of H 2 /h; Scholz, W. H. Gas Sep. Purif. 1993, 7 (3), 131−139), the reported industrial hydrogen production cost by steam methane reforming is $0.74−0.97/kg of H 2, while using this autothermal technology, the hydrogen production costs are $0.66/kg of H 2 from heptane and $0.50/kg of H 2 from methane, respectively. The cost reductions are 10.8−32.0% and 32.4−48.5%, respectively. The comparison of hydrogen production costs over a wide range of plant sizes shows that this novel ACFBMR can be a more efficient and more economical pure hydrogen producer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".