Executive Summary
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) currently supplies the majority of global hydrogen, predominantly for refining and ammonia production, with typical lifecycle emissions of 8–11 tCO₂ per tonne of H₂. Retrofitting existing SMR units with carbon capture systems is frequently described as "low-hanging fruit" for decarbonization. In reality, economics and abatement performance vary significantly by plant size, configuration, integration options and regional policy environment. At
Energy Solutions,
we examine where blue hydrogen retrofits truly deliver competitive abatement costs—and where they risk locking in suboptimal assets.
- Conventional SMR plants emit typically 8–11 tCO₂/tH₂, of which ~60–70% arises from high-purity process CO₂ in the syngas stream and the remainder from fuel combustion in reformer furnaces and utilities.
- Capturing only process CO₂ can achieve 50–65% overall CO₂ reduction, whereas capturing both process and combustion CO₂ can reach 85–95% but at higher CAPEX, energy penalty and complexity.
- Indicative retrofit CAPEX for process-only capture ranges from 600–1,100 USD/kW-H₂ (or 450–800 USD/tH₂-year), while full-facility capture can reach 1,200–1,800 USD/kW-H₂.
- Abatement costs often fall in the range of 40–90 USD/tCO₂ for process-only capture and 70–140 USD/tCO₂ for deep decarbonization, depending on natural gas prices, power costs and CO₂ transport and storage tariffs.
- Retrofits are most attractive for large, modern SMR units (>100,000 tH₂/year) located near CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure or existing CCS hubs, and where policy frameworks (carbon pricing, contracts for difference) reward reliable, verifiable abatement.
Basics: SMR Hydrogen, Emissions and Retrofit Levers
Steam Methane Reforming converts natural gas and steam into hydrogen and CO₂ through reforming and shift reactions, typically followed by a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit to polish hydrogen purity. The main emissions levers are:
- Process stream CO₂: Concentrated CO₂ in the syngas downstream of shift reactors.
- Fuel combustion CO₂: Dilute CO₂ from reformer and auxiliary burner flue gases.
- Upstream methane: Emissions from gas production and transport, often outside the plant fence but crucial for lifecycle performance.
Retrofitting focuses on capturing process and, optionally, combustion CO₂, and on reducing energy use per unit of hydrogen through efficiency upgrades.
Capture Configurations: Process-Only vs Full-Facility
Two broad configurations dominate retrofit discussions:
- Process-only capture: CO₂ is captured from a relatively pure syngas stream, using solvents (e.g., amines) or physical separation technologies. Capture rates in this stream can exceed 90–95%, but overall plant capture is limited by remaining combustion emissions.
- Full-facility capture: Additional post-combustion capture units treat flue gases from reformer furnaces and boilers, targeting overall capture rates above 85–90% of total emissions.
Indicative Capture Configuration Comparison (Stylised 2027)
| Configuration |
Share of Emissions Targeted |
Overall Capture Rate |
Relative Complexity |
| Process-Only Capture |
60–70% |
50–65% |
Moderate |
| Process + Partial Combustion Capture |
80–90% |
70–85% |
High |
| Process + Full Combustion Capture |
90–100% |
85–95% |
Very High |
Indicative Capture Rate vs Added CAPEX
The chart below shows a stylised relationship between overall capture rate and relative CAPEX for different retrofit configurations.
Source: Energy Solutions SMR retrofit model (illustrative).
Benchmarks & Cost Data: CAPEX, Capture Rates and Penalties
Retrofits impose both capital and operating penalties: additional equipment, energy use and integration complexity. Benchmarks include:
Indicative CAPEX and Performance Benchmarks for SMR Retrofits
| Plant Size |
Hydrogen Capacity |
Configuration |
Retrofit CAPEX |
Additional Energy Use |
| Small Industrial SMR |
20–50 ktH₂/year |
Process-Only |
70–150 million USD |
+10–18% energy per tH₂ |
| Refinery SMR Complex |
80–150 ktH₂/year |
Process-Only |
120–250 million USD |
+8–15% energy per tH₂ |
| Large Merchant Hydrogen Plant |
150–300 ktH₂/year |
Process + Partial Combustion |
250–500 million USD |
+15–25% energy per tH₂ |
Figures are stylised and exclude CO₂ transport and storage costs, which can add 10–40 USD/tCO₂ depending on distance, infrastructure and storage type.
Indicative Hydrogen Production Cost (LCOH) for Retrofit Scenarios
The bar chart below compares approximate levelised cost of hydrogen (LCOH) for a set of stylised cases.
Source: Energy Solutions hydrogen cost analysis (illustrative, 2027 inputs).
Economics: LCOH, Abatement Costs and Policy Sensitivities
Blue hydrogen retrofit economics sit at the intersection of natural gas prices, carbon policy and alternative hydrogen options (notably green hydrogen).
For a representative refinery SMR unit:
- Baseline LCOH: 1.3–1.8 USD/kg H₂ at gas prices of 5–8 USD/MMBtu without carbon costs.
- Process-only capture LCOH: 1.7–2.3 USD/kg H₂, assuming 50–65% capture and moderate CO₂ transport and storage tariffs.
- Deep capture LCOH: 2.0–2.7 USD/kg H₂, assuming capture above 85%.
With explicit carbon pricing at 80–150 USD/tCO₂, retrofits can be more cost-effective than paying for emissions in many jurisdictions, especially when green hydrogen LCOH remains above 2.5–3.5 USD/kg in 2027–2030.
Case Studies: Refinery SMR and Merchant Hydrogen Plants
Case Study 1 – Refinery SMR Complex with Process-Only Capture
A large refinery operating three SMR trains with combined capacity of 120 ktH₂/year evaluates a process-only capture retrofit.
- Retrofit scope: Solvent-based capture on syngas streams post-shift, CO₂ compression and dehydration, interconnection to a regional CO₂ pipeline.
- CAPEX: 180–230 million USD.
- Capture rate: ~60% of total plant emissions (~0.7–0.8 MtCO₂/year).
- Abatement cost: 50–80 USD/tCO₂, depending on gas and power prices.
Under a carbon price of 100 USD/tCO₂, the project yields a simple payback of 7–10 years and significantly improves the refinery’s Scope 1 profile, with additional strategic value if low-carbon hydrogen is required by downstream customers.
Case Study 2 – Merchant Hydrogen Plant Targeting 90% Capture
A merchant hydrogen producer delivering to industrial customers pursues deep capture as part of long-term offtake contracts.
- Capacity: 200 ktH₂/year.
- Scope: Process and flue gas capture with integrated CO₂ compression and pipeline tie-in to a saline aquifer storage site.
- CAPEX: 400–550 million USD.
- LCOH uplift: ~0.5–0.9 USD/kg vs baseline SMR.
- Abatement cost: 70–120 USD/tCO₂ when including CO₂ storage tariffs.
The project becomes attractive where long-term offtake contracts include carbon-cost pass-through or premium pricing for low-carbon hydrogen, especially in jurisdictions with strong industrial decarbonization mandates.
Indicative Abatement Cost vs Capture Rate for SMR Retrofits
The line chart below illustrates how abatement cost can rise at higher capture rates due to increasing complexity and energy penalty.
Source: Energy Solutions abatement cost curve for SMR retrofits (stylised).
Infrastructure Integration: CO₂ Transport, Storage and H₂ Markets
Blue hydrogen economics are highly sensitive to CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure:
- Onshore pipelines to nearby storage: Costs often 10–25 USD/tCO₂ for point-to-point connections.
- Shared CO₂ hubs: Lower costs per tonne but require coordinated development timelines and governance.
- Shipping-based solutions: Emerging for some coastal clusters, with higher unit costs but greater flexibility.
On the hydrogen market side, retrofitted SMR plants may serve internal refinery demand, local industrial users or longer-term hydrogen networks. Contract structures (take-or-pay, indexed to gas and carbon prices) and certification schemes for low-carbon hydrogen will shape project bankability.
Devil's Advocate: Lock-in, Feedstock Risk and Competing Pathways
Blue hydrogen retrofits are not without controversy.
- Asset lock-in: Large retrofit CAPEX may extend the life of SMR assets into periods when climate targets call for deep fossil fuel reductions.
- Upstream methane leakage: Poor methane performance upstream can erode climate benefits, especially on near-term warming metrics.
- Competition from green hydrogen: Rapid cost declines in electrolysers and renewables could narrow the LCOH gap faster than anticipated.
- Utilisation risk: If hydrogen demand falls or shifts to alternative technologies, retrofitted plants may struggle to recover sunk costs.
These risks suggest that blue hydrogen retrofits should be prioritised where plants are efficient, integrated into broader industrial clusters and aligned with a clear regional net-zero strategy, rather than as blanket solutions.
Outlook to 2030/2035: Blue Hydrogen in a Net-Zero Portfolio
By 2035, blue hydrogen from retrofitted SMR plants is likely to play a transitional role in many systems:
- Providing relatively low-cost abatement for existing hydrogen-dependent industries.
- Acting as a bridge while green hydrogen scales and infrastructure matures.
- Potentially being phased down in favour of lower residual emissions options as policy and technology evolve.
Implementation Guide: Screening Checklist for SMR Retrofits
For asset owners considering SMR retrofits, a disciplined screening process is essential.
- Plant suitability: Assess age, efficiency and remaining life of SMR units. Plants with <10–15 years remaining economic life are weaker candidates.
- Scale and utilisation: Prioritise high-capacity, baseload plants with high utilisation factors.
- CO₂ infrastructure: Map access to existing or planned CO₂ transport and storage, including indicative tariffs.
- Policy environment: Evaluate carbon prices, tax credits, contracts for difference and hydrogen certification schemes.
- Alternative options: Benchmark retrofit LCOH and abatement cost against green hydrogen and other decarbonization levers.
- Stakeholder alignment: Engage offtakers and regulators early to ensure long-term support and clarity on “low-carbon hydrogen” labelling.
Methodology note: All cost, capture rate and LCOH values in this article are stylised and indicative, based on public SMR/CCS data and Energy Solutions modelling. Project-specific feasibility studies are required to produce investment-grade numbers.