sustainability

Review
An Overview of Economic Analysis and
Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
Conversion Technologies
Freida Ozavize Ayodele 1, * , Siti Indati Mustapa 2 , Bamidele Victor Ayodele 2 and
Norsyahida Mohammad 2
1 Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business and Management, UCSI University,
Kuala Lumpur, 1 Jalan Menara Gading, Taman Connaught, Cheras 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 Institute of Energy Policy and Research, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN,
Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia; indati@uniten.edu.my (S.I.M.); ayodelebv@gmail.com (B.V.A.);
norsyahida.mohammad@uniten.edu.my (N.M.)
* Correspondence: freida.ayodele@yahoo.ca




Received: 14 October 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 4 December 2020


Abstract: This study presents an overview of the economic analysis and environmental impact of
natural gas conversion technologies. Published articles related to economic analysis and environmental
impact of natural gas conversion technologies were reviewed and discussed. The economic analysis
revealed that the capital and the operating expenditure of each of the conversion process is strongly
dependent on the sophistication of the technical designs. The emerging technologies are yet to be
economically viable compared to the well-established steam reforming process. However, appropriate
design modifications could significantly reduce the operating expenditure and enhance the economic
feasibility of the process. The environmental analysis revealed that emerging technologies such as
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) reforming and the thermal decomposition of natural gas offer advantages
of lower CO2 emissions and total environmental impact compared to the well-established steam
reforming process. Appropriate design modifications such as steam reforming with carbon capture,
storage and utilization, the use of an optimized catalyst in thermal decomposition, and the use of solar
concentrators for heating instead of fossil fuel were found to significantly reduced the CO2 emissions
of the processes. There was a dearth of literature on the economic analysis and environmental impact
of photocatalytic and biochemical conversion processes, which calls for increased research attention
that could facilitate a comparative analysis with the thermochemical processes.

Keywords: capital investment cost; operation expenditure; economic analysis; natural gas conversion;
environmental sustainability; natural gas reforming

1. Introduction
Natural gas is a fossil fuel-based energy resource that is abundant in nature [1,2]. It is a mixture of
various components, predominantly methane [3]. Natural gas has wide applications in the industries,
residential buildings for heating, electricity generation, as a transportation fuel, and for various
commercial purposes [4–7]. The use of natural gas for electric power generation offers several
advantages compared to other fossil fuels [8]. It has high fuel efficiency and its cleaner compare to
coal and petroleum [9]. Hence, less CO2 is emitted when natural gas is utilized for power generation
compared to coal and petroleum [10]. Consequently, the global consumption of natural gas for
power generation has increased over the years [11]. Due to its vital role in the global energy mix,
the International Energy Outlook in 2016 projected that the global consumption of natural gas will rise

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148; doi:10.3390/su122310148 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 2 of 18

to 203 TcF in 2040 [11]. Compared to other primary energy sources, natural gas accounted for a large
proportion of global primary energy consumption [12].
Besides being used as a primary source of energy, the value chain of natural gas can be improved
by converting it to various chemical products for sustainable use [5,13]. To achieve this, methane, a vital
component of natural gas, is often used as a feedstock to produce value-added chemicals and chemical
intermediates such as methanol and syngas [14–16]. Additionally, a large proportion of global hydrogen
consumption is produced from the conversion of methane by the steam reforming technique [17].
The conversion of methane to value-added products can be achieved using various technological
pathways such as reforming, fermentative and photocatalytic processes [18,19]. An extensive review
of the nano-catalytic conversion of natural gas to liquid fuels and petrochemical feedstocks has been
reported by Gharibi et al. [20]. The authors reported that natural gas can be converted directed
or indirectly to various products using different types of nano-catalysts. The direct conversions
include pyrolysis, methane dehydro-aromatization, and direct oxidative conversions. While the
indirect methods involve the reforming of methane using different types of oxidants such as carbon
dioxide, oxygen, and steam. A review reported by Gür [21] revealed the prospects of efficient
electricity generation by the conversion of methane in solid oxide fuel cells. The study revealed that
the electrochemical conversion of methane in solid oxide fuel offers a great potential for efficient
generation of electricity [22]. The efficient conversion of natural gas to value-added products is key to its
sustainable utilization. However, it is expedient to consider the economic viability and environmental
sustainability of some of the emerging conversion technologies. Although there are several review
papers on the conversion of natural gas to various products, none of these studies focused on the
economic analysis and environmental implications of the technological processes used for natural
gas conversion. This review delves into the literature on the economic feasibility and environmental
impacts of various technological processes employed for natural gas conversion to provide a quick
overview of the potential economic feasibility and environmental impact of the processes. The literature
considered in this review was published between 1998 and 2020.

2. Natural Gas Conversion Technologies

The conversion of natural gas can be done using various technological routes broadly classify as
thermochemical, biochemical, and photochemical in Figure 1. The thermochemical route entails the
use of thermal energy and catalytic materials for the conversion of natural gas to various products.
These methods include methane reforming using steam, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. Recently, research
focus is shifting to the advanced form of reforming such as tri-reforming of methane, chemical looping
reforming, and photocatalytic reforming [23–28]. Amongst the thermochemical processes, the steam
methane reforming is the most established and presently being employed for a large proportion of
global hydrogen production [17,29,30]. Other emerging reforming technologies using carbon dioxide
and oxygen are seriously receiving research attention due to their perceived advantages over the
well-established steam methane reforming [31]. One of such advantages is the prospect of the methane
dry reforming to help mitigate greenhouse gases through the utilization of carbon dioxide. Besides,
it is a potential technological route for producing syngas used as chemical intermediates for Fischer
Tropsch synthesis.
The various reforming processes have been investigated using transition metal catalysts such as
Ni, Co, Pd, Pt Cu, Ru, and Rh [32–35]. Among the various catalysts, Ni-based catalysts have been
reported to displayed high activity for the steam reforming reaction [36]. Besides, it has a very low cost
compared to other metal catalysts. However, it is very prone to catalyst deactivation by sintering and
carbon deposition [37]. The stability of the Ni-catalysts during the reforming reaction can be improved
using promoters. The use of noble metals in small composition has been reported to be effective in
improving the stability of Ni-catalysts during reforming reaction. Rategarpanah et al. [38] reported
the influence of noble metal on the activity of Ni-Cu/MgO-Al2 O3 catalysts in the thermo-catalytic
conversion of methane. The unpromoted Ni-Cu/MgO-Al2 O3 was found to be unstable during the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 3 of 18

thermo-catalytic methane conversion. The addition of the noble metal promoters created a synergistic
effect with the Ni-Cu/MgO-Al2 O3 , thereby preventing the sintering and deactivation of the catalysts
and enhancing its stability with time on stream. Besides the use of promoters, a well-synthesized
support material could significantly improve the activity and stability of Ni catalysts as demonstrated
by Kumar et al. [24]. The stability of Ni-catalyst synthesized on Al2 O3 , ZrO2 , TiO2 , SBA-15, MgO,
and CeO2 -ZrO2 was investigated in tri-reforming of methane at 800 ◦ C [24]. The Ni/SBA-15 was found
to display the highest stability throughout the 10 h time on stream. The high stability of the Ni/SBA-15
can be attributed to the confinement of the Ni-species within the pores of the SBA-15 thereby preventing
Sustainability
sintering and2020, 12, x FOR PEER
deactivation REVIEW
[39]. 3 of 19

Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematicrepresentation
representation of natural gas
of natural gas conversion
conversiontechnologies.
technologies.

The use of advanced reforming processes such as coupling chemical looping reforming
The various reforming processes have been investigated using transition metal catalysts such as
incorporated with CO2 splitting reactions has been reported [40]. This advanced reforming process could
Ni, Co, Pd, Pt Cu, Ru, and Rh [32–35]. Among the various catalysts, Ni-based catalysts have been
offer an advantage of mitigating CO emissions in a cyclic two-step syngas production. Additionally,
reported to displayed high activity2for the steam reforming reaction [36]. Besides, it has a very low
thecost comparedoftosolar
integration otherpower units with
metal catalysts. chemicalit looping
However, reforming
is very prone has been
to catalyst provenby
deactivation to sintering
help meet
theand carbon deposition [37]. The stability of the Ni-catalysts during the reforming reactionenhanced
high energy required for the reaction [41]. The use of a ceria oxygen carrier for solar can be
chemical looping methane reforming was reported to increase syngas selectivity,
improved using promoters. The use of noble metals in small composition has been reported to be methane conversion,
and reactorinperformance
effective improving the [41]. In a similar
stability study, Wang
of Ni-catalysts duringet al. [42] employed
reforming theRategarpanah
reaction. use of CeO2 -ZrO -CuO
et al.2[38]
oxygen carriers
reported to catalyze
the influence of syngas production
noble metal on the by chemical
activity looping reforming.
of Ni-Cu/MgO-Al The addition
2O3 catalysts in the of Cu and
thermo-
Zrcatalytic
to the CeO 2 leads toof
conversion themethane.
distortion Theof the lattice thereby
unpromoted resulting in
Ni-Cu/MgO-Al 2Obetter
3 was oxygen
found to mobility.
be unstable
The biochemical
during conversion
the thermo-catalytic entails
methane the use of The
conversion. microorganisms
addition of the (methane-oxidizing
noble metal promoters organisms)
createdto
convert methane
a synergistic to methanol.
effect The methanotrophic
with the Ni-Cu/MgO-Al bacterium
2O3, thereby is commonly
preventing used and
the sintering for the conversion
deactivation ofof
the catalysts
methane and enhancing
to methanol. Studies haveits stability
shownwith that time on stream. Besides
the biochemical methanethe use of promoters,
conversion to methanol a well-
offers
thesynthesized
advantagessupport
of high material
conversion could significantly
efficiency. Moreimprove the activityprocess
so, the biochemical and stability
is more of environmentally
Ni catalysts as
demonstrated
friendly compared by Kumar
to the et al. [24]. The stability
thermochemical of Ni-catalyst
process. Besides, synthesized
the presenceonofAltoxic
2O3, ZrO 2, TiO2, SBA-
impurities in the
15, MgO,
natural gas and CeO2-ZrOcould
composition 2 was investigated in tri-reforming
inhibit catalytic activity during of methane at 800 °C [24].
thermochemical The Ni/SBA-15
methane conversion.
Onwasthefound to display
contrary, the highest
the presence stabilitydoes
of impurities throughout
not impedethe 10theh biochemical
time on stream. The high
process. Henardstability
et al. of
[43]
the Ni/SBA-15 can be attributed to the confinement of the Ni-species within
revealed that methanotrophic bacterium has a high capability of bio-converting methane to lactate, the pores of the SBA-15
anthereby preventing
industrial chemical sintering
platform. andOnedeactivation [39]. constraints with the bioconversion process is the
of the major
low yieldTheofuse
the of advanced
products. reforming
Moreover, processes
there such
is often the as coupling
challenge chemical genetic
of insufficient loopingtractability
reformingof
incorporated with CO 2 splitting reactions has been reported [40]. This advanced reforming process
microorganisms that can be used to convert methane.
could offer an advantage of mitigating CO2 emissions in a cyclic two-step syngas production.
The use of abundant solar energy resources could help in overcoming the high thermal energy
Additionally, the integration of solar power units with chemical looping reforming has been proven
required for the thermochemical process. The photochemical conversion process enables the conversion
to help meet the high energy required for the reaction [41]. The use of a ceria oxygen carrier for solar
enhanced chemical looping methane reforming was reported to increase syngas selectivity, methane
conversion, and reactor performance [41]. In a similar study, Wang et al. [42] employed the use of
CeO2-ZrO2-CuO oxygen carriers to catalyze syngas production by chemical looping reforming. The
addition of Cu and Zr to the CeO2 leads to the distortion of the lattice thereby resulting in better
oxygen mobility.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 4 of 18

of methane to hydrogen and syngas using a photocatalyst that can be excited under visible or ultraviolet
irradiation. The photocatalytic reaction often occurs at a very low temperature compared to the
thermochemical conversion process. Shoji et al. [44] demonstrated that strontium titanate supported
rhodium nanoparticles (Rh/STO) was efficient in the photocatalytic conversion of natural gas to syngas.
The Rh/STO photocatalyst exhibited high efficiency in promoting the conversion of methane under
ultraviolet light irradiation. An H2 :CO ratio close to 1 was obtained from photocatalytic reforming
the methane, making it suitable as a technological route to produce oxygenated fuel by FTS using
cobalt-based catalysts. Comparatively, each of the natural gas conversion processes has its pros and
cons which can be evaluated using the life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis. The review
of selected published articles on the various technological routes used for converting natural gas to
value-added chemicals and chemical intermediated based on their life cycle assessment and life cycle
cost analysis are presented in the next section.

3. Economic Analysis of Natural Gas Conversion Technologies

3.1. Emerging Technologies

Performing an economic analysis for emerging technologies is crucial in determining whether such
a process is economically viable in terms of profitability in the eventuality of a scale-up process [45].
Prior to the economic analysis of the process, technical design, and analysis of the process are often
performed [46]. The details of the design specifications of each of the process units in the production
process are employed to carry out detail economic analysis of the process [47]. The economic analysis is
usually performed as a function of the process cost which consists of the capital expenditure (CAPEX)
or the investment cost and the operating expenditure (OPEX) [48]. The capital expenditure consists
of all the costs associated with buying fixed assets with a useful life above one year. The economic
analysis of various technologies used for natural gas conversion to valuable products has been reported
in the literature, as summarized in Table 1.

3.1.1. Thermal Decomposition of Methane

Due to the unique nature of the thermal decomposition of methane, the economic analysis of the
process is strongly dependent on the design specification of the process [49]. One of the key economic
indicators of hydrogen production by various natural gas conversion processes is the production cost.
As reported by Mueller-Langer et al. [50], the hydrogen production cost can be estimated from the
cost of materials, fixed assets, maintenance, water, electricity, and labor. A process that involves the
emissions of CO2 might incur an additional cost known as the emissions tax. The mass and energy
balance of each of the unit processes for the thermal decomposition of methane as well as the reactor
design is crucial in estimating the avoidable CO2 emissions, product carbon, hydrogen production,
and cost of equipment. The economic analysis of direct thermal decomposition of methane to hydrogen
has been reported by Keipi et al. [51]. Based on the assumption of small-scale production, the study
revealed that the production of hydrogen by thermal decomposition of methane has a great potential to
be economically competitive with steam methane reforming which is a matured technological route for
hydrogen production. The total cost of hydrogen production by thermal decomposition of methane was
estimated as 72 EUR/MWh while the total OPEX and CAPEX were calculated as 815 kEUR/annum and
4203 kEUR, respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the product carbon value was found to have
the most significant effect on the hydrogen production cost for the thermal decomposition of methane.
The cost of natural gas significantly influenced the hydrogen production cost by steam methane
reforming. Technically, one major constraint of hydrogen production by thermal decomposition of
methane and steam reforming of methane is catalyst deactivation. Studies have shown that the catalyst
costs usually account for a large proportion of the operating cost of thermochemical processes. The cost
implications of catalyst deactivation were not evaluated in the work of Keipi et al. [51] which could
have a significant effect on the operating cost and hence the cost of hydrogen production from both
 for the thermal decomposition of methane. The cost of natural gas significantly influenced the
hydrogen production cost by steam methane reforming. Technically, one major constraint of
hydrogen production by thermal decomposition of methane and steam reforming of methane is
catalyst deactivation. Studies have shown that the catalyst costs usually account for a large
proportion of the operating cost of thermochemical processes. The cost implications of catalyst
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 5 of 18
deactivation were not evaluated in the work of Keipi et al. [51] which could have a significant effect
on the operating cost and hence the cost of hydrogen production from both processes. Since thermal
decomposition
processes. Sinceof methane
thermal requires high
decomposition of thermal
methaneenergy,
requiresthehightype of energy
thermal source
energy, utilize
the type for the
of energy
processutilize
source could for
playthea significant
process couldrole play
in determining
a significant therole
economic viability of
in determining thethe process.viability
economic Keipi et al.of
[52] investigated the economic analysis of hydrogen production by thermal
the process. Keipi et al. [52] investigated the economic analysis of hydrogen production by thermal decomposition of
methane using of
decomposition four different
methane types
using of different
four energy sources.
types ofThe energy
energy sources
sources. which
The energyinclude using
sources the
which
energy from
include usingmethane
the energy combustion,
from methaneelectricity, energy electricity,
combustion, carrier catalyst
energyandcarrier
energy from regenerative
catalyst and energy
heat regenerative
from reactors wereheat found to significantly
reactors were found influence the CAPEX
to significantly influence andthethe OPEXand
CAPEX of the
theOPEX
thermal of
decomposition
the process. Theprocess.
thermal decomposition thermal decomposition of methane using
The thermal decomposition energy using
of methane carrierenergy
catalysts was
carrier
found to was
catalysts havefound
the highest
to haveCAPEX and OPEX.
the highest CAPEX ThisandcanOPEX.
be attributed
This cantobethe high costtoofthe
attributed thehigh
catalysts
cost
and
of thecatalysts
the frequentand replacement
the frequent of the catalyst due
replacement of to deactivation.
the catalyst dueSeveral authors have
to deactivation. reported
Several that
authors
the cost
have of catalytic
reported that thematerials plays a significant
cost of catalytic role ina the
materials plays economic
significant analysis
role of a thermo-catalytic
in the economic analysis of
amethane decomposition.
thermo-catalytic methaneVarious studies have
decomposition. shownstudies
Various that thehave
cost shown
of hydrogen production
that the from the
cost of hydrogen
thermal decomposition
production from the thermalof methane is stronglyofdependent
decomposition methane is onstrongly
the nature of the catalyst
dependent on the(Figure
nature2).of The
the
cost of hydrogen
catalyst (Figure 2).production is generally
The cost of hydrogen low for non-noble
production is generally metal catalysts
low for suchmetal
non-noble as Ni,catalysts
Fe, Mo,suchand
so.Ni,
as The Fe,cost
Mo,ofand
hydrogen
so. The production was reported
cost of hydrogen production as <USD 1/mole as
was reported H2<USD
for non-noble
1/mole Hmetal catalysts.
2 for non-noble
Whilecatalysts.
metal hydrogenWhile production
hydrogen byproduction
noble metal bycatalysts
noble metal >USD 100/mol
catalysts >USDH2. 100/mol
The economic
H2 . Theanalysis
economic of
analysis of thermal decomposition of methane at temperature <600 C has been reported by Mondal
thermal decomposition of methane at temperature <600 °C has been ◦
reported by Mondal and Ramesh
Chandran
and Ramesh [53]. Based on[53].
Chandran the Based
economic analysis,
on the economicthe CAPEX
analysis,and thethe production
CAPEX and thecost of the hydrogen
production cost of
by the
the thermal
hydrogen bydecomposition of methane of
the thermal decomposition were calculated
methane were as USD 301
calculated asmillion
USD 301and USDand
million 948/MT,
USD
948/MT, respectively. The fixed cost, raw material cost and the utility cost accounted for 70%, 9%17%,
respectively. The fixed cost, raw material cost and the utility cost accounted for 70%, 9% and and
respectively.
17%, respectively.

