DOCSLIB.ORG

Ammonia Production: Gas to Ammonia to EOR Or Sequestration Natural Urea Gas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ammonia Production: Gas to Ammonia to EOR Or Sequestration Natural Urea Gas Next Generation Nuclear Plant Industrial Process Heat Applications and Economics Dr. Michael G. McKellar [email protected] 01 208 526-1346 Technical and Economic Assessment of Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear, NEA/IAEA Expert Workshop Paris, France, April 5, 2013 www.inl.gov Outline • Objectives • Advantages of HTGR Process Heat • Assumptions • Process Heat Applications • Hybrid Energy Systems • Conclusions 1 Objectives • The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project, led by Idaho National Laboratory, is part of a nationwide effort under the direction of the U.S. Department of Energy to address a national strategic need identified in the Energy Policy Act of 2005—to promote the use of nuclear energy and establish a technology for hydrogen and electricity production that is free of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • This presentation is a summary of analyses performed by the NGNP project to determine whether it is technically and economically feasible to integrate high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology into industrial processes. 2 Advantages of HTGR High-Temperature Process Heat • Reducing CO2 emissions by replacing the heat derived from burning fossil fuels, as practiced by a wide range of chemical and petrochemical processes, and co-generating electricity, steam, and hydrogen. • Generating electricity at higher efficiencies than are possible with current nuclear power generation technology • Providing a secure long-term domestic energy supply and reducing reliance on offshore energy sources • Producing synthetic transportation fuels with lower life cycle, well-to- wheel (WTW) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than fuels derived from conventional synthetic fuel production processes and similar or lower WTW GHG emissions than fuels refined from crude oil 3 Advantages of HTGR High-Temperature Process Heat • Producing energy at a stable long-term cost that is relatively unaffected by volatile fossil fuel prices and a potential carbon tax, a price set on GHG emissions • Extending the availability of natural resources for uses other than a source of heat, such as a petrochemical feedstock • Providing benefits to the national economy such as more near-term jobs to build multiple plants, more long-term jobs to operate the plants, and a reinvigorated heavy manufacturing sector. 4 Assumptions: Process Models • No heat loss in piping between HTGRs and process applications except with SAGD • Natural gas composition based on information published by Northwest Gas Association • Natural gas standard volume flow: 15.56°C (60°F) • Ambient inlet water temperature: 15.56°C (60°F) • Ambient inlet air temperature: 21.11°C (70°F) • Ambient pressure: Sea level (1 atmosphere absolute) • High-efficiency compressors and turbines: 80– 90% efficient • Steam generators: 25°C minimum temperature approach • Process heat exchangers: 10°C minimum temperature approach (except when demonstrated industrial experience indicates differently) • Intermediate heat exchanger: 25°C minimum approach temperature 5 Outputs and Assumptions: HTGR-Integrated Technology • Energy products: electricity, process heat, and/or hydrogen • Power generation efficiency: 41–48% (calculated) • Temperature Difference across core ~ 375°C to 400°C • Heat output: 600 MW(t) • Primary circulator: 80% efficient 6 Assumptions: Economic Analyses • Plant economic life: 30 years (excludes construction time) • Construction period – Fossil plant: Three years – HTGR plant: Three years per reactor with 6 months stagger between reactor • Start-up assumptions for “nth-of-a-kind” HTGR – Operating costs: 120% of estimated operating costs – Revenues: 65% of estimated revenue • Plant availability: 90% • Internal rate of return (IRR): 12% • Inflation rate: 3% • Interest rate on debt: 8% • Repayment term: 15 years • Reactor capital cost assumptions for HTGR modules: – $2,000/kW(t) for plants with one or two modules – $1,400/kW(t) for plants with three or more modules 7 Assumptions: Economic Analyses • Tax basis assumptions – Effective U.S. income tax rate: 38.9% – U.S. state tax: 6% – U.S. federal tax: 35% • MACRS depreciation: 15-year plant life • Simplified business model in which a single entity owns and operates the industrial and associated HTGR plants 8 High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors – Application Beyond Electricity Reactor Temperature Range Covering Applications Evaluated To-date Up to 850°C High Temperature Reactors can provide energy production that supports wide spectrum of industrial applications including the petrochemical and petroleum industries Power Production 10 Hydrogen Production: High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Natural Gas Natural Natural Gas Gas Water Sulfur Steam Removal System Water Plant Water Exhaust Cooling Steam Water Towers Treatment Natural Water Gas Water Shift & Syngas Reformer H -Rich Syngas H 2 Conditioning 2 Exhaust CO2 11 Hydrogen Production: High Temperature Steam Electrolysis 12 Coal to Gasoline Production N2 Gasoline Air Air Separation DME Synthesis DME Synthesis Crude Crude O MTG 2 MeOH Products Coal Milling & Methanol Gasoline Coal Coal Gasification Syngas Gasoline Drying Synthesis Purification Light Fuel LPG Slag Gas Sour Gas CO Sulfur Plant CO 2 CO 2 Compression 2 Nuclear Heat Nuclear Power for Tail for Electrolysis Electrolysis and General Plant Support Gas (700°C) Gas Compression Power Water Cooling Sulfur Production Treatment Towers HT Steam H O 2 Electrolysis O2 & H2 General Plant Support Gasoline Light Fuel DME Synthesis DME Gas for Synthesis Power Water Cooling Topping Heat Production Treatment Towers Crude Crude MeOH MTG Products Coal Milling & Methanol Gasoline Coal Coal Gasification Syngas Gasoline Drying Synthesis Purification Nuclear Power Nuclear Power for for Syngas H2S Removal LPG Slag Compressors Sour Gas CO2 Sulfur Plant CO2 CO2 Tail Compression Gas Sulfur Nuclear Power for CO2 Compressors Nuclear Heat Integration 13 Nuclear Power Integration Coal to Gasoline Production 14 Gas to Gasoline Production N2 Gasoline DME Synthesis DME Synthesis Air Air Separation O2 Crude Crude Steam MTG MeOH Products Natural Sulfur Natural Natural Gas Methanol Gasoline Syngas Gasoline Gas Removal Gas Reforming Synthesis Purification General Plant Support LPG Nuclear Power Water Cooling Power for Production Treatment Towers Light Fuel Gas ASU and Gas N2 Compression General Plant Support Gasoline DME Synthesis DME Synthesis Power Water Cooling Air Air Separation O2 Production Treatment Towers Crude Crude Exhaust MTG MeOH Products Natural Sulfur Natural Natural Gas Methanol Gasoline Syngas Gasoline Gas Removal Gas Reforming Synthesis Purification Nuclear Power for Syngas Steam LPG Compressors Nuclear Heat for Reforming Fuel Gas (700°C) Nuclear Heat Integration 15 Nuclear Power Integration Gas to Gasoline Production 16 Coal to Diesel Production Plant Cooling Water Towers Treatment HRSG Exhaust Power Air Air Separation O 2 Production Tail Tail Gas Gas N2 Gasification & Product LPG Coal Milling & Syngas Fischer-Tropsch FT Coal Coal Syngas Upgrading & Naphtha Drying Cleaning & Synthesis Liquids Refining Conditioning Diesel CO2 Slag Sulfur Plant Sour Gas (Claus) and CO2 Sulfur CO2 CO2 Tailgas Sulfur Tail Compression Reduction Gas HTGR HTGR Plant Power Cooling 850°C ROT 700°C ROT Water Production Towers Heat Generation Power Gen. Treatment Nuclear Heat (He 825°C) He Return High Power Temperature Tail Gas H O O & H 2 Electrolysis 2 2 Recycle Units Tail Gas Coal Gasification & Product LPG Coal Milling & Fischer-Tropsch FT Coal Syngas Syngas Upgrading & Naphtha Drying Synthesis Liquids Air Conditioning Refining Diesel CO2 CO2 Slag Recycle Sulfur Plant Sour Gas (Claus) and CO Sulfur CO 2 Nuclear Heat Integration Tailgas Sulfur 2 Compression Reduction Tail Gas Nuclear Power Integration 17 Coal to Diesel Production 18 Gas to Diesel Production N2 Tail Gas Air Air Separation O 2 Recycle Tail Tail Gas Gas Preforming & Product LPG Natural Sulfur Gas Fischer-Tropsch FT Autothermal Syngas Upgrading & Naphtha Gas Removal Mix Synthesis Liquids Reforming Refining Diesel Steam Plant Power Cooling Water Production Towers Treatment N2 Nuclear Heat Integration Air Air Separation O2 Tail Gas Recycle Tail Gas Gas CO2 Removal, LPG Mix Preforming & Product Natural Hydrotreating Fischer-Tropsch FT Autothermal Syngas Upgrade & Naphtha Gas and Sulfur Synthesis Liquids Reforming Refining Removal Hot He Diesel Steam Plant Nuclear Heat Hot He Water (He 675°C) Treatment HTGR Power Cooling 850°C ROT Production Towers Heat Generation He Return 19 Gas to Diesel Production 20 Ammonia Production: Gas to Ammonia To EOR or Sequestration Natural Urea Gas CO2 Urea To UAN-32 CO2 Urea Natural Synthesis Synthesis Gas CO2 Stack Water Gas Natural NH3 Sulfur Gas Removal Syngas Ammonia Syngas NH Conditioning Synthesis 3 Ammonium Nitrate Natural Gas NH NH Fuel Gas 3 3 Ammonium Air Nitrate Exhaust Primary Reformer Ammonium Syngas General Plant Nitric Acid Nitric General Plant Support Steam Water Nitrate Nuclear Heat for Support Synthesis Acid Synthesis Natural Gas Preheat To EOR or Water Power Cooling (> 350°C) Sequestration Syngas Treatment Production Towers Power Nitric Nuclear Power for Production Acid CO2 Compressors CO2 Secondary Air CO2 Reformer Urea Synthesis Water Cooling Natural To UAN-32 Nuclear Power for Urea Treatment Towers Gas Synthesis CO2 Urea Granulator Stack Water Fans Gas Urea NH Sulfur 3 Removal Syngas Ammonia Syngas NH Conditioning Synthesis 3 Ammonium Air Nitrate Natural Gas NH NH Fuel Gas 3 3 Ammonium Nuclear Power for Nitrate Exhaust Ammonia Synthesis Primary Compressors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Techno-Economic Analysis of Synthetic Fuels Pathways Integrated with Light Water Reactors
    INL/EXT-20-59775 Revision 0 Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Techno-Economic Analysis of Synthetic Fuels Pathways Integrated with Light Water Reactors September 2020 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed 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. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/EXT-20-59775 Revision 0 Techno-Economic Analysis of Synthetic Fuels Pathways Integrated with Light Water Reactors L. Todd Knighton, Daniel S. Wendt (INL) Lesley Snowden-Swan, Jeromy Jenks, Shuyun Li, Steven Phillips, and Jalal Askander (PNNL) September 2020 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Page intentionally left blank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Synthetic fuels (synfuels) and chemicals (synchems) are produced by synthesis from chemical building blocks rather than by conventional petroleum refining. Synthesis gas or syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen) is a common intermediate building block in the production of synfuels and synchems.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels
    COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SEMI-SYNTHETIC JET FUELS FINAL REPORT Prepared for Coordinating Research Council, Inc. 3650 Mansell Road, Suite 140 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Universal Technology Corporation 1270 North Fairfield Road Dayton, OH 4432 Prepared by Clifford A. Moses Consultant New Braunfels, Texas CRC Project No. AV-2-04a Funded by U.S. Air Force Research Laboratories Contract F33415-02-D-2299 through Universal Technology Corporation September 2008 This page intentionally left blank for back-to-back printing COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SEMI­SYNTHETIC JET FUELS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report compares the properties and characteristics of five blends of individual synthetic paraffinic kerosenes with petroleum-based Jet A, Jet A-1 or JP-8 fuel to make semi-synthetic jet fuels (SSJF). The study was requested by the aviation fuel community to provide technical support for the acceptance of synthetic paraffinic kerosenes (SPK) derived from synthesis gas as blending streams up to 50%(v) in fuel specifications for aviation turbine fuel. The methodology for comparison was to be the properties and characteristics used in the original evaluation of the Sasol semi-synthetic jet fuel (SSJF) which has experienced 9 years of successful service since it was approved for use as commercial jet fuel by DEF STAN 91-91 in 1998. The SPK used by Sasol in the original SSJF was produced by a Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process using synthesis gas derived from coal. The synthesis gases for the four new candidates were produced from natural gas. The details of the F-T process conditions and the downstream processing differed among the five SPK fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • Secure Fuels from Domestic Resources ______Profiles of Companies Engaged in Domestic Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource and Technology Development
    5th Edition Secure Fuels from Domestic Resources ______________________________________________________________________________ Profiles of Companies Engaged in Domestic Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource and Technology Development Prepared by INTEK, Inc. For the U.S. Department of Energy • Office of Petroleum Reserves Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Fifth Edition: September 2011 Note to Readers Regarding the Revised Edition (September 2011) This report was originally prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy in June 2007. The report and its contents have since been revised and updated to reflect changes and progress that have occurred in the domestic oil shale and tar sands industries since the first release and to include profiles of additional companies engaged in oil shale and tar sands resource and technology development. Each of the companies profiled in the original report has been extended the opportunity to update its profile to reflect progress, current activities and future plans. Acknowledgements This report was prepared by INTEK, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Petroleum Reserves, Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (DOE/NPOSR) as a part of the AOC Petroleum Support Services, LLC (AOC- PSS) Contract Number DE-FE0000175 (Task 30). Mr. Khosrow Biglarbigi of INTEK, Inc. served as the Project Manager. AOC-PSS and INTEK, Inc. wish to acknowledge the efforts of representatives of the companies that provided information, drafted revised or reviewed company profiles, or addressed technical issues associated with their companies, technologies, and project efforts. Special recognition is also due to those who directly performed the work on this report. Mr. Peter M. Crawford, Director at INTEK, Inc., served as the principal author of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Verification of Shell GTL Fuel As CARB Alternative Diesel
    Verification of Shell GTL Fuel as CARB Alternative Diesel Ralph A. Cherrillo, Mary Ann Dahlstrom, Anne T. Coleman – Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. Richard H. Clark – Shell Global Solutions (UK) COPYRIGHT @ 2007 Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. Outline • Introduction Future Fuel Demand GTL as a Future Fuel • GTL Demonstrations CARB Verification Testing Fleet Tests • GTL Outlook 2 Future Fuel Demand A Forecast of Global Automotive Fuel Demand Energy Demand （x1018 J ） ¾Significant uncertainty in Hydrogen Gaseous plateau of ‘conventional Fuels oil mountain’ 300 Gas Electricity 250 ¾Increased environmental pressures 200 Synthetic fuel and biofuels ¾Plethora of potential 150 Liquid vehicle-fuel solutions Fuels 100 Diesel / Gasoline ¾Common denominator ought to be cost 50 Heavy Oil effectiveness. 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 （Source： a WEC scenario） 3 GTL Fuel –Synthetic and Alternative Fuel GTL Fuel is one class of Synthetic fuels, which refers to liquids from: gas (GTL) coal (CTL) biomass (BTL) waste (WTL) Alternative Fuels comprise synthetic fuels, biofuels, and fuels such as water-fuel emulsions, ethanol-diesel blends 4 What is Gas to Liquids? GTL is a process that converts natural gas to clean fuels and high quality products via the Fischer-Tropsch process CO + 2H2 –(CH2)n – Natural Syngas Syngas Synthesis Hydrocracking • LPG Manufacture Synthesis Hydrocracking Gas Manufacture • Condensate CH4 • Naphtha • Gasoil • Base oils • Chemicals O H2O O22 Shell’s proprietary process: Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis (SMDS) 5 Why -- Shell GTL Fuel ¾ Strategic diversification of energy supply ¾ Compatible with existing infrastructure ¾ GTL provides a bridge to Biomass to Liquids and Coal to Liquids technologies ¾ Life cycle analysis: GTL vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Shale Tracing Federal Support for Oil Shale Development in the U.S
    SUBSIDIZING OIL SHALE TRACING FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN THE U.S. www.taxpayer.net OIL SHALE SPECIMEN. Image Courtesy of United States Geological Survey OIL SHALE SPECIMEN. Image Courtesy of United States Geological Survey lthough the oil shale industry is still in reserves were created to ensure a military oil supply. its commercial infancy, it has a long his- In response, the Bureau of Mines program began A tory of government support that continues research into exploiting oil shale technology and in today. The Bureau of Land Management recently the 1960s private industry followed. But significant issued two new research, development and demon- action was limited until the 1970s, when in response stration leases and new federal regulations for com- to the gas shortages Congress intervened in oil shale mercial leases and royalty rates are expected any day. development, in hopes of creating a domestic fuel Before the federal government goes down that road alternative. Their unsuccessful attempt to spur large- it’s important to take a look back and ask whether we scale commercial development of oil shale and other should be throwing good money after bad. unconventional fossil fuels became a notorious waste Oil shale, or kerogen shale, is a sedimentary rock of federal funds. that contains liquid hydrocarbons that are released Since then federal support has continued in vari- when heated. Considered an oil precursor, kerogen ous forms. Although not a key part of the overall is fossil organic matter that has not had exposure energy policy agenda, federal subsidies continue to to high enough temperatures or been in the ground appear in legislation and administrative actions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of E-Fuels in the Transport System in Europe (2030–2050) (Literature Review)
    A look into the role of e-fuels in the transport system in Europe (2030–2050) (literature review) Introduction As part of Concawe’s Low Carbon Pathways project, this In December 2015, Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change convened article presents a literature in Paris for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21). The conference was an important step towards review on e-fuels, which aims to addressing the risks posed by climate change through an agreement to keep the global temperature build a better understanding of increase ‘well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’ and drive efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre- e-fuel production technologies industrial levels. To achieve these goals, the European Union (EU) is exploring different mid-century and implications in terms of scenarios leading to a low-carbon EU economy by 2050. efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, technology readiness level, environmental impact, In line with the EU’s low-emissions strategy, Concawe’s cross-sectoral Low Carbon Pathways (LCP) investment, costs and potential programme is exploring opportunities and challenges presented by different low-carbon technologies to demand. It is a summary of the achieve a significant reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with both the manufacture exhaustive literature review and use of refined products in Europe over the medium (2030) and longer term (2050). which is due to be published by the end of 2019. In the scenarios considered by the Commission (P2X, COMBO, 1.5 TECH and 1.5 LIFE) e-fuels are presented as a potential cost-effective technology that could be used to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • CO2-Based Synthetic Fuel: Assessment of Potential European Capacity and Environmental Performance
    CO2-Based Synthetic Fuel: Assessment of Potential European Capacity and Environmental Performance Authors: Adam Christensen, Ph.D. Chelsea Petrenko, Ph.D. Copyright c 2017 This research was funded by European Climate Foundation and the International Council on Clean Trans- portation Final release, November 14, 2017 ii Contents 1 Executive Summary1 2 CO2-based synthetic fuels: Introduction6 2.1 Study Objectives........................................7 2.2 Scenarios............................................8 3 Economic Evaluation9 3.1 Basic Operation.........................................9 3.2 Methodology.......................................... 10 3.3 Literature Review........................................ 10 3.4 Financial Model......................................... 12 3.4.1 Fundamental Economic Parameters.......................... 12 3.4.2 Capital Costs...................................... 12 3.4.3 Feedstock Prices.................................... 14 Electricity........................................ 14 CO2 ........................................... 15 3.4.4 Exogenous Market Prices............................... 15 Diesel Fuel....................................... 15 3.4.5 Deployment....................................... 16 3.5 Results.............................................. 16 3.5.1 Policy Scenario 1.................................... 17 3.5.2 Policy Scenario 2.................................... 17 3.5.3 Policy Scenario 3.................................... 19 3.5.4 Policy Scenario 4...................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fisher–Tropsh Synthesis Technology Evolution - Anna Matuszewska Et Al
    IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Recent citations Fisher–Tropsh synthesis technology evolution - Anna Matuszewska et al To cite this article: N I Loseva et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 663 012067 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 170.106.40.40 on 25/09/2021 at 21:27 ETSaP 2019 IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 663 (2019) 012067 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/663/1/012067 Fisher–Tropsh synthesis technology evolution N I Loseva, I I Niyazbakiev and A V Silman Tyumen Industrial University, 38, Volodarsky St., Tyumen, 625000, Russia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. the article considers the development stages of technologies for producing hydrocarbons based on syngas. XTL technology is based on the Fischer–Tropsch process. Carbon-containing substances in any aggregate state can be used as a raw material of XTL technology, which will affect the chemistry and process parameters. Currently, interest in these technologies has increased in connection with the advent of scientific and technological innovations. The latest generation of XTL technology has already entered the industrial production phase. The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of XTL technology of different generations, the main indicators of which were the state of raw materials, the type of reactor devices, the chemical composition of the catalytic systems and the resulting product. The advantages of the technology proposed by INFRA Technology Company involving an innovative reactor design for a high-performance multifunctional catalyst, are shown.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues
    INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as CHILD POLICY a public service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION Jump down to document ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research NATIONAL SECURITY organization providing objective analysis and POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY effective solutions that address the challenges facing SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY the public and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND Support RAND INFRASTRUCTURE Purchase this document WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues James T. Bartis, Tom LaTourrette, Lloyd Dixon, D.J. Peterson, Gary Cecchine Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy The research described in this report was conducted within RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (ISE), a division of the RAND Corporation, for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Issues of Synthetic Transportation Fuels from Coal
