�鶹��ý

Before Shell Catalysts & Technologies developed the SBHP in 2020, decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) project developers only had SMR or ATR technologies to choose from. Now, the SBHP provides a third option. It uses Shell gas partial oxidation (POx) technology and, compared with SMR and ATR, it captures carbon dioxide (CO₂) at higher pressures and at larger scales. Furthermore, a recent report from the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) – – has found that POx offers significant advantages compared to those alternatives.

The report compared the deployment of SMR, ATR, POx, and also electrified-SMR (E-SMR), which is an emerging variant of SMR, with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Netherlands to produce decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen). The two stand-out findings, shared in this article, are:

• POx technology has the lowest carbon footprint when set against traditional hydrogen (grey hydrogen) (SMR without CCS) as a reference; and

• POx technology has the lowest LCOH, just 10.2% higher than the reference traditional hydrogen production case.

A brief look at the SBHP process line-up

Before we look at what the report says about the SBHP, let us first remind ourselves what the SBHP lineup looks like and how it differs from SMR and ATR. The SBHP process (Figure 1) integrates two proven technologies: POx and ADIP ULTRA. It is a non-catalytic system, whereby the proven POx technology, an oxygen-based system with direct firing in a refractory-lined reactor, is utilised to manufacture syngas. POx requires little or no feed-gas pretreatment, it produces high-pressure steam from waste heat rather than consuming it, and has no direct CO₂ emissions.

After the water–gas shift reaction, CO₂ is removed with ADIP ULTRA, a proven solvent technology for capturing CO₂ from high-pressure process streams. This leaves a hydrogen stream for further purification. Shell began developing the gas treating ADIP technology in the 1950s. By 2020, the insights and learning from more than 500 ADIP references were pieced together and leveraged to develop a new integrated line-up to produce hydrogen from any hydrocarbon feedstock, with CO₂ capture.

A deeper dive into the benefits of the SBHP, revealed in a recent techno-economic and environmental study

The recent IEAGHG technical report compared the deployment of four decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) technologies, with the assumption that they would be based in the Netherlands, against SMR without CCS. The Netherlands is one of the countries in Europe most active in the natural gas, hydrogen and CCS space.

As a general overview, the study found that a reduction of the carbon footprint, ranging between 43–76%, can be achieved in the Netherlands for all the investigated decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) technologies, when set against traditional hydrogen (without CCS) with a carbon footprint of 10.13 kg CO₂e/kg H₂ as a reference.

POx technology has the lowest carbon footprint

In terms of carbon footprint, the report’s key findings include: 

• POx technology produces decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) with the lowest carbon footprint, as shown in Figure 2. This is about 13% lower than SMR + CCS and 25% lower than ATR + CCS.

• Electrified SMR (E-SMR) produces decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) with the highest carbon footprint – more than twice as high as POx. This is primarily because of the utilisation of high-carbon-intensity electricity in the Netherlands grid (480 gCO₂/kWh in 2020).

• POx has the second lowest project lifetime emissions, as shown in Figure 3. The lowest, E-SMR, is assumed to benefit from a substantially decarbonised electricity grid by 2050. However, it currently has the lowest technology readiness level (TRL 4) of all the technologies investigated.

POx technology has the lowest LCOH

In terms of costs, the report concludes that:

• POx is the most cost-effective process for avoiding CO₂ emissions, with an abatement cost in the region of €65–100/tCO₂ (Figure 4).

• SMR and ATR, which have a cost of CO₂ abatement of about €110/tCO₂, are approximately 28% more expensive than POx.
• E-SMR, using grid electricity, had the highest cost of CO₂ abatement (about €145/tCO₂) in the Netherlands in 2020.
• The LCOH for decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) production using POx technology was found to be just 10.2% higher than the reference traditional hydrogen production case (SMR without CCS) (Figure 5).

Conclusions

The report reveals that in the short term, all the decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) production technologies analysed are likely to cost more than established traditional hydrogen production, without CCS. However, as carbon pricing will likely increase, CCS integration will be crucial for reducing the cost of natural-gas-based hydrogen production.

The development of shared CCS infrastructure in industrial clusters, taking advantage of economies of scale, will ensure CO₂ transport and storage costs are reduced. An example of this type of proposal is Uniper and Shell’s Humber H₂ub project in the �鶹��ý, which aims to produce low-carbon hydrogen that could be used to decarbonise industry, transport and power throughout the Humber region.

In the long term, decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) production will be lower cost than traditional hydrogen because of higher carbon prices. The SBHP will then offer a highly cost-competitive option, with a low carbon footprint, compared with alternative technologies.

To learn more about the Shell Blue Hydrogen Process, visit: www.shell.com/CT

¹ _{According to a recent report from the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) – Low-Carbon Hydrogen from Natural Gas: Global Roadmap – which compared the deployment of a number of decarbonised hydrogen (blue hydrogen) technologies for a specific scenario in the Netherlands}

_{Hydrogen terminology and definitions}

_{Industry, civil society and policy-making organisations are increasingly recognising the need for globally recognised definitions and terminology for hydrogen based on an agreed methodology for tracking and declaring the carbon intensity of hydrogen from different sources. For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA), in its April 2023 report , suggests that colour-based terminology for describing different types of hydrogen technologies “has proved impractical for use in contracts that underpin investment” (p. 12).}

_{Carbon intensity calculation methodologies for many emerging hydrogen technologies are not yet mature or standardised between regions and jurisdictions. Shell’s use of terms such as renewable hydrogen (in place of “green hydrogen”) or decarbonised hydrogen (in place of “blue hydrogen”), and low-carbon hydrogen where the reference is not technology specific, are intended to reflect the associated project’s technology design, operating methods and feedstock. Descriptions of these terms can be found at www.shell.com/hydrogen.}