3000
H2 cost ($/molH2)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Ni/Al2O3

Fe/Al2O3

Fe/Al2O3

0.2%Pd-Ni/SBA-15
0.4%Pd-Ni/SBA-15
Ni-La/Al2O3

Ni/TiO2

Fe-Ni-Co

5%Pd-Ni/SBA-15
10%Pd-Ni/SBA-15
15%Pd-Ni/SBA-15
20%Pd-Ni/SBA-15
Fe/MgO
Fe-Mo/MgO
Fe-Mo/Al2O3

Fe-Co/Al2O3
unsupported bulk Fe

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Hydrogen
Hydrogen cost
cost as
as aa function
function of
of the
the type
type of
of catalysts.
catalysts.

Various modifications
Various modificationshave
havebeen
beenemployed
employedtotoimprove
improvethethe efficiency
efficiency of hydrogen
of hydrogen production
production by
by thermal
thermal decomposition
decomposition process.
process. Timmerberg
Timmerberg et et
al.al.[54]
[54]employed
employedaaplasma
plasmareactor
reactorfor
forthe
the thermal
thermal
decomposition of methane to produce hydrogen and carbon black. The economic economic analysis of thethe
plasma-assisted thermal decomposition of methane shows that hydrogen production
plasma-assisted thermal decomposition of methane shows that hydrogen production cost was estimated cost was
as EUR 1.6/kg compared to the hydrogen production cost of EUR 2.2/kg for the conventional reactor used
for methane decomposition. The lower hydrogen production cost obtained from the plasma-assisted
methane decomposition can be attributed to the improved process conditions offered by the plasma
reactor. The improved process condition could have reduced the operating cost of the plasma-assistant
thermal methane decomposition for hydrogen and carbon black production. Similarly, the use of
plasma to improve the pyrolysis of natural gas to hydrogen and carbon black has been reported by
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 6 of 18

Labanca et al. [55]. The economic analysis of the plasma-assisted natural gas pyrolysis revealed a
lower CAPEX, OPEX and lower hydrogen production cost compared to the conventional natural gas
pyrolysis reported by Gaudernack et al. [56]. The plasma-assisted natural gas pyrolysis process was
analyzed to have CAPEX, and OPEX of USD 0.674 million and 0.228 million, respectively. Which is
lower compared to the conventional high temperature natural pyrolysis with CAPEX, and OPEX of
USD 29.4 million and 14.3 million, respectively. It is obvious that the use of plasma reactor for the
pyrolysis of natural gas to produce hydrogen and carbon black significantly reduce the OPEX.

3.1.2. Other Emerging Technologies for Natural Gas Reforming

The economic analysis of hydrogen production from various emerging thermochemical processes
such as auto-thermal methane reforming, syngas chemical looping, chemical looping reforming in
comparison with steam methane reforming has been reported by Khojasteh Salkuyeh et al. [57].
The economic analysis revealed that auto-thermal methane reforming has the lowest total capital cost
compared to the syngas chemical looping, chemical looping reforming, and steam methane reforming.
However, the integration of carbon capture facilities into each of the process significantly increased
the total capital cost. The chemical looping reforming without carbon capture facilities was found to
have the lowest minimum hydrogen selling price of USD 0.98 kg H2 which is competitive with the
USD 1.07/kg H2 calculated for the steam methane reforming under the same scenario. The economic
analysis of hydrogen production from auto-thermal reforming of methane from biogas sources has
been reported by Montenegro et al. [58]. The hydrogen production cost of 2.5 EUR/kg was calculated
for the process which was lower than that of the 5 EUR/kg H2 European targets. The economic analysis
of natural gas conversion using oxidative coupling techniques on an industrial scale was reported
by Godini et al. [58]. Unlike other studies, the fixed and operating costs of each of the sections of
the oxidative coupling of methane process were performed. The compressors and the CO2 removal
section accounted for the largest part of the capital investment cost. Besides, factors such as the types of
utilities and the operating conditions each section of the plants were found to significantly influence the
process of operating cost. The analysis revealed that the operating cost and the annual utility cost for
the entire conversion process were estimated as EUR 254 and 228.6 million, respectively. Fei et al. [59]
reported an economic analysis of bioconversion of natural gas to lactic acid using methanotrophic
bacteria. A minimum selling lactic acid price of USD 5.83/kg, OPEX of USD 47.0 million, and CAPEX
of USD 654.96 million were calculated for the production process. The lactic acid production unit
was found to account for the highest part of the operating cost contribution. The sensitivity analysis
revealed that each of the cost items was significantly influenced by the natural gas flow rate and
lactic acid productivity. Additionally, the economic analysis of methane bio-conversion to various
chemical products in a biorefinery concept has been reported by Cantera et al. [60]. The OPEX of the
methane bioconversion was estimated as USD 1021/h and the total bioproduct values of USD 10,000/h.
The reactor energy consumption accounted for a large proportion of the OPEX. Based on an extensive
literature search, there are myriads of studies on economic analysis of various thermochemical processes
used for natural gas conversion to value-added products. However, there is a dearth of literature on the
economic analysis of natural gas conversion by biochemical and photocatalytic conversion. The lack of
studies on economic analysis of the natural gas conversion by biochemical and photocatalytic could
impede a comparative analysis of the whole process for economic viability.

