Received: 28 September 2018 Revised: 4 December 2018 Accepted: 5 December 2018

DOI: 10.1002/er.4367

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Cost‐competitive methane steam reforming in a membrane

reactor for H2 production: Technical and economic
evaluation with a window of a H2 selectivity

Boreum Lee | Hankwon Lim

School of Energy and Chemical

Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of
Science and Technology (UNIST), 50
UNIST‐gil, Eonyang‐eup, Ulju‐gun, Ulsan
44919, Republic of Korea
Correspondence
Hankwon Lim, School of Energy and
Chemical Engineering, Ulsan National
Institute of Science and Technology
(UNIST), 50 UNIST‐gil, Eonyang‐eup,
Ulju‐gun, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea.
Email: hklim@unist.ac.kr
Funding information
Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning, Grant/Award
Number: 20182020201260
Summary
Techno‐economic viability studies of employing a membrane reactor (MR)
equipped with H2 separation membranes for methane steam reforming
(MSR) were carried out for H2 production in Korea using HYSYS®, a well‐
known chemical process simulator, including economic analysis based on
itemized cost estimation and sensitivity analysis (SA). With the reaction
kinetics for MSR reported by Xu and Froment, the effect of a wide range of
H2 selectivity (10‐10,000) on the performance in an MR was investigated in this
study. Because of the equilibrium shift owing to the Le Chatelier's principle,
great performance of enhancement of methane conversion (XCH4 ) and H2 yield
and reaction temperature reduction was observed in an MR compared with a
packed‐bed reactor (PBR). A window of a H2 selectivity from 100 to 300 is
proposed as a new criterion for better MR performance of MSR depending
on potential applications from in‐depth analysis of XCH4 and H2 yield
enhancements, a H2 purity, and temperature reduction. In addition, economic
analysis to evaluate the feasibility of an MR technology for MSR was carried
out focusing on a levelized cost of H2 based on itemized cost estimation of
capital and operating costs as well as SA. Techno‐economic assessment showed
36.7% cost reduction in an MR compared with a PBR and revealed that this MR
technology can be possibly opted for a cost‐competitive H2 production process
for MSR.

KEYWORDS
levelized cost of hydrogen, membrane reactor, methane steam reforming, techno‐economic
assessment

Nomenclature: MSR, Methane steam reforming; LCOH, Levelized cost of H2; NG, Natural gas; WGSR, Water gas shift reaction; PBR, Packed‐bed
reactor; PSA, Pressure swing adsorption; GHG, Greenhouse gas; MR, Membrane reactor; SA, Sensitivity analysis; PFD, Process flow diagram; PR
EOS, Peng‐Robinson equation of state; ri, Reaction rate of i (kmol kgcat−1 h−1); k1, Reaction rate constant of 1 (kmol bar0.5 kgcat−1 h−1); k2,
Reaction rate constant of 2 (kmol kgcat−1 h−1); k3, Reaction rate constant of 3 (kmol bar0.5 kgcat−1 h−1); Pi, Partial pressure of i (bar); Ki,
Equilibrium constant of i; DEN, Denominator; F i, Flow rate (mol s−1); PSA OPEX, PSA operating expenses; CEPCI, Chemical engineering plant
cost index; Ci, Purchased cost of i; Ai, Equipment capacity of i; n, Cost index; CRF, Capital recovery factor; i, Discount rate; N, Period of use; TCI,
Total capital investment

