Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Modeling and economic evaluation of the integration of carbon capture

and storage technologies into coal to liquids plants
Claudia Bassano , Paolo Deiana, Giuseppe Girardi
ENEA, Italian Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s
 Analysis of a technical and economic feasibility of a CTL plant with CCS.
 The analysis evaluates different scenarios using Aspen Plus software.
 CTL investment results in good economic performance for growing crude oil prices.
 With oil price near to $98/bbl is possible to reach IRR value close to 20%.
 For $28/tCO2 allowance price CCS becomes less costly than paying all CO2 emitted.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 September 2012
Received in revised form 14 March 2013
Accepted 1 May 2013
Available online 10 June 2013
Keywords:
Coal to liquids
Carbon capture and storage
CO2

a b s t r a c t
This paper analyzes the technical and economic feasibility of the integration of FischerTropsch process
based Coal to Liquid (CTL) plants with Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies (CCS). CTL plants could
be multipurpose, and for this reason, starting from coal can produce different energy products like liquid
fuels, such as diesel and gasoline, chemicals, electricity and hydrogen. Different plant congurations are
possible especially in the case of integration with CCS technologies. Obviously, the choice of the optimal
process conguration is one that better meets technical and economical requirements. In order to make a
rst assessment, a screening of suitable technologies has been made. The CTL facility study here proposed
is based on commercial coal gasication and FischerTropsch technologies. The system conguration
selected and the plant performance has been evaluated using Aspen Plus software. The plant size considered is about 10,000 bbl/d of liquid fuel products, equivalent to a consumption of about 4500 ton/d of coal
fed to the gasication island. The declared objective is to evaluate the potential of the identied plant and
to perform a rst economic evaluation. The ultimate goal is to determine the specic cost of produced
liquid fuels and to evaluate the economic performance of the system. The economic analysis was done
to estimate the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), the payback period and the net present value for congurations with CCS or without CO2 capture. Results shows that the CCS introduction in CTL plants has a
lighter impact on plant costs and performance since CO2 capture it is already included in the base plant.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Currently, there is considerable interest in coal conversion
technologies, also dened by the acronym CTL. In fact, their
use, in particular in countries with large coal resources, such as
China, United States, South Africa and India, enables to reduce
dependence on oil prices by replacing conventional fuels with
fuels derived from coal.
A crisis of availability of oil and an increase in its price can open
up a renewed interest in coal and its conversion to liquid fuels. CTL
technologies refer to different processes. Starting from CO and H2

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0630484423; fax: +39 0630484811.

E-mail address: claudia.bassano@enea.it (C. Bassano).
0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.05.008

contained in the syngas coming from coal gasication a wide range

of products can be produced. Basic technologies have already been
developed, but require innovation, especially in relation to types
and characteristics of different feeds.
The heart of a coal indirect liquefaction plant is into the FT
synthesis section, namely the reactor and its operating
conditions.
This process, allows the production of a wide range of liquid
hydrocarbons through the hydrogenation of CO. The raw products
obtained are then subjected to an upgrade process that leads to the
production of diesel, gasoline and other fuels. Because the synthesis gas is deeply puried the obtained liquid fuels are free from sulfur and aromatic compounds.
There can be different congurations of the entire process. In
general, two basic sets of processes are designed:

851

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

Nomenclature

g
a

efciency
chain growth probability

Wn

Full FT conversion, aimed at maximizing liquid production. In

this case the product gases are partially recirculated to the
reactor.
Once through FT conversion, the syngas ows once through the
synthesis reactor.
In either set of designs, the product gases provide fuel for the
power island, where net power is generated for export to the grid
after meeting onsite power needs.
Generally different issues can make competitive CTL technologies: one is the reduction of capital costs related to the section of
production of syngas, another is the improving of energy efciency
achieved through the integration of internal heat production and
use, nally the adoption of a poly-generation conguration can
make the difference.

1.1. Objectives
The main objective of this work is to evaluate the technical and
economic feasibility of a Sulcis Coal fed CTL plant also implemented with Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies (CCS).
The choice of the process conguration is the one that better meets
technical and economical requirements. In order to make a rst
step analysis, a suitable technology was proposed. The CTL facility
studied is based on commercial coal gasication and FischerTropsch technologies currently in use worldwide [12]. A general
scheme of the main blocks of the CTL process and possible variation is shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, while CTL plants are considered commercial, best
practices for the use of new technologies have yet to be ascertained
and signicant improvements can be realized during systems
integration.
Another important aim of the work is the integration, within
the identied conguration, of the different sections of the plant
through the adoption of solutions that ensure the highest values

air

mass fraction of the hydrocarbons containing n carbon

molecules

of energy efciency and lower costs [3]. In addition, this analysis

was developed under the recent legal framework established by
the European Directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide
(Directive 2009/31/EC) and revised emission trading Directive
(Directive 2009/29/EC).
In this framework the work is addressed to evaluate the feasibility of a CTL poly-generation plant to be realized in the Sardinia
Sulcis area (Italy) at mine mouth. The proposed plant will be
equipped with CCS technologies while the CO2 captured will be
compressed, transported and stored in unminable coal seams and
underlying aquifers taking advantage of the availability of cheap
local low rank Sulcis coal.

2. General system description

The system conguration selected has been evaluated using Aspen Plus software. The results of the plant performance analysis
were also used as inputs for the economic model. The considered
plant size is ranged in about 10,000 bbl/d of liquid fuel products,
which is equivalent to a consumption of about 4500 ton/d of coal
fed to the plant. This value is strongly related to the local availability of Sardinian Sulcis coal, estimated at economic conditions in the
quantity of about 1 Mton/y. The plant conguration has been chosen by taking into account the integration of various process
blocks. Two process congurations were considered: one indicated
as a base case with co-production of liquid fuels and electric
power; the second indicated as CCS case, characterized by the
same type of production integrated with CO2 compression and
storage implemented in the aquifers below the coal basin. Fig. 1
shows a simplied process ow diagram representing the two
cases considered in this study. Only a CO2 pre-combustion capture
has been applied. No CO2 removal step, with post combustion technologies, downstream of the boiler and of the power section has
been applied, to avoid reducing of the performance and the
increasing of installation costs.

air

CO2
to vent

CO2
to storage

ASU
O2

CO2
COMPRESSION

ASU

raw
syngas

O2

AGR

GASIFIER

raw
syngas

FT product
FT REACTOR

coal

Tail gas

O2

ATR

FT product
AGR

GASIFIER

FT REACTOR

coal

Tail gas

REFINING

O2

ATR

REFINING

naphtha
CO2
to vent

naphtha

CO2
to vent
diesel

BOILER

diesel

POWER
BLOCK

BOILER

coal

CO2
to vent

CO2
to vent
POWER
BLOCK

coal

Electric
Power
steam

Electric
Power
steam

(a) base case

(b) CCS case

Fig. 1. General scheme of the proposed CTL plant.

852

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

In both cases the conguration considers recycling of unconverted gas in the FischerTropsch synthesis reactor to maximize
the liquid fuel production. The recycle system is the focus of the
most current FischerTropsch commercial technologies [4]. Therefore a co-production conguration was analyzed in this study. CTL
plants are capital intensive and for small scale facilities the revenue
generated by electricity sold to the grid can charge part of the costs
decreasing the specic cost of liquid fuel product. Obviously, the
economic performance of a co-production plant depends on the local selling price of electricity. As a rst step approach we studied a
conguration that provides 50% of tail gas recirculation in order to
cover electric auxiliaries and sell the energy surplus to the grid.
3. System modeling methodology and results
Mass and energy balances give the basic information needed to
estimate the cost of the most relevant plant sections. Particular
attention was paid to the heat integration between the plant sections to improve thermal efciency. To evaluate the performance
of a chosen conguration, one general ow sheet was built in Aspen Plus. A brief description of the major equipment included in
the facility design and the Aspen Plus assumptions used in modeling follows.
3.1. Gasication section
Coal is prepared by milling, grinding and drying operations. The
solid fuel is fed to the gasier where its reacts with steam and oxygen to generate a syngas, mainly constituted by CO, H2 and CO2.
Different gasication technologies are available and the reactor
types can be grouped into three categories: moving-bed, uidbed and entrained-ow gasiers [5]. The biggest operators for
the large-scale production of liquids from coal currently use moving bed units [1]. Consequently, a FDBD Fixed Bed Dry Bottom type
has been chosen for the studied facility.
The advantage of this type of gasiers is particularly suitable for
bituminous coals that have a high content of volatile compounds
and high ash-melting point. The majority of commercial FDBD gasiers operate at pressures in the range of 2530 bar. Fixed and
moving bed gasiers require low amounts of oxygen because of
the high energy efciency of the reactor. They require, however,
a signicant amount of steam in order to moderate the temperature. Part of the steam is generated by the gasier water jacket.
Normally, such a cooling system allows the production of about
10% of the steam required for the process.
The gasier system has not been modeled in detail. Estimates of
gas composition is base on experience gained into our pilot plants,
while performance and utilities consumption have been taken
from literature [5]. Table 1 summarizes the assumptions adopted

Table 1
Assuming operating condition and syngas composition of the gasier.
Feed components per 1000 Nm3 of syngas (CO + H2)
Type of coal
Coal (kg)
Steam (kg)
Oxygen (Nm3)

Bituminous/Sulcis
750
1930
280

Raw gas composition

H2
CO
CO2
CH4
H2S + COS
CnHm
N2

% mol. (dry basis)

42.3
15.2
30.9
8.6
1.5
0.8
0.7

for gasier and syngas composition fed to the gas cleanup section.
The gasication section is equipped with a cryogenic Air Separation Unit (ASU) which provides a ow of high purity oxygen consuming about 175 kWhe/ton O2 with a purity of 94.3% (mol.) [6].
3.2. Cleanup section
The syngas produced by the gasication contains a number of
impurities, including particulates and sulfur compounds (particularly, H2S and COS) for this reason a gas cleaning section is strictly
necessary. The particulate matter is removed by ltration, despite
tar and other impurities dropped down by water scrubbing. CO2
and sulfur compounds are removed by acid gas removal system.
CO2 removal is required in order to accomplish the new European
directives (2009/29/CE) and to improve kinetic aspects of the
downstream synthesis process. In fact CO2 is no reactant in the
FT reaction (assuming no shift reaction) but its presence negatively
inuences the C5+ selectivity. Experimental studies conrm that
when the feed gas to the synthesis reactor consisted mainly of
CO2 and H2 over Co catalysts methane was the main product
(Dry, 2004).
H2S removal is required to avoid the poisoning of the synthesis
catalyst. The gas cleaning requirements are more stringent than
those used in IGCC plants and generally stay in the range of 0.2
1 ppm (Dry,1981) as maximum sulfur content. The syngas cleanup
is one of the crucial portions of the process. Among the CO2 and
H2S removal technologies Selexol has been chosen as the most
suitable technology for maturity and reliability with more than
30 years of experience and 55 operating plants installed
worldwide.
The Selexol is a physical solvent with lower solvent loss, higher
selectivity toward H2S, better thermal stability, better water solubility, and lower circulation rate [7]. The acid gas reduction was
accomplished by using a two-stage process for selective removal
of H2S (rst stage) and CO2 (second stage) from the syngas using
a dimethylether of polyethylene glycol (DMPEG). This section
was modeled using PC-SAFT equation of state model.
The process and the ow sheet were designed to take advantage
of the solubility difference of H2S and CO2 in Selexol. The main design parameters were set to meet a CO2 removal efciency of up to
88% and a 0.21 ppm maximum H2S content in the clean syngas.
The chosen pressure design was 30 bar. The CO2 removal efciency
in the AGR section has been set in order to have a lower concentration of 1.5% vol. of CO2 in the clean gas.
The Selexol ow scheme is given in Fig. 2. Most of the H2S in the
syngas is absorbed in the H2S absorber (AB1) where the gas meets
a CO2 rich solvent. The rich solvent is sent to the stripping column
and the H2S is stripped off. The reboiler duty has been calculated in
order to meet the design specication of 1 ppm H2S in the lean solvent [8]. The gas from the top of AB1 is sent to the CO2 absorber
(AB2). The CO2 rich solvent, from the bottom of the second absorber is regenerated by carrying out multiple ashes which reduce
pressure to recover the CO2 and partially recirculated it back to
the H2S absorber.
The H2S delivered in the stripping is suitable for feeding a Claustype unit used for sulfur recovery. Additional zinc oxide bed lters
are considered properly used in H2S removal for up to 0.1 ppm. In
the base case the CO2 separated is vented to the atmosphere while
in the CCS case it is sent to the compression section for nal underground sequestration.
3.3. CO2 compression section (only for CCS case)
The CO2 stream coming out from the acid gas removal section is
strongly pressurized in order to be transported to storage. Best
practices indicate pressure values close to 100 bar.

853

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

GAS CLEAN
MAKE-UP
AB2
CO2 HP
CO2 MP
CO2 LP

AB1

H2S
GAS IN
ST1

Fig. 2. PFD cleanup section.

Generally, the necessary conditions for the transport and storage of CO2 can be reached through multi-stage intercooled compressors with condensate drain.
Normally, it is necessary to remove the water content below
500 ppm in order to avoid corrosion of the pipeline transport of
CO2, as well as the formation of hydrates that can occlude pipes
and nozzles.
In this study the CO2 delivery conditions and compression process are dened following the specic temperature and pressure
outlined in the European Best Practice assessment guidelines for
CO2 capture technologies [9]. The best operating conditions were
identied in order to obtain a concentrated current of CO2 suitable
for storage (95% by volume with H2S values <200 ppm). Fig. 3 demonstrates the section scheme. The compression pressure of 80 bar
is realized by three compression stages.
Each compression stage is followed by a phase of inter-refrigeration for which 28 C is the exit temperature of the compressor and
subsequent separation of the condensed water by ash. The liquid
portion, constituted mainly of water and therefore incondensable,
is separated and sent to treatment. At the last stage outlet the liquid stream of CO2 is pumped from 80 bar to 150 bar and subsequently cooled to 25 C. The process design assumptions of the
Aspen Plus simulation were taken from literature [9].

3.4. FT section
The FT process can be realized in different reactor types: MultiTubular Fixed Bed (ARGE), Circulating Fluidized Bed (Synthol),
Fixed Fluidized Bed (SASOL Advanced Synthol) and Fixed Slurry
Bed. According to many authors the xed bed reactor and the slurry bed reactor are the most promising [10]. Heat removal and temperature control are the central design features required to provide
the desired hydrocarbon selectivity and catalyst life. The conversion extent in the FT reactor depends on the catalyst type, temperature (LTFT process or HTFT process), reactor size and technology.
In this study a low temperature (LTFT) reactor type, operating at
250 C and 25 bar has been used, with a slurry bed design and cobalt based catalyst.
The FT conversion section is the heart of the plant. Its accurate
design is crucial in order to maximize the yield of liquid products
to make the plant economically competitive.
Fig. 4 shows the Fischer Tropsch section. The product stream
exiting from the FT reactor (R-301) is constituted mainly by water,
hydrocarbons in liquid phase (C5+) and tail gas. The stream is
cooled and the hydrocarbon liquids are separated from the tail
gas and water. Finally, the C5+ liquid products are sent to the rening process to produce commercial product.

IMPURITIES
CO2 HP
CO2 MP
CO2 LP

K-203

K-204

K-205

P-204

CO2 LIQUID

H2O
Fig. 3. PFD CO2 compression section CCS case.

854

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

Fig. 4. Fischer Tropsch section.

nCO 2nH2 ! CH2 n nH2 O DH0 165 kJ=mol CO

The FT process produces olens, alcohols, acids, oxygenates and
parafns of different lengths. The AndersonSchultzFlorey (ASF)
model is a common model used to describe the chain growth
mechanism in the FT process. The ASF model is given by:

Wn=n 1  a2 an1

where Wn is the mass fraction of the hydrocarbons containing n

carbon molecules, while a is the chain growth probability of the
molecules continuing to react, forming longer chains. The value of
alpha is linked through correlations with the experimental data.
Normally the above equation is shown in its linearized form (2)
where it is assumed that alpha is independent of the length of the
hydrocarbon chains.

logWn=n n log a const

Subsequently, the log Wn/n is linearly plotted against carbon

number.
The FT synthesis has been modeled by the Aspen block RYIELD,
(block R-301) a reactor with known product yields. The following
assumptions were made for modeling the process:
 FT slurry type reactor.
 Cobalt-based catalyst.
 The heat generated in the FT reactor is removed quick enough to
consider isothermal behavior.
 The catalyst is uniformly distributed in the reactor.
 The percentage by mass of the products (the yield) is based on
the parameter alpha.
 The production of oxygenates is negligible.
 The process is steady state.

-1.5

log (Wn/n)

The tail gas from the FT section is partly recycled to the reactor
for additional conversion and partly sent to power generation
block. The recycled gas passes through an autothermal reformer
(block R-302) where the C1C4 fraction is converted to CO and
H2. The Fischer Tropsch synthesis is strongly exothermic. The surplus heat is used to produce superheated steam at 20 bar which is
fed to the steam turbine to generate power. A small quantity of H2
required for the upgrading process is separated by tail gas with a
PSA system.
The FT synthesis is a carbon chain building process, where
CH2 groups are attached in a carbon chain. The resulting overall
reaction can be presented as:

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

n
Fig. 5. Product distribution following ASF, a1 = 0.85 and a2 = 0.92.

Signicant deviations from the AndersonSchulzFlory distribution are reported in the literature [11], therefore we can observe
a double alpha effect for both iron and for cobalt catalysts. The
double alpha values used in this study are: a1 = 0.85 for C1C16
carbon class and a2 = 0.92 for C17C32 [11]. Eq. (2) is shown in
Fig. 5. The total CO conversion in the FT reactor is 80%. The C20
C32 hydrocarbon components were incorporated in the weight
fractions of C20. All components C32+, with more than thirtytwo C atoms, were included in weight fractions of C32 [12]. Table 2
[13] gives the alkene to alkane ratios for several carbon number
products obtained in a slurry reactor over Cobalt catalysts used
in the yield calculation to predict the alkenes formation.

3.4.1. Autothermal reformer

The conguration analyzed here includes an autothermal
reformer downstream of the gas recycle compressor to convert
all C1C4 gases to CO and H2. It thereby maximizes production
of FT liquid product. The ATR reformer has been modeled by a
Gibbs reactor (block R-302) in adiabatic condition. The mole
fraction of water to methane in the steam stream was xed at
1.5 in supersaturated conditions of 25 bar and 550 C.

Table 2
Ratios 1-alkene/n-alkane.
Carbon
number

Ratios 1-alkene/
n-alkane

C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C10
C15

0.05
1.4
1.4
1
1
0.9
0.4

855

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

The ow rate of oxygen (95% mol. purity at 25 bar and 300 C)

has been set to lead to a temperature in the reactor between
900 C and 1000 C. The stream leaving the ATR reactor is cooled
to 40 C, then puried in water content and sent to the FT reactor.
3.5. Power generation section

EP base case plant efficiency

Part of the outgoing tail gas section of Fischer Tropsch is sent to

a combined cycle in order to use its energy to produce electrical
energy. The power generation section is modeled in Aspen Plus.
This section contains a gas turbine and a steam cycle. To simulate
a gas turbine operating on fuel gas with characteristics different
from the natural gas the overall performance of a GE7F gas turbine
was used like reference. The turbine inlet temperature (TIT) has
been set as 1370 C. The RSTOIC reactor model has been used to
simulate the gas turbine combustor. The power block has been
integrated with process heat sources such as FT section and AGR
section, additionally providing the electrical power consumption
inside the plant.
4. Results
The plant performance results for the cases considered are summarized and evaluated.
4.1. Plant performance evaluation
Fig. 6 provides simplied schematics of the plant input and output. Table 4 summarized the overall plant data. In order to compare the different technology options the efciency was
calculated as (1st law efciency):

g LHVFT  GFT MWe=LHVcoal  Gcoal

where GFT is the mass ow rate kg/s of liquid product and Gcoal is the
mass ow rate kg/s of coal input.
The reported thermal efciency is calculated as a ratio between
the lower heating value of the primary liquid hydrocarbon products plus the net plant power and the lower heating value of the
coal feed. Results show that more than 47% of input energy can
be converted to FT products and electric energy. In the base case
the energy content of the liquid fuels is 40% of the energy content

BASE CASE
CO2 out
7678 t/d
Coalgasification
Coal
4500 t/d

FT LiquidsProduction

FT liquids
8530 bbl/d
Export Power
90 MWe

Ash
431 t/d
CCS CASE

in the coal feedstock, while the electricity generated in the process

amounts to 7% of the feed.
In order to evaluate the effect of CO2 capture on the performance of CTL poly-generation plant an energy penalty indicator
has been dened as:

 CCS plant efficiency=CCS plant efficiency

This represents the increase in plant energy input per unit of liquid products and net electrical output [15]. The EP under the
assumptions in this study is 2.7%, in comparison to the EP value
of about 12% for an IGCC plant equipped with CCS [16]. Therefore,
the coal required to produce the same amount of electricity in IGCC
with CCS is higher than the coal required in a CTL for CO2 capture
plant. In fact, IGCC plants without CCS use a different conguration
from ones with CCS. In a power generation plant the major part of
CO2 energy penalty and capture cost is associated with the creation
of a concentrated CO2 stream ready to be stored. The water gas
shift and CO2 separation equipment has to be added in a IGCC
plant. On the contrary, in a CTL plant CO2 capture it is already included in the base plant process [17]. The CCS penalty is much
smaller than an IGCC plant. In the CTL facility studied, in order to
capture all the CO2 emitted from the plant, it is necessary to add
an amine-based (MEA) chemical absorption section that operates
the removal of CO2 emitted from boiler and power sections.
Table 3 shows the overall efciency for both plant congurations, in agreement with the results reported by the literature for
similar plant [4].
4.2. Plant mass balance
The plant is fed with 4500 ton/d of coal consisting of a blend of
60% of Sulcis coal and 40% of import bituminous coal. The gasier is
fed with 4000 ton/d of coal, 20 kg/s of O2 and 93 kg/s of steam at
30 bar. An auxiliary boiler fed with 500 ton/d of coal provides part
of the steam supplied to gasier strictly necessary in the startup
phase.
4.2.1. Cleanup section result
The cleanup section processes 100 kg/s of gas and removes the
content of H2S down to 1 ppm. In the conguration with CCS the
CO2 is captured at 88% efciency in the AGR section and then sent
to the compression section. The electricity load of the AGR section
is essentially related to the gas recirculation compressors and to
solvent pumps. The specic energy expenditure in the stripper
reboiler is 3.7 MJ/kg H2S. The overall energy expenditure of the
cleanup is 435 kJ/kg of coal. The compression and liquefaction

Table 3
Summary of overall plant data.

Coal
LHV coal
Thermal input
Gasoline C5C11
Diesel C12C32
LHV FTa
Capacity factor
Output
Net plant power
Electric production
Total efciency (LHV basis)
Total FT efciency (LHV basis)
CO2 capture (%)

CO2 captured
5054 t/d
CO2 out
2624 t/d
Coalgasification

Coal
4500 t/d

FT LiquidsProduction

FT liquids
8530 bbl/d
Export Power
74 MWe

Ash
431 t/d
Fig. 6. simplied schematic of the plant input and outputs.

ton/d
MJ/kg
MWth
bbl/d
bbl/d
MJ/kg
%
MWth
MWe
MWhe/y

Base case

CCS

4447
25
1287
3240
5290
44
85
512
90
671,056
0.47
0.40
0

4447
25
1287
3240
5290
44
85
512
74
553,100
0.46
0.40
66

The assumed FT LHV is set equal to the one in Steynberg studies [14].

856

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

Table 4
Assumptions and results relative to the calculation of the TOC.
Parameter
BEC
Engg CM H.O. & Fee
EPCC
Project Contingency
Process Contingency
TPC
Start up
Owners Costs

Assumptions
10% BEC
20% BEC
25% BEC FT section
2% EPCC
8% TPC

TOC

Base case

CCS case

M$
M$
M$
M$
M$
M$
M$
M$

567
45
612
113
15
741
12
59

579
46
625
116
15
756
12
60

M$

812

829

section of CO2 in CCS case has a signicantly greater auxiliary load

than the section of acid gas removal.
4.2.2. FT section result
In this analysis the Fischer Tropsch process has been modeled
through the use of the ASF distribution, such assumption provides
the values to be included in the model used by Aspen Plus. The
hydrocarbon product distribution from the FT slurry is shown in
Fig. 7.
The resulting ratio of H2/CO in the clean syngas is about 2. The
gure shows the distribution of the products expressed by weight
fraction.
The selectivity with respect to the yield of liquid products is
SC5+ = 0.82. These values are similar to that of experimentations
on cobalt based catalysts. This catalyst type is more selective towards liquid products in respect to iron based catalysts [18].
4.3. Power section and auxiliary results
The gross plant power output for both cases is about 129 MWe.
The total amount of auxiliary loads is equal to 39 MWe for the base
case, while in the CCS case it is 55 MWe because of CO2 compression. The auxiliary loads not modeled have been calculated by scaling the literature data [19]. The combined cycle generates all the
electricity needed to run the auxiliaries plus a small amount of
electricity sent to the grid. The performance efciency of the combined cycle has been evaluated as 0.29. The ASU is the most energy-consuming section of the plant. It covers, in the base case,
almost 70% of the total auxiliary. In the CCS plant, the energy penalty for compression and pumping CO2 accounts for 30% of the total
auxiliary load. The energy required to compress CO2 to 150 bar has
been estimated in 88 kWh/ton CO2.

pressure which produces a rich CO2 stream with less energy penalty. In the CCS case about 1.57 million tons of CO2 per year are
captured and stored while 0.81 million are emitted.
Global results show 66% of the CO2 captured is vented in the
base case or sent to storage in the CCS case. To improve this performance an additional capture section can be installed downstream
of the auxiliary boiler where CO2 is at atmospheric pressure and
at concentration is close to 13%. In the case of nearby Zero Emission
approach the combined cycle exhaust can also be treated with a
post combustion capture section with higher expenditures in
terms of energy and investment costs.
Looking at the carbon ows in the CCS case, 2744 tons/d of carbon contained in coal is divided as follows: 51% is captured and
stored as CO2, 26% is vented in the exhaust gas as CO2, 22% is transferred to liquid fuels and released as CO2 during its use and the
remaining 1% is discharged from the plant with ashes.
5. Economic analysis
This study evaluates the performance and cost of different CTL
plant congurations in order to propose possible investments.
The plant congurations evaluated in this study focus on the optimal production of liquid fuels and electric energy while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions. In this study, two CTL plant
congurations were compared in order to assess the economic impact on the addition of CCS.
5.1. Economic analysis assumptions
The method for estimating total plant cost and total plant
investment was developed using a DOE methodology [20]. The
TOC Total Overnight Capital cost has been estimated as the sum
of the TPC (Total Plant Cost) plus all other overnight costs, including owner costs. The TPC is calculated by the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Cost (EPCC), that comprises the BEC (Bare
Erected Cost) in addition to the cost of services provided by the
engineering, procurement and construction contractor costs, plus
project and process contingencies. Table 4 shows the assumptions
used for the calculation of the Total Overnight Capital cost as well
as the results obtained for the two congurations. Assumptions include a 25% process contingency applied to the FT section in order
to reect the lesser technological maturity of the FT liquids
equipment.
The BEC has been calculated using the factored estimation
method based on known costs for major equipment as found in
the literature.

4.4. CO2 emissions

BEC$2010 CEPCI index  Cost CEPCI index  CoS=Sof

The study provides the basis for estimating global CO2 emissions associated with coal conversion in power and FT fuels. CO2
is emitted by the acid gas removal section, by the auxiliary boiler
and by the power section. The CO2 capture is applied downstream
of the gasier. Consequently, the capture takes place at a high

where Co is the base cost for each component by size, while C is the
cost of the component at the required size S, and f is the cost scaling
factor.
Table 5 gives the base costs and cost scaling factors used for the
BEC estimate. The notes given with the table describe the sources
C20+
12%

C char

C1-4
18%

C exhaust gases
C liquid product
C storage
0%

20%

40%

60%

C17-C20
29%

Fig. 7. Fuels distribution and carbon ows.