3.2. Well Established Technologies

Steam Methane Reforming

Steam methane reforming is a well-established process used for commercial production of
hydrogen. However, due to constraints such as emissions of CO2 and high operating cost due to
catalyst deactivation, research focus had centered on designing highly stable catalysts as well as
incorporating carbon capture facilities to curb CO2 emission. Hence, various studies have investigated
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 7 of 18

if several design modifications to the existing steam methane reforming process are economically
viable. Recently, sorption enhances steam reforming with carbon capture has been reported as
one of the strategies to overcome the challenges with the conventional steam methane reforming.
To this effect, Diglio et al. [61] investigated the economic implications of hydrogen production by
sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming with carbon capture. The cost of hydrogen production by
the sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming was calculated to be 1.6 EUR per kg methane which
is lower compared to that of steam methane reforming estimated as 117 EUR/MWh [51]. Unlike the
work of Keipi et al. [51], the reaction network (which consists of eight packed bed reactors) of the
sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming was found to account for about 70% of the total capital cost.
Moreover, based on sensitivity analysis, the specific cost of the natural gas was found to significantly
influenced the economic performance of the sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming which is
consistent with the work of Keipi et al. [51]. The integration of the sorption-enhanced steam methane
reforming with solid oxide fuel cells for power generation resulted in a better economic performance
with a high daily revenue. The economic analysis of the co-utilization of carbon dioxide and methane in
the steam reforming process for methanol synthesis has been reported by Zhang et al. [62]. Contrary to
the work of Keipi et al. [51] and Diglio et al. [61], the authors employed economic evaluation indicators
such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and discounted payback period (DPBP) for
measuring the economic viability of the methanol production process. Based on the NPV, IRR, and the
DPBP values obtained for the process, the co-utilization of the carbon dioxide and methane for methanol
production by steam reforming was found to be economically competitive than a scenario whereby
only natural gas was utilized. However, the economic analysis of Zhang et al. [63] did not put into
consideration the cost associated with the catalytic network which is a vital component of the production
process as reported by Diglio et al. [62]. Similar to the work of Keipi et al. [51], Mondal and Ramesh
Chandran [53] evaluated the economic performance of hydrogen production from steam methane
reforming in comparison with thermal decomposition of methane. Based on the economic analysis,
the CAPEX and the hydrogen production cost from the steam methane reforming were calculated as
USD 291 million and 899/MT, respectively. While the CAPEX and the hydrogen production cost by
the thermal decomposition of methane were calculated as USD 301 million and 948/MT, respectively.
The higher cost of production calculated for the hydrogen by thermal decomposition of methane can
be attributed to the high cost of electricity compared to the steam reforming process.
The integration of various hydrogen production process could have a synergistic effect on
the overall economic performance of the process. This has been demonstrated in the work of
Gangadharan et al. [63] who performed an economic analysis of hydrogen production by combined
carbon dioxide and steam methane reforming. The total capital investment cost of the combined dry
methane reforming and steam methane reforming was found to be higher compared to the standalone
steam methane reforming process which can be attributed to the cost of additional process equipment
integrated with the steam methane reforming process. However, the study did not consider the
other economic evaluation indicators such as the hydrogen production cost, and the operating costs.
Moreover, the estimation of the payback period or return on investment could be advantageous in
determining whether the combined process is viable compared to the standalone process. The choice
of onsite hydrogen production by steam methane reforming for utilization by hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle has been reported by Luk et al. [64]. The study revealed that onsite hydrogen production
offers the benefits of a shorter payback period and a high rate of return on investment compared to
the conventional means of hydrogen production. The cost associated with transporting and storing
hydrogen production by the conventional steam methane reforming are eliminated using onsite
production for direct utilization. The comparative analysis of the cost components of steam methane
reforming, auto thermal methane reforming, syngas chemical looping and chemical looping reforming
with or without carbon capture are depicted in Figure 3. The total capital cost for each of the reforming
processes is strongly dependent on whether carbon capture facilities are incorporated into the design.
The reforming processes without carbon capture facilities are found to be less capital intensive compared
products. For instance, in the well-established steam reforming of natural gas, the reforming reaction
occurs in the reformer, hence most of the CAPEX and OPEX costs revolve round the reformer.
However, as a result of advances in research and development, the design modifications to the steam
methane reforming whereby carbon capture, storage and utilization facilities in incorporated have
been proposed to mitigate the effects of CO2 emissions. Although these additional facilities have the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 8 of 18
potential of reducing the CO2 emissions, nevertheless additional costs are inbuilt into the CAPEX and
OPEX of the overall process. Besides, the analysis of each the process was based on different
scenarios.
to those with Forcarbon
example, Keipifacilities
capture et al. [52] performed
[56]. The totaleconomic analysis
capital costs of steam
for the thermal decomposition
methane reforming,of
methane based
auto-thermal on four syngas
reforming, scenarios namelylooping
chemical the scenario
and thewith energy
chemical from reforming
looping partial combustion
with carbon of
methane,were
capture energy from as
estimated electricity,
USD 831 energy
million,from carrier 885
628 million, catalyst andand
million, using a regenerative
638 million, heat
respectively.
exchanger
The reactor.
high capital costTheof detailed
the syngasanalysis of these
chemical scenarios
looping could revealed that the
be attributed economic
to the performance
incorporation of the
of each of
chemical the processes
looping gasificationdiffers.
reactor.Additionally,
The total capitalMondal
costs ofetthe
al.reforming
[53] reported that without
processes the economic
carbon
performance
were found toof bethe
lessthermo-catalytic
capital intensive.methane
The total decomposition
capital cost forvaries
steamdepending on the conversion
methane reforming, rate
auto-thermal
of the process.
reforming, syngasThechemical
economic analysis
looping andofthevarious
chemical technologies used forwithout
looping reforming naturalcarbon
gas conversion
capture was to
valuable products has been reported in the literature, as summarized
estimated as USD 241 million, 326 million, 813 million, and 570 million, respectively. in Table 1.

Total capital cost ($Million)

Chemical looping gasification reactors
CO2 liquefaction
Air separation unit
Boiler & turbines
Pressure swing adsorption
CO2 removal
Water gas shift
Natural gas reformer
Capital cost ($Million - 2016 U.S. dollars)
Hydrogen
Electricity
Products (MW, LHV)
CO2 captured (tonne/tonne H2)
Oxygen consumption from air separation unit…
Natural gas consumption (tonne/tonne H2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

SMR No CC SMR CC ATR No CC ATR CC SCL No CC SCL CC CLR No CC CLR CC

Figure 3. Cost distributions of hydrogen production from various reforming process with or without
carbon capture (CC) (adapted from [57]).

Obviously, the economic analysis of the various technological pathways for natural gas conversion
revealed that the estimated costs for each process differs. Technically, each of the natural gas conversion
process has a unique configuration from the processing of the feedstocks to finished products.
For instance, in the well-established steam reforming of natural gas, the reforming reaction occurs
in the reformer, hence most of the CAPEX and OPEX costs revolve round the reformer. However,
as a result of advances in research and development, the design modifications to the steam methane
reforming whereby carbon capture, storage and utilization facilities in incorporated have been proposed
to mitigate the effects of CO2 emissions. Although these additional facilities have the potential of
reducing the CO2 emissions, nevertheless additional costs are inbuilt into the CAPEX and OPEX
of the overall process. Besides, the analysis of each the process was based on different scenarios.
For example, Keipi et al. [52] performed economic analysis of thermal decomposition of methane based
on four scenarios namely the scenario with energy from partial combustion of methane, energy from
electricity, energy from carrier catalyst and using a regenerative heat exchanger reactor. The detailed
analysis of these scenarios revealed that the economic performance of each of the processes differs.
Additionally, Mondal et al. [53] reported that the economic performance of the thermo-catalytic
methane decomposition varies depending on the conversion rate of the process. The economic analysis
of various technologies used for natural gas conversion to valuable products has been reported in the
literature, as summarized in Table 1.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 9 of 18

Table 1. Summary of literature on the economic analysis and environmental impact of various natural gas conversion technologies.

Process Output
Technology Economic Analysis Environmental Impact Nature of Technology References
(Products)
Plasma-assisted Hydrogen production cost EUR 1.6
H2 , carbon black N.R Emerging
Methane decomposition (USD 1.89)/kg H2
[54]
Methane decomposition using Hydrogen production cost EUR 2.2
H2 , carbon black N.R Emerging
molten reactor (USD 2.6)/kg H2
CAPEX: USD 0.674 million, OPEX:
Plasma pyrolysis of natural gas H2 , carbon black USD 0.228 million, hydrogen N.R Emerging [55]
production cost: USD 14.36/kg
CAPEX: USD 17.18 million/Nm2
Steam reforming of natural gas
H2 , CO2 H2 , OPEX: USD 4.28 million/Nm2 N.R Well Established
without CO2 capture
H2 ,
CAPEX: USD 31.1 million/Nm2
Steam reforming of natural gas with [56]
H2 H2 , OPEX: USD 5 million/Nm2 N.R Emerging
CO2 capture
H2
CAPEX: USD 29.4 million/Nm2
High temperature Pyrolysis of
H2 , carbon black H2 , OPEX: USD 14.3 million/Nm2 N.R Emerging
natural gas
H2
H2 production cost: EUR 72
(USD 90)/MWh
Methane thermal decomposition H2 , carbon 40 kgCO2 /MWhH2 Emerging
CAPEX: EUR 4203 (USD 5258)
OPEX: EUR 815 (USD 1020)
H2 production cost: EUR 117
(USD 146)/MWh
Steam methane reforming H2 , CO2 293 kgCO2 /MWhH2 Well Established [51]
CAPEX: EUR 10,705 (USD 13,392)
OPEX: EUR 776 (USD 971)
H2 production cost: EUR 57.5
(USD 71.9)/MWh
Steam methane reforming with CCS H2 , CO2 133 kgCO2 /MWh H2 Emerging
CAPEX: EUR 162,000 (USD 202,662)
OPEX: EUR 97,662 (USD 122,175)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 10 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Process Output
Technology Economic Analysis Environmental Impact Nature of Technology References
(Products)
Thermal decomposition of methane
CAPEX: 12,646 (* kEUR) (14,037 kUSD)
using energy from partial H2 , carbon 0.55 tCO2 /MWhe Emerging
OPEX: 32,229 (* kEUR) (35,774 kUSD)
combustion of methane
Thermal decomposition of methane CAPEX: 8225 (* kEUR) (9130 kUSD)
H2 , carbon 0.83 tCO2 /MWhe Emerging
using energy from electricity OPEX: 32,274 (* kEUR) (35,824.14 kS)
Catalytic decomposition of Thermal [52]
CAPEX: 28,354 (kEUR) (31,473 kUSD)
methane using an energy H2 , carbon 0.48 tCO2 /MWhe Emerging
OPEX: 36,884 (kEUR) (40,941 kUSD)
carrier catalyst
Thermal decomposition of methane
CAPEX: 10,139 (kEUR) (11,254 kUSD)
using a regenerative heat H2 , carbon 0.85 tCO2 /MWhe Emerging
OPEX: 32,445 (kEUR) (36,014 kUSD)
exchanger reactor
Steam methane reforming H2 , CO2 N.R 1.8 kgCO2 /Nm2 H2 Well-Established
Autothermal reforming H2 , CO2 N.R 0.4 kgCO2 /Nm2 H2 Emerging [65]
Autocatalytic decomposition H2 , carbon N.R 0.2 kgCO2 /Nm2 H2 Emerging
CAPEX: 1036.21 MUSD,
Production cost: 222.35 USD/Mt
Steam methane reforming with
Methanol NPV (ic = 12%): 483.41 N.R Emerging [62]
CO2 utilization
IRR: 17.15
DPBP: 9.52
Combined dry reforming and steam CAPEX: USD 21 Million Potential environmental
Syngas (H2 + CO) Emerging
reforming of methane OPEX: USD 5231.82/h impact: 2.83 × 10−3 PEI/h
[63]
Standalone Steam CAPEX: USD 18 Million Potential environmental
H2 , CO2 Well Established
methane reforming OPEX: USD 5308.72/h impact: 2.83 × 10−4 PEI/h
Thermocatalytic methane Total capital cost: USD 301 million Reported as low
H2 , carbon Emerging
decomposition with 38% conversion Production cost: USD 948/MT carbon footprint
Thermocatalytic methane Total capital cost: USD 291 million Reported as moderate
H2 , carbon Emerging [53]
decomposition with 50% conversion Production cost: USD 899/MT carbon footprint
Total capital cost: USD 326 million Reported as high
Steam methane reforming H2 , CO2 Well Established
Production cost: USD 873/MT carbon footprint
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 11 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Process Output
Technology Economic Analysis Environmental Impact Nature of Technology References
(Products)
Thermal decomposition using
H2 , carbon N.R 0.25 kg CO2 /Nm2 H2 Emerging
carbonaceous catalyst
Thermal decomposition using
carbonaceous catalyst H2 , carbon N.R 0.16 kg CO2 /Nm2 H2 Emerging
(96% conversion)
[66]
Thermal decomposition using
carbonaceous catalyst H2 , carbon N.R 0.22 kg CO2 /Nm2 H2 Emerging
(78% conversion)
Steam reforming with carbon
H2 N.R 0.32 kg CO2 /Nm2 H2 Emerging
capture and utilization
CAPEX: EUR 6.31 million
Sorption enhanced Steam reforming H2 , CO2 N.R Emerging
Cost of production: EUR 1.6/kg
Steam reforming of methane H2 , CO2 Minimum H2 price: USD 1.08/kg 10 kg/kg H2 Well Established
Autothermal reforming H2 , CO2 Minimum H2 price: USD 1.0/kg 9 kg/kg H2 Emerging
[57]
Syngas Chemical looping H2 , CO2 Minimum H2 price: USD 1.38/kg 13 kg/kg H2 Emerging
Chemical looping reforming H2 , CO2 Minimum H2 price: USD 0.8/kg 8.6 kg/kg H2 Emerging
Minimum selling price: USD 5.83/kg
Bioconversion Lactic acid OPEX: USD 47.0 MM 8.89 kg CO2 eq Emerging [59]
CAPEX: USD 654.96MM
Ectoine, Bioplastics,
OPEX: USD 1021/h
Bioconversion Biofuel, Extracellular 4807 kg CO2 /h Emerging [60]
Bioproducts values: USD 10,0000/h
polysaccharides
N.R implies not reported, * k implies 1000.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 12 of 18

4. Environmental Impact of Natural Gas Conversion Technologies

The various types of natural gas conversion technologies have been adjudged to have great
potentials of producing important energy carriers such as hydrogen and other value-added chemicals
and chemical intermediates. However, these emerging technologies employed for natural gas conversion
have been associated with various types of environmental impact based on the life cycle assessment
studies. The environmental impact and global warming potential of combined dry methane reforming
and steam methane reforming has been reported by Gangadharan et al. [63]. The authors employed
the waste reduction algorithm to estimate the potential environmental impact and global warming
potential. The analysis revealed that the combined dry and steam methane reforming has a lower global
warming potential compared to the standalone steam methane reforming. This can be attributed to the
utilization of carbon dioxide as a feedstock for the combined process whereas, in the standalone steam
methane reforming process, carbon dioxide is emitted. However, the total potential environmental
impact of the combined conversion process which is a measure of the human toxicity, ecological toxicity,
regional atmospheric, global warming potential, and ozone depletion potential was found to be higher
compared to the standalone steam methane reforming process.
The environmental feasibility and greenhouse gas emissions reduction of thermal and autocatalytic
decomposition of methane in comparison with steam methane reforming with or without carbon
capture have been investigated by Dufour et al. [67]. Using the life cycle assessment approach,
the authors analyzed the environmental impact of the various technological scenarios. The analysis
revealed that the steam methane reforming without carbon capture has the highest CO2 emissions
whereas the autocatalytic methane conversion with 100% conversion recorded the lowest CO2 emission.
However, the steam methane reforming with carbon captured was found to significantly reduced the
CO2 emissions by over 60%. This is an indication that appropriate technological modification to an
existing conversion process with high CO2 emissions can significantly reduce the global warming
potential of the process. Moreover, for a catalytic conversion process, an optimized catalytic design
can also mitigate the amount of CO2 emission from the process. This was demonstrated in the work
of Dufour et al. [68] who employed investigated the environmental impact of methane thermal
decomposition using a carbonaceous catalyst. The analysis revealed that the methane decomposition
with 96% conversion using the carbonaceous catalyst have the lowest CO2 emissions compared to steam
methane reforming with carbon capture and other scenarios. With further modifications on the thermal
decomposition of methane, the CO2 emissions from the process can be reduced [69]. Dufour et al. [66]
reported the substitution of direct heating using natural gas as fuel for thermal decomposition of
methane with a solar concentrator and found that there was over 25% reduction in CO2 emissions.
Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen production by thermal methane decompositions
with auto thermal methane reforming and steam methane reforming, Dufour et al. [65] found that the
hydrogen production by auto-thermal methane reforming has the lowest CO2 emissions. However,
with design modifications such as integrating the steam methane reforming with carbon capture and
methane auto-maintained decomposition, the CO2 emissions were significantly reduced compared
to the unmodified hydrogen production processes. Kothari et al. [70] compared the environmental
impact of hydrogen production by steam methane reforming with CO conversion and partial oxidation
reforming and found that a lower CO2 emission was obtained from the steam methane reforming with
CO conversion compared to the partial oxidation reforming.
The environmental impact of bioconversion of natural gas to lactic acid using methanotrophic
bacteria has been reported by Fei et al. [59]. Based on the life cycle assessment, the natural gas
bioconversion process was found to have some potential environmental impacts. The global warming
potential was calculated as 5.83 kgCO2 eq with negligible effects of acidification, ozone depletion
carcinogenic and respiratory effects. In a similar study, the environmental impact of methane
bioconversion to various chemical products was reported by Cantera et al. [60]. The bioconversion
process was reported to have 4807 kgCO2 /h with CO2 emitted from energy consumption accounted for
3157 kg/h. Despite there being several studies on the environmental impact of various thermochemical
conversion processes used for natural gas, there is a dearth of literature on the environmental impact of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 13 of 18

photocatalytic and bioconversion of natural gas. Therefore, more research attention should be focused
on the environmental impact of the photocatalytic and bioconversion of natural gas for a comparative
analysis with that of thermochemical conversion processes.