1468 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er Int J Energy Res. 2019;43:1468–1478.
LEE AND LIM
1 | INTRODUCTION
Hydrogen (H2) has been widely utilized in various indus-
trial fields such as chemicals, electronics, metal, food, fer-
tilizer, and electric power industries as well as H2 fueling
stations, as shown in Figure 1.1 In addition, H2 has
recently received considerable interests as a promising
alternative energy carrier since it is a clean and easy‐to‐
handle fuel with a higher energy yield (122 kJ kgH2−1)
than hydrocarbon fuels.2 In this context, it is very crucial
to find better pathways to produce H2 enough to meet
this strong demand. Methane steam reforming (MSR) is
currently being commercially used for H2 production3,4
because of its high efficiency and low levelized cost of
H2 (LCOH) compared to other methods like oil‐based
H2 production, coal gasification, and water electrolysis.5,6
Moreover, natural gas (NG) made up mostly of methane
(CH4) has been considered as being more eco‐friendly
than conventional fossil fuels.7 The MSR technology
accounts for approximately 48% of global H2 production,
as shown in Figure 2,8,9 and is a well‐known process
consisting of MSR (Equations 1 and 3) and high‐ and
low‐temperature water gas shift reaction (WGSR; Equa-
tion 2). Figure 3A shows a conventional reforming system
consisting of a packed‐bed reactor (PBR) for MSR, high‐
and low‐temperature shift reactors for WGSR, and pres-
sure swing adsorption (PSA) for H2 purification.
CH4 þ H2 O→CO þ 3H2 ΔCH0298 ¼ 206 kJ mol−1 ; (1)
CO þ H2 O→CO2 þ H2 ΔH0298 ¼ −41 kJ mol−1 ; (2)
CH4 þ 2H2 O→CO2 þ 4H2 ΔH0298 ¼ 165 kJ mol−1 : (3)
Even though this MSR technology is a commercially
viable and mature process, there exist several drawbacks,
as depicted below10:
FIGURE 1 Distribution of a global H2 market1 [Colour figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
1469
FIGURE 2 Global H2 production methods8 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
1. use of a lot of energy due to the endothermic nature of
MSR and extremely high operating temperature leading
to limited selection of a suitable reformer and catalyst;
2. emission of CO2, a greenhouse gas (GHG) known as a
major contributor to global warming; and
3. requirement of an additional H2 purification equipment
like PSA leading to significant capital and operating costs.
A membrane reactor (MR) concept combining a
reactor and a H2 separator in a single unit has been intro-
duced to solve the aforementioned problems, as shown in
Figure 3B, and some benefits of the MR concept
are depicted as follows. First, higher methane conversion
( XCH4 ) and H2 yield through equilibrium shift owing to
the Le Chatelier's principle11 can result in the reduction
in an operating temperature for the equal amount of the
desired product. Second, a purified H2 without further
post‐purification equipment like PSA can be obtained.
Last, a simpler design is possible because of the combina-
tion of a reactor and a H2 separator in one single unit lead-
ing to compact reactor design and cost savings in capital
and operating costs compared with those of a conventional
PBR. Many studies on H2 production via the improved
membrane properties for MSR in an MR have been
reported as shown in Table 1.12-17 Although an MR has
these benefits, it has also main downsides such as a
trade‐off between a H2 permeance and a H2 selectivity as
well as high costs due to the use of palladium (Pd)‐based
membranes.18,19 In order to make up for the aforemen-
tioned weak points of an MR, studies on membrane perfor-
mance have been done. Oyama and Lim20 studied the
impact of a H2 selectivity on reactant conversion and a
H2 yield enhancement for various reforming reactions in
MRs based on a one‐dimensional numerical study. In par-
ticular, they suggested that a H2 selectivity of 100 is enough
to obtain reasonable performance in an MR. Ghasemzadeh
et al21 also carried out numerical studies using a one‐
1470
FIGURE 3 The schematic diagrams: A, a conventional reforming system using a packed‐bed reactor (PBR); B, a proposed reforming
system using a membrane reactor (MR) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
dimensional reactor model for methanol steam reforming
in a silica MR and investigated the effect of various operat-
ing parameters such as sweep factor, catalyst loading, reac-
tion pressure and temperature, and a H2 selectivity on
methanol conversion and a H2 recovery. They reported
the little benefit of a H2 selectivity on both reactant conver-
sion and product yield in an MR when a H2 selectivity is
higher than 100. From literature survey results, it was iden-
tified that although many researchers have released papers
on effective H2 production via the enhanced membrane
property for MSR in an MR. In contrast, there are both
previous studies by Oyama and Lim20 and Ghasemzadeh
et al21 focusing on the optimized H2 selectivity only among
membrane properties in an MR but no economic analysis
for comparison between a PBR and an MR. In this context,
it is timely to evaluate economic feasibility for H2 produc-
tion by an MR because membrane is premature technology
for applying to H2 production. So, here, we report eco-
nomic comparison between a PBR and an MR was con-
ducted on the basis of itemized cost estimations and
sensitivity analysis (SA) with an optimized window of a
H2 selectivity proposed on the basis of simulation results.
LEE AND LIM
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Comparative process simulation
studies of a PBR and an MR
Process simulation is widely used to analyze chemical
processes of interest and to find optimized operating con-
ditions based on the process simulation results obtained
from material and energy balances of the whole system.
Currently, commercial process simulators are being used
as robust tools for chemical process simulation such as
HYSYS® (AspenTech, Inc., Beford, MA, USA),22-24 Aspen
Plus® (AspenTech, Inc., Beford, MA, USA),25-27 Unisim
Design® Suite (Honeywell, Morris Plains, NJ, USA),28-30
and CHEMCAD (Chemstations, Inc., Houston, TX,
USA).31-33 Among them, HYSYS was selected in this paper
as an appropriate process simulator for a PBR and an MR
because it is well opted for gas processing technology.
Figure 4A shows a process flow diagram (PFD) of a PBR.
First, CH4 and H2O compressed to a desired pressure are pre‐
heated using a heat exchanger before being fed to a PBR, a
catalytic reactor including active catalysts. The kinetics
LEE AND LIM 1471

TABLE 1 Literature survey on H2 production for methane steam reforming (MSR) in a membrane reactor (MR)

