DOCSLIB.ORG

Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46587 November 2010 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory Prepared under Task No. BB07.7510 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-6A20-46587 Golden, Colorado 80401 November 2010 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:[email protected] Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721 Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. Foreword The purpose of this techno-economic analysis is to compare a set of biofuel conversion technologies selected for their promise and near-term technical viability. Every effort is made to make this comparison on an equivalent basis using common assumptions. The process design and parameter value choices underlying this analysis are based on public domain literature only. For these reasons, these results are not indicative of potential performance, but are meant to represent the most likely performance given the current state of public knowledge. iii List of Acronyms AGR acid gas removal ASU air separation unit BTL biomass to liquids CFB circulating fluidized bed DCFROR discounted cash flow rate of return DME dimethyl-ether FCI fixed capital investment FT Fischer-Tropsch GGE gallon of gasoline equivalent HRSG heat recovery steam generator HT high temperature IC indirect costs IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle IRR internal rate of return ISU Iowa State University LHV lower heating value LT low temperature MEA monoethanolamine MJ megajoule MM million MTG methanol to gasoline MW megawatt Nm3 normal cubic meter NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PSA pressure swing adsorption PV product value Sasol South African Coal, Oil, and Gas Corporation SPR slurry phase reactor SMR steam methane reforming SWGS sour water-gas-shift TCI total capital investment TDIC total direct and indirect cost TIC total installed cost tpd tons per day TPEC total purchased equipment cost WGS water-gas-shift iv Executive Summary This study compares capital and production costs of two biomass-to-liquid production plants based on gasification. The goal is to produce liquid transportation fuels via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with electricity as a co-product. The biorefineries are fed by 2,000 metric tons per day of corn stover. The first biorefinery scenario is an oxygen-fed, low-temperature (870°C), non- slagging, fluidized bed gasifier. The second scenario is an oxygen-fed, high-temperature (1,300°C), slagging, entrained flow gasifier. Both are followed by catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and hydroprocessing to naphtha-range (gasoline blend stock) and distillate-range (diesel blend stock) liquid fractions. (Hydroprocessing is a set of refinery processes that removes impurities and breaks down large molecules to fractions suitable for use in commercial formulations.) Process modeling software (Aspen Plus) is utilized to organize the mass and energy streams and cost estimation software is used to generate equipment costs. Economic analysis is performed to estimate the capital investment and operating costs. A 20-year discounted cash flow rate of return analysis is developed to estimate a fuel product value (PV) at a net present value of zero with 10% internal rate of return. All costs are adjusted to the year 2007. The technology is limited to commercial technology available for implementation in the next 5–8 years, and as a result, the process design is restricted to available rather than projected data. Results show that the total capital investment required for nth plant scenarios is $610 million and $500 million for high-temperature and low-temperature scenarios, respectively. PV for the high- temperature and low-temperature scenarios is estimated to be $4.30 and $4.80 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), respectively, based on a feedstock cost of $75 per dry short ton. The main reason for a difference in PV between the scenarios is because of a higher carbon efficiency and subsequent higher fuel yield for the high-temperature scenario. Sensitivity analysis is also performed on process and economic parameters. This analysis shows that total capital investment and feedstock cost are among the most influential parameters affecting the PV, while least influential parameters include per-pass Fischer-Tropsch-reaction-conversion extent, inlet feedstock moisture, and catalyst cost. In order to estimate the cost of a pioneer plant (first of its kind), an analysis is performed that inflates total capital investment and deflates the plant output for the first several years of operation. Base case results of this analysis estimate a pioneer plant investment to be $1.4 billion and $1.1 billion for high-temperature and low-temperature scenarios, respectively. Resulting PVs are estimated to be $7.60/GGE and $8.10/GGE for high-temperature and low-temperature pioneer plants, respectively. v Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Biorenewable Resources ............................................................................................................2 Gasification ................................................................................................................................2 Reactions ..............................................................................................................................3 Gasifier Types ......................................................................................................................4 Biomass Preprocessing ..............................................................................................................7 Syngas Cleaning.........................................................................................................................9 End-Use Product ......................................................................................................................10 Power Generation ...............................................................................................................10 Synthetic Fuels and Chemicals ..........................................................................................11 Methanol to Gasoline .........................................................................................................11 Fischer-Tropsch .................................................................................................................12 Techno-Economic Analysis .....................................................................................................13 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Down-Selection Process ..........................................................................................................16 Preliminary Criteria ...........................................................................................................17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biogas Membrane Reformer for Decentralized Hydrogen Production
    Biogas membrane reformer for decentralized hydrogen production Newsletter – Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 This Newsletter Previous release Membrane & Catalysts Industrial specifications development Reference case First results @ Lab scale First membrane & First release of LCA catalyst release analysis March September March September March September 2016 2017 2018 Editorial Dear BIONICO friends I am glad to welcome you to the second project newsletter! The last project meeting was held at the end of August, allowing all the consortium members to take stock of the situation: in the second six months of the project new membranes, membrane supports and catalyst specifically designed for operating with biogas have been tested at TU/e labs and soon new promising finger-like porous asymmetric ceramic supports will be tested. The information collected allow now the Abengoa Hidrogeno engineering team to start with the design of the pilot scale reactor that will contain around 100 membranes! The scale of the project represents a strong step forward for CMR technology. Not only experimental, but also simulation work was performed by POLIMI in order to have benchmark cases for BIONICO. At the same time environmental performance of these technologies is being evaluated by Quantis, in order to demonstrate not only improved efficiency performance but also environmental ones for the BIONICO technology! I hope you will find the info in this newsletter interesting. On our website www.bionicoproject.eu you will find public presentations, all the public deliverables of the project and many other interesting news. Stay tuned! BIONICO newsletter - Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 www.bionicoproject.eu In this Issue: Editorial .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Synthesis Gas Processes
    Review of Synthesis Gas Processes This review is extracted from the following report: SOFC AS A GAS SEPARATOR By M.A. Korobitsyn F.P.F van Berkel G.M. Christie December 2000 Synthesis gas production 1. Introduction There are a number of technologies available to produce syngas, these technologies are summarized in Fig. 1. Of the technologies shown in Fig. 1, steam methane reforming (SMR) is the most common. In this process light hydrocarbon feedstock and steam are converted in an endothermic reaction over a nickel catalyst. Heat to the reaction is provided in a radiant furnace. Due to the sulfur content in heavier hydrocarbons their use in the SMR process can cause problems with the catalysts, also there is a risk of tar and coke deposition. The second most common technology is partial oxidation (POX) which proceeds exothermically. Non-catalytic oxidation reaction allows a wider range of feedstock, however, an oxygen source is needed in most applications. Carbon dioxide reforming is a less common technology, which is primarily used for the production of syngas with a low H2/CO ratio. The combined and advanced processes, also detailed in Fig. 1, are either a combination or an enhancement of the three basic processes. In the following sections firstly the three basic processes are further described, shorter descriptions of the combined and advanced processes follow later in the section. Fig. 1 General overview of the routes from natural gas to chemicals. 2. Steam methane reforming (SMR) Background The steam methane reforming (SMR) process can be described by two main reactions: CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2, ΔH = 198 kJ/mol (1) CO + H2O = CO2 + H2, ΔH = -41 kJ/mol (2) The first reaction is reforming itself, while the second is the water-gas shift reaction.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg
    energies Review Process Technologies and Projects for BioLPG Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting, 8136 Gattikon, Switzerland; [email protected]; Tel.: +41-44-772-1079 Received: 8 December 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)—currently consumed at some 300 million tonnes per year—consists of propane, butane, or a mixture of the two. Most of the world’s LPG is fossil, but recently, BioLPG has been commercialized as well. This paper reviews all possible synthesis routes to BioLPG: conventional chemical processes, biological processes, advanced chemical processes, and other. Processes are described, and projects are documented as of early 2018. The paper was compiled through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with participants and stakeholders. Only one process is already commercial: hydrotreatment of bio-oils. Another, fermentation of sugars, has reached demonstration scale. The process with the largest potential for volume is gaseous conversion and synthesis of two feedstocks, cellulosics or organic wastes. In most cases, BioLPG is produced as a byproduct, i.e., a minor output of a multi-product process. BioLPG’s proportion of output varies according to detailed process design: for example, the advanced chemical processes can produce BioLPG at anywhere from 0–10% of output. All these processes and projects will be of interest to researchers, developers and LPG producers/marketers. Keywords: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); BioLPG; biofuels; process technologies; alternative fuels 1. Introduction Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a major fuel for heating and transport, with a current global market of around 300 million tonnes per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues
    fermentation Article Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues: Simulation, Performance Analysis, and Environmental Impact Sahar Safarian 1,*, Seyed Mohammad Ebrahimi Saryazdi 2, Runar Unnthorsson 1 and Christiaan Richter 1 1 Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Iceland, Hjardarhagi 6, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland; [email protected] (R.U.); [email protected] (C.R.) 2 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Sharif University of Technologies, Tehran P.O. Box 14597-77611, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Wood and forestry residues are usually processed as wastes, but they can be recovered to produce electrical and thermal energy through processes of thermochemical conversion of gasification. This study proposes an equilibrium simulation model developed by ASPEN Plus to investigate the performance of 28 woody biomass and forestry residues’ (WB&FR) gasification in a downdraft gasifier linked with a power generation unit. The case study assesses power generation in Iceland from one ton of each feedstock. The results for the WB&FR alternatives show that the net power generated from one ton of input feedstock to the system is in intervals of 0 to 400 kW/ton, that more that 50% of the systems are located in the range of 100 to 200 kW/ton, and that, among them, the gasification system derived by tamarack bark significantly outranks all other systems by producing 363 kW/ton. Moreover, the environmental impact of these systems is assessed based on the impact categories of global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication (EP) potentials and Citation: Safarian, S.; Ebrahimi normalizes the environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes
    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Development of Dry Coking/Coal
    Development of Coking/Coal Gasification Concept to Use Indiana Coal for the Production of Metallurgical Coke, Liquid Transportation Fuels, Fertilizer, and Bulk Electric Power Phase II Final Report September 30, 2007 Submitted by Robert Kramer, Ph.D. Director, Energy Efficiency and Reliability Center Purdue University Calumet Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ………………………………………………..…………… 3 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………… 5 List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. 6 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 7 Process Description ……………………………………………………………. 11 Importance to Indiana Coal Use ……………………………………………… 36 Relevance to Previous Studies ………………………………………………. 40 Policy, Scientific and Technical Barriers …………………………………….. 49 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 50 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………… 52 2 Executive Summary Coke is a solid carbon fuel and carbon source produced from coal that is used to melt and reduce iron ore. Although coke is an absolutely essential part of iron making and foundry processes, currently there is a shortfall of 5.5 million tons of coke per year in the United States. The shortfall has resulted in increased imports and drastic increases in coke prices and market volatility. For example, coke delivered FOB to a Chinese port in January 2004 was priced at $60/ton, but rose to $420/ton in March 2004 and in September 2004 was $220/ton. This makes clear the likelihood that prices will remain high. This effort that is the subject of this report has considered the suitability of and potential processes for using Indiana coal for the production of coke in a mine mouth or local coking/gasification-liquefaction process. Such processes involve multiple value streams that reduce technical and economic risk. Initial results indicate that it is possible to use blended coal with up to 40% Indiana coal in a non recovery coke oven to produce pyrolysis gas that can be selectively extracted and used for various purposes including the production of electricity and liquid transportation fuels and possibly fertilizer and hydrogen.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: from Conventional to Emerging Technologies
    environments Article Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies Andi Mehmeti 1,* ID , Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis 2 ID , George Arampatzis 3 ID , Stephen J. McPhail 4 and Sergio Ulgiati 5 1 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80143 Naples, Italy 2 School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; [email protected] 3 School of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, 731 00 Chania, Greece; [email protected] 4 DTE-PCU-SPCT, ENEA C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy; [email protected] 5 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80134 Naples, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-327-556-3659 Received: 26 December 2017; Accepted: 2 February 2018; Published: 6 February 2018 Abstract: A common sustainability issue, arising in production systems, is the efficient use of resources for providing goods or services. With the increased interest in a hydrogen (H2) economy, the life-cycle environmental performance of H2 production has special significance for assisting in identifying opportunities to improve environmental performance and to guide challenging decisions and select between technology paths. Life cycle impact assessment methods are rapidly evolving to analyze multiple environmental impacts of the production of products or processes. This study marks the first step in developing process-based streamlined life cycle analysis (LCA) of several H2 production pathways combining life cycle impacts at the midpoint (17 problem-oriented) and endpoint (3 damage-oriented) levels using the state-of-the-art impact assessment method ReCiPe 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Propane
    Renewable propane Pathways to the prize Eric Johnson Western Propane Gas Association 4 November 2020 A bit of background Headed to Carbon Neutral: 2/3rds of World Economy By 2050 By 2045+ By 2060 By 2050 Facing decarbonisation: you’re not alone! Refiners Gas suppliers Oil majors A new supply chain for refiners Some go completely bio, others partially Today’s r-propane: from vegetable/animal oils/fats Neste’s HVO plant in Rotterdam HVO biopropane (r-propane) capacity in the USA PROJECT OPERATOR kilotonnes Million gal /year /year EXISTING BP Cherry Point BP ? Diamond Green Louisiana Valero: Diamond Green Diesel 10 5.2 Kern Bakersfield Kern ? Marathon N Dakota Tesoro, Marathon (was Andeavor) 2 1 REG Geismar Renewable Energy 1.3 0.7 World Energy California AltAir Fuels, World Energy 7 3.6 PLANNED Diamond Green Texas Valero: Diamond Green Diesel, Darling 90 46.9 HollyFrontier Artesia/Navajo HollyFrontier, Haldor-Topsoe 25 13 Marathon ? Next Renewables Oregon Next Renewable Fuels 80 41.7 Phillips 66 ? Biggest trend: co-processing • Conventional refinery • Modified hydrotreater • Infrastructure exists already Fossil petroleum BP, Kern, Marathon, PREEM, ENI and others…… But there is not enough HVO to meet longer-term demand. LPG production Bio-oil potential What about the NGL industry? Many pathways to renewables…. The seven candidate pathways Gasification-syngas, from biomass Gasification-syngas, from waste Plus ammonia, Pyrolysis from DME, biomass hydrogen etc Glycerine-to-propane Biogas oligomerisation Power-to-X Alcohol to jet/LPG Gasification to syngas, from biomass Cellulose Criterium Finding Process Blast biomass (cellulose/lignin) into CO and H2 (syngas).
    [Show full text]
  • Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor Concept (Left)
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor concept (left). Flow diagram (middle): Hydrogen (H2) permeates the membrane where nitrogen (N2) sweeps the gas to Hydrogen-Selective Membranes for High- produce a high-pressure H2/N2 gas stream. Membrane diagram Pressure Hydrogen Separation (right): The H2-selective membrane allows the continuous removal of the H2 produced in the water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction. This allows for the near-complete conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) This project will develop hydrogen-selective membranes for an innovative water-gas-shift reactor that improves gas separation to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for the separation of H2 from CO2. efficiency, enabling reduced energy use and greenhouse gas Image Courtesy of General Electric Company, Western Research Institute, emissions. and Idaho National Laboratory. Benefits for Our Industry and Our Nation Introduction The development of an integrated WGS-MR for hydrogen The goal of process intensification is to reduce the equipment purification and carbon capture will result in fuel flexibility footprint, energy consumption, and environmental impact of as well as environmental, energy, and economic benefits. manufacturing processes. Commercialization of this technology has the potential to achieve the following: One candidate for process intensification is gasification, a common method by which hydrocarbon feedstocks such as coal, • A reduction in energy use during the separation process by biomass, and organic waste are reacted with a controlled amount replacing a conventional WGS reactor and CO2 removal system of oxygen and steam to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which with a WGS-MR and downsized CO2 removal unit is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas
    applied sciences Article A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas Timo Blumberg 1,*, Tatiana Morosuk 2 and George Tsatsaronis 2 ID 1 Department of Energy Engineering, Zentralinstitut El Gouna, Technische Universität Berlin, 13355 Berlin, Germany 2 Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] (T.M.); [email protected] (G.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-30-314-23343 Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 20 November 2017; Published: 24 November 2017 Abstract: Methanol is one of the most important feedstocks for the chemical, petrochemical, and energy industries. Abundant and widely distributed resources as well as a relative low price level make natural gas the predominant feedstock for methanol production. Indirect synthesis routes via reforming of methane suppress production from bio resources and other renewable alternatives. However, the conventional technology for the conversion of natural gas to methanol is energy intensive and costly in investment and operation. Three design cases with different reforming technologies in conjunction with an isothermal methanol reactor are investigated. Case I is equipped with steam methane reforming for a capacity of 2200 metric tons per day (MTPD). For a higher production capacity, a serial combination of steam reforming and autothermal reforming is used in Case II, while Case III deals with a parallel configuration of CO2 and steam reforming. A sensitivity analysis shows that the syngas composition significantly affects the thermodynamic performance of the plant. The design cases have exergetic efficiencies of 28.2%, 55.6% and 41.0%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Gasification
    STRATEGIC ANALYSIS The Future of Gasification By DeLome Fair coal gasification projects in the U.S. then slowed significantly, President and Chief Executive Officer, with the exception of a few that were far enough along in Synthesis Energy Systems, Inc. development to avoid being cancelled. However, during this time period and on into the early 2010s, China continued to build a large number of coal-to-chemicals projects, beginning first with ammonia, and then moving on to methanol, olefins, asification technology has experienced periods of both and a variety of other products. China’s use of coal gasification high and low growth, driven by energy and chemical technology today is by far the largest of any country. China markets and geopolitical forces, since introduced into G rapidly grew its use of coal gasification technology to feed its commercial-scale operation several decades ago. The first industrialization-driven demand for chemicals. However, as large-scale commercial application of coal gasification was China’s GDP growth has slowed, the world’s largest and most in South Africa in 1955 for the production of coal-to-liquids. consistent market for coal gasification technology has begun During the 1970s development of coal gasification was pro- to slow new builds. pelled in the U.S. by the energy crisis, which created a political climate for the country to be less reliant on foreign oil by converting domestic coal into alternative energy options. Further growth of commercial-scale coal gasification began in “Market forces in high-growth the early 1980s in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China in the coal-to-chemicals market.
    [Show full text]