Integration of Biomass Gasification Based Production of Chemicals

Transcription

1 Integration of Biomass Gasification Based Production of Chemicals Case Study of an Oxo Synthesis Plant Dr. Matteo Morandin Assistant Professor Div. of Industrial Energy Systems and Technologies Dept. of Energy and Environment Funding for this work was provided by Chalmers Energy Initiative

2 Outline The Stenungsund chemical cluster Aim and scope Methodology OXO synthesis Biomass based syngas production Overview and alternatives Thermodynamic performances GHG emissions reduction potential Process economics Conclusions 2

3 The Stenungsund chemical cluster Borealis World leader for polyethylene for high voltage cables and piping Supplies district heating to the local community AkzoNobel Specialty chemicals for a variety of applications, e.g. detergents, pharmaceuticals, paints and road surfacing Ineos PVC for the building and medical sectors Cooking chemicals for the pulping industry Aga Leading supplier of industrial gases Perstorp Specialty chemicals for the construction and automotive industry RME Biodiesel Supplies district heating to the local community 3

4 Vision: energy efficient biorefinery cluster Renewable feedstock Current and future product mix Recycling 4

5 Production and emission data kton CO 2 41 kton 531 kton 43,6 GWh 390 kton CO 2 54 kton 206 kton 113 kton 1230 kton CO kton CO 2 56 kton 84 kton (??) 590 kton 11 kton 636 kton 115 kton 110 kton 111 kton 47,4 GWh CO kton TOTAL Emissions of CO 2 ~ 900 kton/yr 5

6 Aim Estimation of thermodynamic and economic performances as well as GHG emission consequences of integration of biomass gasification based production of chemicals in an existing chemical cluster. Scope of this work: Quantification of the co-location gains that can be achieved by integrating the biorefinery concepts with the OXO synthesis plant DRIVERS for co-location at the chemical cluster: large volumes of fuels or chemicals high temperature synthesis routes safety regulations regarding chemical hazards and pressurized equipment 6

7 OXO synthesis and feedstock switching options Option 1: replace NG with Bio-SNG (produced on-site or elsewhere, e.g. GoBiGas) Option 2: produce syngas from gasified biomass on-site Option 3 (not covered in this work!): biomass derived olefines (e.g. MTO,ETE) 7

8 Methodology Consistent system boundaries Integration point, process design, location Process layout Process models to generate mass and energy balances Process integration Heat recovery targets using pinch analysis tools Process performance evaluation Thermodynamic performance Energy efficiency Exergy efficiency Global greenhouse (GHG) emissions GHG emission reduction potential Process economics Change in production cost 8

9 Overview of studied system Natural gas-based syngas production in POX (Base Case) Bio-SNG production + POX (BioSNG2Syngas) Bio-syngas production (Bio2Syngas) Fixed! H 2: 57 MW Syngas: 115 MW Tail gas: 7 MW HP steam: 16 MW LP steam: 20 MW Off-gases: 2.4 MW 9

10 Syngas production: base case 10

11 Syngas production bio-option 1: BioSNG2syngas Twin-bed indirect gasifier Bio-SNG (to conventional POX) 11

12 BioSNG2syngas: Heat integration opportunities Case EL: Excess heat to a condensing steam cycle Case LP: Excess heat to a backpressure steam cycle 12

13 Syngas production bio-option 2: Bio2syngas Twin-bed indirect gasifier 13

14 Bio2syngas: Heat integration opportunities Case EL: Excess heat to a backpressure steam cycle (constant HPsteam, max EL) Case LP: Excess heat to a backpressure steam cycle (constant HPsteam, max LPsteam) 14

15 Key results of thermodynamic performance evaluation Base case BioSNG2syngas Bio2Syngas Feedstock (HHV) NG: 175 MW Biomass: 262 MW Biomass: 216 MW ηen 86 % Case EL Case LP - ηex +6% 66 % +9% 73 % +2% 75 % 72 % Case EL Case LP - 60 % +13% +4% 46 % 50 % +9% +7% 55 % +2% 57 % SNG detour introduces 9 to 13 efficiency points penalty Maximize LP production instead of power introduces from 2 to 6 efficiency points increase 15

16 System boundary expansion for economic andghgghg GHG emissions calculations GHG GHG GHG GHG Production & distribution Bio source GHG NG Syngas production H2 prod. H2 imp. GHG Heat rec. option Biomass RME Ref. el. prod. Olefins prod. Expanded system Oxo system Syngas system FG RME prod. GHG Electricity Ethylene Propylene Boiler NG grid GHG Tail gas LP&HP steam Off-gases Oxo synthesis plant Oxo product Final use Syngas H2 GHG GHG System boundary: η &η System boundary: System boundary: GHG 16

17 GHG emission reduction potentials compared to Base case (kg CO2,eq tonne-1) Different marginal electricity production technology (Coal PP / Coal PP+CCS) 17

18 Change in OXO production costs Price projection IEA current policy 2030 Biomass: 13 /MWh; NG: 41 /MWh; Av. price 2014 in Sweden woodchips: ~ 20 /MWh NG, fuel gas: ~ 40 /MWh Price projections IEA 450 ppm 2030 Biomass: 26 /MWh; NG: 32 /MWh; 18

19 Summary of results BioSNG2Syngas Bio2Syngas 19

20 Conclusions The economics of Bio2Syngas are favourable compared to BioSNG2Syngas The respective merits of the NG Base Case, BioSNG2Syngas and Bio2Syngas w r t efficiency, economic performance and carbon footprint depend on a number of factors, including: Energy market prices and policy instruments Opportunities for energy integration with other processes Available options for harnessing excess process heat 20

21 Publications 1. First author: Maria Arvidsson Ph.D. student doi: /ef500366p Energy & Fuels 2014, 28, doi: /j.jclepro Journal of Cleaner Production

22 TACK! Dr. Matteo Morandin Assistant Professor Chalmers University of Technology Dept. of Energy and Environment Div. of Industrial Energy Systems and Technologies tel.: +46-(0) website: 22

23 Price sensitivity (Bio2Syngas,caseLP,current policies) Investment cost ±30% ±38 per t oxo product NG price ±30% ±54 per t oxo product Biomass price ±30% ±19 per t oxo product 23

24 example of analysis of heat integration opportunities 24