Determination of production costs and LCA for BtL-fuels using different gasification and synthesis systems

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Determination of production costs and LCA for BtL-fuels using different gasification and synthesis systems"

Chastity Bradley
6 years ago
Views:

Determination of production costs and LCA for BtL-fuels using different

Steffen Krzack, Bernd Meyer 4 th International Freiberg Conference on IGCC &

Bergakademie Freiberg I Reiche Zeche I 09596 Freiberg I Tel.

1 The Resources University. Since Department of Energy Process Engineering and Chemical Engineering Determination of production costs and LCA for BtL-fuels using different gasification and synthesis systems René Stahlschmidt, Kristin Boblenz, Steffen Krzack, Bernd Meyer 4 th International Freiberg Conference on IGCC & XtL Technologies 3rd 6th May 2010 Dresden, Germany Session 04-4 TU Bergakademie Freiberg I Department of Energy Process Engineering and Chemical Engineering Reiche Zeche I Freiberg I Tel. +49(0)3731/ I Fax +49(0)3731/ evt@iec.tu-freiberg.de I Web

2 Outline Introduction Considered processes Boundary conditions Material and Energy Balances Resource consumption Fuel yields Overall efficiency Economic Analysis Boundary conditions and parameters Production costs Sensitivity analysis Life Cycle Assessment Conclusion 2

3 Introduction Goal: Comparison of different BtL technologies on basis of identical constraints Determination of production costs, profitability Life cycle assessment Determination basis: 2 different charge materials 4 gasification processes 6 syntheses 6 different products/ fuels Production of biogas 3

4 Introduction Combination leads to 55 routes! Reduction to 43 routes 4

5 Introduction Boundary conditions Extensive investigations to determine optimal plant capacity Example: Wood chips: 70 EUR/t (water content 50 wt.-%) Plant availability: 80 % (7.008 h/a) Available area for forestry around plant: 50 % Costs in EUR/t Number of deliveries Plant capacity in MW Fuel costs without transportation (EUR/t) Transportation costs (EUR/t) Number of deliveries per hour 5

6 Introduction Example for production of methanol with a Choren Carbo-V gasifier Production costs in ct/kwh Plant capacity in MW Capital costs Operating Costs Fuel costs Plant capacity of 200 MW thermal gasifier input for all further investigations 6

thermal process integration steam cycles Steam turbines for power generation Results: Fuel production (kg/s, MW)

7 Material and Energy Balances Method: Detailed modeling of all 43 routes with ASPENplus gas cleaning, gas processing and auxiliary systems identical Filter, wet scrubber, Rectisol + clean gas shift due to necessity High degree of thermal process integration steam cycles Steam turbines for power generation Results: Fuel production (kg/s, MW) Consumption of resources (ha/gj, t/gj, GJ/GJ) Power generation / consumption (kwh/gj) Waste heat (GJ/GJ) Overall efficiency 7

8 Material and Energy Balances Example: Consumption of resources GJ biomass / GJ fuel ,13 2,47 2,08 2,12 1,73 1,64 7,75 7,55 9,33 5,53 4,52 1,77 1,70 3,06 2,56 2,61 2,24 1,80 BG-ATR 2,06 1,89 1,96 FICFB 2,68 2,53 2,57 3,04 Carbo-V 1,52 2,63 1,47 1,45 1,42 H-DWS 1,89 1,83 2,29 2,06 2,00 2,05 S-DWS 1,84 1,78 2,24 2,03 1,92 2,02 H-bioliq S-bioliq MeOH DME MtG FT SNG DME direkt 8

9 Material and Energy Balances Example: Overall efficiency MeOH DME MtG FT SNG DME direct direkt BG-ATR 48,6% 40,4% 41,0% 40,2% 55,7% 33,0% FICFB 23,8% 24,1% 18,4% 27,8% 57,5% 31,0% Carbo-V 52,2% 53,8% 43,3% 50,2% 50,8% 46,4% H-DWS 41,0% 40,3% 36,3% 41,4% 62,5% 63,3% S-DWS 41,4% 41,5% 37,0% 41,3% 65,5% 65,4% H-bioliq 45,9% 47,5% 38,5% 43,4% 43,6% 42,4% S-bioliq 46,9% 48,5% 39,2% 43,8% 45,1% 42,8% Favorable combinations: FICFB + SNG Carbo-V + DME, Methanol, SNG and Fischer-Tropsch DWS + direct DME, SNG bioliq + DME and Methanol ATR (biogas) + CNG, SNG 9

10 Economic Analysis Method: Total Revenue Requirement, TRR (VDI 6025) 4 steps: Predefinition of economic parameters Estimation of TCI Estimation of operating costs Determination of the levelized costs Uniform economic parameters: Start of engineering: 01/2015 Start of construction: 07/2015 Completion and start of plant operation: 07/2018 Plant economic life: 20 years Plant availability: 80 % (7.008 hours/year) Average general inflation rate: 2 % Average nominal escalation rate of all costs: 1 % Calculatory costs: 10 % Insurance: 0,5 % of TCI 10

11 Economic Analysis Estimation of TCI Includes: direct costs (onsite, offsite costs), indirect costs (engineering, construction, contingencies), other outlays (startup costs, costs of licensing, ) Data source: literature, own data, inquiries Effect of size on equipment cost scaling exponent Projection in 2015 cost indices Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) Monthly data since 1970 (annual: 1947) Three scenarios CE-Index y = 4,5032x ,3 500 Index in % y = 7,7434x y = 4,5032x , Year 11

12 Economic Analysis Results for standard scenario: ct/kwh MeOH DME MtG FT SNG DMEdirect FICFB 40,61 39,95 51,93 31,65 9,71 24,13 Carbo-V 15,50 15,16 20,31 17,89 16,15 18,71 H-DWS 20,93 21,41 25,24 22,32 12,95 12,82 S-DWS 20,21 20,36 24,22 21,73 12,38 12,27 H-bioliq 20,11 19,56 25,12 22,62 21,05 23,47 S-bioliq 16,68 16,34 21,04 19,16 17,66 13,35 Composition of the production costs (routes with methanol as product) 45 Production costs in ct/kwh ,4 26,7 10,5 FICFB- MeOH 4,6 6,6 2,7 4,3 5,2 Carbo-V - MeOH 5,9 5,2 13,0 6,5 9,9 H-DWS- MeOH 7,7 H-bioliq - MeOH 5,2 S-DWS- MeOH 6,0 3,5 7,2 S-bioliq - MeOH 7,7 8,0 9,5 BG-MeOH Capital costs Fuel costs Operating and maintenance costs 12

13 Economic Analysis Sensitivity analyses to determine influence assumed and calculated parameters Example: Guessing gasifier + Methanol synthesis Production costs 160% 150% 140% 130% 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Parameter variation Depreciation time (years) Availability Revenue Variable operating costs Calculatory costs Fixed-capital investment Fuel costs Price increase (without fuel) Price increase fuel Personnel costs Maintenance costs Land costs Engineering/supervision Contingencies 13

14 Life Cycle Assessment Following ISO & Overview balances with following elements: Crude oil production & upgrading Energy crop cultivation In- and output streams (feedstock, materials, energy, waste water, waste, emissions) Biomass Potential environmental impacts of the fuels Whole life cycle: cultivation gasification synthesis fuel utilization Transportation Transportation Investigated environmental impacts: Processing BtLproduction Energy demand Greenhouse effect Fossil fuel BtL-fuel Acidification Eutrophication Utilization Utilization Summer smog Ozone depletion Product Process Comparing system 14

15 Life Cycle Assessment Gutschriften Aufwendungen Energieaufwand Main results Treibhauseffekt Advantages BtL: Versauerung Energy saving Reduction of greenhouse effect Nährstoffeintrag Fotosmog Disadvantages: Vorteile für BtL Nachteile Ozonabbau Energieaufwand Acidification Eutrophication MtG SNG FT Treibhauseffekt Versauerung No general statement regarding environment-friendly gasification or synthesis process possible Salden Nährstoffeintrag Fotosmog Ozonabbau No general statement regarding global preferableness of BtL-fuels possible Einwohnerwerte / 1000 t Holz (FM) Holzbereitstellung Holztransport Input Wasserstoff Input Elektroenergie Input Hilfs- & Betriebsstoffe Prozessemissionen BtL-Transport Gutschrift grüner Strom BtL-Nutzung Diesel BtL-Nutzung Otto-Kraftstoff Gutschrift Naphtha Bereitstellung foss. Kraftstoff Nutzung foss. Kraftstoff Saldo IFEU 2009 Individual verification necessary 15

16 Conclusion Comparison of 43 BtL process chains with uniform boundary conditions detailed calculations High influence of plant capacity biomass transportation costs superpose fixed cost degression Wide array of results Each gasifier has preferable synthesis process depends on raw gas composition There is no global best process chain individual point of view any process combination has specific assets and drawbacks individual investigations necessary Diverse assumptions lead to uncertainties sensitivity analyses High costs of production production costs of fossil transportation fuels 80 % cheaper (averaged) Most important bottleneck is feedstock supply infrastructure Economic disadvantages and technological obstacles can be solved by applied research 16

BtL-Kraftstoffen und Biogas The project was supported with public funding by The

17 Acknowledgement The results described above were obtained in the research project Ermittlung spezifizierter Kosten und ökologischer Auswirkungen der Erzeugung von BtL-Kraftstoffen und Biogas The project was supported with public funding by The German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (Project ID ) 17

The Impact of Concept Simplification on Performance and. Economics of IGCC Power Plants with Carbon Capture

Institut für Energieverfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen The Impact of Concept Simplification on Performance and Economics of IGCC Power Plants with Carbon Capture 3 rd International Freiberg Conference