The techno-economic potential of integrated gasification co-generation facilities with CCS

Transcription

1 The techno-economic potential of integrated gasification co-generation facilities with CCS Hans Meerman

2 Overview Objective Gasification facilities Results Technological improvement Flexibility Discussion Conclusion

3 Objective C emissions need to be reduced Large scale solutions biomass and CCS are relative expensive Possible solutions Use of gasification facilities Technological improvement and learning

4 Potential advantages Integrated Gasification facilities Better performance compared to PC power plant Conversion efficiency Emissions such as SO x, PM, Hg Presence of high pressure gas stream with a high C concentration facilitates C capture Flexibility Suitable for biomass and coal feedstocks Syngas allows multiple outputs (fuels, chemicals, electricity and heat)

5 Technologies Lock hopper Cryo. ASU Cold gas WGS H 2 S IGCC Claus/ SCOT Selexol C C compr. F-GT Subcritical C Lock hopper Cryo. ASU Cold gas IG-FT WGS H 2 S Claus/ SCOT Rectisol C C compr. C FTsynthesis FT-liquids F-GT Subcritical

6 Technologies - IGCC (21) Lock hopper Cryo. ASU Cold gas WGS H 2 S Claus/ SCOT Selexol C C compr. F-GT Subcritical C (215) Lock hopper Cryo. ASU+ Cold gas WGS H 2 S Claus/ SCOT Selexol+ C C compr. C F + -GT Subcritical (23) Solid feed pump ITM ASU Warm gas TDS COS + H 2 S DSRP SEWGS C RamGen G-GT Subcritical C (25) Solid feed pump ITM ASU Warm gas TDS COS + H 2 S DSRP SEWGS C RamGen H-GT Supercrit. C

7 (21) Lock hopper Technologies - IG-FT Cryo. ASU Cold gas WGS H 2 S Claus/ SCOT Rectisol C C compr. C FTsynthesis FT-liquids F-GT Subcritical (215) Lock hopper Cryo. ASU + Cold gas H 2 S WGS Rectisol + Claus/ SCOT C C compr. C FTsynthesis FT-liquids F + -GT Subcritical (23) Solid feed pump ITM ASU Cold gas Adv. WGS H 2 S Claus/ SCOT Rectisol ++ C RamGen C FTsynthesis FT-liquids G-GT Subcritical (25) Solid feed pump ITM ASU Cold gas Adv. WGS H 2 S Claus/ SCOT Rectisol +++ C RamGen C FT-synt. + FT-liquids H-GT Supercrit.

8 Methodology AspenPlus-based technical model Component based model of gasification facility Excel-based economic model s Il. #6 coal and torrefied biomass (TOPS) Products Electricity (IGCC) and FT-liquids (IG-FT) With C capture (CCS) and without (Vent)

9 C emissions Biomass results in lower emissions than CCS Limited CCS potential for IG-FT 3 C emissions (kg C /GJ) Coal IGCC Vent Coal IG-FT Vent TOPS IGCC Vent TOPS IG-FT Vent Coal IGCC CCS Coal IG-FT CCS TOPS IGCC CCS TOPS IG-FT CCS

10 Production costs I BtL needs lower biomass or higher oil prices Coal remains more profitable C capture penalty is small (1-2 /GJ or 1-14 /t C ) Production costs ( 28 /GJ) $ /bbl costs CO2 Trans. & storage O&M Capital recovery Oil price Vent CCS Vent CCS 15 $/bbl 1 $/bbl Coal to FT-liquids Biomass to FT-liquids

11 Production costs II BtP needs lower biomass or higher electricity prices C capture penalty is 5-7 /GJ (15-27 /MWh) Production costs ( 28 /GJ) costs CO2 Trans. & storage O&M Capital recovery Market price Vent CCS Vent CCS SOFC SOFC SOFC SOFC Coal to electricity Biomass to electricity Production costs ( 28 /MWh)

12 Market prices 28 /t biomass Occurence (%) Biomass (CIF ARA) bulk prices 1 35 jul-27 jan-28 jul-28 jan-29 3 jul-29 jan-21 2% 15% 1% 5% 28 /t C /t coal EUA Spot Prices 25 Illinois Basin North. Appalachia NW-Europe Average coal spot prices jan-2 jan-22 jan-24 jan-26 jan-28 jan-21 5 Electricity price 8 Gasoline/Diesel prices jan-25 Nominal-price jan-26 Day-price Night-price jan-27 jan-28 6 jan-29 jan-21 #2 Diesel Fuel Gasoline Price at 5% occurence 4 28 /m 3 2 % Electricity price ( 28 /MWh) jan-2 jan-22 jan-24 jan-26 jan-28 jan-21

13 price impacts most economic feedstock Fraction of time coal is used Coal 2.25 /GJ; TOPS 6.3 /GJ; C 15 /t price vs. feedstock preference Biomass to liquids Coal price ( /GJ) Fraction of time coal is used Biomass to liquids Biomass price ( /GJ)

14 A high C credit price favours biomass Emitted carbon from coal is penalized Stored carbon from biomass is rewarded Fraction of time coal is used 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % C credit price vs. feedstock preference Biomass to liquids C credit price ( /t C )

15 preference Constant chemical production Electricity production depends on feedstock Flexible facility sometimes desired Market conditions favorable for flexibility expected to occur more often in the future C credit price ( /t C ) /t C 6 95% Bio Projected TOPS price Coal price ( /GJ) Flexible facility outperforms static facility % Bio Historic price range Biomass price ( /GJ) 25

16 Discussion Significant drop in biomass price is assumed Gasification facilities might open market for biomass Flexible power production can facilitate integration renewable electricity into the grid Standby-bonus can improve economics Future behaviour market prices uncertain

17 Conclusion I Technological advances can reduce significantly production costs Projected reductions of 3% - 4% CCS penalty at IG-FT small (1-14 /t C ) TOPS does not become economical without lower biomass prices or higher product prices

18 Conclusion II flexibility allows use of biomass without dependency Projected near term price range of coal, biomass and coal favours flexible facility To improve near term substitution of coal by biomass requires higher C price The current volatile markets favour flexible facilities

19 Meerman JC, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Performance of simulated flexible integrated gasification polygeneration facilities. Part A: A technical-energetic assessment. Renew. and Sust. En. Rev. 15 (211) DOI: Meerman JC, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Performance of simulated flexible integrated gasification polygeneration facilities. Part B: Economic evaluation. Renew. and Sust. En. Rev. 16 (212) DOI: Meerman JC, Knoope MMJ, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Technical and economic prospects of coal- and biomass-fired integrated gasification facilities equipped with CCS over time. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. Accepted for publication. JCMeerman@gmail.com