Author Method Comment

Iulianelli et al12 Experiment ‐ Perform the comparative experiment for MSR with or without Pd‐MR using a Ni‐based
catalyst.
‐ Obtain a 50% methane conversion and 70% COx‐free H2 recovery at 723 K, 3.0 bar, 1.6 sweep
factor in an MR.
‐ Observe a 6% methane conversion with same operating conditions in conventional MSR.
Patrascu and Experiment, ‐ Carry out an MSR at the temperature range of 713‐793 K in an MR consisting of a 175 cm2 Pd
Sheintuch13 numerical modeling membrane and foam catalyst.
‐ Indicate the experiment result as 90% methane conversion and 80% H2 recovery when CH4
input of 0.25 NL min−1, wall temperature of 798 K, pressure of 10 bar, S/C of 3, and sweep gas
flow of 0.7 NL min−1.
Marcobernardino Experiment, ‐ Find out the H2 permeability value of 5.16E−11 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−0.71 for thinner Pd‐Ag
et al14 numerical modeling membrane at 723 K.
‐ Determine the optimized temperature and pressure conditions in an MR at 873 K and 500 kPa,
respectively.
Kyriakides et al15 Experiment, ‐ Conduct an MSR experiment using an MR and clearly show that a higher pure H2 was
numerical modeling produced because of the increased methane input flow rate.
‐ Determine the optimized reaction parameters by describing numerical modeling based on
experimental data (length of 0.443 m, CH4 flow rate of 0.0262 mol min−1, sweep gas
volumetric flow rate of 8.88 m3 s−1, and membrane surface of 0.0195 m2).
Chompupun et al Experiment, 3D ‐ Investigate comparative study for MSR with or without Pd‐MR using a 10 wt% Ni/Al2O3
16
modeling catalyst.
‐ Verify the high performance in terms of CH4 conversion of 61.5% for a conventional reactor
and 87.1% for an MR, respectively.
‐ Design 3D model on the basis of experimental data and use kinetic parameters for scale‐up of
reactor.
Spallina et al17 Techno‐economic ‐ Implement a comparative TEA for fired tubular reforming (FTR), fluidized bed MR (FBMR),
analysis (TEA) and membrane‐assisted chemical looping reforming (MA‐CLR).
‐ Identify the H2 production cost of 0.28€ Nm3H2−1 for FTR, 0.22€ Nm3H2−1 for FBMR, and
0.19€ Nm3H2−1 for MA‐CLR.
‐ Provide influential factors (membrane, reactor, and natural gas) for H2 production cost via
sensitivity analysis.

reported by Xu and Froment4 with a Ni/MgAl2O4 catalyst as

 
shown in Equations 4 to 17 was incorporated into a PBR and k 3 PCH4 P2H 2 O =P3:5
H2 − P H2 P CO2 =K 1 K 2
0:5
high‐ and low‐temperature shift reactors were not included r3 ¼ ; (6)
for this analysis. After MSR in a PBR, product contains DEN 2
unreacted CH4 and H2O as well as produced CO, CO2, and
H2. Then, it is passed via a cooler to remove unreacted DEN ¼ 1 þ KCO PCOþ K H2 PH2 þ K CH4 PCH4
H2O. After water separation, gas is compressed to increase PH2 O
þ K H2 O ; (7)
the pressure before being fed into PSA to obtain the desired PH2
H2 purity. After PSA process, tail gas is used to supply the
 
required heat for the system by burning it in a boiler. −240 100
k1 ¼ 4:17 × 1015 exp ; (8)
RT
 
k 1 PCH4 PH2 O =P2:5  
H2 − P H2 P CO =K 1
0:5
67 130
r1 ¼ ; (4) k 2 ¼ 1:95 × 106 exp ; (9)
DEN 2 RT

 
k 2 ðPCO PH2 O =PH2 − PCO2 =K 2 Þ −243 900
r2 ¼ ; (5) k3 ¼ 1:00 × 10 exp
15
; (10)
DEN 2 RT
1472 LEE AND LIM

FIGURE 4 Process flow diagrams: A, a packed‐bed reactor (PBR); B, a membrane reactor (MR) [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

   
−4 38 280 −2 37 300
K CH4 ¼ 6:65 × 10 exp ; (11) K 2 ¼ 1:14 × 10 exp ; (16)
RT RT

