Decarbonisation of steam crackers

A number of technologies are available to reduce the CO2 emissions from steam
crackers – from electrification and CCUS to electric furnaces

Jim Middleton
Technip Energies

Introduction
The majority of the worldwide production of Waste heat 5%
petrochemicals (PCs, e.g. ethylene, propylene, Generate high
butadiene and aromatics) originates from the steam pressure
steam
cracking process. As steam cracking is a thermal 20%
process, a significant amount of energy is used to Crack the feed
25%
manufacture the products.
Because of this, steam crackers are a significant Heat the feed
50%
emitter of CO2 in the chemical industry, and
chemicals represents the third largest direct source
of CO2 emissions in the industrial sector (after iron
& steel and cement).1
One estimate of worldwide CO2 emissions from Figure 1 Fired duty splits
steam crackers2 shows 198.7 million tonnes of CO2
in 2015, projected to increase to 264 million tonnes When electricity needs to be relied upon for
of CO2 in 2030, or a 33% increase (mid-range of decarbonisation of steam crackers, additional
estimate figures are quoted). Clearly, with the global considerations are the availability, reliability and
drive to reduce, and then minimise, industrial CO2 the actual carbon footprint of the power supply,
emissions, action is required. involving many local factors, not all of which may be
The objectives of the industry are twofold: clear at the time the project final investment decision
to reduce or capture CO2 emissions from the (FID) is being made.
conventional steam cracking process and to seek
alternative technologies with lower CO2 footprints. Reduction of CO2 from cracking furnaces
Modern steam crackers are well optimised and The furnace fired duty splits approximately as
integrated, such that almost all the fuel gas fired shown in Figure 1 in a liquid cracking furnace.
in the furnaces is generated from the process. Of this duty, the amount used to crack the feed
In addition, high pressure steam is generated has to be provided by firing fuel, but the other duties
from the waste heat from the furnaces, which can be reduced by energy optimisation, resulting in
is used to drive the main compressors and for minimised fuel firing.
process heating. The fired duty, and consequently the CO2
The reduction of CO2 emissions from the cracker emissions, can be reduced by 20-40%, the maximum
means replacing the methane fuel from the reduction being achieved by Technip Energies’
process with alternative lower carbon fuels, such patented3,4 Low CO2 Furnace design (see Figure 2).
as hydrogen or electrical heating. While the CO2
emissions from the furnaces can be reduced to zero Firing hydrogen
by using 100% hydrogen or electricity for heating, Complementary to the reduction of firing is
the CO2 footprint associated with the generation increasing the hydrogen content of the fuel gas. As
of the hydrogen or electricity has to be carefully the burning of hydrogen does not generate CO2, this
evaluated, as these can exceed the CO2 footprint is a relatively easy way of reducing the CO2 emitted
from burning the methane fuel. from the cracker. The impact on the furnace burners

20 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
and performance is being developed and studied
(burning hydrogen is likely to result in shorter,
hotter, flames, which, combined with a reduced flue
gas flow rate, results in reduced steam production
from the furnaces and lower radiant section inlet
temperatures). Also, some types of burners are not
well suited to burning high hydrogen fuels.
Hydrogen can either be generated from the
fuel gas generated in the cracker by reforming or
imported from outside the cracker. Hydrogen from
outside the cracker would normally be generated
by electrolysis. Currently, the most mature
electrolysis technology is alkaline electrolysis (AE).
Taking the AE technology as an example, Table 1
provides a comparison between hydrogen from
electrolysis and hydrogen from SMR reforming
the cracker fuel gas. The data is for a 1,500 kTA
ethylene liquid cracking plant. The AE estimated
figures are based on the data from Reference 8,
supplying 100% pure hydrogen to provide the
same heat duty as the hydrogen from an SMR
reformer converting the fuel gas.
It can be seen from the figures in Table 1 that:
• By all measures (Opex, Capex, CO2 emissions, Figure 2 Technip Energies’ Low CO2 Furnace
power consumption) reforming provides a better Design
solution than currently available electrolysis
technology • The Capex for electrolysis is currently very high;
• Electrolysis consumes a large amount of however, this is predicted to decrease in the period
electricity, which can represent a considerable 2021-2050
operating cost • For electrolysis, the CO2 footprint of the cracker

Parameter Source of hydrogen

Alkaline electrolysis SMR (blue H2)

Quantity of hydrogen, t/h (Nm3/h) 29.9 (332,500) 29.9 (332,500)a

Technical cost of hydrogen, $/kg 3.6 0.33
Electrical power, GWh 1.6 0.02
Capex, $bn 1.7 0.4
CO2 from electricity @ 376 tCO2e/GWh, MMt/year 4.70 0.11
CO2 from electricity @ 26 tCO2e/GWh, MMt/year 0.33 0.04

Parameter Cracker + AE Cracker + SMR

Tonnes of CO2/t HVC @ 376 tCO2e/GWh electricityb, tCO2e/tHVC 1.72 0.24
Tonnes of CO2/t HVC @ 26 tCO2e/GWh electricityc, tCO2e/tHVC 0.21 0.12

Notes: a. Figure given is for the contained hydrogen in the SMR product. Total heat value of SMR product is the same as that of the
hydrogen from electrolysis.
b. 376 tCO2e/GWh electricity is the basis used for the calculation of cracker CO2 footprints for comparison with the benchmark in
the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
c. 26 tCO2e/GWh electricity is the average value for electricity generated from wind or hydroelectric9

Table 1 CO2, Capex and Opex figures for hydrogen from electrolysis and reforming

www.decarbonisationtechnology.com 21
is only reduced if very low CO2 electricity is Technip Energies believes a better solution than
available i.e. green hydrogen. As the cracker fuel importing hydrogen generated from electrolysis is
gas is no longer used in the furnaces, the fuel gas to convert the cracker fuel gas to a high hydrogen
is now surplus stream, by steam methane reforming (SMR) or
• For 376 tCO2e/GWh electricity, the CO2 footprint auto thermal reforming (ATR). Technip Energies’
of the electricity consumed by the electrolyser plus BlueH2 proprietary technology minimises the
the cracker is greater than the CO2 emitted by the energy consumed in the reformer, generates no
Source 1 and 2 emissions, when the steam cracker additional steam, and includes capture of the CO2.
is firing methane fuel (1.72 vs 0.63 tCO2e/t HVC) Capture of the CO2 from the cracker fuel gas is more
• For 376 tCO2e/GWh electricity, the CO2 footprint economical if it is carried out at the outlet of the
of the steam cracker with reformer is 62% less than reformer, rather than from the reforming furnace
the steam cracker without reforming the fuel gas flue gas, as the pressure at the reformer outlet
(0.24 vs 0.63 tCO2e/t HVC) is higher, and the equipment can be made much
• For 26 tCO2e/GWh electricity, the CO2 footprint smaller, significantly reducing the capital cost.
of the steam cracker with reformer is 81% less than
the steam cracker without reforming the fuel gas Electrification
(0.12 vs 0.63 tCO2e/t HVC) As noted above, when the fired duty of the furnaces
The amount of hydrogen fired should be is reduced, one of the main consequences is a
minimised, by reducing the firing in the furnaces, reduction in the amount of high-pressure steam
as described above. This minimises the hydrogen generated. Consequently, there is unlikely to be
imported to the plant, or makes more hydrogen sufficient steam to drive the main compressors in
available from reformed fuel gas. the steam cracker. This leads to the use of electric
Importing hydrogen leaves a surplus of fuel motor drivers for the compressors, or ‘electrification’
gas generated in the cracker, which is primarily of the cracker.
methane. This fuel gas can be used for power The use of electric motors as drivers for the main
generation, but this generates CO2 and only steam cracker compressors is not new. Technip
improves the overall CO2 footprint of the cracker if Energies has four reference plants (three grassroots,
imported electricity has a higher CO2 footprint than one revamped) where electric motors are used to
the electricity generated from the cracker fuel gas. drive at least two of the three main compressors.
These plants were designed this way to take
Base Electrified advantage of the low cost electricity then available
cracker in certain countries.
The main challenges with electrifying steam
Furnace firing duty, MW 1281 995 crackers are:
VHP boiler firing duty, MW - - • Experience with electric motors and variable
MP boiler firing duty, MW - 44 speed drives (VSDs) at the powers required for
Fuel gas available, t/h 91 91 modern world-scale steam crackers (Technip
Natural gas importa, t/h ~2 ~2 Energies makes reference to its experience in other
Excess fuel gas, t/h 5.9 25 industries in which it is a leader, such as LNG)
t of CO2/t of HVCb 0.63 0.55 • Avoidance of harmonic resonance between motor
t of CO2/t of HVCc 0.62 0.48 drivers and compressors
• Influence on the electrical supply grid of stopping
Notes: a. Natural gas import retained for furnace and and starting large motors
flare pilots • Maintaining compressor efficiencies and speeds
b. Based on ISBL firing and electric import at 376 t of when motors are retrofitted
CO2/GWh (Standard EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• Accommodating VSD equipment and filters
[ETS] figure)
c. Based on ISBL firing and electric import at 26 t of
(if required) within plot areas which are close to
CO2/GWh (wind/hydroelectric power) the motors
Choices need to be made about how many and
Table 2 Comparison of utility and CO2 figures for a which compressors to electrify. These depend
base and electrified 1500 kTA liquid cracker mainly on the amount of high-pressure steam

22 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
 1
0.9
0.8 Electricity with a CO2
0.7 footprint in the range
0.12-0.15 tCO2e / MWh
t CO2/MWh

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ca

nd

ud bi a

Cz Chi ia
Ko h Re PR)

Re lic

Ar Me s
Em co

s
ta

Ar Italy

Cr a
Un Po tia

Ki al

De on

Sl r k

Fin ia

Ca d
da

itz ce

Ze d
d
ite lic

te

in

n
an
b

ak
a
al
at
a ( ub
ri

Sw ran
ab xi

oa

na
d
la

la

Ne erla
U n pub

ira

nt

ite rtu
ra

nm
Sa Ser
Af

M
ec na

al
ng

ov
St
Po

p
iA

ge

F
h

d
ut

w
d
So

re

d
ite
Un

Figure 3 CO2 footprint for electricity

available and the required compressor speeds required, the CO2 footprint of the electricity, and
and efficiencies. the effect on the electricity grid of start-up and
A key consideration when electrifying crackers is shutdown of the cracker.
the CO2 footprint of the electricity available to the A simple example of an ethane cracking furnace
plant. The CO2 reduction benefits of electrification illustrates the importance of the electricity
are only fully realised when the electricity available supply on the use of this technology to reduce
is primarily from renewable sources. Table 2 gives CO2 emissions:
example figures for a 1500 kTA liquid cracker from • Flue gas emissions firing 80 mol% hydrogen,
a paper presented by Technip Energies at the 2021 20 mol% methane fuel (typical fuel for an ethane
Ethylene Producer’s Conference.5 cracking plant without hydrogen extraction) =
From Table 2, the reduction in CO2 emissions 10.3 t/h CO2
based on the EU ETS standard CO2 footprint for • Electrical power required to provide absorbed
imported electricity is 11% and, based on the CO2 radiant duty only = 69-86 MW (range depends on
footprint for imported electricity from wind and electrical conversion efficiency)
hydroelectric sources, is 23%. The above figures • CO2 emissions required for power supply to
are not based on Technip Energies’ Low CO2 give the same CO2 emissions as firing 80 mol%
Furnace, which can provide a further reduction in hydrogen fuel gas = 0.15-0.12 TCO2e/MWh
CO2 emissions. The required CO2 footprint for the electricity
The reduction in fuel firing may result in a supply to the site compared to the current CO2
reduction in fuel gas import or a surplus of fuel gas footprint for grid electricity for various countries is
for export, depending on the feeds cracked and the shown in Figure 3.7 Over time, the CO2 footprint
plant configuration. for electricity should decrease, with the phasing
out of coal firing and increased use of renewables.
Electric furnaces Nevertheless, it is clear that to substantially
The use of electricity, instead of firing fuel, to reduce the CO2 emissions for the complete cracker
provide the heat for the reactions in the cracking footprint, it is necessary to source electricity with
furnaces is being investigated by a number of a very low CO2 footprint.
parties, including Technip Energies. The main issues Taking the above example of an ethane furnace,
with the use of electric furnace technology do not for a 1500 kTA ethane cracker, the amount of
concern how the heat is applied to the furnace coils power required to replace the fired absorbed
(although these techniques need to be developed radiant duty is approximately 560 MW. This does
and proven), but relate to the amount of electricity not include the additional 30-90 MWh required

