열적변환의 플랫폼 경제 분석

Economics of Thermal Conversion

Examining economics of syngas in an integrated process & biorefinery design

Examples of specific thermochemical products for which detailed designs exist:

• Biomass syngas to hydrogen (complete)

• Biomass syngas to mixed alcohols with separation of ethanol (on-going)

Performing A Detailed Design

Discounted Cash Flow Economic Spreadsheet

Product Selling Price

Process Flow Diagrams

Literature InformationCommercial Technology

DOE SponsoredResearch Results

(gasification/ gas clean up & conditioning)

Rigorous Material & Energy Balance

ASPEN Plus Software

Capital & Project Cost Estimation

Capital Costs from Other Studies

ICARUS Software Cost Estimation

Operating Costs Fixed & Variable

Intermediate Syngas Price –Targets & Barriers

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

Today SOT - Currentdesign

Gas clean up &conditioning - Goal

design

Feed handling &drying

Gasification Process integration

Inte

rmed

iate

cle

an, r

efor

med

syn

gas

pric

e ($

/MM

Btu

)

Research in this area results in the largest syngas cost reduction

$4.75 $5.25 $7.25 $3.93 $4.05

Plant size = 2,000 BD tonne/day

• DOE program targets based on intermediate syngas price to track progress toward reducing technical barriers

Decrease in syngas price due to increased yields, decreased capital costs, & efficiency gains

(2025)

(2010)

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

Current Design Goal Design

Inte

rmed

iate

cle

an, r

efor

med

syn

gas

pric

e ($

/MM

Btu

)

Fractional Conversion at 875oC

Model N1D1

Time, Hours

0 1 2 3 4 5

Fra

ctional C

onvers

ion

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Methane

Benzene

Naphthalene

EthaneTar & Toluene

Current

Goal

Results from NREL’s PDU tar reformer

Tie in With Research

• Goal case yield is increased & capital cost is less

Potential Impact of Reformer Efficiency on Syngas Price

Attaining research goals = reduction in syngas price

Progression of Analysis

Progression of analysis toward integrated biochemical/thermochemical biorefinery design

Syngas ProductionBiomass Hydrogen

Mixedalcohols

Syngas ProductionBiomass

Biomass Sugar Production Ethanol

(integration)

Mixedalcohols

Syngas ProductionBiomass

• Using results of biomass to H2 detailed design to move forward for mixed alcohol detailed design

• Begin by building stand-alone mixed alcohol design

• Build off of stand-alone mixed alcohol analysis and stand-alone ethanol analysis to create a biochemical/thermochemical integrated biorefinery design

Biomass Gasification – Syngas to Products

• FY 2003 NREL’s preliminary screening study showed H2 to be technically and economically feasible product from biomass gasification

• H2 was picked as a model product to show effect of process integration & economics of a final product from biomass gasification

• Performed detailed process design and modeling using Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL) low pressure, indirectly-heated gasifier

Gas composition mol% (dry) H2 23.85

CO2 12.79 CO 42.18 CH4 15.36 C2H2 0.41 C2H4 4.35 C2H6 0.29 C6H6 0.13

tar (C10H8) 0.23 NH3 0.32 H2S 0.07

H2:CO molar ratio 0.57 Gasifier efficiency 72.1% HHV basis

71.8% LHV basis

Two designs examined based on catalytic tar destruction and heteroatom removal work at NREL:

• current design – defines today’s state of the technology

• goal design – shows the effect of overcoming R&D technical barrier

Compound Current GoalMethane (CH4) 20% 80%

Ethane (C2H6) 90% 99%

Ethylene (C2H4) 50% 90%

Tars (C10+) 95% 99.9%

Benzene (C6H6) 70% 99%

Ammonia (NH3) 70% 90%

Tar reformer conversion #’s

Syngas Clean Up & Gas Conditioning

Higher conversions for goal case; notably methane.

Both designs broadly consist of:

• feed handling, drying, gasification, gas clean up and conditioning, shift conversion, and purification integrated with a steam and power generation cycle

Current Goal

Tar reformer Bubbling fluidized bed with 1% per day catalyst replacement

Reactor vessel & catalyst regeneration

vessel operating isothermally

Steam methane reformer (SMR)

SMR downstream of sulfur removal

None (SMR eliminated)

Main design differences:

Biomass Gasification - Detailed Design

areas with significant heat recovery

• FT & mixed alcohols will have large amount of heat available in synthesis step due to exothermic reactions

Integration is Important

Syngas Production is Large Contribution to Product Price

• This is true of other products, not just H2

• An estimation of the syngas cost can be made and used as a benchmark……………however, it doesn’t make sense to look at just stand-alone syngas production because integration is important and a key to economical process designs

Case 2 - Direct: GTI, HGCU, ATR, shift, conv MeOH, stm turbine

Case 1 - Indirect: BCL, scrubbing, stmreformer, shift, conv MeOH, stm turbine

Clean, reformed syngas generation = 60-64% of total capital in thermochmeical conversion

feed prepgasificationO2 plant (Case 2 only)clean up & cooling

syngas compression (Case 1 only)reformingCO2 removalMeOH synthesis & compressionpower generation

7%

14%

15%

9%15%

9%

22%

9%8%

6%

19%

9%

22%

5%

27%

4%

From FY 2003 preliminary screening study

($/MMBtu, LHV)Current Goal

Intermediate syngas price 7.25 5.25

Stand-alone syngas price 8.67(20% higher)

7.10(35% higher)

Syngas Price – Integration Results & Lower Price

• More economical to build entire syngas generation to fuels production plant than to purchase syngas due to process integration advantages

• Completed analysis; NREL technical report available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05psti/37408.pdf

• Intermediate – Price of clean, reformed syngas in an integrated process.