  K 3 ¼ K 1 × K 2; (17)
−88 680
K H2 O ¼ 1:77 × 105 exp ; (12)
RT where ri is chemical reaction rate of i (i = 1, 2, and 3), Pi is
  partial pressure of i (i = CO, H2, CH4, and H2O), ki is chem-
−5 70 650 ical reaction rate constant of i (i = 1, 2, and 3), Ki is equilib-
K CO ¼ 8:25 × 10 exp ; (13)
RT rium constant of i (i = 1, 2, 3, CO, H2, CH4, and H2O), R is
  gas constant, and T is reaction temperature. As an appropri-
−9 82 900 ate fluid package required in the proposed simulation, the
K H2 ¼ 6:15 × 10 exp ; (14)
RT Peng‐Robinson equation of state (PR EOS) was employed
  and all simulation works were carried out assuming a steady
−224 000 state operation. In addition, an isothermal condition was
K 1 ¼ 4:71 × 10 exp
12
; (15)
RT assumed for fair comparison between a PBR and an MR,
LEE AND LIM
and the required heat due to endothermic reaction for both
reactors was calculated on the basis of energy balance.
Figure 4B shows a PFD of an MR for MSR with same
configurations with a PBR except the use of H2‐selective
membranes inside a reactor. For both PBR and MR, high‐
and low‐temperature shift reactors were not considered in
this study. In the MR, a H2O was used as a sweep gas to drive
enough PH2 , which is H2 partial pressure difference between
both retentate and permeate (PH2 ;retentate − PH2 ;permeate ) so that
concentration polarization is minimized. As an MR is not
in the modeling library of HYSYS®, we created a template
for an MR being made up a series of five reactors and five
H2 separators in this study34,35 to reflect the function of an
MR properly like continuous H2 removal through mem-
branes during MSR in a reactor. The pressure difference
between a retentate and a permeate was 2.5 bar and reaction
was performed under conditions of a H2 permeance36 of
3 × 10−6 mol m−2 s−1 Pa−1 and a H2O sweep gas molar
flow rate of 1 mol s−1 at 773 K. A wide range of H2 selectivity
(10‐10,000), which is defined as the ratio of H2 permeance
over other gas in an MR expressed as Equation 18, was
chosen for MR studies, and the length of a membrane was
set at 25 cm targeting a production of H2 (1 m3 h−1).
H 2 permeance
H 2 selectivity ¼ ; (18)
Other gas permeance
where H2 permeance is H2 molar flow rate passing from a
retentate to a permeate (mol s−1) and Other gas permeance
is other gas molar flow rate passing from a retentate to a per-
meate except for H2 (mol s−1).
In addition, a H2 flow rate passing from a retentate to a
permeate was calculated on the basis of Equation 19 instead
of using the Sievert's law,37 which is commonly used in calcu-
lating H2 permeation related to dense Pd membrane, because
of recent development of a thin H2 membrane strongly
showing dependence on partial pressure difference.38,39


F H2 ;permeate ¼ H 2 permeance × Area × PH2 ;ret − PH2 ;per ;
(19)
where F H2 ;permeate is a H2 flow rate passing from a retentate to
a permeate (mol s−1), H2 permeance is the molar flux via
membrane per unit driving force (mol [m2 s Pa]−1), Area is
membrane surface area (m2), PH2 ;ret is partial pressure of
H2 in a retentate (Pa), and PH2 ;per is partial pressure of H2
in a permeate (Pa).
An enhancement of CH4 conversion and H2 yield
owing to the Le Chatelier's principle in an MR compared
with a PBR was calculated using Equation 20.23,40
MR − PBR
Enhancement ð%Þ ¼ × 100: (20)
PBR
1473
2.2 | Economic analysis: LCOH
Itemized cost estimations were conducted to compute an
LCOH for MSR in a PBR and an MR based on previous
study results (chemical process simulation) and current
economic status in Korea to assess economic feasibility
for MSR in a PBR and an MR. Total cost was calculated
by summing capital costs and operating costs. Capital cost
consists of equipment cost like a reactor, membrane mod-
ules, a compressor, and a PSA and supplement cost and
operating cost is composed of electricity, PSA operating
expenses (PSA OPEX), labor, membrane replacement,
NG, maintenance, and other operating costs.41-43 In par-
ticular, membrane replacement cost was classified as an
operating cost to consider membrane lifetime. Costs of a
reactor,44 a compressor,45 a PSA, and a PSA OPEX46 were
obtained on the basis of previously reported studies. In
this paper, a chemical engineering plant cost index
(CEPCI) as of 2016 was employed to properly take cost
variations into account in time for equipment47 and costs
of equipment in different capacities were calculated on
the basis of a six‐tenths rule as shown in Equation 21.
 n
Ca Aa
¼ ; (21)
Cb Ab
where C is equipment cost ($), A is equipment capacity
(m3 h−1), and n is cost exponent for equipment size
(n = 0.6, based on a six‐tenths rule).47 In addition, item-
ized annual capital costs were calculated by converting
initial capital costs to annual capital costs via capital
recovery factor (CRF) (Equation 22).41,47
i ð1 þ i ÞN
CRF ¼ ; (22)
ð1 þ i ÞN − 1
where i is a discounted rate of 8% as a conservative inter-
est rate and N is project period (10 y used in this paper).
Supplement cost was 20% of total capital investment
(TCI), which is defined as the sum of equipment cost of
a reactor, membrane modules, a compressor, and a PSA.
A stream factor was assumed as 1 and electricity was cal-
culated considering annual electricity consumption of
compressor for reactants and pretreatment of PSA for a
PBR with electricity price of $0.06 kWh−1.48 The US
Department of Energy target price of H2 separation mem-
branes ($5382 m−2) was adopted to calculate operating
costs for membranes.44 Annual costs for labor were calcu-
lated on the basis of labor for a part‐time worker in Korea
($16 667 y−1). Maintenance and other operating costs
were 2% and 1% of TCI, respectively.49 Based on itemized
cost estimation results, an LCOH can be calculated by
dividing total annual costs by the amount of H2 produced.
1474 LEE AND LIM

