Clean Techn Environ Policy (2017) 19:1437–1447
DOI 10.1007/s10098-017-1341-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Techno-economic analysis of green hydrogen production
from biogas autothermal reforming
Y. S. Montenegro Camacho1 • S. Bensaid1 • G. Piras2 • M. Antonini2
D. Fino1
Received: 5 November 2016 / Accepted: 10 February 2017 / Published online: 18 February 2017
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Abstract The development and deployment of energy mix
hydrogen production technologies, and the prospect of
supplying ‘‘green’’ hydrogen to fuel-cell cars are expected
to play significant roles in the near future. The sustain-
ability of the process is a key enabler for a hydrogen-
including economy. A techno-economic analysis of the
BioRobur technology, which involves the green hydrogen
production of 100 N m3 H2/h (5.0 grade), has been per-
formed in this study to provide a basis for comparison
between the final cost of the hydrogen and the European
target. Moreover, a technology for its eventual implemen-
tation has been addressed, in which the weakness and
strengths have been identified by means of a SWOT
analysis. The cost and supply analysis of this biogas-to-
hydrogen production system, via autothermal reforming,
indicates that municipal solid waste (MSW) is an important
source of the low-cost supply of biogas-derived hydrogen.
As far as the market potential is concerned, this analysis
suggests that MSW can provide about 286,607 kg/day at
5 €/kg H2 (delivery cost). Additionally, after 10 years of
amortization, the final cost to produce 100 N m3/h of H2
would be 2.5 €/kg, which is far lower than the European
target for the cost of obtaining H2 through biogas reform-
ing, that is, 5 €/kg of H2.
Keywords Techno-economic analysis  SWOT  Green
hydrogen  Biogas  ATR  Sustainability
& D. Fino
debora.fino@polito.it
1
Applied Science and Technology Department, Politecnico di
Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy
2
Hysytech Srl, Starda del Drosso 33/18, 10135 Turin, Italy
•
Introduction
Biogas is a promising source for hydrogen production, and
it is an alternative resource to the conventional steam
reforming (SR) technology. Biogas is similar to natural gas
and has the advantage of additional benefits, as it is a
renewable resource, it reduces pollution by preventing
methane release into the atmosphere (methane is 21 times
stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas), and it is
produced commercially in large quantities in anaerobic
digesters and landfill gas recovery facilities designed to
treat bio-wastes, such as municipal solid waste (MSW),
manure and energy crops. Biogas production also reduces
landfill waste and produces nutrient-rich fertilizers as a by-
product (Braga et al. 2013).
Several authors (Galvagno et al. 2013; da Silva Veras
et al. 2016; Alves et al. 2013) have reported that hydrogen
is a key component for the development of a clean and
sustainable energy system, although there is still a neces-
sity for its production technology to be made economically
feasible. In this way, global initiatives, whether promoted
by European Commissions or the research community, are
currently focused on the development of hydrogen as an
energy carrier, and on a new economy, based on the use of
hydrogen as an energy source. Research activities have
allowed novel technologies for the production, storage,
distribution and use of hydrogen to be developed, with a
number of demonstration projects to foster hydrogen
applications and international studies aimed at developing
a technology deployment roadmap (IEA 2015). The aim
has been to accelerate the introduction of these technolo-
gies onto the market, and to show their potential as
instruments to achieve carbon-lean energy systems.
The production of hydrogen from natural gas and coal
is currently the most mature technology, with low
123
1438
production costs of € 2.33–2.98 and € 0.34–1.72/kg H2,
respectively. Coal is more economically favorable than
natural gas, because of its lower feedstock cost [€ 1.18/GJ
LHV (lower heating value)]. However, coal gasification
produces high greenhouse gas emissions, which makes it
less favorable than renewable technologies (Guandalini
et al. 2016). In general, depending on the region-specific
natural gas prices, hydrogen produced via SR processes is
usually available at relatively low costs. A low cost and
environmentally friendly source of hydrogen is essential
to facilitate the hydrogen economy.
Although alkaline electrolyzers can be considered a
mature and affordable technology, they so far remain an
expensive way of producing hydrogen, compared to fossil
alternatives, such as SR (IEA 2015). Some works have
studied the possibility of reducing hydrogen production
costs by reducing the alkaline electrolyzer costs, operating
in a discontinuous way (3.27 €/kg), in order to benefit
from low electricity prices (Mansilla et al. 2011). The
cost of hydrogen production using the BioRobur tech-
nology is in fact higher than the other above-mentioned
technologies. However, a comparative LCA analysis of
these three hydrogen production processes (biogas ATR,
biogas SR and a biogas fueled IC engine followed by an
alkaline electrolyzer) has been performed, and the results
show that the BioRobur process (biogas ATR) offers high
energy sustainability and high efficiency and is therefore
the best choice between the three scenarios (Battista et al.
2017).
The BioRobur technology was developed in the frame-
work of the SP1-JTI-FCH.2-Collaborative Project
‘‘BIOROBUR.’’
The aim of the BioRobur project was to produce
hydrogen through direct biogas reforming, with no pre-
liminary CO2 separation. The project developed a robust
and efficient decentralized demo-system for the production
of ‘‘green’’ hydrogen, based on the ATR of biogas, with an
overall conversion efficiency of biogas to green hydrogen
of 65% (Montenegro Camacho et al. 2015).
An economic analysis of the final hydrogen cost has
been performed in this paper. The capital cost of the plant
and the operating cost were calculated, taking in account
the AACE International guidelines. This analysis provides
an overview of the biogas-derived hydrogen market using
BioRobur technology. It examines the current raw mate-
rials that can be used for biogas production, their avail-
ably, and the positive and negative aspects, as well as
their cost on the market. It also estimates the production
cost of hydrogen from biogas (MSW) using this tech-
nology and provides cost curves as a function of the
amortization time and plant size, compared with the EU
target.
123
Y. S. Montenegro Camacho et al.
BioRobur technology
As part of the BioRobur project, a compact ATR biogas
reformer (Fig. 1a) was developed to be integrated in a pure
(5.0 grade) hydrogen production at a pre-commercial-scale.
The ATR process is a combination of two reforming
techniques, that is, SR and catalytic partial oxidation
(CPOX) (Galvagno et al. 2013). The process can be divided
into three sections, as shown in Fig. 1b. The feed section is
the first section, and it consists of the preheating, compres-
sion and mixing of air, steam and biogas streams. In this
section, the compression of the biogas is provided by a steam
ejector, in order to avoid the use of a compressor. The heart of
the process is the ATR-reactor, which is located in the second
section, where the biogas is converted into a mixture of gas
rich in H2. A wall flow filter is closely coupled to the ATR
unit to retain the soot produced during the reforming. The
third section is made up of the gas purification unit. There are
two purification sections: The first part is constituted by two
WGS reactors, that is, high-temperature (HT-WGS) and
low-temperature water gas shift (LT-WGS) reactors, while
the second part includes the 20 barg pressure swing
adsorption (PSA) treatment unit (Fig. 1b) (Montenegro
Camacho et al. 2015).
Economic data and project assumptions
A scientifically based and comprehensive study of the
economic performance and an eventual implementation
plan of the BioRobur technology have been addressed. The
data for the components considered in the studied energy
systems were taken from the project information (BioR-
obur Project) and were based on commercial references.
Additional information (i.e., electricity, thermal energy and
water prices) was based on market prices. Moreover, the
necessary information about the biomass was taken from
the internal sources of one of the BioRobur partners
(Hysytech company). In this work, MSW has been con-
sidered as the substrate of reference for biogas production.
Waste recovery is a service for the community, a service
for which the citizens pay a tax, and it was therefore not
assumed as a cost. The economic analysis is based on the
following parameters:
• Hydrogen production: 100 N m3/h
• Hydrogen grade: 5.0
• Working time: 8030 h/year
• Average life plant: 10 years
BioRobur technology, which it is based on the production
of hydrogen by means of a biogas autothermal reforming
(ATR) process, has been considered in this study. An
Techno-economic analysis of green hydrogen production from biogas autothermal reforming 1439

