Technical and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Integrated Gas Steam Power Plant with REC
Keywords:
Alkaline Water Electrolysis, Aspen Hysys, Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, Hydrogen Production, Renewable EnergyAbstract
The global drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has accelerated interest in sustainable hydrogen production pathways. This study investigates the integration of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power generation with alkaline water electrolysis (AWE) for hydrogen production, evaluating the system’s techno-economic viability and environmental impact. Using Aspen HYSYS simulations, the combined CCGT system achieved an efficiency of 47%, while the electrolysis unit demonstrated optimal performance at elevated temperatures. The integrated system produces hydrogen at a levelized cost of $2.65/kg with a carbon intensity of 17.29 kg CO₂/kg H₂. Incorporating carbon capture and storage (CCS) reduces emissions significantly but raises hydrogen costs to $5.64/kg. Compared to renewable-powered electrolysis, the CCGT-AWE hybrid offers lower hydrogen production costs, though it remains more expensive than conventional steam methane reforming (SMR) methods. Environmentally, CCGT-electrolysis yields moderate emissions, outperforming average grid mixes but trailing behind wind and solar-based hydrogen production; however, CCS integration enables emissions lower than renewable alternatives. This hybrid approach presents a practical transitional solution for low-carbon hydrogen generation, particularly in regions lacking abundant renewable resources, by leveraging existing infrastructure while advancing decarbonization goals.
Downloads
References
Our World in Data. Renewable Energy. 2023. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
Daiyan R, Macgill I, Amal R. Opportunities and challenges for renewable power-to-X. ACS Energy Lett. 2020;5(12):3843–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c02249
Adeli K, Nachtane M, Faik A, Saifaoui D, Boulezhar A. How green hydrogen and ammonia are revolutionizing the future of energy production: A comprehensive review of the latest developments and future prospects. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158711
Chisholm G, Zhao T, Cronin L. Hydrogen from water electrolysis. Elsevier Inc; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824510-1.00015-5
Artz J, et al. Sustainable conversion of carbon dioxide: An integrated review of catalysis and life cycle assessment. Chem Rev. 2018;118(2):434–504. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00435
Wang L, et al. Power-to-fuels via solid-oxide electrolyzer: Operating window and techno-economics. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019;110:174–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.071
Yusaf T, et al. Sustainable hydrogen energy in aviation – A narrative review. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2024;52:1026–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.02.086
Thomas JM, Edwards PP, Dobson PJ, Owen GP. Decarbonising energy: The developing international activity in hydrogen technologies and fuel cells. J Energy Chem. 2020;51:405–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2020.03.087
Oliveira AM, Beswick RR, Yan Y. A green hydrogen economy for a renewable energy society. Curr Opin Chem Eng. 2021;33:100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2021.100701
Oni AO, Anaya K, Giwa T, Di Lullo G, Kumar A. Comparative assessment of blue hydrogen from steam methane reforming, autothermal reforming, and natural gas decomposition technologies for natural gas-producing regions. Energy Convers Manag. 2022;254:115245.
Suleman F, Dincer I, Agelin-Chaab M. Environmental impact assessment and comparison of some hydrogen production options. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2015;40(21):6976–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.03.123
Farhana K, Shadate Faisal Mahamude A, Kadirgama K. Comparing hydrogen fuel cost of production from various sources - a competitive analysis. Energy Convers Manag. 2024;302(January):118088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118088
Spath PL, Mann MK. Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming. Golden, Colorado (US); 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/27637.pdf
Nicole, R., Title of Paper, Name of Journal, submitted for publication. (Pending publication)
Cetinkaya E, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Life cycle assessment of various hydrogen production methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2012;37(3):2071–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.064
Khojasteh Salkuyeh Y, Saville BA, MacLean HL. Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from natural gas using current and emerging technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2017;42(30):18894–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.219
Elgowainy A, Han J, Zhu H. Updates to Parameters of Hydrogen Production. 2013; pp. 2–5. [Online]. Available: https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/h2-13
Nejadian, M.M.; Ahmadi, P.; Houshfar, E. Comparative optimization study of three novel integrated hydrogen production systems with SOEC, PEM, and alkaline electrolyzer. Fuel 2023, 336, 126835.
Mohammadi,A.;Mehrpooya, M. Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production by solid oxide electrolyzer coupled with dish collector. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 173, 167–178.
Naeini, M.; Cotton, J.S.; Adams, T.A., II. An eco-technoeconomic analysis of hydrogen production using solid oxide electrolysis cells that accounts for long-term degradation. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 1015465.
Querol, E.; Gonzalez-Regueral, B.; Perez-Benedito, J.L. Practical Approach to Exergy and Thermoeconomic Analyses of Industrial Processes; Springer: London, UK, 2013.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 ITB Graduate School Conference

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
