synfuel park feasibility study - purdue university

1

PEMRGPURDUE ENERGY MODELING RESEARCH GROUPS

Factors That Affect the Design of Clean Coal Technologies – Phase II: 1st Interim Report

Ronald L. Rardin, Principal InvestigatorPurdue Energy Modeling Research Groups

(PEMRG)August 30, 2006

Synfuel Park Feasibility Study

2


Phase I Background• Project began in Phase I by developing a

compendium of information about Clean Coal Technologies (CCT) topics along two dimensions– Technologies of CCT– Indiana environment for CCT

• Then investigated a series of scenarios about alternative technologies, and impacts of CO2 capture in new construction and/or some retrofit

3


Phase II Vision• Investigate the feasibility of one or more

Synfuel Parks in the state using gasified Indiana coal to produce– Any or all of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Diesel, Jet

Fuel, Electricity, Syngas, and related chemicals

• Having conforming air & water emissions and expectation of sequestering CO2

4


Phase II Research Team• Purdue

– Ronald Rardin, Principal Investigator– Zuwei Yu, Senior Analyst– Forrest Holland, Senior Analyst– Jesse Oberbeck & Akiner Tuzuner, Grad Assts

• IGS subcontract– John Rupp, Assistant Director– Maria Mastalerz, Senior Researcher(with assistance from Illinois and Ohio geologic

surveys)

5


Kerosene(Jet Fuel)

Concepts & OptionsIndianaMines

Gasifier & Purification

Comb CycGeneration

FTSynthesis

Separation& Upgrading

Syngas

Syngas

Electricity

Coal CO2

Wax

Liquids

FTDiesel

Naphtha

E OilRecovery

AquiferSequester

C BedMethane

6


Single Site vs. Distributed• Originally thinking about all park activity at

single sites• Recently decided to include Distributed

Synfuel Parks with production facilities at multiple locations– Demo Case: SW Indiana coal shipped to the

existing Wabash spare gasifier, then sending syngas to new FT plant, feeding the Mt. Vernon refinery to do diesel production

7


Synfuel Park Design Opt• Maximize the economic returns over

– Sites– Coal supplies– Numbers, sizes & types of different facilities– Markets for different products (including

competitive risks from crude oil & tar sands)– Transportation & infrastructure at all stages– Management of CO2 & other environmental

concerns– Government incentives & regulation

8


Activity to Date• Funding only available quite recently

– Progress has been delayed• Focused so far on data collection about

– Technologies for the various components– Cost for technologies & infrastructure to

support them– Potential for CO2 sequestration– Standards for site selection

9


Technologies & Costs1. Syngas production Low temperature reactor + catalyst

Theoretical work has been there a long time. Great Point Energy has worked on this. It is said to be able to bring down cost but we don’t yet know by how much

High temperature gasification reactorThis is a proven technology and we have collected cost data

Hydrogen gasificationTechnology and cost are unproven

10


Technologies & Costs2. FT Liquification• There is a separate CCTR study and we will

coordinate• We have collected lot of technology and cost

data. There are various processes using basically the same principal. Some are commercial while others are still under test

• Catalyst used seems to be an important factor in determining cost (Syntroleum claims a super one)

• Choice of FT technologies related to product mix desired

11


Technologies & Costs3. Power production• Power production benefits from steam with high

temperature gasification, but less so with the lower temperature technologies

4. Sites• Some developers will already have preferred sites• In addition, we have identified site criteria to screen

possibilities: power grid, water, rail, coal mines, sequestration, gas pipelines, highway, land use

12


CO2 Sequestration • CO2 sequestration – May be a key to the

future for clean coal projects

• Have been collecting cost & potential data of CO2 capture, pipeline, injection etc., and working with IGS and Illinois Geology Survey for likely sequestration sites (EOR, CBM, and aquifer)

13


CO2 Sequestration - Magnitudes• Estimated potential

– Western Indiana (EOR+CBM) = 0.234 Gton (361 Gscf)– Eastern Illinois (EOR+CBM) = 2.480 Gton (3903 Gscf)– Eastern Indiana (saline) = 80.7 Gton *– Illinois Basin (saline) = 34-39 Gton *

• CO2 production– Indiana coal-fired power = 0.092 Gton / year

• Natural gas consumption comparison– Indiana total = 526 Gscf / year

* different studies with conflicting assumptions

14

PEMRGPURDUE ENERGY MODELING RESEARCH GROUPSCO2 Potential (IGS)

15


ECBM & EOR Potential

---IL-09-4348IL-08

15619721130IL-074501436998IL-06173495352IL-052514989IL-041821023594IL-037370191IL-02-545288IL-01916991IN-036716099IN-02893244IN-01

EOR out(Mbbls)

CBM out(Bscf)

CO2 in(Mtons)Node

16


Related Student: CO2 Mgmt OptMin Levelized cost over 30 yearsSubject to

Regional power load growthCO2 pipeline constructionExisting power transmission + expansionCO2 hard limit scenariosCO2 tax & trade scenarios

17


Related Student: Risk Analysis• Whether a syngas plant survives depends on the

movement of natural gas prices• CTL the same relative to world crude prices and

competition from oil sands in Canada • Student working on a gaming model that takes

into consideration the gaming behavior of OPEC & oil sands vs. CTL & syngas

• The results (to be presented at a DOE conference) show CTL may have a big role

18


Demo Case of Distributed Park• Wabash has a spare gasifier ready for use• Mount Vernon refinery has a capacity of 23,000

bpd (with almost 25% extra capacity)• There is a gas pipeline between Terry Haute and

Evansville• Questions are: Can the pipeline be used for

shipping syngas south? Would it be better to add the FT facilities near the Wabash gasifier and ship liquids?

19


Main Thrusts of Future Work• Reduce sites to a small list• Select technologies to include and continue

to collect data on performance & cost• Link with data on infrastructures & analyses

of market risks• Structure an optimization model for Synfuel

Park design• Refine & apply the model under numerous

scenarios to produce project findings

20


Planned Time Line~ Dec 2006: Site analysis + Demo Case +

Technology menu with efficiencies & yields~ Mar 2007: Data update + Risks & Incentives +

Preliminary Synfuel Park optimization model ~ May 2007: Final Synfuel Park optimization model

& calibration + Scenario specification~ June 2007: Results, analyses, and final report

(assumes no cost extension to 6/30)

synfuel park feasibility study - purdue university

Documents