IEA/H2/TR-02/001

Hydrogen from Biomass

State of the Art
and
Research Challenges

Thomas A. Milne, Carolyn C. Elam and Robert J. Evans

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO USA

A Report for the International Energy Agency

Agreement on the Production and Utilization of Hydrogen
Task 16, Hydrogen from Carbon-Containing Materials

Table of Contents
Preface.

Executive Summary...

Routes to Hydrogen from Biomass.. 5

Introduction 5
Direct Production from Whole Biomass. 7
Gasification.. 7
Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation.....

Direct Solar Gasification.... 11

Miscellaneous Gasification Processes. 11
Biomass-Derived Synthesis Gas Conversion.. 12
Supercritical Conversion of Biomass.. 14
Biomass Pyrolysis to Hydrogen and Carbon or Methanol 17
Biological Conversion of Biomass to Hydrogen.... 17
Production of Storable Intermediates from Biomass Partial Conversion.... 18
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Pyrolysis Oils.. 18
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Methanol.

19

Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Ethanol. 21

Methane and Natural Gas to Hydrogen or Methanol by Direct Thermolysis 23
Pyrolysis to Hydrogen and Carbon... 25
Reforming of Methane (and Natural Gas) to Hydrogen. 28
Technoeconomic and Life Cycle Analysis of Biomass to Hydrogen. 28
Technoeconomic Assessments 28
Life Cycle Analyses... 28
Overviews of Hydrogen Production Pathways..... 28
Information on Country Programs.. 29

Promising Areas for Research, Development and Demonstration..... 30

Appendix: A: References to Technical sections. 33
Appendix: B: References to Major Sources of Biomass-to-Hydrogen Information.. 72
Acknowledgments... 78

Preface
This report is a review largely of thermochemical research studies for the formation of hydrogen
from whole biomass and stable intermediate products from biomass. The purpose of this report
is to serve as a baseline of the state of the art and to identify research opportunities that can be
conducted within a new Task of the International Energy Agencys (IEA) Programme on the
Production and Utilization of Hydrogen. This new Task, Task 16 Hydrogen from Carbon
Containing Materials, will begin work in early 2002. Subtask B addresses Biomass to
Hydrogen. The Task Leader is Elisabet Fjermestad Hagen, Norsk Hydro ASA, N-0246, Oslo,
Norway. Included in this report are references to the thermal gasification of biomass. These
were reviewed in cooperation with the IEA Bioenergy Programme, specifically the Gasification
Task - Suresh Babu, Task Leader. Suresh.Babu@gastechnology.org

Executive Summary
OVERVIEW
Approximately 95% of the hydrogen produced today comes from carbonaceous raw material,
primarily fossil in origin. Only a fraction of this hydrogen is currently used for energy purposes;
the bulk serves as a chemical feedstock for petrochemical, food, electronics and metallurgical
processing industries. However, hydrogens share in the energy market is increasing with the
implementation of fuel cell systems and the growing demand for zero-emission fuels. Hydrogen
production will need to keep pace with this growing market.
In the near term, increased production will likely be met by conventional technologies, such as
natural gas reforming. In these processes, the carbon is converted to CO2 and released to the
atmosphere. However, with the growing concern about global climate change, alternatives to
the atmospheric release of CO2 are being investigated. Sequestration of the CO2 is an option
that could provide a viable near-term solution.
Reducing the demand on fossil resources remains a significant concern for many nations.
Renewable-based processes like solar- or wind-driven electrolysis and photobiological water
splitting hold great promise for clean hydrogen production; however, advances must still be
made before these technologies can be economically competitive. For the near- and mid-term,
generating hydrogen from biomass may be the more practical and viable, renewable and
potentially carbon-neutral (or even carbon-negative in conjunction with sequestration) option.
Recently, the International Energy Agencys (IEA) Program on the Production and Utilization of
Hydrogen launched its new Task 16, Hydrogen from Carbon-Containing Materials, to bring
together international experts to investigate some of these near- and mid-term options for
producing hydrogen with reduced environmental impacts. In addition to large-scale fossil-based
production with carbon sequestration and production from biomass, small-scale reforming for
distributed generation is included in the activity.
This review of the state of the art of hydrogen production from biomass was prepared to
facilitate in the planning of work that should be done to achieve the goal of near-term hydrogen
energy systems. We describe the relevant technologies that convert biomass to hydrogen, with
emphasis on thermochemical routes. In evaluating the viability of the conversion routes, each
must be put in the context of the availability of appropriate feedstocks and deployment
scenarios that match hydrogen to the local markets. Co-production opportunities are of
particular interest for near-term deployment since multiple products improve the economics;
however, co-product development is not covered in this report.
We do not discuss the nature of the biomass feedstock, but any economically viable process
must be closely linked to the characteristics of the locally available materials and appropriately
sized for the supply. Relevant feedstock qualities are: cost, distribution, mass, and physical and
chemical characteristics. All of these qualities must be considered when matching feedstock
with conversion technology. Biomass feedstocks vary greatly in both composition and form.
Both moisture and energy content are key parameters in the evaluation of biomass and also
lead to a number of engineering considerations that must be addressed. Since biomass is low
in density, the transportation costs for both the feedstock and the hydrogen must be balanced
with the savings from employing economy of scale. The distribution of hydrogen production
sites requires a decision on the transport of both the biomass and the hydrogen. These

characteristics will make it difficult to compete with natural gas steam reforming without credits
and has inhibited the implementation of commercial biomass systems to date.
The first task in biomass hydrogen development is to identify the optimum match of feedstock,
production technology, and end-use options. Techoeconomic comparisons are the only way to
make rational selection of appropriate research and development paths in this complex and rich
technical area. Regional perspectives will vary greatly and, hence, opportunities will be different
for Europe, N. America, Asia, and the developing regions of the world. These items are not
reviewed here, but they must guide the identification of research, development and
demonstration (R,D&D) needs (a selection of recent references is given below). (See IEA
Bioenergy Agreement Task 35, Techoeconomic assessments for Bioenergy Applications.)
Biomass has the potential to accelerate the realization of hydrogen as a major fuel of the future.
Since biomass is renewable and consumes atmospheric CO2 during growth, it can have a small
net CO2 impact compared to fossil fuels. However, hydrogen from biomass has major
challenges. There are no completed technology demonstrations. The yield of hydrogen is low
from biomass since the hydrogen content in biomass is low to begin with (approximately 6%
versus 25% for methane) and the energy content is low due to the 40% oxygen content of
biomass. Since over half of the hydrogen from biomass comes from spitting water in the steam
reforming reaction, the energy content of the feedstock is an inherent limitation of the process.
The yield of hydrogen as a function of oxygen content is shown in Figure 1.
45

Hydrocarbons

40

Lipids

Wt% H2 Yield

35
30

Wood

25

Glucose

20
15
10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wt. % Oxygen in Feedstock

Figure 1 - Theoretical yield of H2 as a function of the

oxygen content in the feed.
The low yield of hydrogen on a weight basis is misleading since the energy conversion
efficiency is high. For example, the steam reforming of bio-oil at 825C with a five-fold excess of
steam demonstrated in the laboratory has an energy efficiency of 56%.
However, the cost for growing, harvesting and transporting biomass is high. Thus, even with
reasonable energy efficiencies, it is not presently economically competitive with natural gas
steam reforming for stand-alone hydrogen without the advantage of high-value co-products.
Additionally, as with all sources of hydrogen, production from biomass will require appropriate
hydrogen storage and utilization systems to be developed and deployed.

Biomass conversion technologies can be divided into two categories: 1) direct production
routes and 2) conversion of storable intermediates. Direct routes have the advantage of
simplicity. Indirect routes have additional production steps, but have an advantage in that there
can be distributed production of the intermediates, minimizing the transportation costs of the
biomass. The intermediates can then be shipped to a central, larger-scale hydrogen production
facility. Both classes have thermochemical and biological routes. Figure 2 shows the
technologies that are reviewed in this report.

BioResource
Biological
Anaerobic
Digestion

Fermentation

Thermochemical
Metabolic
Processing

CH3CH2OH/CO2

Gasification

Reforming
Shift

Synthesis
Bio-shift
Reforming

Pyrolysis

CH4/CO2

CH1.4O.6

Reforming

Reforming

CH3OH/CO2

Shift

Photobiology

Pyrolysis

Severe

CH4/CO2

H2/CO

CH4/CO2

High Pressure
Aqueous

Shift

Reforming

Shift

Shift

Shift

H2/CO2

H2/CO2
H2/C

H2/CO2

H2/CO2 H2/CO2

H2/CO2

H2/O2

H2/CO2
H2/C

Figure 2 - Pathways from Biomass to Hydrogen.

Storable intermediates are shown in boxes.
A third area of hydrogen from biomass is metabolic processing to split water via photosynthesis
or to perform the shift reaction by photo biological organisms. The photo-biological production
of hydrogen is only briefly cited since it is an area of long-term research and is covered in a
separate IEA Task (IEA Hydrogen Agreement Task 15, Photobiological Production of
Hydrogen). The use of microorganisms to perform the shift reaction is of great relevance to
hydrogen production because of the potential to reduce carbon monoxide levels in the product
gas far below the level attained using water gas shift catalysts and, hence, eliminate final CO
scrubbing for fuel cell applications. The following serves as an introduction to the areas
reviewed in this report.

AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Promising areas for biomass to hydrogen conversion technology R,D&D are determined by the
range of available low cost biomass feedstocks and the markets for hydrogen in areas where
the feedstocks are available. The major areas for R,D&D are:

Feedstock preparation and feeding: For biological routes, pretreatment to increase

accessibility is an issue, and for thermochemical routes, there are major issues for the
preparation of the variety and nature of the feeds for high temperature and pressure
reactors.
Gasification gas conditioning: The key to hydrogen utilization is fuel cell applications,
so product purity requirements for the fuel cell will drive the gas purity requirements of all
production systems. In gasification, the presence of hydrocarbons and trace levels of
nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine compounds must be addressed, not only for end use
applications, but also for shift reaction catalysts and separation systems, such as pressure
swing adsorption.
System integration: The development of hydrogen technology depends on the
integration of several key steps that must be practiced at appropriate scales of operation.
Technical and economic analysis is required to match the optimum technology with
available feedstock to produce a product of the necessary quality for the target application.
Although biomass to hydrogen allows great flexibility in deployment, it also means a
greater array of technical possibilities must be covered.
Modular systems development: There is an opportunity for biomass systems to address
small-scale and remote applications. These systems will require novel conversion and gas
conditioning technologies and will also need to be designed appropriately for the resources
and technical expertise available in that region.
Valuable co-product integration: Appropriate systems for conversion of by-product
streams from chemical and biological processing of biomass are the best prospects for
near-term development.
Larger-scale demonstrations: The most promising technologies will need to be selected
at the larger-scale. These demonstrations will need to include successful utilization of the
hydrogen (i.e. in a fuel cell, internal combustion engine, turbine, etc).

These are in addition to the challenges for any hydrogen process in storage and utilization
technologies.
The technologies reviewed in this report will be discussed by international experts using the
following criteria:

Technical feasibility

Interest of the participating countries

Feedstock availability

Potential use for the hydrogen

Economic potential
Those identified by the experts as the most promising will be the subject of further review and/or
research under the new IEA Hydrogen Agreement Task 16, Hydrogen from Carbon Containing
Materials. Technoeconomic and life cycle analyses will be performed on select technologies in
the context of regional perspectives and to identify opportunities for further R,D&D.

Routes to Hydrogen from Biomass

INTRODUCTION
Direct Production of Hydrogen from Biomass
Gasification is a two-step process in which a solid fuel (biomass or coal) is thermochemically
converted to a low- or medium-energy-content gas. Natural gas contains 35 MJ/Nm3. Air-blown
biomass gasification results in approximately 5 mJ//M3; oxygen-blown in 15 mJ/m3. In the first
reaction, pyrolysis, the dissociated and volatile components of the fuel are vaporized at
temperatures as low as 600C (1100F). Included in the volatile vapors are hydrocarbon gases,
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, tar, and water vapor. Because biomass fuels tend
to have more volatile components (70-86% on a dry basis) than coal (30%), pyrolysis plays a
larger role in biomass gasification than in coal gasification. Gas phase thermal cracking of the
volatiles occurs, reducing the levels of tar. Char (fixed carbon) and ash are the pyrolysis byproducts that are not vaporized. In the second step, the char is gasified through reactions with
oxygen, steam, and hydrogen. Some of the unburned char may be combusted to release the
heat needed for the endothermic pyrolysis reactions.
Gasification coupled with water-gas shift is the most widely practiced process route for biomass
to hydrogen. Thermal, steam and partial oxidation gasification technologies are under
development around the world. Feedstocks include both dedicated crops and agricultural and
forest product residues of hardwood, softwood and herbaceous species.
Thermal gasification is essentially high severity pyrolysis although steam is generally present.
An example of this is the Sylvagas (BCL/FERCO) low-pressure, indirectly heated circulating
fluid bed.
Biomass + Energy ! CO + H2 + CH4 +.
By including oxygen in the reaction gas the separate supply of energy is not required, but the
product gas is diluted with carbon dioxide and, if air is used to provide the oxygen, then nitrogen
is also present. Examples of this are the GTI (formerly IGT) High-Pressure Oxygen-Blown
Gasifier, as well as the circulating fluid bed by TPS Termiska.
Biomass + O2 ! CO + H2 + CO2 + Energy
Other relevant gasifier types are bubbling fluid beds being tested by Enerkem, and the highpressure high-temperature slurry-fed entrained flow Texaco gasifier.
All of these gasifier examples will need to include significant gas conditioning, including the
removal of tars and inorganic impurities and the conversion of CO to H2 by the water-gas shift
reaction:
CO + H2O ! CO2 + H2
Significant attention has been given to the conversion of wet feedstocks by high-pressure
aqueous systems. This includes the supercritical-gasification-in-water approach by Antal and
coworkers as well as the supercritical partial oxidation approach by General Atomics.

Pyrolysis to hydrogen and carbon is being explored as a viable technology for carbon
sequestration although most work is applied to natural gas pyrolysis. Biomass or biomassderived intermediates could be processed in this way.
Biological conversion via anaerobic digestion is currently being practiced by workers around the
world resulting in methane that can be processed to hydrogen by conventional steam reforming
processes.
Storable Intermediates
Pyrolysis produces a liquid product called bio-oil, which is the basis of several processes for the
development of fuels, chemicals and materials. The reaction is endothermic:
Biomass + Energy ! Bio-oil + Char + Gas
The oil can be formed in 66 wt.% yields. Chornet and coworkers have developed the concept of
using the residual fractions of the oil for hydrogen after co-products have been produced.
Catalytic steam reforming of Bio-oil at 750-850C over a nickel-based catalyst is a two-step
process that includes the shift reaction:
Bio-oil + H2O ! CO + H2
CO + H2O ! CO2 + H2
The overall stoichiometry gives a maximum yield of 17.2 g H/100 g bio-oil (11.2% based on
wood).
CH1.9 O0.7 + 1.26 H2O ! CO2 + 2.21 H2
Regional networks of pyrolysis plants could be established to provide oil to a central steam
reforming facility. The process is compatible with other organic waste streams such as
aqueous-steam fractionation processes used for ethanol production and trap grease.
Methanol and ethanol can also be produced from biomass by a variety of technologies and used
for on-board reforming for transportation. Methane from anaerobic digestion could be reformed
along with natural gas. Methane could be pyrolyzed to hydrogen and carbon if markets for
carbon black were available.
Systems analysis has shown that biomass gasification / shift conversion is economically
unfavorable compared to natural gas steam reforming except for very low cost biomass and
potential environmental incentives. The pyrolysis with valuable co-product approach yields
hydrogen in the price range of $6 - $8/GJ, which is promising for near term applications.

DIRECT PRODUCTION FROM WHOLE BIOMASS

Gasification

Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation

This section briefly covers processes that will be addressed in detail in a new
cooperative Task of the IEA Bioenergy Agreement. It is included here for completeness
of the survey under the IEA Hydrogen Agreement Task 16, Hydrogen from CarbonContaining Materials. [Dr. Suresh Babu (USA) at the Gas Technology Institute can be
contacted for details of the IEA Bioenergy Agreements gasification-to-hydrogen plans.]
Consideration of hydrogen from carbonaceous materials has a long history in the
hydrogen literature. At the First World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Tsaros et al.
(1976) (USA) reported on three routes to hydrogen using sub-bituminous coal. (Their
ultimate goal was liquid fuels.) The processes considered were: (1) Koppers-Totzek; (2)
U-Gas and (3) Steam-iron. Hydrogen yields of 93-96% of theoretical were predicted.
Soo et al. (1978) (USA) present calculations and experimental data on steam processes
to convert coal to hydrogen. A large excess of steam (4 moles water to 1 mole carbon) at
1300C produces up to 90% hydrogen without the need for shift conversion. It was
claimed that their process is a better source of hydrogen than Hygas or Steam-iron.
Eliminating the need for pure oxygen renders this process superior to the large, Totzek
and Synthane processes. A technical note by Williams (1980) (USA) makes a case for
efficient hydrogen production from coal using centrifuge separation of hydrogen from
other gases following steam gasification at 1100-5000C. Recent advances in new
materials developed by the aerospace industry made it appear possible to develop such
a gaseous centrifuge.
The U-Gas process for producing hydrogen from coal is discussed by Dihu and Patel
(1983) (USA). U-Gas has been developed by IGT from over 50 years of coalconversion research. It comprises a single-stage, non-slagging, fluidized-bed gasifier
using oxygen or air. Pilot plant results and economic projections of the cost of hydrogen
are given. Pilot-scale experiments in the steam gasification of charred cellulosic waste
material are discussed in Rabah and Eddighidy (1986) (Egypt). The beneficial effects of
some inorganic salts, such as chlorides, carbonates and chromates, on the reaction rate
and production cost of hydrogen were investigated.
A large number of single research studies have appeared from 1981-2000, from
researchers in many countries around the world. Brief notes follow. McDonald et al.
(1981) (New Zealand) proposed extracting protein from grass and lucern and using the
residue for hydrogen production (among other fuels). Saha et al. (1982, 1984) (India)
reported using a laboratory-scale fluidized-bed autothermal gasifier to gasify
carbonaceous materials in steam. Further studies with agricultural wastes were planned.
Cocco and Costantinides (1998) (Italy) describe the pyrolysis-gasification of biomass to
hydrogen.
More-or-less conventional gasification of biomass and wastes has been employed with
the goal of maximizing hydrogen production. Researchers at the Energy and
Environmental Research Center at Grand Forks have studied biomass and coal catalytic
gasification for hydrogen and methane (Hauserman & Timpe, 1992, and Hauserman,

1992) (USA). A brief experimental effort is described to demonstrate that the pilot-scale
research on hydrogen production by catalytic coal gasification can be extended to wood.
The results show that the coal technology is fully transferable to wood, subject to minor
substitutions in feeding and solids handling components. Continuing work relating coal
and biomass gasification, gasification mechanisms, and plant operator costs are given in
Hauserman, (1994a) (USA). Two processes were compared using bench-scale methods
to predict the approach best suited to specific coals or biomass: 1) pyrolysis and
subsequent cracking and 2) steam char gasification. Either process can be greatly
enhanced by use of catalysts. Bench-scale methodology is given to determine
proportions of hydrogen and methane from pyrolysis and gasification reactions. In
Hauserman (1994b) (USA), gasification of coal or wood, catalyzed by soluble metallic
cations to maximize reaction rates and hydrogen yields, are said to offer a potential for
large-scale economical hydrogen production with near-commercial technology. Timpe et
al. (1996) (USA) continued studies at the bench and pilot-scale of wood and coal.
Catalyst screening shows that potassium-rich minerals and wood-ash provide the best
rate enhancement. Conditions of 700-800C and one atmosphere have produced
50 mole % of the gas as hydrogen. Dolomite and zeolites are effective in downstream
cracking of aerosols and tar droplets. Catalysis increases gasification rates 10-fold.
Relating catalytic coal or biomass gasification mechanisms to plant capital cost
components through bench-scale methodology is further discussed in Hauserman (1997)
(USA).
From 1994-1997, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory pursued
hydrogen production by gasification of municipal solid waste. Two government reports
(Pasternak et al., 1994, and Rogers, 1994) (USA) use computer models based on actual
Texaco coal plant design to predict economics and design for wastes. This cooperative
development by Texaco and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory explored physical
and chemical treatment methods necessary for the Texaco gasifier. Lab focus was on
pretreatment of municipal solid waste to prepare a slurry of suitable viscosity and heating
value for efficient hydrogen production. Hydrothermal treatment at 300C and mild dry
pyrolysis with subsequent slurrying were considered. Demonstration of the process in
the Texaco pilot facility was planned. In Richardson et al. (1995) (USA), initial laboratoryscale municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment results (e.g., viscosity, slurry solids
content) over a range of temperatures and for newspaper and plastics are covered.
Wallman et al. (1996) (USA) continued development of the Texaco gasification process
with emphasis on feed preparation. An MSW hydrothermal treatment pilot plant was
modified for batch operation. A slurry shearing pilot plant has been assembled for
particle size reduction. Products from a treatment at 275C were used at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory for laboratory studies and proved acceptable as slurries.
To date, pumpable slurries from an MSW surrogate mixture of treated paper and plastic
have shown heating values in the range of 13-15 MJ/kg. Wallman and Thorsness (1997)
(USA) extended process considerations to automobile shredder residues and other
plastic/rubber wastes. No experimental results were shown for the complete process.
The latest report on this approach available to us is Wallman et al. (1998) (USA), which
summarizes most of the above work in a refereed journal. For MSW, it is predicted that
thermal efficiency to hydrogen is 40-50%.
Pacific Northwest Laboratories studied the gasification of biomass to produce a variety of
gaseous fuels by use of appropriate catalysts. An early paper gives bench and pilotscale results for optimizing either methane or hydrocarbon synthesis gases from wood
(Weber et al., 1980) (USA). Much later, Cox et al., 1995 (USA), portray a new approach

to thermochemical gasification of biomass to hydrogen. The process is based on

catalytic steam gasification of biomass with concurrent separation of hydrogen in a
membrane reactor that employs a permselective membrane to separate the hydrogen as
it is produced. The process is particularly well suited for wet biomass and may be
conducted at temperatures as low as 300C. One study was conducted at 4000 psi and
450C, though most were at 15-30 psi. The process was named SepRx. Optimal
gasification conditions were found to be about 500C, atmospheric pressure and a
steam/biomass ratio equal to 10/1. In the presence of a nickel catalyst, hydrogen at 65%
(volume) was produced under these conditions.
A study of almond shell steam gasification in a fluidized bed revealed that, over the
range 500-800C, smaller particle size yielded more hydrogen than did higher
temperatures (Rapagna, 1996) (Italy). In a later report (Rapagna and Foscolo, 1998)
(Italy) catalytic steam gasification of biomass was studied in a bench-scale plant
containing a fluidized-bed gasifier and a secondary fixed-bed catalytic reactor. The
catalytic converter, using different steam reforming nickel catalysts and dolomite, was
tested over a range of 660-830C. Fresh catalyst at the highest temperature yielded 60%
by volume of hydrogen.
An assessment of hydrogen production technologies by McKinley et al. (1990) (USA)
concludes that biomass gasification is the most economical process for renewable
hydrogen production. In 1998, Turn et al. (USA) reported results from their bench-scale
fluidized-bed non-catalytic gasifier. For sawdust, the highest yield was obtained at a
reactor temperature of 825C, an equivalence ratio of 0.0 (no added oxygen) and a
steam-to-biomass ratio of 1.7. The yield was 78% of theoretical. Most recently Zhou et
al. (1999) (USA) assessed the effect of steam addition to a catalytic reformer operating
on biomass. It was found that adding steam to a nickel-catalyzed reactor downstream of
the biomass gasifier has a greater effect on gas quality than adding steam to the gasifier.
A commercial catalyst can be used to crack tar species and upgrade product-gas
composition with the addition of steam.
Demirbas et al. (1996) (Turkey) give conversion data for black liquor in a steam
gasification approach with and without catalysts. In Demirbas and Caglar (1998),
biomass and heavy oil residues are discussed. Demirbas (2001) presents results from
pyrolysis of several biomass samples. Pine sawdust is steam reformed in a fluid-bed
with and without a Ni-Al2O3 catalyst (Garcia et al. 1996, 1997) (Spain). Walcher et al.
(1996) (Germany) describes a plan to provide clean energy for the town of Bad
Bruckenau by steam reforming of natural gas and later by biomass. Production of
hydrogen and other fuels are forecast. Experiments were conducted with wastes from
vine, cotton and tobacco.
Kubiak et al. (1996) (Germany) report on the all-thermal gasification of biomass in a
fluidized bed reactor that is activated by steam fed from the bottom. The necessary heat
is delivered by a heat exchanger immersed into the fluidized bed. The temperature of the
gasification is limited and no slag is formed. Tests with biomass were performed at the
laboratory and kg-scale. Data are given for gasification of coke from biomass and
lignites.
In a series of proceedings, Bakhshi and associates (1999) (Canada) present results from
steam gasification of lignin, biomass chars and Westvaco Kraft Lignin to hydrogen and
high and medium Btu gas. Three lignins, Kraft-1, Kraft-2 and Alcell, were gasified at 600-

800C in a fixed bed with a steam flow rate of 10g/h/g of lignin. Hydrogen contents
ranged from 30-50 mol %. (Igbal et al. 1998) (Canada). Srinivas et al. (1998) (Canada)
applied the fixed-bed gasifiers to char from the bubbling fluidized-bed pyrolysis of
biomass to liquids (70 wt % liquid, 15% char). During zeolite upgrading of the oils,
another 10-20 wt % char is formed. These chars were gasified at 800C producing
85-95% conversion. One char produced a high-hydrocarbon gas while the other
produced a gas rich in hydrogen. Following this work, the same techniques and
conditions were used on straw, rice straw, Danish wheat straw, pine sawdust, pine
softwood, spruce/pine/fur mixtures, thermal, catalysts chars and Kraft-1 lignin from
spruce wood. Hydrogen yields at 800C ranged from 3 to 46.7 mole%. CH4 ranged from
22 to 49% (Bakhshi et al., 1999). In the latest reports (Chaudhari et al., 2000 and 2001,
and Ferdous et al 2001) (Canada) both pyrolysis in He and steam gasification were
carried out in a fixed-bed at 650-800C and with steam-flow ratios of 5, 10 and
15 g steam/g of Westvaco Kraft lignin. As expected, steam gasification yielded more
hydrogen than pyrolysis alone (hydrogen ranged from 31-62 mol%) and higher total gas
yields. Results for biomass-derived char are reported in Chaudhari et al. (2001)
(Canada).
Gallin-Ast (1999) (Germany) has a patent entitled Method and apparatus for production
of hydrogen, particularly high-purity hydrogen, during gasification of biomass. Midilli et
al. (2001) (U.K.) are studying the use of an air-blown, downdraft gasifier for hydrogen
from hazelnut shells. Naushkin et al. (1988) (Russia) review the feasibility of producing
hydrogen from biomass at temperatures of 700-800C on a (Ni)(Fe)/Al2O3 catalyst.
Thermodynamic calculations are given for the process conditions.
Steam gasification was intensely studied by Corella and others at the University of
Saragossa from 1984-1992 (Spain). Aznar et al. (1997) (Spain) discuss steam-oxygen
gasification of biomass for hydrogen production. Hydrogen vol. % yields as high as 57%
were reported using a secondary steam reformer. Results are reported in this paper for
three different CO-shift catalysts that increase the hydrogen to 70 vol. %. The Waterloo
Fast Pyrolysis Process technology carried out at 700C is used for the steam gasification
of pine sawdust. Using Ni-Al catalyst at a molar ratio of 1:2 showed catalyst reactivation
and high steam-to-biomass ratios diminished the rate of deactivation.
Hofbauer (2000) (Austria) is the coordinator of a project to develop a fluidized-bed
gasification process for a hydrogen-rich gas from biomass based on a dual bed with a
gasification zone and a combustion zone. The aim is to couple these gasifiers with a
phosphoric acid fuel cell. Lobachyov and Richter (1998) (USA) discuss integrating a
biomass gasifier with a molten fuel cell power system. A study of the gasification of
microalgae at 850C-1000C is described in Hirano et al. (1998) (Japan). Though the
goal was methanol, it is relevant if hydrogen is to be maximized instead of converted with
carbon monoxide to methanol. Caglar and Dimirbas (2001) (Turkey) use pyrolysis of tea
waste to produce hydrogen while Abedi et al (2001) (USA), are looking at hydrogen and
carbon from peanut shells. Finally, Hayashi et al. (1998) (Japan) discuss rapid steam
reforming of volatiles from the flash pyrolysis of coal. A review of tars from biomass
gasification is given in Milne et al (1998) (USA)

10

Direct Solar Gasification

In 1976, Antal et al. (USA) examined the feasibility of using solar process heat for the
gasification of organic solid wastes and the production of hydrogen. With a credit for the
wastes used, the economic projections were thought to be surprisingly favorable. Epstein
and Spiewak (1994) (Israel, Germany) give a detailed review, with many references, of
the technology for solar gasification of carbonaceous materials to produce a syngasquality intermediate for production of hydrogen and other fuels. Shahbazov and Usubov
(1996) (Azerbaijan) show good hydrogen yields from agricultural wastes using a
parabolic mirror reflector. Thermal decomposition samples were studied by the method
of derivative chromatographic analysis. In 1998, Rustamov et al., (Azerbaijan) studied
the thermo-catalytic reforming of cellulose and wood pulp using concentrated solar
energy. The possibility of obtaining hydrogen and carbon monoxide with temperatures of
700-750C on a Pt/Al2O3 catalyst is shown.
Midilli et al., (2000) (Turkey) present results of the use of a palladium diaphragm to
achieve solar assisted hydrogen separations from the gases generated by pyrolysis of
hazelnut shells at 500-700C. It was concluded that pure hydrogen gas could be
efficiently separated at membrane temperatures between 180-250C. Walcher et al
(1996) (Germany) mention a plan to utilize agricultural wastes in a heliothermic gasifier.

