A comprehensive technical study has evaluated four competing pathways for producing hydrogen from biogas—a renewable feedstock increasingly viewed as critical to decarbonizing hard-to-abate industrial sectors. The research applies a unified assessment framework to steam reforming (SR), dry reforming (DR), partial oxidation (POX), and autothermal reforming (ATR), eliminating the inconsistent assumptions that have historically clouded head-to-head comparisons in academic literature.
Using thermodynamic modeling, lifecycle carbon accounting, and levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) analysis, the study found steam reforming delivers the strongest overall performance. It achieves the highest hydrogen yield, best energy efficiency, lowest production cost, and smallest carbon footprint across the pathway lifecycle. Dry reforming, despite its theoretical advantage of consuming CO2 as feedstock, proved economically unattractive due to high capital requirements and significant catalyst deactivation risk.
Monte Carlo uncertainty quantification across 10,000 iterations and multi-parameter sensitivity testing revealed that plant scale and capacity factor dominate cost outcomes. Smaller, part-load facilities face substantially higher hydrogen costs than large, continuously operated facilities—a critical insight for distributed biogas producers considering on-site hydrogen generation.
A central finding underscores current market barriers: biogas-derived hydrogen remains cost-prohibitive versus conventional gray hydrogen produced from natural gas. Closing this gap requires three enabling factors: development of robust catalysts tolerant to biogas impurities that damage conventional materials; optimization of thermal integration between biogas combustion and reforming reactions; and verified lifecycle carbon accounting that transparently quantifies emissions reductions relative to baseline gray hydrogen production.
The authors stress that policy support—whether through carbon pricing, low-carbon hydrogen mandates, or investment tax credits—will likely prove decisive for commercializing biogas reforming. The unified framework itself is offered as a tool for future pathway evaluations, allowing consistent benchmarking as technology matures and cost structures evolve.
