Abstract
As refinery product specifications become more stringent to meet environmental requirements, refinery demand for hydrogen has continually increased to supply the required hydroprocessing units. Additional improvements in burning qualities, like cetane, also require more hydrogen. This chapter addresses the processes used to make and/or recover hydrogen for petroleum processing applications. The processes described here include naphtha catalytic reforming, steam-methane reforming, hydrogen recovery, partial oxidation, gasification, olefins cracking, and electrolysis as they relate to hydrogen. Some basic methods for overall refinery hydrogen optimization and management are also described.
Steven A. Treese is retired from Phillips 66.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Steam-Methane Reforming
American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice 571 (RP-571), Common Refinery Damage Mechanisms
Katalco Corporation (Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.), Catalyst Handbook, with Special Reference to Unit Processes in Ammonia and Hydrogen Manufacture, 1st edn. (Springer, New York, 1970)
H.W. Rasmussen, Haldor Topsoe, Inc., Hydrogen Plant Catalysts and Operation, Unpublished (2001)
J.R. Rostrup-Nielsen, Haldor Topsoe, Inc, Catalytic Steam Reforming (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1984)
Partial Oxidation
Haldor Topsoe Inc., Brochure: Sulphur resistant/sour water-gas shift catalyst, www.topsoe.com. Accessed Dec 2013
H. Heurich, C. Higman, Partial oxidation in the refinery hydrogen management scheme. Paper presented to AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, 30 Mar 1993 (1993)
Linde Engineering, Partial Oxidation information pages (2013), www.linde-engineering.com. Accessed 17 Dec 2013
J.D. Marano, Gasification and Supporting Technologies, U. S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Energy Information Administration (2003)
University of Malaysia Chemistry Department, Techniques for Hydrogen (Synthesis) Production, http://kimia.um.edu.my/staff_new/sharifa_bee/2324/SCES2340_P3_Hydrogen_Synthesis_041218.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2013
K. Wawrzinek, C. Keller, (Linde Engineering, 2007), Industrial hydrogen production and technology. Paper presented at Karlsruhe FuncHy-Workshop, 21 Nov 2007
Electrolytic Hydrogen
Hydrogen production article in Wikipedia (2013), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production. Accessed 17 Dec 2013
J. Ivy, Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production, Milestone Completion Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden (2004), www.nrel.gov. Accessed Dec 2013
NEL Hydrogen, Process Description, NEL A Atmospheric Electroliser (2012), www.nel-hydrogen.com. Accessed 17 Dec 2013
Olefin Cracking Byproduct Recovery
CB&I/Lummus, Ethylene (2012), www.CBI.com/lummus-technology. Accessed Dec 2013
Orica Ltd., Ethylene Chemical Fact Sheet (1999). Accessed Dec 2013
Refinery Gas Recovery
J. Alves, (UOP, 2005), Meeting the growing hydrogen demand in oil refining. Presentation to World Petroleum Congress, https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/WPC-18-0914. Accessed Dec 2013
S. Faraji, et al., (University of Tehran, 2005), Hydrogen recovery from refinery off-gases. J. Appl. Sci. 5(3),459–464
G. Fleming, (Air Liquide-MEDAL, 2006), Membrane technology for hydrogen recovery. Presentation 24 Aug 2006 at Topsoe Catalysis Forum, www.topsoe.com/sitecore/shell/Applications/~/media/PDF%20files/Topsoe_Catalysis_Forum/2006/Fleming.ashx. Accessed Dec 2013
Linde Engineering Inc., Brochure: Hydrogen Recovery by Pressure Swing Adsorption (2012), http://www.linde-engineering.com/internet.global.lindeengineering.global/en/images/HA_H_1_1_e_12_150dpi19_6130.pdf. Accessed Dec 2013
UOP article, Hydrogen Purification, www.UOP.com/processing-solutions/gas-processing/hydrogen/. Accessed 18 Dec 2013
Pressure Swing Adsorption
Linde Engineering Inc., Brochure, Hydrogen Recovery by Pressure Swing Adsorption (2012), http://www.linde-engineering.com/internet.global.lindeengineering.global/en/images/HA_H_1_1_e_12_150dpi19_6130.pdf. Accessed Dec 2013
UOP article, Hydrogen Purification, www.UOP.com/processing-solutions/gas-processing/hydrogen/. Accessed 18 Dec 2013
Membranes
G. Fleming, (Air Liquide-MEDAL, 2006), Membrane technology for hydrogen recovery. Presentation 24 Aug 2006 at Topsoe Catalysis Forum, www.topsoe.com/sitecore/shell/Applications/~/media/PDF%20files/Topsoe_Catalysis_Forum/2006/Fleming.ashx. Accessed Dec 2013
UOP article, Hydrogen Purification, www.UOP.com/processing-solutions/gas-processing/hydrogen/. Accessed 18 Dec 2013
UOP website summary item, Polybed™ PSA and Polysep™ Membrane Integration for Debottlenecking: Case Study (2007), http://www.uop.com/?document=uop-psa-polysep-membrane-integration-case-study%26download=1
Cryogenic Recovery
R. Dragomir, et al., (Praxair, 2010), Paper from AIChE 2010 Spring Meeting Proceedings: Technologies for Enhancing Refinery Gas Value, http://www.praxair.com/~/media/North%20America/US/Documents/Specification%20Sheets%20and%20Brochures/Industries/Refining/AIChE_Paper_2_16_10.ashx. Accessed Dec 2013
S. Faraji, et al., (University of Tehran, 2005), Hydrogen recovery from refinery off-gases. J. Appl Sci 5(3), 459–464 (2005). Wilson Energy Partners LLC, www.wilsonenergypartners.com/cryogenic.html
W.H. Isalski, Article on Cryogenic Plant, http://www.thermopedia.com/content/677/?tid=110%26sn=7. Accessed Dec 2013
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix Example SMR Steam-methane reforming (SMR) process hydrogen plant material balance and monitoring parameters Hydrogen Plant Material Balance and Monitoring Parameters Development
To calculate the key monitoring parameters for an SMR plant, consider the following example that is typical of the sort of calculations needed. This example is for an SMR feeding natural gas plus refinery saturated off-gas that has been scrubbed free of sulfur (for simplicity). Hydrogen purification is by PSA unit. The plant only has high-temperature shift.
The objectives are to calculate:
-
Material balance around the reforming furnace, shift converter, and PSA
-
Approach to equilibrium in reformer
-
Approach to equilibrium in shift converter
-
PSA recovery efficiency
-
Shift condensate rate
-
Normalized reformer pressure drop
-
Actual steam/carbon ratio
The following data are given:
-
Flow rates
-
Sweet feed gas = 6.87 MMscfd
-
Product hydrogen (99.9999 % H2) = 20.6 MMscfd
-
Raw hydrogen to the PSA = 31.8 MMscfd
-
Process steam rate = 66,500 lbs/h
-
-
Temperatures
-
Reformer outlet temperature = 1,500 °F
-
HTSC outlet temperature = 810 °F
-
-
Pressures
-
Reformer inlet = 315 psig
-
Reformer outlet = 290 psig
-
Shift converter outlet = 280 psig
-
Product hydrogen from PSA = 260 psig
-
-
Dry gas analyses, vol % by GC
Component
Feed gas
PSA inlet
Hydrogen
9.3
69.5
Methane
79.7
2.3
Ethane
3.4
0.0
Propane
1.9
0.0
Mixed butanes
1.6
0.0
Mixed pentanes
1.3
0.0
Hexane and heavier
0.2
0.0
CO
0.3
3.0
CO2
0.6
15.7
N2
0.7
7.3
O2
0.0
1.9
-
Solution
-
1.
Normalize the dry gas analyses to 100 %. Notice that the analysis of the raw gas to the PSA inlet contains a lot of oxygen and nitrogen. This indicates air contamination and is typical of GC results. The air has to be backed out of the analysis. So remove the 1.9 % oxygen and 7.1 % nitrogen (79/21 × 1.9). This leaves 0.2 % nitrogen in the PSA inlet. Normalize the PSA inlet gas to 100 % without the air. The final normalized PSA Inlet gas is:
-
Hydrogen = 76.7 %
-
Methane = 2.5 %
-
CO = 3.3 %
-
CO2 = 17.3 %
-
N2 = 0.2 %
-
-
2.
Set up a material balance spreadsheet for the composition, molar flow rate, mass flow rate, pressure, and temperature at each key location in the unit:
-
Feed gas
-
Reformer inlet feed gas
-
Process steam
-
Reformer outlet
-
HTSC outlet
-
Process condensate (shift condensate)
-
PSA inlet gas
-
PSA product hydrogen
-
PSA off-gas
-
-
3.
Assume the feed gas flow rate is correct and use the feed gas analysis to calculate the moles of carbon and hydrogen per hour in the feed. Do not forget to include any CO and CO2 in the carbon. We are assuming no moisture in the feed. Use these values to calculate alpha (α) for use in Eq. 20. In this case, we have 816.2 mols of carbon per hour and 3,105.5 mols hydrogen per hour:
$$ \begin{array}{c}2\upalpha =3,105.5/816.2=3.80\\ {}\upalpha =3.80/2=1.90\end{array} $$ -
4.
Calculate the steam/carbon ratio (X) at the reformer inlet by converting the steam rate to moles per hour and dividing it by the moles per hour of carbon:
-
66,500 lb/h steam/18 = 3694.4 mols/h steam
-
Steam/Carbon = 3694.4/816.2 = 4.53 S/C Ratio = X
-
-
5.
Calculate the wet shift converter outlet composition using the following equation and knowing α and X from above. The methane, CO, and CO2 proportions (1-a-b, a, and b) come from the PSA inlet dry gas. The steam portion is calculated from the equation. Hydrogen falls out in the calculation. Remember that the nitrogen will come through as an inert:
$$ \begin{array}{l}{\mathrm{CH}}_2\upalpha +{\mathrm{XH}}_2\mathrm{O}\leftarrow \to \mathrm{a}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}+{\mathrm{bCO}}_2+\left(1-\mathrm{a}-\mathrm{b}\right){\mathrm{CH}}_4\\ {}+\left(\mathrm{X}-\mathrm{a}-2\mathrm{b}\right){\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O} + \left(3\mathrm{a}+4\mathrm{b}+\upalpha -2\right){\mathrm{H}}_2\end{array} $$(31)where
-
α = factor based on feed C/H molar ratio
-
X = steam/carbon molar ratio
-
a, b = coefficients for CO and CO2 concentrations, respectively, at any point in the process
-
-
6.
The shift or process condensate should be the residual water from the reaction. Use this as the process condensate flow rate. You can include dissolved CO2, but the amount of dissolved CO2 is not significant in the overall process.
-
7.
Now check the overall balance in the unit by adding the feeds (feed gas plus steam plus any recycle hydrogen) and comparing to the HTSC outlet (PSA inlet gas plus calculated process condensate). Check the carbon and hydrogen balances also. Make adjustments to flow rates until you closed the balance. This sometimes means compromising on rates or slight adjustments to compositions. There are many sources of possible error in these calculations so flexibility is needed. If the balance can be closed to +/−2 %, that is good enough for the analysis.
-
8.
Now estimate the reformer outlet composition.
-
Assume the HTSC outlet (in moles) is the correct methane slip from the reforming furnace. Here the slip is 2.5 v% of the dry gas or about 87 mols/h.
-
Calculate the CO and CO2 proportions by assuming the gas is at water-gas shift equilibrium at the reformer outlet. The CO and CO2 proportions can be derived by iteration until the calculated KWGS at the reformer outlet matches the KWGS at the reformer outlet temperature of 1,500 °F. Use the definition:
-
$$ {\mathrm{K}}_{\mathrm{WGS}}=\left.\left({\mathrm{P}}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2} \times {\mathrm{P}}_{{\mathrm{CO}}_2}\right)/{\mathrm{P}}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}}\times {\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{CO}}\right) $$
-
where the partial pressures are in atmospheres in the wet gas.
-
Use the equation for KWGS for the SMR process discussion.
An easier approach with sufficient accuracy is to use the equilibrium charts provided in the SMR monitoring discussion for methane to estimate the % CO and CO2 in the dry gas at the reformer outlet. From the chart, the CO at the reformer outlet should be about 11.5 v% and CO2 would also be about 11.5 v%.
We brought in 816.2 mols/h carbon. 87 mols/h stayed in methane as methane slip. The remaining 729 mols per hour is roughly split evenly between CO and CO2 at the reformer outlet (about 365 mols/h each). Iterative calculations give values of about 359 mols/h for CO and 370 mols/h for CO2.
Check to be sure the reformer outlet mass balances, including C and H.
-
-
-
9.
Calculate the partial pressures of methane, CO, CO2, hydrogen, and water in the wet gases at the outlet of the reforming furnace and shift converter. The partial pressures must be in atmospheres absolute.
-
10.
Calculate KSMR at the reformer outlet and KWGS at the shift converter outlet using the definitions in the SMR process discussion.
Reformer outlet actual KSMR = ~298 (Table is reciprocal of this)
Shift converter outlet actual KWGS = ~6.23
-
11.
Calculate the equivalent equilibrium temperatures using the equations in the SMR process discussion or use the charts in that section.
Reformer actual equilibrium temperature = ~1, 515 °F
Shift converter actual equilibrium temperature = 878 °F
-
12.
Finish the material balance streams and check the overall, carbon, and hydrogen balances.
-
13.
The key monitoring parameters can now be calculated:
-
Overall material balance was derived as part of the calculations. See Table 15 for the basic material balance.
-
Approach to equilibrium (ATE) in the reformer
\( \mathrm{Reformer}\ \mathrm{ATE}=\mathrm{actual}\hbox{--} \mathrm{calculated}=1,500\hbox{--} 1,515{}^{\circ}\mathrm{F}=-15{}^{\circ}\mathrm{F} \)
-
Approach to equilibrium (ATE) in the shift converter
\( \mathrm{Shift}\ \mathrm{ATE}=\mathrm{actual}\hbox{--} \mathrm{calculated}=878\hbox{--} 810\ {}^{\circ}\mathrm{F}=+68\ {}^{\circ}\mathrm{F} \)
-
PSA recovery efficiency
-
\( \mathrm{Recovery}=\left(\mathrm{mols}\ {\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{in}\ \mathrm{product}*100\%\right)/\mathrm{mols}\ {\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{in}\ \mathrm{feed} \)
-
\( \mathrm{Product}\ {\mathrm{H}}_2=20.6\ \mathrm{MMscfd}\to\ 2,262.0\ \mathrm{mols}/\mathrm{h} \)
-
\( \mathrm{P}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{A}\ \mathrm{inlet}\ {\mathrm{H}}_2=76.8\%\ \mathrm{of}\ 31.8\ \mathrm{MMscfd}\to 2,721\ \mathrm{mols}\ {\mathrm{H}}_2/\mathrm{h} \)
-
\( \mathrm{Recovery}=100\%*2,262/2,721=83.1\% \)
-
-
Shift condensate rate
This falls out of the material balances as 2, 378 mols/h (leftover process steam) = 42.3 Mlb/h or ~85 gpm.
-
Actual steam/carbon ratio
This also fell out of the calculations as X = 4.53.
-
Normalized pressure drop
For normalizing the pressure drop, prior history and a normalization basis (reference conditions) are required. Here, from prior development work, the equation for normalization of dP was found to be
$$ {\mathrm{dP}}_{\mathrm{norm}}={\mathrm{dP}}_{\mathrm{meas}}\times {\left[{\left({\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{feed}}+{\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{steam}}\right)}_{\mathrm{norm}}/{\left({\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{feed}} + {\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{steam}}\right)}_{\mathrm{meas}}\right]}^{1.6} $$where:
-
dPnorm = normalized dP at reference conditions
-
dPmeas = measured dP at actual conditions
-
Qfeed = inlet volumetric flow of feed, reference or actual
-
Qsteam = inlet volumetric flow of steam, reference or actual
Here:
-
\( {\mathrm{dP}}_{\mathrm{meas}}=315\hbox{--} 290\ \mathrm{psig}=25\ \mathrm{psig} \)
-
\( {\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{feed},\mathrm{meas}}=6.87\ \mathrm{MMscfd} \)
-
\( {\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{steam},\kern0.05em \mathrm{meas}}=66,500\ \mathrm{lb}/\mathrm{h} \times 24\ \mathrm{h}/\mathrm{day} \times 379.45\ \mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{f}/18\ \mathrm{l}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}\to 33.6\ \mathrm{MMscfd} \)
-
\( {\left({\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{feed}} + {\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{steam}}\right)}_{\mathrm{norm}}=51.9\ \mathrm{MMscfd}\ \left(\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ \mathrm{normalization}\ \mathrm{r}\mathrm{eference}\ \mathrm{case}\right) \)
So
$$ {\mathrm{dP}}_{\mathrm{norm}}=25\times {\left[51.9/\left(6.9+33.6\right)\right]}^{1.6}=37\ \mathrm{psi} $$ -
-
-
14.
From the parameters monitored, we can observe that:
-
Depending on how much adjustment was needed to get a good material balance, flow meter, instrument, or analytical issues may be indicated that would bear some evaluation.
-
The reformer approach to equilibrium is fairly good. Trending the calculated value would provide an indication of deactivation rate.
-
The shift converter ATE should also be trended over time for complete analysis. An ATE of 68 °F is a little high and may indicate the shift converter catalyst has deactivated some or the temperature is not optimum. It could also indicate bad data.
-
The PSA recovery efficiency of 83 % is lower than you should expect. Recovery of at least 85 % should be achievable. This would bear further investigation.
-
The shift condensate rate is informational primarily. It may be needed for loading evaluation of the degasifier on occasion.
-
The normalized pressure drop of 37 psi is somewhat high for most reformers and may indicate some catalyst crushing or coking from age or an incident. 37 psi is not particularly alarming. This value should be trended over time.
-
The steam carbon ratio at 4.53 is a little high for most PSA-type units, but would be common in older units using solvent CO2 cleanup. It could probably be lowered.
-
-
15.
These calculations can be built into a spreadsheet, including the trial-and-error, iterative solution to the reformer outlet composition and material balance closure. This would save a significant amount of time and enable more detailed operations evaluation to be completed more often.
-
1.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this entry
Cite this entry
Treese, S.A. (2015). Hydrogen Production and Management for Petroleum Processing. In: Treese, S., Jones, D., Pujado, P. (eds) Handbook of Petroleum Processing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05545-9_12-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05545-9_12-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05545-9
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EnergyReference Module Computer Science and Engineering
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Hydrogen Production and Management for Petroleum Processing- Published:
- 13 March 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05545-9_12-2
-
Original
Hydrogen Production and Management for Petroleum Processing- Published:
- 20 December 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05545-9_12-1