Economic assessment of hydrogen production by hydrogen sulfide

splitting using concentrated solar energy

Table 1
Baseline operating conditions and design parameters of the solar thermochemical plant.

Parameter Unit Value

Solar reactor temperature K 1700

Solar reactor pressure bar 1
Solar concentration ratio (tower-top) suns 2500
Solar concentration ratio (beam-down) suns 5000
Number of heliostats 624
Heliostat field reflective area m2 75,504
Equivalent full power hours h/yr 2300
Optical efficiency % 65
Quench efficiency for NHR design % 80
Quench efficiency for IHR design % 70

1.1. Single equipment cost

1.1.1. Heliostat field

The heliostat field represents the largest single cost in the solar plant. A specific cost of 160 $/m2 was
assumed based on Refs. [21,22].

1.1.2. Tower, tower reflector and CPCs

Correlations provided in Ref. [23] were used for sizing the heliostat field area, tower height, and
reflector area and further estimate their cost. CPC cost was assumed to be proportional to the solar
reactor power input and the tower reflector area was assumed to be 2.3% of the heliostat field area.

1.1.3. Solar reactor

The proposed solar reactor consists of a volumetric-type receiver equipped with an Al2O3 honeycomb
structure that serves as the radiant absorber. The reactor was sized using a simplified model based on
the H2S dissociation kinetics [11]. Direct industrial quotes were obtained to estimate the cost of the
honeycomb (4100 $/m3) and the refractory layer (2200 $/m2). The cost of a carbon steel shell was added
and a multiplier of 2.0 was applied to estimate the final installed cost.
 1.1.4. Storage vessels

The storage system was sized to allow 15 days of continuous storage. Stainless steel grade 304 was
selected as the vessel material based on the highly corrosive nature of H2S. Due to the high toxicity of
H2S, a 50% reserve storage capacity was added to enable rapid emptying of liquid H2S in case of
accident. Capital costs were estimated based on Ref. [24].

1.1.5. Amine scrubber

Based on recommendations by industry experts, an amine solution rate of 0.22 l/mol of H2S absorbed is
required to effectively separate the H2S–H2 mixture. Such a rate would achieve high purity outlet
streams of 99.8% H2 and 99.9% H2S. The cost of the complete amine unit was estimated based on an
industrial quotation and Ref. [25].

1.1.6. Compressors

The compression process was assumed to take place isothermally at 320 K and a mechanical efficiency
of 85% was used. The capital cost of each compression unit was estimated based on Ref. [26] and a
10% increase was added to account for the cost of the drives.

1.1.7. Quencher, heat exchangers, sulfur separator

The quench efficiency was taken as 80% and 70% for NHR and IHR designs, respectively, the difference
being the result of a decreased heat transfer coefficient and a smaller mean temperature difference for
the IHR design. Stainless steel grade 304 was selected as the material for the cooler and the sulfur
condenser. Ceramic materials are proposed for the quench unit. A cyclone-type mechanical separator is
used to remove the liquid sulfur from the H2S–H2 gas stream after the sulfur condenser. In estimating
the capital costs, the correlations provided in Ref. [26] were used.

Economic assumptions

Capital costs were updated using the Component Cost Index for Chemical Processes. The operation and
maintenance cost was assumed to be 2% of the capital cost. The assumed discount rate (real interest
rate) of 15% per annum is representative of private owner- ship with a significant fraction of borrowed
money. Early plants would probably have a higher discount rate because of the perceived higher risk.
Plant design costs, such as engineering, procurement, commissioning and management (EPCM), were
taken into account as part of the indirect cost. Generally, indirect costs amount to 20% of the initial
 capital cost except those for the heliostats that amount to only 10% of the total capital cost [23]. On top,
a contingency of 15%, typical for high risk projects, was also added. Government subsidies have been
excluded from consideration. The credit for sulfur sale was accounted at 30 $/ton based on historical
values and actual markets [27, 28], while H2S was assumed to have zero value.

(TT)

NHR IHR NHR IHR

TOT

Spec
References

[1] Fletcher EA, Noring JE, Murray JP. Hydrogen-sulfide as a source of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy
1984;9(7):587–93.
[2] Diver RB, Fletcher EA. Hydrogen and sulfur from H2S-III. The economics of a quench process.