www.decarbonisationtechnology.com 23
for electric motor drives for the compressors, as oilfield recovery or storage. These routes are only
the steam generation from the cracking furnaces accessible to certain plants, generally those located
is much reduced. 560 MW is approximately close to the sea and/or a now unused oil pipeline.
equivalent to the power consumption of 276,000 An alternative for captured CO2 is conversion to
average EU households. It is clear that start-up saleable products,6 such as methanol and ethanol
and shutdown of the plant represents a significant (which can be converted to olefins) and methane
impact on the power demand local to the site, (for export as fuel). Technip Energies anticipates
unless the site is provided with its own dedicated that these routes will be of most interest to cracker
power supply. operators, as these produce green products which
As the fuel gas generated in the ethylene plant fit with their existing product portfolios, customer
is not used in the furnaces, another use has to be base and infrastructure. The technologies are all at
found for this. early stages of development and only certain parts
are currently commercialised.
Carbon capture and storage/carbon capture and It should be noted that one of the main Capex and
utilisation (CCS/CCU) Opex items associated with a conventional CCS
Carbon capture (CC) has been proven in the power plant is the compressor to raise the CO2 to over 100
industry and can be applied to steam crackers. bar(g) for discharge to a pipeline for oilfield recovery
Apart from the use of high hydrogen content or storage. When the CO2 is used to make product,
fuels, CC is the only currently commercially proven much lower pressures are required and both Capex
technology which can achieve very high levels of and Opex can be reduced.
reduction of CO2 emissions from steam crackers. It should be noted that CC does not rely on having
Typically, CC can achieve 90-95% CO2 removal. The low CO2 electricity available to reduce the CO2
CO2 would be removed from the furnaces and, if emissions from the cracker, although the increased
required, the auxiliary boilers. utility demand for the CC plant should be met with
From studies carried out by Technip Energies, it as low a carbon footprint as possible.
is feasible to operate the steam cracker without Application of CC does not result in an increase in
the CC plant, therefore the operation and start-up surplus fuel gas from the cracker.
of the steam cracker should not be affected by the Associated with CC is oxycombustion, which is
addition of the CC plant. the firing of the cracker fuel with oxygen rather than
It is straightforward to design a new steam air, in the furnaces and possibly the boilers. The
cracker with future provision for installation of CC. advantage of oxycombustion is that it can eliminate
The main requirements are: the need for the carbon capture plant, as most of
• Provision of tie-in connections on furnace and the nitrogen is removed from the flue gas. Some
boiler stacks purification of the CO2 is required to meet typical
• Provision of plot space for the CC plant, as close specifications for CO2 used for oilfield recovery.
as possible to the furnaces and boilers, to minimise In order to fit oxycombustion into conventional
the length of the flue gas ducting cracking furnace designs, it is necessary to
• Provision of space for the flue gas ducting and re-circulate flue gas to the furnace burners, to
support on furnace and boiler structures reduce the high flame temperature and provide an
In addition to the above points, the utilities adequate volume of flue gas for heat transfer in the
requirements of the CC unit should be considered furnace convection sections. Consideration also
when the cracker is designed. Whether or not pre- has to be given to the start-up of the furnaces and
investment is made in the cracker, to allow for the the cracker, when a transition will need to be made
future utilities requirements of the CC unit, needs between ambient combustion air and oxygen.
to be decided on a case-by case basis. Where Use of oxycombustion requires an air separation
such investments can be made for relatively low plant to produce the oxygen. The air separation
incremental Capex, and future expansion could plant has a significant Capex and its own CO2
be very expensive or disruptive to operations (e.g. footprint. Application of oxycombustion requires
cooling water intakes and water treatment plants), the development of burner designs to fire
then pre-investment may be justified. oxygen, and the associated modifications to the
The conventional routes for captured CO2 are for furnace design.

24 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
 Technology CO2 reduction Surplus Estimated Remarks
achievable fuel gas date of commercialisation

Firing hydrogen 65-85% No Now Requires a route to use CO2,

from reforming CO2 reduction depends on CO2
footprint of electricity

Firing hydrogen 0-70% Yes Depends on progress CO2 reduction depends on

from electrolysis in cost reduction CO2 footprint
and increases in size of electricity
of electrolysers

Electrification 10-25% Yes (depending Now Requires a low CO2 source

on cracker of electricity
Low CO2 furnace 30-40% feed slate/ 2023
configuration)

Electric furnaces 0-90% Yes 2025 CO2 reduction depends on CO2
footprint of electricity

Carbon capture 90-95% No Now Requires a route to use CO2

and storage/utilisation

Table 3 Summary of CO2 reduction techniques

Surplus fuel gas Summary

The ethylene cracking process typically The above CO2 reduction techniques are
generates most of the fuel required for the summarised in Table 3.
furnaces. For gas cracking plants, some
imported fuel gas may be required, whereas Conclusions
liquid cracking plants typically export A range of possible solutions to reduce the CO2
fuel gas. As noted above, for several CO2 emissions from steam crackers has been discussed.
reduction solutions, the reduced fuel gas Technip Energies believes that a variety of solutions
firing within the cracker results in surplus is appropriate, because of different conditions
fuel gas. The fuel gas will typically contain worldwide, in particular the availability of large
10-80 mol% hydrogen, depending on the quantities of reliable, low CO2 electricity, different time
feeds cracked. scales for implementation of projects, the different
The surplus fuel gas can be used for power considerations of new build plants and revamps, and
generation in a combined cycle gas turbine the early stage of development of some technologies.
(CCGT), which may generate power with a Both CC and hydrogen firing can be retrofitted to
lower CO2 footprint than the local power grid existing crackers with relatively few modifications, as
and the power could be used to power an the new plant construction is alongside the cracker.
electrified cracker. However, CO2 is still emitted, Both technologies can be applied to not only the
unless CC is added to the CCGT. cracker, but other plants in a complex, such as an
Fuel gas can be converted to products; adjacent refinery.
however, the available technologies are
not fully commercialised and/or have a low References
product yield. 1 The Future of Petrochemicals – International
Technip Energies believes the best solution Energy Agency, 2018.
is to convert the fuel gas to a high hydrogen 2 Plastic & Climate – The Hidden Costs of a Plastic
product in a reformer, as described above. Planet, CIEL (Center for International Environmental

www.decarbonisationtechnology.com 25
Law) and others, 2019. 8 DNV Technology Progress Report 2021.
3 Patent WO 2021/052642 A1, Cracking Furnace 9 WNA report: Comparison of Lifecycle
System and Method for Cracking Hydrocarbon Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity
Feedstock Therein. Generation Sources (2011).
4 AICHe Paper 617345 - Low-emission cracking
furnace, AICHe 2021 Spring National Meeting, Jim Middleton
Apr 2021. [email protected]
5 AICHe Paper 618398 - The end of the steam
age? AICHe 2021 Spring National Meeting, Apr
2021. LINKS
6 Putting CO2 to Use, International Energy
More articles from the following categories:
Agency, Sept 2019. Decarbonisation of Petrochemicals
7 Carbon Footprint, Country Specific Electricity Emissions Reduction
Grid Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors, Jun 2020.

26 www.decarbonisationtechnology.com