Integration of Cu–Cl Cycle of Hydrogen Production with Nuclear and Renewable Energy Systems for Better Environment

  • Seyedali AghahosseiniEmail author
  • Ibrahim Dincer
  • Greg F. Naterer


Process integration opportunities for the Cu–Cl cycle of hydrogen production with nuclear and renewable energy sources are investigated. The advantages and disadvantages of each system are studied, and the cost of hydrogen production is analyzed and compared for various cases. In order to evaluate the environmental performance of the integrated hydrogen production systems, an environmental impact assessment of the proposed systems with a focus on the amount of CO2 emission is conducted and compared.


Hydrogen production Cu–Cl cycle Renewable energy systems Nuclear energy Process integration Cost analysis CO2 emission Environment 


\( \dot{e}x \)

Exergy content (kJ/kg)


Lower heating value (kJ kg−1)

\( \dot{m} \)

Mass flow rate (kg s−1)

\( \dot{Q} \)

Heat rate (kW)


Temperature (K)


Reference temperature (K)

\( \dot{W}e \)

Electric power (kW)


Energy efficiency


Exergy efficiency


  1. 1.
    Elder R, Allen R (2009) Nuclear heat for hydrogen production: coupling a very high/high temperature reactor to a hydrogen production plant. Progr Nucl Energy 51:500–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Orhan MF (2011) Conceptual design, analysis and optimization of nuclear-based hydrogen production via copper-chlorine thermochemical cycles. PhD thesis, FEAS, UOIT, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirsch RL, Bezdek R, Wendling R (2005) Peaking of world oil production: impacts, mitigation, and risk management. In Proceedings of the IV International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion, pp 19–20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth assessment report. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schiermeier Q, Tollefson J, Scully T, Witze A, Morton O (2008) Electricity without carbon. Nature 454(7206):816–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dincer I, Kanoglu M, Rosen MA (2008) Role of exergy in increasing efficiency and sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Energy Policy 36:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strong MF (1992) Energy, environment and development. Energy Policy 20:490–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lior N (2008) Energy resources and use: the present situation and possible paths to the future. Energy 33:842–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartly DL (1990) Perspectives on renewable energy and the environment. In: Tester JW, Wood DO, Ferrari NA (eds) Energy and the environment in the 21st century. MIT, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dincer I (2000) Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 4:157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Energy Agency (2009) World energy outlook. Organization of Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Energy Agency (2009) Energy technology perspectives. Organization of Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aghahosseini S, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2011) Integrated gasification and Cu-Cl cycle for trigeneration of hydrogen, steam and electricity. Int J Hydrogen Energ 36:2845–2854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis Michele A, Masin Joseph G, O’Hare PA (2009) Evaluation of alternative thermochemical cycles, Part I: the methodology. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(9):4115–4124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewis MA, Ferrandon MS, Tatterson DF, Mathias P (2009) Evaluation of alternative thermochemical cycles e Part III further development of the Cu-Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(9):4136–4145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naterer G, Suppiah S, Lewis M, Gabriel K, Dincer I, Rosen MA et al (2009) Recent Canadian advances in nuclear-based hydrogen production and the thermochemical Cu-Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(7):2901–2917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stolberg L, Boniface H, Suppiah S, York S., Naterer G, Dincer I (2009) (eds.) In: Proceedings of the International conference on hydrogen production. pp. 167, Oshawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadhankar RR, Li J, Li H, Ryland D, Suppiah S (2005) Hydrogen generation using high-temperature nuclear reactors. In: 55th Canadian chemical engineering conference, Toronto, Ontario, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rezaie B, Esmailzadeh E, Dincer I (2011) Renewable energy options for buildings: case studies. Energy Build 43:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Natural resource Canada (2011) Energy efficiency trends in Canada 1990 to 2009, Cat. No. M141-1/2009E-PDF, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Environment Canada (2010) Overview of the reported greenhouse gas emissions 2009, Cat. No. En81-6/1-2009E-PDF, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evans A, Evans T (2010) Comparing the sustainability parameters of renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel electricity generation technologies. In: World Energy Council for Sustainable Energy, Congress Papers, Montréal, vol. 27. p. 2011Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Owen AD (2006) Renewable energy: externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy 34:632–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ansolabehere S, Deutch, J et al (2003) The future of nuclear power, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    International Energy Agency (2006) Geothermal energy annual report 2005Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ito M, Kato K et al (2003) A preliminary study on potential for very large-scale photovoltaic power generation (VLS-PV) system in the Gobi desert from economic and environmental viewpoints. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells 75(3–4):507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mock JE, Tester JW et al (1997) Geothermal energy from the earth: its potential impact as an environmentally sustainable resource. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:305–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sims REH, Rogner HH et al (2003) Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy Policy 31(13):1315–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andersson BA, Jacobsson S (2000) Monitoring and assessing technology choice: the case of solar cells. Energy Policy 28(14):1037–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jungbluth N, Bauer C et al (2005) Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case studies for photovoltaic and wind power. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fthenakis V, Alsema E (2006) Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004-early 2005 status. Progr Photovolt Res Appl 14(3):275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Energy Information Agency, E. I. A. (2007) International Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Souliotis M et al (2005) Energy, cost and LCA results of PV and hybrid PV/T solar systems. Progr Photovolt Res Appl 13(3):235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dudhani S, Sinha AK et al (2006) Renewable energy sources for peak load demand management in India. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 28(6):396–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    El-Kordy MN, Badr MA et al (2002) Economical evaluation of electricity generation considering externalities. Renew Energy 25(2):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pacca S, Horvath A (2002) Greenhouse gas emissions from building and operating electric power plants in the upper Colorado River Basin. Environ Sci Technol 36(14):3194–3200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    United Nations Development Program, U. N. D. P. (2000) World energy assessment energy and the challenge of sustainabilityGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Armannsson H, Fridriksson T et al (2005) CO2 emissions from geothermal power plants and natural geothermal activity in Iceland. Geothermics 34(3):286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brown MT, Ulgiati S (2002) Emergy evaluations and environmental loading of electricity production systems. J Cleaner Prod 10(4):321–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Denholm P, Kulcinski GL et al (2005) Emissions and energy efficiency assessment of baseload wind energy systems. Environ Sci Technol 39(6):1903–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2007) Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: a life-cycle study. Energy Policy 35(4):2549–2557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kato K, Murata A et al (1997) An evaluation on the life cycle of photovoltaic energy system considering production energy of off-grade silicon. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells 47(1–4):95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meier P (2002) Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and applications for climate change policy analysis. PhD dissertation, College of Engineering. University of Wisconsin, Madison. p. 161.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Proops JLR, Gay PW et al (1996) The lifetime pollution implications of various types of electricity generation—an input-output analysis. Energy Policy 24(3):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spadaro J, Langlois L et al (2000) Assessing the difference: greenhouse gas emissions of different electricity generating chains. IAEA Bull 42(2):19–24Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Uchiyama Y (2007) Life cycle assessment of renewable energy generation technologies. IEEJ Trans Electr Electron Eng 2(1):44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vattenfall (2004) Summary of Vattenfall AB’s certified environmental product declaration of electricity from the nuclear power plant at Ringhals. Environmental product declarationGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sadhankar RR, Li J, Li H, Ryland DK, Suppiah S (2006) Future hydrogen production using nuclear reactors. Ottawa: Engineering Institute of Canada - Climate Change Technology Conference, May, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sadhankar RR (2006) Leveraging nuclear research to support hydrogen economy. In: 2nd green energy conference, Oshawa, June, Canada.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosen MA, Naterer GF, Sadhankar R, Suppiah S (2006) Nuclear-based hydrogen production with a thermochemical copper-chlorine cycle and supercritical water reactor. Quebec: Canadian Hydrogen Association Workshop, October 19–20Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Naterer GF et al (2011) Clean hydrogen production with the Cu-Cl cycle - Progress of international consortium. I: Experimental unit operations. Int J Hydrogen Energ. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijhydene.2011.08.012 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Orhan MF, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2008) Cost analysis of a thermochemical Cu-Cl pilot plant for nuclear-based hydrogen production‖. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33:6006–6020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Aghahosseini S, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2011) Environmental impact assessment of sustainable hydrogen, steam and electricity trigeneration through integrated gasification and Cu-Cl cycle. Proceedings of the global conference on global warming, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chukwu C, Naterer GF, Rosen M (2008) Process simulation of nuclear-produced hydrogen with a Cu-Cl cycle. 29th conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 1–4.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Naterer GF, Gabriel K, Wang Z, Daggupati V, Gravelsins R (2008) Thermochemical hydrogen production with a copper-chlorine cycle. I: oxygen release from copper oxychloride decomposition. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33(20):5439–5450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    El-Halwagi MM (1997) Pollution prevention through process integration: systematic design tools. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Linnhoff B, Hindmarsh E (1983) The pinch design method for heat exchanger networks. Chem Eng Sci 38:745–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Papoulias SA, Grossmann IE (1983) A structural optimization approach in process synthesis II. Heat recovery networks. Comp Chem Eng 7:707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cerda J, Westerberg D, Mason D, Linhoff B (1983) Minimum utility usage in heat-exchanger network synthesis: a transportation problem. Chem Eng Sci 38:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gundersen T, Naess L (1988) The synthesis of cost optimal heat exchanger networks: an industrial review of the state of the art. Comp Chem Eng 12(6):503–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shenoy UV (1995) Heat exchange network synthesis: process optimization by energy and resource analysis. Gulf Publishing Company, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dunn RF, El-Halwagi MM (1994) Selection of optimal VOC-condensation systems. Waste Manage 14:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dunn RF, El-Halwagi MM (1994) Optimal design of multi-component VOC-condensation systems. J Hazard Mater 38:187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    El-Halwagi MM, Srinivas BK, Dunn RF (1995) Synthesis of heatinduced separation networks. Chem Eng Sci 50:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dunn RF, Zhu M, Srinivas BK, El-Halwagi MM (1995) Optimal design of energy-induced separation systems for VOC recovery. AIChE Symp Ser 90:74–85Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dincer I, Rosen MA (2007) Exergy: energy, environment and sustainable development. Elsevier, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kanoglu M (2002) Exergy analysis of a dual-level binary geothermal power plant. Geothermics 31(6):709–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    DiPippo R (2007) Ideal thermal efficiency for geothermal binary plants. Geothermics 36(3):276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zwart RWR, Boerrigter H (2005) High efficiency co-production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels from biomass. Energy Fuel 19(2):591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dickenson R, Biasca F, Schulman B, Johnson H (1997) Refiner options for converting and utilizing heavy fuel oil. Hydrocarbon Process 76(2)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyedali Aghahosseini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ibrahim Dincer
    • 1
  • Greg F. Naterer
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Applied ScienceUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering and Applied ScienceMemorial UniversitySt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations