Green hydrogen at scale

Refineries face growing pressure to decarbonise and reduce their carbon footprint due to both tightening environmental regulations and shifting market economics. In this sector, traditional steam methane reforming (SMR) remains the dominant method of industrial hydrogen (H₂) production. This process emits an estimated 9 - 12 kg of CO₂ for every kg of H₂, which often makes it a major contributor to a facility’s overall carbon footprint.^1,2

Regulatory frameworks are tightening worldwide. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requires refineries and other large emitters to measure and disclose facility-level CO2 emissions, raising scrutiny on H2 produced through carbon-intensive pathways.³ At a global level, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap sets out a blueprint with H₂ demand projected to soar.⁴ Demand could increase by as much as 105 million t, with more than 200 million t forecast under the IEA’s Net-Zero Emissions (NZE) initiative. These projections highlight hydrogen’s pivotal role in the energy transition. In Europe, the Fit for 55 legislative package enshrines binding targets to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.⁵

These frameworks create both regulatory pressure and market momentum, signalling that carbon-intensive H₂ is becoming a liability while green H₂ emerges as both a compliance solution and growth opportunity. Green H₂, produced via renewable-powered electrolysis, can dramatically reduce lifecycle GHG emissions to about 1 kg CO2 per kg H2 from wind and up to 2.5 kg CO₂ per kg H₂ from solar, according to recent lifecycle assessment studies.^6,7,8,9

Despite these environmental advantages, the shift from pilot scale installations to industrial scale, certifiable green H₂ production faces multiple operational challenges. Operators must contend with the variability of renewable electricity supply, integration with existing combined heat and power (CHP) and grid infrastructures, the capital intensity of electrolyser deployment, the establishment of reliable demand-side contracts, and the implementation of transparent certification and traceability frameworks. Furthermore, production optimisation under dynamic market conditions, and ensuring interoperability across digital platforms, remain critical to achieve economic viability and regulatory compliance.

This article examines those challenges and how they can be addressed through combining digital simulation tools, real-time and multi-period optimisation, certification frameworks, and financial modelling. Together, these capabilities help bridge the gap between design and operation to ensure green H2 plants remain efficient, flexible, and competitive in rapidly evolving energy markets.

To read the full article and many more exclusive studies focusing on decarbonisation in the downstream sector, click the link here now.

References

1. CHO, H., STREZOV, V., and EVANS, T. J., ‘Environmental impact assessment of hydrogen production via steam methane reforming based on emissions data’, energy Reports, 8, 13585–13595, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.053.
2. ‘Towards hydrogen definitions based on their emissions intensity’, International Energy Agency, (2021). Retrieved from the IEA website.
3. ‘EPA Adopts Amended Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulations for the Oil and Gas Industry’, Practical Law, (2024). Westlaw.com https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Ibc078df50c9b11ef8921fbef1a541940/EPA-Adopts-Amended-Greenhouse-Gas-Reporting-Regulations-for-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry
4. NNABUIFE, S. G., OKO, E., KUANG, B., BELLO, A., ONWUALU, A. P., OYAGHA, S., and WHIDBORNE, J., The prospects of hydrogen in achieving net zero emissions by 2050: A critical review’, Sustainable Chemistry for Climate Action, 2, 100024 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scca.2023.100024
5. ‘Fit for 55 - the EU’s Plan for a Green Transition’, European Council. (2022). Consilium. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fit-for-55/
6. CETINKAYA, E., DINCER, I., & NATERER, G. F., ‘Life cycle assessment of various hydrogen production methods’, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(3), 2071–2080, (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.064.
7. JI, C., and WANG, L., ‘Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from renewable and fossil energy sources’, Energy, 219, 119556, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119556.
8. AYDIN, M. I., and DINCER, I., ‘An assessment study on various clean hydrogen production methods: Life-cycle impact analysis of renewable-based hydrogen production’, Energy, 245, 123090. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.123090.
9. GAN, L., ZHANG, X., and ZHANG, Z., ‘Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen production from wind and solar energy’, Frontiers in Energy Research, 12, 1473383, (2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1473383. 

Read the article online at: https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/special-reports/19012026/green-hydrogen-at-scale/