Miscellaneous Gasification Processes

Several novel heat sources and chemistries have been explored for hydrogen from
organic materials. Safrany (1971) (USA) proposed using a thermonuclear device to
vaporize waste organic materials in an underground, large-scale plasma process. He
predicted that hydrogen could be produced for considerably less than 1/lb. Needless to
say, this was never implemented.
In the 80s, two novel processes for hydrogen from carbonaceous materials were
presented. Thakur (1980) (India) tested the production of hydrogen by the electrolysis of
a mixture of coal, lime and water. The process was thought to hold promise. In 1981,
Otsuka and Takizawa (Japan) tested an open-cycle two-step process involving the
reduction of In2O3 by carbon (chars) and its reoxidation by water to produce hydrogen:
In2O3 + C(or 2C) In2O + CO2 (or 2 CO) T > 873K
In2O + 2H2O In2O3 + 2H2 T < 673K
K2CO3 was a good catalyst. Years later, Otsuka et al. (2001) (Japan) used indium and
iron oxide to produce hydrogen from methane without CO2 emissions. Epple (1996)
(Germany) was issued a patent (in German) for the electrolytic hydrogen recovery from
biomass using ultrasound
The Hls plasma-reforming process can be combined with further known process steps
for the production of hydrogen. The conditions and advantages are illustrated for coal.
Electrical energy is coupled into a gas by means of an electric arc (Kaske et al. 1986)
(Germany).

11

Antal (1974) (USA) proposed a set of biochemical reactions to decompose water into
hydrogen and oxygen using nuclear heat and a carbon cycle. Municipal waste was
suggested as a possible source of carbon. Algae could be a by-product.
Coughlin and Farooque (1979) (USA) showed that coals and other forms of solid
carbonaceous fossil fuels could be oxidized to oxides of carbon at the anode of an
electrochemical cell and hydrogen produced at the cathode. Gases produced are
discussed as a function of coal slurry concentration and electrode potential.
Sato and White (1980) (USA) shows that, by using a physical mixture of powdered
Texas lignite and platinized titania in the presence of water vapor and UV light, a
catalytic reaction to produce H2 and CO2 at 23C is achieved. Quantum yields were very
low, but improvements were thought to be possible.
Hydrogen production from coal conversion under high-power electric beams has been
studied with an 80 kW beam. Product formation rates, energy consumption and energy
storage in products were determined. A comparison with traditional coal conversion
methods was made (Yermakov et al., 1994) (Russia). Yermakov discussed preliminary
results for coal using an election accelerator as a radiation source (Yermakov et al.,
1988) (USSR).
Belghit and El Issami (2001) (Morocco) developed a theoretical model of a chemical
moving bed reactor for gasifying coal with steam. The heat is supplied by a hightemperature nuclear reactor.
Cypres (1987) (Belgium) discuss metallurgical processes for hydrogen production from
coal and other carbonaceous materials, including coal gasification in a molten iron bath.
An argument is made to place such gasifiers in the vicinity of steel manufacturing plants.

Biomass-Derived Synthesis Gas (Syngas) Conversion

Many processes discussed in this report involve the non-storable intermediates CO and
H2. Examples include the sponge iron process and conversion of syngas, from whatever
sources, to H2, CH4, CH3OH and hydrocarbon liquids. We list here just a few examples
and some general syngas references. The report by G. Mills, though it is aimed at
conversion of syngas to liquid energy fuels, should be useful (Mills, 1993) (USA).
Another major review of synthesis gas reactions is given in Wender, 1996 (USA). A
biological approach to water gas shift to hydrogen is under study at NREL. [See
references to Weaver, Maness and Wolfrum in the Biological section.]
Sponge Iron and Related Processes
The steam-iron process is one of the oldest commercial methods for the production of
hydrogen from syngas (patents in 1910 and 1913 are referenced). This study explores
different types of oxides of iron. Neither chemical composition nor porosity of the ores
was found to govern the efficiency. Potassium salts enhanced the activity of both natural
and synthetic oxides (Das et al., 1977) (India).
A number of recent studies have looked at the classical steam-iron (sponge-iron)
process for upgrading synthesis gas (mainly CO + H2) to pure hydrogen for use in fuel
cells and other energy devices.

12

Friedrich et al. (1995) (Austria and Canada) looked at this purification of nitrogen
containing reduction gas from a biomass gasifier using wood and wood wastes. The
process involves two steps in one: (1) cleaning of gas from solid biomass, coal or
methane and (2) energy storage in sponge iron. This study investigates woody biomass
and commercially available sponge iron. The reactions are:
Fe3O4 + 4CO 3Fe + 4CO2 (coal, biomass or natural gas)
3Fe + 4 H2O Fe3O4 + 4 H2
This approach is stated to have little risk. In Jannach et al. (1997) (Austria), the sponge
iron process is extended to FeO, as well as Fe as the oxidant.
Further discussion of the sponge iron reaction, including thermogravimetric analysis of
both the reduction and oxidation step kinetics is given in Hacker et al. (1998a) (Austria).
This work is extended as reported in Hacker et al. (1998b) (Austria) with cyclic
experiments in a tube-furnace device. A new sponge-iron reactor is being constructed at
the Technical University Graz. Fankhauser et al. (1998) (Austria) discuss the first results
from the tube reactor and present the schematic of a small-scale laboratory reactor.
Reports in 2000 bring current activities up to date. In Hacker et al. (2000), previous
studies are reviewed and the simulation of the whole process and design for a 10 MW
system is carried out. Small-scale research showed that the sponge-iron approach yields
hydrogen sufficiently pure for fuel-cell use (CO < 10 ppm).
Biollaz et al., (2000) (Switzerland) are also exploring the iron redox process for
production of clean hydrogen from biomass. In the first step, iron oxide in the form of
Fe3O4 reacts with the reducing components of wood-gas to produce FeO, CO2 and H2.
The kinetics of the second step, 3FeO + H2O H2 + Fe3O4, could be improved by
adding other transition metal oxides. They expect that up to 90% of the heating value of
the low Btu gas (rice gas) can be transferred to hydrogen if suitable modified oxides can
be found. Oxide materials have been tested with gas from a small gasifier.
The reduction of iron oxide with biosyngas to sponge iron and later oxidation of the
sponge iron with steam offers the potential of shifting and purifying biosyngas and storing
and transporting its energy. The sponge iron is steamed to produce clean hydrogen on
demand. A thermodynamic computer model is used (Werth and Straus) (1994) (USA).
Such analysis was continued in Strauss and Terry (1995) (USA).
In studies from 1982 to 1990, Knippels et al. (1990 (Netherlands) present laboratory and
pilot data showing the technical feasibility of hydrogen recovery from biomass
gasification lean mixtures (e.g., producer gas). The new method uses metal hydrides
(e.g., LaNi5 and LaNi4.7Al0.3) for continuous hydrogen recovery. In this way, continuous
operation is possible and the disadvantages of the classical method that uses packed
beds are avoided.
Bijetima and Tarman (1981) describe the steam-iron process for hydrogen production
and operating results for a large-scale pilot facility. Economic advantages of the process
are presented.
There is great interest in water-gas shift catalysts in the burgeoning field of fuel cells.
Just one example is cited in Ruettinger et al. (2001) (USA).

13

Supercritical Conversion of Biomass

A number of researchers have investigated the aqueous conversion of whole biomass to
hydrogen under low-temperature, but supercritical conditions.
The earliest report on supercritical gasification of wood is that of Modell (1977) (USA). In 1978,
a patent was issued (Modell et al., 1978) (USA). He reported the effect of temperature and
concentration on the gasification of glucose and maple sawdust in water in the vicinity of its
critical state (374C, 22 MPa). No solid residue or char was produced. Hydrogen gaseous
concentrations up to 18% were seen. In later work, gasification and liquefaction of forest
products was reported along with work on glucose. Results at critical conditions for glucose,
cellulose, hexanoic acid and polyethylene are shown with and without metallic catalysts. In
1985, Modell (USA) gives a review of gasification and liquefaction of forest products in
supercritical water.
In 1982, Labrecque et al. (Canada) looked at the pyrolysis of Aspen wood in supercritical
methanol, though the emphasis was on maximizing pyrolysis liquids, not hydrogen.
Elliott and co-workers (USA), in papers and patents from 1988 to 1997, present an approach to
gasifying aqueous carbonaceous materials at conditions approaching the critical state for water
(up to 25 MPa and 450C). A continuous flow reactor process called TEES (Thermochemical
Environmental Energy System) is studied for a variety of feedstocks and catalysts. The
emphasis is on a high-methane content gas, but the results are relevant to hydrogen as a
preferred product (Elliott et al.; 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994 and 1997). A patent was issued for
conversion of lignocellulosic materials into a fuel gas (Sealock and Elliott, 1991) (USA). Elliott et
al. (1997) (USA) patented a method for the catalytic conversion of organic materials into a
product gas. The process involves a high-pressure reaction of water and liquid organic material
in the presence of a reduced metal catalyst selected from the group consisting of ruthenium,
rhodium, osmium, iridium or mixtures thereof. Reactor conditions from about 300-450C and, at
least, 130 atm pressure are covered.
The first report of Antals (USA) extensive work on supercritical conversion of biomass-related
organics is in Manarungson et al., 1990 (USA), where glucose at 550C and 5,000 psig was
converted largely to H2 and CO2. Mok and Antal (1992) (USA) followed with a study of the
uncatalyzed solvolysis of whole biomass and hemicellulose in hot, compressed liquid water.
First studies show that complete gasification of glucose can occur at 600C, 34.5 MPa and a 30second residence time. Inconel strongly catalyzes the water-gas shift reaction (Yu et al., 1993)
(USA). Following this work, a flow reactor was used with newly discovered carbon-based
catalysts to convert water hyacinth, algae, pithed bagasse liquid extract, glycerol, cellobiose,
whole biomass feedstocks and sewage sludge to hydrogen. Spruce wood charcoal, macadamia
shell charcoal, coal activated carbon and coconut carbon serve as effective catalysts.
Temperatures above about 600C and pressure above about 25 MPa are adequate for high
gasification efficiencies. Thermodynamic calculations predict low carbon monoxide formation
(Antal et al., 1994a; Antal et al., 1994b; Antal et al., 1995; Xu et al., 1996); Nuessle et al., 1996)
(USA). Also in 1996 (Antal et al., 1996) (USA), the research team developed a method to
extend the catalyst life; began studies of the water-gas shift reaction; completed studies of CO2
absorption in high-pressure water; measured the rate of carbon catalyst gasification in
supercritical water; and measured the pumpability of oil-biomass slurries.
In Antal and Xu (1997) (USA) it was shown that wood sawdust, dry sewage sludge or other
particulate biomass could be mixed with a cornstarch gel to form a viscous paste. This paste

14

can be delivered to a supercritical flow reactor with a cement pump. Ongoing work indicates that
the starch can be reduced to 3 wt % and the particulate biomass increased to 10 wt %. At the
critical pressure of water (22 MPa) the paste vaporizes without the formation of char. A packed
bed of carbon catalyst, at 650C, causes the tarry vapors to react with water to produce
hydrogen, carbon dioxide, some methane and only a trace of carbon monoxide. In the same
year, Antal and associates (Matsumara et al., 1997a) (Japan) (USA) demonstrated the use of
high-pressure water to separate H2 from CO2. A hydrogen purity of 90% has been achieved.
Matsumura et al. (1997b) (Japan, USA) has published a review of the University of Hawaii work
on glucose conversion in supercritical water. In 1997, Matsumara et al. (1997c)(Japan, USA)
studied the gasification of an activated carbon in supercritical water. Matsumara (2000) (Japan)
discusses gasification of liquidized biomass in supercritical water using partial oxidation.
Two reports in 1998 (Antal and Xu and Xu and Antal) (USA) present data on the starch-biomass
paste approach to water gasification under supercritical conditions. Sewage sludge turns out to
be a very problematic feed and is difficult to gasify. In contrast, the waste product from the
commercial production of bio-diesel appears to be a perfect feedstock. Gas composition from
poplar wood, cornstarch, glycerol, and glycerol/methanol experiments are shown. Antal et al.
(1999) (USA) report further results with pastes of potato wastes, wood sawdust and various
starch gels. Finally, in Antal et al. (2000) (USA), much of the above work is summarized and
reactive plugging and reactor materials corrosion is discussed. Nickel-alloy tubes are not
suitable. Reactor walls are required that do not suffer corrosion and do not catalyze the
reactions of interest. The Hydrogen Program plan (2000) (USA) continues work by Combustion
Systems, Inc., to develop the engineering tools necessary to bring the supercritical water
pyrolysis process to commercial status. One task is to develop slurry pumps that will handle
20 wt % biomass. The other is to develop a new reactor design that substantially increases the
heating rate of the wood paste.
Work by Combustion Systems, Inc., (Divilio, 1998, and Divilio, 1999) (USA) is given in some
detail in the annual DOE Hydrogen Program review meetings. In 1998, it was reported that a
heat transfer model has been developed to predict temperature profiles inside the University of
Hawaiis supercritical water reactor. Heat transfer tests were conducted on the Hawaii
apparatus to calibrate the model. A literature review is presented for pyrolysis of biomass in
water at temperatures up to the supercritical range. Equilibrium calculations also were
performed. Data from the reactor fell both below and above predictions depending on test
conditions. Fast heating rates may be beneficial to the hydrogen yield. In the 1999 work, a highpressure gas cleanup process and a model were developed to predict the formation of char at
the entrance to the reactor. Fast heating rates decreased the amount of char predicted by the
model. A mass transfer model was developed for the water-gas shift reaction. Finally, a global
model for the supercritical water pyrolysis process was developed and the model was calibrated
using the glucose pyrolysis date from the studies by Holgate et al. (1995).
Minowa, Yokoyama and Ogi (Japan) have carried out studies on the high-pressure steam
gasification of cellulose and lignocellulose materials using a reduced metal catalyst. At a
temperature of 200-374C and pressure of 17 MPa, hydrogen was formed that, under many
conditions, was converted to methane. Methane formation was prevented at subcritical
conditions (Minowa et al. 1995a; Minowa et al., 1997; Minowa and Fang, 1998; Minowa and
Ogi, 1998; Minowa and Inoue, 1999). Patents related to hydrogen by this means are held by
Yokoyama et al., (1997a and 1997b) (Japan). The most recent report on biomass to hydrogen
under the above conditions is in Minowa and Fang (2000). The reaction mechanism is
discussed, based on the products other than hydrogen. (In 1994 and 1995b, Minowa et al.
looked at methane production from cellulose.) Most recently, Minowa (2000) has presented

15

reaction mechanisms of the low temperature catalytic gasification reported by Elliott et al. in
1990 (USA).
A supercritical process to produce hydrogen while absorbing CO2 in CaO is described in four
recent publications and a patent. The process goes by the name Hy Py-RING (Hatano et al.,
1999) (Japan). A thermodynamic analysis is presented for coal under conditions such as 20
MPa and 1000K. Experiments show the process can be used with heavy oil, biomass and
plastics (Lin et al., 1999a, and Lin et al., 1999b) (Japan). The process is also reviewed in Lin
(2000) and a patent was issued (Lin et al., 2000 a,b).
A basic study of the decomposition behavior of the main components of wood is given in Ando
et al., (2000) (Japan). Bamboo, chinquapin (hardwood) and Japan cedar (softwood) were
examined in a hot-compressed-water flow reactor at 9.8 MPa and stepped temperatures from
180C to 285C. Other recent publications discuss supercritical treatment of whole biomass.
Boukis et al., (2000) (Germany) present behavior of biomass and organic wastes at 30 MPa and
600C. At these operating conditions, water exhibits properties of a dense gas, including high
solubility of organic substances and gases like oxygen. The two major problems are plugging of
the reactor with precipitated salts and, in some cases, corrosion. The process can be tuned to
produce methane or hydrogen.
Supercritical water gasification of biomass/coal slurries, as well as composted municipal refuse,
sewage sludge, crumb rubber and pulp and paper wastes, is carried out in HRSG tubes at up to
25% solids (Tolman, et al, 2000) (USA). Pilot-scale data on sewage sludge have been obtained
by General Atomics (1997) (USA). A feasibility study was followed by tests of sewage sludge
feed preparation, pumping and gasification in a pilot plant facility. This helped define a base-line
complete system. Technical and business plans were developed resulting in a 3-year plan
culminating in a follow-on demonstration test of a 5 GT/day system at a local wastewater
treatment plant.
General Atomics (2001; Spritzer, et al, 2001; Johanson, et al, 2001) (USA) is studying
supercritical water partial oxidation of biomass for hydrogen. Bench-scale tests are planned as
is pilot-scale design and analysis. Collaborators are Environmental Energy Systems, Inc., and
Combustion Systems, Inc.
Penninger (1999) (Netherlands) has carried out a feasibility study of wet biomass conversion in
supercritical water (T > 374C and P > 22 MPa). A survey shows that biomass is abundantly
produced throughout the EU countries, and could replace as much as 10% of the natural gas
use. Kruse et al. (2000) (Germany) studied the gasification of pyrocatachol in supercritical
water as part of a fundamental look at hydrogen production from high moisture biomass and
wastewater. Batch and tubular reactors were used.
A pilot-scale apparatus for continuous supercritical and near-critical reaction of cellulose at
temperatures up to 600C, pressures up to 40 MPa and residence times of 24s to 15 min, was
used. A three-step pathway for cellulose hydrolysis was proposed (Lu et al., 2000) (Japan).
In assessing the supercritical approach for hydrogen from biomass and waste, two fundamental
reviews can be consulted. Savage et al. (1995) (USA) notes that such conditions may be
advantageous for reactions involved in fuels processing and biomass conversion. (Some 180
references are included). A more recent review of organic chemical reactions in supercritical
water is also given by Savage (1999) (USA). A soon-to-appear review of organic compound
reactivity in superheated water is given in Siskin and Katritzky (2001). Finally, projects

16

underway in the Netherlands are shown in van de Beld (2001) (Netherlands) [Contact van de
Beld at vandeBeld@btg.ct.utwente.nl]
Pyrolysis to Hydrogen and Carbon or Methanol
Steinberg and associates at Brookhaven National Laboratory have long considered processes
based on high-temperature pyrolytic conversion of coal, biomass and other carbonaceous
materials to hydrogen, carbon, methanol and light hydrocarbons.
In the Hydrocarb process, Steinberg (1987a, 1989) (USA) describes a two-step process
involving (1) the hydrogeneration of carbonaceous materials like coal and biomass to methane,
followed by (2) thermal decomposition of the methane to hydrogen and a clean carbon-black
fuel. For coal, a typical overall reaction would be:
CH0.8O0.08 C + 0.32 H2 + 0.08 H2O
For biomass, the 2-step reaction is:
CH 1.44 O.66 = C + 0.06 H2 + 0.66 H2O
Preliminary pyrolysis experiments related to the Hydrocarb reactions are discussed in Steinberg
et al. (1986), Steinberg (1986), and Steinberg (1987b).
In later work, Steinberg (1990) (USA) describes a process in which biomass and methane are
converted to methanol plus carbon (Carnol). The overall stoichiometry is:
CH1.44O0.66 + 0.30CH4 = 0.64C + 0.66 CH3OH
As the names imply, Hydrocarb and Carnol processes emphasize the minimization of CO2 and
the production of elemental carbon.
In 1994, Dong and Steinberg (USA) introduced the biomass conversion process they called
Hynol. Its aim is to produce economical methanol with reduced CO2 emissions. Three process
steps are involved:
1.
2.
3.

Hydrogasification of biomass;
Steam reforming of the produced gas with additional natural gas feedstock; and
Methanol synthesis from the hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced.

The process is proposed for any condensed carbonaceous material, including municipal solid
waste and coal. The process is further elaborated, including techoeconomic analysis, but no
experimental data, in Borgwardt (1995) (USA), Steinberg and Dong (1996) (USA), Steinberg
(1997) (USA), Dong and Steinberg (1997) (USA) Dong and Borgwardt (1998) (USA) and Sethi
et al. (1999) (USA).
Biological Conversion of Biomass to Hydrogen
The emphasis of this report is on thermo-chemical conversion of whole biomass and stable
products presently formed from biomass. A separate IEA activity, IEA Hydrogen Agreement
Task 15, is addressing the photobiological production of hydrogen (see Zaborsky, 1998); thus,
the subject is not included here.

17

There are several interfaces with the main scope of this review that use non-photobiological
processes. The best knowns are the anaerobic digestion routes from biomass to methane and
the fermentation routes to ethanol. No attempt to cite this literature is made. Another biological
step that interfaces with thermo-chemical conversion (gasification) is the use of biological
organisms for the water-gas shift for CO + H2 from CO2 and H2O. References to this approach
follow, as well as a sampling of non-photo biological research involving biomass.
PRODUCTION OF STORABLE INTERMEDIATES FROM BIOMASS PARTIAL CONVERSION
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Pyrolysis Oils
Laboratory work using this approach has been conducted at NREL (USA), starting in 1993 (see
Chornet et al., 1994; Wang et al., 1994; Wang et al., 1995; Chornet et al., 1995; and Chornet et
al., 1996 a, b, c). Early papers present the concept of fast pyrolysis for converting biomass and
wastes to oxygenated oils. These oils are subsequently cracked and steam-reformed to yield
hydrogen and CO as final products (Mann et al., 1994). The 1995 Wang report presents the
chemical and thermodynamic basis of this approach, the catalysis related to steam reforming of
the oxygenates, and the techoeconomic integration of the process. In first experiments, Nibased catalysts were favorable (80% of theoretical maximum hydrogen yield has been
obtained), but enough CO remained to require the addition of a water-gas shift step. Low
biomass costs are needed to produce hydrogen economically since feedstock cost is a major
component of production cost. In Wang et al. (1995) laboratory and bench-scale studies of
model compounds of oxygenates known to be present in pyrolysis oil were presented. Ni-based
catalysts were used in microscale laboratory tests to identify the conversion products. All model
compounds were successfully steam reformed. Bench-scale, fixed-bed tubular reactor
experiments indicate that control of coke formation was a key aspect of the process. Loss of
activity of the nickel catalysts after a few hours forced periodic regeneration. It was shown that
CO2 from a pressure swing absorption step effectively removed the coke.
Six progress reports in 1996 and 1997 document the systematic exploration of the pyrolysis oilto- hydrogen process. In Chornet et al. (1996a) bench-scale experiments determined the
performance of nickel-catalysts in steam reforming of acetic acid, hydroxyacetaldehyde, furfural,
and syringol. All proceeded rapidly. Time-on-stream experiments were started. In Chornet et al.,
(1996b), Czernik et al., (1996), and Wang et al. (1997a), the approach of using extractable,
valuable co-products with the balance of the oil converted to hydrogen is explored. Depending
on biomass feedstock costs, the selling price for steam reforming hydrogen is predicted to fall
within the then current market price of hydrogen ($5-$15/GJ). One of the most promising coproducts from whole bio-oil is an adhesive. In Chornet et al., (1996c) economics and plant
design are summarized.
The initial refereed journal reports of the above work are in Wang et al. (1996), and Wang et al.
(1997b). The first paper documents the catalytic steam reforming results for acetic acid and
hydroxyacetaldehyde using a micro-reactor and molecular-beam mass spectrometry. The
second paper consolidates the early work on model compounds, nickel-catalysts and reforming
of both whole bio-oils and oils after extraction of valuable chemicals. Economics, process
designs and thermodynamics are discussed.
In 1998, the NREL group published data on bench-scale reforming results from model
compounds, the aqueous-fraction of poplar pyrolysis oil and whole pyrolysis oil with commercial
nickel-based steam reforming catalysts. Hydrogen yields as high as 85% were obtained

18

(Czernik et al., 1998) (Wang et al., 1998). A 2-inch diameter fluidized-bed reformer is described
in the Czernik report.
Work on this long-range project continued in 1999 and was reported in three publications.
Czernik et al. (1999 a and b) give steam reforming results of the aqueous fraction of bio-oil. The
non-volatile compounds, such as sugars and lignin-derived oligomers, tend to decompose
thermally and to form carbonaceous deposits on the catalyst surface and in the reactor
freeboard. To minimize these, a fluidized-bed reformer with fine-mist feed injection was used
and gave hydrogen yields of 80% of stoichiometric. 90% of the feed carbon was converted to
CO and CO2, but carbon deposited on the catalyst gradually decreased its activity. The catalyst
was easily regenerated by steam or CO2 gasification of the deposits. At 850C, with a steamcarbon ratio of 9, the hydrogen yield was 90% of stoichiometric during 8 hours of on-stream
reforming of the aqueous fraction of bio-oil. Hydrogen yield from a hemicellulose fraction was
about 70% of stoichiometric, due to the higher content of oligomeric material.
Steam reforming of model compounds of fast pyrolysis oil and of sunflower oil, is discussed in
Marquevich et al. (1999), (2001) (Spain, USA, Canada). Acetic acid, m-cresol, dibenzyl ether,
glucose, xylose and sucrose were steam reformed with two commercial nickel-based catalysts
used for naphtha steam reforming. The sugars were difficult to reform because they readily
decomposed via pyrolysis in the freeboard.
The latest publications are a reprise of the fluid-bed studies of the carbohydrate fraction of
pyrolysis oil (Czernik et al., 2000 a,b) and a study of the hydrogen yield from crude glycerin. It
was also suggested that residual fractions derived from pulping operations and from ethanol
production could be attractive feeds (Czernik et al., 2000c).
The final studies reported in 2000 are a look at the effects of catalyst composition on steam
reforming of bio-oils (Garcia et al., 2000 a,b) (Spain, USA) and an overview of the method (Feik
et al., 2000) (USA). Aqueous fractions of bio-oil were steam-reformed at 825 and 875C, high
space velocity (up to 126,000 h-1) and low residence time (26 ms.), using a fixed-bed microreactor interfaced with a molecular-beam mass spectrometer. A variety of research and
commercial catalysts were tested. Since the main constraint in reforming bio-oils is catalyst
deactivation caused by carbon deposition, two approaches were tested: 1) enhanced steam
adsorption to facilitate coke gasification and 2) to slow down the surface reactions that led to
coke precursors. Commercial catalysts that were developed for steam reforming of natural gas
and crude oil fractions proved to be more efficient for bio-oil than most of the research catalysts,
mainly due to higher water-gas-shift activity.
Evans et al (2001) (USA) describes scale-up work planned using peanut shells as feed.
Information on Operating Plans for 2000 and 2001 are given in Hydrogen Program 2000, 2001
and in Yeboah et al. (2000 & 2001) (USA) and in Abedi et al. (2001) (USA). Lathouwers and
Bellan (2001) (USA) update their extensive work on modeling biomass pyrolysis. Chornet
(2001) contains his groups latest work on oils to hydrogen. French et al. (2001) (USA) looked at
co-reforming of pyrolysis oils and natural gas while Czernik et al. (2001) (USA) extended the
approach to trap grease.
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Methanol
Steam reforming of methanol and ethanol with catalysts has a long history. For example, the
mechanism of methanol over Cu-Si catalysts to hydrogen is discussed in Takahashi et al.
(1982) (Japan) who references work back to 1971. In 1989, Seifritz makes the case for

19

converting fossil fuels to methanol as a logistically ideal energy carrier for transoceanic
transportation, with concentrated CO2 for easier disposal. The methanol can be converted to
hydrogen for decentralized applications. Jiang et al. (1993) (Australia) continues mechanistic
studies using Cu-ZnO-Al2O3 catalysts.
There has been recent and continuing interest in the conversion of methanol to hydrogen with a
dominant interest in methanol use in fuel cells. Cheng (1996) (Taiwan) addressed the
development of active and stable catalysts for this purpose. The Cu-ZnO-based methanol
synthesis catalysts behaved poorly for the decomposition reaction. Highly active coppercontaining catalysts, comprising Cu, Si, O and Ba or Mn, were developed. Copper is the active
species. Adding CO2 to the methanol feed greatly increases the catalyst stability. Decomposed
methanol, using exhaust heat for the endothermic dissociation, could be up to 60% more
efficient than gasoline and up to 34% better than methanol. Results for nine copper-containing
catalysts, operating at 250C, show the best (Cu, Cr, Mn, Si) to achieve 60-92% conversion.
Amphlett et al. (1994, 1995) (Canada) have developed a semi-empirical model of the kinetics of
the catalytic steam reforming of methanol over CuO/ZnO/Al2O3. The end use is hydrogen in a
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell. The problem of carbon monoxide removal is most
significant. The 1995 paper presents some of their experience with deactivation over time and
temperatures as high as 300C.
The use of zeolites as catalysts for hydrogen generation and hydrogen storage has received
only limited attention. (Laniecki, M. and Kazmierezak-Rozik, K.1998) (Poland). In this study,
narrow pore (A, ZSM-5), medium pore (mordenite) and large pore (X,Y) zeolites were applied to
steam reforming of methanol. Conversion results with time are shown for five types of zeolites
with Cu, Ni and Cr ion exchanged and Y zeolites consisting of nickel and cobalt solid-state
exchanged catalysts. The results presented show that zeolites can be applied in steam
reforming, but further investigations were stated to be needed.
Lelewer (1999) (USA) gives an overview of the options for conversion of landfill gas, methanol
or natural gas to hydrogen for a hydrogen refueling station. They propose to use the innovative
UOB process, which utilizes Hydrogen Burner Technologys system for landfill gas, methanol
and/or natural gas (UOB uses a non-catalytic partial oxidation reformer.) Antonyak et al.
(2000) (Russia) studied methanol decomposition in a water-methanol equimolar mixture in the
presence of a nickel-promoted, copper-zinc-cement catalyst. The catalyst was highly active at
200-300C.
Other recent reports are by Yalin et al. (2000) (China) and Yang et al. (2000) (China). The Yalin
paper presents results for a 99.999% hydrogen by methanol pyrolysis-PSA technique. A
catalyst named ALC-AIA, based on a copper-based methanol synthesis catalyst, it tested as a
function of temperature and pressure. Yang et al. report on a novel palladium catalyst for
methanol decomposition. Qi et al. (2000) (China) identify key factors in hydrogen generation
from methanol by partial oxidation. The mole ration of O2/CH3OH is the most sensitive factor;
the ratio of H2O/CH3OH is the second; the third is the pressure. Newson et al. (2000)
(Switzerland) give catalyst screening results for partial oxidation methanol reforming with
copper-containing catalysts. A system analysis predicts a well-to-wheel efficiency of 24% for
methanol-to-hydrogen with a PEM fuel cell, compared to 18% for a gasoline internal combustion
engine. Methanol from biomass is mentioned for a sustainable source.
Innovatek is combining microtechnology with advanced catalysts and separation technology for
clean hydrogen from methanol for use in a PEM fuel cell (Irving et al., 2000 and Hydrogen
Program, 2000) (USA). The reformer can be used to convert methane or methanol produced

20

through the thermochemical processing of biomass. Advanced membrane separation

technology will be tested and the system evaluated. Work continues apace on methanol
reforming for fuel cell use. Fuel cells manufactured by H Power Enterprises Canada, Inc. require
a suitable hydrogen source. This paper gives experimental data for the Northwest Power
Systems reformer, which yielded hydrogen with less than 5 ppm CO (Bateman et al., 1999)
(Canada and USA).
DeWild and Verhaak (2000) (Netherlands) report on results for metal-supported catalyst
systems for steam reforming of methanol for fuel cell application. Such catalysts overcome the
slow heat transfer of packed-bed systems by integrating endothermic steam reforming with
exothermic hydrogen combustion. A wash-coated aluminum heat exchanger showed the best
performance using a suspension of commercial reforming catalysts. By proper temperature
control, 450 hours of continuous operation have been achieved from an aluminum foam with
greater than 90% methanol conversion.
A recent paper by Andrian and Mensinger (2000) (Germany) presents an analysis of a direct,
liquid-feed, methanol fuel system for solid polymer electrolyte fuel cells. Advantages over a
steam-reforming-to-hydrogen fuel-cell system are cited such as the avoidance of complex fuel
processing and gas treatment in the indirect (hydrogen) methanol fuel cell systems. MurciaMascaros et al. (2001) (Spain, Italy), look at an oxidative methanol reformer on CuZnAl
catalysts. Agrell et al. (2001) (Sweden) find the microemulsion catalysts are better than
conventional co-precipitation catalysts. Lindstrom and Petterson (2001) (Sweden) are studying
methanol reforming over copper-based catalysts for fuel-cell applications. Work in methanol to
hydrogen should accelerate with the growing interest in fuel cells for vehicles. Mizsey et al.
(2001) (Switzerland) and Avci et al (2001) (Turkey, Australia) are looking at on-board
conversion of methane, propane, octane and methanol for fuel cells. [See also Moon et al
(2001) (South Korea) and Trimm and Onsan (2001) (Australia, Turkey).]
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Ethanol
Ethanol, likely produced from lignocellulosics in the future, has been considered by researchers
in a number of countries for hydrogen production. The advantages of both methanol and ethanol
in ease of steam reforming to hydrogen, vis--vis methane, are stressed, as is the storage
aspect of liquids for vehicle and fuel cell application. Ethanols lack of toxicity compared to
methanol is also mentioned.
Garcia and Laborde (1991) (Argentina) examined the thermodynamic equilibrium in the steam
reforming of ethanol to produce hydrogen, pointing out that the literature on ethanol reforming
was scarce. The calculations cover pressures of 1-9 atm, temperatures of 400-800K and waterto-ethanol feed ranges of 0.1 to 10.0. The best conditions for hydrogen production are at T >
650K, atmospheric pressure and water in excess in the feed. In this condition, CH4 is minimized
and carbon formation is thermodynamically inhibited. Higher temperatures and higher water-toethanol ratios (2.0) are needed, compared to methanol, for best hydrogen production. A catalyst
must be found to achieve adequate production and selectivity. Some five years after the Garcia
and Laborde study, Vasudeva et al. (1996) (India) carried out another equilibrium study of
ethanol steam reforming under conditions conducive to carbon formation. Equilibrium hydrogen
yields as high as 5.5 moles per mole of ethanol in the feed are attainable. The approach
adopted permits estimation of the carbon formed. The results differ from Garcia and Laborde
under conditions conducive to carbon formation. Most recently, a third thermodynamic analysis
of ethanol steam reforming has appeared (Fishtik et al., 2000) (USA, Romania). In this
approach, the reforming is considered in terms of response reaction (RERs) that have the

21

property of being independent of the usually arbitrary initial choice of a set of independent
reactions. A simple algorithm is proposed for deriving a unique set of RERs to rationalize the
effect of process variables on the steam reforming of ethanol to produce hydrogen. At, or above,
700-800K and with high water-ethanol ratios, the desired reaction of ethanol to hydrogen can be
made predominant. In the latest of such thermodynamic analyses, Ioannides (2001) (Greece)
gives a thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen from ethanol with respect to solid-polymer-fuel-cell
applications. Both steam reforming and partial oxidation reactors connected to water-gas-shift
and CO-oxidation reactors were considered to assess the effect of operating parameters on
hydrogen yields.
Besides these thermodynamics studies, a number of experimental catalytic studies have been
reported from researchers around the world. (Argentina, Switzerland, India, Italy, Sweden,
Greece, and Germany). Luengo et al. (1992) (Argentina) used nickel-copper-chromium on
alpha-Al2O3 in a fixed-bed reactor to steam reform ethanol. Operating temperatures ranged from
573-823K, steam-ethanol mole ratios varied from 0.4-2.0 and space velocities from 2.5-15h-1.
The catalyst showed high activity for ethanol gasification. Comparison with thermodynamic
predictions showed that catalyst activity is more pronounced at lower temperature. The 4.0%
Ni/O, 79% Cu/O and 25% Cr, supported on alpha-Al2O3, is both active and selective for ethanol.
Studies are planned at higher metallic concentrations. In later work, Marino et al. (1998, 2001)
(Argentina) looked at the effect of copper loading and calcination temperature on the structure
and performance of Cu/Ni/K/y-Al2O3 catalysts.
Highfield et al. (1994) (Switzerland) present a scheme for hydrogen energy storage in the form
of biomass-derived alcohols in which the hydrogen release step is by steam reforming.
Promising catalysts consist of Cu, Co and Ni, acting on basic, high-area supports like
magnesium oxide. Preparation, characterization and testing are described. Acetic acid,
originating from acetaldehyde disproportionation, is identified as a key intermediate. Beneficial
effects of promotion with alkali-metal ions on coking control and selection are reported. Future
studies will investigate the reverse reaction to form ethanol.
Ethanol steam reforming in the context of a molten carbonate fuel cell is studied kinetically with
a CuO/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst, (Cavallaro and Freni, 1996, 1998) (Italy). The process appears
feasible between temperatures of 800 and 1000K and pressure up to 100 bars, based on
predictions from a kinetic model. At temperatures above 630K, equilibrium is approached for
CaO/ZnO/Al2O3 and NiO/CuO/SiO2 catalysts and no appreciable quantities of coke or
unexpected oxygenates are formed even with H2O/C2H5OH lower than 3 mol/mol. In later work
(Cavallaro, 2000) (Italy), ethanol steam reforming on Rh/Al2O3 catalysts was explored.
H2O/C2H5OH ratios of 8.4 mol/mol were used to simulate the composition of the ecological fuel
product from vegetable biomass fermentation. Studies were from 323-923K. (The molten
carbonate fuel cell standard temperature is 923K.) The acid support (Al2O3) promotes the
dehydration of the alcohol while all other reactions are catalyzed by the rhodium. At 923K,
coking does not occur and the catalyst maintains its activity for several hours.
A program to use stored crops grown on fallow land in the European Community and to convert
them to ethanol by fermentation is reported by Rampe et al. (2000, 2001) (Germany). The aim is
to reform the ethanol to hydrogen for use in polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFC). A catalyst
screening program is under way together with the planned use of pressure swing absorption to
lower the CO to a tolerable level of 20 ppm. The operation pressure for the reforming is varied
from 2-9 bar, the temperature from 600 to 800C and the steam-to-carbon ratio between 2-4
moles carbon to moles water. A minimum pressure of 6 bar is needed for the absorption step,

22

giving an advantage to a liquid feed like ethanol, compared to gaseous fuels, in the energy
required for the pressurization step.
Toci and Modica (1996) (Italy and Sweden) describe an innovative process for hydrogen
production by plasma reaction cracking of vaporized ethanol solutions in the presence of a
nickel-based catalyst. The approach is the cold-plasma-chemical-processing developed at
Stuttgart University. Results on the separation and purification of the hydrogen as well as
project scale up are presented. A process for the production of hydrogen and electrical energy
from reforming of bio-ethanol is described by Verykios in International patent C01B 3/32, H01M
8/06 (1998) (Greece). Partial oxidation reforming of ethanol produces hydrogen that is fed to a
fuel cell. The ethanol is in an aqueous solution of 40-70% ethanol originating from fermentation
of biomass. Moles of oxygen to moles of ethanol are between 0 and 0.5. The mixture is fed to a
reactor with a suitable catalyst-containing metal of the Group VII or metal oxides of the transition
metals.
Amphlett et al. (1999) (Canada) present a comparative evaluation of ethanol versus methanol
for catalytic steam reforming to hydrogen for fuel cells. Galvita et al. (2001) (Russia, Greece)
discuss synthesis gas production from steam reforming ethanol.
Methane and Natural Gas to Hydrogen or Methanol by Direct Thermolysis
No attempt is made to cover the old and extensive literature involving steam reforming of natural
gas and other gaseous and liquid fossil fuels. Recent examples are cited that involve renewable
feedstocks (e.g., methane from anaerobic digestion), natural gas for fuel cells or an attempt to
minimize greenhouse gases (mainly CO2).

Methane Pyrolysis to Hydrogen and Carbon

Fulcheri and Schwab (1995) (France) present, from simple hypotheses and physical
considerations related to existing processes, a theoretical study whose conclusions
could open the way to a new carbon black plasma-assisted process. Cracking methane,
with no oxygen, into carbon and hydrogen has the potential to be no more energy
intensive than existing processes. Such thermolysis needs a very high temperature
reaction, which is now accessible through improvements in plasma technology. The
process for hydrogen may be favorable for carbon-black production.
A continuing series of studies by Muradov (1993-2000) (USA) at the Florida Solar
Energy Center (2001) rests on the premise of producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons
without CO2 production. The capture of CO2 from the steam reforming process and its
sequestration (underground or ocean disposal) is actively discussed in the literature. It is
noted that this method is energy intensive and poses uncertain ecological
consequences. His approach is to thermo-catalytically decompose the hydrocarbon to
hydrogen and carbon over metal-oxide and carbon-based catalysts. This work is planned
to continue (Hydrogen Program, 2001) (Muradov, 2001a,b,c.).
A surprising number of studies of hydrocarbons to H2 and C are reported around the
world. Czernichowski et al. (1996) (France) show results for hydrogen and acetylene (not
carbon) using the so-called Gliding Arc, a relatively cold, powerful electrical discharge in
a non-equilibrium state. Up to 34% of natural gas has been converted to hydrogen and
assorted hydrocarbons. Kuvshinov et al. (1996) (Russia) have applied low-temperature
catalytic pyrolysis of hydrocarbons to produce a new graphite-like porous material and

23

hydrogen. Results are shown for methane decomposition on Ni-containing catalysts.

Babaritskiy et al. (1998) (Russia) use their version of plasma catalysis to produce carbon
and hydrogen from methane. The plasma accelerates the process due to specific
influence of the plasma-active particles (ions, radicals), making temperatures as low as
500C effective. The pre-heated methane (400-600 C) at atmospheric pressure enters a
plasmatron in which the gas is exposed to a pulse-periodic microwave discharge.
Methane conversions up to about 30% are shown at temperatures from 250-600C.
In four more studies from Russia, natural gas thermal decomposition is studied using a
hot matrix in a regenerative gas heater. Concerns arise due to ecological issues and low
efficiency. Special conditions that could prevent pyrocarbon in the zone of the reaction
need to be developed. The goal was to produce hydrogen plus carbon black (Popov et
al. 1999a) (Russia). In a companion paper (Popov et al., 1999b) conditions are shown
that produce carbon in methane almost completely as black carbon without pyrocarbons
being produced. Finally, Shpilrain et al. (1998 and 1999) (Russia) show results from a
comparative analysis of different methods of natural gas pyrolysis.
Hydrogen from natural gas without release of CO2 is the subject of a systems and
economic comparison by Gaudernack and Lynum (1996 and 1998) (Norway). The two
main options for this are: (1) conventional technology (e.g., steam reforming) with CO2
sequestration and (2) high-temperature pyrolysis yielding pure hydrogen and carbon
black. Technologies for industrial-scale realization of these options have been developed
and tested in Norway, but could not yet compete using costs of methane from
renewables. Lynum et al. (1998) (Norway) discuss two processes developed by
Kvaerner Oil and Gas A.S. One, called the Kvaerner CB&H process, decomposes a wide
spectrum of hydrocarbons into carbon black and hydrogen by use of a high-temperature
plasma process. The energy for decomposition of hydrocarbons comes from a plasma
generator that converts electric power to heat. A pilot plant, situated in Sweden, has
been operated since 1992. The PyroArc process utilizes waste and hydrocarbons as
feedstock. The process is a two-stage gasification and decomposition process that
converts feedstock into pure fuel gas, steam, slag and metals. The fuel-gas, which
consists of H2 and CO, can be separated for hydrogen use. The PyroArc pilot plant is
also cited in Sweden and has been operating since 1993. Steinberg and associates
have applied their processes for direct biomass conversion to hydrogen and carbon
(Hydrocarb) to hydrogen and methanol (Hynol), and to conversion of methane to carbon
and methanol (Carnol). Studies of methane in a tube reactor are given in Steinberg
(1996a) (USA). Designs and economics plus advanced Carnol processes are given in
Steinberg (1996b). A patent was issued for the process in 1998 (Steinberg and Dong).
An overview is published in Steinberg (1999a). Finally, Steinberg (1999b, 1998) argues
for thermal decomposition or pyrolysis of methane or natural gas (TDM) to hydrogen and
carbon. The energy sequestered in the carbon, if buried, amounts to 42% of that or the
natural gas. He notes that it is much easier to sequester carbon than CO2.
Li et al., (2000) (China) discuss the simultaneous production of hydrogen and
nanocarbon from the decomposition of methane without carbon oxide formation.
Catalysts based on nanometer-scale nickel particles prepared from a hydrocalcite-like
anionic clay precursor have been designed and tested. The process is best at
temperatures above 1073K. Copper-doping raises the nickel catalyst activity above 923K
the maximum activity temperature for the pure nickel. Takenaka et al (2001) (Japan)
looked at methane decomposition over nickel catalysts and the effect of supports on
lifetime. See Otsuka et al. (2002) for studies on gasoline-range alkanes.

24

One study of the thermal dissociation of methane in a solar furnace has been described
(Weimer et al., 2000 and Dahl et al., 2001 a,b.) (USA). Approximately 90% of methane
was dissociated to produce hydrogen and carbon black under a solar flux of 2400 kW/m2
(or suns). The economies of the process are discussed and show promise for the
concept. This work is to continue (Hydrogen Program 2001) (Weiner and Lewandowski,
2001). [See also Hirsch et al (2001) (Israel, Switzerland) for their latest and previous
work on solar production of carbon and hydrogen from natural gas.]

Reforming of Methane (and Natural Gas) to Hydrogen

The conversion of methane, natural gas and higher hydrocarbons to hydrogen has an
extensive history in petroleum refining and hydrocarbon processing in general. This
review is restricted to recent studies in the hydrogen literature, related to H2 production
as a neat fuel, often for use in fuel cells.
Karim and Metwally (1978, 1980) (Canada) have published a thermal-kinetic analysis of
steam-methane reforming at temperatures of 1400-3000K, pressures of 0.5-10 atm and
steam-methane ratios of 1-5. The reaction is attractive at temperatures over 1800K
where near-equilibrium is obtained in 10 seconds. The conversion is not sensitive to
pressure change but is sensitive to the steam-methane ratio. The addition of about 5%
oxygen has only a small effect on hydrogen yield, but significantly reduces the heat
required. In 1992 and 1993, Karim and Zhou (1992, 1993) present a detailed kinetic
scheme for partial oxidation to hydrogen. Balthasar and Hambleton (1978) (Netherlands)
review three major routes for the production of hydrogen from fossil fuels. At that time,
they stated that steam reforming of light hydrocarbons was the most widely used due to
better economics.
A decade later, Bulanov et al. (1988) (USSR) explored the catalytic steam reforming of
natural gas using solar energy to increase the heating value of the resulting gas. The
process accomplishes storage of solar energy. The heat of combustion of the resultant
gas, rich in hydrogen, was increased 25%.
In the same year, Nazarov et al. (1988) (USSR) presented heat-exchanger design to use
a gas-cooled nuclear reactor to steam reform natural gas. Brun-Tsekhovoi et al. (1988)
(USSR) note that hydrogen production is one of the most energy-intensive industrial
processes. They present data on steam reforming of methane in a fluidized bed of
catalyst that contains CaO to bond CO2 as CaCO3. A fourth paper at the World Hydrogen
Energy Conference in Moscow, Akhundov et al. (1988) (USSR), present their version of
using solar heat to decompose methane to hydrogen. The papers contain many
references to not-commonly-cited work in Western literature. Petit et al. (1992) (France)
reported on partial oxidation of methane for hydrogen production.
Rosen and Scott (1988) (Canada) carried out a computer analysis of the
thermodynamics of the steam-methane-reforming (SMR) process. The analysis showed
that the principal energy losses occur in the reformer due to irreversibilities in
combustion and heat transfer across large temperature differences. [See also Rosen
(1991) for similar information.]
A mathematical simulation of steam reforming of methane in a tabular catalytic reactor
with a hydrogen-permeable wall is described in Prokopiev, et al (1992) (Russia, Italy).

25

The influence of temperature, pressure and thickness of a palladium membrane are

studied. Improvements over conventional steam reforming are claimed. Astanovsky et al.
(1992,1994) (USSR) present yet another new reactor design for steam catalytic
hydrocarbon conversion. Reactor characteristics for natural gas and CO conversion are
given. Li Qiyvan (1992a,b) presents results for a new kind of methane reforming catalyst
containing nickel. Chawla and Ghosh (1992) (India) present the thermodynamics of
steam reforming, shift and carbon deposition of a typical digester biogas feed (60% CH4,
40% CO2) and pure methane.
A novel catalytic approach to hydrogen from methane and other light hydrocarbons via
direct electro-steam reforming is given in Spagnolo et al. (1992) (Canada). The report
notes that conventional steam reformers suffer from three major drawbacks: 1)
inefficient reactor heat transfer, 2) high maintenance costs and 3) high methane fuel
consumption. Heat is supplied directly to a nickel catalyst surface through resistance
electrical heating. Methane conversions to hydrogen of 50-80% were achieved. At
temperatures above 800C, conversions were nearly independent of temperature,
space-velocity, steam-methane feed ratio and nickel metal content, implying diffusion as
the rate-limiting mechanisms. Research needs are itemized.
A pioneering power project, using natural gas initially and biomass later, to produce
hydrogen for fuel cells is described in Walcher et al. (1996) (Germany). The system is
designed to supply 6 GWh per annum of electrical energy. Poirier and Sapundzhiev
(1997) (Canada) present a concept in which natural gas is decomposed on a catalyst
with carbon deposition and hydrogen production. Periodically, the carbon is burned off in
a dual-reactor system. The advantages are production of a hydrogen stream of greater
than 95% purity and with less than 5 ppm CO. No experimental results were reported,
but a variety of possible catalysts are listed.
Babaritsky et al. (2000) (Russia) extended their plasma catalysis process for methane to
hydrogen and carbon to the steam reforming of methane, ethane and ethanol to
hydrogen. Shu-Ren (1998) (China) describes the activities in China to produce hydrogen
by catalytic steam reforming of natural gas, refinery off-gases, LPG, naphtha and
industrial methanol. Pruden (1999) (Canada) looks at the technical and economic
aspects of steam reforming of natural gas for hydrogen. The technologies of electrolysis
and partial oxidation appear to be more economic in small sizes. Yokota et al. (2000)
(Japan) studied the stoichiometry of the steam reforming of methane under the radiation
from a concentrated Xe-lamp (solar simulator) at 650C. The methane-steam ratio was
1.0 and a Ni/Al2O3 catalyst was used. Hydrogen yields were about 70%. The products at
690C were near equilibrium.
Thermal plasma technology applied to methane has been reported in Bromberg et al.
(1997a&b;1998;and 1999a) (USA). These papers describe experiments and calculations
of high temperature conversion of methane using both homogeneous and
heterogeneous processes. The thermal plasma is characterized by extremely high
temperatures (several thousand degrees C) and large amounts of ionization. Hydrogenrich gases (50-75% H2 and 25-50% CO) can be efficiently produced in compact plasma
reformers. A system has been demonstrated for hydrogen production with a CO content
of only about 2%. A nickel-based catalyst on alumina was used. Air-methane and watermethane ratios were varied as well as plasma input power. With steam injection it was
possible to combine reforming and water-shift reactions in a single stage with no soot
buildup on the catalyst surfaces of the reactor. Plasmatron generation has possible

26

applications for decentralized energy production with fuel cells, for hydrogen refueling
stations and hard to use fuels such as raw biomass. In Bromberg et al. (1999b),
application of the plasma technologies to natural gas are explored. Development of
plasma hydrogen from natural gas is continuing in the DOE Hydrogen FY2001 program.
Included will be operation with biofuels and decreasing problems of catalyst sensitivity
and deterioration (Bromberg, .et al., 2001 a). A very recent discussion of hydrocarbon
conversion is found in Bromberg et al (2001b)
In four recent project reports for the U.S. DOE, Sircar et al. (1995) (USA), Hufton et al.
(1998) (USA) and Hufton et al. (1999;2000) present progress on the sorption enhanced
reaction process (SERP) for the production of hydrogen by steam-methane reforming.
This involves the reaction of steam with methane in the presence of an admixture of a
catalyst and a selective absorbent for CO2. Reforming and CO2 separation are
accomplished in one reactor. Initial reactor results, using K2CO3 promoted hydrotalcite in
a non-cyclic mode, gave a gas containing 90+ %H2, the balance is CH4 and only trace
levels (<5 ppm) of carbon oxides. In the 1999 work, a new method of promoting the
absorbent with carbonate spray injection was reported. Scale-up designs and an
alternate method for providing heat by indirect gas heating was developed. Reactor
temperatures of 400-500 can, thus, be achieved. This work is continuing in FY2000
under the U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program with consideration of a process development
unit.
Other work at Air Products and Chemicals Inc., the world leader in merchant hydrogen
production, involves ceramic membrane reactor systems for converting natural gas to
hydrogen and synthesis gas (Dyer et al., 1999; Dyer and Chen, 2000,USA; and Dyer,
2001). These Ion Transport Membranes (ITM) are non-porous, multi-component metallic
oxides that operate at high temperatures and have exceptionally high oxygen flux and
selectivities. The membranes incorporate the non-porous ITM with reduction and
reforming catalysts. Oxygen from a hot air stream is reduced to oxygen ions that flow
through the membrane where, in combination with a reforming catalyst, they partially
oxidize a combination of hot natural gas and steam, thereby forming CO and H2. The
amount of steam determines the H2/CO ratio. Studies from bench-scale to commercial
plants are projected over the next 10-15 years. Collaborators with Air Products include
Chevron, McDermott, Norsk Hydro, Ceramatec and Eltron. (Hydrogen Program, 2001).
Work on sorption-enhanced reactions in methane reforming will appear in Industrial and
Eng. Chemistry shortly (Ortiz and Harrison, 2001) (USA)
New aspects of conversion of hydrocarbons to syngas and hydrogen are reviewed with
an emphasis on the catalysts used. Fundamental, as well as applied catalyst studies, are
warranted (Rostrup-Nielsen, 2000). There is a great deal of activity at present,
worldwide, on hydrogen from methane and natural gas; a sampling follows. Jarosch et
al. (2001) (Canada) describes a novel process for steam reforming methane based on
the use of a fast-fluidized membrane reactor (catforming). In the catformer-reactor
concept, methane and steam contact regenerated catalyst and the resulting gas-solid
suspension enter the downflow section where reforming and water gas shift occur. The
hydrogen is removed continuously via permeation through a palladium membrane.
Zeolite catalysts impregnated with Ni were tested. Lundsford (2000) (USA) gives a
current review of the catalytic conversion of methane to more useful chemicals and fuels,
including hydrogen.

27

Shah, M.M. et al. (2000) (USA) describe a new technology development program that
will integrate ceramic membrane based syngas production and hydrogen separation
technologies. Technoeconomic feasibility and membrane testing are the initial activities.
For a further sampling of research on catalytic steam-reforming of methane, see:
Coursen et al. (2000) (France); Specht et al. (2000) (Germany); Koenig et al., (2000)
(Germany); Kumar et al. (2000) (USA); Heinzel et al. (2000) (Germany). See also:
Hummel & Lelewer (2001) (USA); Astanovsky and Astanovsky (2001) (Russia); Gordon
et al. (2000) (USA), Lelewer et al. (2000) (USA), Galli et al., (2000); (Italy) Parmon et al.
(2000) (Russia); Bradshaw, (2001a&b) (USA); Choudhary et al. (2001a) (USA); Naito
(2000) (Japan) and Choudhary et al. (2001b) (USA).
Kodama et al. (2001) (Japan) carry out CO2 reforming of methane in a molten carbonate
salt bath. Metal catalyst particles are suspended in the molten salt. K, Ni, Fe, Cu or W
metals supported on Al2O3 were tested at 1223K. Another recent paper (Tanner, et al,
2001) (Canada, USA) uses microwave-promoted carbon-catalyzed conversion of
methane to produce ethylene, ethane, acetylene and hydrogen. A selection of C1-C4
hydrocarbons was also tested. Innovatek, Inc. (USA) is planning to study a novel
catalytic-fuel-reforming technique (Hydrogen Program, 2001 (USA); Irving, 2001)(USA).
Diesel fuel and natural gas will be tested in a system applying the advantages of
microtechnology in the development of catalytic fuel reforming. Also planned in 2001 are
studies of the production of hydrobromic acid from bromine and methane for hydrogen
production (Hydrogen Program 2001) (USA)(Bradshaw, 2001b). Very recent reports on
methane and other hydrocarbon reforming are given in Panjala et al. (2001) (USA),
Mirodatus et al. (2001) (France); Srimat et al. (2001) (USA); Witmer (2001) (USA);
Manns and Taylor (2001) (USA); Zhu et al. (2001) (Australia); Ahmed & Krumpelt (2001)
and Nagoka et al. (2001) (Japan). Song (2001)(USA) discusses catalytic processes for
fuel cells. As with methanol, much more research on methane to hydrogen can be
expected. A recent paper by Yanhui and Diyong (2001) (China), while treating n-octane
for hydrogen production, may be relevant to lighter hydrocarbon. [See also Galvita et al
(2001) (Russia), Moon et al (2001) (South Korea), Raman (2001) (USA) and Shah et al
(2001) (USA).]
TECHNOECONOMIC AND LIFE CYCLE ANLAYSIS OF BIOMASS TO HYDROGEN
Technoeconomic Assessments
Many techoeconomic assessments of hydrogen from renewables have been published from
1992 (and probably earlier) to the present. These papers are not discussed individually, since
the emphasis of the report is on research, development and demonstration of biomasstohydrogen technologies. However, citations to these sources follow, since many contain
discussions, insights, and recommendations on biomass-to-hydrogen feasibility and research.
Life Cycle Analyses
A few such analyses are starting to appear and, like the above economic studies, can alert
researchers to priority areas for RD&D. The bibliography of some of these reports follows.
OVERVIEW OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION PATHWAYS
The reader is encouraged to consider these broad overviews of energy from biomass and other
sources to help put hydrogen from biomass into perspective.

28

INFORMATION ON COUNTRY PROGRAMS

The Appendix provides a sampling of recent publications related to the programs of the member
countries of the IEA. The IEA Web site (http://www.iea.org) gives more details on the Hydrogen
and Bioenergy Programs and the countries participating in those activities.

