i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Economic evaluation of a kinetic-based

copperechlorine (CueCl) thermochemical
cycle plant

Wei Wu*, Han Yu Chen, Felicia Wijayanti

Department of Chemical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan

article info abstract

Article history: The three-step CueCl cycle plant is expected to be ready for commercialization due to less
Received 24 February 2016 steps, less equipment, and less challenges to process solid particles. In the proposed three-
Received in revised form step CueCl cycle, the compact layout is composed of O2 production unit, CuCl electrolysis
14 July 2016 unit and H2 production unit, solid CuCl2 is treated as the feed of hydrolysis reactor, and
Accepted 15 July 2016 aqueous CuCl2 from the CuCl electrolyzer is not directly recycled. Using specific kinetics of
Available online 17 August 2016 hydrolysis and chlorination reactions, a kinetic-based three-step CueCl cycle plant pro-
vides feasible predictions of process optimization. To address the commercialization
Keywords: procedures, first a simple heat recovery scheme is added to improve the overall energy
Hydrogen production efficiency from 33.87% to 47.31%, and second the traditional economic measures such as
Thermochemical cycle net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) are employed. The economic
Economic analysis evaluation patterns show that the labor cost dominates the operating cost, the operating
Optimization cost dominates the total cost of the plant, and the feedstock cost dramatically increases by
scaling up the plant capacity. Under prescribed scenarios and optimal conditions, simu-
lations show that the product costs of hydrogen and oxygen decrease by 99% and 91%,
respectively, while the plant capacity increases from 3E6 kg/yr to 3E8 kg/yr.
© 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

plant [1,2]. The high temperature waste heat can improve

Introduction
Hydrogen economy would become significant in the next
several decades since hydrogen will likely be used in power
generation and transportation. Seeing a shift away from the
fossil fuel economy, hydrogen production is a key component
of a hydrogen economy. Although the hydrogen production
processes using the reforming of natural gas and gasification
of coal are commercially available, they would produce
massive carbon emissions. Compared to the water electrol-
ysis, thermochemical water decomposition provides higher
energy efficiency to decompose water into its components,
hydrogen and oxygen, by using the heat from the nuclear
energy efficiency of thermochemical cycles [3,4]. Notably, the
copper-chlorine (CueCl) thermochemical cycle is a promising
process due to lower operating temperature from 430
C to
475
C and potentially lower cost materials [5].
Recently, various design schemes for CueCl thermochem-
ical cycles based on several steps of two to five are analyzed and
compared [6,7]. The main conclusions showed that more steps
can provide good flexibility, but less steps induce higher heat
grade and intensity requirements, more equipment material
challenges, and more undesirable side by-products. Dincer and
Balta [8] proposed low-temperature thermochemical and
hybrid cycles to improve energetic and exergetic efficiencies.

* Corresponding author. Fax: þ886 62344496.

E-mail address: weiwu@mail.ncku.edu.tw (W. Wu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.115
0360-3199/© 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2
Aghahosseini et al. [9] developed an integrated process model
of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and a CueCl
thermochemical cycle for trigeneration of hydrogen, steam and
electricity. Jaber et al. [10] showed that the effective thermal
management was used to recover heat from molten CuCl in the
oxygen production step of the thermochemical CueCl cycle.
Economic analysis is usually utilized to evaluate an eco-
nomic feasibility of the new technology for hydrogen produc-
tion. It is expected to increase the economic viability and reduce
its costs. Karasawa [11] first studied the SeI thermochemical
cycle to compete with water electrolysis. Hydrogen from the
water electrolysis was economically provided under conditions
such as the small-scale power station. Since the high operation
temperature of the nuclear power plant increases the thermal
efficiency of the SeI thermochemical cycle, the thermal power
of nuclear power plants in hydrogen production dominated the
hydrogen cost. The CueCl thermochemical cycle was poten-
tially coupled with nuclear reactors to achieve higher effi-
ciencies and lower costs of hydrogen production than other
conventional technology. Orhan et al. [12] presented a detailed
analysis of the general methodology of cost estimation for the
CueCl thermochemical cycle, including all cost items with their
percentages, the factors that affect accuracy. Through the cost
evaluation tool in Aspen Plus, the hydrogen production cost in
the CueCl thermochemical cycle was estimated to be $3.30/kg
of H2 [13]. Recently, Liberatore et al. [14] presented the possi-
bility of using the SeI thermochemical cycle for the sulfur re-
covery from flue gas in industrial plants. They showed that the
cost of the SeI process and its power consumption significantly
depended on the plant configuration.
In the past few years, the hydrogen production by thermo-
chemical water decomposition have been tremendously
studied [15]. However, most of the studies are based on lab-
scale experiments or preliminary simulations. Although ther-
mochemical cycles are not commercialized due to limitations
of materials, equipment and heat sources, it may be worth the
investment because it avoids fossil fuels and CO2 emissions
without economic penalties. The CueCl cycle for hydrogen
production has significant potential due to less equipment and
lower energy consumption compared to other thermochemical
cycles. The three-step CueCl cycle usually possesses less steps,
less equipment, and less challenges to process solid particles,
since it combines the steps of drying and hydrolysis to carry out
aqueous cupric chloride as the feed of the hydrolysis reactor.
To address a feasible layout of three-step CueCl cycle plant, the
kinetic models should be taken into consideration [16] and
effective steps are validated via new design schemes. In this
article, a new CueCl cycle plant under prescribed limitations
that consists of specific kinetic models, a specific CueCl cycle
and a simple heat recovery is presented. Moreover, economic
analysis is taken into account such as NPV, payback period, and
IRR. Based on prescribed scenarios and ideal conditions, plant
overhead cost and total indirect cost dominate the total pro-
duction cost at different plant capacities.
Three-step CueCl thermochemical cycle
In the past years, the design and optimization of CueCl
(thermochemical) cycles from five steps to three steps have
16605
been performed to examine the energy and yield effectiveness
of the processes [4]. Various design schemes use thermody-
namic model which has been validated in Aspen Plus envi-
ronment [8] to predict thermodynamic equilibrium and
compositions in CueCl cycles.
System description
We present a flow diagram for a three-step CueCl cycle in
Fig. 1 that consists of three major reactions by R1, R2 and R3. A
mixture of CuCl2(s) and H2O(l) is fed into a hydrolysis reactor to
carry out O2 production reaction (R1) at 450e530
C [16]:
rR1
R1 : 2CuCl2ðsÞ þ H2 OðgÞ




!2CuClðlÞ þ 2HClðgÞ þ 0:5O2ðsÞ (1)
It produces intermediate compounds, CuCl and HCl, and
one of the products, O2. Notably, O2 production reaction is
described by two steps, (i) CuCl2(s) / CuCl(l) þ 0.5Cl2(g) and (ii)
CuO(s) þ 0.5Cl2(g) / CuCl(l) þ 0.5O2(g). The decomposition rate
of CuCl2 is simplified as a zero-order rate law. If the rate of
disappearance of Cl2 is very fast since CuCl(l) at a higher
temperature can effectively facilitate Cl2(g) diffusion to CuO(s),
then the kinetic of R1 is written as
rR1 ¼ kR1 ¼ 4:83  105 expð12279:82=TR1 Þ (2)
1
where kR1 has units of s and TR1 is denoted as the operating
temperatures of the hydrolysis reactor (R1). One of interme-
diate compounds, CuCl(l), from the R1 reactor mixed with
water flows into an CuCl electrolyzer to carry out CuCl elec-
trochemical reaction (R2) at 25
C:
H2 O
R2 : 4CuClðsÞ




!2CuCl2ðaqÞ þ 2CuðsÞ (3)
It produces intermediate compounds, Cu(s) and CuCl2(aq), at
room temperature. Notably, CuCl appeared in R1 and R2 un-
dergoes a solidesolid transition or a solideliquid transition. In
our approach, CuCl2(aq) is purged directly to avoid the drying
process for CuCl2(aq) / CuCl2(s) and neglect the incomplete
kinetics of CuCl electrochemical reaction [17]. Moreover, two
of intermediate compounds, HCl(l) and Cu(s), from the hydro-
lysis reactor and CuCl electrolyzer, respectively, flow into a
fluidized bed reactor to carry out H2 production reaction (R3) at
430e475
C [17]:
R3 : 2CuðsÞ þ 2HClðgÞ



!
rR3




2CuClð1Þ þ H2ðgÞ (4)
It produces an intermediate compound, CuCl, and one of
products, H2, at higher temperature. Zamfirescu et al. [18]
indicated that the kinetics of H2 production reaction is
described by
CuCl2(s) CuCl2(aq)
CuCl(l) R2
R1
R3 H2(g)
H2O(l) Cu(s)
O2(g) CuCl(l)
HCl(g)
Fig. 1 e Three-step CueCl thermochemical cycle.
16606 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2
  
rR3 ¼ kR3 p0:5
HCl  pH2 Keq
where kR3 has units of mol$kg1$s1$atm0.5 and pi represents
the partial pressure of the component. If the irreversible re-
action is taken into account due to large amounts of Cu, then
Eq. (5) is reduced to
rR3 ¼ 4:83  102 expð  7515:5=TR3 Þp0:5
HCl
where TR3 is denoted as the operating temperature of a fluid-
ized bed reactor (R3). Notably, the three-step CueCl cycle has
not been validated by experiments yet. Some challenge
problems should be solved by the process design, kinetics and
thermodynamics because complicated reactors carry out gas-
solid-liquid transition at different operating temperatures,
some components, CuCl, HCl and H2, induce severe corrosive
conditions, and unknown side reactions may appear at
different operating temperatures.
Process design
In the proposed three-step CueCl cycle, (i) CuCl2(aq) from the
CuCl electrolyzer is not recycled by purging directly, (ii) the
solid CuCl2(s) is treated as the feed of hydrolysis reactor, and
(iii) the kinetics of CueCl cycle are simplified by Eqs (2) and (6).
Moreover, the conceptual design of three-step CueCl cycle is
depicted in Fig. 2. It shows that this three-step CueCl cycle is
composed of O2 production unit, CuCl electrolysis unit and H2
production unit. Each unit consists of a mixer, a heater/cooler,
an isothermal reactor and a solid/liquid/gas separator. Based
on the simplified kinetics of R1 and R3 and corresponding
specifications in Table 1, the operating conditions of R1 and R3
are determined by the sensitivity analysis of outlet composi-
tions of reactor with respect to inlet temperature which are
shown in Fig. 3 (a) and 3 (b), respectively. Fig. 3(a) shows that
reactants, H2O and CuCl2, are almost consumed while the
inlet temperature is adjusted up to 744 K via the H1 heater.
The corresponding O2 yield is maximized if O2 production unit
is maintained at 744 K. Fig. 3(b) shows that reactants, HCl and
Cu, are almost consumed while the inlet temperature
Fig. 2 e Design and simulation of three-step CueCl cycle plant.
adjusted up to 786 K via the H2 heater. The corresponding H2
yield is maximized if H2 production unit is maintained at
(5)
786 K.
In O2 production unit, CuCl2 (s) and H2O (l) are mixed by the
first mixer (Mixer1), the first heater (H1) is used to adjust the
inlet temperature of an isothermal plug flow reactor (R1) at
744 K, and a gaseliquid separator (Sep1) perfectly produces
pure components including O2, CuCl and HCl. O2 exits at room
(6)
temperature via the first cooler (C1), CuCl(l) flows into CuCl
electrolysis unit and HCl(g) flows into H2 production unit. In
CuCl electrolysis unit, CuCl(l) from Sep1 and Sep3 are mixed by
the second mixer (Mixer2) and then it is cooled down by the
second cooler (C2) to meet the operating temperature of CuCl
electrolyzer at 298 K. A liquid-soild seperator (Sep2) prefectly
produces pure components including CuCl2 and Cu where
CuCl2(aq) is exhausted and Cu(s) is recycled and transported
into H2 production unit. In H2 production unit, HCl and Cu are
mixed by the third mixer (Mixer3) at 563 K, the second heater
(H2) is used to adjust the inlet temperature of the H2 produc-
tion reactor at 786 K and a gaseliquid separator (Sep3)
perfectly produces pure components, including H2 and CuCl,
where H2 exits at room temperature via the third cooler (C3)
and CuCl is recycled and fed into CuCl electrolysis unit.
To carry out the process simulation in an Aspen Plus
environment, the proper property method for solideliquid
processing, MIXCISLD, a combination of MIXED (for liquid and
gas) and CISOLID (only for solid), is set up to characterize all
streams [19] in which all compounds used in Aspen Plus
database are shown in Table 2. All separators and mixers are
assumed to execute the perfect separation, purification and
mixing, but the corresponding energy duties are omitted. For
simplicity, H2 and O2 production units are denoted as
isothermal processes and RStoic module is used to simulate
an ideal CuCl electrolyzer. When liquid water with about 10
ton/day (23.13 kmol/h) is fed into this plant, H2 production rate
is 21.6 kmol/h and the corresponding O2 production rate is
10.8 kmol/h. As mentioned earlier, the proposed three-step
CueCl cycle is a quite ideal process due to some units with
the perfect separation, mixing and isothermal conditions
although the kinetic-based reactors are taken into account.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2 16607

Table 1 e Specifications and duties of the three-step CueCl cycle plant [7,8].
Units/Aspen module Description & specifications Work/Heat duty (kW) DHrxn (kW)
O2 production unit
R1/RPLUG Plug flow reactor: Length ¼ 1 m; 1382.65
Diameter ¼ 0.5 m
H1/Heater T H1,in (298 K) / TH1,out (744 K) 825.57
Sep1/Flash2 Gas-liquid separator; Separating HCl(g), O2(g), and CuCl(l) at 744 K
Mixer1/Mixer CuCl2(s) þ H2O(l)
CuCl electrolysis unit
R2/RStoic Isothermal reactor 724.70
C2/Cooler TC1,in (744 K) / TC1,out (348.15 K) 613.73
Sep2/HYCYC Liquid-solid separator; Separating Cu(s) and CuCl2(aq) at 348.15 K
Mixer2/Mixer CuCl(l) from Sep1 þ CuCl(l) from Sep3
H2 production unit
R3/RPLUG Plug flow reactor: Length ¼ 2 m; 470.90
Diameter ¼ 0.5 m
H2/Heater T H2,in (563 K) / TH2,out (786 K) 164.29
Sep3/Flash2 Vapor-liquid separator; Separating H2(g) and CuCl(l) at 786 K
Mixer3/Mixer HCl(g) from Sep1 þ Cu(s) from Sep2
Products
C1/Cooler TC2,in (744 K) / TC2,out (298 K) for O2 44.50
C3/Cooler TC3,in (748 K) / TC3,out (298 K) for H2 95.80
Heat exchanger (Fig. 4)
EX/HeatX TH1,in (298 K) / TH1,out (576 K)/TC1,in (765 K) / TC1,out (744 K) (613.73)
Shell and tube heat exchanger;
Countercurrent flow; UA ¼ 5867.9 W/K

Energy efficiency

To evaluate the system efficiency, the overall energy effi-

ciency of the CueCl cycle, he, is chosen as follows [7].

LHVH2
he ¼  100% (7)
Qnet þ W

where LHVH2 is the lower heating value of hydrogen (244 kJ/mol

Fig. 3 e Sensitivity analysis with regard to inlet
temperatures: (a) Compositions of R1 reactor (b)
Compositions of R3 reactor.
H2), W includes the electrical work for electrolyzer and work
duties for hot/cold utilities, and Qnet is the net heat by kinetic
reactions. Referring the work/heat duty of each unit and the
product enthalpies of formation in Table 1, the O2 production
unit consumes the more energy due to strongly endothermic
reaction (R1) but the H2 production unit releases the less heat
due to mildly exothermic reaction (R3). The net heat of both
reactions Qnet ¼ (1382.65 þ 470.90)/(21.6  1000/
3600) ¼ 308.92 kJ/mol H2 and the corresponding total work
W ¼ (825.57 þ 724.70 þ 613.73 þ 164.29 þ 44.50 þ 95.8)/
(21.6  1000/3600) ¼ 411.43 kJ/mol H2. Moreover, the overall
energy efficiency for this CueCl cycle by Eq. (7) is shown as
he ¼ 33.87%. The energy duties of all reactors and hot/cold
utilities are quite large, so the energy efficiency of this three-
step CueCl cycle may be lower than some conventional elec-
trolyzers [21]. Moreover, we use a simple heat recovery design
to improve the system energy efficiency. Fig. 4 shows that a
heat exchanger (EX) with its specification in Table 1 is added to
replace C2 cooler and reduce the duty of H1 heater from
825.57 kW to 211.84 kW. Moreover, the overall energy efficiency
of the heat-integrated CueCl cycle is enhanced from 33.87% to
47.31%. For most conventional electrolyzers, the electricity
required for hydrogen production system is above 5.6 kWh/m3
H2, but the electricity required for this CueCl cycle is only about
1.28 kWh/m3 H2. Obviously, the thermochemical cycle can
recover the waste heat from different sources to reduce the
electricity required for CuCl electrochemical reaction.
16608 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2

Table 2 e Physical properties of all compounds of three-step CueCl cycle [20].

