Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation...2. Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units...

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation...2. Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units..."

Duane Johnson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation....2 Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units...3 Table 3: Validation of gasification model based on the proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oil, under given input and operating conditions [34]...4 Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of operating conditions of WGS and CO2SEP on stoichiometric ratio of reactants in the methanol synthesis reactor....5 Table 5: Data extracted from simulation and classification of heat utilisation and consumption for heat integration analysis. (a) ASU configuration. (b) Electrolyser configuration...6 Table 6: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration...7 Table 7: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with electrolyser configuration..8 Table 8: (a) Proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oils from various sources. (b) Comparison of performance analysis of once-through, 1350 MW BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration, between poplar wood, miscanthus and oilseed rape as feedstocks...9 Table 9: Input data for capital cost evaluation...10 Table 10: Input data for operating cost evaluation Table 11: Summary of economic analysis, estimated netback of bio-oil and COP of methanol Table 12: Cost of transporting bio-oil from distributed pyrolysis plants to centralised 1350 MW BOIG- MeOH system

2 Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation. Compr = Compressor / turbine; Sep = Component separator; RGibbs = Gibbs reactor; REquil = Equilibrium reactor; Flash2 = Two-outlet flash; Heater = Heater; Mixer = Stream mixer. [A] denotes ASU configuration while [E] denotes electrolyser configuration. Unit ASPEN Plus model Outlet temperature ( C) Pressure (bar) Other specification AIRCOMP Compr 14 Isentropic efficiency = 0.9 ASU Sep O 2 split fraction = 1.0 CO2COMP Compr 80 Isentropic efficiency = 0.9 CO2SEP Sep CO 2 split fraction = 0.85[A], 0.99[E] COMBGMIX Mixer 14 ELECTRO [E] RGibbs GASIFIER RGibbs GASTURB Compr 2 Isentropic efficiency = 0.9 GTCOMB REquil H2O2SEP Sep O 2 split fraction = 1.0 H2OREM Flash2 50[A], 100[E] 30 HE1 Heater HE2 Heater 50[A], 35[E] 30[A], 80[E] HE3 Heater 35[A], 40[E] 80[A], 24[E] HE4 [A] Heater HE5 [A] Heater HRSG Heater SYNGCOMP Compr 100 Isentropic efficiency = 0.9 SYNGCOOL Heater 450[A], 100[E] 30 SYNGEXP Compr 40 Isentropic efficiency = 0.9 SYNGMIX [E] Mixer 30 METHANOL REquil METSEP Flash WGS [A] REquil

3 Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units. Process Unit Technology Developer Capacity for single unit Type of process unit selected Shell, GE, E-Gas, up to 2000 t/d of coal Koppers Totzek, Entrained flow [30] Destec, Prenflo, etc. Gasifier Methanol synthesis reactor Electrolyser Cryogenic ASU Lurgi, ICI, Air Products, etc. Proton Energy Systems, Hydrogenics, Norsk Hydro Electrolysers AS, etc. Air Products, Universal Industrial Gases, etc t/d of methanol [31] Nm3/h of hydrogen [32] t/d of oxygen [33] Fixed bed, gas phase, isothermal Pressurised alkaline electrolysis process Oxygen production 3

4 Table 3: Validation of gasification model based on the proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oil, under given input and operating conditions [34]. Gasifier operating condition Temperature 1300 C Pressure 30 bar Bio-oil 1 kmol/s (29.6 mol% oil and 70.4 mol% water/moisture) Oxygen 0.57 kmol/s Proximate Analysis, as received (mass %) Ultimate Analysis, moisture and ash free (mass %) Fixed carbon and volatile matter 70 C 56 Moisture 30 O 37 Ash 0 H 7 LHV, as received (MJ/kg) 15.6 LHV, moisture and ash free (MJ/kg) 23.3 Product gas composition Component Mole fraction (%) Reference Simulation RSS = (Reference Simulation) 2 H H 2 O CO CO CH

5 Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of operating conditions of WGS and CO2SEP on stoichiometric ratio of reactants in the methanol synthesis reactor. Temperature of WGS ( C) Outlet of WGS Outlet of CO2SEP Components' molar flow rate SN H (kmol/s) 2 /CO SN CO/CO 2 CO CO 2 H 2 H 2 O 99% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 99% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% Note: Outlet of WGS refers to stream 8 while outlet of CO2SEP refers to stream 12 in Figure 1. 5

6 Table 5: Data extracted from simulation and classification of heat utilisation and consumption for heat integration analysis. (a) ASU configuration. (b) Electrolyser configuration. (a) Process Unit Supply Temperature ( C) Target Temperature ( C) Heat Duty (kw) 1 MW 675 MW 1350 MW Heat supply/demand Heat utilisation and consumption GASIFIER neutral HE demand supplied from VHP steam HE supply generate steam (MP) HE supply generate hot water HE demand supplied from VHP steam HE supply generate hot water HRSG supply generate steam (VHP) METHANOL supply generate steam (MP) SYNGCOOL supply generate steam (VHP) WGS supply generate steam (MP) (b) Process Unit Supply Temperature ( C) Target Temperature ( C) Heat Duty (kw) 1 MW 675 MW 1350 MW Heat supply/demand Heat utilisation and consumption GASIFIER neutral HE demand supplied from VHP steam HE supply generate hot water HE supply generate hot water HRSG supply generate steam (VHP) METHANOL supply generate steam (MP) SYNGCOOL supply generate steam (VHP) 6

7 Table 6: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration. System mode Once-through Recycle (90%) System capacity 1 MW 675 MW 1350 MW 1350 MW kw kg/s kw kg/s kw kg/s kw kg/s Heat recovery into steam generation SYNGCOOL (VHP, 100 bar) HRSG (VHP, 100 bar) METHANOL (MP, 15 bar) WGS (MP, 15 bar) HE2 (MP, 15 bar) Heat supplied to process units using generated steam HE1 and HE Sulfinol unit Methanol distillation unit Surplus LP steam into condensing turbine ST Net heat generation Power generation from site GASTURB SYNGEXP Power generation from steam turbine ST ST ST ST Power requirement on site ASU SYNGCOMP CO2COMP AIRCOMP Net power generation Production of methanol Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity)/bio-oil (%) Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity+net heat)/bio-oil (%)

8 Table 7: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with electrolyser configuration. System mode Once-through Recycle (90%) System capacity 1 MW 675 MW 1350 MW 1350 MW kw kg/s kw kg/s kw kg/s kw kg/s Heat recovery into steam generation SYNGCOOL (VHP, 100 bar) HRSG (VHP, 100 bar) METHANOL (MP, 15 bar) Heat supplied to process units using generated steam HE Sulfinol unit Methanol distillation unit Surplus LP steam into condensing turbine ST Net heat generation Power generation from site GASTURB SYNGEXP Power generation from steam turbine ST ST ST ST Power requirement on site ELECTRO SYNGCOMP CO2COMP AIRCOMP Net power generation Production of methanol Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity)/bio-oil (%) Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity+net heat)/bio-oil (%)

9 Table 8: (a) Proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oils from various sources. (b) Comparison of performance analysis of once-through, 1350 MW BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration, between poplar wood, miscanthus and oilseed rape as feedstocks. (a) Source of bio-oil Heating value (MJ/kg) Proximate Analysis (wt%) Ultimate Analysis (wt%) Fixed Carbon and Volatiles Moisture C H O Poplar Miscanthus Oilseed Rape (b) Type of bio-oil Poplar Miscanthus Oilseed Rape Net heat generation (MW) Net power generation (MW) Production of methanol (t/h) LHV of methanol (MW) Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity)/bio-oil (%) Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity+net heat)/bio-oil (%)