C5-C16
41%

857

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

Table 5
BEC costs of system components in $2010.
Plant section

ASU, Oxidant Compressiona

Pulvirized coal Boilerb
Gasier & accessoriesc
Selexol CO2 AGR, dual Stageb
CO2 compressiona
FT reactor, upgrading, ATRd
Gas Turbine topping cycled
HRSG and steam cycled
Ash spent sorbent handlingd,e
BOPd

Base scale

Base cost M$

Scale factor

Size plant

Cost M$

BEC $2010

So

Co

Base case

CCS case

2.2 Mton O2/d

4680 ton coal/d
2850 ton coal/d
86 kg/s syngas
13 Mwe
78 kg/s syngas
34 Mwe
74 Mwe
450 ton ash/d
4254 ton coal/d

105
210
91
60
9,5
78
14
22
25
35

0.5
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.75
0.67
0.67
0.67

2.18 Mton O2/d

500 ton coal/d
4000 ton coal/d
100 kg/s syngas
16 MWe
44 kg/s syngas
109 MWe
20 MWe
431 ton ash/d
4500 t coal/d

105
45
114
66
11
53
28
9
24
36

110.6
48.3
162.5
70
0
59.6
39
10
27
40

110.6
48.3
162.5
70
12
59.6
39
10
27
40

567

579

Total BEC cost

a

ASU and Oxidant Compression and CO2 compression to supercritical outlet pressure are as indicated by: FischerTropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass Thomas G. Kreutz,
Eric D. Larson, Guangjian Liu, Robert H. Williams Princeton Environmental Institute Princeton University Prepared for 25th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference
29 September2 October, 2008 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
b
Selexol double and single stage CO2 removal and pulverised coal boiler are based on: Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants DOE/NETL-2007/1281.
c
Gasier & accessories are base on: British Gas/Lurgi Gasier IGCC Base Cases PED-IGCC-98-004, September 1998, Latest Revision June 2000 NETL.
d
Source: Technical and Economic Assessment of Small-Scale FischerTropsch Liquids Facilities DOE/NETL-2007/1253.
e
BOP Balance of Plant include: accessory electric plant, instrumentation & control, improvements to site, buildings & structures.

BOP 12%

ASU 20%

ASU 19%

BOP 12%
Power
generation
section 8%

Power
generation
section 9%

FT section
10%

FT section
10%
CO2
compression
0%

Gasifier &
boiler 37%
AGR 12%

base case

Gasifier &
boiler 36%

CO2
compression
2%
AGR 12%

CCS case

Fig. 8. Repartition of total BEC cost.

Table 6
Financial analysis parameters assumptions for base scenario.
Parameter/assumption

Value

Construction period
Incurred capital in: year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Debt equity ratio
Capacity factor
Plant lifetime
Interest rate
Tax rate
Loan interest rate
Annual O&M expenses
Coal ratio Sulcis/import coal
Sulcis coal price
Bituminous coal price
CO2 transport and storage cost
Electricity price

3 years
10%
60%
30%
55:45
85%
30 years
8%
28%
8%
5.2% TCP
60%
$50/ton
$100/ton
$8/ton
$115/MWh

construction period, a 30-year plant life and a 55:45 debt to equity

ratio for project nancing. The assumed bituminous coal price is
$100/ton and an electrical sale value of $115/MWhe is used as
the reference value for the Italian electricity market. The plant
has been fed with a mix of coal: 60% Sulcis type and 40% import
bituminous type coal.
Where the CO2 is injected in the aquifers below the coal mine,
costs for CO2 transport and storage were estimated at $8/ton
CO2. This cost includes initial capital expenditure and operational
costs. The total storage and transport cost are calculated taking
into account onshore pipeline, storage site assessment and preparation (e.g. drilling new wells and pump platforms) and site closure
and site monitoring [21].
The cost of CO2 avoided was evaluated using Eq. (6) to give an
indication of the cost to be incurred by investing into CTL plant
equipped with CCS.
Cost CO2 avoided $=ton CO2 total annual costbase case

and derivation of specic values. The Chemical Engineering Plant

Cost Index (CEPCI) has been used to convert dollars from the original year to 2010. In Fig. 8 is shown the Bare Erected Cost divided by
process unit, the gasication area accounts for almost 40% of the
total BEC cost.

 total annual costCCS case =Emissionsbase case

 EmissionsCCS case
6

5.2. Economic analysis results

5.1.1. Financial analysis parameters assumptions
A cash ow analysis was carried out, the nancial and scenario
assumptions models take into account are given in Table 6. These
values provide the main economic output. Additional assumptions
include a CTL plant capacity factor of 85%, a 28% tax rate, a 3 year

The results coming from the analysis are the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), the discounted cash ow and the payback time. These
values provide information in order to identify the parameters that
most affect the investment.

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

The methodology followed is therefore explained below. The

aim of this economic analysis is to determine at what FT fuels selling price value the investment could achieve an IRR of 20%.
The TOC cost of 8530 bbl/d plant is about M$ 812 ($95,000/
bbl/d). By adding CCS to the plant the cost increases slightly to
the value of a specic capital cost  $97,000/bbl/d, since the only
added cost is for CO2 compression. Table 7 summarizes the results
of the nancial analysis based on the reported nancial assumptions for the base scenario, comparable to the results reported by
the literature for similar plants [4].
The FT fuels selling price has been calculated equal to $122.5/
bbl in order to obtain an IRR of 20%. Therefore the equivalent value
of the crude oil price on the market was evaluated on $98/bbl by
considering that the FT fuels selling price is 1.25 times that of
crude oil. As a result, the base case shows 7 years of payback time.
The cost of CO2 avoided results in $7/ton CO2.
Table 8 shows the compositions of the cost of liquid product,
calculated as the following formula:

Table 8
Cost of liquid product on base scenario.
Compositions of the production costs M$/y
Fuel costs
Operating & maintenance
Capital costs
CO2 capture cost

113
32.75
33.74
0

113
33.41
34.42
11.47

Total specic production cost M$/y

Specic cost of liquid product $/barrel
Specic cost of liquid product $/GJ

179.06
68
13

191.87
73
14

100

cost of liquid product $/barrel

858

Cost of liquid product $=bbl f  Fuel costs

Operating & Maintenance
Capital costs
CO2 capture cost=total liquid product

95
90
CCS case

80
75
70
65
60
55
50

where f is a factor that weighs the LHV efciency of production

of liquid (40%) with respect to the LHV efciency of the production
of electric energy (7%). In this plant conguration analyzed f assumes the value of 0.85. Consequently the cost of electric energy
was c$5/kWh for the base case and c$6/kWh for the CCS case.

base case

85

10

20

30

CO2 allowance price $/tCO2

Fig. 9. Effect of CO2 allowance price on the cost of liquid product.

22

Table 7
Economic analysis results base scenario.

Liquid product (bbl/d)

TOC (M$)
FT fuels selling price to have 20% IRR ($/bbl)
IRR (%)
Payback time (years)
NPV (M$)

Base case

CCS case

8530
812
122.5
20
7
1024

8530
829
133.75
15.7
9.6
669

20

IRR (%)

5.2.1. Sensitivity analysis

Some of the parameters assumed in this study are affected by
uncertainty, which is determined by a large series of key factors
impossible to foresee. Therefore, in order to investigate the most
inuential factors, a sensitivity analysis was carried out and the input variables were changed.
The variables and their impact on the nancial output analyzed
are the CO2 allowance price and the FT fuels selling price. The results are all based on changing only one variable from the base scenario. The nancial analysis also included a sensitivity analysis
identifying how the results affected the increase of TOC cost. Generally this types of investment are most sensitive to TOC cost.
The CSS option is more or less competitive depending on the applied price of CO2 allowance. The sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the value of the CO2 allowance price. In the
case of a CO2 price of $10/ton, the plant conguration without
CCS has a higher IRR than the conguration with CCS; costing
$28/tCO2 CCS becomes less costly than paying all emitted CO2.
Figs. 9 and 10 show the specic cost of liquid product and the
IRR value of both cases for different CO2 allowance price values.
Table 9 indicates the other nancial parameters obtained.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed by changing
between 0.6 and 1.4 times the fuel selling price.
Fig. 11 illustrates how the IRR value is highly dependent on the
FT fuels selling price. Changes of 40% in FT fuels selling price

18

base case

16

CCS case

14
12
10
8
0

10

20

30

CO2 allowance price $/tCO2

Fig. 10. Effect of CO2 allowance price on IRR.

Table 9
Effect of CO2 allowance price on the main economic parameters.
Parameter

NPV (M$)

Pay back (years)

CO2 allowance $/ton CO2

Base case

CCS case

Base case

CCS case

0
10
20
30

1014
764
515
265

669
552
435
318

7
8.5
11.5
15.8

7
8.50
11.5
15.8

impact strongly the IRR. For a FT fuels selling price of $74/bbl both
investments have negative NPV. The analysis shows clearly that
CTL plants are protability under high crude oil prices.
The increase of the TOC was also found to strongly impact the
nancial performance, in fact, as shown in Fig. 12 and Table 10,
by applying +50% on TOC cost the IRR is considerably lowered in
both cases. Twice the TOC cost produces negative NPV and IRR less
than the interest rate.

859

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

35

IRR (%)

30
base case

25
20

CCS case
15
10
5
0

74 84 94 104 114 124 134 144 154 164

FT fuels selling price $/bbl

Fig. 11. Effect of FT fuels selling price on plant IRR.

35
30

IRR (%)

25

base case

20

CCS case

competitive. The poly-generation of power and liquid fuels can improve plant exibility in order to better satisfy the energy market
demand. The best solution from the economic point of view is
achieved when the plant is located close to the extraction site of
coal. In fact, mine mouth plant installation reduces transport costs
and takes advantage of the reduction in coal supply costs.
Specically, the analysis results show that a 4500 ton/d of coal
(1287 MWth) can produce 8530 bbl/d (2.6 Mbbl/y) of liquid fuels
and 90 MWe emitting 2.37 Mton/y of CO2. Carbon sequestering
can reduce this quantity up to 0.8 Mton/y decreasing the power
output to 74 MWe due to the drop of 66% in CO2 emissions. In both
cases global efciency is about 47%.
CTL plants equipped with CCS become competitive with a FT
fuels selling price of $134/bbl. The sensitivity analysis indicates
that CSS competitiveness depends on the applied price of CO2
allowance. The $28/tCO2 CCS allowance price becomes less costly
than paying all CO2 emitted. Finally, the analysis shows clearly that
CTL plants are protability under high crude oil prices and the
cost-effectiveness depends strictly on the FT fuels selling price.
Future work will expand the technical and economic feasibility
analysis by varying the specic ratio of poly-generation capabilities of the plant, the plant scale and the CCS capture conguration.
Acronyms

15
10
5
0
95000 105000 115000 125000 135000 145000

specific capital cost ($/bbl/d)

Fig. 12. Effect of TOC on IRR.

Table 10
Effect of TOC on the main economic parameters.

Base scenario
+50% TOC

Specic capital
cost $/bbl/d

IRR base
case

$/bbl/d

IRR CCS
case

95,214
143,031

20
10.5

97,134
149,726

15.7
7.2

6. Conclusions
The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the technical and
economic feasibility of a CTL plant and its implementation of carbon capture and storage technologies. This analysis was developed
under the recent European legal framework in order to propose an
assessment on the feasibility and convenience to realize a plant
CTL with or without CCS. In particular, this analysis is addressed
to countries dependent on oil imports but with local coal resources. The analysis evaluates different scenarios in order to
underline CTL potential benets in the Italian energy market. This
analysis indicates a powerful synergism among poly-generation
CTL systems and CO2 capture systems.
The CTL investment option results in good economic performance in the case of increasing crude oil prices. As a matter of fact,
at crude oil price levels of $98/bbl could possibly reach a return
investment of close to 20% with a FT fuels selling price of $122.5/
bbl and a specic barrel production costs close to $70/bbl. The
CCS introduction in CTL plants has a lighter impact on plant costs
and performance with respect to power production plants, since
CO2 capture it is already included in the base plant. In the case of
a CO2 allowance price over $28/ton this option becomes the most

AGR
ASF
ASTM
ASU
ATR
BEC
CCS
CCT
CEPCI
CTL
DOE
EPCC
FT
GSE
HRSG
HTFT
ICL
IEA
IRR
LHV
LTFT
MIT
NETL
PFD
TOC
TPC

Acid Gas Removal

AndersonSchultz Flory
American Society for Testing and Materials
Air Separation Unit
Autothermal reformer
Bare Erected Cost
Carbon Capture Storage
Clean Coal Technologies
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
Coal to Liquid
Department of Energy (United States)
Engineering, Procurement and Construction Cost
Fischer Tropsch
Italian Supervisor of National Electric System
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
High temperature FischerTropsch
Indirect Coal Liquefaction
International Energy Agency
Internal Rate Return
Lower Heating Value
Low temperature FischerTropsch
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Process Flow Diagram
Total Overnight Capital cost
Total Plant Cost

Acknowledgments
This work was developed into the RdS Research Program on
Electrical Grid funded by the Italian Ministry of Sustainable Economic Development.
References
[1] Couch Gordon R. Coal to Liquids. IEA Clean Coal Centre; 2008.
[2] Tijmensena Michiel JA, Faaija Andr PC, Hamelincka Carlo N, van Hardevel
Martijn RM. Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fischer Tropsch

860

[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]

C. Bassano et al. / Fuel 116 (2014) 850860

liquids and power via biomass gasication. Biomass and Bioenergy
2002;23:12952.
Prins Mark J, Ptasinski Krzysztof J, Janssen Frans JJG. Exergetic optimisation of a
production process of FischerTropsch fuels from biomass. Fuel Processing
Technology 2005;86(4):37589.
Liu Guangjian, Larson Eric D, Williams Robert H, Kreutz Thomas G, Guo
Xiangbo. Making FischerTropsch fuels and electricity from coal and biomass:
performance and cost analysis. Energy & Fuels 2011;25:41537.
Higman Chris, Burgt Maarten Van Der, Gasication. Elsevier; 2003 (Chapetr 5).
G. Beysel, T. Schueler, The proven cryogenic air separation process adapted to
the needs of CCS (IGCC & Oxyfuel), in: Gasication 10 Conference, Amsterdam,
October 6th, 2010.
Kohl A, Nielsen R. Gas Purication. fth ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Professional
Publishing; 1997.
Robinson Patrick J, Luyben William L. Integrated gasication combined cycle
dynamic model: H2S absorption/stripping, watergas shift reactors, and CO2
absorption/stripping. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
2010;49:476681.
D 4.9 European Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment of CO2 Capture
Technologies, FP7-ENERGY, 2007.5.1.1.
Sie ST, Krishna R. Fundamentals and selection of advanced FischerTropsch
reactors. Applied Catalysis, A: General 1999;186(12):5570.
Visconti Carlo Giorgio, Lietti Luca, Tronconi Enrico, Forzatti Pio, Zennaro
Roberto, Finocchio Elisabetta. FischerTropsch synthesis on a Co/Al2O3 catalyst
with CO2 containing syngas. Applied Catalysis, A: General 2009;355:618
(Elsevier).

[12] Hamelinck Carlo N, Faaij Andr PC, den Uil Herman, Boerrigter Harold.
Production of FT transportation fuels from biomass; technical options, process
analysis
and
optimisation,
and
development
potential.
Energy
2004;29:174371.
[13] Dry ME. Chemical concepts used for engineering purposes. Studies in Surface
Science and Catalysis 2004;152:196257 (Elsevier, Chapter 3).
[14] Steynberg Andre P, Nel Herman G. Clean coal conversion options using
FischerTropsch technology. Fuel 2004;83:76570.
[15] Chen C, Rubin ES. CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance
and cost. Energy Policy 2009;37:91524 (Elsevier).
[16] Ordorica-Garcia G et al. Technoeconomic evaluation of IGCC power plants for
CO2 avoidance. Energy Conversion and Management 2006;47:22509
(Elsevier).
[17] Mantripragada H, Rubin E. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-to-liquids
(CTL) plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Policy
2011;39(5):280816.
[18] Borg et al. Effect of biomass-derived synthesis gas impurity elements on
cobalt FischerTropsch catalyst performance including in situ sulphur and
nitrogen addition. Journal of Catalysis 2011;279:16373 (Elsevier).
[19] Technical and Economic Assessment of Small-Scale FischerTropsch Liquids
Facilities, DOE/NETL-2007/1253.
[20] Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies Cost Estimation Methodology
for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance, DOE/NETL-2010/1455.
[21] Mc Kinsey Report, Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics, 2008.