    Environmental Issues of Synthetic Transportation Fuels From Coal December 1982 NTIS order #PB83-161919 — — Preface This volume contains papers written for OTA to assist in preparation of the report Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil /reports. OTA does not endorse these papers. in several instances, the OTA report reaches somewhat different conclusions because of additional information which was obtained later. These papers, however, may prove valuable for readers needing more detailed or specific information than could be accommodated in the final assessment report, and are being made available for such purposes. —. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF SYNTHETIC TRANSPORTATION FUELS FROM COAL SUMMARY REPORT by Michael A. Chartock Michael D. Devine Martin R. Cines Martha W. Gilliland Steven C. Ballard Science and Public Policy Program University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Submitted to Energy Office Office of Technology Assessment Contract No. 033-4840.0 May 1981 — PREFACE AND DISCLAIMER This Summary Report on Environmental Issues of Synthetic Trans- portation Fuels from Coal was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of the Science and Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma, under contract with the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Martha W. Gilliland, Executive Director, Energy Policy Studies, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, is a subcontractor con- tributing to the overall report. This summary is based on materi- als presented in a Background Report which is available separately. The analyses and conclusions presented in these reports do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Technology Assessment or the University of Oklahoma and are the sole responsibility of the authors. i ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF SYNTHETIC TRANSPORTATION FUELS FROM COAL SUMMARY REPORT Page INTRODUCTION .
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Synthetic Fuels
    IASS FACT SHEET 1/2014 Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) Potsdam, April 2014 Sustainable Synthetic Fuels Michele Ferrari, Alberto Varone, Stefan Stückrad, Robin J. White The extensive use of fossil hydrocarbons and their derived products in the energy, transport and petrochemical sectors is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and ties our society to ever dwindling reserves. In this context, synthetic fuels represent alternative energy carriers (and in some cases raw materials) that could be easily integrated into existing systems. Based on “Power-to-Gas (PtG)” and “Power-to-Liquid (PtL)” schemes that convert intermittent green power to chemical energy, these synthetic fuels could play a crucial role in establishing carbon neutral energy provision, importantly based on CO2 recycling. Renewable power Total energy Losses Electrolysis and Synthesis Electric PtG PtL Load Losses Figure 1: Final energy carrier mix in a RES/renewable fuels scenario with extensive use of electrolysis and SOECs in particular (adapted from an original illustration from the German Federal Environment Agency). Sustainable Synthetic Fuels What are sustainable synthetic fuels? value of CO2 will be dramatically increased, trans- forming it from an economic and environmental lia- Sustainable synthetic fuels are liquid or gaseous energy bility to a future energy carrier. Air capture is particu- carriers that are produced using renewable inputs larly relevant, as it has the potential to mitigate instead of fossil feedstocks. They are hydrocarbon atmospheric GHG concentrations. compounds that share the same chemical composition as conventional fuels like gasoline, and as such repre- The fuel synthesis process can be powered by sent convenient substitutes to oil, coal, natural gas and renewable energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis As the Key for Decentralized Sustainable Kerosene Production †
    energies Article Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis as the Key for Decentralized Sustainable Kerosene Production † Andreas Meurer * and Jürgen Kern Department of Energy Systems Analysis, Institute of Networked Energy Systems, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Curiestraße 4, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-711-6862-8100 † This paper is an extended version of our conference paper from 15th SDEWES Conference, Cologne, Germany, 1–5 September 2020. Abstract: Synthetic fuels play an important role in the defossilization of future aviation transport. To reduce the ecological impact of remote airports due to the long-range transportation of kerosene, decentralized on-site production of synthetic paraffinic kerosene is applicable, preferably as a near- drop-in fuel or, alternatively, as a blend. One possible solution for such a production of synthetic kerosene is the power-to-liquid process. We describe the basic development of a simplified plant layout addressing the specific challenges of decentralized kerosene production that differs from most of the current approaches for infrastructural well-connected regions. The decisive influence of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis on the power-to-liquid (PtL) process is shown by means of a steady-state reactor model, which was developed in Python and serves as a basis for the further development of a modular environment able to represent entire process chains. The reactor model is based on reaction kinetics according to the current literature. The effects of adjustments of the main operation parameters on the reactor behavior were evaluated, and the impacts on the up- and downstream Citation: Meurer, A.; Kern, J.
    [Show full text]