29

Promising Areas for IEA Cooperative Programs in Research,

Development and Demonstration
The chief purpose of this review of biomass to hydrogen is to bring to the attention of
researchers, developers, policy makers and energy managers in the participating IEA countries
the very extensive activities around the world over the last several decades. In this brief section,
we give our general impressions of areas where further R,D&D would lead to earlier introduction
of hydrogen from biomass into the renewable economy. Specific research priorities can, of
course, only be chosen by the technologists and managers in each county, hopefully finding
guidance from this review of what has been tried in the past.
In the above review, we found it logical to divide the approaches from biomass (or its
intermediate, stable derivatives like ethanol) into twelve categories. These are:
Thermal/Steam/Oxygen Gasification
This report includes only a brief section on gasification although it is clearly a major
thermochemical route to hydrogen. The IEA Hydrogen Agreement Task 16 Biomass to
Hydrogen Subtask will work with the IEA Bioenergy Gasification Task to summarize the state of
the art in gas separation and processing technologies. Of particular interest will be to analyze
needs in relation to fuel-gas specifications for fuel cells. R,D&D needs will be defined in a
summary report that will include techoeconomic evaluations.
Production of hydrogen from carbonaceous materials has a long history, with many studies still
appearing in the 80s and 90s. Our general observation is that several types of gasifiers have
been proven for both coal and biomass. One area needing more work, for all but direct fuel
combustion, is gas cleanup. Issues of tar cleanup, alkali and sulfur effects, and shifting the
syngas to maximize hydrogen still remain.
Direct Solar Gasification
Only a few papers have explored the use of solar heat to gasify solid organic materials. Two
studies, 1976 and 1994, examined the idea, while Russian studies (1996, 1998) report
experimental data for a parabolic mirror. Midilli et al.(2000) are currently studying hydrogen
separation from gasified biomass. There would appear to be long-range, high-risk research
opportunities at all scales to achieve the maximum hydrogen yield possible from given biomass
feedstocks.
Miscellaneous Gasification Processes
A sprinkling of studies of novel sources of heat or chemistry to convert biomass to hydrogen has
appeared, but none has been followed up. The nuclear heat approaches probably face much
higher barriers than proposed in the 1970s. However, electrochemical and redox processes
have only been touched upon. Good areas for basic, proof-of-concept research should exist.
Biomass-derived Syngas Conversion to Hydrogen
No attempt was made to cover the vast literature on syngas manipulation for optimization of
specific gases or liquids. One very old approach for hydrogen from syngas goes back to the
early 20th century. The steam-iron process and its variations have been studied for application

30

to biomass, and studies continue to this day. A great deal of syngas conversion research is
bound to occur with the current interest in storable fuels for on-board hydrogen fuel cells for
transport. This may lessen its priority for the IEA Hydrogen Agreement Task 16 emphasis on
biomass to hydrogen.
Supercritical Conversion of Biomass
Unlike some of the above areas, there has been a lot of research on supercritical conversion to
hydrogen of a variety of types of biomass. Some of this work has had about ten years of
continuous funding, allowing laboratory results to be validated, scale-up to proceed and
techoeconomic studies to be launched. A close study of the work in the USA and Japan, mainly,
will be needed to see if novel conditions or approaches have been missed. As with all the
approaches mentioned so far, when economics approach competitiveness with fossil-based
hydrogen, long-term pilot-scale demonstrations will be needed.
Biomass Pyrolysis to Hydrogen and Carbon or Methanol.
Steinberg and Associates have published extensively on the Hydrocarb and Hynol
processes, each of which produces solid carbon or methanol rather than CO2 as the final
product. There has been very little experimental data supporting the proposed routes to
hydrogen and methanol. No laboratory study of the integrated process has come to our
attention. Research is needed to validate the techoeconomic arguments of Steinberg.
Biological Conversion of Biomass to Hydrogen
Though a few references are listed earlier, this subject is left for the IEA Hydrogen Agreement
Task 15, Photobiological Production of Hydrogen, to address. Biological routes are certainly of
importance in that they produce storable intermediates like methane and ethanol from solid
biomass, as well as hydrogen directly.
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Pyrolysis Oil
The group at NREL, along with collaborators from Spain, has studied this approach to hydrogen
for over eight years. The emphasis has been on the conversion of oxygenated fractions of
whole oil after adhesive-forming elements have been extracted. Research opportunities exist in
the less-studied pyrolysis and reforming of other fractions of the whole oil left over when
valuable fractions have been extracted or converted, such as the non-fermentable fractions from
bioethanol production.
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Methanol and Ethanol
Many studies have been carried out on methanol, whose likely source for the near-term is from
fossil fuels. Much of this work is of very recent origin and is being fostered by fuel-cell
applications. Long-term tests appear to be lacking.
Ethanol studies are much more germane to biomass-to-hydrogen, again driven by interest in
ethanol for a liquid transportation fuel, as well as for fuel cells. Interest and research activities
accelerated in the 90s. Research and demonstration opportunities exist, particularly in longterm catalyst testing and impurity effects.

31

Methane and Natural Gas - Pyrolysis to Hydrogen and Carbon

As with biomass pyrolysis to hydrogen and carbon, many system studies have appeared along
with a few reports of preliminary experiments. Muradov has carried out catalytic pyrolysis
studies for almost a decade. Research and development opportunities using approaches such
as plasma catalysis, gliding arc reactors, direct solar, the Carnol process, etc., could move
these processes forward.
Reforming of Methane (and Natural Gas) to Hydrogen
In this review, reforming of CH4 to H2 + CO2 was perhaps the most actively studied approach to
hydrogen. Much of this work is aimed at fossil-derived natural gas and research and
development will probably be adequately promoted by the natural gas community.
Techoeconomic and Life-Cycle Analysis
This has been an active field and continued analysis opportunities will arise as new processes,
sources of biomass-derived feeds and product slates are suggested for experimental
demonstration.
Overviews of Hydrogen Production Pathways
This section contains overviews of programs on hydrogen from biomass and other routes and is
included to suggest fruitful ideas for continuing research

32

Appendix-A
References to Technical Chapter
Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation Gasification
Aznar, M.P.; Caballero, M.A.; Gil, J.; Olivares, A. and Corella, J. (1997). Hydrogen by Biomass
Gasification with Steam-O2 Mixtures and Steam Reforming and Co-Shift Catalytic Beds
Downstream of the Gasifier. Making a Business from Biomass in Energy, Environment
Chemicals, Fibers and Materials, Proceedings of the 3rd Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Vol. I, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 24-29, 1997, Ed R.P. Overend and E.
Chornet:pp. 859-860.
Abedi, J., Yeboah, Y.D., Realff, M., McGee, D., Howard, J., and Bota, K.B., (2001) An
Integrated Approach to Hydrogen Production from Agricultural Residue for use in Urban
Transportation, Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP
570-30535).
Abedi, J., Yeboah, Y.D., Howard, J., and Bota, K.B., (2001) Development of a catalytic fluid bed
steam reformer for production of hydrogen from biomass. 5th Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Orlando, FL (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published on CD/ROM.
Babu, S. (USA). Suresh.Babu@Gastechnology.org
Bakhshi, N. N.; Dalai, A. K., and Srinivas, S. T. (1999). Conversion of Various Biomass-derived
Chars to Hydrogen/High Btu Gas by Gasification with Steam. Proceedings of the 4th
Biomass Conference of the Americas, Oakland, CA, August 29-September 2, 1999:pp. 985990.
Caglar, A., and Demirbas, A. (2001) Hydrogen Rich Gaseous Products from Tea Waste by
Pyrolysis. Energy Sources 23 pp. 739-746
Chaudhari, S. T.;. Bej, S. K.; Bakhshi, N. N.; Dalai, A. K (2001) Steam Gasification of BiomassDerived Char for the Production of Carbon Monoxide-Rich Synthesis Gas. Energy and
Fuels 15 pp. 736-742
Chaudhari, S. T.; Ferdous, D.; Dalai, A. K.; Bej, S. K.; Thring, R. W., and Bakhshi, N. N. (2000).
Pyrolysis and Steam Gasification of Westvaco Kraft Lignin for the Production of Hydrogen
and Medium Btu Gas. Abstracts - Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Tyrol,
Austria, 17-22 September.
Cocco G. and Costantinides, A. (1988). Produzione di Idrogeno da Biomasse Mediante Pirolisigassificazione. Rivista Dei Combustibili; 42, (10):pp. 255-264.
Cox, J. L.; Tonkovich, A. Y.; Elliott, D. C.; Baker, E. G., and Hoffman, E. J. (1995). Hydrogen
from Biomass: A Fresh Approach. Proceedings of the Second Biomass Conference of the
Americas, (NREL/CP-200-8098; CONF-9508104)August, Portland, Oregon:pp. 657-675.
Demirbas, A.; Karshoglu, S., and Ayas, A. (1996). Hydrogen Resources Conversion of Black
Liquor to Hydrogen Rich Gaseous Products. Fuel Science and Technology International;
14(3):pp. 451-463.
Demirbas, A.; Caglar, A. (1998). Catalytic Steam Reforming of Biomass and Heavy Oil
Residues to Hydrogen. Energy Edu. Sci. Technol.1:pp. 45-52.
Dermirbas, A. (2002) (Turkey). Yields of Hydrogen-Rich Gaseous Products via Pyrolysis from
Selected Biomass Samples. Fuel 80:pp. 1885-1891.
Dihu, R. J. and Patel, J. G. (1983). U-Gas Process for Production of Hydrogen from Coal. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy; 8, (3):pp. 175-182.

33

Ferdous, D.; Dalai, A.K.; Bej, S.K.; Thring, R.W.; Bakhshi, N.N. (2001). Production of H2 and
Medium BTU Gas via Pyrolysis of Lignins in a Fixed-Bed Reactor. Fuel Processing
Technology 70(1): pp. 9-26.
Garca, L.; Snchez, J.L.; Salvador, M.L.; Bilbao, R., and Arauzo J. (1996). Hydrogen-rich Gas
from Steam Gasification of Biomass Using Coprecipitated Nickel-alumina Catalysts.
Bioenergy 96 The Seventh National Bioenergy Conference:pp. 859-865.
Garca, L.; Salvador, M.L.; Arauzo J. and Bilbao, R. (1997). Steam Gasification of Biomass in
Fluidized Bed Using a Ni-Al Coprecipitated Catalyst. Making a Business from Biomass in
Energy, Environment Chemicals, Fibers and Materials, Proceedings of the 3rd Biomass
Conference of the Americas, Vol. I, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 24-29, Eds. R.P.
Overend and E. Chornet:pp. 373-382.
Gallin-Ast. (1999). Method and Apparatus for Production of Hydrogen, Particularly High-Purity
Hydrogen, During Gasification of Biomass. Offenlegungsschrift, Hannelore Germany,
Patent No. DE-197-34-259191:pp. 2-6.
Hauserman, W.B. and Timpe, R.C. (1992). Catalytic Gasification of Wood for Hydrogen and
Methane Production. Energy & Environmental Research Center, University of North
Dakota:pp. 1-38.
Hauserman, W.B. (1992). High Yield Hydrogen Production by Catalytic Gasification of Coal or
Biomass. Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings of the 9th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference:pp. 63-72.
Hauserman, W.B. (1994a). Relating Catalytic Coal or Biomass Gasification Mechanisms to
Plant Capital Cost Components. Hydrogen Energy Progress X, Proceedings of the 10th
World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Cocoa Beach, FL, 20-24 June, Vol. 1:pp. 471-479.
Hauserman, W. B. (1994b). High-Yield Hydrogen Production by Catalytic Gasification of Coal or
Biomass. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 19, (5):pp. 413-419.
Hauserman, W.B. (1997). Relating Catalytic Coal or Biomass Gasification Mechanisms to Plant
Capital Cost Components. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 22, (4):pp. 409-414.
Hayashi, J.I.; Tomioka, Y.; Shimada, T.; Takahashi, H.; Kumagai, H.; Chiba, T. (1998). Rapid
Steam Reforming of Volatiles from Flash Pyrolysis of Coal. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII,
Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 669-678.
Hirano, A.; Hon-Nami, K.; Kunito, S.; Hada, M.; Ogushi, T. (1998). Temperature Effect on
Continuous Gasification of Microalgal Biomass: Theoretical Yield of Methanol Production
and its Energy Balance. Catalysis Today 45:pp. 399-404.
Hofbauer, H., Rauch, R., Foscolo, P., Matera, D. Hydrogen-rich Gas from Biomass Steam
Gasification. (2000) 1st World Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla,
Spain, June 2000, pp 1999-2001.
Iqbal, M.; Dalai, A.K., Thring, R.W. and Bakhshi, N. N. (1998). Potential of Producing Hydrogen
and High Btu Gas from Steam Gasification of Lignins. 33rd Intersociety Engineering
Conference on Energy Conversion, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6 (IECEC-98-086).
Kubiak, H.; Papamichalis, A., and van Heek, K. H. (1996). Production of Hydrogen by
Allothermal Gasification of Biomass. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th
World Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 621-629.
Lobachyov, K.V. and Richter, H.J. (1998). An Advanced Integrated Biomass Gasification and
Molten Fuel Cell Power System. Energy Convers. Manage. 39:pp. 1931-1943.

34

McDonald, R. M.; Swan, J. E.; Donnelly, P. E.; Mills, R. A., and Vaughan, S. R. (1981). Proteinextracted Grass and Lucerne as Feedstocks for Transport Fuel Production. Transactions of
the New Zealand Institution of Engineers, Electrical/Mechanical/Chemical Engineering; 8,
(2):pp. 59-64.
McKinley, K.R.; Browne, S.H.; Neill, D.R; Seki, A., and Takahashi, P.K. (1990). Hydrogen Fuel
from Renewable Resources. Energy Sources; 12:pp. 105-110.
Midilli, A., Dogru, M., Howarth, C.R., Ayhan, T. (2001). Hydrogen Production from Hazelnut
Shell by Applying Air-Blown Downdraft Gasification Technology. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
26(1):pp. 29-37.
Milne, T.A., Abatzoglou, N. and Evans, R.J. (1998) Biomass Gasifier Tars: Their Nature,
Formation and Conversion. November, (NREL/TP-570-25357)
Naushkin, Ya. M.; Zhorov, Yu. M.; Nikanorva, L. P.; Gorlov, E. G., and Vakhabov, O. (1988).
Production of Hydrogen by Catalytic Conversion of Aqueous Suspensions of Plant Biomass
with Steam. Solid Fuel Chemistry (English Translation of Khimiya Tverdogo Topliva); 22,
(6):pp. 127-132.
Pasternak, A. D.; Richardson, J. H.; Rogers, R. S.; Thorsness, C. B., and Wallman, H. (1994).
MSW to Hydrogen. Proceedings of the 1994 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review,
Livermore, CA, April 18-21 1994 (NREL/CP-470-6431):pp. 433-450.
Rabah, M.A. and Eldighidy, S.M. (1986). Low-Cost Hydrogen Production from Waste, Hydrogen
Energy Progress VI, Proceedings of the 6th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vienna,
Austria:pp. 1362-1370.
Rapagna, F.P. U. (1996). Hydrogen from Biomass by Steam Gasification. Hydrogen Energy
Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart,
Germany, 23-28 June; Vol. 1:pp. 907-912.
Rapagna, S., and Foscolo, P. U. (1998) . Catalytic Gasification of Biomass to Produce
Hydrogen Rich Gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23, (7):pp. 551-557.
Richardson, J. H.; Rogers, R. S.; Thorsness, C. B., and Wallman, P. H. (1995). Conversion of
Municipal Solid Waste to Hydrogen. Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review, Coral Gables, FL, April 18-21, 1995; Vol. 2(NREL/CP-430-20036):pp. 731-755.
Rogers, III R. (1994). Hydrogen Production by Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste. Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory(UCRL-ID-117603).
Saha, R. K.; Gupta, B. R. and Sen, P. (1982). Production of Hydrogen in an Autothermal
Fluidised Gasifier. Hydrogen Energy Progress IV, Proceedings of the 4th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Pasadena, CA, 13-17 June 1982; 1:pp. 69-77.
Saha, R.K.; Gupta, B.R. and Sen, P. (1984). Production of Hydrogen in an Autothermal
Fluidized Gasifier. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 9, (6):pp. 483-486.
Soo, S.L., Gibbs, R.T., Ma, K.T. (1978). A Steam Process for Producing Hydrogen from Coal.
Hydrogen Energy System II, Proceedings 2nd World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Zurich,
Switzerland, Pergamon Press:pp. 957-998.
Srinivas, S. T.; Dalai, A. K., and Bakhshi, N. N. (1998). Potential of Producing Hydrogen and
High Btu Gas from Steam Gasification of Biomass-derived Chars. Canadian Society for
Chemical Engineering Conference, London, Canada, 4-7 Oct; CONF981052(ISBN 0-920804-32-2).

35

Timpe, R. C.; Hauserman, W. B.; Kulas, R. W., and Young B.C. (1996). Hydrogen Production
from Fossil Fuels and Other Regionally Available Feedstocks. Hydrogen Energy Progress
XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28
June; Vol. 1:pp. 489-498.
Tsaros, C. L.; Arora, J. L., and Burnham, K. B. (1976). The Manufacture of Hydrogen from Coal,
Proceedings of the 1st World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Miami Beach, FL 1-3 March
1976; Vol. 1:pp. 4A-3 to 4A-26.
Turn, S.; Kinoshita, C.; Zhang, Z.; Ishimura, D., and Zhou, J. (1998). An Experimental
Investigation of Hydrogen Production from Biomass Gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy;
23, (8):pp. 641-648.
Walcher, G.; Girges, S., and Wanartner, S. (1996). Hydrogen Project Bad Brckenau. Hydrogen
Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp.
413-418.
Wallman, P. H.; Richardson, J. H.; Thorsness, C. B.; Laninger, T.F.; Klein, J.D.; Winter, J.K. and
Robin, A.M. (1996). Hydrogen Production from Municipal Solid Waste. Proceedings of the
1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Miami, FL, 1-3 May 1996; NREL/CP-43021968(UCRL-JC-124574; CONF-9605195-2):pp. 481-498.
Wallman, P. H. and Thorsness, C. B. (1997). Hydrogen Production from Wastes. Proceedings
of the 1997 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Herndon, VA, May 21-23, 1997:pp. 165176.
Wallman, P. H.; Thorsness, C. B., and Winter, J. D. (1998). Hydrogen Production from Wastes.
Energy; 23, (4):pp. 271-278.
Weber, S. L.; Sealock, L. J.; Mudge, L. K; Rboertus, R. J., and Mitchell, D. H. (1980).
Gasification of Biomass in the Presence of Multiple Catalysts for the Direct Production of
Specific Products. AIAA Paper Symp Pap Energy From Biomass and Wastes 4, Lake
Buena, Vista, FL, Jan 21-25,A:pp. 351-367.
Williams, L.D. (1980). Application of Centrifugal Separation to the Production of Hydrogen from
Coal. Applied Energy 6:pp. 63-70.
Zhou, J.; Ishimura, D.M., and Kinoshita, C.M. (1999). Effects of Injecting Steam on Catalytic
Reforming of Gasified Biomass. Fourth Biomass Conference of the Americas, Oakland, CA,
29 Aug- 2 Sep:pp. 991-997.
Direct Solar Gasification
Antal, Jr. M.J.; Feber, R.C., and Tinkle, M.C. (1976). Synthetic Fuels from Solid Wastes and
Solar Energy. Proceedings 1st World Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 1-20.
Epstein, M. and Spiewak, I. (1994). Review of the Technology for Solar Gasification of
Carbonaceous Materials. Proceedings of the 1994 ASME/JSME/JSES International Solar
Energy Conference, San Francisco, CA, Mar 27-30:pp. 79-91.
Midilli, A.; Rzayev, P.; Hayati, O., and Teoman, A. (2000). Solar Hydrogen Production from
Hazelnut Shells. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy; 25(8):pp. 723-732.
Rustamov, V. R.; Abdullayev, K. M.; Aliyev, F. G., and Kerimov, V. K. (1998). Hydrogen
Formation from Biomass Using Solar Energy. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23 (8):pp. 649-652.
Shahbazov, Sh. S. and Usubov, I. M. (1996). Heliothermic Unit for Gasification Agricultural
Product Wastes. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 951-954.

36

Walcher, G., Girges, S. and Weingartner, S. (1996) Hydrogen Project Bad Brckenau.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Conference. Vol 1.
pp 413-418
Miscellaneous Gasification Processes
Antal, M.J. (1974). Hydrogen and Food Production from Nuclear Heat and Municipal Waste,
Hydrogen Energy, Part A., Ed. T.N. Veziroglu, Plenum, NY:pp. 331-338
Belghit, A. and El Issami, S. (2001). Hydrogen Production by Steam Gasification of Coal in Gassolid Moving Bed using Nuclear Heat. Energy Conversion and Management; 42 (1):p. 81.
Coughlin, R.W. and Farooque. (1979). Hydrogen Production from Coal, Water and Electrons,
Nature 279, 24 May:pp. 301-303.
Cypres, R. (1987). Modern Carbochemical Processes for Hydrogen Production from Coal. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 12 (7):pp. 451-460.
Epple, A. (1996). Electrolytic Hydrogen Recovery from a Biomass Using Ultrasound.
Offenlegungsschrift, Patent DE 4428931:4 pp.
Kaske, G.; Kerker, L., and Miller, R. (1986). Hydrogen Production by the Hls Plasma
Reforming Process. Hydrogen Energy Progress VI, Proceedings of the 6th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Vienna, Austria:pp. 185-190.
Otsuka, K. and Takizawa, Y. (1981). Hydrogen Production from Water by In2O3 and K2CO3
Using Graphite, Active Carbon and Biomass as Reductants. Chemistry Letters:pp. 347-350.
Otsuka, K.; Mito, A.; Takenaka, S.; Yamanaka, J. (2001). Production of Hydrogen from Methane
without CO2 Emission Mediated by Indium Oxide and Iron Oxide. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
26(3):pp. 191-194.
Safrany, D.R. (1971). A Potential Large Scale Plasma Process: Synthesis of Inexpensive
Hydrogen by Using a Thermonuclear Device to Vaporize Waste Organic Materials.
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series:pp. 103-108.
Sato, S. and White, J.M. (1980). Photocatalytic Production of Hydrogen from Water and Texas
Lignite by Use of a Platinized Titania Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Bev, 1980
19:pp.542-544.
Thakur, L. (1980). Production of Hydrogen from Low Grade Coal. Hydrogen Energy Progress III,
Proceedings of the 3rd World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Tokyo, Japan 23-26 June
1980; Vol. 3:pp. 1725-1726.
Yermakov, A.N.; Zhitomersky, V.N.; Popov, V. N. and Dzantiev, B.G. (1988). Thermoradiative
Processes of Coal Conversion. Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Ed. Veziroglu and Protsenko, Pergamon Press:pp. 901-910.
Yermakov, A.N.; Zhitomersky, V.N.; Popov, V. N. (1994). Hydrogen Production from Coal
Conversion under High-Power Electron Beans. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 19 (10):pp. 803806.
Biomass-Derived Synthesis Gas Conversion and Sponge Iron
Bijetima, R. and Tarman, P.B. (1981). Development States of the Steam-Iron Process for
Hydrogen Production, Alternative Energy Sources 2:pp. 3335-3347.
Biollaz, S.; Sturzenegger, M., and Stucki, S. (2000). Redox Process for the Production of Clean
Hydrogen from Biomass. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Abstracts,
Tyrol, Austria, 17-22 September.

37

Das, A., Chatterjae, D.S.; Mukherjee, P.N. (1977). Steam-Iron Process for Production of
Hydrogen. Indian J. of Technology, 15:pp. 339-341.
Fankhauser, R.; Hacker, V.; Spreitz, B.; Kleindienst, K.; Fuchs, H.; Rabel, A.; Friedrich, K., and
Faleschini, G. (1998). First Operation Results of a Small Scale Sponge Iron Reactor (SIR)
for Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 551-553.
Friedrich, K.; Kordesch, K., and Simader, G. Selan M. (1995). The Process Cycle Sponge
Iron/Hydrogen/Iron Oxide Used for Fuel Conditioning in Fuel Cells. New Materials, Fuel Cell
System. Proceedings International Symposium:pp. 239-248.
Hacker, V.; Fuchs, H.; Fankhauser, R.; Spreitz, B., and Friedrich, K. Faleschini G. (1998a).
Hydrogen Production from Gasified Biomass by Sponge Iron Reactor (SIR). Hydrogen
Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 543550.
Hacker, V.; Faleschini, G.; Fuchs, H.; Fankhauser, R.; Simader, G.; Ghaemi, M.; Spreitz, B.,
and Friedrich, J. (1998b). Usage of Biomass Gas for Fuel Cells by the SIR Process.
Journal of Power Sources 71:pp. 226-230.
Hacker, V.; Fankhauser, R.; Faleschini, G.; Fuchs, H.; Friedrich, J.; Muhr, M., and Kordesch, K.
(2000). Hydrogen Production by Steam-Iron Process. Journal of Power Sources 86 :pp.
531-535.
Jannach, G.; Krammer, G.; Staudinger, G., and Friedrich, K. (1997). Hydrogen from Biomass
Gasification for Fuel Cell Systems by Application of the Sponge Iron/Iron Oxide Process
Cycle. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on New Materials for Fuel Cell
and Modern Battery Systems, Montral Qubec Canada, July 6-10:pp. 42-53.
Knippels, J.P.M.H.; Holstvoogn, R.B.; deLaat, G.J.; Ptasinsky, K.J.; Versteeg, G.F.; VanSwaaij,
W.P.M. (1990). Development of a New Method for Hydrogen Recovery from Lean Gas
Mixtures (e.g., Producer Gas) Using Metal Hydride Slurries. Final Report, Contract No.
EN3B-0107-NL, Commission of the European Communities, EUR 12712 EN:195 pp.
Mills, G. (1993). Status and Future Opportunities for Conversion of Synthesis Gas to Liquid
Energy Fuels: Final Report, NREL/TP-421-5150, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado:159 pp.
Ruettinger, W., Lampert, J., Korotkikh, O., Farrauto, R.N. (2001). Non-Pyrophoric Water-Gas
Shift Catalysts for Hydrogen Generation in Fuel Cell Applications. American Chemical
Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 46(2):pp. 31-32.
Straus, J. and Terry, P. (1995). H2 from Biosyngas via Iron Reduction and Oxidation.
Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review; Vol. 2(NREL/CP-43020036):pp. 861-876.
Wender, I. (1996). Reactions of Synthesis Gas. Fuel Processing Technology 48:pp. 189-297.
Werth, J. and Straus, J. (1994). Storage of Hydrogen Made from Biosyngas, Using Iron
Reduction and Oxidation. Proceedings of the 1994 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review.
(NREL/CP-470-6431):pp. 249-271.
Supercritical Conversion of Biomass
Ando, H.; Sakaki, Tsuyoshi; K., Tetsuro ; Shibata, M.; Uemura, Y., and Hatate, Y. (2000).
Decomposition Behavior of Plant Biomass in Hot-Compressed Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2000, 39:pp. 3688-3693.

38

Antal, Jr. M.J.; Manarungson, S.; Mok, W.S-L. (1994a). Hydrogen Production by Steam
Reforming Glucose in Supercritical Water. Advances in Thermochemical Biomass
Conversion, Ed. A.V. Bridgwater, Blackie Academic and Professional: pp. 1367-1377.
Antal, Jr. M.J.; Xu, X., and Stenberg, J. (1994b). Hydrogen Production from High-Moisture
Content Biomass in Supercritical Water. Proceedings of the 1994 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review:pp. 451-462.
Antal, M. Jr.; Matsumura, Y.; Onuma, M.T., and Xu, X. (1995). Hydrogen Production from HighMoisture Content Biomass in Supercritical Water. Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Annual Review. NREL/CP 430-20036. September, Coral Gables,
Florida:pp. 757-795.
Antal, Jr. M.J.; Adschiri, T.; Ekbom, T.; Garcia, A.; Matsumura, Y.; Minowa, T.; Nuessle, F.;
Sakurai, M., and Xu, X. (1996). Hydrogen Production from High-Moisture Content Biomass
in Supercritical Water. Proceedings of the 1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual
Review. NREL/CP-430-21968 Vol. 1(CONF-9605195 Vol. 1):pp. 499-511.
Antal, Jr. M.J. and Xu, X. (1997). Total, Catalytic, Supercritical Steam Reforming of Biomass.
Proceedings of the 1997 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review May 21-23, Herndon,
Virginia; NREL/CP-430-23722(DOE H2 Review):pp. 149-162.
Antal, Jr. M.J. and Xu, X. (1998). Hydrogen Production from High Moisture Content Biomass in
Supercritical Water. Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review.
NREL/CP-570-25315 Vol. 2; CONF-980440-Vol. 2 (DOE Hydrogen Program Review):pp.
639-654.
Antal, Jr. M.J.; Allen, S., Lichwa, J., and Schulman, O. and Xu, X. (1999). Hydrogen Production
from High-Moisture Content Biomass in Supercritical Water. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S.
DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-570-26938:pp. 1-24.
Antal, Jr. M.J.; Allen, S.G.; Schulman, D., and Xu, X. (2000). Biomass Gasification in
Supercritical Water. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research; 39(No. 11):pp. 40404053.
Boukis, N.; Abein, J.; Krise, A., and Schnisder, H. and Dinjas E. (2000). Biomass Treatment in
Supercritical Water. The Way from Total Oxidation to the Gasification. Progress in
Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, September. Tyrol, Austria.
Divilio, R.J. (1998). Modeling of Biomass to Hydrogen via the Supercritical Water Pyrolysis
Process. Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review; NREL/CP-57029315, v.2:pp. 655-691.
Divilio, R.J. (1999). Modeling of the Supercritical Water Pyrolysis Process. Proceedings of the
1999 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review(NREL/CP-570-26938).
Elliott, B.C.; Butner, R.J.; Sealock, L.J. Jr. (1988). Low-Temperature Gasification of HighMoisture Biomass. Research in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Ed. A.V. Bridgwater
and J.L. Kuester, Elsevier, London:pp. 696-710.
Elliott, D.C.; Neuenschwander, G.G.; Baker, E.G.; Butner, R.S.; Sealock, L.J. (1990). BenchScale Reactor Tests of Low-Temperature, Catalytic Gasification of Wet Industrial Wastes.
Proceedings of the 25th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, August,
Vol. 5:pp. 102-106.
Elliott, D.C.; Neuenschwander, G.G.; Baker, E.G.; Butner, R.S.; Sealock, L.J. (1991). LowTemperature, Catalytic Gasification of Wastes for Simultaneous Disposal and Energy
Recovery. Energy from Biomass & Wastes IV, IGT Conference, March:pp. 1013-1021.