5. Effect of Operating Parameters on the CO2 Emissions and Process Economics

Study has shown that process parameters such as the flowrate of the reactants, and the
reaction temperature usually influence the amount of CO2 emissions and the process economics [71].
A sensitivity analysis reported by Hamid et al. [71] revealed that the increase in the methane flowrate
during steam methane reforming resulted in the increase in the CAPEX, OPEX and the CO2 emissions
as shown in Figure 4. The increase in the methane flowrates results in a corresponding increase in
the conversion of the methane to gaseous products such as hydrogen, CO, and CO2 . As the natural
gas conversion progresses with time on stream, there could be challenges of catalysts deactivation by
methane cracking, CO2 disproportionation and sintering thereby resulting in the periodic replacements
of the catalysts. The periodic replacement of catalysts during the natural gas conversion will certainly
influence the CAPEX and OPEX of the process. Additionally, in the same study by Hamid et al. [71],
increasing the water contents during steam reforming of natural gas, was reported to have a significant
influence on the OPEX per hydrogen production as shown in Figure 5. Since water is needed to
produce steam needed for the reforming process, the amount of steam produced is depended on the
amount of water available. As the water contents increases, more steam is generated for the natural
gas conversion process, thereby driving the reaction towards more products. As more products are
formed the life span of the reforming catalysts are shortened with eventuality of replacements.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

101.11 865.50
CAPEX (Euro/year) OPEX (Euro/year)
101.10
865.00
101.09
CAPEX (Euro/year)
101.08 864.50
OPEX (Euro/year)

101.07 864.00
101.06
101.05 863.50
101.04 863.00
101.03
862.50
101.02
101.01 862.00
0.625 0.675 0.725 0.775 0.85 0.925
Methane flowrate (MMSCFD)

(a)
555

550
CO2 emission (Tonne/hr)

545

540

535

530

525
0.625 0.675 0.725 0.775 0.85 0.925
Methane flowrate (MMSCFD)

(b)
Figure 4. Effect of methane flowrate on the (a) economics of natural gas conversion by steam
Figure 4. Effect of methane flowrate on the (a) economics of natural gas conversion by steam reforming
reforming and (b) CO2 emission from natural gas conversion by steam reforming.
and (b) CO2 emission from natural gas conversion by steam reforming.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 14 of 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

2.65

OPEX/H2 production (MMEuro/Tonne H2) 2.60

2.55

2.50

2.45

2.40

2.35

2.30
20 25 30 35 40 45
Water content (%)

Figure5.5. Effect
Figure Effect of
of water
water content
content on
on the
the OPEX
OPEX of
of natural
natural gas
gas conversion
conversion process
processby
bysteam
steamreforming.
reforming.

6.6.Conclusions
Conclusions and
and Research
Research Outlook
Outlook
Natural
Naturalgas gasasasa fossil fuelfuel
a fossil resource can can
resource be applied
be applieddirectly in electricity
directly generation,
in electricity domestic
generation, heating,
domestic
and as starting materials to produce valuable chemicals and chemical intermediates.
heating, and as starting materials to produce valuable chemicals and chemical intermediates. Besides Besides being
used
beingdirectly for various
used directly applications,
for various natural natural
applications, gas can gas be converted to various
can be converted to valuable chemical
various valuable
products
chemicaland chemical and
products intermediates.
chemical Steam reforming is
intermediates. a well-established
Steam reforming thermochemical
is a well-established process
used for converting natural gas to hydrogen and syngas. The steam
thermochemical process used for converting natural gas to hydrogen and syngas. The steam reforming process is however
constraint
reformingwith
processchallenges such as
is however catalyst with
constraint deactivation,
challenges thesuch
high as thermal
catalystenergy required the
deactivation, for steam
high
generation and torequired
thermal energy initiate the
forreaction and the emissions
steam generation of CO2 .the
and to initiate Research
reaction attention
and thehas focused of
emissions onCOother
2.

emerging thermochemical processes such

Research attention has focused on other emerging as the CO 2 reforming of methane, partial oxidation
thermochemical processes such as the CO2 reforming,
auto-thermal
reforming ofreforming,
methane, and photocatalytic
partial reforming toauto-thermal
oxidation reforming, overcome thereforming,
challengesand associated with the
photocatalytic
steam reforming.
reforming Although
to overcome theefforts have associated
challenges been madewith to tackle some of
the steam these challenges,
reforming. Although these emerging
efforts have
been made
processes aretoyet
tackle
to besome
fullyofdeveloped
these challenges, these emergingproduction.
into commercial-scale processes are yet to the
Besides be fully developed
thermochemical
into commercial-scale
process, other processesproduction. Besides the and
such as the biochemical thermochemical
the photocatalytic process, other processes
processes are currentlysuch as the
receiving
biochemical
research and the
attention. Tophotocatalytic processes are
ascertain the economic currently
viability and receiving
environmental research attention.
impact To ascertain
of these emerging
the economicinviability
technologies comparisonand environmental impact of these
with the well-established emerging
steam reformingtechnologies
process,inseveral
comparison with
researchers
the well-established
have conducted an economic steam reforming
analysis and process, several researchers
environmental impacts on have various conducted
natural gas an conversion
economic
analysis and environmental
technologies. Based on several impacts
studieson onvarious naturalanalysis,
the economic gas conversion
there istechnologies.
a consensus that Based theonemerging
several
studies on the economic analysis, there is a consensus that the emerging
technologies are yet to be economically competitive with the well-established steam reforming. technologies are yet to be
economically
However, therecompetitive with the well-established
is a huge environmental benefit of these steamemerging
reforming. However, there
technologies in terms is aofhuge
CO2
environmental benefit of these emerging technologies in terms of CO
emissions and the total environmental index. The study revealed that there is a wide research gap on 2 emissions and the total
environmental
the index. and
economic analysis The environmental
study revealed impactthat there is a conversion
of the wide research gap on gas
of natural the economic analysis
by the biochemical
andphotocatalytic
and environmentalprocesses.
impact ofTherefore,
the conversion of natural
the economic gas by theand
feasibilities biochemical and photocatalytic
the environmental impacts of
processes. Therefore, the economic feasibilities and the environmental
the biochemical and photocatalytic processes cannot be compared with the steam reforming process.impacts of the biochemical and
photocatalytic processes cannot be compared with the steam reforming
The study also revealed that technical modifications to the original design of the thermochemical process. The study also
revealed significantly
processes that technicalreduced modifications to the original
CO2 emissions. design of
More research the thermochemical
attention needs to be focusedprocesses on
significantly reduced CO 2 emissions. More research attention needs to be focused on comparative
comparative analysis of the thermochemical, biochemical, and photocatalytic conversions process to
analysis oftheir
determine the economic
thermochemical,
feasibilitybiochemical, and photocatalytic
and environmental impact. conversions process to determine
their economic feasibility and environmental impact.
Author Contributions: F.O.A. and B.V.A. conceptualized the idea and wrote the draft manuscript. S.I.M. and
N.M. reviewed
Author the draftF.O.A.
Contributions: manuscript for technicality.
and B.V.A. S.I.M.
conceptualized acquired
the the
idea and funding
wrote for the
the draft research. All
manuscript. authors
S.I.M. and
have
N.M.read and agreed
reviewed to the
the draft publishedfor
manuscript version of the manuscript.
technicality. S.I.M. acquired the funding for the research. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 15 of 18

