sofcom meeting m24 - politecnico di torino · •steam / dry reforming ... auto-thermal reforming...

WP4

CONCEPTUAL AND TECHNO -ECONOMIC STUDY OF COMBINED WASTE

WATER BIOGAS AND SOFC PLANTS (10 KW – 10 MW)

SOFCOM Meeting M24

Politecnico di Torino

1

WP4 ROADMAP – WORK IN PROGRESS (I)

Politecnico di Torino 2

Done

Technical part = Done Economic part =Under development

Technical part = Done Economic part =Under development

Under development


WP4 ROADMAP – WORK IN PROGRESS (II)

Done for small size plant.

Under development

Done for small and medium size plant.

Done for small size plant. Under development for

medium/large size plabt.

SOFC plant size according to biogas source

4 Politecnico di Torino

Plant Size Power generation Biogas type

S Small Size 10-100 kWe

Livestock effluents

Energy crops

Agricultural waste

Organic Waste

M Medium Size < 1 MWe

Livestock effluents + Energy crops +

Agricultural waste

Agro-industrial waste

Small WWTU

L Large Size 1-10 MWe

City WWTU

City Landfill

WWTU + Landfill

Small size => Electrochemical model

Medium size => Economic model

Large size => OSMOSE

SYSTEM ANALYSYS DEVELOPMENT


SMALL SIZE PLANT


Bernhard Tjaden Master Thesis Mixing of Biogas Constituents Decision Variables: •xCH4, db

•xN2, db

Biogas Saturated with Water Drying to RH = 60 %mol

Comparison of different refoming agents •Steam / Dry Reforming •Partial Oxidation Reforming •Auto Thermal Reforming

25 kWel Installed Power

BIOGAS POTENTIAL IN EU


Eurostat (2012a and 2012b) “Energy production and imports”, European Comission

Analysis of the biogas potential and the biogas share in Europe

BIOGAS COMPOSITION AND CONTAMINANTS


Biogas composition Real-time Data CH4 between 50 – 60 %mol

H2S Causes Ni-Catalyst Poisoning Between 100 -> 3,000 ppmmol

Specie Contaminants Average

Value [ppm]

Maximum Value

[ppm]

Sulphur

Compounds H2S 400 2897

Siloxanes D4 0.825 20.144

D5 18.129 1.689

Halogens

Dichloromethane 0.052 0.052

Chlorobenzene 0.255 0.693

Dichlorobenzene 0.254 0.61

COMPARISON WITH ICEs


Kukuk, J. (2011), “BHKW-Kenndaten 2011”, ASUE Arbeitsgemeinschaft für sparsamen und umweltfreundlichen Energieverbrauch e.V.

A rapid decrease of efficiency is observed for power capacities below 500 kWel Small size ICEs present low electrical efficiency values of < 35 % for Pel < 100 kWel. For small size plant, a significant increase in electric efficiency can be expected when deploying a fuel cell.

OPERATING STRATEGY


CONSTANT OPERATING VOLTAGE

Source: Thijssen, «Stack operating strategy for central station SOFC», 2009 Fuel Cell seminar.

Constant VOLTAGE mode:

• Constant voltage = constante efficiency.

• DOES NOT IMPACT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.

• Requires excess stack capacity.

• With degradation 1% => stack life > 20,000 hrs.

• With excess stak capacity stack performance remain ~

constant.

Constant CURRENT mode:

• Stack replacement at 5-6% degradation.

• Excess BoP capacity (air side).

• Excess stack capacity has no benefit.

• With degradation 1% => stack life < 4,000 hrs.

• SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DEGRADES VERY

RAPIDLY.

ELECTROCHEMICAL MODEL


Van Herle, J., Maréchal, F., Leuenberger, S. and Favrat, D. (2003), “Energy balance model of a SOFC cogenerator operated with biogas”, Scientific Advances in Fuel Cell Systems, Vol. 118 1–2, pp. 375–383.

Wuillemin, “Experimental and Modeling Investigations on Local Performance and Local Degradation in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells”, 2009, EPFL Ph.D. Thesis.

EPFL Updated Values from Experimental trends

Development of a commmon electrochemical model => Shared document: «POLITO Electrochemical Model»

Sensitivy Analysis


Decision Variable Baseline Value Range

Internal Reforming under SR 0 0-50%

Fuel Utilisation [-] 80% 70% – 85%

Operating Voltage [V] 0.8 0.7 – 0.85

xCH4,db [-] 55% 50-65%

xN2,db [-] 0.001 0.001 – 0.25

Performance Indicators:

o ηel and ηtot based on Higher Heating Value

o Total Overnight Cost, Net Present Value

Operating voltage and Fuel Utilization


Operating voltage 0.7 – 0.85 V

Fuel Utilization 70 – 85%

Electrical efficiency [%]

Internal refoming and biogas composition


Internal reforming ratio 0 – 50 %

Methane fraction 50 – 65 %

Total efficiency [%]

Electrical efficiency [%]

Reforming agents performance


Reforming Option AAct ηel ηtot

Steam Reforming 11.35 m² 50.65 % 67.84 %

Partial Oxidation Reforming 9.09 m² 40.62 % 74.14 %

Auto Thermal Reforming 10.62 m² 38.82 % 71.85 %

Auto-thermal reforming brings to the lower electrical efficiency!

Auto-thermal reforming requires the higher engineering costs and technology concerning plant components and brings to the lower performance

This option won’t be studied in the economic analysis and in further analyses.

Economic analysis


Costs functions from: • Turton, Bailie, Whiting, Shaeiwitz, "Analysis, Synthesis and Design of Chemical Processes", 2nd Ed. • DOE/NETL reports. • Commerical component costs re-scaled with the required size.

Financial methodology from: • Classical cashflow analysis methodology

Standard cost function from Turton book 𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒕 = 𝑭𝑩𝑴 ∙ 𝑭𝑷 ∙ 𝑪𝑷

Multiplication factor depending on the material

Multiplication factor depending on the pressure

Base cost depending on the component size

TOC – Total Overnight Cost


4557 €/kWel

3828 €/kWel

Steam Refoming

Partial Oxidation

Finland

Cash flow analysis (I)


Development of a common subsidies database (POLITO + VTT + EPFL + TUM), for biogas production presented in Lausanne (June 2013).

Switzerland

Basic subsidies scheme: • The subsidy is depending on the installed power and on the biogas substrate

(agricoltural substrates are usual linked with higher incentives respect to WWTP and LFG).

• Usually a bonus for CHP is included.

• In some countries extra-bonus for Nitrogen recovery and high efficiency CHP are included

Germany Italy

Cash flow analysis (II)


A simplified cash flow analysis brings to remunerative investments only in Italy and Germany => High subsidies per kW.

Italy Italy + Germany

MEDIUM SIZE PLANT – NO CCS


Steam reforming via anode recirculation

CHP for digesters (65-75 °C)

50% external ref. 50% internal ref.

Anode exhaust for reformer heating , air and fuel pre-heating

MEDIUM SIZE PLANT - CCS


Steam reforming via anode recirculation Fresh air pre-heating

via cathode exhaust

Cathode CHP for digesters (65-75 °C)

Anode CHP for digesters (65-75 °C)

CO2 separation

50% external ref. 50% internal ref.

Anode exhaust for reformer heating and fuel pre-heating

MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS


Operating voltage.

SOFC DC Power output.

Fuel utilization.

Steam to carbon ratio.

% internal reforming.

Inlet biogas: %CH4-%CO2.

Nominal conditions

Vop [V] WDC [kW] FU [%] S/C % int. Ref. %CH4 - %CO2

0.8 100 80% 2 50% 60% - 40%

RESULTS – CCS Nominal Case


Results Nominal Case

Inlet energy 162.49 kW

We DC - SOFC 100.00 kW

Fuel compressor 0.18 kW

Air compressor 7.06 kW

Water pump 0.001 kW

Oxygen Separation energy cost 300 kWh/ton

Oxygen flow rate 2.64 g/sec

Oxygen energy consumption 2.85 kW

Total power requirement 10.09 kW

Total net power output DC 89.91 kW

Inverter efficiency 95 %

Total net power output AC 85.41 kW

Electrical efficiency 52.56 %

Anode CHP heat duty 33.60 kW

Cathode CHP heat duty 20.61 kW

Thermal efficiency 33.36 %

Total efficiency 85.93 %

Electrochemical model

Voltage Vg 0.970 V

ASR 0.370 Ω cm2

Current density 0.460 A/cm2

Total active area 27.2 m2

Sensitivity of FU


0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

0,60

0,35

0,36

0,37

0,38

0,39

0,40

50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

J [

A/c

m2]

AS

R [Ω

cm

2]

FU [%]

ASR [Ω cm2]

j [A/cm2]

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%

Eff

to

t [%

]

Eff

el,

th

[%

]

FU [%]

Eff el [%]

Eff th [%]

Eff tot [%]

FU => from 85 to 89% • Electrical efficiency ~ costant

(increase < 3%).

• Increase of 7% in the required active area.

FU [%] Area/Area Nom

55% 80.10%

60% 83.03%

65% 86.41%

70% 90.29%

75% 94.76%

80% 100.00%

85% 106.27%

86% 107.69%

87% 109.17%

88% 110.72%

89% 112.35%

Sensitivity on internal refoming


0,30

0,40

0,50

0,36

0,37

0,38

0,39

0,40

0 10 20 30 40 50J

[A

/cm

2]

AS

R [Ω

cm

2]

% int. Ref.

ASR [Ω cm2]

j [A/cm2]

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

50%

55%

60%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Eff

to

t [%

]

Eff

el

[%]

% int. Ref.

Eff el [%]

Eff tot [%]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

200

300

400

500

0 10 20 30 40 50

W c

mp

[k

W]

m a

ir [

g/s

]

% int. Ref.

m air [g/s]

W cmp [KW]

% internal reforming Area/Area Nom

0 132.47%

10 128.31%

20 121.83%

30 114.70%

40 107.34%

50 100.00%

Sensitivity analyses on the CH4 fraction in the inlet biogas and the steam to carbon ratio have also been carried out but results are not included since their variation have not a sensitive influence on the plant performance

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS


Development of an AUTOMATIC excel sheet which is able to calculate the component costs, the TOC, to run the cashflow analysis and plot results.

Since the model is linear with the size in the economic calculator the size can be changed in the range 100 kW – 1 MW and the calculation is auomatically updated by excel.

This calculation can be automatically done for each power plant, with/without CCS, in each country and with the chosen economic input.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - Database


Development of a excel database including: • All the Turton book cost functions • Costs from NETL report • Costs from Argonne Lab report for the cleaning system

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - Model Input


Development of a Aspen calculator block to be directly copied and pasted in the excel economic calculator.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – Economic Input


Definition of the economic input parameters: • Contingencies • Equity/Debt percentages • Base year • Scaling method • Tax rate • Depreciation time • Inflation • Capacitiy factor • Stack lifetime • ….

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – Cost functions


Blowers Pumps Compressors After-burner Heat-exchangers

Reformer Oxy-combustor Co2 separation ASU

SOFC

Cleaning system

Turton book cost function (Scaled value if the size is above maximum/below minimum) Scaling factor from Turton book

Scaled value from NETL report Scaling factor 0.67

Cost function developed by Polito starting from the NETL report costs

Values from Argonne Lab Report Scaling factor = 0.67/1

Turton book cost functions (I)


Blowers for air/biogas • Centrifugal Radial Fan, cost depending on the flow rate. • Material depending on the working temperature. • Pressure from a specific pressure drop analysis. • Scaling factor from Turton (0.6).

Water pumps • Reciprocating Pump, cost depending on the inlet power. • Material depending on the working temperature. • Pressure from a specific pressure drop analysis.

After burner • Furnace, cost depending on the heat duty. • Material depending on the working temperature. • Pressure from a specific pressure drop analysis.

The after-burner cost function is still under development => Looking for more proper functions not only depending on the heat duty.

http://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=rT-i6U9WYlgj2M&tbnid=cHJF6PCi3FUYbM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/rosenberg-ventilatoren/industrial-centrifugal-extractor-fans-60815-966980.html&ei=XvZfUtnPDMjDswaq5YCIDw&bvm=bv.54934254,d.bGE&psig=AFQjCNFAS6LU4z8LJoIuEm7MQmX91iW2ow&ust=1382107086987587

Turton book cost functions (II)


Heat-exchangers • U values from literature ("Trasmissione del calore", Bonacina, Cavallini, Mattarolo, 1989)

• For Exchange Area < 10 m2 => Double Pipe HX • For Exchange Area > 10 m2 => Multiple Pipe HX

• Material depending on the working temperature T < 350 °C => CS 350 < T < 600 °C => SS T > 600 °C => Ni Alloy • Pressure from a specific pressure drop analysis.

The heat-exchanger cost function is still under development => Make a more detailed choice between the different heat-exchanger types.

http://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=na8YkMbA2UmbtM&tbnid=oqtuP6z_t2nWAM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-Pipe_Heat_Exchanger.png&ei=-fdfUp7ZJYa1tAaIv4HoCw&psig=AFQjCNH2q3CEaO846XwyhVONrJvQCCqvoQ&ust=1382107462003688

NETL reports cost functions (I)


Reformer • Calculation of the catalyst volume from a reference value scaled on the CH4 converted

fraction.

• Calculation of the vessel volume as percentage of the catalyst volume.

• Calculation of the vessel cost using Turton book cost function for vessels.

ASU, Oxy-combustor and CO2 separation • Calculation of the component cost starting from NETL report cost scaled using specific

parameters (O2 flow rate, condenser size) • Fixed scaling factor = 0.67

These two cost functions are still under development => Looking deeply into the NETL cost functions and found proper reference costs and proper scaling factors.

Argonne Laboratory Report


Dionissios D. Papadias, Shabbir Ahmed, Romesh Kumar, "Fuel quality issues with biogas energy - An economic analysis for a stationary fuel cell system" - Energy 2012

Cost functions determined for all the cleaning system components, scaled on the biogas flow rate or contaminants ppm

Cleaning system components • Iron oxide • Chiller/condenser • Activated carbon • High temperature polisher

SOFC Stack cost (I)


Integrated Block (stack module) 540 $/m2

Enclosure (Vessel only) 100 $/m2

Insulation 160.9 $/m2

Transport & Placement 60 $/m2

Foundation at the site 185 $/m2

Piping 120 $/m2

Power conditioning (inverter) 82 $/kW

The SOFC stack cost has been defined starting from NETL reports, adding a new calculation of the insulation cost.

Calculated as function of the required active area and the heat loss within the stack

DOE/NETL 2009-1361 «Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Performance and Cost Assessment»

1. Definition of the cell dimensions and interspace.

2. Definition of the maximum number of cells per stack. 80 cells/stack Thijssen, J. (2007), The Impact of Scale-up and Production Volume on SOFC Manufacturing Cost, National Energy Technology Laboratories, Pittsburgh

Insulation cost calculation

SOFC Stack cost (II)


3. Automatic definition of the stack configuration. S fixed depending on the number of stacks

(S=1,2,3) Fixed ratio H/L (2)

4. Calculation of the insulation area and volume.

5. Definition of the insulation material and cost => Commercial insulation material for high temp. => Standard cost (50$/l from Thjseen report)

6. Definition of the heat loss within the stack as % of the inlet LHV based power (0.5%)

Under development: Calculation of the heat loss as function of the stack external temperature.

7. Calculation of the insulation requirement (m3) and the insulation cost (160 $/m2)

Total Overnight Cost - TOC


Engineering, Procurement, Construction (EPC) Contractor Services

9% of BEC

Process contingencies 27.5% of EPCC

Project contingencies 22.5% of EPCC

Pre-production costs 2.0% of TPC

Inventory capital 0.5% of TPC

Financial costs 2.7% of TPC

Other owner's costs 15.0% of TPC

TASC/TOC factor 1.107

New concept 40 %

Produced commercially 5%

RESULTS

Medium scale plant • SOFC DC power output – 100 kWe • Vop – 0.8 V • FU – 80% • NO CCS • Steam reforming via anode recirculation (S/C = 2) • Internal refoming – 50%

"Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Perfomance"

Bare Erected Cost [$ 2010]


BEC $ 366.626,87

EPCC $ 399.623,29

TPC $ 624.161,62

TOC $ 755.668,95

TASC $ 836.525,53 Other costs include: improvements to site, building & structures, inverter, instrumentations and controls.

The heat-exchanger network is ~ 50% of the BEC.

The high cost is due to the material factor: the high temperature of the streams brings to Ni Alloy HX (fuel pre-heater, air pre-heater, reformer heater).

Comments and future works


Subdivide the pre-heater in 2 steps HX => one at low temperature (SS) and one at high temperature (Ni Alloy).

The SOFC cost is quite low respect to the other components costs

This is because the cost function is taken from multi-MW power plants.

Include non-linear effect related to the SOFC size when analyzing smaller power plants.

Operating Costs


Variable/Operating costs

Catalyst Cost 44.58 $/y

Iron oxide cost 1880 $/y

Activated carbon cost 2036 $/y

High temperature Polisher cost

40.6 $/y

Biogas Cost 0.000 $/kW LHV

Maintenance Cost 12483 $/y

Labor Cost 22500 $/y

Scaled from NETL cost on the CH4 converted.

Scaled from Argonne Lab report on the biogas flow rate.

Under development: including in the plant cost the digester and its BoP cost to account for the cost of biogas or finding a proper cost per kW..

2% of TPC (NETL reports).

30% of a standard one-year salary (groos value 75000 $).

Financial hypothesis


• Capacity factor = 80%

• Tax rate depending on the country.

• Subsidy depending on the country and on the biogas substrate

• SOFC stack replacement period = 5 y

• Plant lifetime = 20 y

• Depreciation time = 10 y

• Inflation = 3%

• Discount rate (WACC) calculated on a initial investment 50% equity 50% debt.

Tax rates

Italy 31.4%

Germany 30.0%

Finland 24.5%

Switzerland 17.0%

Deloitte "Corporate tax rate 2012"

Country Italy Germany Finland

Subsidiy for biogas from WWTP [€/kWh]

0.111 0.0669 0.0835

Subsidy for biogas from biological products [€/kWh]

0.180 0.1401 0.0835

Bonus for CHP in case of biological products [€/kWh]

0.040 - -

Cash flow analysis - results


• Biogas from biological products brings to higher subsidies (and bonus for CHP)=> NPV > 0

• Biogas from WWTP should be considered only for higher size plant because of the high cost and low incentives => NPV < 0

• No convenience is related to Finland => NPV < 0

Italy (Biological substrate + CHP bonus)

Germany (Biological substrate + CHP bonus)

Italy WWTP

Germany WWTP

Finland WWTP

The subsidy is the price paid for the net electricity sold to the grid = LCOE

Large size plant


Use of the OSMOSE software developed by the EPFL, written as a MATLAB function.

OSMOSE will be able to: • Automatically run different Aspen Models. • Perform Energy Integration with the pinch analysis methodology and define

the HX network. • Perform the Economic Analysis for all the components with the same

methodology of the Excel Calculator => Updated cost functions developed by POLITO.

• Make Multi-Object-Optimization on lots of variables.

Federico Curletti master thesis

AspenPlus Model


• Simplified Aspen Model without any thermal integration (only cooler/heater).

• All calculators have to be written in Fortran => Development of a Fortran model shared with all the WP4 partners.

Parameter import in OSMOSE


All the input/output parameters of the model have been defined as «TAGS» in OSMOSE

Energy integration


• Definition of all the streams to be integrated using pinch analysis.

• Definition of hot and cold utilities to be used as external sources (CHP for district heating in our first study).

Sensitivity analysis and Economic analysis


Under development: • Sensitivity analysis and MOO have been performed using OSMOSE to study the

influence of all the parameters and optimize the layout. • The economic functions have been updated with new cost functions defined by

POLITO. • The cashflow analysis will be included as post-calculator in OSMOSE with the

methodology developed by POLITO.

WP4- EPFL contribution


50

Priscilla Caliandro Laurence Tock Adriano Viana Ensinas François Maréchal

3 gasifiers analysis

VIKING 2-stages gassification

PCFB Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed

FICFB Fast Internally Circulating Fluidized bed

Model Superstructure


51

Biomass composition

C 51.1% O 42.9% H 5.8% N 0.2% Φ 50%

Outlet humidity Φ 12-25%

Gasifier Temperature 850/ 800 /800 °C

Steam/biomass 0.3-0.9 Carbon conversion 82% /93% /99%

Temperatures 500 °C500 °C700 °C

Steam/carbon 1-2.3

SOFC

Temperature 750-850 °C FU 85%

Methodology


Performance indicators :

- Energy efficiency

- Total cost

𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡= 𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝐶𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

Physical Model (BELSIM VALI)

Process simulation: •Mass and energy balance

Energy integration (risolutor MILP,GLPK)

Pinch analysis: •Maximal heat recovery •Optimal combined heat and power production

Performance evaluation

GLOBAL PROBLEM

MULTI-OBJECTIVE (OSMOSE)

Performance: •Technique (efficiency) •Economy (total cost)

MOO problem: •Evolutionary algorithm

•Optimal values of decision variables •Pareto frontier

Mechanical Power Balance


Small size 103kW - Medium size 8000kW

power consumption (-) power production (+)

Parameters Units FICFB_NP_S VKG_S FICFB_NP_M FICFB_P_M CFB_M

Energy efficiency % 60.0 54.0 59.5 62.4 68.5

Specific investment cost $/kWel 24246 32231 12258 10994 9125

Specific Cost (electricity output) $/kWh el 1.04 1.31 0.38 0.35 0.30

Cost analysis- Small (103 kWth) vs Medium(8000 kWth)


0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Specific investment cost [$/kWel]

Specific total cost [$/kWhel]

SOFC specificcost

SIC Systemspecificinvestmentcost

TCE total costrelated toelectricityproduction

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 2 4 6

Specific investment cost [$/kWel]

Specific total cost [$/kWhel]

SOFC specificcost

SIC Systemspecificinvestment cost

TCE total costrelated toelectricityproduction

Base 100 1000 10000 50000 case sys/yr sys/yr sys/yr sys/yr

Base 100 1000 10000 50000 case sys/yr sys/yr sys/yr sys/yr

SOFC 65%

SOFC 44%

SOFC cost – sensitivity analysis

SMALL MEDIUM SOFC 65%

SOFC 44%

Multi-object-optmization


0

5

11

16

22

27

32

38

43

49

54

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

0,50 0,55 0,60 0,65 0,70 0,75

Medium system tot Investment cost [M$]

Efficiency (LHV basis)

Small system tot Investment cost [M$]

FICFB_NP_S VKG_S FICFB_NP_M CFB_M FICFB_P_M

Decision variables Range Unit

Humidity wood dryer outlet 10-25 %

Steam/biomass ratio 0.3-0.9 -

Steam to carbon ratio in the reformers 1-2.3 -

Fuel cell Inlet temperature 998 - 1123 K

Steam excess ratio in the post combustor 0.2 - 0.8 -

Optimized configurations


Small size Medium size

Parameters Unit FICFB_NP_S VKG_S FICFB_NP_M FICFB_P_M CFB_M

Humidity wood dryer outlet % 0.16 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11

Steam/biomass ratio - 0.76 - 0.85 0.9 0.56

Steam to carbon ratio in the reformers

- 1 1.08 1.12 1.86 1

Fuel cell Inlet temperature K 1026 1023 101 1011 1022

Steam excess ratio in the post combustor

- 0.30 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.32

Energy efficiency [%] 64.5 68.7 65.6 67 71

Specific investment cost [$/kW] 22048 27196 11113 10280 9305

Specific Cost (electricity output) [$/kWh el] 1.03 1.10 0.35 0.33 0.30

Energy Integration


VKG_S

67%

FICFB_NP_S

64.5 %

FICFB_NP_M

68.7%

FICFB_P_M

65.6%

CFB_M

71%

Finalize the economic and financial methodology and share the excel instrument with all the partners in order to have comparable results between WP4 and WP5.

Detailed study of possible use of CO2 (downstream separation) such as photobioreactor with algae, electrochemical-assisted recovery and photo-catalytic cells.

Analysis of the possible scenario “upstream separation of CO2”.

Analysis of pressurized large size plants.

Pressurized plants will be coupled with Gas Turbine in order to increase the overall efficiency.

Deliverable 4.3 – «Optimal plant configurations for the ‘biogas+SOFC’ integration»

POLITO - FUTURE WORKS



Any question?

Massimo Santarelli Andrea Lanzini Marta Gandiglio

sofcom meeting m24 - politecnico di torino · •steam / dry reforming ... auto-thermal reforming...

Documents