10 Table 9: Input data for capital cost evaluation. Direct Capital Cost ISBL Item No. Process unit Base Cost Scale factor, Base scale (million Euro) R 1 Gasifier MW HHV 2 Water-gas shift reactor Mmol CO+H 2 /h 3 Methanol reactor t MeOH/h 4 Gas turbine MW 5 Steam turbine (inc. condenser) MW 6 HRSG t/h 7 SYNGCOOL t/h 8 Cryogenic ASU t/h 9 Water electrolyser 825 Euro/kW 10 Compressor and expander MW OSBL Item No. Specification Cost estimation (% of ISBL) 11 Instrumentation and control Buildings Grid connections Site preparation Civil works (inc. waste water treatment) Electronics Piping 4.0 Total Direct Capital (TDC) ISBL + OSBL Indirect Capital Cost Item No. Specification Cost estimation (% of TDC) 18 Engineering Contingency Fees/overheads/profits Start-up 5 Total Indirect capital (TIC) Total Capital Costs TDC + TIC 10

11 Table 10: Input data for operating cost evaluation. Fixed Operating Cost Item No. Specification Cost Estimation 1 Maintenance 10% of TIC 2 Personnel million Euro/100 MW LHV 3 Laboratory costs 20% of (2) 4 Supervision 20% of (2) 5 Plant overheads 50% of (2) 6 Capital Charges 10% of TIC 7 Insurance 1% of TIC 8 Local taxes 2% of TIC 9 Royalties 1% of TIC Total Fixed Operating Cost (TFO) Total Fixed Operating Cost per year Variable Operating Cost 10 Natural gas Euro/kWh 11 Electricity Euro/kWh 12 Steam 10.5 Euro/t Total Variable Operating Cost (TVO) Direct Production Cost (DPC) per year TFO + TVO Miscellaneous 13 Sales expense, General overheads, 30% of DPC Research and development Total Operating Costs Per Year DPC + Miscellaneous 11

12 Table 11: Summary of economic analysis, estimated netback of bio-oil and COP of methanol. Configuration ASU Electrolyser Capacity (MW LHV) Mode Once-through Recycle Once-through Recycle Annualised capital charge (million Euro/y) Annual operating cost (million Euro/y) Value of products, exc. CCL (million Euro/y) Value of products, inc. CCL (million Euro/y) a. Electricity, without CCL b. CCL for electricity c. Methanol Bio-oil consumption (t/y) Netback of bio-oil, exc. CCL (million Euro/y) Netback of bio-oil, exc. CCL (Euro/t) Netback of bio-oil, inc. CCL (million Euro/y) Netback of bio-oil, inc. CCL (Euro/t) Methanol production (t/y) Cost of bio-oil (million Euro/y) COP of methanol, exc. CCL (million Euro/y) COP of methanol, exc. CCL (Euro/t) COP of methanol, inc. CCL (million Euro/y) COP of methanol, inc. CCL (Euro/t)

13 Table 12: Cost of transporting bio-oil from distributed pyrolysis plants to centralised 1350 MW BOIG-MeOH system. Researcher Bridgwater et al., 2002 [13] Rogers and Brammer, 2009 [14] Pootakham and Kumar, 2010 [20] Method of transporting bio-oil Tanker Tanker Tanker Tanker Tanker Pipeline Maximum load / capacity 30.5 t 24.0 t 44.0 t 44.0 t 60 m m 3 /d Analysis approach Distance rate Distance rate Zone costing Zone costing Distance rate Distance rate Cost estimating Shell UK Linkman Zone 1 Zone 6 Fixed cost 4.29 Euro/t 0.66 Euro/GJ 0.11 Euro/GJ Euro/m Euro/m 3 Variable cost Euro/t/km Euro/t/km 0.99 Euro/GJ 0.11 Euro/GJ 0.04 Euro/m 3 /km Euro/m 3 /km Distance assumed 100 km 100 km km 0-11 km 100 km 100 km Bio-oil transportation cost (million Euro/y) Bio-oil transportation cost (Euro/t)

Table 1: Coal polygeneration with CCS (Scheme A) process specification in ASPEN Plus simulation... 2

Table 1: Coal polygeneration with CCS (Scheme A) process specification in ASPEN Plus simulation.... 2 Table 2: Data extraction and classification for coal polygeneration system (Scheme A).... 3 Table 3: