Performance of simulated flexible integrated gasification polygeneration facilities, Part B: Economic evaluation

J.C. Meerman, Ana Calderon Ramirez, W.C. Turkenburg and A.P.C. Faaij

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2012, vol. 16, issue 8, 6083-6102

Abstract: This paper investigates the economics of integrated gasification polygeneration (IG-PG) facilities and assesses under which market conditions flexible facilities outperform static facilities. In this study, the facilities use Eucalyptus wood pellets (EP), torrefied wood pellets (TOPS) and Illinois #6 coal as feedstock to produce electricity, FT-liquids, methanol and urea. All facilities incorporate CCS. The findings show production costs from static IG-PG facilities ranging between 12 and 21€/GJ using coal, 19–33€/GJ using TOPS and 22–38€/GJ using EP, which is above the average market prices. IG-PG facilities can become competitive if capital costs drop by 10%–27% for coal based facilities. Biomass based facilities will need lower biomass pellet prices or higher CO2 credit prices. Biomass becomes competitive with coal at a CO2 credit price of 50–55€/t CO2. Variations in feedstock, CO2 credit and electricity prices can be offset by operating a feedstock flexible IG-PG facility, which can switch between coal and TOPS, thereby altering its electricity production. The additional investment is around 0.5% of the capital costs of a dedicated coal based IG-PG facility. At 30€/t CO2, TOPS will be the preferred feedstock for 95% of the time at a feedstock price of 5.7€/GJ. At these conditions, FT-liquids (gasoline/diesel) can be produced for 15.8€/GJ (116 $/bbl). Historic records show price variations between 5.7 and 7.3€/GJ for biomass pellet, 1.0–5.6€/GJ for coal and 0–32€/t CO2. Within these price ranges, coal is generally the preferred feedstock, but occasionally biomass is preferred. Lower biomass prices will increase the frequency of switching feedstock preference from coal to biomass, raising the desire for flexibility. Of the three investigated chemicals, an IG-PG facility producing FT-liquids benefits the most from flexibility. Our study suggests that if the uncertainty in commodity prices is high, a small additional investment can make flexible IG-PG facilities attractive.

Keywords: Economic assessment; Gasification; Flexibility; Refinery; Biofuels; Biochemicals (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032112004236
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:16:y:2012:i:8:p:6083-6102

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/bibliographic
http://www.elsevier. ... 600126/bibliographic

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.030

Access Statistics for this article

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is currently edited by L. Kazmerski

More articles in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().