* New "low carbon" fuel
* Reduced downstream emissions
* Cost neutral - Net BTU
* Flexible supply/delivery chain
* One step in-line - no storage/mixing
Back to GHG Credits and Carbon Black
Testimonials
"We believe the CarbonSaver technology has great potential in the natural gas clean energy market"Kurt Sorschak, president of Xebec Absorbtion Inc.
BACK
The costs are $0.46 per Nm3 for the CarbonSaverTM, compared to $0.45 for SMR, $0.45 for POx, $0.40 for ATR and $0.45 for electrolysis. Natural gas costs dominate the cost of producing hydrogen-enriched natural gas for all technologies with capital costs accounting for most of the difference between technologies. The capital costs for the early technology hydrogen-enriched natural gas CarbonSaverTM are in the middle of the range, although costs for these very small units (i.e., <2 Nm3/hr for the other technologies) are uncertain.
A more useful comparison is the mature technology comparison shown in Figure 7. In this case, the capital costs are much lower than in the early technology comparison and there is a convergence of total costs. The costs are $0.36 per Nm3 for the CarbonSaverTM, compared to $0.37 for SMR, $0.39 for POx, $0.37 for ATR and $0.39 for electrolysis. Natural gas costs account for more than 80% of hydrogen-enriched natural gas costs for the reforming technologies and most of the cost difference is capital recovery. SMR, POX and ATR produce hydrogen in a process that requires a PSA to separate hydrogen from other gases but the CarbonSaverTM produces hydrogen-enriched natural gas directly without a PSA. Eliminating the PSA reduces capital investment and removes a major electrical load for the CarbonSaverTM system (compare to Figure 10 for 99.99% hydrogen). The CarbonSaverTM has the lowest cost for producing hydrogen-enriched natural gas because it has the lowest capital cost and does not have electricity costs significantly higher than the other reforming technologies.
The analysis demonstrates that the CarbonSaverTM has the lowest production costs for producing hydrogen-enriched natural gas as compared with mature technologies, although the range of costs is smaller than for producing pure hydrogen. The CarbonSaverTM benefits from omitting the capital and operating costs of a PSA. In addition to lower production costs, the CarbonSaverTM avoids CO2 emissions and requires a smaller initial investment.
Life Cycle Cost Comparison for HENG
An important early application of the CarbonSaverTM will be the production of hydrogen-enriched natural gas. At this point, the only technology platform making HENG is synthesis gas reforming and electrolysis. Figure 6 shows the cost per Nm3 of hydrogen-enriched natural gas for a 10 Nm3/hr system using early technology. The CarbonSaverTM produces hydrogen-enriched natural gas at 20% by volume by using a single pass of natural gas through the reactor. All other technologies assume a system that produces pure hydrogen that is mixed with natural gas to produce the hydrogen-enriched natural gas blend. |
The costs are $0.46 per Nm3 for the CarbonSaverTM, compared to $0.45 for SMR, $0.45 for POx, $0.40 for ATR and $0.45 for electrolysis. Natural gas costs dominate the cost of producing hydrogen-enriched natural gas for all technologies with capital costs accounting for most of the difference between technologies. The capital costs for the early technology hydrogen-enriched natural gas CarbonSaverTM are in the middle of the range, although costs for these very small units (i.e., <2 Nm3/hr for the other technologies) are uncertain.
A more useful comparison is the mature technology comparison shown in Figure 7. In this case, the capital costs are much lower than in the early technology comparison and there is a convergence of total costs. The costs are $0.36 per Nm3 for the CarbonSaverTM, compared to $0.37 for SMR, $0.39 for POx, $0.37 for ATR and $0.39 for electrolysis. Natural gas costs account for more than 80% of hydrogen-enriched natural gas costs for the reforming technologies and most of the cost difference is capital recovery. SMR, POX and ATR produce hydrogen in a process that requires a PSA to separate hydrogen from other gases but the CarbonSaverTM produces hydrogen-enriched natural gas directly without a PSA. Eliminating the PSA reduces capital investment and removes a major electrical load for the CarbonSaverTM system (compare to Figure 10 for 99.99% hydrogen). The CarbonSaverTM has the lowest cost for producing hydrogen-enriched natural gas because it has the lowest capital cost and does not have electricity costs significantly higher than the other reforming technologies.
 |
The analysis demonstrates that the CarbonSaverTM has the lowest production costs for producing hydrogen-enriched natural gas as compared with mature technologies, although the range of costs is smaller than for producing pure hydrogen. The CarbonSaverTM benefits from omitting the capital and operating costs of a PSA. In addition to lower production costs, the CarbonSaverTM avoids CO2 emissions and requires a smaller initial investment.