TechnoEconomic Analysis: Gasification and Pyrolysis

Transcription

1 TechnoEconomic Analysis: Gasification and Pyrolysis Thermochemical Platform Peer Review April 14, 2009 Abhijit Dutta (NREL) Susanne B. Jones (PNNL)

2 Overview Gasification Timeline Start Date Oct 1, 2003 End Date Sept 30, 2012 % Complete 55% Budget FY08 $850k FY09 $800k Addresses the Changing Needs of Research Present Future Ethanol Advanced Fuels Barriers (from MYPP*) Tt C. Gasification of Wood, Biorefinery Residue Streams and Low Sugar Content Biomass Tt. F. Syngas Cleanup and Conditioning Tt G. Fuels Catalyst Development Tt H. Validation of Syngas Quality Partners Nexant: Acid gas removal study, for lowering conversion cost Stage Stage B: Lignocelluloses to mixed alcohols via gasification project *MYPP: Multi-Year Program Plan 3

3 Overview Pyrolysis Timeline Start Date May 2007 End Date Feb 2009 % Complete 100% Budget FY08 $125k FY09 $125k Barriers (from MYPP) Tt E. Pyrolysis of Biomass Tt G. Fuels Catalyst Development 4

4 Goals and Objectives Help establish and update of biomass program goals and technical targets in the MYPP Platform objective: $1.57/gallon ethanol by 2012 Quantify research progress towards goals via State of Technology assessments Provide direction to platform research by translating potential improvements into economics Proactive feasibility/sensitivity studies to identify promising process designs and areas for research 5

5 Approach Research and Literature Data Cost Estimates And Quotes Back of the envelope calculations for feasibility Down select promising processes Rigorous process and cost model with available knowledge Discounted cash flow to get Minimum Product Selling Price Sensitivity studies to cover uncertainties Determine areas where research will have biggest market impact and help set research goals Use a benchmark model to track the progress of research towards commercialization 6

6 Accomplishments Production of mixed alcohols: Down selection of indirect gasification process based on preliminary calculations showing it had best potential Benchmarking of the process (2007 NREL Design Report) Technoeconomics helped set program targets (in MYPP) Annual State of Technology to track research progress Study of other technologies: Mixed alcohols via direct gasification Showed significantly higher production costs than indirect gasification 7

7 Accomplishments Future processes: Study of methanol to gasoline (MTG) process from biomass derived syngas Shows excellent potential Pyrolysis design report Puts forward an R&D pathway to commercialization of pyrolysis derived fuels Other studies Nexant study of acid gas removal (ongoing) Indirect gasifier correlations (ongoing) Back of the envelope calculations to support research 8

8 State of Technology (Mixed Alcohols Process) Benchmark model from the 2007 Design Report Track the progress of research with annual updates (State of Technology) Input latest research results and show impacts of other findings and insights 9

9 State of Technology (Benchmark Process) Flue Gas Gasifier Reformer Scrubber Biomass Dryer Compressor Solids (Waste) Air Steam Sludge (Waste) Water to recycle Steam Air Acid Gas Cleanup CO2 Alcohol Separation Sulfur Ethanol Alcohol Synthesis Compressor Mixed Alcohols Methanol & Water 10

10 State of Technology (2008 Results & Targets * ) Tar Reformer Conversion Alcohol Synthesis [CH 4 : 20% to 50%] [Pressure (psi): 2000 to 1500] Tar Reformer Conversion Alcohol Synthesis [CH 4 : 50% to 80%, Tars: 97% to 99%] [CO conv: 40% to 50%] Tar Reformer Catalyst Replacement [ 1% to 0.1% per day ] Feedstock $/dry ton $67.55 $63.50 $58.20 $54.20 $51.80 $50.70 * 2007 dollars 11

11 State of Technology (2008 Results and Targets*) *A.Dutta and A.Aden 12

12 Mixed Alcohols via Direct Gasification Flue Gas Gasifier Higher Pressure Reformer Scrubber No Compressor Biomass Dryer Solids (Waste) Water Cooler Steam Sludge (Waste) Water to recycle N 2 O 2 Steam Extra ASU Air Acid Gas Cleanup CO2 Air Separation Alcohol Separation Sulfur Ethanol Alcohol Synthesis Compressor Mixed Alcohols Methanol & Water 13

13 Mixed Alcohols via Direct Gasification (Results) MESP* of $1.95 /gallon ($1.29/gallon for indirect gasification process with same assumptions) Primary areas of cost increase Additional capital cost for ASU (Air Separation Unit) Lower equilibrium methane conversions possible at higher pressures Recycle of CO 2 to meet syngas H 2 :CO specifications Some unconverted char in direct gasification A. Dutta and S. Phillips *MESP: Minimum Ethanol Selling Price 2007 dollars, $50.70/dry ton feedstock 14

14 Methanol to Gasoline Published internally at NREL* Work in progress, external publication in FY09 Key assumptions same as in the 2007 Indirect Gasifier Report, same front end (gasification & cleanup) Syngas then used to make methanol Methanol used to make gasoline via DME (dimethylether) Key Results : Gasoline MFSP $1.62/gallon $1.16/gallon ethanol equivalent *S. Phillips and J. Tarud May change slightly in final published version (in FY09) 2007 dollars, $50.70/dry ton feedstock 15

