Steam

reforming solutions
Sandra Winter-Madsen and Henrik Olsson, Haldor Topsøe A/S, Denmark,
describe new developments in steam reforming
technologies and some solutions available for very large
hydrogen production units.

T
he requirement for hydrogen in refineries worldwide Several routes are available for hydrogen production, but
is continuously increasing and very large hydrogen the conversion of hydrocarbons is still the most economic
facilities are under design or construction in new route. Here the steam reforming process appears as the most
grassroots refineries. There is a tendency for the single train common and feasible technology. Oxygen blown reforming,
capacity to exceed 200 000 Nm3/h of pure hydrogen, which such as autothermal reforming or gasification, may only
presents new challenges to equipment sizes, reliability and be feasible at very large facilities in connection with power
operational flexibility. In addition, high energy prices and production or production of chemicals1.
environmental restrictions on, for example, CO2 emissions, Over the past 50 years, Topsøe has continuously focused
entail increased operating costs. This article describes some on the development of new steam reforming technologies.
of the new developments in steam reforming technologies This has resulted in more than 250 steam reforming units with
and the solutions Topsøe offers for these very large hydrogen Topsøe design. This article describes new developments in
production units. reforming technologies and their applications.

www.hydrocarbonengineering.com Reprinted from July 2007 HydrocarbonEngineering

 In recent years development of steam reforming technologies Convection reforming technologies, such as the Haldor
has focused on reducing the cost of the tubular steam Topsøe exchange reformer (HTER), were developed to
reformer by using better materials for the reformer tubes and improve the energy efficiency in steam reformers. A schematic
better control of carbon limits through improved catalysts. drawing of HFR and HTER is shown in Figure 2.
The cost of hydrogen production is improved, not only by The combination of HFR and HTER reforming
lowering the capital cost, but also by selecting processes and technologies are an energy efficient and cost effective solution
catalysts, which allow flexibility by using low cost feedstock, for large capacity hydrogen plants. The following case study
and by selecting optimum process conditions giving low illustrate the operating cost advantages and environmental
energy consumption. For large hydrogen plants, the cost of gains of this solution for a large hydrogen plant.
feed, fuel and utilities is typically two
thirds of the overall cost of hydrogen High flux reformer
produced. The most energy efficient The development of better tube materials and reforming
hydrogen plant operates at a low steam catalysts combined with a better understanding of heat transfer
to carbon ratio and a high reforming and the influence of temperature levels and temperature
temperature. By using Topsøe gradients on tube life have made it possible to design and
technologies and catalysts such operate tubular reformers for tube wall temperatures up to
as adiabatic prereforming, radiant 1050 ˚C. By controlling the tube temperatures along the length
wall steam reformer and medium of the tube in a side fired radiant wall steam reformer, high
temperature shift, the net energy average heat fluxes can be obtained without exceeding critical
consumption (NEC) figures can design values. The development of the HFR from pilot plant
be reduced to 3.0 Gcal/1000 Nm3 experiments, CFD simulations to industrial experience has
hydrogen. been described2. Today Topsøe radiant wall steam reformers
The development of the are designed for operation at average heat fluxes close to
Topsøe high flux steam reformer double what was industrial standard 20 years ago (Figure 3).
(HFR) was initiated 10 years The high average heat flux leads to smaller reformer furnaces
ago to reduce the size and the and higher gas throughput per tube, leading to lower capital
cost of the steam reformer. cost per Nm3 of produced hydrogen. Topsøe designs steam
HFR also allows increased gas reformers with average heat fluxes exceeding 100 000 kcal/m2h
throughput per tube, which in hydrogen plants producing more than 200 000 Nm3/h H2 in a
makes the HFR attractive single steam reformer.
for large hydrogen plants.
Figure 1. HTER concept. Exchange reformer
Convection reformers were developed to improve the thermal
efficiency of steam reforming, and Topsøe has developed
two types of convection reformers: the process gas heated
reformer HTER and the flue gas heated reformer Haldor
Topsøe convection reformer (HTCR). In traditional steam
reformers the thermal efficiency for the steam reforming
process is 50%, and the heat in the flue gas is typically
recovered for preheating feed streams and steam production.
In hydrogen plants using HTCR technology, the thermal
efficiency for reforming is increased to 80%, eliminating
the export of steam. Hydrogen production using the HTCR
technology has been used and proven industrially for more
than a decade. This technology is preferred for smaller
capacities up to 30 000 Nm3/h H2 due to its compactness and
modularisation3.

Table 1. Study results

Case 1 2
Feed consumption, Gcal/1000 Nm3 H2 3.33 3.35
Fuel consumption, Gcal/1000 Nm3 H2 0.34 0.14
Steam export, Gcal/1000 Nm3 H2 0.66 0.40
Power consumption kW/1000 Nm H2 3
16 14
CO2 emissions kg/1000 Nm3 H2 900 860
Cost of feed, US$ million/yr 33.29 33.50
Cost of fuel, US$ million/yr 3.40 1.40
Electric power, US$ million/yr 1.35 1.17
Steam credit, US$ million/yr -3.30 -2.00
Total annual operating cost, US$ million/yr* 34.74 34.07

*Based on a NG price of US$ 1.5/million btu, a steam price of

Figure 2. Schematic drawing of high flux reformer (HFR) and US$ 2.4/t and US$ 0.05/kwh
Haldor Topsøe exchange reformer (HTER).