39

Elliott, D.C.; Phelps, M.R.; Sealock, L.J.; Baker, E.G. (1994). Chemical Processing in HighPressure Aqueous Environments. 4. Continuous Flow Reactor Process Development
Experiments for Organics Destruction. Ind & Eng. Chem. Res. 33:pp.576-574.
Elliott, D.C.; Sealock, Jr. L. J., and Baker, E.G. (1997). Method for the Catalytic Conversion of
Organic Materials into a Product Gas. United States Patent No. 5, 616, 154.
General Atomics (1997). Hydrogen Production by Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass.
Phase I Technical and Business Feasibility Study Technical Progress Report.
DOE/GO/10216-TI.
General Atomics Supercritical Water Partial Oxidation (2001). U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Annual Operating Plan:pp. 3-27 to 3-28.
Hatano, H.; Suzuki, Y., and Lin, S. (1999). Hydrogen Production by Reaction Integrated Novel
Gasification Process. Chorinkai Saishin Gijutsu; 3:pp. 48-51.
Holgate, H.R.; Meyer, J.C. and Tester, J.N. (1995). Glucose Hydrolysis and Oxidation in
Supercritical Water. AICHE Journal 41:pp. 637.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan. (2000). Modeling of the Supercritical Water
Pyrolysis Process Combustion Systems, Inc. (CSI). U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual
Operating Plan 2000:p. 3-34 to 3-35.
Johanson, N. W.; Spritzer, M.H.; Hong, G. T.; Rickman, W.S. (2001). Supercritical Water Partial
Oxidation, Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 57030535).
Kruse, A.; Meier, D.; Rimbrecht, P.; Shacht, M. (2000). Gasification of Pyrocatachol in
Supercritical Water in the Presence of Potassium Hydroxide. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39:pp.
4842-4848.
Labrecque, R.; Kaliaguine, S., and Grandmaison, J. L. (1982). Supercritical Pyrolysis of Wood.
Proceeding Conference: Fourth Bioenergy Research and Development Seminar, Winnipeg,
Canada, 29 Mar:pp. 306-310.
Lin, S.; Suzuki, Y.; Hatano, H., and Harada, M. (1999a). Producing Hydrogen from Coals by
Using a Method of Reaction Integrated Novel Gasification (HyPr-RING). Sixteenth Annual
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA (US),1999(OSTI 20082354).
Lin, S.-Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Katano, H.; Oya, M., and Harada, M. (1999b). Innovative Hydrogen
Production by Reaction Integrated Novel Gasification Process (HyPr-RING). International
Symposium on Advanced Clean Coal Technology, Tokyo 1999.
Lin, S.; Suzuki, Y.; Hatano, H., and Harada, M. (2000a). Designing a Reaction Integrated
Process (HyPR-RING) for Hydrogen Production from Hydrocarbon. 17th Pittsburgh Coal
Conference (2000):6 pages
Lin, S.-Y.; Hatano, H., and Suzuki, Y. (2000b). Method for Producing Hydrogen by
Thermochemical Decomposition. European Patent Application EP1001002A.
Lin, S.-Y. (2000). Development of Clean Hydrogen Production from Organic Carbon and Water
by Reaction Integrated Novel Gasification Process. Kemikaru Enjiniyaringu; 45(1):pp. 2025.
Lu, X; Sakoda, A.; Suzuki, M. (2000). Decomposition of Cellulose by Continuous Near-Critical
Water Reactions. Chinese J. of Chem. Eng. 8 (4):pp. 321-325.

40

Manarungson, S., Mok, W.S., Antal Jr., M.J. (1990). Hydrogen Production by Gasification of
Glucose and Wet Biomass in Supercritial Water. Hydrogen Energy Progress VIII,
Proceedings of the 8th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Ed. T.U. Veziroglu and P.K.
Takahashi, Honolulu, Hawaii:pp. 345-355.
Matsumura, Y.; Minowa, T.; Xu, X.; Nuessle, F. W.; Adschiri, T., and Antal, Jr. M. J. (1997a).
High-Pressure Carbon Dioxide Removal in Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass. In
Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Ed. Bridgwater and Boocock,
Blackie Academic:pp. 864-877.
Matsumura, Y.; Adschiri, T.; Xu, S.; Garcia, A. and Antal, Jr., M.J. (1997b). Reaction Rate of
Activated Carbon with Superciritcal Water. The 4th International Symposium on Supercritical
Fluids, Sendai, Japan, May 11-14:pp.555-568.
Matsumura, Y.; Xu, X.; Antal, Jr., M.J. (1997c). Gasification Characteristic of an Activated
Carbon in Supercritical Water. Carbon 35(6):pp. 819-824.
Matsumura, Y. (2000). Gasification of Liquidized Biomass in Supercritial Water Using Partial
Oxidation. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, September, Tyrol, Austria.
Minowa, T.; Ogi, T.; Dote, Y.; Yokoyama, S. (1994). Methane Production from Cellulose by
Catalytic Gasification. Renewable Energy 5:pp. 813-815.
Minowa, T.; Ogi, T.; Yokoyama, S.Y. (1995a). Hydrogen Production from Wet Cellulose by Low
Temperature Gasification Using a Reduced Nickel Catalyst. Chemistry Letters:pp. 937-938.
Minowa, T.; Ogi, T.; Yokoyama, S.Y. (1995b). Effect of Pressure on Low Temperature
Gasification of a Cellulose into Methane Using Reduced Nickel Catalyst and Sodium
Carbonate, Chemistry Letters:pp. 285-286.
Minowa, T; Ogi, T.; Yokoyama, S. (1997). Hydrogen Production from Lignocellulosic Materials
by Steam Gasification Using a Reduced Nickel Catalyst. Developments in Thermochemical
Biomass Conversion, Vol. 2:p. 932-941.
Minowa, T. and Ogi, T. (1998). Hydrogen Production from Cellulose Using a Reduced Nickel
Catalyst. Catalysis Today 45:pp. 411-416.
Minowa, T. and Fang, Z. (1998). Hydrogen Production from Cellulose in Hot Compressed Water
Using Reduced Nickel Catalyst: Product Distribution at Different Reaction Temperature.
Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan; 31(No. 3):pp. 488-491.
Minowa, T. and Inoue, S. (1999). Hydrogen Production from Biomass by Catalytic Gasification
in Hot Compressed Water. Renewable Energy 16:pp. 1114-1117.
Minowa, T. and Fang, Z. (2000). Hydrogen Production from Biomass by Low Temperature
Catalytic Gasification. Progress In Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Sept., Tyrol,
Austria.
Minowa, T. (2000). Hydrogen Production from Biomass by Low Temperature Catalytic
Gasification. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. Sept. Tyrol, Austria.
Modell, M. (1977). Reforming of Glucose and Wood at the Critical Conditions of Water.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper n77-ENAs-2, July 11-14:8 p.
Modell, M.; Reid, R.C.; Amin, S. (1978). Gasification Process. U.S. Patent 4,113,446. Sept.
Modell, M. (1985). Gasification and Liquefaction of Forest Products in Supercritical Water.
Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Ed., R.P Overend, T.A. Milne and
L.R. Mudge, Elsevier Applied Science: pp. 95-119.

41

Mok, W. S.-L. and Antal, Jr. M.J. (1992). Uncatalyzed Solvolysis of Whole Biomass
Hemicellulose by Hot Compressed Liquid Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.31:pp. 1157-1161.
Nuessle, F. W.; Xu, X.; Matsumura, Y., and Antal, Jr. M.J. (1996). Hydrogen Production from
High Moisture Content Biomass in Supercritical Water with Carbon Catalysts: The Role of
the Water-Gas Shift Reaction. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 611-619.
Penninger, J.M.L. (1999). Production of Hydrogen from Wet Biomass by Supercritical Water
Gasification. High Pressure Chemical Engineering Proceedings, Dahmen, N.; Dinjus, E.
[Eds.], 310 Pages(OSTI ID 20027690).
Savage, P.E.; Gopalan, S., Mizan, T.I.; Martino, C.J.; Brock, E.E. (1995). Reactions at
Supercritical Conditions: Applications and Fundamentals. AIChE Journal. 1995, 41(7):pp.
1723-1778.
Savage, P.E. (1999). Organic Chemical Reactions in Supercritical Water. Chemical Review
99:pp. 603-621.
Sealock, L.J. and Elliott, D.C. (1991). Method for the Catalytic Conversion of Lignocellulosic
Materials, V15, U.S. Patent No. 5,019,135.
Siskin, M. and Katritzky (2001). Reactivity of Organic Compounds in Superheated Water:
General Background. To appear in Chemical Review.
Spritzer, M.; Johanson, N.; Bierer, L. (2001). Hydrogen Production Using Supercritical Water
an Update of Progress at General Atomics. Fifth International Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM
Tolman, R.; Spritzer, M.; Hong, G. T.; Rickman, B., and Parkinson, W. J. (2000). Meeting Vision
21 Goals with Supercritical Water Gasification (SCWG) of Biomass/Coal Slurries. In 25th
International Technical Conference on Coal and Fuel Systems(OSTI 20034309).
Van de Beld, B (2001) Private Communication
Project with BTG involvement

Clean fuel gases from aqueous biomass by supercritical gasification process: a prefeasibility study, funded by European Commission, JO-ST-3042, project partners BTG,
Sparqle and Callaghan Engineering Ltd, 1998

Reactor development for superficial water gasification of biomass, funded by NEDO,

Japan 00GP1, 2000-2003, Twente University, BTG, University of Tokyo, NIRE.

Demonstration of Technical feasibility of SCW biomass gasification process for the

production of renewable hydrogen, Funded by the Dutch EET-Programme, 1999-2000,
project partners BTG, Sparqle, TNO and Promikron

Biomass and waste conversion in supercritical water for the production of renewable
hydrogen, EC funded project, ENK-52001-00555, 2002-2005, project partners BTG,
Twente University, Sparqle, TNO, Uhde Hochdrucktechnik, Warwick University, Dytech
Ltd.

Xu, X.; Matsumura, Y.; Stenberg, J., and Antal, Jr., M.J. (1996) . Carbon-Catalyzed Gasification
of Organic Feedstocks in Supercritical Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 35(8):pp. 2522-2530.
Xu, X. and Antal, Jr. M.J. (1998). Gasification of Sewage Sludge and Other Biomass for
Hydrogen Production in Supercritical Water. Environmental Progress; 17(4):pp. 215-220

42

Yokoyama, S.; Ogi, T., and Minowa, T. (1997a). Pyrolysis of Wet Cellulose Containing Biomass
to Produce Hydrogen. Britian UK Patent No. 9704772.4.
Yokoyama, S.; Ogi, T.; Minowa, T., and Inoue, S. (1997b). Method of Producing Hydrogen from
Biomass. United States Patent No. 5,651,953, July, 29.
Yu, D.; Aihara, M., and Antal, Jr. M.J. (1993). Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming
Glucose in Supercritical Water. Energy and Fuels. 1993; (7):pp. 574-577
Biological Conversion of Biomass to Hydrogen
Antonopoulos, A. A. and Grohmann, K. (1993) (USA). Recent Research Efforts in the Area of
Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Jan 31,
1993.
Bae, M. and Yi, H. J. (1990) (South Korea). Hydrogen Evolution from Biomass-Derived
Carbohydrates by Clostridia. (ISSN: 0257-2389):pp. 6-11.
Bailey, C.; Kamal, M.; Llyd, A.; Lynch, F.; Nahmias, D.; Zalosh, R. (1998) (USA). The United
States Department of Energys Hydrogen Program Perspectives from the Hydrogen
Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP). Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th
World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 21-26 June 1998. Vol 1:p.
395.
Benemann, J. R. (1995) (USA). The Technology of Biohydrogen, Plenum Press. Chapter 3, pp.
19-30. Biohydrogen. Ed. O.R. Zaborsky
Biohydrogen 2002, The Netherlands, April 21-24, 2002.
(http://www.ftns.wau.nl/prock/Research/Rene/Biohydrogen 2002.htm
Biohydrogen II. Ed. By J. Miyake, T. Matsunager, A. San Pietro. Pergamon. For contents visit
http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/6/2/1/9/6/4/index.htt
Das, D. and Veziroglu, T.N. (2001). Hydrogen Production by Biological Processes: A Survey of
Literature. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26:pp. 13-28.
Devillers, C.; Pehr, K.; Duffield, J.S.;Weinmann, O.;Vandenborre, H.;Garcia, G.;Wurster,
R.;Kesten, M.;Heurtaux, F.;Ekdunge,P. (2000) (Europe). European Integrated Hydrogen
Project (EIHP):p. 469.
Fabiano, B. and Perego, P. (2002) (Italy). Thermodynamic Study and Optimization of Hydrogen
Production by Enterobacter aerogenes. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 27:pp. 149-150.
Grady, J. L. and Chen, G. J. (1998) (USA). Bioconversion of Waste Biomass to Useful Products.
(OSTI ID 675815).
Huesing, B. and Reiss, T. (1996) (Germany). Perspectives and Limitations of Biological
Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 355-360.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan (2000) (USA). Photobiological Processes. U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000:pp. 3-45 to 3-47.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan (2000) (USA). Bioreactor Development for Biological
H2 Production National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Annual Operating Plan FY2000:pp. 3-48 to3-50.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan (2001) (USA). Biohydrogen Production from
Renewable Organic Wastes Iowa State University. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual
Operating Plan FY 2001:pp. 3-29 to 3-31.

43

Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan (2001) (USA). Biological H2 from Fuel Gases and
from Water National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-35 to 3-37.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan (2001) (USA). Bioreactor Development for Biological
H2 Production National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-38 to 3-39.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan (2001) (USA). International Energy Agency and
Other International Collaborations National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:p.3-62.
Ike, A.; Murakawa, T.; Kawaguchi, H.; Hirata, K., and Miyamoto, K. (1999) (Japan).
Photoproduction of Hydrogen from Raw Starch Using a Halophilic Bacterial Community.
Society for Bioscience and Bioengineering, Japan. 88:pp. 72-77.
Kalia, V. C. and Joshi, A. P. (1995) (India). Conversion of Waste Biomass (Pea-Shells) into
Hydrogen and Methane through Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresource Technology; 53(2):pp.
165-168.
Klasson, K.T.; Ackerman, C.M.D.; Clausen E.C.; Gaddy, J.L. (1992) (USA). Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 17(4):pp. 281-288.
Kumar, N. and Debabrata, D. (2000) (India). Biological Hydrogen Production in a Packed Bed
Reactor Using Agroresidues as Solid Matrices. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. I,
Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15,
2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 364-369.
Lay, J-J. and Lee, Y-J. et al. (1999). Feasibility of Biological Hydrogen Production from Organic
Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. Water Research; 33:pp. 2579-2586.
Lin, C-Y. and Chang, R-C. (1999) (Taiwan). Hydrogen Production During the Anaerobic
Acidogenic Conversion of Glucose. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnology 74(6):pp. 498-500.
Majizat, A.; Mitsunori, Y.; Mitsunori, W.; Michimasa, N., and Junichiro, M. (1997) (India).
Hydrogen Gas Production from Glucose and its Microbial Kinetics in Anaerobic Systems.
Anaerobic Digestion VIII:pp. 279-286.
Maness, P.-C. and Weaver, P. F. (1999) (USA). Biological Hydrogen from Fuel Gases and from
Water. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review(NREL/CP-57026938).
Maness, P.C., Weaver, P.F. (2001) (USA). Biological Hydrogen from Fuel Gases and from
Water Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 57030535).
Maness, P.C.; Magrini, K.; Smolinski, S.; Dillon, A.; Heben, M.; Weaver, P.F. (2001) (USA).
Application of a Biological Water-Gas Shift Reaction Using Unique Photosynthetic Bacteria.
Fifth International Biomass Conference of the Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled).
Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM
Mizuno, O. and Noike, T. (2000) (Japan U.K.). Enhancement of Hydrogen Production from
Glucose by Nitrogen Gas Sparging. Bioresource Technology; 73(1):pp. 59-65.
Nielsen, A.T.; Amandusson, H.; Bjorklund, R.; Dannetun, H.; Ejlertsson, J.; Ekedahl, L.G.;
Lundstrom, I.; Svensson, B.H. (2001) (Sweden). Hydrogen Production from Organic Waste,
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26:pp. 547-550.

44

Palazzi, E.; Fabiano, B., and Perego, P. (2000) (Italy). Process Development of Continuous
Hydrogen Production by Enterobacter Aerogenes in a Packed Column Reactor. Bioprocess
Engineering; 22(3):pp. 205-213.
Perego, P.; Fabiano, B.; Ponzano, G. P., and Palazzi, E. (1998) (Italy). Experimental Study of
Hydrogen Kinetics from Agroindustrial By-Product: Optimal Conditions for Production and
Fuel Cell Feeding. Bioprocess Engineering; 19 (3):pp. 205-211.
Ponzano, G. P.; Perego, P.; Palazzi, E., and Ferraiolo, G. (1995) (Italy). Biomass Hydrogen
Production to be Used in Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell. Proceedings of the 10th World Clean
Air Congress, Espoo, Finland, 28 May to 2 June 1995; Vol. 1:4 pp.
Roychowdhury, S.; Cox, D.; Nag, M., and Hamill, T. (1996) (USA). Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June 1996; Vol. 3:pp. 2397-2406.
Seibert, M., Forestia, M., Zhang, C., Ghirardi, M., (2001) (USA) Development of an Efficient
Algal H2. Production System. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Singh, S. P.; Srivastava, S. C., and Singh, V. K. (1994) (India). Photoproduction of Hydrogen by
Rhodopseudomonas at the Expense of Cellulose: Development of Two-Stage Bioreactor.
Hydrogen Energy Progress X, Proceedings of the 10th World Hydrogen Energy Conference,
1994; Vol. 2:pp. 959-963.
Singh, S. P. and Srivastava, S. C. (1996) (India). Agrowaste-Based Bacterial Hydrogen
Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference; Vol. 3(pp. 2613-2618).
Sparling, R.; Risbey, D., and Poggi-Varaldo, H. M. (1997) (Canada and Mexico). Hydrogen
Production from Inhibited Anaerobic Composters. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy; 22:pp. 563566.
Sundstrom, D. W.; Klei, H. E., and Coughlin, R. W. (1980) (USA). Improvement of Yields and
Rates During Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulose to Glucose. (DOE/ET/23066-4):pp. 1-10.
Sung, S. (2001). Bio-Hydrogen Production from Renewable Organic Wastes. Proceedings of
the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Tanisho, D. and Ishiwata, Y. (1995) (Japan). Continuous Hydrogen Production from Molasses
by Fermentation Using Urethane Foam as a Support of Flocks. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 20
(7):pp. 541-545.
Tanisho, S. and Fujii, Y. (1995) (Japan). Hydrogen Production from Garbage by the Bacterium
Enterobacter Aerogenes. Journal of the Hydrogen Energy Systems Society of Japan;
20(1,2):pp. 10-15.
Tanisho, S. (1996) (Japan). Feasibility Study of Biological Hydrogen Production from Sugar
Cane by Fermentation. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June, 1996:pp. 2601-2606.
Tanisho, S.; Kuromoto, M., and Kadokura, N. (1998) (Japan). Effect of CO2 Removal on
Hydrogen Production by Fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23(7):pp. 559-563.
Tanisho, S. and Suganuma, T. (1999) (Japan). Feasibility of Hydrogen Production from
Seaweeds by Fermentation. Journal of the Hydrogen Energy Systems Society of Japan; 24
(1):pp. 19-24.

45

Tanisho, S. (2000) (Japan). A Strategy for Improving the Yield of Hydrogen by Fermentation.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. I, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 370375.
Tippmer, K. and Tippmer, S. (1995) (Germany). Process for Production of Hydrogen and
Carboxylic Acids from Biomass Hydrolysate:6 pp. European Patent Applications,
EP6G6319.
Weaver, P.; Maness, P.-C.; Frank, S. L., and Toon, S. (1994) (USA). Biological Water-Gas Shift
Activity. Proceedings of the 1994 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Livermore, CA,
April 18-21; NREL/CP-470-6431:pp. 403-406.
Weaver, P.; Maness, P.-C.; Markov, S., and Martin, S. (1996) (USA). Biological H2 from Syngas
and from H2O. Proceedings of the 1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Miami, FL,
May 1-2; NREL/CP-430-21968:pp. 325-330.
Weaver, P.; Maness, P.-C.; Markov, S., and Martin, S. (1997) (USA). Biological H2 from Syngas
and from H2O. Proceedings of the 1997 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Herndon,
VA, May 21-23; NREL/CP-430-23722:pp. 33-40.
Weaver, P.; Maness, P.-C.; Rhodes, C.; Scahill, J.; Dundorf, S., and Martin, S. (1998) (USA).
Biological H2 from Fuel Gases and from H2O. Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review, Alexandria, VA, April 28-30, 1998,(NREL/CP-570-25315):pp. 1-8.
Weaver, P. (2001) (USA). Biologic Hydrogen from Fuel Gases and Water. Proceedings of the
2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Wolfrum, E. J. and Weaver, P. F. (1999) (USA). Bioreactor Development for Biological
Hydrogen Production. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP-570-26938).
Wolfrum, E.J. (2001) (USA). Bio-reactor Development for Biological Hydrogen Production.
Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Wolfrum, E. (2001) (USA). Reactor Design Issues for Different Applications of the Biological
Water Gas, Shift Process. Fifth International Biomass Conference of the Americas,
Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM
Woodward, J. and Mattingly, S. M. (1996) (USA). In Vitro Hydrogen Production by Glucose
Dehydrogenase and Hydrogenase. Bio/Technology; 14(7):pp. 872-874.
Woodward, J. (1996) (USA). In Vitro Hydrogen Production by Glucose Dehydrogenase and
Hydrogenase. Proceedings of the 1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Review,
Miami, FL, 1-3 May; Vol. 1:pp. 313-323.
Woodward, J. Danson J.; Hough, D., and Ward, N. (1997) (USA). Utilization of Extremozymes
for the Bioconversion of Renewable Sugar to Molecular Hydrogen. National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA, 13-17, April:pp. 228-229.
Woodward, J. and Orr, M. (1998) (USA). Enzymatic Conversion of Sucrose to Hydrogen.
Biotechnology Progress; 14(6):pp. 897-902.
Woodward, J.; Orr, M.; Cordray, K.; Greenbaum, E. (2000) (USA). Proceedings of the 2000 U.S.
DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-570-28890.
Zaborsky, O.R., Ed. (1998) (USA). Bio Hydrogen. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Biological Hydrogen Production, June, 1997, Waikoloa, Hawaii, Plenum Press, NY.

46

Zhu, H.; Suzuki, T.; Tsygankov, A. A.; Asade, Y., and Miyake, J. (1999) (Japan). Hydrogen
Production for Tofu Wastewater by Rhodobacter Sphaeroides Immobilized in Agar Gels. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy; 24:pp. 305-310.
Production of Storable Intermediates from Biomass Partial Conversion
Borgwardt, R.H. (1995). The Hynol Process. Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Research:pp. 4-128 to 4-138.
Dong, Y. and Steinberg, M. (1994). Hynol An Economical Process for Methanol Production
from Biomass and Natural Gas with Reduced CO2 Emission. Hydrogen Energy Progress X,
Proceedings of the 10th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, June; Vol. 1:pp. 495-504 .
Dong Y. and Steinberg, M. (1997). Hynol An Economical Process for Methanol Production
from Biomass and Natural Gas with Reduced CO2 Emission. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
22(10,11):pp. 971-977.
Dong, Y. and Borgwardt, R.H. (1998). Biomass Reactivity in Gasification by the Hynol Process.
Energy and Fuels 12(13):pp. 479-484.
Sethi, P.; Chaudhry, S. and Unnasch, S. (1999). Methanol Production from Biomass Using the
Hynol Process. Biomass A Growth Opportunity in Green Energy and Value-Added
Products, Proceedings of the 4th Biomass Conference of the Americas, Vol. I, Ed R.P.
Overend and E. Chornet:pp.833-836.
Steinberg, M. (1986). The Direct Use of Natural Gas for Conversion of Carbonaceous Raw
Materials to Fuels and Chemical Feedstocks. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 11(11):pp. 715-720.
Steinberg, M.; Fallon, P.T. and Sundaram M. S. (1986). Flash Pyrolysis of Biomass with
Reactive and Non-reactive Gas. Biomass 9:pp. 293-315.
Steinberg, M. (1987a). Clean Carbon and Hydrogen Fuels from Coal and Other Carbonaceous
Raw Materials.BNL-39630.
Steinberg, M. (1987b). The Flash Hydro-Pyrolysis and Methanolysis of Coal with Hydrogen and
Methane. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 12(4):pp. 251-266.
Steinberg, M. (1989). The Conversion of Carbonaceous Materials to Clean Carbon and Coproduct Gaseous Fuel. Conference: 5. European Conference On Biomass for Energy and
Industry, Lisbon, Portugal, 9-13, Oct 1989; BNL-42124; CONF-891034-1; DE9000156:p. 12.
Steinberg, M. (1990). Conversion of Biomass to Methanol and Its Effect on CO2 Emissions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)(IAG 89934598-0)(BNL-4653):pp. 1-12.
Steinberg, M. and Dong, Y. (1996). Process and Apparatus for the Production of Methanol from
Condensed, Carbonaceous Material. U.S. Patent reissue of 5,344,848, RE 35,377.
Steinberg, M. (1997). Co-Processing Coal and Natural Gas by the Hynol Process for Enhanced
Methanol Production and Reduced CO2 Emissions. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
informal report #65453
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Pyrolysis Oils
Abedi, J.; Yeboah, Y.D.; Bota, K.B. (2001). Development of a Catalytic Fluid Bed Steam
Reformer for Production of Hydrogen from Biomass. Fifth International Biomass Conference
of the Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM
Chornet, E.; Czernik, S.; Wang, D.; Gregoire, C., and Mann, M. (1994). Biomass to Hydrogen
via Pyrolysis and Reforming. Proceedings of the 1994 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review, April 18-21, 1994, Livermore California, NREL/CP-470-6431; CONF-9404194: pp.
407-432.

47

Chornet, E.; Wang, D.; Montane, S.; Czernik, S.; Johnson, D. and Mann, M. (1995). Biomass to
Hydrogen via Fast Pyrolysis and Catalytic Steam Reforming. Proceedings of the 1995 U.S.
DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Coral Gables, Florida, NREL/CP-430-20036:pp. 707-730.
Chornet, E.; Wang, D. Montane, D., and Czernik, S. (1996a). Hydrogen Production by Fast
Pyrolysis of Biomass and Catalytic Steam Reforming of Pyrolysis Oil. Proceedings of the
2nd EU-Canada Workshop on Thermal Biomass Processing: pp. 246-261.
Chornet, E.; Mann, M.; Wang, D.; Montane, D.; Czernik, S., and Johnson, D. (1996b).
Hydrogen from Biomass via Fast Pyrolysis. Proceedings: The 1995 Symposium on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Research, EPA-600/R-96-072:pp. 4-116 to 4127.
Chornet, E.; Wang, D.; Czernik, S.; Montane, D.; Mann, M. (1996c). Biomass-to-Hydrogen via
Fast Pyrolysis and Catalytic Steam Reforming. Proceedings of the 1996 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review, Miami, FL, May 1-2, Vol. I, NREL/CP 430-21968:pp. 457-480.
Chornet, E. (2001). Biomass to Hydrogen via Fast Pyrolysis and Catalytic Steam Reforming.
Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Czernik, S., Wang, D.; Montane, D.; Chornet, E. (1996). Catalytic Steam Reforming of BiomassDerived Fractions from Pyrolysis Processes. Developments in Thermochemical Biomass
Conversion, Ed. A. Bridgwater, and D. Boocock:pp. 672-686.
Czernik, S.; Wang, D., and Chornet, E.. (1998). Production of Hydrogen from Biomass by
Catalytic Steam Reforming of Fast Pyrolysis Oil. Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review, Alexandria, VA (United States), 28-30 Apr; NREL/CP57025315-Vol. 2; CONF-980440Vol. 2: pp. 557-576.
Czernik, S.; French, R.; Feik, C.; Chornet, E. (1999a). Fluidized Bed Catalytic Steam Reforming
of Pyrolysis Oil for Production of Hydrogen. Biomass A Growth Opportunity in Green
Energy and Value-Added Products. Proceedings of the 4th Biomass Conference of the
Americas. Ed. R. Overend and E. Chornet:pp. 827-832.
Czernik, S.; French, R.; Feik, C. and Chornet, E. (1999b). Hydrogen from Biomass via Fast
Pyrolysis/Catalytic Steam Reforming Process. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review, Denver, CO, May 4-6, Vol. I., NREL/CP-570-26938.
Czernik, S.; Franch, R.; Feik, C., and Chornet, E. (2000a). Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass-Derived Liquids. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review:pp. 130-140.
Czernik, S.; French, R.; Feik, C., and Chornet, E. (2000b). Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass-Derived Liquids. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, September,
Tyrol, Austria.
Czernik, S.; French, R.; Feik, C., and Chornet, E. (2000c). Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass by Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming. Advances in Hydrogen Energy, Ed. C.GregoirePadro and F.L Klewer, Academic,: pp. 87-91.
Czernik, S.; French, R.; Feik, C.; Chornet, E. (2001) (USA). Production of Hydrogen by Catalytic
Steam Reformer of Trap Grease, Fifth International Biomass Conference of the Americas
(Cancelled). Abstracts to be available on CD-ROM.
Czernik, S.; French, R.; Feik, C.; Chornet, E. (2001) (USA). Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass Derived Liquids. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535).

48

Evans, R., Czernik, S., C., Chornet, E., Feik, C., Phillips, S., (2001). Engineering Scaleup of
Renewable Hydrogen Production by Catalytic Steam Reforming of Peanut Shells Pyrolysis
Products, Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 57030535).
Feik, C.; French, R.; Czernik, S.; and Chornet, E. (2000). Production of Hydrogen from
Biomass-Derived Liquids. ASME Proceedings of the Solar Engineering 2000 Conference,
Madison, Wisconsin, June 16-21, 2000, Eds., J.E. Pacheco and M.D. Thornbloom:pp. 175179.
French, R.; Feik, C.; Czernik, S.; Chornet, E. (2001). Production of Hydrogen by Co-Reforming
Biomass Pyrolysis Liquids and Natural Gas. Fifth International Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM
Garcia, L.; French, R.; Czernik, S. and Chornet, E. (2000a). Catalytic Steam Reforming of BioOils for the Production of Hydrogen: Effects of Catalyst Composition. Applied Catalysis A:
General 201:pp. 225-239.
Garcia, L.; French, R.; Czernik, S.; Chornet, E. (2000b, 2001). Hydrogen Production by Steam
Reforming of Bio-oils Using Commercial and Laboratory Catalysts. Proceedings of 1st World
Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry. Pp. 1681-1684
Hydrogen Program (2001). Biomass to Hydrogen via Fast Pyrolysis and Catalytic Steam
Reforming National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual
Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-19 to 3-21.
Hydrogen Program (2001). Biomass Pyrolysis for Hydrogen Production Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL). U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000:p.3-22 to 324.
Hydrogen Program (2001). Hydrogen from Biomass for Use in Urban Transportation Clark
Atlantic University. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-25
to 3-26.
Hydrogen Program (2000). Biomass to Hydrogen via Fast Pyrolysis and Catalytic Steam
Reforming. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000:pp. 3-28 to 3-29.
Hydrogen Program (2000). Biomass Pyrolysis for Hydrogen Production Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL). U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000:p.3-32 to 333.
Hydrogen Program (2001). Engineering Scale Up of Renewable Hydrogen Production by
Catalytic Steam Reforming of Peanut Shells Pyrolysis Products National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-114
to 3-116.
Lathouwers, D., and Bellan, J., (2001) Modeling of Biomass Pyrolysis for Hydrogen Production:
The Fluidized Bed Reactor. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535)
Mann, M.; Chornet, E.; Czernik, S.; Wand, D. (1994). Biomass to Hydrogen via Pyrolysis and
Reforming. American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints, 39(4):p. 1034.
Marquevich, M.; Czernik, S.; Chornet, E., and Montane, D. (1999). Hydrogen from Biomass:
Steam Reforming of Model Compounds of Fast-Pyrolysis Oil. Energy & Fuels; 13(6): pp.
1160-1166.

49

Wang, D.; Czernik, S.; Mann, M.; Montane, D.; Siebarth, J. and Chornet, E. (1994). Hydrogen
Production from Catalytic Steam Reforming of Biomass Pyrolysis Oils: The Rationale for the
Choice of Catalysts. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Milestone Completion Report,
September.
Wang, D. Montane, D.; Czernik, S.; Mann, M., and Chornet, E. (1995). The Fast
Pyrolysis/Reforming Route for the Production of H2 From Biomass and Wastes. In
Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Hydrogen Workshop. Canadian Hydrogen Association: pp.
353-364.
Wang, D.; Montane, D., and Chornet, E. (1996). Catalytic Steam Reforming of Biomass-Derived
Oxygenates: Acetic Acid and Hydroxyacetaldehyde. Applied Catalysis: A. General 143:pp.
245-270.
Wang, D.; Czernik, S.; Montane, D.; Mann, M., and Chornet, E. (1997a). Hydrogen Production
via Catalytic Steam Reforming of Fast Pyrolysis Oil Fractions. Proceedings of the 3rd
Biomass Conference of the Americas, MontrJal, QuJbec, Canada, August 24-29:pp. 845854.
Wang, D.; Czernik, S.; Montane, D.; Mann, M., and Chornet, E. (1997b). Biomass to Hydrogen
via Fast Pyrolysis and Catalytic Steam Reforming of the Pyrolysis Oil or Its Fractions. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res.; 36: pp. 1507-1518.
Wang, D.; Czernik, S., and Chornet, E.. (1998). Production of Hydrogen from Biomass by
Catalytic Steam Reforming of Fast Pyrolysis Oils. Energy & Fuels; 12(1):pp. 19-24.
Yeboah, Y.O., Bota, K.B., Abedi, J. (2001). Hydrogen from Biomass for Urban Transportation.
NHAs 12th Annual U.S. Hydrogen Meeting, March 6-8, Washington, D.C.:p. 15.
Yeboah, Y.O. (2001). Hydrogen from Biomass for Use in Urban Transportation. Proceedings of
the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Methanol
Agrell, J.; Hasselbo, K.; Jansson, K.; J@r@s, S.G.; Boulonnet, M. (2001). Production of Hydrogen
by Partial Oxidation of Methanol over Cu/ZnO Catalysts prepared by Microemulsion
Technique. Appl. Cat. A. General, 211:pp. 239-250.
Amphlett, J.C.; Creber, K.A.M.; Davis, J.M.; Mann, R.F.; Pepply, B.A.; Stokes, D.A. (1994).
Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming of Methanol for Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 19(2):pp. 131-137.
Amphlett, J.C.; Mann, R.F., and Peppley, B.A. (1995). On-Board Fuel-Cell Hydrogen Production
from Methanol: Catalyst Performance and Operating Characteristics . Proceedings of the 7th
Canadian Hydrogen Workshop, Quebec City, Canada, June 4,5,6:pp. 153-159.
Andrian, S. and Meusinger, J. (2000). Process Analysis of a Liquid-feed Direct Methanol Fuel
Cell System. Journal of Power Sources 91:pp. 193-201.
Antonyak, S.N.; Lapidus, A.L.; Kazanski, V.B.; Yakerson, V.I.; Khanumyan, A.A.; Golosman,
E.Z.; Nechugovski, A.I.; Pesin, O.Yu. (2000). Methanol Decomposition in a Water-Methanol
Equimolar Mixture on a Nickel-Promoted Copper-Zinc-Cement Catalyst. Kinetics and
Catalysis 41(6):pp: 753-755.
Avci, A.K., Onsan, Z.J., and Trimm, D.L. (2001) On-Board fuel conversion for Hydrogen fuel
cells: Comparison of different fuels by computer simulations. Applied Catalysis A. General
216 pp. 243-256

50

Bateman, K.T.; Valdock, K.J. R., and Ternan, M. (1999). An Experimental Evaluation of
Hydrogen Production From Methanol by Catalytic Reforming and Separation. Proceedings
of the 9th Canadian Hydrogen Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, February 7-10:pp. 639647.
Cheng, W-H. (1996). Development of Multicomponent Catalysts of High Activity and Stability for
Methanol Decomposition. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June 1996; Vol. 1:pp. 939-944.
De Wild, P. J. and Verhaak, M. J. F. M. (2000). Catalytic Production of Hydrogen from
Methanol. Catalysis Today 60:pp. 3-10.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan. (2000). Novel Catalytic Fuel Reforming
InnovaTek. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000:pp. 3-24 to 3-25.
Irving, P.M.; Allen, W.L.; Healy, T.; Thompson, W.J. (2000). Novel Catalytic Reforming Using
Microtechnology with Advanced Separation Technology. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-570-28890:pp. 121-129.
Jiang, C.J.; Trimm, D.L.; Wainwright, M.S. (1993). Kinetic Mechanism for the Reaction Between
Methanol and Water Over a Cu-ZnO-Al2O3 Catalyst. Applied Catalysis A: General 97:pp.
145-158.
Laniecki, M. and Kazmierczak-Rosik, K. (1998). Steam Methanol Reforming Over Zeolitic
Materials. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference:pp. 661-668.
Lelewer, S.; Stell, S.; George, R. (1999). Conversion of Landfill Gas, Methanol, or Natural Gas
to Hydrogen for Use in a Hydrogen Refueling System. Proceedings of the 10th Annual U.S.
Hydrogen Meeting of the National Hydrogen Association, Vienna, VA, 7-9 April:pp. 293-298.
Lindstrom, B. and Pettersson., L. J. (2001) Hydrogen generating by steam reforming of
methanol over copper-based catalysts for fuel cell applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy.
26: pp. 923-933
Mizsey, P.; Newson, E.; Truong, T-B.; Hettinger, P. (2001). The Kinetics of Methanol
Decomposition: A Study of Autothermal Partial Oxidation to Produce Hydrogen for Fuel
Cells. App. Catal. A General 213:pp. 233-237.
Moon, D. J., Sreekumer, K., Lee, S.D., Lee B.G. L., and Kim, H.S. Studies on gasoline fuel
processor system for fuel cell powered vehicle application. App. Catal. A General 215: pp:
1-9.
Murcia-Moscaros, S.; Navarro, R.M.; Gomez-Scinert, L.; Costantino, U.; Nocchetti, M. and
Fierro, J.L.G. (2001). Oxidative Methanol Reforming Reactions in CuZnAl catalysts Derived
from Hydrotalcite-like Precursors. J. Catalysis 198:pp. 338-347.
Newson, E.; Mizsey, P.; Truong, J.-B.; Hettinger, P.; Roth, F. von; Schucan Th.H.; Geissler, K.;
Schildhauen, T. (2000). Hydrogen from Liquid Energy Carriers: The Catalytic Reforming of
Methanol and Hydrocarbons. The International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, Policy
Business Technology, Munich, Germany, 11-15 September: pp. 351.
Qi, A.; Hong. X.; Wang, S.; Fu, G.; Wu, D. (2000). Key Factors in Hydrogen Generation System
by Methanol Partial Oxidation. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the
13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and
T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 246-252.
Seifritz, W. (1989). Methanol as the Energy Vector for a New ClimateNeutral Energy System.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 14(10):pp. 717-726.

51

Takahashi, K.; Takezawa, N.; Kobayashi, H. (1982). The Mechanism of Steam Reforming of
Methanol Over a Copper-Silica Catalyst. Applied Catalysis, 2:pp. 363-366.
Trimm, D. L. and Onsan, Z.I (2001) Onboard Fuel Conversion for Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell-Driven
Vehicles. Catalysis Reviews 43 (1&2) pp. 31-84
Yalin, Z.; Bingchen, Z.; Yi, J. and Jiyuan. C. (2000). Manufacture of 99.999% Hydrogen by
Methanol Pyrolysis-PSA Technique. . Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings
of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao
and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 241-245.
Yang, C.; Ren, J. and Sun, Y.H. (2000). Methanol as Hydrogen Carrier via Catalytic
Decomposition. . Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 13th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N.
Veziroglu:pp. 195-199
Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Ethanol
Amphlett, J.C.; Mann, R.F.; Pepply, B.A.; Thurgood, C.P. (1999). Evaluation of Catalytic Ethanol
Steam Reforming Process as a Source of Hydrogen Rich Gas for Fuel Cells. Proceedings
of the 9th Canadian Hydrogen Conference Hydrogen Power Now:pp. 171-184.
Cavallaro, S. and Freni, S. (1996). Ethanol Steam Reforming in a Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell. A
Preliminary Kinetic Investigation . Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 21:pp. 465-469.
Cavallaro, S. and Freni, S. (1998). Syngas and Electricity Production by an Integrated
Autothermal Reforming Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell System, J. Power Source 76:pp. 190196.
Cavallaro, S. (2000). Ethanol Steam Reforming on Rh/Al2O3 Catalysts. Energy & Fuels 14:pp.
1195-1199.
Fishtik, I.; Alexander, A.; Datta, R., and Geana, D. (2000). A Thermodynamic Analysis of
Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming of Ethanol via Response Reactions. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25:pp. 31-45.
Galvita, V.V.; Semin, G.L.; Belyaev, V.D.; Semikolenov, V.A.; Tsiakara, P.; and Sobyanin, V.A.
(2002)(Russia and Greece). Synthesis Gas Production by Steam Reforming of Ethanol.
Applied Catalysis A: General 220:pp. 123-127.
Garcia, E. Y. and Laborde, M. A. (1991). Hydrogen Production by the Steam Reforming of
Ethanol: Thermodynamic Analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy;16(5):pp. 307-312.
Highfield, J. G.; Geiger, F.; Uenala, E., and Schucan, Th. H. (1994). Hydrogen Release by
Steam-Reforming of Ethanol for Efficient, Clean Fuel Applications. Hydrogen Energy
Progress X, Proceedings of the 10th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. 2:pp. 10391049.
Ioannides, T. (2001). Thermodynamic Analysis of Ethanol Processors for Fuel Cell Applications.
Journal of Power Sources 92:pp. 17-25.
Luengo, C. A.; Ciampi, G.; Cencig, M. O.; Steckelberg, C., and Laborde, M. A. (1992). A Novel
Catalyst System for Ethanol Gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 17(9):pp. 677-681.
Marino, F. J.; Cerrella, E. G.; Duhalde, S.; Jobbagy, M., and Laborde, M. A. (1998). Hydrogen
from Steam Reforming of Ethanol. Characterization and Performance of Copper-Nickel
Supported Catalysts. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23(12):pp. 1095-1101.

52

Rampe, T.; Heinzel, A., and Vogel, B. (2000). Hydrogen Generation from Ethanol by Allothermal
Reforming. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Tyrol, Austria, 17-22
September.
Toci, F. and Modica, G. (1996). Hydrogen Production by in-Situ Cracking of Steam-Bioethanol
Mixtures Combining Electronic Stimulation with Chemical Catalysis. 9. European Bioenergy
Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-27 June:p. 425.
Vasudeva, K.; Mitra, N.; Umasankar, P., and Dhingra, S. C. (1996). Steam Reforming of Ethanol
for Hydrogen Production: Thermodynamic Analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 21(1):pp. 1318.
Verykios, X. (1998). Process for the Production of Hydrogen and Electrical Energy from
Reforming of Bio-ethanol. (International WO 99/61369). Int. Patent Classification CO1B
3/32, HOIM 8/06:19 pp.
Methane and Natural Gas to Hydrogen or Methanol by Direct Thermolysis
Babaritskiy, A.; Baranov, I.; Dyomkin, S.; Etievant, C.; Jivotov, V.; Potapkin, B.; Rusanov, V.,
and Ryazantsev, E. (1998). Plasma Catalysis Hydrogen Production from Methane.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference:pp. 679-681.
Czernichowski, A.; Czernichowski, P., and Ranaivosoloarimanana, A. (1996). Plasma Pyrolysis
of Natural Gas in Gliding Arc Reactor. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the
11th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June; Vol. 1:pp. 661669.
Dahl, J.K.; Tamburini, J.; Weimer, A.W. Lewandowski, A.; Pitts, R.; Bingham, C. (2001a).
Hydrogen Synthesis by the Solar-Thermal Dissociation of Methane. American Chemical
Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints (USA) 46:pp. 22-26.
Dahl, J.K.; Tamburini, J.; Weimer, A.W.; Lewandowski, A.; Pitts, R.; Bingham, C. (2001b). SolarThermal Processing of Methane to Produce Hydrogen and Syngas. Energy and Fuels
15:pp. 1227-1232.
Florida Solar Energy Center. (2001). Thermocatalytic CO2-free Production of Hydrogen from
Hydrocarbon Fuels. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-9
to 3-10.
Fulcheri, L. and Schwab, Y. (1995). From Methane to Hydrogen, Carbon Black and Water. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy; 20(3):pp. 197-202.
Gaudernack, B.; Lynum, S. (1996). Hydrogen from Natural Gas Without Release of CO2 to the
Atmosphere. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, Ed. T.N. Veziroglu et al.: pp. 511-523.
Gaudernack, B. and Lynum, S. (1998). Hydrogen from Natural Gas Without Release of CO2 to
the Atmosphere. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23(12):pp. 1087-1093.
Hirsch, D., Epstein, M. and Steinfeld, A. (2001) The solar thermal decarbonization of natural
gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26 pp. 1023-1033
Hydrogen Program (2001). Thermal Dissociation of Methane Using a Solar-Coupled Aerosol
Flow Reactor. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-5 to 3-6.

53

Kuvshinov, G. G.; Mogilaykh, Yu I.; Kuvshinov, D. G.; Zavarukhin, S. G., and Parmon, V. N.
(1996). New Econologically Sound Technology to Produce Hydrogen and New Carbon
Material via Low Temperature Catalytic Pyrolysis. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI,
Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28
June; Vol. 1:pp. 655-660.
Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Qin, Y., and Chang, L. (2000). Simultaneous Production of Hydrogen and
Nanocarbon from Decomposition of Methane on a Nickel-Based Catalyst. Energy & Fuels
2000; 14:pp. 1188-1194.
Lynum, S.; Hildrum, R.; Hox, K., and Hugdahl, J. (1998). Kvaerner Based Technologies for
Environmentally Friendly Energy and Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII,
Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 637-645.
Muradov, N. Z. (1993). How to Produce Hydrogen from Fossil Fuels Without CO2 Emission. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 18 (3):pp. 211-215.
Muradov, N. Z. (1995). Production of Hydrogen by Thermocatalytic Cracking of Natural Gas.
Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Coral Gables, FL, April 1821; Vol. II:pp. 847-860.
Muradov, N.Z. (1996). Production of Hydrogen by Thermocatalytic Cracking of Natural Gas.
Proceedings of the 1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Miami, FL, May 1-2; Vol.
1:pp. 513-535.
Muradov, N. Z. (1997). CO2-Free Production of Hydrogen by Catalytic Pyrolysis of Hydrocarbon
Fuel. Proceedings of the 1997 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Herndon, VA, May
21-23, (NREL/CP-430-23722):pp. 195-196.
Muradov, N. Z. (1998). CO2-Free Production of Hydrogen by Catalytic Pyrolysis of Hydrocarbon
Fuels for Transportation. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII. Proceedings of the 12th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina:pp. 523-31.
Muradov, N. Z. (2000). Thermocatalytic CO2-Free Production of Hydrogen from Hydrocarbon
Fuels. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-57028890:pp. 70-96.
Muradov, N. Z. (2000). Hydrocarbon-based Systems for CO2-free Production of Hydrogen.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 424-433.
Muradov, N. Z.. (2001a). Thermocatalytic CO2-free Production of Hydrogen from Hydrocarbon
Fuels. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 57030535).
Muradov, N. Z.. (2001b). Thermocatalytic Production of Hydrogen via Pyrolysis of Hydrocarbon
Fuels: From Methane to Residual Oil. American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division
Preprints, (ACS) 46:p. 29.
Muradov, N. Z.. (2001c).Hydrogen via methane decomposition: an application of
decarbonization of fossil fuels. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 26:p. 1165-1175.
Otsuka, K.; Shigeta, Y.; and Takenaka, S. (2002) (Japan). Production of Hydrogen from
Gasoline Range Alkanes with Reduced CO2 Emissions. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 27:pp.
11-18.
Popov, R. G.; Shprilrain, E. E., and Zaytchenko, V. M. (1999a). Natural Gas Pyrolysis in the
Regenerative Gas Heater Part I: Natural Gas Thermal Decomposition at a Hot Matrix in a
Regenerative Gas Heater. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 24:pp. 327-334.

54

Popov, R. G.; Shpilrain, E. E., and Zaytchenko, V. M. (1999b). Natural Gas Pyrolysis in the
Regenerative Gas Heater Part II: Natural Gas Pyrolysis in the Free Volume of the
Regenerative Gas Heater. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 24:pp. 335-339.
Shpilrain, E. E.; Shterenberg, V. Y., and Zaitchenko, V. M. (1998). Comparative Analysis of
Various Pyrolysis and Conversion of Natural Gas Methods. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII,
Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 625-635.
Shpilrain, E. E.; Shterenberg, V. Y., and Zaitchenko, V. M. (1999). Comparative Analysis of
Different Natural Gas Pyrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 24:pp. 613-624.
Steinberg, M. (1996a) (USA). Production of Hydrogen and Methanol from Natural Gas with
Reduced CO2 Emission. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June; Vol. 1:pp. 499-510.
Steinberg, M. (1996b). The Carnol Process for CO2 Mitigation from Power Plants and the
Transportation Sector. Energy Convers. Mgmt., 37(6-8):pp. 843-848.
Steinberg, M. and Dong, Y. (1998). Method for Converting Natural Gas and Carbon Dioxide to
Methanol and Reducing CO2 Emissions. United States Patent No. 5,767,165.
Steinberg, M. (1998). Production of Hydrogen and Methanol from Natural Gas with Reduced
CO2 Emission. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23(6):pp. 419-425.
Steinberg, M. (1999a). Efficient Natural Gas Technologies: A Response to Global Warming.
Chemtech, January 1999: pp. 31-36.
Steinberg, M. (1999b). Fossil Fuel Decarbonization Technology for Mitigating Global Warming.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 24:pp. 771-777.
Takenaka, S. Ogihara, H. Yamanaka, I. Otsuka, K. (2001) Decomposition of methane over
supported catalysts: effects of the supports on the catalysts lifetime. Appl. Cat. A.: General
217 pp. 101-110
Weimer, A. W.; Dahl, J., and Tamburini, J. (2000). Thermal Dissociation of Methane Using a
Solar Coupled Aerosol Flow Reactor. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review(NREL/CP-570-28890):pp. 12-34.
Weimer, A., Dahl, J., Buechler, K., Bingham, C., Pitts, R. and Lewandowski, A., Thermal
Dissociation of Methane using a Solar Coupled Aerosol Flow Reactor. Proceedings of the
2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review(NREL/CP-570-30535).
Reforming of Methane (or Natural Gas) to Hydrogen
Ahmed, S. and Krumpelt, M. (2001). Hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels for fuel cells, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 26:pp. 291-301.
Akhundov, S.Ya.; Shakhbazov, Sh.D.; Mustafayeva, R.M. (1988). Hydrogen Formation by
Thermochemical Decomposition of Hydrocarbons Using Solar Energy. Hydrogen Energy
Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. 2, Moscow,
U.S.S.R, 25-29 September, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu and A.N. Protsenko:pp. 967-973.
Astanovsky, D.L.; Astanovsky, L.Z.; Raikov, B.S.; Korchaka, N.I. (1992). Reactor for SteamCatalytic Conversion of Hydrocarbons and Catalytic Conversion of CO in the Hydrogen
Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings of the 9th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference:pp. 185-1.
Astanovsky, D.L.; Astanovsky, L.Z.; Baikov, B.S.; Korchaka, N.I. (1994). Reactor for Steam
Catalytic Hydrocarbon Conversion and Catalytic CO Conversion in Hydrogen Production.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 19(8):pp. 677-681.

55

Astanovsky, D.L.; Astanovsky, L.Z. (2001). Hydrogen Production by Steam Catalytic Natural
Gas Conversion with Using Drilling Gas Pressure. Proceedings of the National Hydrogen
Associations 12th Annual U.S. Hydrogen Meeting, March, Washington, D.C., USA.
Babaritskiy, A.I.; Dyomkin, S.A; Deminski, M.I.; Jivotov, V.K.; Potapkin, B.V.; Rusanov, V.D.;
Ryazantsev, E.I. and Smirnov, R.V. (2000). Plasma Catalysis Processes for Hydrogen and
Syn-Gas Production from Hydrocarbons. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of
the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao
and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 423-427.
Balthasar, W. and Hambleton, D.J. (1978). Industrial Scale Production of Hydrogen from Natural
Gas, Naphtha and Coal. Hydrogen Energy System, Proceedings of the 2nd World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Vol. 2, Zurich, Switzerland, 21-24 August, Eds. T. Nejat Veziroglu and
Walter Seifritz:pp. 1007-1014.
Bradshaw, B. (2001a). Hydrocarbon Reformation Plasma Reformer Alaskan PEM Fuel Cell
Validation Projects. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535).
Bradshaw, B. (2001b). Production of Hydrobromic Acid from Bromine and Methane for
Hydrogen Production. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535).
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D. R., and Rabinovich, A. (1997a). Plasma Reformer Fuel Cell System
for Decentralized Power Applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 22(1):pp. 83-94.
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D. R.; Rabinovich, A.; OBrien, C., and Stockgreb, S. (1997b). Plasma
Reforming of Methane. Proceedings of the 1997 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review,
Herndon, VA, May 21-23, (NREL/CP-430-23722):pp. 163-164.
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D. R.; Rabinovich, A. (1998). Plasma Reforming of Methane, Energy and
Fuels 12:pp. 11-18.
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D. R.; Rabinovich, A., and Alexeev, N. (1999a). Plasma Catalytic
Reforming of Methane. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 24:pp. 1131-1137.
Bromberg, L.; Rabinovich, A.; Alexeev, N., and Cohn, D. R. (1999b). Plasma Catalytic
Reforming of Natural Gas. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review(NREL/CP-570-26938).
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D.R.; Rabinovich, A.; Alexeev, N. (2001a). Hydrogen Manufacturing Using
Low Current, Non-Thermal, Plasma-Boosted Fuel Converters. American Chemical Society
Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints (USA) 46:pp. 1-4.
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D.R.; Rabinovich, A.; and Heywood, J. (2001b) Emission reductions using
hydrogen from plasmatron fuel converters. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26: pp. 1115-1121
Brun-Tsekhovoi, A.R.; Zadorin, A.N.; Katsobashvili, Ya.R. and Kourdyumov, S.S. (1988). The
Process of Catalytic Steam-Reforming of Hydrocarbons in the Presence of Carbon Dioxide
Acceptor. Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Vol. 2, Moscow, U.S.S.R., 25-29 September, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu and A.N.
Protsenko:pp: pp. 885-900.
Bulanov, V.M.; Zenkov, V.S.; Klimenko, V.P.; Lukianchuk, V.L. and Pasichny, V.V. (1988). The
Natural Gas Catalytic Steam Conversion Using Solar Energy. Hydrogen Energy Progress
VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. 2, Moscow, U.S.S.R.,
25-29 September: pp. 1025-1034.

56

Chawla, S.K. and Ghosh, K.K. (1992). Thermodynamic Analysis of Hydrogen Production from
Biogas for Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 17(6):pp. 405-412.
Choudhary, V.R.; Banerjee, S.; Rajput, A.M. (2001a). Continuous Production of H2 at Low
Temperature from Methane Decomposition Over Ni-containing Catalyst Followed by
Gasification by Steam of the Carbon on the Catalyst in Two Parallel Reactors Operating in
Cyclic Manner. J. of Catalysis 198:pp. 136-141.
Choudhary, T.V.; Sioadinarayana, C.; Chuseul, C.C.; Klinghoffer, A. and Goodman, D. (2001b).
J. of Catalysis 199(1):pp. 9-18.
Courson, C.; Makaga, E.; Petit, C. and Kiennemann, A. (2000). Development of Ni catalysts for
Gas Production from Biomass Gasification. Reactivity in Steam and Dry Reforming.
Catalysis Today 63:pp. 427-437.
Dyer, Paul N.; Chen, Christopher M., and Bennett, Douglas L. (1999). Engineering Development
of Ceramic Membrane Reactor Systems for Converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen and
Synthesis Gas for Liquid Transportation Fuels. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program, NREL/CP-570-26938.
Dyer, P.N. and Chen, C.M. (2000). ITM Syngas and ITM H2Engineering Development of
Ceramic Membrane Reactor Systems for Converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen and
Synthesis Gas for Liquid Transportation Fuels: DE-FC26-97FT96052. Proceedings of the
2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-570-28890:pp. 110-120.
Dyer, P.N. (2001). Engineering Development of Ceramic Membrane Reactor Systems for
Converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen and Synthesis Gas for Liquid Gas to Transportation
Fuels, Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 57030535).
Galli, S.; Bernini, E.; Mangione, M. and Recupero, V. (2000). Experimental Plant for Hydrogen
Production via Natural Gas Catalytic Partial Oxidation. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol.
1, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15,
Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp.461-466.
Galvita, V.V., Semin, G.L., Belyaev, V.D., Yarreva, T.M. and Sobyanin, V.A. (2001) Production
of Hydrogen from dimethyl ether. Applied Catalysis: A. General 216:pp. 85-90
Gordon, C.L.; Lobban, L.L.; Mattinson, R.G. (2000). The Production of Hydrogen from Methane
Using Tubular Plasma Reactors. Advances in Hydrogen Energy, Ed. C.E. Gregoire and F.
Lau. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York:pp. 57-67.
Heinzel, A.; Vogel, M.; Kikulies, M.; Haist, A.; Hubner, P. (2000). Hydrogen Generation in SmallScale Reformers. The Activities of Fraunhofer ISE, HYFORUM 2000, Munich Germany:pp.
255-262 (www.hyforum.2000.de).
Hufton, J.; Mayorga, S.; Gaffney, T.; Nataraj, S.; Rao, M., and Sircar, S. (1998). Sorption
Enhanced Reaction Process (SERP) for the Production of Hydrogen. Proceedings of the
1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Vol. 2(NREL/CP-570-25315; CONF980440):pp. 693-705.
Hufton, J.; Weigel, S.; Waldron, W.; Nataraj, S., and Rao, M. Sircar S. (1999). Sorption
Enhanced Reaction Process (SERP) for the Production of Hydrogen. Proceedings of the
1999 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP-570-26938).
Hufton, J.; Waldron, W.; Weigel, S.; Rao, M.; Nataraj, S. and Sircar S. (2000). Sorption
Enhanced Reaction Process (SERP) for the Production of Hydrogen. Proceedings of the
2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP-570-28890):pp. 98-109.

57

Hummel, G. and Lelewer, S. (2001). The Benefits of On-Site Reforming of Natural Gas to
Hydrogen for Early Alternative Fueling Stations. National Hydrogen Associations 12th
Annual U.S. Hydrogen Meeting, March, Washington, DC.
Hydrogen Program (2000,2001). Hydrogen Manufacturing Using Plasma Reformers. U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000:pp. 3-2 to 3-3.
Hydrogen Program (2000). Sorption Enhanced Reaction Process for Production of Hydrogen
(H2-SER). U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2000 and FY2001:pp. 318 to 3-19.
Hydrogen Program (2001). Engineering Development of Ceramic Membrane Reactor Systems
for Converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen and Synthesis Gas for Liquid Transportation Fuels.
U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-14 to 3-15.
Hydrogen Program (2001). Novel Catalytic Fuel Reforming. Innovatek, Inc. U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 3-11 to 3-13.
Hydrogen Program (2001). Production of Hydrobromic Acid from Bromine and Methane for
Hydrogen Production. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan FY2001:pp. 317 to 3-18.
Irving, P. (2001). Novel Catalytic Fuel Reforming. With Advanced Membrane Technology.
Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Jarosch, K.; El Solh, T., and de Lasa H. (2001). Steam Reforming of Methane in a Novel Riser
Simulator. Proceedings of the Synthesis Gas and Chemicals Via Novel Reactors, London,
Ontario, Canada, January 9, 2001.
Karim, G.A. and Metwally, M.M. (1978). A Kinetic Investigation of the Reforming of Natural Gas
for the Production of Hydrogen. Hydrogen Energy System, Proceedings of the 2nd World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, 21-24 August; Vol. 2:pp. 937-956.
Karim, G.A. and Metwally, M.M. (1980). A Kinetic Investigation of the Reforming of Natural Gas
for the Production of Hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 1:pp. 293-304.
Karim, G.A. and Zhou, G. (1992). A Kinetic Investigation of the Partial Oxidation of Methane for
the Production of Hydrogen, Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings of the 9th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 15-42.
Karim, G.A. and Zhou, G. (1993). A Kinetic Investigation of the Partial Oxidation of Methane for
the Production of Hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 18(2):pp. 125-129.
Kodama, T.; Koyanagi, T.; Shimizu, T. and Kitayama, Y. (2001). CO2 Reforming of Methane in a
Molten Carbonate Salt Bath for Use in Solar Thermochemical Processes. Energy & Fuels,
15:pp. 60-65.
Koenig, A.; Seyfried, F.; Drescher, I. (2000). Fuel Reforming as Part of a Hydrogen Economy.
HYFORUM 2000, September, Munich, Germany:pp. 315-334. www.hyforum2000.de
Kumar, R.V.; Lyon, R.K.; Cole, J.A. (2000). Unmixed Reforming: A Novel Autothermal Cyclic
Steam Reforming Process. Advances in Hydrogen Energy, Ed. C.E. Gregoire-Padro and F.
Lau-Kluwer Academic:p. 31.
Lelewer, Steven; Stell, Scott, and George, Ranji (2000). Landfill Gas to Hydrogen
Demonstration Program: New Business Opportunities on the Horizon. Proceedings of the
11th Annual U.S. Hydrogen Meeting of the National Hydrogen Association, Vienna, VA, 29
February to 2 March:pp. 137-143.

58

Lundsford, J.H. (2000). Catalytic Conversion of Methane to More Useful Chemicals and Fuels:
Challenge for the 21st Century, Catalyst Today 63:pp. 165-174.
Manns, C.A. and Taylor, C.E. (2001). Catalyst Development for Hydrogen Production from the
Reforming of Liquid Hydrocarbons, American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division
Preprints, ACS, 46(1):pp. 6-7.
Mirodatos, C.; Pinaeva, L.; Schuurman, Y. (2001). The Carbon Routes in Dry Reforming of
Methane, American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 46:pp. 88-91.
Moon, D.J., Sreckumar, K., Lee, S.D., Lee, B.G., and Kim, H.S. (2001) Studies on gasoline fuel
processor system for fuel cell powered vehicles application. App. Catalysis A: General 215
pp 1-9
Nagaoka, K.; Seshan, K.; Aika, K. and Lercher, J.A. (2001). Carbon Deposition During Carbon
Dioxide Reforming of Methane Comparison between Pt/Al2O3 and Pt/ZnO2. J. of Catalysis
197(1):pp. 34-42.
Naito, S. (2000). Methane Conversion of Various Metal Oxide and Metal Carbide Catalysts,
Catalysis Surveys from Japan 4(1):pp. 3-16.
Nazarov, E.K.; Nickolaevsky, V.B.; Sjavrikov, A.J.; Krotov, L.I. and Nickolova, L.Z. (1988). The
Present State of Developing the Equipment to be Used for Hydrogen Production by
Hydrocarbon Conversion Associated with a Nuclear Reactor. Hydrogen Energy Progress
VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. 2, Moscow, U.S.S.R.,
25-29 September, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu and A.N. Protsenko:pp. 1035-1046.
Ortiz, A.L. and Harrison, D.P. (2001) Hydrogen Production using Sorption Enhanced
Reaction. Ind. & Eng. Chem. 40:pp. 5102-5107.
Panjala, D.; Shah, N.; Huffman, G.P. (2001). Hydrogen Production by Non-Oxidative Catalytic
Decomposition of Methane. American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints
46:pp. 17-19.
Parmon, V.N.; Kuvshinov, G.G.; Sadykov, V.A. and Sobyanin, V.A. (2000). New Catalysts and
Catalytic Processes to Produce Hydrogen and Syngas from Hydrocarbons and Other
Available Organics. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 13th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N.
Veziroglu:pp. 218-226.
Petit, C.; Libs, S.; Roger, A.C.; Kaddowi, A. (1992). Hydrogen Production by Catalytic Oxidation
of Methane, Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings of the 9th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference:pp. 53-62.
Poirier, M. G. and Sapundzhiev, C. (1997). Catalytic Decomposition of Natural Gas to Hydrogen
for Fuel Cell Applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 22(4):pp. 429-433.
Prokopiev, S.I.; Yu, I.; Aristov, V.; Parmon, N. and Giordano, N. (1992). Intensification of
Hydrogen Production via Methane Reforming and the Optimization of H2:CO Ratio in a
Catalytic Reactor with a Hydrogen-Permeable Membrane Wall. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,
17(4):pp. 275-279.
Pruden, B. (1999). Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas. Proceedings 9th Canadian Hydrogen
Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Feb. 7-10, 1999:pp. 494-501.
Qiyuan, Li. (1992a). A New Kind of Hydrogen-Producing Catalyst for Hydrocarbon Steam
Reforming. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 17(2):pp. 97-100.

59

Qiyuan, Li. (1992b). Development of a New Hydrogen Production Catalyst with Excellent
Properties for Hydrocarbon Steam Reforming, Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings
of the 9th World Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 223-234.
Raman, V. (2001) Research and Development of a PEM Fuel Cell Hydrogen Reformer and
Vehicle Refueling Facility. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535).
Rosen, M.A. and Scott, D.S. (1988). Hydrogen Production by Steam-Methane Reforming: A
Thermodynamic Investigation. Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. 2, Moscow, U.S.S.R., 25-29 September, Eds. T.N.
Veziroglu and A.N. Protsenko:pp. 761-772 .
Rosen, M.A. (1991). Thermodynamic Investigation of Hydrogen Production by Steam-Methane
Reforming. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 16(3):pp. 207-217.
Rostrop-Nielson, J.R. (2000). New Aspects of Syngas Production and Use. Catalysis Today
63:pp. 159-164.
Shah, M.M.; Drnevich, R.F. and Balachandra, U. (2000) (USA). Integrated Ceramic Membrane
System for Hydrogen Production. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review, NREL/CP-570-28890:pp. 57-62.
Shah, M. (2001). Integrated Ceramic Membrane System for H2 Products, Proceedings of the
2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Shah, N., Panjala, D., and Huffman, G. P., (2001). Hydrogen Production by Catalytic
Decomposition of Methane. Accepted for publication in Energy and Fuels.
Shu-Ren, Hao. (1998). Hydrocarbon Steam-Reforming Process: Feedstock and Catalysts for
Hydrogen Production in China. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 23(5):pp. 315-319.
Sircar, S.; Anand, M.; Carvill, B., and Hufton, J., (1995). Sorption Enhanced Reaction Process
(SERP) for Production of Hydrogen. Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review, Vol. II, Coral Gables, FL, April 18-21:pp. 815-832.
Song, C. (2001). Catalytic Fuel Processing for Fuel Cell Applications. Challenges and
Opportunities. American Chemical Society, American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry
Division Preprints 46(1):pp. 8-13.
Spagnolo, D.A.; Cornett, L.J., and Chuang, K.T. (1992). Direct Electro-Steam Reforming: A
Novel Catalytic Approach. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 17(11):pp. 839-846.
Specht, M.; Bandi, A.; Baumgart, F.; Moellenstedt, T.; Textor, O. and Weimer, T. (2000).
Enhanced Reforming Reaction for Hydrogen Production from Carbonaceous Feedstock.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 1203-1210.
Srimat, S.; Pan, W.; Song, C.; Armor, J.N. (2001). Dynamic Characterization of Carbon
Formation During CO2 Reforming and Steam Reforming of CH4 Using Oscillating
Microbalance. American Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 46:pp. 92-93.
Tanner, D.D.; Kandanarachchi, P.; Ding, Q.; Shao, H.; Vizitiu, D. and Franz, J.A. (2001). The
Catalytic Conversion of C1Cn Hydrocarbons to Olefins and Hydrogen: Microwave-Assisted
CC and CH Bond Activation. Energy & Fuels, 15:pp. 197-204.
Walcher, G.; Girges, S., and Weingartner, S. (1996). Hydrogen Project Bad Brckenau.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Vol. 1, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June; Vol. 1:pp. 413-418.

60

Witmer, D., Johnson, T., Johnson, R., The Rural Area Power Program Diesel Reformer
Evaluation. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 57030535).
Yanhui, W. and Biyong, W. (2001) The experimental research for production of hydrogen from
n-octane through partially oxidizing and steam reforming method. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,
26 pp 795-800
Yokota, O.; Oku, Y.; Sano, T.; Hasegawa, N.; Matsunami, J.; Tsuji, M. and Tamaura, Y. (2000).
Stoichiometric Consideration of Steam Reforming of Methane on Ni/Al2O3 Catalyst at 650C
by Using a Solar Furnace Simulator. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 25:pp. 81-86.
Zhu, J.; Zhang, D. and King, K.D. (2001). Reforming of CH4 by Partial Oxidation:
Thermodynamics and Kinetic Analysis. Fuel 80:pp. 899-905.
Technoeconomic Assessments
Ahn, Y. K. and Fischer, W.H. (1986) (USA). Production of Hydrogen from Coal and Petroleum
Coke: Technical and Economic Perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 11 (12):pp. 783-788.
Amos, W. (1998) (USA). Analysis of Two Biomass Gasification Fuel Cell Scenarios for Small
Scale Power Generations. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/TP570-25886.
Amos, W.A., Mann, M.K., Lane, J.M and. Spath, P.L.(2001) (USA) Process Analysis Work for
the DOE Hydrogen Program 2000. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Aristov, Yu. I.; Bobrova, I.I.; Bobrov, N.N.; Parmon, V.N. (1988) (Russia). Limiting Values of
Efficiency and Specific Power of Thermochemical Solar Energy Conversion Using Methane
Steam Reforming. Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Moscow, 25-29 September, Ed. T.N. Veziroglu and A.V. Protsenko:pp.
1079-1093.
Audus, H.; Kaarstad, O., and Kowal, M. (1996) (U.K., Norway). Decarbonisation of Fossil Fuels:
Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th
World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 23-28 June; Vol. 1:pp.525-534.
Basye, L. and Swaminathan, S. (1997) (USA). Hydrogen Production Costs - A Survey. 1997
Dec 4(DOE/GO/10170-T18):pp. 1-21.
Bjorklund, A. Melaina, M. Keoleian, G. (2001) (Sweden, USA) Hydrogen as a transportation fuel
produced from thermal gasification of municipal solid waste an examination of two
integrated technologies Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 26 pp. 1209-1221
Bromberg, L.; Cohn, D.R.; Rabinovich, A.; Alexeev, N.; Shamokin, A.; Ramprasad, R.;
Tamhanker, S. (2000) (USA), System Optimization and Cost Analysis of Plasma Catalytic
Reforming of Natural Gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 25, pp:1157-1161.
DiPietro, J. P. and Badin, J. S. (1996) (USA). An Evaluation of the Near-Term Competitiveness
of Hydrogen-Based Electricity Generation Systems in the Changing U.S. Utility Industry.
Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference; Vol. 2:pp. 425-430.
Faaij, A.; Larson, E.;Kreutz, T., and Hamelinck, C. (1999) (Netherlands and USA). Production of
Methanol and Hydrogen from Biomass via Advanced Conversion Concepts. Proceedings of
the 4th Biomass Conference of the Americas, Vol. 1, August 29-September 2, Eds. R.P.
Overend and E. Chornet:pp. 803-804.

61

Gregoire-Padr, C. E.; Schucan, T. H.; Skolnik, E., and Bracht, M. (1998) (USA). Evaluation
Tool for Selection and Optimization of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects. Hydrogen Power,
Theoretical and Engineering Solutions, Kluwer Academic, Ed. T.O. Saetre:pp. 453-458.
Hadden, L.D. (1978) (USA). The Economics of Producing Hydrogen from a Small-Air Blown
Coal Gasifier. Hydrogen Energy System, Vol. II, Proceedings of the 2nd World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, 21-24 August, Ed. T.N. Veziroglu and W.
Seifritz:pp. 883-1028.
Holt, N.A. and VanderBurgt, M.J. (1999) (USA and Netherlands). Biomass Conversion:
Prospects and Context. Power Production from Biomass III Seminar, Espoo, Finland,
September 1988. VTT-Symp-192:pp. 163-177.
Hydrogen Program (2001) (USA). Process Analysis of Hydrogen Research Activities National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan
FY2001:pp. 3-150 to 3-153.
Hydrogen Program (2001) (USA). Technoeconomic Analysis of Area 2 Hydrogen Production
Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC). U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan
FY2001:pp. 3-161 to 3-163.
Jacobson, R., Purcell, R., Wermers, D., Wood, B., Donovan, D., Lane, D., Matheus, M. (2001)
(USA) Renewable Hydrogen Systems Integration and Performance Modeling. Proceedings
of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Klareich, F. H. (1997) (USA). Hydrogen Systems Analysis, Education, and Outreach. Annual
Report. Nov 1(DOE/GO/10170-T1):9 p.
Larson, E.D. and Katofsky, R.E. (1992) (USA). Production of Methanol and Hydrogen from
Biomass. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University. PU/CEES
Report No. 271.
Larson, E.D. and Katofsky, R.E. (1994) (USA). Production of Hydrogen and Methanol via
Biomass Gasification. Adv. In Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Ed. A.V. Bridgwater,
Blackie Academic, London:pp. 495-510.
Levin, A.B., Maness, P.C., Brown, R. (2001) (Canada, USA) Integrated Hydrogen Energy
Systems for Power and Transportation Fifth International Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM
Mann, M.K. (1995) (USA). Technical and Economic Analyses of Hydrogen Production via
Indirectly Heated Gasification and Pyrolysis. Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review, Coral Gables, FL, 18-21 Apr 1995:pp. 205-236.
Mann, M. K.; Spath, P. L., and Kadam, K. (1996a) (USA). Technoeconomic Analysis of
Renewable Hydrogen Production, Storage, and Detection Systems. Proceedings of the
1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review(NREL/CP-430-21968):pp. 249-272.
Mann, M. K.; Spath, P. L., and Kadam, K. (1996b) (USA). Technical and Economic Analysis of
Renewables-Based Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of
the 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 105-113.
Mann, M. K.; Spath, P. L., and Amos, W. A. (1998) (USA). Technoeconomic Analysis of
Different Options for the Production of Hydrogen from Sunlight, Wind, and Biomass.
Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review; Vol. 1(NREL/CP-57025315):pp. 367-390.

62

Mann, M. K. and Spath, P. L. (1999) (USA). The Economic Feasibility of Producing Hydrogen
from Sunlight, Wind, and Biomass Energy. Renewable and Advanced Energy Systems for
the 21st Century, Maui, ASME:pp. 1-13.
Mann, M.K.; Spath, P.L., and Amos, Wade A. (1999) (USA). Studies on the Production and
Delivery of Hydrogen from Renewable Resources. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP-570-26938).
Mann, M.K. (2000) (USA). Analysis in the Hydrogen Programs. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S.
DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Review, May, Livermore, CA (NREL/CP-570-28890).
Mann, M.K.; Spath, P.L.; Amos, W.A.; Lane, J.M. (2000) (USA). Process Analysis Work for the
DOE Hydrogen Program 1999. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review (NREL/CP-570-28890):pp. 737-747.
Mann, M. (2001) (USA). Process Analysis of Hydrogen Research Activities. Proceedings of the
2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
McIlvain-Wright, D.R.; Williams, B.C.; McMullen, J.T. (2000)(Ireland). Wood Gasification
Integrated with Fuel Cells. Renewable Energy 19:pp. 223-228.
Ogden, J.M. (1992) (USA). Renewable Hydrogen Energy System Studies. Proceedings of the
1992 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Cocoa Beach, FL(NREL/CP-450-4972):p. 213
to 238.
Ogden, J.M. (1993) (USA). Assessments of Renewable Hydrogen Energy Systems.
Proceedings of the 1993 U.S. DOEL Hydrogen Program Review, Cocoa Beach,
FL(NREL/CP-470-5777):p. 163 to 186.
Ogden, J.J.; Strohbehn, J.W., and Dennis, E. (1994) (USA). Hydrogen Energy Systems Studies.
Proceedings of the 1994 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Livermore, CA (NREL/CP470-6431):pp. 1-28.
Ogden, J.M.; Steinbugler, M., and Dennis, E. (1995) (USA). Hydrogen Energy Systems Studies.
Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Coral Gables, FL; Vol.
1(CP-430-20036): pp. 1-50.
Ogden, J. M.; Kreutz, T. G., and Steinbugler, M. (1996) (USA). Hydrogen Energy Systems
Studies. Proceedings of the 1996 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Miami, FL, 1-3
May 1996,(NREL/CP-430-21968):pp. 125-183.
Ogden, J.; Steinbugler, M. and Kreutz, T. (1997) (USA). A Technical Assessment of Hydrogen
as a Fuel for Fuel Cell Vehicles. Proceedings of the 1997 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review, NREL/CP-430-23722:pp. 485-530.
Ogden, J. M.; Steinbugler, M., and Kreutz, T. (1998) (USA). Hydrogen Energy Systems Studies.
Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, Alexandria, VA; Vol.
1(NREL/CP-570-25315):pp. 299-366.
Ogden, J.M. (1999) (USA). Hydrogen Energy Systems Studies. Proceedings of the 1999 U.S.
DOE Hydrogen Program Review(NREL/CP-570-26938).
Rosen, M.A. and Scott, D.S. (1987) (Canada). An Energy-Exergy Analysis of the KoppersTotzek Process for Producing Hydrogen from Coal. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 12 (12):pp.
837-845.
Rosen, M.A. and Scott, D.S. (1998) (Canada). Comparative Efficiency Assessments for a
Range of Hydrogen Production Processes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23 (8):pp. 653-659.

63

Schmidt, D.D. and Gunderson, J.R. (2000) (USA). Opportunities for Hydrogen: An Analysis of
the Application of Biomass Gasification to Farming Operations Using Microturbines and
Fuel Cells. Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review. NREL/CP-57028890:pp. 835-846.
Schucan, T.H.; Skolnik, E.G.; Bracht, M., and P., Gregoire, C.E. (1999) (Switzerland,
Netherlands, USA). Development of Hydrogen Technology Component Models for Systems
Integration. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference; Vol. 1:pp. 111-120.
Shah, M.M., Drnevich, R.F., Balachandra, U., Dorris, S.E., and Lee, T.H., (2001) (USA)
Technoeconomic Feasibility Analysis of Hydrogen Production by Integrated Ceramic
Membrane System, Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535).
Skolnik, E.G. (2000) (USA). Technical Assessment and Analysis of Hydrogen R&D Projects.
Proceedings of the 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review. NREL/CP-570-28890:pp.
856-859.
Skolnik, E.G., Miller, J., TerMaath, C.Y., (2001) (USA) Technical Evaluations of DOE Projects
and Storage Database. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review
(NREL/CP 570-30535).
Solantausta, Y.; Beckman, B.; Oestman, A.; Overend, R.P. (2000) (Finland et al.). IEA
Bioenergy Task 22. Techoeconomic Assessment for Bioenergy Applications, 1998-1999
Final Report FTT-TIED-2024.
Spath, P.L. and Mann, M.K. (1998) (USA). Technoeconomic Assessment of Four Biomass-toHydrogen Conversion Technologies. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the
12th World Hydrogen Energy Conference; Vol. 3:pp. 2057-2067.
Spath, P.L.; Lane, J.M.; Mann, M.K., and Amos, W.A. (2000) (USA). Update of Hydrogen from
Biomass Determination of the Delivered Cost of Hydrogen. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
Spath, P.L.; Lane, J.M.; Mann, M.K., (2001) (USA). Technoeconomic Analysis of Options for
Producing Hydrogen from Biomass. Fifth International Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be published as a CD/ROM.
Steinberg, M. and Cheng, H.C. (1988) (USA). Modern and Prospective Technologies for
Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels. Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the
7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Sept., Moscow, U.S.S.R., Ed. T.N. Veziroglu and
A.N. Protsenko, Pergamon Press:pp. 699-739.
Steinberg, M. and Cheng, H.C. (1989) (USA). Modern and Prospective Technologies for
Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 14 (11):pp. 797-820.
Steinberg, M. (1995) (USA). Prospective Technologies for Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen
Energy Systems, ed. Y. Yurum, Kluwer Academic Press:pp. 31-44.
T-Raissi, A.,(2001) (USA) Technoeconomic Analysis of Area II Hydrogen Production - Part 1.
Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Thorsness, C. B. (1995) (USA). Process Modeling of Hydrogen Production from Municipal Solid
Waste. (UCRL-ID-119231).
U.S. Department of Energy (1997) (USA). Hydrogen Production by Supercritical Water
Gasification of Biomass. Phase 1 Technical and Business Feasibility Study, Technical
Progress Report. DOE/GO/10216-T1. Ed. B.A. Jakkestad (ON: DE99000119).

64

U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program (2000) (USA). Summary of Analysis Projects,
1994-2000 (76 reports, 193 total pages).
Ulku, S. and Cakaloz, T. (1988) (Turkey). Coal Gasification in Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen
Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Ed. T.N.
Viziroglu and A.N. Protsenko, Pergamon Press:pp. 783-807.
Williams, R. H.; Larson, E.D.; Katofsky, R.E.; Chen, J. (1995) (USA). Methanol and Hydrogen
from Biomass for Transportation with Comparisons to Methanol and Hydrogen from Natural
Gas and Coal. The 1995 Symposium on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation
Research (EPA-600/R-96-072):pp. 4-69 to 4-103
Life Cycle Analyses
Bates, J.; Watkiss, P., and Thorpe, T. (1997) (UK). Life Cycle Emissions from Renewable
Energy Technologies. IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on the Assessment of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions From the Full Energy Chain of Solar and Wind Power, Vienna, Austria. 1997
Dec 31:pp. 138-175.
Curlee, T.R. and Yuracko, K.L. (2000) (USA). The Use of Life Cycle Analysis Within the U.S.
Department of Energy. Environmental Progress; 19 (2.):pp. 117-123.
Dante, R.C.; Gereca, L.P.; Neri, L.; Escamilla, J.L.; Aquino, L., and Celis, J. (2002). Life Cycle
Anlaysis of Hydrogen Fuel: A Methodology for a Strategic Approach of Decision Making. Int.
J. of Hydrogen Energy 27:pp. 131-133.
Finkenwirth, O. and Pehnt, M. (2000) (Germany). Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative
Hydrogen Production Path. The International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, September
11-15, 2000:pp. 161-179.
Mann, M.K. and Spath, P.L. (2000) (USA). A Summary of Life Cycle Assessment Studies
Conducted on Biomass, Coal, and Natural Gas Systems. Milestone Report for the U.S.
Department of Energys Biomass Power Program Systems Analysis Task. 2000 Sep 30.
Spath, P. and Mann, M. (2000) (USA). A complete look at the Overall Environmental Impacts of
Hydrogen Production. HYFORUM 2000. September, Munich, Germany:pp. 523-531,
www.hyforum2000.de.
Spath, P. and Mann, M. (2001) (USA). Life Cycle AssessmentAn Environmental Comparison
of Hydrogen Production from Steam Methane Reforming and Wind Technologies. National
Hydrogen Association, March 6-8, Washington, D.C.
Spath, P.L. and Mann, M.K. (2001) (USA). Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via
Natural Gas Steam Reforming. (Revised Feb.) National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO. NREL/TP-570-27637:pp. 24.
Wagner, U.; Geiger, B., and Schaefer, H. (1998) (Germany). Energy Life Cycle Analysis of
Hydrogen Systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23 (1):pp. 1-6.
Overview of Hydrogen Production Pathways
Balthasar, W. (1984) (Netherlands). Hydrogen Production and Technology: Today, Tomorrow
and Beyond. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 9 (No. 8):pp. 649-668.
Beckersvordersardforth, C. (2000) (Germany). The Role of Natural Gas in Sustainable Energy
Management Bridging the Gap to Hydrogen. On Energies-of-Change The Hydrogen
Solution, Chapter 10, Ed. C.J. Winter. Gerling Akademic Verlag:pp. 119-134.
Brown, L.F. (2001) (USA). A Comparative Study of Fuels for On-Board Hydrogen Production for
Fuel Cell Powered Automobiles, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26:pp. 381-397.

65

Behrens, D. and Sandstede, G. (1991) (Germany). Hydrogen Production Possibilities for Future
Energy Systems with Reduced Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Chem.-Ing-Tech 63 (6):pp. 575592. (In German.)
Boichenko, V.A., Greenbaum, E. and Seibert, M. (2001) (USA) Hydrogen Production by
Photosynthetic Microorganisms, Photoconversion of Solar Energy, Molecular to Global
Photosynthesis. (M.D. Archer and J Barber, Ed.. Vol 2. Imperial College Press, London.
Article in Press.
Bracha, M. (2000) (Germany). Hydrogen Production and Infrastructure. The International
Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, September 11-15, 2000:pp. 41-46.
Carrette, L., Friedrich, K.A. and Stimming, V., (2000) (Germany) Fuel Cells; Principles, Types,
Fuels and Applications, ChemPhysChem. 1 pp. 162-193
Chernomyrdina, N.A.; Shpilrain, E.E.; Zaitchenko, V.M. (2000) (Russia). Possible Ways of
Hydrogen Energy Development. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. I, Proceedings of the
13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao
and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 60-68.
Chum, H.L. and Overend, R.P. (2001) Biomass and Renewable Fuels. Fuel Proc. Tech. 71
pp.187-195
Conway, Lawrence (1997) (U.K.). Production of Manufactured Gases and Hydrogen.
Conference: 20th World Gas, Copenhagen, 10-13 June 1997.
Cook, B. (2000) (Canada). The Bioplex: A View of the Future for the Biomass Industry. The
Future for the Biomass Industry Lies in Integrating Bioenergy First into the Hydrocarbon
Economy, then the Hydrogen Economy. Renewable Energy World; Vol. 3, Part 4:pp. 204211.
Demirbas, A. (2001) (Turkey). Biomass Resource Facilities and Biomass Conversion
Processing for Fuels and Chemicals. Energy Conversion and Management 42 pp. 13571370
Elam, C.C., and Gregoire Padr, C. E., (2001) (USA). International Energy Agency Agreement
on the Production and Utilization of Hydrogen. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Elam, C.C, and Chum, H.L.,(2001) (USA). Inventory and Gap Analysis of Federally Funded
Research and Development Activities. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Faaij, A. P. C. and Agterberg, A. E. (1999) (Netherlands). Long Term Perspectives for
Production of Fuels from Biomass: Integrated Assessment and RD&D Priorities.
Proceedings of the 4th Biomass Conference of the Americas, Oakland, CA, August 29
September 2 1999; Vol. 1:pp. 477-478.
Goltsov, V.A. and Veriroglu, T.N. (2001) (Ukraine) From hydrogen economy to hydrogen
civilization. Int. J. Hydrogen 26: pp. 99-915
Gregoire-Padr, C.E. (1998) (USA). Hydrogen, the Once and Future Fuel. Energy & Fuels; 12:
pp. 1-2.
Gregoire-Padr, C. and Lau, F. (2000) (USA). Advances in Hydrogen Energy, Ed. C.E.
Gregoire-Padro and F. Lau, Kluwer Academic, NY.
Hall, D. O. (1999) (U.K.). Biomass for Energy. (Solar Energy Society, Oxford) pp. 147-156.
Hefner, R.A. III (2002) (USA). The Age of Energy Gases. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 27:pp. 1-9.

66

Hijikata, T. (2002) (Japan). Research and Development of International Clean Energy Network
using Hydrogen Energy (WE-NET). Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy 27:pp. 115-129.
Ismagilov, F.R.; Plechev, A.V.; Safin, R.R.; Voltsov, A.A.; Ismagilova, Z.F. (2000) (Russia).
Hydrogen Production in Oil Refineries. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils
36(6):pp. 373-378.
Kermode, R.J. (1979) (USA). Hydrogen from Fossil Fuels, Chapter 3 in Hydrogen: Its
Technology and Implications, Vol. 1. Hydrogen Production Technology, Eds. K.E. Cox and
K.O. Williams, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida:pp. 62-113.
Kervitsky, L.A.,(2001) (USA). Outreach Activities. Proceedings of the 2001 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review (NREL/CP 570-30535).
Khana, V.K. (2001) Hydrogen generation of a brief review. Hydrocarbon Processing 80: pp. 86
Khan, M.P. (2001) (USA). Energy for the 21st Century: Role of Hydrogen Energy. American
Chemical Society Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 46(1), 221st ACS National Meeting.
Kruger, P. (2001) (USA) Electric power requirements for large-scale production of hydrogen
fuel for the world vehicle fleet. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26: pp. 1137-1147
Larson, E.D. and Katofsky, R.E. (1994) (USA). Production of Hydrogen and Methanol via
Biomass Gasification. Adv. Thermochem. Biomass Conversion; Vol. 1:pp. 495510.
Larson, E.D. (1992) (USA). Fuels and Electricity from Biomass. Proceedings: A Blueprint for
Hydrogens Future With Enabling Technologies Workshop, The National Hydrogen
Association 3rd Annual Meeting: pp. 2-27 to 2-39.
Marchetti, C. (2000) (Austria). On Decarbonization: Historically and Perceptively. On Energiesof-Change The Hydrogen Solution:pp. 41-49.
Mauro, R. and Leach, S. (1995) (USA). Analysis of Near-Term Production and Market
Opportunities for Hydrogen and Related Activities. Proceedings of the 1995 U.S. DOE
Hydrogen Program Review; Vol. II(NREL/CP-430-20036):pp. 51-65.
Momirlan, M. and Veziroglu, T. (1999) (Romania, USA). Recent Directions of World Hydrogen
Production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 3:pp. 219-231.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden CO (1995) (USA). The Green Hydrogen
Report. The 1995 Progress Report of the Secretary of Energys Hydrogen Technical
Advisory Panel. (DOE/GO-10095-179):23 p.
Nielsen, A.T.; Amandusson, H.; Bjorklund, R.; Dannetun, H.; Ejlertsson, J.; Ekedahl, L.-G.;
Lundstrom, I.; Svensson, B.H. (2001). Hydrogen Production from Organic Wastes. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 26:pp. 347-550.
Overend, R. P. and Rivard, C. J. (1993) (USA). Thermal and Biological Gasification. 1. Biomass
Conference of the Americas: Energy, Environment, Agriculture, and Industry, Burlington,
VT, 30 Aug 2 Sep 1993:pp. 470-497.
Oza, K. (2001) (India) Hydrogen- an abundant and pollution-free energy Fifth International
Biomass Conference of the Americas, Orlando, Florida (Cancelled). Abstracts to be
published as a CD/ROM
Rohrmann, C. A. and Greenborg, J. (1977) (USA). Large Scale Hydrogen Production Utilizing
Carbon in Renewable Resources. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 2:pp. 31-40.
Rosen, M. A. (1996) (Canada). Thermodynamic Comparison of Hydrogen Production
Processes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 21 (5):pp. 349-365.

67

Roszkowski, T.R. and Snyder, N.W. (1982) (USA). Present and Emerging Hydrogen Production
Technology. Hydrogen Energy Progress IV, Proceedings of the 4th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference. June, California :pp. 47-68.
Shakhbazov, S.D. and Yususov, J.M. (1992) (USSR). Nontraditional Sources of Energy for
Hydrogen Production. Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings of the 9th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference:pp. 285-288.
Sandstede, G. (1991) (German). Hydrogen Production Possibilities for Future Energy Systems
with Reduced Carbon Dioxide Emission. Chemis-Ingenieur-Technik; Vol. 63:pp. 575-592
(German).
Schindler, J. and Weindorf, W. (2000) (Germany). Fuels for Transportation Derived from
Renewable Energy Sources. The International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, September
11-15, 2000:pp. 481-489.
Steinberg, M. (1976) (USA). Nuclear Power for the Production of Synthetic Fuels and
Feedstocks. Eleventh IECEC Proceedings: pp. 1086-1094.
Tokushita, Y. (2000) (Japan). Plan/Overview of the We-NET (World Energy Network) Project.
HYFORUM 2000 (www.hyforum2000.dc):p. 539.
Tributsch, H. (2000) (Germany). Hydrogen and Chemicals from Solar Energy: The Quest for
High-Efficiency Strategies. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. I, Proceedings of the 13th
World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and
T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 69-74.
Trimm, D.L., and Onsan, Z.I. (2001) (Australia, Turkey) Onboard Fuel Conversion for HydrogenFuel-Cell-Driven Vehicles. Catalysis Reviews 43 pp. 31-84
Veziroglu, T.N. (1995) (USA). Twenty Years of the Hydrogen Movement: 1974-1994. Hydrogen
Energy Systems, Ed. Y. Yurum, Kluwer Academic Publ.:pp. 1-14.
Veziroglu, T. N. (2000) (USA). Quarter Century of Hydrogen Movement 1974-2000. Hydrogen
Energy Progress XIII, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. I,
Beijing, China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 3-19.
Veziroglu, T.N. (2000) (USA). Quarter Century of Hydrogen Movement 1974-2000. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 25:pp. 1143-1150.
Winter, C. J., editor (200) (Germany). On energies-of-change. The Hydrogen Solution. Gerling
Akademie Verlag.
Yurum, Y. (Ed.) (1995a) (Turkey). Hydrogen Production Methods. Conference: NATO-ASI
Hydrogen Energy System, Production and Utilization of Hydrogen and Future Aspects,
Akcay, Turkey, Kluwer Academie, 21 Aug 3 Sept 1994:pp. 15-30.
Zaborsky, O.R. ed. (1998) (USA). BioHydrogen. Plenum Press, N.Y.
Zhengang, X. and Chunlai, W. (2000) (China). Hydrogen Production Technologies by Coal
Gasification. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N.
Veziroglu:pp. 227-232.
Information on Country Programs
Bailey, C.; Kamal, M.; Lloyd, A.; Lynch, F.; Nahmias, D., and Zalosh, R. (1998) (USA). The
U.S.Department of Energys Hydrogen Program Perspectives from the Hydrogen
Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP). Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th
World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Vol. 1:pp. 395-404.

68

Blum, S. (1994) (USA). Hydrogen Energy Activities in Eleven IEA Countries. Technical Report
of the International Energy Agency Agreement on the Production and Utilisation of
Hydrogen. NPR/H2/94. International Planning Associates, Inc.
Carrette, L.; Friedrich, K.A.; Stimming, U. (2000) (Germany). Fuel Cells: Types, Fuels, and
Applications. ChemPhysChem 1:pp. 162-193.
Devillers, C.; Pehr, K.; Stoll, D.;Weirmann, D.; Vanderborre, H.; Gonzales, A.; Wurster, R.;
Kesten, M.; Heurtoux, F. and Ekdunge, P. (1998) (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain,
Sweden). European Integrated Hydrogen Project (EIHP). Hydrogen Energy Progress XII,
Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, International Association for
Hydrogen Energy, June, 1998, Buenos Aires, Argentina:pp. 469-481.
Devillers, C.; Pehr, K.; Stoll, D.; Wetzel, F.-J.; Duffield, J.S.; Grubel, H.; Zisler, S.; Vandenborre,
H.; Driessens, T.; Gonzalez, G.-C.; Vegas, A.; Wurster, R.; Kesten, M.; Machel, M.; Michel,
F.; Heurtaux, F. and Adams, P. (2000) (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Sweden).
European Integrated Hydrogen Project (EIHP). Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1,
Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15,
2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 139-149.
Deyou, B. (1994) (China). Recent R&D Program of Hydrogen Energy in China. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 19(9): pp. 777-779.
Faaij, A. P. C. (1999) (Netherlands). Biofuels in North and South America. Overview of
Activities. Utrecht University Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht, the
Netherlands, 1999 Aug 1(GAVE-9905): 60 pages.
Gaudernack, B.; Andreassen, K.; rnason, B.; Lund, P., and Schleisner, L. (1994) (Norway,
Iceland, Finland, Denmark). Hydrogen Production Potential in the Nordic Countries.
Hydrogen Energy Progress X, Proceedings of the 10th World Hydrogen Energy Conference,
Cocoa Beach, FL, 20-24 June; Vol. 1:pp. 9-22.
Hammerli, M.; Dolenko, A. J., and Beck, N. R. (1995) (Canada). The Canadian National
Hydrogen R&D Program. 7th Canadian Hydrogen Workshop June 1995:pp. 49-61.
Hart, D. and Bauen, A. (2000) (England). Opportunities for Hydrogen Energy Systems in
Europe. Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Beijing, China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N.
Veziroglu:pp. 30-34.
Hydrogen Program Annual Operating Plan. (2001) (USA). IEA and Other International
Collaborations, National Renewable Energy Laboratory:pp. 3-62 to 3-65.
Ishikawa, A. (2000) (Japan). Opening of Japans National Hydrogen Day Hydrogen in Japan.
The International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, 11-15 September 2000, Munich,
Germany:p. 279.
Kaltschmitt, M.; Rosch, C.; Dinkelbach, L. (1998) (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain,
France, Austria, Finland, USA, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, U.K., Luxemberg,
Belgium, Ireland). Biomass Gasification in Europe, European Commission, AIR3-CT-942284).
Kervitsky, Jr. G. (1999) (USA). Enabling the Wide-Spread Use of Hydrogen in the 21st Century
U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program. 9th Canadian Hydrogen Conference Hydrogen Power
Now, Vancouver, BC, Canada:pp.295-302.
Koch, H.J. (2000) (IEA). Hydrogen and the IEA. International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000,
Hyforum 2000, Munich, 11-15 September 2000:pp. 307-313.

69

Mattos, M.C. (1984). (Brazil). National Hydrogen Energy Program in Brazil. Hydrogen Energy
Progress V, Proceedings of the 5th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, ed. T.N. Veziroglu
and J.B. Taylor, July, Toronto, Canada, Pergamon Press:pp: 57-62.
Mitsugi, C.; Harumi, A., and Kenzo, F. (1998) (Japan). We-Net: Japanese Hydrogen Program.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23 (1):pp. 159-165.
Ohta, T. and Abe, Isao (1984) (Japan). Hydrogen Energy Research Development in Japan.
Hydrogen Energy Progress V, Proceedings of the 5th World Hydrogen Energy Conference,
Pergamon Press:pp. 47-55.
Okano, K. (2001) (Japan). WE-NET Phase 2 Program Update. 12th Annual U.S. Hydrogen
Meeting of National Hydrogen Association, March 6-8, Washington, D.C.:p. 21.
Pekhota, F.N.; Rusanov, V.D., and Malyshenko, S.P. (1996) (Russia). Russian Federal
Hydrogen Energy Program. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany; Vol. 1:pp. 293-299.
Pekhota, F.N.; Rusanov, V.D.; Malyshenko, S.P. (1998). Russian Federal Hydrogen Energy
Program. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 23 (10):pp. 967-970.
Ramrez, A.M.; Sebastian, P. J.; Gamboa, S. A.; Rivera, M. A.; Cuevas, O., and Campos, J.
(2000) (Mexico). A Documented Analysis of Renewable Energy Related Research and
Development in Mexico. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 25:pp. 267-271.
Reller, A. (1998) (Switzerland). Research and Development Activities on Hydrogen Technology
in Switzerland. Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Vol. 1:pp. 455-461.
Riis, T. (2000) (Norway). National Programs of the IEA Member Countries. Hyforum 2000, 1115 September 2000, Munich, Germany,:pp. 413-420.
Rossmeissel, N.P. and Waltemath, L.A. (1996) (USA). The United States Department of Energy
Hydrogen Program. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference, IAHE: pp. 27-35.
Rossmeissel, N.P. (2000) (USA). The International Energy Agencys Hydrogen Research and
Development Activities. The International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, 11-15 September
2000, Munich, Germany:pp. 453-459.
Rusamov, V.D. (1996) (Russia). Hydrogen Energy and Technologies: Research and
Development in Russia. Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, IAHE: pp. 37-48.
Schriber, G. (1996) (Switzerland). The Hydrogen Research Programme of the International
Energy Agency (IEA). Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Stuttgart, Germany; Vol. 1:pp. 251-258.
Sorensen, B. and Sorensen, F. (2000) (Denmark). A Hydrogen Future for Denmark. Hydrogen
Energy Progress XIII, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy Conference,
Beijing, China, June 12-15, 2000, Eds. Z.Q. Mao and T.N. Veziroglu:pp. 35-40.
Stoholm, P. and Olsen, A. (1997) (Denmark). Analysis and Co-ordination of the Activities
Concerning Gasification of Biomass. Country Report, Denmark and Norway, RISO-R942:pp. 2-33.
Wagner, U. (2000) (Germany). Hydrogen Energy Technologies in Bavaria: Strategies, Projects
and Results. On Energies-of-Change, The Hydrogen Solution, Hyforum 2000:pp. 234-239.

70

Whitehead, J.R. and Taylor, J.B. (1984). (Canada). The International Agency. Cooperative
Program on Hydrogen. Hydrogen Energy Progress V, Proceedings of the 5th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Pergamon Press: pp. 63-76.

71

Appendix B
References to Major Sources of Biomass-to-Hydrogen Information
The following lists major sources of papers and reports used in the preparation of this review.
Also listed are major web-based sites that also uncovered many research papers on hydrogen
from biomass.
A.

Sites Focused on Hydrogen

The American Hydrogen Association is dedicated to the advancement of inexpensive, clean

and safe hydrogen energy systems.(http://www.clean-air.org)

The National Hydrogen Association holds annual U.S. Hydrogen meetings (1990-2001).
Reports are mainly from the USA, but occasional papers from around the world are included
(http://www.hydrogenus.com).

The Canadian Hydrogen Association holds annual conferences covering a broad range of
topics. The latest is the 10th Canadian Hydrogen Conference (See CHA at
http://www.h2.ca/en/main.html). Reports are presented from North American and World
researchers.

Norsk H2 Forum (http://www.hydrogen.no).

Swedish Hydrogen Forum (http://www.h2forum.org).

German Hydrogen Association (http://www.dwv-info.de/indexe.htm).

Association Francaise De LHydrogene, member of the European Hydrogen Association

(http://www.afh2.org/htm).

The European Hydrogen Association (EHA) (http://www.h2euro.org).

International Energy Agency (IEA) Hydrogen Program

(http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/iea). Task 12: H2 Storage in Carbon; Task 13: Design
and Optimization of Integrated Systems; Task 14: Photoelectrolysis Production of H2; Task
15: Photobiological Production of H2; Task 16: H2 from Carbon Containing Materials.

Hyforum 2000. The International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, Policy Business
Technology. 11-15 Sept., 2000. (http://www.hyforum2000.de/english/events/hyforum2000)

The International Association for Hydrogen Energy (P.O. Box 248266, Coral Gables, Florida
33124, (USA) publishes proceedings as: Hydrogen Energy Progress, Vol. I (1976) to Vol.
XIII (2000). These bi-annual conferences present papers on a broad range of pathways to
hydrogen, from researchers around the world. The reports are under the editorship of T.N.
Veziroglu et al. The XIV World Hydrogen Energy Conference (2002)is scheduled for June
9-14 in Montreal, Canada (IRH @ uqtr.u.quebec.ca). Another major source of biomass-tohydrogen papers is the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, also published by the
International Hydrogen Energy Association, Vol. 1 (1976) through Vol. 26 (2001).

1st World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Conference Proceedings, 1-3 March 1976,
Miami Beach, Florida, USA, Ed. T. Nejat Veziroglu, International Association of
Hydrogen Energy.

Hydrogen Energy Systems, Proceedings of the 2nd World Hydrogen Energy

Conference, 21-24 August 1978, Zurich, Switzerland, Eds. T. Nejat Veziroglu and
Walter Seifritz, Pergamon Press.

Hydrogen Energy Progress, Proceedings of the 3rd World Hydrogen Energy

Conference, 23-26 June 1980, Tokyo, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu, K. Fueki and T. Ohta,
Pergamon Press.

72

Hydrogen Energy Progress IV, Proceedings of the 4th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 13-17 June 1982, Pasadena, California, USA, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu, W.D.
Van Vorst and J.H. Kelley, Pergamon Press.

Hydrogen Energy Progress V, Proceedings of the 5th World Hydrogen Energy

Conference, 15-20 July 1984, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu and J.B.
Taylor, Pergamon Press.

Hydrogen Energy Progress VI, Proceedings of the 6th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 20-24 July 1986, Vienna, Austria, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu, N. Getoff and P.
Weinzierl, Pergamon Press.

Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 25-29 September 1988, Moscow, USSR, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu and A.N.
Protsenko, Pergamon Press.

Hydrogen Energy Progress VIII, Proceedings of the 8th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 22-27 July 1990, Honolulu and Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, Eds. T.N.
Veziroglu, N. Getoff and P. Weinzierl, International Association of Hydrogen Energy.

Hydrogen Energy Progress IX, Proceedings of the 9th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 22-25 June 1992, Paris, France, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu, C. Derive and J.
Pottier, International Association of Hydrogen Energy.

Hydrogen Energy Progress X, Proceedings of the 10th World Hydrogen Energy

Conference, 20-24 June 1994, Cocoa Beach, Florida, USA, Eds. D.L. Block and T.N.
Veziroglu, International Association of Hydrogen Energy.

Hydrogen Energy Progress XI, Proceedings of the 11th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 23-28 June 1996, Stuttgart, Germany, Eds. T.N. Veziroglu, C.-J. Winter,
J.P. Beselt and G. Kreysa, International Association of Hydrogen Energy.

Hydrogen Energy Progress XII, Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 21-26 June 1998, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Eds. J.C. Bolcich and T.N.
Veziroglu, International Association of Hydrogen Energy.

Hydrogen Energy Progress XIII, Proceedings of the 13th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, 12-15 June 2000, Beijing, China, International Association of Hydrogen
Energy.

Proceedings of the U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Reviews (1991-2001) Annual Meeting
papers. This series covers research and analysis of the extensive team of contractors in the
DOE portfolio. These reports are available from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO, USA in a series of NREL Technical Reports. Contact NREL Document
Distribution Center, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO, 80401, for information on availability.

1992, May 6-7, Honolulu, Hawaii. July. NREL/CP-450-4972

1993, May 4-6, Cocoa Beach, Florida. August. NREL/CP-470-5771

1994, April 18-21, Livermore, California. July. NREL/CP-470-6431.

1995, April 18-21, Coral Gables, Florida. September. NREL/CP-430-20036

1996, May 1-2, Miami, Florida. October. NREL/CP-430-21968

1997, May 21-23, Herndon, Virginia. October. NREL/CP-430-23722

1998, April 28-30, Alexandria, Virginia. August. NREL/CP-570-25315

1999, May 4-6, Lakewood, Colorado. January, 2000. NREL/CP-570-26938

73

2000, May 9-11, San Ramon, California. NREL/CP-570-28890

2001, April 17-19, Washington, D.C. NREL/CP 570-30535. (Also available at

http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/docs/30535toc.html)

HyWEB The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Information System

(http://www.hydrogen.org/welcome/intro.html). This network, started in 1997 under funding
by the European Commission, presents comprehensive, detailed and up-to-date information
on hydrogen as an energy carrier and on fuel cells (in German and English language
versions). The cite includes a Hydrogen Gazette
(http://www.hydrogen.org/news/gazette.html) and a Hydrogen Compendium section. The
latter present detailed knowledge on hydrogen production, transportation, distribution,
storage, conditioning and applications, especially in fuel cells. There are also sections on
Company and Products databases, and on Politica (See http://www.HyWeb.de/indexe.html) (See Altman and Wurster below, 1998).

WE-NET maintains a listing of hydrogen research organizations among other activities

(http://www.enaa.or.jp/WE-NET/).

United States Hydrogen and American Hydrogen Association-Midwest Division

(http://www.USH2.com).

The Institute for Energy Technology in Norway conducts analyses of hydrogen systems as
well as hydrogen production from fossil fuels. Contact D. Solberg Kjell, P.O.Box 40, N2007, Kjeller, Norway.

NEDO Sydney Representative Office. Promotes cooperative projects between Japan and
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific countries. Includes programs in hydrogen,
alcohol and biomass technology (http://www.nedo-sydney.org.au/main/default.htm).

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter. This publication is the voice of the international hydrogen
and fuel cell communities, covering events and developments in this emerging field as they
occur. (http://www.hfcletter.com).

The Hydrogen Energy Center offers links to companies and organizations who are
contributing to the advancements of hydrogen or other renewable and sustainable energies
(http://www.h2eco.org/links.htm).

The DOE Hydrogen Energy Research (HYD) online document database

(http://www.osti.gov/hyd/hydhome.html).

Hydrogen Research Institute at the University of Quebec

(http://www.uqtr.uquebec.ca/IRH/en/Main/welcome.htm).

Florida Solar Energy Center, Hydrogen Research and Applications Center addresses
hydrogen from renewable resources among other topics (http://www.fsec.ucf.edu).

California Hydrogen Business Council. Maintains a Hydrogen Resource Link database

(http://www.ch2bc.org/links.htm).

Shell Hydrogen and Shell Renewables sites are available at

(http://www.shellhydrogen.com/hydrogen-en/0,6011,,oo.html).

Makoto, Akai (1993). Hydrogen Based Global Renewable Energy Network. 2. US/Japan
Workshop on Global Change Research: Environmental Response Technologies, Honolulu,
HI, 1-3 Feb 1993:pp. 203-209.

Altmann, M.; Wurster, R. (1998). HyWeb The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Information System
Publication of a Hydrogen Acceptance Study in HyWeb as an Example of the Dissemination

74

of Hydrogen Information via the Internet. Proceedings of the 12th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 21-26 June 1998, Vol. 1:pp.281-290.

Environment Institute, Renewable Energies University, European Commissions Joint

Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. Activities in hydrogen from bio-ethanol for use in fuel cells
and hydrogen production from biomass (http://www.eurec.be).

Rocky Mountain Institute (http://www.rmi.org/)

Sandia National Laboratories, California has a program on hydrogen reformation

(http://www.ca.sandia.gov/CRF/03-hydrogen.html

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program

(http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/program.html

Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) operated by DOE

(http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/hyd_general.html)

Hydrogen Now http://www.hydrogennow.org/

B. Sites Focused on Biomass

dk-TEKNIK ENERGY and ENVIRONMENT Center for Biomass Technology. A Danish

biomass information network of four technological institutes working with biomass
(http://www.dk-teknik.dk/).

Renewable Energy Technologies, the Australian renewable energy Web Site. Contains
information on biomass conversion technologies
(http://renewable.greenhouse.gov.au/technologies/biomass/bioconversion.html).

U.S. Department of Energys National Biofuels Program (http://www.biofuels.nrel.gov).

IEA Bioenergy a listing of current tasks 28-39 and leader contacts (20012003)
(http://www.ieabioenergy.com).

Green Energy News (http://www.nrglink.com/).

British Bio Gen (http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk)

American Bioenergy Association (http://www.biomass.org)

Bioenergy: Biobib and Other Databases (http://www.bioenergy.ornl.gov)

EPA-Atmospheric Protection Branch (http://www.epa.gov/docs/crb/apb/biomass.htm)

Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (http://www.greenfuels.org/)

International Gas Turbine Institute. Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels Committee
(http://www.asme.org/igti/community/committees/cbaf/)

Australian Renewable Energy Website, Renewable Energy Technologies

(http://renewable.greenhouse.gov.au/technologies/biomass/bioconversion.html)

Biomass Research & Development Initiative. (U.S.) Involves some eleven government
agencies (http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/agencies.html)

ETC Energy Technology Center in Pitea. (Email: info@etc/pitea.se)

European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources (EUFORES) (http://www.eufores.org )

IEA Bioenergy, Task 27-Liquid Biofuels (http://www.joanneum.ac.at/)

Renewable Fuels Association, RFA. (http://www.ethanolrfa.org)

75

A new Web site combines the PyNe and GasNet sites at: http://www.thermonet.co.uk

GasNet can be found at: http://www.gasnet.uk.net

The Biomass Technology Group B.V. can be accessed at:

http://btgs1.ct.utwente.nl/home.html

C. General Renewable Energy Information

The International Energy Agency (IEA) Web site: http://www.iea.org/ provides lists of IEA
implementing agreements such as: CADDET Renewable Energy; (http://www.caddetre.org) Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) (http://www.etde.org/etdeweb/); Energy
Technology Systems Analysis (ETSAP) (http://www.ecn.nl/unit_bs/etsap/).

OSTI U.S. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (http://www.osti.gov/bridge). A

public site requiring no registration or password.

ECN (Netherlands Energy Research Foundation) provides energy information in the

Internet (EII) database of energy-related information sources
(http://www.ecn.nl/eii/main.html). Also (http://www.ecn.nl).

ETDWEB at https://www.osti.gov/infobridge/etde/search.easy.jsp includes bibliographic

records of international scientific and technical literature in the field of energy. The collection
is approaching 800,000 records.

Pub Science, maintained by DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information, is providing
access to a growing collection of scientific and technical publishers and peer-reviewed
journal literature (http://pubsci.osti.gov/).

Google provides searches based on keywords, e.g., hydrogen and biomass

(http://www.google.com).

Canadian Sustainable Energy Web Site. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Energy in
Canada (http://www.newenergy.org/).

Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA) (http://www.greenfuels.org )

Canadian Associations for Renewable Energies. (http://www.renewables.org )

Nordic Energy Index (NEI). Contains descriptions of ongoing and completed energy
research, development and demonstration projects in Denmark, Finland, Norway and
Sweden (http://www.risoe.dk/nei).

AgoresA Global Overview of Renewable Energy Sources. Designed to be the European

information center for renewable energy and the official European Commission Web Site for
renewable energy (http://www.agores.org).

Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html).

Australian Institute of Energy (http://www.aie.org.au/index.htm).

Joanneum Research, Austria. Has an Institute of Energy Research, among others

(http://www.joanneum.ac.at).

American Solar Energy Society (http://www.ases.org)

Greenpower Mailing List (http://www.solstice.crest.org/renewables/green-powe-archive/)

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAG) (http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/test2b.htm).

Source Guides. Renewable Energy Nonprofit Organizations in the World by Business Name
(http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byN/byName.shtml)

76

Pan-European Coalition of Environmental Citizens Organizations European ECO-Forum

(http://www.eco-forum.org/top.htm)

REPP Renewable Energy Policy Project (CREST) (http://www.repp.org/repphome.html)

Solar Energy Society of Canada, Inc. (http://www.solarenergysociety.ca/)

California Energy Commission. Programs and funding etc. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/)

U.S. Export Council for Renewable Energy (US/ECRE)

(http://solstice/crest.org/renewables/usecre)

EPRI energy search (http://www.energysearch.com/)

Joint Research Centre-Environmental Institute, Renewable Energies Unit. EUREC member

(http://www.jrc.org/)

Solstice Online source for sustainable energy information from CREST

(http://solstice.crest.org/index.shtml)

INFORSE - Europe. International network for sustainable energy (http://orgve.dk/inforseeurope)

WIRE - World Wide Information System for Renewable Energy (http://www.wire.ises.org)

The Scientific World - a personal portal to science (http://www.thescientificworld.com/)

The NREL Library (http://www.nrel.gov)

U.S. DOE, Energy.gov (http://www.energy.gov/sources/index.html)

World Energy Council. Addresses renewable among other energy sources. Member
committees in over 90 countries (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/)

American Bioenergy Association. (http://www.biomass.org)

Business Council for Sustainable Energy. (http://www.bcse.org)

ECO Forum Energy and Climate Group. (http://www.eco-forum.org )

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) (http://www.eren.doe.gov )

77

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Executive Committee of the International Energy Agency
Agreement on the Production and Utilization of Hydrogen and the U.S. Department of Energy
Hydrogen Program for providing the financial support to complete this review of the state of the
art. We would also like to thank the Library staff of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) for their prompt and thorough action in procuring the many (and sometimes obscure)
references cited in this review, in particular Maha Mohamed, Judy Oberg and Soon Duck Kim.
We especially want to recognize and thank Ms. Pat Haefele for consistently prompt execution of
the several drafts of this report. She was especially valuable in deciphering the proper reference
citation format for the varied sources we encountered.
We would like to acknowledge our colleagues at NREL who, through their many years of
experience in biomass conversion and hydrogen prudction technologies, provided valuable
feedback and review of this report: Catherine Gregoire Padr, Hydrogen Program Manager;
Ralph Overend, Fellow; Richard Bain, Principal Chemical Engineer; Esteban Chornet, Principal
Chemical Engineer; Margaret Mann, Senior Chemical Engineer; Stefan Czernik, Senior
Chemist; and Micheal Seibert, Principal Biophysicist. Finally, special thanks go to Dr. Suresh
Babu, Gasification Task Leader, IEA Bioenergy Agreement/Gas Technology Institute, and to his
Task experts for their support of this effort.

78