15 Pyrolysis Design Report Internally Reviewed Externally Reviewed: ConocoPhillips, UOP, Ensyn, Iowa State Univ. (R. Brown), VTT Final document published on PNNL website 16

16 Pyrolysis Design Report Develop Design Case techno economic analysis of Fast Pyrolysis Oil upgrading to gasoline and diesel under two scenarios: Standalone plant Plant integrated with an existing refinery Produces infrastructure compatible fuels from biomass 76 million gallons per year output potential Gasoline Diesel Jet fuel 17

17 Pyrolysis Design Report Similar methodology to the gasification and biochemical design cases 2000 metric ton/day capacity Most financial assumptions consistent Lower on stream time (90% versus 96%) to account for catalyst changeout Process contingency added to pyrolysis system to account for uncertainty $50.70/ton wood cost (2007 dollars) Purchased electricity and natural gas 18

18 Pyrolysis Design Report (Results) Standalone: MFSP* $2.04/gallon hydrocarbon ($1.34/gal ethanol equivalent) Integrated with petroleum refinery: MFSP* $1.34/gallon hydrocarbon ($1.14/gal ethanol equivalent) *MFSP: Minimum Fuel Selling Price 19

19 Success Factors Continuous feedback to and from researchers: Update models based on research findings Direct research based on process feasibility and economic impacts E.g. Use of CO 2 for gasification, use of methanol for pyrolysis oil stabilization were shown to have poor economics and not pursued Alerting the task leaders about potential problems and opportunities after analyzing research data or sensitivity studies Identification of possible pathways to commercialization Exploring alternate processes and fuels Buy in from stakeholders Visible assumptions allowing re estimation of results 20

20 Challenges How to best incorporate scientific data for better process model predictions (e.g. empirical or kinetic data, assumptions of scale up) Availability of key research and cost data from industry External dependencies on non commercial technologies e.g. for mixed alcohols synthesis catalysts *SOT: State of Technology 21

21 Future Work Update of models with research data Details from planned research Conceptual process improvements based on insights Continue to support the program Multi Year Program Plan State of Technology to track state of research Rapidly evaluate other advanced fuels processes (e.g. Fischer Tropsch) building on the MTG work Update equipment cost data whenever better data becomes available Technoeconomics of high temperature gasification processes Prepare State of Technology for pyrolysis and start tracking research progress 22

22 Summary Continue to play a crucial role in: Economics driven research Setting targets and monitoring progress of research towards commercialization Expand leadership position by continuing to look for future processes and fuel options Continue to be at the forefront of thermochemical analysis work, make models publicly available and be a catalyst for other studies in industry and academia (e.g. Iowa State/ConocoPhillips/NREL work) Thanks to the Department of Energy for funding and support 23

23 Thank you to team members and contributors NREL Andy Aden Chris Kinchin Steve Phillips Joan Tarud Richard Bain Robert Baldwin Tom Foust Jim Frederick Ryan Davis David Hsu David Humbird Ling Tao PNNL C. Valkenburg C. Walton D.C. Elliott J.E. Holladay D.J. Stevens 24

24 Q&A 25

25 Additional Slides Responses to previous reviewers comments Publications and presentations Other studies State of technology (2008 results and targets) Methanol to gasoline (results and cost distribution) Mixed alcohols via direct vs. indirect gasification 26

26 Responses to Previous Reviewers Comments Before selecting a process to be used in the analysis, there needed to be a back of the envelope analysis for multiple technologies processes. PI response (2007): There was back of the envelope analysis performed, but not presented in the time allotted. Reviewer response (2007): This should have been presented Response to comment (2009): There were several related studies that helped identify the most promising conversion processes prior to the 2007 Phillips et al. design report, as outlined in several NREL internal reports and memos. Some previous work on the conversion of biomass to hydrogen (especially for the front end gasification and cleanup) was also used for selecting the 2007 report s mixed alcohols process via indirect gasification: Spath and Dayton. Preliminary Screening Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass Derived Syngas. December 2003 Spath. Explanation and Update of ASPEN Gasifier Models and Correlations Including Some Instructions about Model Usage. March 2004 Spath. Cost Contribution Details for Syngas to Hydrogen for BCL and GTI Systems. April, 2004 Spath, Eggeman, Aden, Ringer. Biomass Syngas to Hydrogen Production. Sep 2004 Spath, Aden, Eggeman, Ringer, Wallace, Jechura. Biomass Syngas to Hydrogen Production Design Report. Jan 2005 Spath, Aden, Eggeman, Ringer, Wallace, Jechura. Biomass to Hydrogen Production Detailed Design and Economics Utilizing the Battelle Columbus Laboratory Indirectly Heated Gasifier. May 2005 Spath, Eggeman. Effect of oxygen purity on direct fired gasifier & comparison to indirect gasification. Oct Aden, Spath, Atherton. The Potential of Thermochemical Ethanol Via Mixed Alcohols Production. Sep 2005 A discussion of why the indirect gasifier was chosen over a direct gasifier is in the 2007 design report (see next slide for more details). The logic for selection was borne out for the dry ash gasifier case by the higher ethanol production cost in direct gasifier study presented here. 27

