Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 46

An integrated framework for comparative techno-economic evaluations of plants that convert coal and/or biomass to power and/or synthetic

liquid transportation fuels


Thomas Kreutz, Eric Larson, Guangjian Liu, Robert Williams, Robert Socolow Princeton Environmental Institute Princeton University
8th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration Pittsburgh PA, 6 May 2009

The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) at Princeton University, 2001-2015


Involves ~70 faculty members, post-docs, and students in 10 departments CMI Project Areas:
- Carbon capture (Kreutz, Larson, Liu, Socolow, Williams) - Carbon storage (Celia, Scherer, Prvost) - Carbon science (Pacala, Sarmiento, GFDL) - Carbon policy (Oppenheimer) - Integration (Socolow, Pacala, Oppenheimer)

Funding by BP: ~ 2 M$/yr


2

CMI Carbon Capture Group - PEI Energy Group


Techno-economic assessment of energy systems
- Performance modeling: Aspen Plus, Gas-Steam, GT PRO - Economic modeling: MS Excel, custom computer code

Research areas:
- Conversion of coal and/or biomass (with CCS) to:
Electricity Hydrogen Synthetic liquid transportation fuels Substitute natural gas (SNG)

- Novel technologies, e.g. H2 separation membrane reactors - Carbon policy to drive low carbon technologies - Baseload wind power via CAES

Collaborations: Politecnico di Milano, Tsinghua Univ., ECN


3

Low Carbon Electricity and Transportation


Synthetic liquid transportation fuels address:
- Energy security (domestic coal and biomass displace crude oil) - Climate change (zero- or negative-carbon fuels and power)

Other alternatives to low carbon transportation:


- H2/electricity economy (Chicken and egg hurdle, aviation) - Electrification of transportation via batteries (cost, aviation)

Institutional barriers cultural, operational, financial:


Marriage of electric power and chemical process industries High risk/reward oil industry vs. relatively staid power industry Polygeneration: operating in multiple markets Increased plant capital cost and complexity Biomass: addition of agriculture, politics of farm subsidies Food vs. fuel; carbon debt and sustainability concerns
4

Why is this Important? Why Here?


Very low cost of avoided CO2
- As in a H2 plant, CO2 capture is free in XTL plants!! - Cost of CCS is only CO2 compression, transport, & storage - Potential low cost early opportunity for CCS demo facility

XTL plants almost always win in economic dispatch


- Push old coal plants off the grid with low carbon power

Economics of power generation can be excellent


- At moderate oil prices, power from XTL can be the lowest cost route to low carbon electricity - (Reverse our traditional economic evaluation; instead, use assumed crude oil price to value liquid products, which allows calculation of LCOE)

Our Research
Seek to discover the lowest cost technologies and systems that provide environmentally-friendly:
- electricity, - transportation fuels, - heating.

Model the performance and economics of competing systems within the relevant parameter space, e.g.
- CO2 emissions price, - oil price.

Identify economically attractive systems Formulate policies that will steer society toward the environmentally favorable (but economical) solutions.
6

fuel

vehicle tailpipe

flue gases char coal

Carbon Flows for a CTL-RC-V System

coal upstream emissions

Carbon Flows for a CTL-RC-CCS System


vehicle tailpipe

coal

CO2 storage

char

coal upstream emissions

fuel

fuel

vehicle tailpipe

Carbon Flows for a CTL-OT-CCS System

CO2 storage
ele ctr icit yt

char coal

og

rid

grid electricity displaced

coal upstream emissions

biomass upstream emissions

photosynthesis

biomass fuel vehicle tailpipe flue gases char

Carbon Flows for a BTL-RC-V System

10

biomass upstream emissions

photosynthesis

biomass fuel vehicle tailpipe

Carbon Flows for a BTL-RC-CCS System

CO2 storage char

11

biomass upstream emissions

photosynthesis

biomass fuel vehicle tailpipe

Carbon Flows for a CBTL-OT-CCS System

CO2 storage
ele ctr icit yt

char coal

og

rid

grid electricity displaced


12

coal upstream emissions

Well-to-Wheels CO2 Emissions


kgCO2 equiv. / GJ liquid fuel LHV 250
CTL-RC BTL-RC

200
Vent

CBTLRC

150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150


CCS Vent Petroleum CCS
42% biomass (LHV energy input)

CCS

Vent

- Includes emissions from coal & biomass production, FTL production FTL use in vehicle

13

NAS-NRC: Americas Energy Future


Chp. 1 Objectives, Context, and Rationale Chp. 2 Technologies Shaping the Efficient Use of Energy Chp. 3 Technologies that may shape future fossil energy use
Coal Oil Natural gas

Chp. 4 Nuclear Energy Chp. 5 Alternative Fuels for Transportation


Biofuels (thermochemical & bio conversions) Coal to liquids (FTL & MTG) PHEVs and EVs H2 & other vehicle options

Chp. 6 Renewable Energy Generation Technologies Chp. 7 Electric Power Transmission & Distribution Chp. 8 Reference Scenarios
Current Track Carbon-constrained track

Chp. 9 Challenges Facing AEF


14

Gasification-Based Fuels and/or Electricity


Low value feedstocks Gasification
Oxygen

Gas Cleanup

High-Value Products
Combined Cycle Power Block

CO2 Storage
Coal Pet Coke Oil Residue Biomass Wastes
H2O SULFUR RECOVERY
Marketable Byproducts Sulfur Slag
CO, H2, H2S, H2O, CO2

Electricity Steam
Gas & Steam Turbines

FUELS Fischer Tropsch


Catalytic Synthesis

CO2 Removal WGS: CO + H2O H2 + CO2 H2S Removal

Clean (H2 + CO)

DME MeOH

MOGD

15

Princeton System Designs


Detailed Aspen Plus simulations of energy/mass balances for IGCC, FTL, MTG, and SNG. Aspen results provide the basis for capital cost estimates. Key technology components:
GE-type O2 slurry quench gasifier for coal GTI-type O2 fluid-bed gasifier + tar cracking for biomass Rectisol acid gas removal Slurry-phase low-temperature FT reactor with Fe catalyst Upgrading of crude FT to finished diesel and gasoline (detailed Bechtel design). ExxonMobil MTG process. F class gas turbine power island (for OT designs)
16

Plant Design Parameter Space


Feedstocks: Coal vs. Biomass
- CTL large scale (50,000 bbl/day) - BTL small scale (~4,400 bbl/day); limited by biomass supply - CBTL mixtures to meet environmental and economic goals

Products: Fuels vs. Power


- recycle (RC) plants maximize fuel, minimize power - IGCC power only - Once through (OT) designs significant electricity co-product

Emissions: CO2 Venting vs. CCS


- Upstream vs. downstream CO2 capture, added WGS & ATR, etc.

Miscellaneous
- Feedstock type, gasifier, synthesis reactor catalyst and design
17

Some Basic Plant Designs


CTL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS CTL-OT-V CTL-OT-CCS CTL-OTA-CCS BTL-RC-V BTL-RC-CCS CBTL-RC-V CBTL-RC-CCS CBTL-OT-V CBTL-OT-CCS Coal to FT liquids; recycle; CO2 venting Coal to FT liquids; recycle; CCS Coal to FT liquids; once-through; CO2 venting Coal to FT liquids; once-through; CCS Coal to FT liquids; once-through; ATR; CCS Biomass to FT liquids; recycle; CO2 venting Biomass to FT liquids; recycle; CCS Coal and biomass to FT liquids; recycle; CO2 venting Coal and biomass to FT liquids; recycle; CCS Coal & biomass to FT liquids; once-through; CO2 venting Coal & biomass to FT liquids; once-through; no ATR; CCS

18

Plant Analysis Parameter Space


Power:
Capital cost ($/kW) LCOE ($/MWh) Dispatch cost ($/MWh) IRR

Liquid fuels:
Capital cost ($ per bbl/day) LCOF ($/GJ LHV, $/gal gasoline equiv.) Break even crude oil price (BEOP) IRR

Key parameters:
- CO2 emissions price - Crude oil price - Other: feedstock prices, capacity factor, etc.
19

MS Excel Framework - Architecture


Separate worksheet for each plant:
- Diagram and detailed Aspen performance data - Component capital costs - Economic analysis: LCOE/F, BEOP, IRR, avoided cost of CO2

Reference worksheet (common to all plants):


Global parameters: oil price, CO2 price, $ year, capacity factors... Feedstock characteristics and prices Conversion factors and literature references Switches and gizmos

Capital cost worksheet (based on NETL 2007 Baseline) Ancillary worksheets:


- EPRI TAG financial model (for calculating CRF) - Economics of CO2 transport and storage - Summary worksheets for comparative plant analyses
20

Capital Cost Basis

21

NETL Capital Cost Example

22

Plant Component Capital Cost Scaling


S C = n Co n So
e f

C = overnight cost (OC) of plant component, S = component scale Co = OC of a single train of a reference component of size So n = the number of equally sized equipment trains operating at a capacity of 100%/n f = the cost scaling factor e (= 0.9) = cost scaling exponent for multiple trains
23

IGCC Capital Cost Model* (M$, mid-2008)


Plant component Coal and sorbent handling Coal preparation & feeding Ash handling Stand-alone ASU, N2+O2 compr. Standard gasifier, SG coolers Partial quench gasifier LT heat recovery, FG saturation COS hydrolysis Water-gas shift reactors Gas cleanup balance of plant AGR (H2S capture) AGR (H2S+CO2 capture) Claus plant CO2 compression and drying Siemens 94.3A gas turbine (GT) HRSG, ductwork, & stack Steam turbine, condenser, aux. Balance of plant Scaling parameter AR coal, tonne/day AR coal, tonne/day Coal ash, tonne/day Pure O2, tonne/day AR coal, MW LHV AR coal, MW LHV AR coal, MW LHV AR coal, MW LHV AR coal, MW LHV AR coal, MW LHV S input, tonne/day CO2 captured, tonne/hr S input, tonne/day Compressor pwr, MWe GT net power, MWe ST gross power, MWe 15.5% of TPC So 5,447 2,464 477.8 2,035 737.4 770.9 737.4 797.7 815.2 815.2 66.8 234.3 136.5 27.4 232.0 232.0 274.7 n 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 f 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.5 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Co (M$) 40.4 101.6 38.1 106.7 178.1 139.5 17.3 4.7 9.3 6.1 49.6 55.2 37.6 43.0 76.6 33.8 74.0

* Based on: Cost and Performance Comparison Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, DOE/NETL-401/053106, Final Report, May, 2007
24

Plant Construction Cost Indices

Indices normalized to equal 100 in 2000; Handy-Whitman Index specific to Steam Power Plants
25

NETL 2007 IGCC Capital Costs in Context

IGCC capital costs in 2007 NETL Power Study are higher than those in 2005 MIT Coal Report
26

Coal-to-Liquids Recycle (CTL-RC)


FTL - Breakeven Carbon Prices
30

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

25

20

15 CTL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS 10 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Early CCS opportunity at ~15 $/tonne CO2 (because CO2 capture is needed for FTL)

27

Biomass-to-Liquids Recycle (BTL-RC)


FTL - Breakeven Carbon Prices
30

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

25

20

15 BTL-RC-V CTL-RC-V 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 BTL-RC-CCS CTL-RC-CCS

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- BTL plants win at high carbon prices. BTL-RC-CCS has negative emissions.
28

Coal+Biomass-to-Liquids (CBTL-RC)
FTL - Breakeven Carbon Prices
30

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

25

20

15 BTL-RC-V CBTL-RC-V CTL-RC-V 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 BTL-RC-CCS CBTL-RC-CCS CTL-RC-CCS

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- CBTL is intermediate between CTL and BTL; some biomass needed for net zero emissions
29

FTL-Once Through (FTL-OT)


FTL - Breakeven Carbon Prices
30 CBTL-OT-V CTL-OT-V CBTL-OT-CCS CTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

25

CBTL2-OT-CCS

20

15

10 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- OT plants produce significant co-product electricity, and have the lowest FL costs
30

Coal and Biomass to Synthetic Liquids


FTL - Breakeven Carbon Prices
25

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

20

15
CTL-RC-V CB TL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS CB TL-RC-CCS B TL-RC-CCS CTL-OT-CCS CB TL-OT-CCS CB TL2-OT-CCS

10

B TL-RC-V CTL-OT-V CB TL-OT-V CTL-OTA -CCS CB TL-OTA -CCS

5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- A large and rich parameter space!
31

The Winners Circle


FTL - Breakeven Carbon Prices
25

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

20

15

CTL-OT-V 10 CBTL2-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)

- Is this a favorable outcome?

32

The Winners Circle BEOP


Oil 120 CTL-OT-V 100 CBTL2-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS 80

Break Even Crude Oil Price ($/bbl)

60

40

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GHG Emissions Price ($/tonne CO2eq)

- Conventional offshore Gulf oil is a competitor also...

33

Plant IRR (Crude Oil = 40 $/bbl)


Oil Price = 40 $/b b l

FTL - IRR - Breakeven Carbon Prices


CTL-RC-V CB TL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS CB TL-RC-CCS B TL-RC-CCS CTL-OT-CCS CB TL-OT-CCS CTG-RC-CCS CB TL-OTA S-CCS CB TL-OTS-CCS

40 35

B TL-RC-V CTL-OT-V

Internal Rate of Return (%/yr)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40

CB TL-OT-V CTG-RC-V CTL-OTA -CCS CB TL2-OT-CCS Oil

60

80

100

Carbon Tax ($/tonne CO2)


34

Plant IRR (Crude Oil = 60 $/bbl)


Oil Price = 60 $/b b l

FTL - IRR - Breakeven Carbon Prices


CTL-RC-V CB TL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS CB TL-RC-CCS B TL-RC-CCS CTL-OT-CCS CB TL-OT-CCS CTG-RC-CCS CB TL-OTA S-CCS CB TL-OTS-CCS

40 35

B TL-RC-V CTL-OT-V

Internal Rate of Return (%/yr)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40

CB TL-OT-V CTG-RC-V CTL-OTA -CCS CB TL2-OT-CCS Oil

60

80

100

Carbon Tax ($/tonne CO2)


35

Plant IRR (Crude Oil = 80 $/bbl)


Oil Price = 80 $/b b l

FTL - IRR - Breakeven Carbon Prices


CTL-RC-V CB TL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS CB TL-RC-CCS B TL-RC-CCS CTL-OT-CCS CB TL-OT-CCS CTG-RC-CCS CB TL-OTA S-CCS CB TL-OTS-CCS

40 35

B TL-RC-V CTL-OT-V

Internal Rate of Return (%/yr)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40

CB TL-OT-V CTG-RC-V CTL-OTA -CCS CB TL2-OT-CCS Oil

60

80

100

Carbon Tax ($/tonne CO2)


36

Plant IRR (Crude Oil = 100 $/bbl)


Oil Price = 100 $/bbl

FTL - IRR - Breakeven Carbon Prices

40 35

Internal Rate of Return (%/yr)

30 25 20
CTL-RC-V CBTL-RC-V CTL-RC-CCS CBTL-RC-CCS BTL-RC-CCS CTL-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS CTG-RC-CCS CBTL-OTAS-CCS CBTL-OTS-CCS

15 10 5 0 0 20 40

BTL-RC-V CTL-OT-V CBTL-OT-V CTG-RC-V CTL-OTA-CCS CBTL2-OT-CCS Oil

60

80

100

Carbon Tax ($/tonne CO2)


37

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal


16

14

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Now, add enough biomass to yield net zero GHG emissions...
38

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18 CTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CBTL-OT-CCS 16

CBTL-OT-CCS 38% biomass

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal

14

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Other coal-biomass combinations are possible...
39

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18 CTL-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CBTL2-OT-CCS 16

CBTL-OT-CCS 38% biomass

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal

14

CBTL2-OT-CCS 9% biomass

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Assume that the average price paid to generators rises with the average grid emission rate
40

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18 CTL-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CBTL3-OT-CCS 16

CBTL-OT-CCS 38% biomass

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal

14

CBTL3-OT-CCS 15% biomass

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Assume that the average price paid to generators rises with the average grid emission rate
41

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18 CTL-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CBTL4-OT-CCS 16

CBTL-OT-CCS 38% biomass

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal

14

CBTL4-OT-CCS 20% biomass

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Assume that the average price paid to generators rises with the average grid emission rate
42

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18 CTL-OT-CCS CBTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CBTL5-OT-CCS 16

CBTL-OT-CCS 38% biomass

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal

14

CBTL5-OT-CCS 30% biomass

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Assume that the average price paid to generators rises with the average grid emission rate
43

Combining Plants: Coal + Biomass


18 CTL-OT-CCS

Levelized FTL price ($/GJ, LHV)

CBTL-OT-CCS 16

CBTL-OT-CCS 38% biomass

CTL-OT-CCS 100% coal

14

Overall "U" shape

12 0 20 40 60 80 100

Carbon Price ($/tonne CO2)


- Assume that the average price paid to generators rises with the average grid emission rate
44

Preferred FTL and Power Plants

Old data - As carbon price rises, biomass becomes increasingly desirable.


45

Future Work
Add coal+biomass to SNG
- Heating sector

Add other baseload power technologies


- Low rank coal - Nuclear - Renewable energy with electricity storage

Put this framework on the web


- Allow uses to add their own cases, parameters, etc.

Any Ideas?

46