Energy 1985;10(7):831–42.
[3] Borton DN, Rogers E. Solar dissociation of hydrogen sulfide: a first step in producing a

renewable fuel. p. 315–9.

[4] Steinfeld A. Solar thermochemical production of hydrogen – a review. Sol Energy

2005;78:603–15.
[5] Weil ED, Sandler SR, Gernon M. Sulfur compounds, Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical

technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2006.

[6] Eow JS. Recovery of sulfur from sour acid gas: a review of the technology. Environ Prog

2002;21(3):143–62.
[7] Raymont MED. Hydrocarbon Process 1975;54(7):139.

[8] Noring JE, Fletcher EA. High-temperature solar thermochemical processing hydrogen and

sulfur from hydrogen-sulfide. Energy 1982;7(8):651–66.

[9] Kappauf T, Murray JP, Palumbo R, et al. Hydrogen and sulfur from hydrogen sulfide – IV.

Quenching the effluent from a solar furnace. Energy 1985;10(10):1119–37.

[10] Kappauf T, Fletcher EA. Hydrogen and sulfur from hydrogen sulfide – VI. Solar thermolysis.

Energy 1989;14(8):443–9.
[11] Harvey WS, Davidson JH, Fletcher EA. Thermolysis of hydrogen sulfide in the temperature range

1350–1600 K. Ind Eng Chem Res 1998;37(6):2323–32.

[12] Karan K, Mehrotra AK, Behie LA. On reaction kinetics for the thermal decomposition of hydrogen

sulfide. AIChE J 1999;45(2):383–9.

[13] Kaloidas VE, Papayannakos NG. Kinetic studies on the catalytic decomposition of hydrogen

sulfide in a tubular reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 1991;30(2):345–51.

[14] Fukuda K, Dokiya M, Kameyama T, et al. Catalytic decomposition of hydrogen sulfide. Ind Eng

Chem Fundam 1978;17(4):243–8.

[15] Roine A. Outokompu HSC chemistry for windows. Pori, Finland: Outokompu Research; 1997.

[16] Steinfeld A, Palumbo R. Solar thermochemical process technology, encyclopedia of physical

science and technology. New York: Academic Press; 2001. p. 237–256.

[17] Yogev A, Kribus A, Epstein M, et al. Solar tower reflector systems: a new approach for high-

temperature solar plants. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23(4):239–45.

[18] Segal A, Epstein M. Comparative performances of tower-top and tower- reflector central

solar receivers. Sol Energy 1999;65(4):207–26.

[19] Welford WT, Winston R. High collection nonimaging optics. San Diego: Academic

Press; 1989.
[20] Romero M, Buck R, Pacheco JE. An update on solar central receiver systems, projects, and

technologies. J Solar Energy Eng Trans Asme 2002;124(2):98–108.

[21] Kolb G, Jones S, Donnelly M, et al. Report SAND2007-3293. Heliostat cost reduction study. Sandia
National Laboratories; 2007.
[22] Science applications international corporation, phase ii final report. Heliostat manufacturing for near-
term markets. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-550-2583; 1998.
[23] Meier A, Gremaud N, Steinfeld A. Economic evaluation of the industrial solar production of lime.
Energy Convers Manage. 2005;46(6):905–26.
[24] Erwin D. Process equipment cost determination, industrial chemical process design. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 2002. p. 299–355.
[25] Gary JH, Handwerk GE. Supporting processes, petroleum refining: technology and economics. CRC
Press; 2001.
[26] Couper JR, Penney WR, Fair JR, et al. Costs of individual equipment, chemical process equipment.
second ed. Burlington: Gulf Professional Publishing; 2005. p. 719–728.
[27] Ober JA. 2006 Minerals Yearbook: sulfur. US Department of the Interior and US Geological Survey;
2008.
[28] Ober JA, Kaiser RC. Sulfur, Mineral Industry Surveys, US Department of the Interior and US Geological
Survey, eds.; 2009.
[29] Maples RE. Tail gas cleanup, petroleum refinery process economics. Pennwell Books; 2000. p. 353–
354.
[30] Steinfeld A, Spiewak I. Economic evaluation of the solar thermal co- production of zinc and synthesis
gas. Energy Convers Manage 1998;39(15): 1513–8.
[31] Sinnott RK, Coulson JM, Richardson JF. Heat transfer equipment, Coulson & Richardson’s
chemical engineering. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005.
[32] Szczepanski R. Chemical engineering