Reprinted from HydrocarbonEngineering July 2007 www.hydrocarbonengineering.com

 The HTER technology was originally developed as Considerations
a revamp option providing a capacity increase of up to As seen from the results in Table 1, a combination of HFR and
20 - 30%. The HTER technology has been in successful HTER is an attractive option for hydrogen production when
commercial operation since early 2003. The first HTER is export steam has a low value and thus can be reduced.
operating at the Sasol Synfuels plant in Secunda, South Africa, The HFR reformer in Case 2 will decrease in size by 20%
and is producing synthesis gas equivalent to 30 000 Nm3/h of compared to the reformer in Case 1, also leading to savings in
hydrogen4. plot area.
In new hydrogen plants, the HTER is used for boosting The HTER reformer is easy to operate and does not
the plant capacity and for reducing the steam production5. require any additional facilities for startup, shutdown and
For new grassroot hydrogen plants the advantages using emergencies. It is designed to follow the maintenance
HTER technology are lower fuel consumption, reduced schedule and is loaded with the same type of catalyst as the
steam export, increased single line reforming capacity and HFR reformer.
lower CO2 emissions. These advantages are illustrated in the
following case study. Conclusion
The Topsøe HFR and HTER are industrially proven
Case study technologies developed by Haldor Topsøe to offer flexible
and cost competitive solutions for hydrogen production.
Background The combination of the HFR and HTER is applied in large
A client of HTAS was seeking an optimised solution for scale hydrogen plants for minimising the production cost of
two very large (approximately 210 000 Nm3/h H2 per train) hydrogen and is an environmentally attractive solution due to
grassroot hydrogen plants. As the client expressed interest reduced emissions.
in a layout that decreases the export steam flow compared
to a traditional hydrogen plant, a combination of a HFR and References
HTER was considered a feasible option. Figure 4 shows the 1. ROSTRUP-NIELSEN, J.R., ROSTRUP-NIELSEN, T., Large-scale
Hydrogen Production, 6th World Congress of Chemical Engineering,
layout of the plant, in which the HTER is operating in parallel Australia, 2001.
with the HFR. 2. ROSTRUP-NIELSEN, T, ‘High Flux Steam Reforming’, Hydrocarbon
Two cases were studied in order to evaluate the Engineering, June 2002.
3. DYBKJAER, I., WINTER MADSEN, S., ‘Compact Hydrogen Plants’,
feasibility of this solution: Hydrocarbon Engineering, November 2004.
l Case 1: HFR. 4. GYDE THOMSEN, S., HAN, P.A., LOCK, S., WERNER, E., The First
Industrial Experience with the Haldor Topsøe Exchange Reformer,
l Case 2: HFR + HTER-p. AICHE, 2006.
5. HEDEGAARD ANDERSEN, K., ‘Hydrogen Agenda’, Hydrocarbon
Case 1 is based on a large single HFR. The size Engineering, November 2006.
and operating conditions are within the Topsøe design
standards. Case 2 is based on a HFR and a parallel Haldor
Topsøe exchange reformer (HTER-p). The operating
conditions for both HFR and HTER-p are within Topsøe
design standards.
From the results in Table 1 it can be concluded that the
combined HFR and HTER solution (Case 2) is a more energy
efficient layout than a single HFR (Case 1). Steam export
is reduced by 40% and fuel consumption by 60%. The
Case 2 layout provides savings on operating cost in cases
where export steam credit is less than 70 % of fuel cost
on an energy basis. In cases where export steam has little
or no value, significant savings on operating cost will be
achieved. Case 2 also features reduction of electric power
consumption and CO2 emissions compared to Case 1.
The investment cost estimates of the two layouts
indicate that the capital cost is roughly the same with a small
advantage for Case 2.
Figure 3. The trend in steam reformer design has moved towards
higher average heat flux leading to lower cost reformers.

HC HFR Hydrogen
FEED

Figure 4. Hydrogen plant with combined HFR and HTER.

www.hydrocarbonengineering.com Reprinted from July 2007 HydrocarbonEngineering

 Looking for
Clean Fuel Solutions?

Check out Topsøe

Catalysts and Technologies
Hydroprocessing Hydrogen
Major supplier of clean fuels catalyst and licensed Leading supplier of hydrogen plant catalysts and the
technology. Low pressure, low cost revamps for ULSD. most efficient and feed flexible technology.

WSA Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

Cost effective and environmentally friendly method For FCC and all other flue gas streams. Superior
for turning sulphur containing waste streams and spent NOx removal with low SO2 oxidation. High poison
alkylation acid into clean concentrated sulphuric acid. tolerance and low pressure drop.

The Catalyst and Technology Company

www.topsoe.com

HALDOR TOPSØE A/S Denmark • Phone +45 45 27 20 00 Telefax +45 45 27 29 99 HALDOR TOPSØE A/S Russia • Phone +7 495 629 6350 Telefax +7 495 956 3275
HALDOR TOPSØE INT. A/S Japan • Phone +81 3 5511 8115 Telefax +81 3 5511 9115 HALDOR TOPSOE, INC. Houston, TX, USA • Phone +1 281 228 5000 Telefax +1 281 228 5109
HALDOR TOPSØE INT. A/S India • Phone +91 11 4175 0081 Telefax +91 11 4175 0252 HALDOR TOPSØE INT. A/S People’s Republic of China • Phone +86 10 6515 8886 Telefax +86 10 6512 7381