27 Responses to Previous Reviewers Comments Excerpts from the 2007 design report (Phillips et al.) justifying why the indirect gasification process was thought to be economically most attractive and was studied first. Indirect steam gasification was chosen as the technology around which this process was developed based upon previous technoeconomic studies for the production of methanol and hydrogen from biomass [13]. The sub process operations for ethanol production are very similar to those for methanol production (although the specific process configuration will be different). The general process areas include: feed preparation, gasification, gas cleanup and conditioning, and alcohol synthesis & purification... A number of POX and steam gasifiers are under development and have the potential to produce a synthesis gas suitable for liquid fuel synthesis. These gasifiers have been operated in the 4 to 350 ton per day scale. The decision as to which type of gasifier (POX or steam) will be the most economic depends upon the entire process, not just the cost for the gasifier itself. One indicator for comparing processes is capital intensity, the capital cost required on a per unit product basis. Figure 2 shows the capital intensity of methanol processes [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20] based on indirect steam gasification and direct POX gasification. This figure shows that steam gasification capital intensity is comparable or lower than POX gasification. The estimates indicate that both steam gasification and POX gasification processes should be evaluated, but if the processes need to be evaluated sequentially, choosing steam gasification for the first evaluation is reasonable. 28

28 Responses to Previous Reviewers Comments This type of analysis should be used in guiding R&D efforts, which may currently be understated Response to comment (2009): Almost all thermochemical conversion R&D at NREL and PNNL is guided by technoeconomic analysis. Anything with little potential for economic benefits is given lower priority. Critical literature review of current pyrolysis reports before pursuing the new pyrolysis design report Response to comment (2009): Review articles and opinions of experts in the field of pyrolysis were taken into consideration for the 2009 pyrolysis design report Need to work hard to get cost numbers that are representative of current industry Response to comment (2009): It continues to be difficult to get industry to divulge cost estimates of technology that is still under development. Efforts are made to update cost information of known equipment, e.g. the entire heat exchanger network after pinch analysis was reevaluated using the version of Aspen Icarus Process Evaluator for the study of mixed alcohols via direct gasification. However, where better estimates are not available, use of estimates from new sources that may be questionable is not encouraged because this tends to change the basis of the new estimates and makes it difficult to compare new processes with existing benchmarks. Engineering firms have also been used to get cost data from vendors of commercially available equipment, which would otherwise not be provided to national laboratories. 29

29 Publications and Presentations Publications: Phillips, S.D. Technoeconomic analysis of a lignocellulosic biomass indirect gasification process to make ethanol via mixed alcohols synthesis. Ind.Eng.Chem.Res., Vol 46(26), Jones, S.B.; Valkenburg, C.; Walton, C.; Elliott, D.C.; Holladay, J.E.; Stevens, D.J.; Kinchin, C.; Czernik, S. Production of gasoline and diesel from biomass via fast pyrolysis, hydrotreating and hydrocracking: A Design Case. February PNNL pdf Dutta, A.; Phillips, S.D. Thermochemical ethanol via direct gasification and mixed alcohols synthesis of lignocellulosic biomass. NREL report in preparation Phillips, S.D.; Tarud, J. The potential of thermochemical gasoline via methanol togasoline production. NREL internal report. External report in preparation. Foust, T.D.; Aden, A.; Dutta, A.; Phillips, S.D. A rigorous comparison of biofuels conversion processes for near and long term scenarios. Submitted to Cellulose. Presentations: Dutta, A. Techno economic study of the production of mixed alcohols from lignocellulosic biomass using direct gasification. AIChE Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, November 20,

30 Other Studies Indirect gasifier correlations * Developed based on data from NREL pilot plant Correlated with Ultimate analysis Thermal cracker temperature Steam to biomass ratio Thermal cracker residence time Will be useful for sensitivity studies in gasifier section Acid gas removal study Nexant subcontract First draft of exploratory study shortlisted MDEA Selexol *C. Kinchin Work done with DOE HFCIT (Hydrogen Fuel Cells Integration Technologies) 31

31 Methanol to Gasoline (Results * ) MMBtu/dry ton gal/dry ton $1.62/gal. $1.16/gallon ethanol equivalent 9.9 gal/dry ton 273 kwh/dry ton $1.44/gal. 4.7 /kwh 0 Gasoline LPG Electricity Relevance of current research Program research on gasification and syngas cleanup remain relevant Fuel synthesis steps commercially proven May change slightly in final published version (in FY09) *2007 dollars, $50.70/dry ton feedstock Cost distribution based on energy content 32

32 Methanol to Gasoline (Cost Distribution * ) May change slightly in final published version (in FY09), *2007 dollars, $50.70/dry ton feedstock Gasoline: $1.62/gal. 33

33 Mixed Alcohols via Direct vs. Indirect Gasification 34