Search

Abstract: This paper investigates the economics of integrated gasification polygeneration (IG-PG) facilities and assesses under which market conditions flexible facilities outperform static facilities. In this study, the facilities use Eucalyptus wood pellets (EP), torrefied wood pellets (TOPS) and Illinois #6 coal as feedstock to produce electricity, FT-liquids, methanol and urea. All facilities incorporate CCS. The findings show production costs from static IG-PG facilities ranging between 12 and 21€/GJ using coal, 19–33€/GJ using TOPS and 22–38€/GJ using EP, which is above the average market prices. IG-PG facilities can become competitive if capital costs drop by 10%–27% for coal based facilities. Biomass based facilities will need lower biomass pellet prices or higher CO2 credit prices. Biomass becomes competitive with coal at a CO2 credit price of 50–55€/t CO2. Variations in feedstock, CO2 credit and electricity prices can be offset by operating a feedstock flexible IG-PG facility, which can switch between coal and TOPS, thereby altering its electricity production. The additional investment is around 0.5% of the capital costs of a dedicated coal based IG-PG facility. At 30€/t CO2, TOPS will be the preferred feedstock for 95% of the time at a feedstock price of 5.7€/GJ. At these conditions, FT-liquids (gasoline/diesel) can be produced for 15.8€/GJ (116 $/bbl). Historic records show price variations between 5.7 and 7.3€/GJ for biomass pellet, 1.0–5.6€/GJ for coal and 0–32€/t CO2. Within these price ranges, coal is generally the preferred feedstock, but occasionally biomass is preferred. Lower biomass prices will increase the frequency of switching feedstock preference from coal to biomass, raising the desire for flexibility. Of the three investigated chemicals, an IG-PG facility producing FT-liquids benefits the most from flexibility. Our study suggests that if the uncertainty in commodity prices is high, a small additional investment can make flexible IG-PG facilities attractive. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This article investigates technical possibilities and performances of flexible integrated gasification polygeneration (IG-PG) facilities equipped with CO2 capture for the near future. These facilities can produce electricity during peak hours, while switching to the production of chemicals during off-peak hours. Several simulations were performed to investigate the influence of substituting feedstock and production on IG-PG facility output, load and efficiency. These simulations were done using a detailed AspenPlus simulation model of a Shell entrained flow gasifier combined with conversion facilities. In this model carbon-rich feedstocks (oil residues, coal and biomass) were converted to a variety of products (H2, electricity, FT-liquids, methanol and urea) using state-of-the-art technology. The size of the gasifier was limited to the equivalent of 2000MWth Il #6 coal input. Overall efficiency of the simulated non-flexible configurations to convert pure coal or pure wood pellets to electricity (40%HHV vs 38%HHV), FT-liquids (60%HHV vs 55%HHV), methanol (53%HHV vs 49%HHV) or urea (51%HHV vs 47%HHV) are in good agreement with the literature. Using torrefied wood pellets instead of pure wood pellets reduces the penalty drop in efficiency compared to coal. Moreover, torrefied wood pellets have superior energetic density, handling and feeding compared to wood pellets. In this analysis, the H2:CO ratio of the sweet syngas was fixed to match FT-liquids criterion. As a result, overall CO2 capture rates are low, around 56–65%, depending on the feedstock used. Still, especially with FT-liquids and methanol production, CO2 emissions at the facility are significantly reduced; less than 20% of the carbon feedstock entering the facility is emitted with the flue gas. Applying biomass and CO2 capture shows great opportunities to produce CO2-neutral electricity or chemicals. When the biomass fraction exceeds 40% on an energy basis, production is CO2-neutral, independent of what is produced. Biomass can be co-fed up till 50% on an energy basis. Higher fractions cause significant fouling on cooling equipment. A small part-load penalty is observed during the substitution of coal by biomass. When changing from pure coal to pure wood pellets, the power case suffers a 2.5% efficiency drop, while all three chemical cases have an efficiency drop of less than 1%. At the same time total output is reduced to 67–69%, mainly because of the lower energy density of biomass. By over-dimensioning the gasifier and gas cleanup and optimisation section this drop can be eliminated. The syngas can be tailored to the desired composition regardless of the used feedstock. Therefore, the chemical conversion sections only have to cope with a reduction in syngas flow and not with a change in syngas composition. Altering production between chemicals and electricity is possible, although the load of the conversion sections should remain between 40% and 100% to prevent operational problems. This gives a high degree of flexibility. Complete substitution between chemical and power production while using the same feedstock is possible for the methanol and urea cases. The FT-liquids case is restricted to 60–100% load of the chemical conversion section to prevent that the gas turbine load is reduced below 40%. The economic aspects of flexible IG-PG facilities are addressed in part B. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Meeting the Paris Agreement will most likely require the combination of CO 2 capture and biomass in the industrial sector, resulting in net negative emissions. CO 2 capture within the industry has been extensively investigated. However, biomass options have been poorly explored, with literature alluding to technical and economic barriers. In addition, a lack of consistency among studies makes comparing the performance of CO 2 capture and/or biomass use between studies and sectors difficult. These inconsistencies include differences in methodology, system boundaries, level of integration, costs, greenhouse gas intensity of feedstock and energy carriers, and capital cost estimations. Therefore, an integrated evaluation of the techno-economic performance regarding CO 2 capture and biomass use was performed for five energy-intensive industrial sub-sectors. Harmonization results indicate that CO 2 mitigation potentials vary for each sub-sector, resulting in reductions of 1.4–2.7 t CO 2 /t steel (77%–149%), 0.7 t CO 2 /t cement (92%), 0.2 t CO 2 /t crude oil (68%), 1.9 t CO 2 /t pulp (1663%–2548%), and 34.9 t CO 2 /t H 2 (313%). Negative emissions can be reached in the steel, paper and H 2 sectors. Novel bio-based production routes might enable net negative emissions in the cement and (petro)chemical sectors as well. All the above-mentioned potentials can be reached for 100 €/t CO 2 or less. Implementing mitigation options could reduce industrial CO 2 emissions by 10 Gt CO 2 /y by 2050, easily meeting the targets of the 2 °C scenario by the International Energy Agency (1.8 Gt CO 2 /y reduction) for the industrial sector and even the Beyond 2 °C scenario (4.2 Gt CO 2 /y reduction). • Literature review on CO 2 mitigation in steel, cement, chemical, H 2 and paper sectors. • Introduction harmonized methodology to allow comparison between industrial sectors. • All investigated sectors have large reduction potentials for <100 €/t CO 2 avoided. • Negative emissions possible in iron/steel, H 2 and paper sectors. • Potential CO 2 emission reduction of 10 Gt/yr in 2050, easily meeting climate target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]