• Stand-alone – Price of syngas with synthesis steps downstream of gas clean up & conditioning removed, natural gas used as fuel, and heat balance is reconfigured.

-$2.00 -$1.50 -$1.00 -$0.50 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50

Cooling Water and OtherUtilities

Steam System and PowerGeneration

Steam Methane Reforming &BOP

Compression

Tar Reforming, & Quench &sulfur removal

Gasification

Feed Handling and Drying

Feedstock

Capital Recovery Charge Raw Materials Process ElectricityElectricity Generated Fixed Costs

syngas = $7.25/MMBtu

$2.45 $0.81

$1.15

$0.54

$1.47

$0.69

$0.67 -$0.69

$0.17

(34%)(11%)

(16%)

(7%)

(20%)

(10%)

(0%) Net

(2%)

-$2.00 -$1.50 -$1.00 -$0.50 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50

Cooling Water and Other Utilities

Steam System and Pow erGeneration

BOP

Compression

Tar Reforming, & Quench & sulfurremoval

Gasif ication

Feed Handling and Drying

Feedstock

Capital Recovery Charge Raw Materials Process ElectricityElectricity Generated Fixed Costs

syngas = $5.25/MMBtu

$2.18 (42%)$0.72 (14%)

$0.60 (11%)

$1.02 (19%)

$1.49 (28%)

$0.04 (1%)

$0.70 -$1.77

(-20%) Net

$0.27 (5%)

Reforming cost is reduced and shifted to a different plant section

($0.64 vs $1.23/MMBtu contribution to syngas price)

Intermediate Syngas Cost Contribution –Current & Goal Design

Current Design

Goal Design

• Dec 2004 refocused thermochemical conversion to examine synergies & integration into a sugars biorefinery

• Mixed alcohols detailed design is a follow on to the biomass to H2study and validates initial December spreadsheet material balance & cost calculations

Mixed Alcohols Analysis

Ethanol via bioconversion

Corn Stover 2,000 dMT/day

Ethanol198,400 gpd

Lignin-rich Residue 600 dMT/day

Steam &Power

Gas-FiredCHP Plant

SyngasProduction Synthesis

Chemical Alcohols

11,800 gpd n-Propanol9,100 gpd n-Butanol

11,800 gpd Amyl/Hex Alcohols

Biomass Residues1,205 dMT/day

SyngasEthanol

98,000 gpd

Ethanol296,400 gpd

Any products from sugars will be made in both the sugars biorefinery and the Integrated Biorefinery.

Ethanol via bioconversion

Corn Stover 2,000 dMT/day

Ethanol198,400 gpd

Lignin-rich Residue 600 dMT/day

Steam &Power

Gas-FiredCHP Plant

SyngasProduction Synthesis

Chemical Alcohols

11,800 gpd n-Propanol9,100 gpd n-Butanol

11,800 gpd Amyl/Hex Alcohols

Biomass Residues1,205 dMT/day

SyngasEthanol

98,000 gpd

Ethanol296,400 gpd

Any products from sugars will be made in both the sugars biorefinery and the Integrated Biorefinery.

Stand Alone Mixed Alcohols

Feed Handling andConditioning Gasification

PreliminarySeparation

DriedBiomass

Ethanol

Biomass CrudeSyngas

Mixed AlcoholSynthesis

SyngasCompression

Tar ReformingAnd Scrubbing

Crude

ProductsH

igh PSyngas

ScrubbedSyngas

C3 +Alcohols

Mixed

Alcohols

Methanol

H2, CO, CO2, CH4

• First step, stand alone system

• Conducted literature search - gathered information including types of catalysts, yields, operating conditions, and syngas requirements

• H2:CO ratio is crucial; desired value of about 1

Stand Alone Mixed Alcohols

• Maximum hydrocarbon conversion in conjunction with optimal/most economical gas clean up and conditioning steps is challenging

• Selected modified FT catalyst (MoS2-variation) based on its ability to produce linear alcohols & higher sulfur tolerance

• Working on modifying biomass to H2 model for mixed alcohols production using BCL gasifier

• Milestone report due 7/18/05

Feed PrepBiomass

Dryer

Gasification (BCL, & cyclones)

Scrubber Syngas Compression

Char & Sand

Char combustor & cyclonesAir

SteamFlue gas

Tar reformer

Sand

Ash

Water

Totreatment SteamSteam

Reformer

LO-CAT

Sulfur

Amine System

CO2

Gas Compression

Mixed Alcoholssynthesis

Liquids

Mol sieve Separation EtOH

C3+ alcohols

Gas

MeOH

Steam to reformer

Steam to gasifier

DeaeratorIP LP VP

Cooling water

Process integration heat exchange

• Preliminary block flow diagram

• 20% single pass CO conversion

• 80% alcohol selectivity

• Recycle MeOH to extinction

purge to fuel

Stand Alone Mixed Alcohols -Simulation

Separation

Integrated Sugars/Thermochemical Biorefinery

LignocellulosicBiomass

Fermentation

Catalysis

Syngas Production

Sugar Production

Ethanol

Products:propanol, butanol

other alcohols

Lignin-rich Residues

Low QualityResidues

CHP Distillation

• Next step, in FY 2006 will combine mixed alcohols and ethanol stand alone systems to create an optimized biochemical/thermochemical biorefinery

Acknowledgements

Additional analysts:

Andy Aden

Tim Eggeman

Matt Ringer

Bob Wallace

John Jechura

Kelly Ibsen