2.3 | Economic analysis: SA flow rate of 1 mol s−1. For all MRs studied, higher XCH4
and H2 yield compared with those of a PBR were
SA is widely used to consider price fluctuations associated observed because of the equilibrium shift owing to the
with each economic parameter used in economic analy- Le Chatelier's principle. Overall trend of decreased XCH4
sis. The effect of change in economic parameter on an
LCOH in a PBR and an MR was studied via SA.23,40,47
Economic parameters adopted for SA were all economic
parameters covered in this work. By changing key eco-
nomic parameters by ±20%, the effect of each parameter
on an LCOH was represented by tornado diagrams.

3 | R E S U L T S AN D D I S C U S S I O N

3.1 | Impact of a H2 selectivity on

performance in an MR

Figure 5A presents the impact of a H2 selectivity on XCH4

and H2 yield enhancements at 773 K in an MR equipped
with H2 membranes with a H2 permeance of FIGURE 6 Impact of a H2 selectivity on temperature reduction
3 × 10−6 mol m−2 s−1 Pa−1 and a H2O sweep gas molar in a membrane reactor (MR). PBR indicates packed‐bed reactor
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 2 Itemized cost estimations of a levelized cost of H2

(LCOH) for a packed‐bed reactor (PBR) and a membrane reactor (MR)

H2
PBR, H2 Production MR, Production
Item $ y−1 Cost, $ kgH2−1 $ y−1 Cost, $ kgH2−1

1. Capital cost 1995 1.88 790 0.75

Reactor 523 0.49 522 0.49
Membrane — — 117 0.11
module
Compressor 125 0.12 19 0.02
PSA 1015 0.96 — —
Supplement 333 0.31 132 0.12
2. Operating 2241 2.11 1892 1.79
cost
Electricity 192 0.18 23 0.02
PSA OPEX 2 0.002 — —
Labor 1667 1.57 1667 1.57
Membrane — — 23 0.02
replacement
Natural gas 46 0.04 46 0.04
Maintenance 223 0.21 88 0.08
Other 112 0.11 44 0.04
operating
costs
FIGURE 5 Impact of a H2 selectivity: A, CH4 conversion (XCH4 ) 3. Total cost 4236 4.00 2681 2.53
and H2 yield enhancements; B, a H2 purity in a permeate. PBR
Cost savings 36.7%
indicates packed‐bed reactor [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com] Abbreviations: PSA, pressure swing adsorption; OPEX, operating expense.
LEE AND LIM 1475

and H2 yield enhancements with an increased H2 selec- a main downside of an MR, as mentioned earlier. There-
tivity was observed in an MR. That is to say, high H2 fore, low H2 permeance results in decreased H2 yield and
selectivity means low H2 permeance because of trade‐off XCH4 because of little effect of equilibrium shift due to the
between a H2 permeance and a H2 selectivity, which is Le Chatelier's principle. In particular, a H2 selectivity

FIGURE 7 Itemized cost estimation of a levelized cost of H2 (LCOH): A, a packed‐bed reactor (PBR); B, a membrane reactor (MR). PBR
indicates packed‐bed reactor; PSA, pressure swing adsorption; OPEX, operating expense [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 8 Sensitivity analysis: A, a conventional packed‐bed reactor (PBR); B, a membrane reactor (MR) using a tornado plot. PSA
indicates pressure swing adsorption; OPEX, operating expense [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
1476
slowed the significant impact on XCH4 enhancement at a
lower H2 selectivity with little at a higher H2 selectivity.
In contrast, little influence of a H2 selectivity was observed
for a H2 yield enhancement except some minor effects at a
lower H2 selectivity. Obviously, the effect of a H2 selectiv-
ity on the performance in an MR was less dominant when
a H2 selectivity is more than 100, reasonably confirming
previous studies.20,21 However, an in‐depth analysis of
XCH4 and H2 yield enhancements (Figure 5A) coupled with
H2 purity (Figure 5B) provided a good window of a H2
selectivity ranging from 100 to 300, which is equivalent
to 97.07% and 99.01% of a H2 purity, respectively.
Therefore, it can be concluded that a H2 selectivity of
300 should be chosen for a H2 purity comparable with
PSA (>99%)46 with a H2 selectivity of 100 employed for
industrial application like a combustion engine requiring
a H2 purity of approximately 97%.50 From this analysis, a
window of a H2 selectivity depending on potential applica-
tions was well demonstrated as a new criterion for an MR.
3.2 | Impact of a H2 selectivity on
temperature reduction in an MR
Figure 6 illustrates the impact of a H2 selectivity on the
reduction in reaction temperature in an MR compared
with a PBR denoted by TPBR − TMR. Because of the
improved H2 production in an MR, lowered operating
temperature can be possible in an MR for the equal
amount of H2 production as the one in a PBR. This temper-
ature reduction can lead to various advantages of numer-
ous options for catalysts and reactor materials, reduced
energy for overall system, and cost savings. Apparently, a
significant temperature reduction was obtained for an
MR with a lower H2 selectivity, while the reduction was lit-
tle when it is more than 300. Therefore, we propose here a
window of a H2 selectivity from 100 to 300 for the best per-
formance of an MR depending on potential applications
from a thorough analysis of XCH4 and H2 yield enhance-
ments, a H2 purity, and temperature reduction.
3.3 | Economic analysis: LCOH
To be equivalent to the performance of a PSA, a H2 purity
of more than 99% should be guaranteed. Therefore, a H2
selectivity of 300 was chosen for economic analysis in this
paper to estimate an LCOH for a PBR and an MR. Table 2
presents itemized cost estimations to obtain an LCOH for
a PBR and an MR with a H2 selectivity of 300 based on
capital and operating costs. An LCOH for MSR in a
PBR and an MR was $4.00 and 2.53 kgH2−1, respectively,
showing a significant cost reduction in the MR (36.7%)
due to the elimination of a PSA to obtain the desired H2
LEE AND LIM
purity, and it proves to demonstrate well the economic
benefit of the MR. In addition, Figure 7 presents a visual
representation of itemized cost estimation for the PBR
and the MR combining a pie chart and bar graph. This
cost reduction was mainly because of a huge reduction
in capital costs in the MR (approximately 60%) compared
with the PBR owing to a PSA. The elimination of a PSA
also decreased operating costs in the MR.
3.4 | Economic analysis: SA
SA was conducted to observe how much an LCOH could be
changed according to the price fluctuation of each economic
parameter and to identify the key economic parameters
affecting an LCOH. Figure 8 depicts how an LCOH varies
when SA is carried out for both a PBR and an MR using tor-
nado plot. The most deterministic economic parameter to
decide an LCOH was marked with the star symbol. From
SA result, the three important parameters are labor, a
PSA, and a reactor for a PBR and labor, a reactor, and
membrane modules for an MR in the order named. In
particular, the most important key economic factor is labor
for both reactors. It is believed that labor is the most influen-
tial factor because a current MR system is a small‐scaled
capacity and different key economic factors can be possibly
obtained with increased H2 production capacities.47
4 | C ON C L U S I ON S
In this study, techno‐economic viability studies for MSR
in an MR have been conducted to evaluate the economic
viability of using an MR technology for H2 production
and the results are as follows.
• Process simulation studies provided a window of a H2
selectivity from 100 to 300, which is the optimized range
in terms of CH4 conversion and H2 yield enhancements,
a H2 purity, and temperature reduction in the MR.
• Economic analysis focusing on an LCOH using
itemized cost estimations (H2 selectivity of 300) was
conducted and an LCOH of $4.00 and $2.53 kgH2−1
was obtained in a PBR and an MR, respectively, pre-
senting approximately 37% cost reduction in the MR.
• SA provided three economic parameters influencing
an LCOH (labor, PSA, and reactor for the PBR and
labor, reactor, and membrane module for the MR).
Conclusively, it is well demonstrated that an MR
technology, compared with a PBR, can serve as a cost‐
competitive method to produce H2 because of the
improved H2 production leading to lowered costs.
LEE AND LIM
A C K N O WL E D G E M E N T
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) granted
financial resource from the Ministry of Trade, Industry
& Energy, Republic of Korea (No. 20182020201260).
ORCID
Boreum Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3169-8520
Hankwon Lim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1074-0251
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Ma L, Castro‐Dominguez B, Kazantzis NK, Ma Y. Integration of
membrane technology into hydrogen production plants with
CO2 capture: an economic performance assessment study. Int J
Greenh Gas Control. 2015;42:424‐438.
2. Parthasarathy P, Narayanan KS. Hydrogen production from
steam gasification of biomass: influence of process parameters
on hydrogen yield—a review. Renew Energy. 2014;66:570‐579.
3. Ryi S, Park J, Kim D, Kim T, Kim S. Methane steam reforming
with a novel catalytic nickel membrane for effective hydrogen
production. J Membr Sci. 2009;339:189‐194.
4. Xu J, Froment GF. Methane steam reforming, methanation and
water‐gas shift: I. Intrinsic Kinetics, AICHE J. 1989;35:88‐95.
5. Abdalla AM, Hossain S, Nisfindy OB, Azad AT, Dawood M,
Azad AK. Hydrogen production, storage, transportation and
key challenges with applications: a review. Energ Conver Man-
age. 2018;165:602‐627.
6. Kyriakou V, Garagounis I, Vourros A, Marnellos GE, Stoukides
M. Hydrogen: a protonic ceramic membrane reactor for the pro-
duction of hydrogen from coal steam gasification. J Membr Sci.
2018;553:163‐170.
7. Thattai AT, van Biert L, Aravind PV. On direct internal methane
steam reforming kinetics in operating solid oxide fuel cells with
nickel‐ceria anodes. J Power Sources. 2017;370:71‐86.
8. Zakkour P, Cook G. CCS Roadmap for Industry: High‐purity CO2
Sources. Carbon Counts Company (UK) Ltd; 2010.
9. Voldsund M, Jordal K, Anantharaman R. Hydrogen production
with CO2 capture. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2016;41:4969‐4992.
10. Zhu L, Li L, Fan J. A modified process for overcoming the draw-
backs of conventional steam methane reforming for hydrogen
production: thermodynamic investigation. Chem Eng Res Des.
2015;104:792‐806.
11. Marcano JGS, Tsotsis TT. Catalytic Membranes and Membrane
Reactors. Weinheim: Wiley‐VCH; 2002.
12. Iulianelli A, Manzolini G, Falco MD, et al. H2 production by low
pressure methane steam reforming in a Pd‐Ag membrane reac-
tor over a Ni‐based catalyst: experimental and modeling. Int J
Hydrogen Energy. 2010;35:11514‐11524.
13. Patrascu M, Sheintuch M. On‐site pure hydrogen production by
methane steam reforming in high flux membrane reactor: exper-
imental validation, model predictions and membrane inhibition.
Chem Eng J. 2015;262:862‐874.
1477
14. Marcobernardino GD, Sosio F, Manzolini G, Campanari S. Fixed
bed membrane reactor for hydrogen production from steam
methane reforming: experimental and modeling approach. Int
J Hydrogen Energy. 2015;40:7559‐7567.
15. Kyriakides AS, Voutetakis S, Papadopoulou S, Seferlis P. Optimiza-
tion of an experimental membrane reactor for low‐temperature
methane steam reforming. Clean Technol Environ Policy.
2016;18:2065‐2075.
16. Chompupun T, Limtrakul S, Vatanatham T, Kanhari C,
Ramachandran PA. Experiments, modeling and scaling‐up of
membrane reactors for hydrogen production via steam methane
reforming. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif. 2018;134:124‐140.
17. Spallina V, Pandolfo D, Battistella A, Romano MC, Annaland
MVS, Gallucci F. Techno‐economic assessment of membrane
assisted fluidized bed reactors for pure H2 production with
CO2 capture. Energy Conv Manag. 2016;120:257‐273.
18. Lee D, Hacarlioglu P, Oyama ST. The effect of pressure in mem-
brane reactors: trade‐off in permeability and equilibrium
conversion in the catalytic reforming of CH4 with CO2 at high
pressure. Top Catal. 2004;29:45‐57.
19. Briceno K, Montane D, Garcia‐Valls R, Iulianelli A, Basile A.
Fabrication variables affecting the structure and properties of
supported carbon molecular sieve membranes for hydrogen sep-
aration. J Membr Sci. 2017;415‐416:288‐297.
20. Oyama ST, Lim H. An operability level coefficient (OLC) as a
useful tool for correlating the performance of membrane reac-
tors. Chem Eng J. 2009;151:351‐358.
21. Ghasemzadeh K, Morrone P, Babalou AA, Basile A. A simulation
study on methanol steam reforming in the silica membrane reactor
for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2015;40:3909‐3918.
22. Tan H, Sun N, Zhao Q, Li Y. An ejector‐enhanced re‐liquefaction
process (EERP) for liquid ethylene vessels. Int J Energy Res.
2017;41:658‐672.
23. Heo J, Lee B, Lim H. Techno‐economic analysis for CO2
reforming of a medium‐grade landfill gas in a membrane reactor
for H2 production. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:2585‐2593.
24. Jaroenkhasemmeesuk C, Diego ME, Tippayawong N, Ingham
DB, Pourkashanian M. Simulation analysis of the catalytic
cracking process of biomass pyrolysis oil with mixed catalysts:
optimization using the simplex lattice design. Int J Energy Res.
2018;42:2983‐2996.
25. Yörük CR, Meriste T, Sener S, Kuusik R, Trikkel A. Thermogravi-
metric analysis and process simulation of oxy‐fuel combustion of
blended fuels including oil shale. Int J Energy Res.
2018;42:2213‐2224.
26. Alam S, Kumar JP, Rani KY, Sumana C. Self‐sustained process
scheme for high purity hydrogen production using sorption
enhanced steam methane reforming coupled with chemical
looping combustion. J Clean Prod. 2017;162:687‐701.
27. Zhang F, Zhou Y, Sun W, Hou S, Yu L. CO2 capture from
reheating furnace based on the sensible heat of continuous casting
slabs. Int J Energy Res. 2018;42:2273‐2283.
28. Cascio EL, Borelli D, Devia F, Schenone C. Key performance indi-
cators for integrated natural gas pressure reduction stations with
energy recovery. Energ Conver Manage. 2018;164:219‐229.
1478
29. Chem W, van der Ham L, Nijmeijer A, Winnubst L. Membrane‐
integrated oxy‐fuel combustion of coal: process design and sim-
ulation. J Membr Sci. 2015;492:461‐470.
30. Park M, Shin S, Kim E. Effective energy management by combin-
ing gas turbine cycles and forward osmosis desalination process.
Appl Energy. 2015;154:51‐61.
31. White LS, Amo KD, Wu T, Merkel TC. Extended field trials of
Polaris sweep modules for carbon capture. J Membr Sci.
2017;542:217‐225.
32. Kurdi J, Al‐Muhtaseb S, Madadkhahsalmassi B, Farid M. Screening
alternatives for producing paraffinic phase change materials for
thermal energy storage in buildings. Int J Energy Res.
2017;25:1932‐1940.
33. Schläfle S, Senn T, Gschwind P, Kohlus R. Feasibility and energetic
evaluation of air stripping for bioethanol production. Bioresour
Technol. 2017;231:109‐115.
34. Sarvar‐Amini A, Sotudeh‐Gharebagh R, Bashiri H, Mostoufi N,
Haghtalab A. Sequential simulation of a fluidized bed membrane
reactor for the steam methane reforming using Aspen Plus. Energy
Fuel. 2017;21:3593‐3598.
35. Roberts M, Zabransky R, Doong S, Lim J. Single membrane reactor
configuration for separation of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and
hydrogen sulfide, Final Technical Report, Department of Energy,
USA; 2008.
36. Kim C, Han J, Lim H, Kim D, Ryi S‐K. Methane steam reforming
in a membrane reactor using high‐permeable and low‐selective Pd‐
Ru membrane. Korean J Chem Eng. 2017;34:1260‐1265.
37. Murmura MA, Sheintuch M. Permeance inhibition of Pd‐
based membranes by competitive adsorption of CO: mem-
brane size effects and first principles predictions. Chem Eng
J. 2018;347:301‐312.
38. Melendez J, Fernandez E, Gallucci F, van Sint Annaland M, Arias
PL, Tanaka DAP. Preparation and characterization of ceramic sup-
ported ultra‐thin (~1 μm) Pd‐Ag membranes. J Membr Sci.
2017;528:12‐23.
39. Lim H, Oyama ST. Hydrogen selective thin palladium‐copper
composite membranes on alumina supports. J Membr Sci.
2011;378:179‐185.
40. Jeong S, Kim S, Lee B, Ryi S‐K, Lim H. Techno‐economic analy-
sis: ethane steam reforming in a membrane reactor with H2
selectivity effect and profitability analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2018;43:7693‐7702.
LEE AND LIM
41. Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya D.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes. New Jersey:
Pearson; 2013.
42. Newnan L, Lavelle JP, Eschenbach TG. Engineering Economic
Analysis. New York: OXFORD; 2014.
43. Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers. New York: McGraw‐Hill;
2003.
44. Roses L, Manzolini G, Campanari S, de Wit E, Walter M.
Techno‐economic assessment of membrane reactor technologies
for pure hydrogen production for fuel cell vehicle fleets. Energy
Fuel. 2013;27:4423‐4431.
45. Yang C, Ogden J. Determining the lowest‐cost hydrogen deliv-
ery mode. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2007;32:268‐286.
46. Hoffmann J. Simulation and Economic Evaluation of Coal Gasifica-
tion with Sets Reforming Process for Power Production. Louisiana
State University; 2005.
47. Lee B, Chae H, Chio N, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H. Economic
evaluation with sensitivity and profitability analysis for
hydrogen production from water electrolysis in Korea. Int J
Hydrogen Energy. 2017;42:6462‐6471.
48. Song C, Liu Q, Kansha Y, Tsutsumi A. Optimization of steam
methane reforming coupled with pressure swing adsorption
hydrogen production process by heat integration. Appl Energy.
2015;154:392‐401.
49. Lee B, Heo J, Kim S, et al. Economic feasibility studies of high
pressure PEM water electrolysis for distributed H2 refueling
stations. Energ Conver Manage. 2018;162:139‐144.
50. Pedersen FB. Hydrogen—a role in the future?, IGU Diplomatic Gas
Forum, 2015 (Accessed 24 June 2018). https://www.igu.org/sites/
default/files/5%20Hydrogen%20Presentation%20‐%20Frank%
20Borre%20Pedersen%20Fina....pdf
How to cite this article: Lee B, Lim H. Cost‐
competitive methane steam reforming in a
membrane reactor for H2 production: Technical
and economic evaluation with a window of a H2
selectivity. Int J Energy Res. 2019;43:1468–1478.
https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4367