Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 697–707 | Cite as

Performance assessment of a power-to-gas process based on reversible solid oxide cell

  • Hanaâ Er-rbib
  • Nouaamane Kezibri
  • Chakib BouallouEmail author
Research Article


Due to the foreseen growth of sustainable energy utilization in the upcoming years, storage of the excess production is becoming a rather serious matter. In this work, a promising solution to this issue is investigated using one of the most emerging technologies of electricity conversion: reversible solid oxide cells (RSOC). A detailed model was created so as to study the RSOC performance before implementing it in the global co-electrolysis Aspen PlusTM model. The model was compared to experimental results and showed good agreement with the available data under steady state conditions. The system was then scaled up to a 10MWco-electrolysis unit operating at 1073 K and 3 bar. The produced syngas is subsequently directed to a methanation unit to produce a synthetic natural gas (SNG) with an equivalent chemical power of 8.3 MWth. Additionally, as a result of a heat integration analysis, the methanation process provides steam and electricity to operate the rest of the units in the process. A final CO2 capture step is added to ensure the required specifications of the produced SNG for gas network injection. Lastly, the overall performance of the power-to-gas process was evaluated taking into account the energy consumption of each unit.


renewable electricity storage co-electrolysis methanation carbone capture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) trough “Systèmes Energétiques Efficaces et Décarbonés (SEED)” Program (project DEMETER) ref. ANR-11-SEED- 0005-02.


  1. 1.
    EIA. International energy outlook 2017 overview. US Energy Information Administration, 2017, IEO2017: 143Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kezibri N, Bouallou C. Conceptual design and modelling of an industrial scale power to gas-oxy-combustion power plant. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(30): 19411–19419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Saint Jean M, Baurens P, Bouallou C, Couturier K. Economic assessment of a power-to-substitute-natural-gas process including high-temperature steam electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2015, 40(20): 6487–6500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Götz M, Lefebvre J, Mörs F, McDaniel Koch A, Graf F, Bajohr S. Renewable power-to-gas: A technological and economic review. Renewable Energy, 2016, 85: 1371–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailera M, Lisbona P, Romeo L M, Espatolero S. Power to gas projects review: Lab, pilot and demo plants for storing renewable energy and CO2. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 69: 292–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gahleitner G. Hydrogen from renewable electricity: An international review of power-to-gas pilot plants for stationary applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013, 38(5): 2039–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bierschenk D M, Wilson J R, Barnett S A. High efficiency electrical energy storage using a methane-oxygen solid oxide cell. Energy & Environmental Science, 2011, 4(3): 944–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giglio E, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. Synthetic natural gas via integrated high-temperature electrolysis and methanation: Part IIEconomic analysis. Journal of Energy Storage, 2015, 2: 64–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reznicek ER J B. Renewable energy-driven reversible solid oxide cell systems for grid-energy storage and power-to-gas applications. ECS Transactions, 2017, 78(1): 2913–2923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Udagawa J, Aguiar P, Brandon N P. Hydrogen production through steam electrolysis: Control strategies for a cathode-supported intermediate temperature solid oxide electrolysis cell. Journal of Power Sources, 2008, 180(1): 354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cai Q, Luna-Ortiz E, Adjiman C S, Brandon N P. The effects of operating conditions on the performance of a solid oxide steam electrolyser: A model-based study. Fuel Cells (Weinheim), 2010, 10 (6): 1114–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laurencin J, Kane D, Delette G, Deseure J, Lefebvre-Joud F. Modelling of solid oxide steam electrolyser: Impact of the operating conditions on hydrogen production. Journal of Power Sources, 2011, 196(4): 2080–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perna A, Minutillo M, Jannelli E. Designing and analyzing an electric energy storage system based on reversible solid oxide cells. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018, 159: 381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kazempoor P, Braun R J. Model validation and performance analysis of regenerative solid oxide cells: Electrolytic operation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(6): 2669–2684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu H, Chen B, Irvine J, Ni M. Modeling of CH4-assisted SOEC for H2O/CO2 co-electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(47): 21839–21849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petipas F, Brisse A, Bouallou C. Model-based behaviour of a high temperature electrolyser system operated at various loads. Journal of Power Sources, 2013, 239: 584–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bailera M, Kezibri N, Romeo L M, Espatolero S, Lisbona P, Bouallou C. Future applications of hydrogen production and CO2 utilization for energy storage: Hybrid power to gas-oxycombustion power plants. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42 (19): 13625–13632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Redissi Y, Er-Rbib H, Bouallou C. Storage and restoring the electricity of renewable energies by coupling with natural gas grid. In: Proceedings of 2013 International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference. Ouarzazate, Morocco: IEEE, 2013, 430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graves C, Ebbesen S D, Mogensen M. Co-electrolysis of CO2 and H2O in solid oxide cells: Performance and durability. Solid State Ionics, 2011, 192(1): 398–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhan Z, Kobsiriphat W, Wilson J R, Pillai M, Kim I, Barnett S A. Syngas production by coelectrolysis of CO2/H2O: The basis for a renewable energy cycle. Energy & Fuels, 2009, 23(6): 3089–3096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Er-Rbib H, Kezibri N, Bouallou C. Dynamic simulation of reversible solid oxide cell (RSOC). Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2017, 61: 1075–1080Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khorsand K, Marvast M A, Pooladian N, Kakavand M. Modeling and simulation of methanation catalytic reactor in ammonia unit. Petroleum and Coal, 2007, 49(1): 46–53Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ryi S K, Lee S W, Hwang K R, Park J S. Production of synthetic natural gas by means of a catalytic nickel membrane. Fuel, 2012, 94: 64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frontera P, Macario A, Ferraro M, Antonucci P. Supported catalysts for CO2 methanation: A review. Catalysts, 2017, 7(2): 59 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kopyscinski J, Schildhauer T J, Biollaz S M A. Production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) from coal and dry biomass—A technology review from 1950 to 2009. Fuel, 2010, 89(8): 1763–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Er-rbib H, Bouallou C. Modeling and simulation of CO methanation process for renewable electricity storage. Energy, 2014, 75: 81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tilagone R, Lecointe B. Natural gas-fossil energy. Techniques de L’ingénieur, 2014, BM2591 (in French)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kemp I C. Pinch Analysis and Process Integration—A User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007, 313–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blumberg T, Sorgenfrei M, Tsatsaronis G. Modelling and evaluation of an IGCC concept with carbon capture for the co-production of SNG and electricity. Sustainability Journal, 2015, 7: 16213–16225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amann JMG, Bouallou C. A new aqueous solvent based on a blend of N-methyldiethanolamine and triethylene tetramine for CO2 recovery in post-combustion: Kinetics study. Energy Procedia, 2009, 1(1): 901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Chen C C. Modeling CO2 absorption and desorption by aqueous monoethanolamine solution with Aspen rate-based model. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 1584–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Garcia M, Knuutila H K, Gu S. ASPEN PLUS simulation model for CO2 removal with MEA: Validation of desorption model with experimental data. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2017, 5(5): 4693–4701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davis J, Rochelle G. Thermal degradation of monoethanolamine at stripper conditions. Energy Procedia, 2009, 1: 327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warudkar S S, Cox K R, Wong M S, Hirasaki G J. Influence of stripper operating parameters on the performance of amine absorption systems for post-combustion carbon capture: Part II. Vacuum strippers. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16: 351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amann J M G, Bouallou C. CO2 capture from power stations running with natural gas (NGCC) and pulverized coal (PC): Assessment of a new chemical solvent based on aqueous solutions of N-methyldiethanolamine + triethylene tetramine. Energy Procedia, 2009, 1: 909–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sterner M. Bioenergy and renewable power methane in integrated 100% renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, 2009, 14: 230Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanaâ Er-rbib
    • 1
  • Nouaamane Kezibri
    • 1
  • Chakib Bouallou
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Energy Efficiency of Systems, MINES ParisTechPSL Research UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations