Power-to-Gas via Biological Catalysis (BioCat) Presentation to the North Sea Power-to-Gas Platform

Transcription

1 Power-to-Gas via Biological Catalysis (BioCat) Presentation to the North Sea Power-to-Gas Platform The National Library, Copenhagen May 21, 2014 Dominic Hofstetter, VP of Business Development

2 About Electrochaea Founded Mission Partners September 2010 as a University of Chicago spin-off, operational in Denmark since 2011 Develop solution for power-to-gas energy storage based on biological methanation Universities, public agencies, grid operators, utilities, gas distributors, technology developers, engineering firms 2

3 ELECTROCHAEA SBIOMETHANATION TECHNOLOGY 3

4 System Design & Microorganism Power Water System Design Electrolyzer (off-the-shelf) Bioreactor (proprietary) Hydrogen Heat CO 2 CH 4 Oxygen Heat Microorganism Methanogenic archaea Selectively evolved, not genetically modified Thermophile (60-65 C) Properties: Robust (tolerant to contamination) Long-lived (self-replicating) Efficient (long doubling time) Dynamic (short ramp rate) Selective (100% methane) Methanation Efficiency (H 2 -to-ch 4 ): Catalysis: ~80-82% System-Level: 75-80% Consider entire production chain You ll get some of this back Compare net efficiency penalty to net benefit of methanation 4

5 Comparison with Sabatier Process Thermochemical Methanation Biological Methanation Advantage of Biological Methanation Temperature Range C C Lower engineering complexity, better ramping capability Contamination Tolerance (H 2 S, O 2, KOH) Low High Ability to use raw biogas and low-purity H 2 Fuel Produced CH 4 + Intermediates (esp. CO) CH 4 only No post-reactionproduct separation required Engineering Complexity High Low Lower CapEx, greater system modularity/mobility Scalability Low High Economic viability even at small scales Simplicity, responsiveness, robustness lower CapEx and OpEx, higher operating flexibility 5

6 Development Roadmap Basic Research and Proof of Concept In Mets Lab at University of Chicago and in Electrochaea s lab in St. Louis, MO Lab-Scale Field Trial Oct 2011 St. Louis, MO Tested biocatalytic capability of archaea Used raw biogas from anaerobic digester for CO 2 Pre- Commercial Field Trial Jan Nov 2013 Using 10,000-L nonoptimized reactor with raw biogas Validated robustness, productivity, responsiveness at pre-commercial scale 6

7 Pre-Commercial Field Trial: Objectives General Goals Demonstrate technical and operating performance at pre-commercial scale Collect data and insights for design of MW-scale reactor Further develop techno-economic model for different P2G applications Demonstration Goals Transfer cell culture from USA to Denmark and produce enough cell culture for inoculation Develop detailed engineering for gas delivery and reactor management Develop start-up and commissioning protocols Grow cell culture in 3,000 liters of medium to target density Convert H 2 and CO 2 (from raw biogas) to methane in a non-optimized reactor Test system on efficiency, productivity, robustness, and dynamic operating behavior 7

8 Pre-Commercial Field Trial: Location Substrate Handling Biogas Plant Lab Gas Storage Reactor Building 8

9 Pre-Commercial Field Trial: Culture Production 400 L cell culture, continuous process, storage in jerry cans Inputs: CO 2, H 2, maintenance reagents, trace elements 9

10 Pre-Commercial Field Trial: Reactor (1) L stirred-tank reactor, typically used for biogas research Not optimized for process (conformation, mixing, pressure, etc.) 10

11 Pre-Commercial Field Trial: Reactor (2) Gas injection from bottom, impeller-driven stirring 11

12 Pre-Commercial Field Trial: Results Cell Production & Start-Up Production of 400 liters of cell culture within 8 weeks (storage in jerry cans) Inoculation successful at first attempt, cell growth after 24h, target density after 8d Robustness Health of culture maintained over 3,200 hours of operations in non-sterile environment Use of maintenance reagents <5% of quantity anticipated from lab studies Tolerance to oxygen contamination inadvertently demonstrated several times Dynamic Operating Behavior Cell culture reacts within seconds to fluctuations in hydrogen supply Productivity Levels as predicted from de-rating studies Limited by hydrogen mass transfer (gas dispersion and mixing are critical) Efficiency Gas conversion efficiencies of >95% achieved (albeit not at maximum throughput) Direct relationship between conversion rate and mixing energy 12

13 P2G-BIOCAT PROJECT 13

14 Development Roadmap Basic Research and Proof of Concept Lab-Scale Field Trial Pre- Commercial Field Trial Commercial-Scale Field Trial (P2G-BioCat Project) Roll-Out Oct 2011 Jan Nov 2013 Feb 2014 Dec 2015 In Mets Lab at University of Chicago and in Electrochaea s lab in St. Louis, MO St. Louis, MO Tested biocatalytic capability of archaea Used raw biogas from anaerobic digester for CO 2 Using 10,000-L nonoptimized reactor with raw biogas Validated robustness, productivity, responsiveness at pre-commercial scale Cornerstones 1 MW alkaline electrolysis CO 2 from adjacent biogas plant Gas injection into 5-bar grid Utilization of by-products O 2 and heat Location: WWTP Avedøre, Copenhagen Costs: 6.7 million (55% grant-funded) 14

15 P2G-BioCat Consortium Power Grid End-Use Applications Transportation Wind Energy Solar Energy Other RE Heat Electricity Gas Pipelines/ Storage Electrolysis H 2 Methanation CH 4 Gas Grid Carbon Dioxide Biogas/CO 2 15

16 Scope & Objectives of BioCat Project 1 MW Alkaline electrolysis Scope Biological methanation CO 2 from raw biogas and as pure stream Injection of methane into local gas grid Utilization of by-products oxygen and heat in wastewater treatment operations Participation in Danish ancillary services markets Development and implementation of valuemaximizing and automated trading strategy Objectives Demonstrate technical capabilities of system Collect data about robustness, efficiency, dynamics, productivity, longevity, reliability Develop and implement control system and trading strategy Remove regulatory, commercial, and economic uncertainties: Capital and operating costs Market value of P2G products and services Provision of ancillary services Reach commercial maturity by project end 16

17 Aerial View of SVC Avedøre (1) SVC Avedøre 17

18 Aerial View of SVC Avedøre (2) gas engines flare sedimentation tanks storage tank biogas feed line tie-in flood plain Anaerobic digesters Site for P2G unit 18

19 Project Integration Biogas Production Biogas Upgrading Biogas Upgrading & Injection Biogas Biomethane FT 3 65% CH 4 /35% CO 2 >98% CH 4 New Pipeline Grid Injection Facility Anaerobic Digesters FT 1 CO 2 FT 2 Biomethane >98% CH 4 Heat H 2 Methanation System Polishing Electrolyzer Power Oxygen To aeration tanks Power-to-Gas 19

20 Timeline & Work Packages 2-year project with anticipated end in December 2015 Milestones: Engineering & Design: February 2015 Construction: May 2015 Operations: July November

21 Follow us! just not quite yet 21

22 THE CASE FOR METHANATION 22

23 Comparison with Direct Hydrogen Injection (1) Technical Considerations Leakage Impact on metallurgical integrity of pipelines Changes in combustion properties of gas (response of gas turbines, CNG vehicles) Throughput of gas at point of injection New metering and accounting methods for gas consumption Higher cost for transportation of gas Safety risks (known unknowns) Residual risks (unknown unknowns) Who is liable? What kind of regulatory adjustments will actually materialize? Is methanation required as an end game to induce policy support? 23

24 Comparison with Direct Hydrogen Injection (2) Economic Considerations Does P2H carry lower CapEx and OpEx than P2M? Yes, but Methanation allows for (practically) unrestricted injection No admixture limits (Almost) no dependence on seasonality 24

25 Why Injection Constraints Matter 5-6x How to size P2H plants in light of fluctuating gas throughputs? How to assess unit economics if injection capacity is uncertain? Source: Hofstetter et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas in Switzerland: Demand, Regulation, Economics, Technical Potential 25

26 Comparison with Direct Hydrogen Injection (2) Economic Considerations Does P2H carry lower CapEx and OpEx than P2M? Yes, but Methanation allows for (practically) unrestricted injection No admixture limits (Almost) no dependence on seasonality Methanation saves on hydrogen purification cost (upstream) Deoxo occurs in methanation unit Methanation saves on compression cost (downstream) Lower pressure level, molecule easier to compress Methanation (potentially) saves on connection cost Can be placed on the distribution level Methane is cheaper to transport in the gas grid Methanation requires fewer adjustments to gas delivery infrastructure Leak detection, integrity management, metering/accounting methods, etc. Methanation-based transportation already exist on a consumer level (CNG vehicles) Not the case for H 2 (Fuel Cell Vehicles) Transportation sector could be entry market for P2G What matters is levelized cost of energy! 26

27 Comparison with Direct Hydrogen Injection (3) Levelized Cost of Energy of Base Case Scenario in P2G Study for Switzerland What matters is levelized cost of energy! Well, actually Source: Hofstetter et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas in Switzerland: Demand, Regulation, Economics, Technical Potential 27

28 What Really Matters is Net Profitability Value Side: Baseload Applications as Early Markets? Source: Hofstetter et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas in Switzerland: Demand, Regulation, Economics, Technical Potential 28

29 What Really Matters is Net Profitability Value Side: Baseload Applications as Early Markets? Source: Hofstetter et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas in Switzerland: Demand, Regulation, Economics, Technical Potential 29

30 What Really Matters is Net Profitability Value Side: Baseload Applications as Early Markets? Source: Hofstetter et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas in Switzerland: Demand, Regulation, Economics, Technical Potential 30

31 Contact Electrochaea.dk Aps Vitus Bering Innovation Park Chr M Østergaards Vej 4a DK-8700 Horsens Denmark info@electrochaea.com Mich Hein, PhD, CEO/President mich.hein@electrochaea.com Dominic Hofstetter, VP of Business Development dominic.hofstetter@electrochaea.com Jeff Fornero, PhD, VP of Engineering jeff.fornero@electrochaea.com Laurens Mets, PhD, Principal Investigator laurens.mets@electrochaea.com 31