Funding: The research was financially supported by Universiti Tenaga Nasional through BOLD2025 Grant
(No. 10436494/B/2019008).
Acknowledgments: B.V.A., S.I.M., and S.M. acknowledge the financial support of Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations/Symbols
ATR Auto-thermal methane reforming
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CLR Chemical Looping reforming
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DPBP Discounted payback period
OPEX Operating Expenditure
H2 Hydrogen
IRR Internal rate of return
Kg Kilogram
SMR Steam methane reforming
SCL Syngas chemical looping
NPV Net profit value
MMSCFD Million standard cubic feet per day
TcF Trillion cubic feet
EUR Euro
USD US dollar

References
1. Leung, G.C.K. Natural Gas as a Clean Fuel. In Handbook Clean Energy Systems; American Cancer Society:
Atlanta, GA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–15. [CrossRef]
2. Steele, B.C.H. Running on natural gas. Nature 1999, 400, 619–621. [CrossRef]
3. Faramawy, S.; Zaki, T.; Sakr, A.A.-E. Natural gas origin, composition, and processing: A review. J. Nat. Gas.
Sci. Eng. 2016, 34, 34–54. [CrossRef]
4. Fadiran, G.; Adebusuyi, A.T.; Fadiran, D. Natural gas consumption and economic growth: Evidence from
selected natural gas vehicle markets in Europe. Energy 2019, 169, 467–477. [CrossRef]
5. Powell, J.B. Natural gas utilization: Current status and opportunities. Catal. Today 2020. [CrossRef]
6. Khan, M.I. Policy options for the sustainable development of natural gas as transportation fuel. Energy Policy
2017, 110, 126–136. [CrossRef]
7. Ogden, J.; Jaffe, A.M.; Scheitrum, D.; McDonald, Z.; Miller, M. Natural gas as a bridge to hydrogen
transportation fuel: Insights from the literature. Energy Policy 2018, 115, 317–329. [CrossRef]
8. Walker, S.B.; Lanen, D.; van Mukherjee, U.; Fowler, M. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions from applications
of Power-to-Gas in power generation. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 20, 25–32. [CrossRef]
9. Thiruvengadam, A.; Besch, M.; Padmanaban, V.; Pradhan, S.; Demirgok, B. Natural gas vehicles in heavy-duty
transportation-A review. Energy Policy 2018, 122, 253–259. [CrossRef]
10. Gilbert, A.Q.; Sovacool, B.K. Benchmarking natural gas and coal-fired electricity generation in the United
States. Energy 2017, 134, 622–628. [CrossRef]
11. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2016; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2016.
[CrossRef]
12. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2019; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019.
[CrossRef]
13. Carmona, M.; Feria, J.; Golpe, A.A.; Iglesias, J. Energy consumption in the US reconsidered. Evidence across
sources and economic sectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 1055–1068. [CrossRef]
14. Ayodele, B.V.; Hossain, S.S.; Lam, S.S.; Osazuwa, O.U.; Khan, M.R.; Cheng, C.K. Syngas production from
CO2 reforming of methane over neodymium sesquioxide supported cobalt catalyst. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
2016, 34, 873–885. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 16 of 18

15. Ayodele, B.V.; Bin Mohd Yassin, M.Y.; Naim, R.; Abdullah, S. Hydrogen production by thermo-catalytic
conversion of methane over lanthanum strontium cobalt ferrite (LSCF) and αAl2 O3 supported Ni catalysts.
J. Energy Inst. 2019, 92, 892–903. [CrossRef]
16. Ayodele, B.V.; Khan, M.R.; Cheng, C.K. Greenhouse gases mitigation by CO2 reforming of methane to
hydrogen-rich syngas using praseodymium oxide supported cobalt catalyst. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
2016, 1–13. [CrossRef]
17. LeValley, T.L.; Richard, A.R.; Fan, M. The progress in water gas shift and steam reforming hydrogen
production technologies—A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 16983–17000. [CrossRef]
18. Ayodele, B.V.; Khan, M.R.; Lam, S.S.; Cheng, C.K. Production of CO-rich hydrogen from methane dry
reforming over lanthania-supported cobalt catalyst: Kinetic and mechanistic studies. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2016, 41, 4603–4615. [CrossRef]
19. Dagle, R.A.; Dagle, V.; Bearden, M.D.; Holladay, J.D.; Krause, T.R.; Ahmed, S. An Overview of Natural Gas
Conversion Technologies for Co-Production of Hydrogen and Value-Added Solid Carbon Products; (No PNNL-26726,
ANL-17/11); Pacific Northwest Natl Lab(PNNL): Richland, WA USA; Argonne Natl Lab(ANL): DuPage, IL,
USA, 2017; Volume 65. [CrossRef]
20. Gharibi, M.; Zangeneh, F.T.; Yaripour, F.; Sahebdelfar, S. Nanocatalysts for conversion of natural gas to liquid
fuels and petrochemical feedstocks. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2012, 443, 8–26. [CrossRef]
21. Gür, T.M. Comprehensive review of methane conversion in solid oxide fuel cells: Prospects for efficient
electricity generation from natural gas. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2016, 54, 1–64. [CrossRef]
22. Pirker, G.; Wimmer, A. Sustainable power generation with large gas engines. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017,
149, 1048–1065. [CrossRef]
23. Alipour-Dehkordi, A.; Khademi, M.H. Use of a micro-porous membrane multi-tubular fixed-bed reactor
for tri-reforming of methane to syngas: CO2 , H2 O or O2 side-feeding. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44,
32066–32079. [CrossRef]
24. Kathe, M.; Fryer, C.; Sandvik, P.; Kong, F.; Zhang, Y.; Empfield, A.; Fan, L.S. Modularization strategy for
syngas generation in chemical looping methane reforming systems with CO2 as feedstock. AIChE J. 2017, 63,
3343–3360. [CrossRef]
25. Kim, S.; Crandall, B.S.; Lance, M.J.; Cordonnier, N.; Lauterbach, J.; Sasmaz, E. Activity and stability of
NiCe@SiO2 multi–yolk–shell nanotube catalyst for tri-reforming of methane. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2019,
259, 118037. [CrossRef]
26. Tahir, M.; Tahir, B.; Zakaria, Z.Y.; Muhammad, A. Enhanced photocatalytic carbon dioxide reforming of
methane to fuels over nickel and montmorillonite supported TiO2 nanocomposite under UV-light using
monolith photoreactor. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 451–461. [CrossRef]
27. Hafizi, A.; Rahimpour, M.R.; Hassanajili, S. Calcium promoted Fe/Al2 O3 oxygen carrier for hydrogen
production via cyclic chemical looping steam methane reforming process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40,
16159–16168. [CrossRef]
28. Sastre, D.; Serrano, D.P.; Pizarro, P.; Coronado, J.M. Chemical insights on the activity of La1-xSrxFeO3
perovskites for chemical looping reforming of methane coupled with CO2 -splitting. J. CO2 Util. 2019, 31,
16–26. [CrossRef]
29. Aboosadi, Z.A.; Yadecoury, M.F. Thermally Intensification of Steam Reforming Process by Use of Methane
Tri-Reforming: A Review. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2019, 17. [CrossRef]
30. Angeli, S.D.; Monteleone, G.; Giaconia, A.; Lemonidou, A.A. State-of-the-art catalysts for CH4 steam
reforming at low temperature. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 1979–1997. [CrossRef]
31. Nikolaidis, P.; Poullikkas, A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production processes. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 597–611. [CrossRef]
32. Sidik, S.M.; Triwahyono, S.; Jalil, A.A.; Majid, Z.A.; Salamun, N.; Talib, N.B.; Abdullah, T.A. CO2 reforming
of CH4 over Ni-Co/MSN for syngas production: Role of Co as a binder and optimization using RSM.
Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 295, 1–10. [CrossRef]
33. Aman, D.; Radwan, D.; Ebaid, M.; Mikhail, S.; van Steen, E. Comparing nickel and cobalt perovskites for
steam reforming of glycerol. Mol. Catal. 2018, 452, 60–67. [CrossRef]
34. Sadykov, V.A.; Gubanova, E.L.; Sazonova, N.N.; Pokrovskaya, S.A.; Chumakova, N.A.; Mezentseva, N.V.;
Bobin, A.S.; Gulyaev, R.V.; Ishchenko, A.V.; Krieger, T.A.; et al. Dry reforming of methane over Pt/PrCeZrO
catalyst: Kinetic and mechanistic features by transient studies and their modeling. Catal. Today 2011, 171,
140–149. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 17 of 18

35. Gokon, N.; Yamawaki, Y.; Nakazawa, D.; Kodama, T. Kinetics of methane reforming over Ru/γ-Al2 O3 -catalyzed
metallic foam at 650–900 ◦ C for solar receiver-absorbers. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 203–215. [CrossRef]
36. Abdullah, B.; Abd Ghani, N.A.; Vo, D.V.N. Recent advances in dry reforming of methane over Ni-based
catalysts. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 170–185. [CrossRef]
37. Abdulrasheed, A.; Jalil, A.A.; Gambo, Y.; Ibrahim, M.; Hambali, H.U.; Shahul Hamid, M.Y. A review on
catalyst development for dry reforming of methane to syngas: Recent advances. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2019, 108, 175–193. [CrossRef]
38. Rategarpanah, A.; Meshkani, F.; Wang, Y.; Arandiyan, H.; Rezaei, M. Thermocatalytic conversion of methane
to highly pure hydrogen over Ni–Cu/MgO·Al2 O3 catalysts: Influence of noble metals (Pt and Pd) on the
catalytic activity and stability. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 166, 268–280. [CrossRef]
39. Kumar, R.; Kumar, K.; Choudary, N.V.; Pant, K.K. Effect of support materials on the performance of Ni-based
catalysts in tri-reforming of methane. Fuel Process. Technol. 2019, 186, 40–52. [CrossRef]
40. Kang, D.; Lim, H.S.; Lee, J.W. Mesoporous Fe2 O3 –CeO2 –Al2 O3 Oxygen Carrier for Chemical Looping Dry
Reforming with Subsequent Water Splitting. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 15912–15920. [CrossRef]
41. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S.; Rodat, S. Solar chemical looping reforming of methane combined with
isothermal H2 O/CO2 splitting using ceria oxygen carrier for syngas production. J. Energy Chem. 2020, 41,
60–72. [CrossRef]
42. Wang, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, K.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhu, X.; Wei, Y.; Wang, H. Syngas production
modified by oxygen vacancies over CeO2 -ZrO2 -CuO oxygen carrier via chemical looping reforming of
methane. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 481, 151–160. [CrossRef]
43. Henard, C.A.; Smith, H.; Dowe, N.; Kalyuzhnaya, M.G.; Pienkos, P.T.; Guarnieri, M.T. Bioconversion of
methane to lactate by an obligate methanotrophic bacterium. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21585. [CrossRef]
44. Shoji, S.; Peng, X.; Yamaguchi, A.; Watanabe, R.; Fukuhara, C.; Cho, Y.; Yamamoto, T.; Matsumura, S.;
Yu, M.W.; Ishii, S.; et al. Photocatalytic uphill conversion of natural gas beyond the limitation of thermal
reaction systems. Nat. Catal. 2020, 3, 148–153. [CrossRef]
45. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Economic analysis of
sustainable water use: A review of worldwide research. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1120–1132. [CrossRef]
46. Jouny, M.; Luc, W.; Jiao, F. General Techno-Economic Analysis of CO2 Electrolysis Systems. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 2165–2177. [CrossRef]
47. Towler, G.; Sinnott, R.A.Y. Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process
Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2013. [CrossRef]
48. Nikookaran, N.; Karakostas, G.; Todd, T.D. Combining Capital and Operating Expenditure Costs in Vehicular
Roadside Unit Placement. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2017, 66, 7317–7331. [CrossRef]
49. Qian, J.X.; Chen, T.W.; Enakonda, L.R.; Liu, D.B.; Basset, J.M.; Zhou, L. Methane decomposition to pure
hydrogen and carbon nano materials: State-of-the-art and future perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020,
45, 15721–15743. [CrossRef]
50. Mueller-Langer, F.; Tzimas, E.; Kaltschmitt, M.; Peteves, S. Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen
production processes for the hydrogen economy for the short and medium term. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2007, 32, 3797–3810. [CrossRef]
51. Keipi, T.; Tolvanen, H.; Konttinen, J. Economic analysis of hydrogen production by methane thermal
decomposition: Comparison to competing technologies. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 159, 264–273. [CrossRef]
52. Keipi, T.; Hankalin, V.; Nummelin, J.; Raiko, R. Techno-economic analysis of four concepts for thermal
decomposition of methane: Reduction of CO2 emissions in natural gas combustion. Energy Convers. Manag.
2016, 110, 1–12. [CrossRef]
53. Mondal, K.C.; Ramesh Chandran, S. Evaluation of the economic impact of hydrogen production by methane
decomposition with steam reforming of methane process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 9670–9674.
[CrossRef]
54. Timmerberg, S.; Kaltschmitt, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels through methane
decomposition of natural gas—GHG emissions and costs. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2020, 7, 100043.
[CrossRef]
55. Labanca, A.; Feugeas, J.; Miranda, P. Economic Analysis of CO2 -Free Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas by
Plasma Pyrolysis; Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2006; pp. 1–19.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 10148 18 of 18

56. Gaudernack, B.; Lynum, S. Hydrogen from natural gas without release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 1998, 23, 1087–1093. [CrossRef]
57. Khojasteh Salkuyeh, Y.; Saville, B.A.; MacLean, H.L. Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment of
hydrogen production from natural gas using current and emerging technologies. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2017, 42, 18894–18909. [CrossRef]
58. Godini, H.R.; Xiao, S.; Jašo, S.; Stünkel, S.; Salerno, D.; Son, N.X.; Song, S.; Wozny, G. Techno-economic
analysis of integrating the methane oxidative coupling and methane reforming processes. Fuel Process Technol.
2013, 106, 684–694. [CrossRef]
59. Fei, Q.; Liang, B.; Tao, L.; Tan, E.C.; Gonzalez, R.; Henard, C.; Guarnieri, M. Biological valorization of natural
gas for the production of lactic acid: Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Biochem. Eng. J.
2020, 158, 107500. [CrossRef]
60. Cantera, S.; Muñoz, R.; Lebrero, R.; López, J.C.; Rodríguez, Y.; García-Encina, P.A. Technologies for the
bioconversion of methane into more valuable products. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 50, 128–135. [CrossRef]
61. Diglio, G.; Hanak, D.P.; Bareschino, P.; Mancusi, E.; Pepe, F.; Montagnaro, F.; Manovic, V. Techno-economic
analysis of sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming in a fixed bed reactor network integrated with fuel
cell. J. Power Sources 2017, 364, 41–51. [CrossRef]
62. Zhang, C.; Jun, K.W.; Gao, R.; Kwak, G.; Park, H.G. Carbon dioxide utilization in a gas-to-methanol process
combined with CO2 /Steam-mixed reforming: Techno-economic analysis. Fuel 2017, 190, 303–311. [CrossRef]
63. Gangadharan, P.; Kanchi, K.C.; Lou, H.H. Evaluation of the economic and environmental impact of combining
dry reforming with steam reforming of methane. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2012, 90, 1956–1968. [CrossRef]
64. Luk, H.T.; Lei, H.M.; Ng, W.Y.; Ju, Y.; Lam, K.F. Techno-economic analysis of distributed hydrogen production
from natural gas. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 20, 489–496. [CrossRef]
65. Dufour, J.; Serrano, D.P.; Gálvez, J.L.; Moreno, J.; González, A. Hydrogen production from fossil fuels: Life
cycle assessment of technologies with low greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 2194–2202.
[CrossRef]
66. Dufour, J.; Serrano, D.P.; Gálvez, J.L.; González, A.; Soria, E.; Fierro, J.L.G. Life cycle assessment of alternatives
for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil sources. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 1173–1183.
[CrossRef]
67. Dufour, J.; Serrano, D.P.; Gálvez, J.L.; Moreno, J.; García, C. Life cycle assessment of processes for hydrogen
production. Environmental feasibility and reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2009, 34, 1370–1376. [CrossRef]
68. Dufour, J.; Gálvez, J.L.; Serrano, D.P.; Moreno, J.; Martínez, G. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production
by methane decomposition using carbonaceous catalysts. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 1205–1212.
[CrossRef]
69. Srilatha, K.; Bhagawan, D.; Kumar, S.S.; Himabindu, V. Sustainable fuel production by thermocatalytic
decomposition of methane—A review. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2017, 24, 156–167. [CrossRef]
70. Kothari, R.; Buddhi, D.; Sawhney, R.L. Comparison of environmental and economic aspects of various
hydrogen production methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2008, 12, 553–563. [CrossRef]
71. Hamid, U.; Rauf, A.; Ahmed, U.; Selim Arif Sher Shah, M.; Ahmad, N. Techno-economic assessment of
process integration models for boosting hydrogen production potential from coal and natural gas feedstocks.
Fuel 2020, 266, 117111. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).