Compound Freezing point (
C) Boling point (
C) Solid enthalpy Solid gibbs
of formation free energy
(DHSFRM, kJ/mol) of formation
(DGSFRM, kJ/mol)
CuCl2(s) 498 993 217.4 173.6
CuCl(l) 430 1490 137 120
Cu(s) 1083.4 2595 0 0
HCl(g) 62.25 83.7
H2(g) 259.15
C 252.8
O2(g) 218.4 182.96

Fig. 4 e Design and simulation of three-step CueCl cycle plant with heat recovery.

2. Electricity is available for $60/MWh,

Economic analysis 3. The energy costs for the heating (H1, H2) and cooling (C1,
C3) utilities are $20/MWh,
Cost estimating 4. Land is available for $5000/acre,
5. Plant operating factor is 90%,
In general, investments are needed to purchase and install the
equipment. The total capital investment (TCI) is the sum of Moreover, all factors for the heat-integrated CueCl cycle
the fixed-capital investment (FCI) and the working capital in- plant (Fig. 4) are given in Table 3 and F is 3.63 for a mixed fluid-
vestment (WCI) where FCI is the sum of the total direct costs solids processing plant [23]. Since costs of high temperature
and the total indirect costs. FCI is given as a function of the and anticorrosive equipment are unknown due to non-
total purchased equipment cost (Etot) commercialized, the total purchased equipment cost (Etot) as
! the summation of different equipment costs (Ei) is evaluated
X X by using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI)
FCI ¼ F fiDC fjIC Etot (8)
i i from 2005 to 2012 [24]. If the following regression model for
predicting the plant cost index is shown by
where fiDC is a factor of direct costs (DC) for piping, electrical,
instrumentation, etc. fjIC is a factor of indirect costs (IC) for yCI ¼ 29779:8 þ 15:095x (9)
engineering & supervision, construction expenses, contrac-
tor's fee, etc. F is an installation factor. Referring case studies where yCI is the plant cost index and x is time (year). Thus,
for chemical plants [22,23], some direct costs for this project each equipment cost in year is estimated by
are specified as follows.  !
yCI x
E i jx ¼  Ei jx¼ref (10)
yCI 
x¼ref
1. The cost of the electrolysis cell (vessel and electrodes) was
$2500/m2 of total active cell area. where Ei jx¼ref represents an equipment cost in 1982 [25].
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2 16609

CuCl2(s) ¼ US$171/kg if the pretreatment fee for aqueous CuCl2

Table 3 e Factors for estimating capital-investment items
is taken into account. The cost of other raw materials used in
of the three-step CueCl cycle.
this CueCl cycle, HCl(g) ¼ US$0.241/kg, CuCl(aq) ¼ US$7.2/kg
Direct costs
and Cu(s) ¼ US$83.25/kg, are estimated from some websites
No. Item Delivered- [26,27]. In Table 5, the total raw material cost, 1.38E6USD/yr,
equipment cost % has been estimated for the same plant capacity.
1 Purchased equipment, Etot 100% According to the conventional economic evaluation for
2 Instrumentation and 13% Etot constructing chemical plants, the total production cost (TPC)
control is the sum of manufacturing cost (direct production
3 Purchased equipment 39% Etot
costs þ fixed charge þ plant overhead costs) and general ex-
installation
4 Piping 31% Etot
penses (administrative cost þ distribution and selling
5 Electrical 10% Etot cost þ R&D cost þ financing). Table 6 shows that annual TPC
6 Service facilities 55% Etot evaluation would be applied to this three-step CueCl cycle
7 Buildings (including service) 47% Etot plant. It shows that annual TPC for the same CueCl cycle plant
8 Yard Improvement 12% Etot is 2.24E7USD where the production costs of hydrogen and
9 Land 6% Etot
Total Direct Plant Cost (DC) 313% Etot
Indirect Costs
1 Engineering & supervision 32% Etot
2 Construction expenses 34% Etot Table 5 e Raw material price lists of the three-step CueCl
3 Legal expenses 4% Etot cycle plant.
4 Contractor's fee 19% Etot Raw material Price list (USD)
5 Contingency 37% Etot
CuCl2(s) 1,064,791.69
Total Indirect Cost (IC) 126% Etot
HCl(g) 406.46
Fixed capital investment (FCI) ¼ DC þ IC 439% Etot
CuCl(aq) 65,997.66
Working capital investment (WCI) 15% of TCI
Cu(s) 244,711.38
Total capital investment (TCI) WCI þ FCI
Total cost 1,375,907.20

Assumed that the plant capacity is specified as 3E6 kg/yr,

i.e. 3.36E5 kg/yr of hydrogen and 2.66E6 kg/yr of oxygen,
Table 6 e Total production cost of the three-step CueCl
accordingly each equipment price of the heat-integrated Cue
thermochemical cycle plant [22].
Cl cycle can be estimated by Eqs (9) and (10) and the total
Item Description US$
purchased equipment cost, Etot ¼ 1.23E6USD, is shown in
Table 4. Moreover, FCI ¼ 4.85E6USD, WCI ¼ 8.56E5USD and Direct production costs
TCI ¼ 5.71E6USD are obtained, respectively, according to Raw material 1,375,907.20
Operating labor 400% Raw material 5,503,628.78
FCI ¼ 439%Etot, WCI ¼ 15%TCI and TCI ¼ FCI/0.85 from Table 3.
Supervision 15% operating labor 825,544.32
In generally, FCI, WCI and TCI are varied with different plant Utilities 10% Etot 110,501.61
capacities because the equipment sizes and prices dominate laboratory 15% operating labor 825,544.32
the plant capacity. Main. & Repair 10% FCI 485,102.05
By simulation of this heat-integrated CueCl cycle plant, 10 Operating 15% Maintenance & Repair 72,765.31
tons/day H2O(l) and 6.13 tons/yr CuCl2(s) are used to meet the supplies
Patent and 1% TPC 223,864.16
plant capacity with 3E6 kg/yr. Aqueous CuCl2, which is
royalties
exhausted from CuCl electrolysis unit, should be recovered
Fixed charges
and becomes fresh CuCl2(s) via another pretreatment process Depreciation 10% FCI 485,102.05
including drying, sedimentation and separation. Referring the Local taxes 2% FCI 97,020.41
website of an American multinational chemical, life science Insurance 1% FCI 48,510.20
and biotechnology company [26], we assume the cost of Rent 10% (Land þ Buildings) 58,565.85
Plant overhead 60% (Op. 4,088,565.09
costs Labor þ Supervision þ Main.
& Repair)
Manufacturing Direct production 14,200,621.33
Table 4 e Equipment price lists of the three-step CueCl
cost costs þ Fixed charges þ Plant
cycle plant.
overhead costs
Equipment Price list (USD) General Expenses
Hydrolysis reactor (R1) 4570 Administrative 15% (Op. 1,022,141.27
CuCl electrolyzer (R2) 7030 Labor þ Supervision þ Main.&
Fluidized bed reactor (R3) 5976 Repair)
Heat Exchanger (EX) 49,562 Distribution & 15% TPC 3,357,962.34
Heater1 (H1) 635,409 selling
Heater2 (H2) 181,222 R&D 5% TPC 1,119,320.78
Separator (Sep1, Sep2, Sep3) 906,957 Financing 2% TPC 447,728.31
Mixer (Mixer1, Mixer2, Mixer3) 129,277 Total Production Manufacturing cost þ General 22,386,415.58
Total purchased equipment cost 1,226,286 Cost expenses
16610 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2
oxygen are H2 ¼ 273.96USD/kg and O2 ¼ 37.14USD/kg. Appar-
ently, the hydrogen production cost is very high that com-
pares to the regular selling price of hydrogen around 3.3USD/
kg in the international market [28].
Economic evaluation
Since the CueCl cycle plant is new and clean hydrogen pro-
duction process, the incentives for renewable energy invest-
ment are expected to reduce TPC and investment risk. In our
approach, a few incentives are listed as follows:
1. The plant is 70% equity funded and 30% debt funded [29].
2. Ten year depreciation schedule. Usually, an average of 10%
of plant cost can be deducted annually as a provision for
depreciation of plant.
3. Taxation rate is defaulted to 20%. The company tax rate for
2013 to 2014 was set at 20% by the Taxation Administra-
tion, Ministry of Finance, Taiwan [30].
To evaluate the economic performance of the project, a few
economic performance indices, such as net present value
(NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR), are selected. By above
item No. 1, equity and loan by FCI(¼4.85E6USD) are 3.40E6USD
and 1.46E6USD, respectively. If 2% inflation for the equity and
2% interest rate for the bank loan are fixed, the corresponding
present value regarding 10 year plant operating life is shown
in Fig. 5(a). Moreover, the NPV of the project can be obtained
by 5.10E9USD. If NPV at the end of the project is zero, Fig. 5(b)
shows that IRR ¼ 14.76% is obtained. FCI, TPC are strongly
varied by variations of parameters such as the sale price and
feed cost, so these economic performance indices are varied.
Fig. 5 e Economic measures of three-step CueCl cycle
plant: (a) present value for 10 year; (b) NPV vs. IRR.
Regarding the effect of plant capacity, Fig. 6(a) and (b) show
the patterns of the annual operating cost, which are
composed of labor cost (Labor), general overhead cost (GO),
installed cost (Inst), loan interest (Loan), indirect cost (IC),
feedstock cost (Fstock), maintenance cost (Maint), insurance
and taxes (Insu&tax) and electricity cost (Elect) at the plant
capacity of 3E6 kg/yr and 3E8 kg/yr, respectively. Notably, the
percentage of labor cost achieves 40.22% at 3E6 kg/yr but it
reduces to 18.43% while the plant capacity scales up to 100
times. However, the corresponding percentage of feedstock
cost increases from 10.06% to 23.83%. For scaling up the plant
capacity from 3E6 kg/yr to 1.80E8 kg/yr, the percentage of the
capital cost in Fig. 7(a) increases because the indirect cost in
Fig. 7(b) dramatically increases. Notably, the operating cost
dominates the total cost of the plant since the percentage of
the operating cost is always higher than 60%. In addition, the
feedstock cost in Fig. 7(b) increases by increasing the plant
capacity and becomes the key factor of the total operating cost
of the plant capacity of 3E8 kg/yr. Apparently, the price of the
raw material CuCl2 strongly affects the total production cost.
Fig. 8 shows that the hydrogen and oxygen production costs
are gradually reduced while the plant capacity increases from
3E6 kg/yr to 3E8 kg/yr. In view of the hydrogen production cost
from 273.96USD/kg to 3.97USD/kg, it shows that the large
plant capacity design could effectively reduce the hydrogen
production cost. By the way, the oxygen production cost is
also reduced from 37.14USD/kg to 3.39USD/kg.
Conclusions
In this article, the three-step CueCl thermochemical cycle is
evaluated to be a commercialization potential of the hydrogen
Fig. 6 e Cost patterns of TPC at different plant capacities: (a)
3E6 kg/yr, (b) 3E8 kg/yr.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2 16611

Fig. 7 e Profiles of cost evaluation with regrad to plant capacity: (a) capital and operating cost ratios, (b) operating cost ratios.

Fig. 8 e Comparison of hydrogen and oxygen costs at different plant capacities.

production system. The kinetic-based CueCl cycle design
provides feasible state predictions. Through a simple heat
recovery scheme and optimization, the proposed CueCl cycle
plant can improve the overall energy efficiency from 33.87% to
47.31%. Compared to the water electrolyzer for hydrogen
production, this CueCl cycle plant can save 77% electricity
consumption. Since the CueCl cycle plant ensures carbon-
free emissions and recovers enormous amounts of waste
heat, the economic performance of the project in terms of NPV
and IRR is evaluated. Based on specific investment
16612 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 1 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 1 6 6 0 4 e1 6 6 1 2
assumptions, such as additional incentives, low investments
in terms of plant capacity achieves the commercialization
possibility. Through the economic evaluation patterns and
predictions, we found that the massive production process
can effectively reduce the production costs of hydrogen and
oxygen if the pretreatment process for aqueous CuCl2 is
feasible and its operating cost is lower than the feedstock cost
of solid CuCl2.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and
Technology of R.O.C. (Taiwan) for its partial financial support
of this research under grant MOST 104-2211-E-006-239.
references
[1] Yildiz B, Kazimi MS. Efficiency of hydrogen production
systems using alternative nuclear energy technologies. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2006;31:77e92.
[2] Torjman M, Shaaban H. Nuclear energy as a primary source
for a clean hydrogen energy system. Energy Convers Manag
1998;39:27e32.
[3] Piera M, Martinez-Val JM, Montes MJ. Safety issues of nuclear
production of hydrogen. Energy Convers Manag
2006;47:2732e9.
[4] Elder R, Allen R. Nuclear heat for hydrogen production:
coupling a very high/high temperature reactor to a hydrogen
production plant. Prog Nucl Energy 2009;51:500e25.
[5] Lewis MA, Masin JG, Vilim RB. Development of the low
temperature Cu-Cl thermochemical cycle. Seoul, Korea, 5425.
In: Proceedings of international congress on advances in
nuclear power plants; 2005.
[6] Wang ZL, Naterer GF, Gabriel KS, Gravelsins R, Daggupati VN.
Comparison of different copperechlorine thermochemical
cycles for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;34:3267e76.
[7] Orhan MF, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Efficiency Comparison of
various design schemes for copperechlorine (CueCl)
hydrogen production processes using Aspen Plus software.
Energy Convers Manag 2012;63:70e86.
[8] Dincer I, Balta MT. Potential thermochemical and hybrid
cycles for nuclear-based hydrogen production. Int J Energy
Res 2011;35:123e37.
[9] Aghahosseini S, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Integrated gasification
and CueCl cycle for trigeneration of hydrogen, steam and
electricity. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:2845e54.
[10] Jaber O, Naterer GF, Dincer I. Heat recovery from molten
CueCl in the CueCl cycle of hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:6140e51.
[11] Karasawa H. Cost evaluation for centralized hydrogen
production. Prog Nucl Energy 2005;47:512e8.
[12] Orhan MF, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Cost analysis of a
thermochemical CueCl pilot plant for nuclear-based
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2008;33:6006e20.
[13] Lewis MA, Ferrandon MS, Tatterson DF, Mathias P.
Evaluation of alternative thermochemical cycles e part III
further development of the Cu-Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2009;34:4136e45.
[14] Liberatore R, Lanchi M, Caputo G, Felici C, Giaconia A, Sau S,
et al. Hydrogen production by flue gas through sulfure-iodine
thermochemical process: economic and energy evaluation.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;11:8939e53.
[15] Rosen MA. Advances in hydrogen production by
thermochemical water decomposition: a review. Energy
2010;35:1068e76.
[16] Serban M, Lewis MA, Basco JK. Kinetic study of the hydrogen
and oxygen production reactions in the copperechloride
thermochemical cycle. 2004 [AIChE Spring National Meeting,
Argonne, IL].
[17] Lewis MA, Serban M, Lewis MA, Basco JK. Hydrogen
production at 550
C using a low temperature
thermochemical cycle. In: Proceedings of the OECD/NEA
meeting; 2003. Argonne National Laboratory.
[18] Zamfirescu C, Naterer GFI, Dincer I. Kinetics study of the
copper/hydrochloric acid reaction for thermochemical
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35:4853e60.
[19] Seader JD, Seider WD, Lewin DR. Using process simulators in
chemical engineering. Wiley; 2006.
[20] Ferrandon MS, Lewis MA, Tatterson DF, Nankanic RV,
Kumarc M, Wedgewood LE, et al. The hybrid CueCl
thermochemical cycle. I. Conceptual process design and h2a
cost analysis. II. Limiting the formation of cucl during
hydrolysis. Nha Annual Hydrogen Conference, CA; 2008.
[21] Wang Z, Roberts RR, Naterer GF, Gabriel KS. Comparison of
thermochemical, electrolytic, photoelectrolytic and
photochemical solar-to-hydrogen production technologies.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:16287e301.
[22] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD. Plant design and economics for
chemical engineers. New York: McGraw Hill; 1968.
[23] Towler G, Sinnott R. Chemical engineering design: principles,
practice and economics of plant and process design. 2nd ed.
New York: Elsevier; 2013.
[24] http://www.chemeng.queensu.ca/courses/CHEE332/files/
CEPCI_2014.pdf.
[25] http://www.che.com/pci.
[26] www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/222011?
lang¼en&region¼TW.
[27] www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/266086?
lang¼en&region¼TW.
[28] http://www.alibaba.com/?spm¼a2700.7724857.a2728m.39.
XYTlG6.
[29] Marsh P. The choice between equity and debt: an empirical
study. J Finance 1982;37:121e44.
[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Taiwan.