(a) (b)
ATR-Reactor
= 550-600°C Soot Trap
= 700-800°C
= 285°C
Steam
Ejector
Biogas
= 25°C ATR Unit
p = 1.0 bar Steam/Air Syn Gas

LT-WGS HT-WGS
Air p = 1.5 bar
Steam
= 25°C = 400°C = 25°C
p = 1.0 bar = 400°C p = 10 bar = 250°C = 450°C
p = 1.5 bar
Pressure Swing
Adsorption (PSA)

Hydrogen
Water = 40°C = 40°C
= 25°C p = 20 bar p = 1.5 bar
p = 1.0 bar Educt Processing
(Compression & Preheating) Gas Purification

Fig. 1 a The BioRobur plant and its components, b flowsheet of the plant

evaluation of the costs and quality of the biogas, and the
final cost of the hydrogen was performed; the investment
(CAPEX) and operation and maintenance (OPEX) costs
were also calculated.
Evaluation of the cost and quality of biomass
Biogas is defined as a fuel produced by the anaerobic
digestion (AD) process of the residual biomass from dif-
ferent sources (manure, organic waste, sewage sludge,
landfills, etc.). AD is a series of processes in which
microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the
absence of oxygen (Capodaglio et al. 2016).
Biogas is primarily a mixture of methane (CH4) and
carbon dioxide (CO2), with traces of other gases such as
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2),
nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2) and vapor water (H2O) (Alves
et al. 2013; Hamedi et al. 2014). The sulfur content and the
methane composition in the biogas mixture depend on the
sources of the used biomass. It is possible to identify four
main biological matrices on the European market: landfill,
energy crops, MSW and agro-industrial scraps. The bio-
masses are constituted by three main components: water,
volatile solids (VS) and ash. The percentage of VS (or
organic substances) determines the methane content in the
produced biogas. The biochemical methane potential
(BMP) expresses the ratio between the N m3 of produced
bio-methane per gram of VS contained in the organic
materials used as substrates in the AD process.
The landfills
Landfilling is the oldest form of waste treatment, and the
least desirable option because of the many potential
adverse impacts it can have. Its use should be limited to the
necessary minimum, as determined by the European
Commission (2010). For this reason, landfills were not
considered as a source of biogas.
The energy crops
The strength of energy crops is mainly related to energetic
and commercial aspects. The percentage of VS in energy
crops is higher than in other substrates, and thus guarantees
an increased biogas yield.
The municipal solid waste (MSW)
The AD of MSW is a process that has become a major
topic of interest in waste management throughout the world
(Elango et al. 2007). The composition of MSW varies from
region to region and depends upon the lifestyle, demo-
graphic features and legislation (Al-Zuahiri et al. 2015).
MSW is generated in increasing amounts, and it requires
innovative solutions to minimize its impacts on environ-
mental quality and public health (Gómez et al. 2006). The
strength of this kind of substrate is mainly related to the
enhancement of waste. In this way, there is a double ben-
efit: a significant reduction in disposal costs and a
notable environmental pollution abatement. Moreover, the
recovery of wastes is a service for the community, and
citizens generally pay a tax. From this point of view, it can
be considered as very low/no-cost, or even a negative cost
for the acquisition of these matrices. However, the neces-
sity of a pre-treatment makes the management and the
storage more difficult.
A similar economic consideration can be made for
active sludge. In fact, not all water treatment plants have
the possibility of exploiting active sludge, because they do

123
1440 Y. S. Montenegro Camacho et al.

not have AD plants, but this aspect represents a potential
opportunity that should be exploited.
Agroindustry scraps
Agroindustry scraps are generally the ‘‘by-products,’’ i.e.,
the residues of other production cycles. This category also
includes livestock waste. From the energy point of view,
agroindustry scraps, like dedicated cultures, may have
higher percentages of VS than wastewater or livestock
waste. Over the last decade, the incentive policies that have
been introduced have encouraged the use of agroindustry
scraps to produce biogas, with a consequent increase in the
price of raw materials. The most common biomasses are
compared in Table 1, and the positive and negative aspects,
the price per ton and the percentage of methane (in biogas)
are indicated for each raw material.
Estimation of capital expenditure (CAPEX)
‘‘Capital expenditures’’ are the assets that a company uses
to buy durable goods in order to create or expand their
production capacity. CAPEX represents the initial invest-
ment. The costs include the direct costs (DC) and indirect
costs (IC). DC is those costs that pertain to the cost of the
objects, for example the equipment, the raw materials and
the instrumentation. IC is instead those costs that are
derived from the control and management of the company,
for example, for the supervision and construction activities.
In order to establish a methodology to evaluate the
capital costs, AACE International was taken as a reference
(AACE International 2016). Five cost estimate classes are
defined in AACE International in function of the level of
project definition. The level of project definition establishes
the information available to estimate the costs. The Class 5
estimate is based on the lowest level of project definition,
while the Class 1 estimate is related to the full project
definition. The AACE Class 5 Cost Estimation Methodol-
ogy, which is based on the cost of the total purchased price
of the main equipment, has been used for this analysis. The
Class 5 estimate, for a process industry project, may have
an accuracy range as broad as -50 to ?100%, or as narrow
as -20 to ?30%.
Main equipment
Information from the project database and experimental
data were used to estimate the cost of each piece of
equipment in this study (BioRobur Project). Moreover, the
overall CAPEX estimation methodology was based on the
guidelines of the AACE International Recommended
Practices (AACE International 2016).
The BioRobur plant is composed of the following main
pieces of equipment.
• Heat recovery Three heat exchangers in series allow the
inlet water to be vaporized before being mixed with the
biogas. The heat of the outlet gas from the ATR-reactor
is used to preheat, vaporize and super-heat the water.
76 kW for the preheating, 1265 kW for the vaporizing
and 34 kW for the super-heating.
• Blower The inlet air is compressed to 300 mbarg by a
7 kW blower.
• Reactor It/this represents approximately 38% of total
CAPEX. The cost of the catalyst is included.
• WGS reactors the cost of the WGS reactors is based on
a commercial reference.

Table 1 Biomass information (Hysytech company)

Substrate Advantages Disadvantages Biomass Price (€/t) % CH4
(in
biogas)

Energy crops Easy insertion and adoptability on the farm High cost Corn silage 55 53–55
Easy storage Increase in N2 to be disposed of
per unit area
Ethical issues
Waste Important environmental pollution Difficult storage MSW 0 55–60
abatement Necessity of pre-treatment
Low cost
Important environmental pollution Few installations for their Active 15 50–53
abatement treatment sludge
Difficult to determine the price
Agroindustry Scrap valorization Increase in the price of raw Pig slurry 2 60–65
scraps materials (by-products) Cow slurry 5 60–65
Low BMP (livestock waste) Pig manure 4 60–65

123
Techno-economic analysis of green hydrogen production from biogas autothermal reforming 1441

• PSA unit A commercial reference unit which produces object, and they include the cost of engineering works, the
100 N m3 H2/h has been used to estimate the cost. supervision, the installation at a client’s site and the com-
• Compressor (PSA unit) The gas is compressed to missioning. This item of expenditure represents approxi-
12–16 barg. The cost of the compressor is based on a mately 10–12% of the DC (KLM Technology Group).
commercial reference.
Construction
Structures
This item of expenditure represents approximately 10–12%
of the DC (KLM Technology Group).
The term ‘‘structures’’ includes the costs of the containers
The DC and IC of the BioRobur plant are summarized in
and the structural iron used for the skid. Four standard
Table 2.
containers (Fig. 1) are used for the feed section and the
reactor section, and the PSA unit is assembled on three
Estimation of the operational expenditure (OPEX)
interconnected skids. The dimensions of a standard con-
tainer are more or less 4.6 m 9 1 m 9 1 m (according to
All the costs necessary to manage the plant are included in
the experimental data).
this evaluation. These costs are called operation and
maintenance costs (O&M), and they can also comprise the
Piping and valves
cost of manpower and the rent of the site.
The operational expenditures were divided into three
There are 48 valves (ball, check, pressure safety valves and
main sections:
control valve) in the plant. The piping is made of AISI 316
Stainless Steel; there is roughly 45 m of piping. This item
of expenditure represents approximately 10% of the overall
cost of the equipment (KLM Technology Group). Table 2 Capex estimation
AACE Class 5 cost estimation
Electrical works and materials
I Direct costs (DC) € 703,000
The term ‘‘electrical works and materials’’ includes the 1 Major equipment (ME) € 529,000
electrical panel, the predispositions and the wiring. Most of 1.1 Heat recovery € 45,000
these elements have to be AtEx compliant (as stated in the Preheating
2014/34/EU regulations). Evaporator
Super-heating
Process instrumentation and controls 1.2 Blower € 9000
1.3 Reactor € 250,000
The control system is constituted by 33 elements: 13 Catalyst included
thermocouples, 8 pressure measurement devices, 3 flow 1.4 WGS reactors € 35,000
controls to regulate the inlet flows, 5 temperature alarms in LT-WGS
the reactor section and 4 manometers (according to the HT-WGS
project data). 1.5 PSA unit € 115,000
Filling included
Insulation 1.6 Compressor € 75,000
2 Structures
Most of the process takes place at a high temperature, that Containers
is, over 500 C. For this reason, the reactor section and the Skid € 35,000
equipment for the first step of the gas purification require 3 Piping and valves € 53,000
insulation. The cost of insulation per unit of surface is 4 Electrical works and materials € 25,000
based on a commercial reference (according to the project 5 Process instrumentation and control € 45,000
data). 6 Insulation € 16,000
II Indirect costs (IC) € 169,000
Engineering and supervision 11 Engineering and supervision € 84,360
12 Construction expenses € 84,360
The term ‘‘engineering and supervision’’ is part of the IC.
III CAPEX € 872,000
These costs are not directly accountable to any particular

123
1442 Y. S. Montenegro Camacho et al.

• Streams Including biogas and service fluids.
• Services Including thermic and electrical consumption.
• Items Including maintenance, spare parts, catalyst and
adsorbent materials.
The operational costs of the BioRobur plant are sum-
marized in Table 3. The maintenance and operational costs
can be considered as 3% of the CAPEX (Kothari et al.
2008; Braga et al. 2013).
• The raw materials What is the impact of the different
sources of biogas on the final cost of the hydrogen?
The European target
The European target for the cost of hydrogen from biogas is
5 €/kg of H2. However, considering 10 years of amortiza-
tion, the final cost to produce 100 N m3/h of hydrogen using
the BioRobur technology is 2.5 €/kg of H2 (Tables 4, 5).

Results The amortization time

Hydrogen final cost
The study that was carried out was focused on a com-
mercial plant that produces 100 N m3/h of hydrogen (5.0
grade) from the biogas obtained from MSW. The final
purpose of this analysis was to assess the real cost of
hydrogen production. In order to reach this target, other
considerations have to be included:
• The European target How far are we from the EU
target?
• The amortization time What is the impact of the
average plant life on the final cost of the hydrogen?
• The size of the plant What is the impact of the plant size
on the final cost of the hydrogen?
The amortization time represents the average cycle of life
of the commercial plant. The cost of hydrogen has been
calculated for five different periods of amortization and has
been compared with the European target.
The results demonstrate that the longer the plant life is,
the more affordable the initial investment. In fact, although
the operational expenditures increase over the years, the
capital costs do not change, and they are distributed over
the entire life cycle. The results are shown in Fig. 2.
The size of the plant
The impact of the size of the plant on the final costs has
been evaluated. The capital and operational costs change

Table 3 OPEX estimation

Operational expenditures (OPEX)
Streams Flow rate (kg/h) Annual flow rate (tons/year) Annual cost Remarks

Biogas 132 1060 EUR – From MSW

Water 356 2861 EUR 4337

Operational expenditures (OPEX)

Services Units Annual consump. Annual cost Remarks
(units/year)

Electrical consumption kW h 40,150 EUR 5621 Compression of air until 300

(blower) mbarg
Electrical consumption kW h 139,091 EUR 19,473 Compression of syngas until
(PSA) 12–16 barg
Heat consumption kW h 0 EUR – Energy recovery
(water)

Operational expenditures (OPEX)

Items Units Unit cost Annual cost Remarks

Maintenance/operation – – EUR 26,160 3% of CAPEX

Spare parts – – EUR 20,000 Commercial reference
Catalyst – – EUR 6000 Expenditure distributed over 2–3 years
Adsorbent material – – EUR 3500 Expenditure distributed over 4–5 years
Desulphurization kg H2S 759 EUR 8000 Absorbability 0.75 kg S/kg carb. act.
Total OPEX EUR 93,091

123
Techno-economic analysis of green hydrogen production from biogas autothermal reforming 1443

Table 4 CAPEX and OPEX estimations for an amortization time of

10 years
CAPEX 872.000 €
OPEX (10 years) 930.910 €
H2 produced (10 years) 716.516 kg

according to the dimensions of the plant. A small plant has

lower direct and operational costs, but, at the same time, it
also has a lower production; in this context, the final cost of
the product increases. In general, the investment costs for
the production processes increase in proportion to the
surface, while the operating costs vary in proportion to the Fig. 2 Final cost of the hydrogen versus amortization time, compared
volume of the plant. with the EU target

• Capex estimation The ratio between the new Capex and
the Capex for the reference size (rf) is equal to the ratio
between the new size and the reference size (rf),
elevated to 0.6 [Eq. (1)].
 
Capex Size 0:6
¼ ð1Þ
Capexrf Sizerf
• Opex estimation The variation between the ratio of
Opex on reference Opex (rf) and size on reference size
(rf) is linear [Eq. (2)].
 
Opex Size
¼ ð2Þ
Opexrf Sizerf
An amortization time of 4 years was considered for the
H2 production cost calculation, in function of the size of
the plant. The results are shown in Table 6.
The results are illustrated in Fig. 3a.
The figure shows that, for a low production of hydrogen
(50 N m3/h), the H2 costs are unfavorable, compared with
the European target. The collated data have allowed to the
investment (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) graphs to be
reconstituted as a function the hydrogen flow at the refor-
mer plant output (Fig. 3b).
The raw materials
The influence of the different substrates used for the biogas
production on the hydrogen cost has also been calculated.
The biogas from MSW is characterized by a medium-high
content of H2S, that is, nearly 900 mg/m3 of biogas; this
means 757 kg/year of H2S to dispose of and nearly
1000 kg of activate carbon per year (Hysytech company).
A biogas poor in sulfur leads to savings in the desulphur-
ization costs, but it also leads to an increase in the cost of
the biogas.
The operational costs have been estimated, considering
4 years of amortization, in order to assess the impact of
different matrices on the final cost of the hydrogen. The
H2S content in the biogas, the biogas price and the
respective operational costs for three different sources of
biogas are compared in Table 7.
For the sake of simplicity, the quality of the biogas from
MSW and agroindustry scraps has been considered the
same, because the methane content in the biogas is similar
(60% CH4). The agroindustry scraps can be divided into
three sub-cases:
1. The sewage substances are in the same site in which
the AD is present; in this case, it is convenient to use
the manure to produce biogas, and there are no
additional costs; moreover, other solutions would be
more expensive.
2. The sewage substances are in a site near the biogas
plant; the costs of biomass and its transport are about
10 €/t.
3. The sewage substances are purchased, transported and
stored in the AD site; in this case, the cost of biomass

Table 5 Amortization time

Amortization time (years) CAPEX (€) OPEX (€) H2 cost (€/kg H2) Target EU (€/kg H2)

3 872.000 279,273 5.36 5

4 872.000 372,364 4.34 5
10 872.000 930,910 2.52 5
15 872.000 1,396,364 2.11 5
25 872.000 2,327,273 1.77 5
30 872.000 2,792,728 1.70 5

123
1444 Y. S. Montenegro Camacho et al.

Table 6 Hydrogen cost based

SIZE (N m3 H2/h) CAPEX (€) OPEX (€) H2 produced (kg) H2 cost (€/kg H2)
on the plant size
50 575,305 186,182 143,303 5.32
100 872,000 372,364 286,607 4.34
150 1,112,170 558,546 429,910 3.89
200 1,321,705 744,727 573,213 3.60
250 1,511,056 930,909 716,516 3.41
500 2,290,332 1,861,818 1,433,033 2.90
700a 2,802,692 2,606,546 2,006,246 2.70
a
Plants that produce large quantities of hydrogen (500–700 N m3/h) are usually fed with biogas from
MSW

Fig. 3 a Hydrogen cost versus plant size, compared with the EU target. b BioRobur technology investment (CAPEX) and operation and
maintenance (OPEX) costs as a function of the hydrogen flow production

Table 7 Final cost of the hydrogen for different substrates (biogas renewable energy)
Substrate H2S content (mg/m3) Price (€/t) OPEX (€) H2 cost (€/kg H2) H2 produced (N m3/h)

MSW 900 0 373,600 4.34 100

Active sludge 4000 15 539,477 6.00 83
I. Agroindustry scraps 400 0 355,051 4.30 100
II. Agroindustry scraps 400 10 397,292 4.43 100
III. Agroindustry scraps 400 55 587,372 5.10 100

Fig. 4 Final cost of the

hydrogen for different
substrates

123
Techno-economic analysis of green hydrogen production from biogas autothermal reforming
Fig. 5 Cost of hydrogen production varying the main studied
variables for an amortization time of 4 years
has to be integrated with the transport and storage
costs, that is, about 55 €/t.
Active sludge is characterized by a high H2S content and
low CH4 content (53% CH4), and the biogas yield is
therefore low. The estimated hydrogen production is
nearly/almost 83 N m3/h (Hysytech company) (Fig. 4).
Sensitivity analysis
In the studied case, the main variables are the investment,
maintenance and operation, and each of these variables
could change over time. A sensitivity analysis has been
performed to determine the influence of changes in these
variables on the expected results of the process. Figures 5
and 6 show the results of the sensitivity analysis on the
principal variables in the hydrogen production process via
biogas ATR using the BioRobur technology. The sensi-
tivity analysis was performed on the following parameters:
Fig. 6 Hydrogen production cost for a variation of the main studied parameters: as a function of the working time (left) and as a function of the
amortization time (right)
1445
• Working time (h/year) 8030, 7300, 6570 and 5840 h/
year considering 22, 20, 18 and 16 h/day, respectively,
and 365 days/year.
• Hydrogen production (N m3/h) 50, 100, 150, 200,
250 N m3/h.
The analysis was performed for a variation range of
±30% from the basic scenario values of the principal
variables for a plant with hydrogen production of
100 N m3/h and an amortization time of 4 years. Four
years were chosen as this is the period that is necessary for
the hydrogen production cost, using the BioRobur tech-
nology, to be comparable with the EU target, as can be
observed above. In this context, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the
hydrogen production cost ranges from 4.0 to 7.1 €/kg H2
for 5840 h/year, from 3.6 to 6.7 €/kg H2 for 6570 h/year,
from 3.3 to 6.1 €/kg H2 for 7300 h/year and from 3.0 to
5.6 €/kg H2 for 8030 h/year.
In the last two cases, the hydrogen cost is higher than
5 €/kg H2 for the basic scenario. These results show that
the variables do in fact affect the final results of the project,
to have a margin of variation in the hydrogen production
cost. The same observation can be made for Fig. 6a for
different plant sizes (for an amortization time of 4 years).
The process is disadvantaged for a plant with 50 N m3/h of
hydrogen production and for low periods of operation, as it
involves high costs. The lowest hydrogen production cost
is for a working time of 8030 h/year, which shows that the
higher the operation period, the lower the hydrogen cost.
Figure 6b shows the hydrogen cost as a function of the
amortization time for a plant with a hydrogen production of
100 N m3/h. It is possible to observe that, from 7 years
onward, the hydrogen production cost tends to be constant
for a larger plant size than 50 N m3/h, which means that
the investment cost for the reform process has been
amortized.
123
1446 Y. S. Montenegro Camacho et al.

Table 8 SWOT analysis of the BioRobur technology

Helpful to achieve the object
Strengths
Low environmental impact Hydrogen is a flexible energy carrier with a zero carbon content. Its production from renewable sources, such
as biogas, helps to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The use of biogas as the BioRobur technology feed allows waste-to-energy conversion. At the same time, it leads to a decline in
greenhouse gas emissions in two different ways: heat or electrical energy can be generated to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, and
greenhouse gas emissions are decreased as methane emissions from landfills are avoided. Moreover, serious problems pertaining to their
management and disposal are also avoided. The energy recovery in the process is aimed at heating the inlet water, and this permits the
thermal consumption to be reduced
Competitive on the European market After 5 years of amortization, the estimated hydrogen’s cost is 4 €/kg H2, while the EU target is 5 €/
kg of hydrogen
High energy efficiency The heart of the process is an autothermal reaction; this means that the heat required for the reforming reaction is
balanced by the heat released by the partial oxidation, thus guaranteeing a self-sustainable process
Opportunities
Policy incentives There has been an increase in biogas production plants in the last few years. In fact, government incentives have
promoted the use of biomass in order to produce energy as an alternative to fossil fuels
Research on renewable sources In order to reduce pollution and develop a clean and sustainable energy system, several research projects
have been promoted
At present, there is more sensitivity toward and interest in environmental protection
Harmful to achieve the object
Weaknesses
High cost of the PSA unit Gas purification is crucial to attain the final specifications, and the required high grade. The PSA unit is able to
guarantee these results, but the overall costs of this technology (the equipment, the materials and the energy consumptions) are very
high, that is, almost 22% of total costs
Threats
Difficult final applications The hydrogen technology is not so diffused at present, and this makes the final applications of the produced H2
complicated/difficult
Fossil fuels Over the next 30 years, it is expected that energy consumption will continue to mainly be covered by fossil fuels
The time There is still a need for a significant improvement in the plant efficiencies of H2 production, in order to obtain reduced capital
costs, higher reliability and operating flexibility
It is believed that a long time is still necessary to achieve hydrogen economy. In this context, which is characterized by strong
technological competition, the BioRobur technology will be able to compete with more consolidated technologies

The SWOT analysis
A SWOT analysis was performed in order to summarize
the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the
project. Two main categories constitute the SWOT matrix:
• Internal factors The internal strengths and weaknesses of
the BioRobur technology are included in this category.
• External factors The opportunities and threats pre-
sented by the external environment to the BioRobur
technology are included in this category.
The results from the SWOT analysis are shown in the
Table 8.
Conclusion
The techno-economic analysis has shown that the BioR-
obur technology can play an important role in creating a
more sustainable scenario, and it could play a crucial role
on the European market. The results demonstrate that the
longer the plant life is, the more convenient the initial
investment. In fact, although the operational expenditures
increase over the years, the capital costs do not change,
and they are distributed over the entire lifecycle. More-
over, after 10 years of amortization, the final cost to
produce 100 N m3/h of hydrogen from biogas is 2.5 €/kg
H2, which is lower than the European target (5 €/kg H2).
The raw material for the biogas production is an impor-
tant key for the final hydrogen cost. Moreover, the anal-
ysis has shown that a low production of hydrogen
(50 N m3/h) would be unfavorable, compared with the
European target. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats of the technology have been identified by
means of a SWOT analysis. Finally, it is possible to state
that the route to implement and spread these bio-tech-
nologies is still long. For this reason, there is still the
need for constant incentives to improve and implement
new bio-technologies, such as biogas and hydrogen pro-
duction technologies.

123
Techno-economic analysis of green hydrogen production from biogas autothermal reforming
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the European
commission for the financial support for this work, as part of the
Seventh Framework Program BioRobur project under Grant Agree-
ment No. 325383.
References
AACE International (2016) Cost estimate classification system—as
applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the
process industries. AACE International. www.aacei.org
Biogas Renewable Energy Biogas Composition (2017) http://www.
biogas-renewable-energy.info/index.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2017
Alves HJ, Bley Junior C, Niklevicz RR et al (2013) Overview of
hydrogen production technologies from biogas and the applica-
tions in fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 38(13):5215–5225
Al-Zuahiri F, Pirozzi D, Ausiello A et al (2015) Biogas production
from solid state anaerobic digestion for municipal solid waste.
Chem Eng Trans. doi:10.3303/CET1543402
Battista F, Montenegro Camacho YS, Hernández S et al (2017) LCA
evaluation for the hydrogen production from biogas through the
innovative BioRobur project concept. Int J Hydrog Energy.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.065
BioRobur Project (2013–2016). http://biorobur.org/
Braga LB, Silveira JL, da Silva ME et al (2013) Hydrogen production
by biogas steam reforming: a technical, economic and ecological
analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 28:166–173. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2013.07.060
Capodaglio A, Callegari A, Lopez M (2016) European framework for
the diffusion of biogas uses: emerging technologies, acceptance,
incentive strategies, and institutional-regulatory support. Sus-
tainability 8:298. doi:10.3390/su8040298
da Silva Veras T, Mozer TS, da Costa Rubim Messeder dos Santos D,
da Silva César A (2017) Hydrogen: trends, production and
characterization of the main process worldwide. Int J Hydrog
Energy 42(4):2018–2033
Elango D, Pulikesi M, Baskaralingam P et al (2007) Production of
biogas from municipal solid waste with domestic sewage.
J Hazard Mater 141:301–304. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.07.
003
1447
European Commission (2010) Being wise with waste: the EU’s
approach to waste management. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2779/93543
Galvagno A, Chiodo V, Urbani F, Freni F (2013) Biogas as hydrogen
source for fuel cell applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy
38:3913–3920. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.083
Gómez X, Cuetos MJ, Cara J et al (2006) Anaerobic co-digestion of
primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the
municipal solid wastes: conditions for mixing and evaluation of
the organic loading rate. Renew Energy 31:2017-2024.
Guandalini G, Campanari S, Valenti G (2016) Comparative assess-
ment and safety issues in state-of-the-art hydrogen production
technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 41:18901–18920. doi:10.
1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.015
Hamedi MR, Tsolakis A, Lau CS (2014) Biogas upgrading for on-
board hydrogen production: reforming process CFD modelling.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 39:12532–12540. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.
2014.06.017
Hysytech Company. Intern. sources. http://www.hysytech.com
IEA (2015) Technology roadmap of hydrogen and fuel cells. OECD/
IEA, Paris
KLM Technology Group General process plant cost estimating
(engineering design guideline). http://www.klmtechgroup.com/.
Accessed 23 Oct 2016
Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL (2008) Comparison of environ-
mental and economic aspects of various hydrogen production
methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 12:553–563. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2006.07.012
Mansilla C, Dautremont S, Shoai Tehrani B et al (2011) Reducing the
hydrogen production cost by operating alkaline electrolysis as a
discontinuous process in the French market context. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 36:6407–6413. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.
03.004
Montenegro Camacho YS, Bensaid S, Fino D et al (2015) Biogas
robust processing with combined catalytic reformer and trap:
BioRobur project. In: Florez-Escobar WF, Brebbia CA, Chejne
F, Mondragon F (eds) WIT transactions on ecology and the
environment, vol 19. WIT Press, Wessex, pp 463–474
123