Costs gasification

Jahanke, F. C., Falsetti, J. S., and Wilson, R. F., Coke Gasification, Costs, Economics Commercial Applications. 1996 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, March 1996. 

In 1993, over 41 million pounds of polystyrene was recycled into new plastics products in the U.S. (77). Eor commingled plastics, gasification comes closest to competing with low cost landfilling (57). 

Although the rapid cost increases and shortages of petroleum-based feedstocks forecast a decade ago have yet to materialize, shift to natural gas or coal may become necessary in the new century. Under such conditions, it is possible that acrylate manufacture via acetylene, as described above, could again become attractive. It appears that condensation of formaldehyde with acetic acid might be preferred. A coal gasification complex readily provides all of the necessary intermediates for manufacture of acrylates (92). 

Produced from Co l. Estimates of the cost of producing methanol from coal have been made by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (12,17) and they are more uncertain than those using natural gas. Experience in coal-to-methanol faciUties of the type and size that would offer the most competitive product is limited. The projected costs of coal-derived methanol are considerably higher than those of methanol produced from natural gas. The cost of the production faciUty accounts for most of the increase (11). Coal-derived methanol is not expected to compete with gasoline unless oil prices exceed 0.31/L ( 50/bbl). Successful development of lower cost entrained gasification technologies could reduce the cost so as to make coal-derived methanol competitive at oil prices as low as 0.25/L ( 40/bbl) (17) (see Coal conversion processes). 

The high cost of coal handling and preparation and treatment of effluents, compounded by continuing low prices for cmde oil and natural gas, has precluded significant exploitation of coal as a feedstock for methanol. A small amount of methanol is made from coal in South Africa for local strategic reasons. Tennessee Eastman operates a 195,000-t/yr methanol plant in Tennessee based on the Texaco coal gasification process to make the methyl acetate intermediate for acetic anhydride production (15). 

Capital costs which foUow the same trend as energy consumption, can be about 1.5 to 2.0 times for partial oxidation and coal gasification, respectively, that for natural gas reforming (41). A naphtha reforming plant would cost about 15—20% more than one based on natural gas because of the requirement for hydrotreatiag faciUties and a larger front-end needed for carbon dioxide removal. 

The high capital cost, about 1500/kW, is the principal deterrent to growth of the IGCC concept. The abiUty to remove up to 99% of the sulfur species from the combustion products make the IGCC an environmentally desirable option as make calcium carbide (see Carbides), from which acetjiene is made. Synthesis gas for methanol and ammonia production is also made from gasification of coke. 

Processes for hydrogen gasification, hydrogen pyrolysis, or coking of coal usually produce Hquid co-products. The Hygas process produces about 6% Hquids as benzene, toluene, and xylene. Substitution of petroleum residuum for the coal-derived process oil has been used in studies of coal Hquefaction and offers promise as a lower cost technology (104). 

Cost of Gasification-Based Power Systems In the U.S. power industry the capital cost is usually reported in dollars per kilowatt ( /kW) and the cost of electricity (COE) in mills per Idlowatt-hour (a mill is one thousandth of a dollar). Estimation of capital cost and COE... 

The indirect liquefaction basehne design is for a plant of similar size. Unhke the direct hquefaction basehne, the design focuses on producing refined transportation fuels by use of Sheh gasification technology. Table 27-17 shows that the crude oil equivalent price is approximately 216/m ( 34/bbl). Additional technological advances in the production of synthesis gas, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and product refining have the potential to reduce the cost to 171/m ( 27/bbl) (1993 US dollars), as shown in the second column of Table 27-17. 

In Lurgi coal gasification, an example of extremely important treating is in the sulfur removal step ahead of methanation where the catalyst is poisoned by even small traces of any sulfur compound. The sulfur removal step is a relatively high capital and operating cost item. 

As an example of this technique, the estimated equipment costs for a large coal gasification project have been correlated and programmed for a computer. Thus, it is vei7 easy to get the cost of any one piece, or of many pieces of equipment, for a coal gasification or hydrocarbon processing project once the specification sheets are completed. 

This section discusses some of the items considered in the start-up costs for a coal gasification project, along with the methods of estimating each item. 

Because fuel costs are high, the search is on for processes with higher thermal efficiency and for ways to improve efficiencies of existing processes. One process being emphasized for its high efficiency is the gas turbine combined cycle. The gas turbine exhaust heat makes steam in a waste heat boiler. The steam drives turbines, often used as lielper turbines. References 1, 2, and 3 treat this subject and mention alternate equipment hookups, some in conjunction with coal gasification plants. 

In all coal gasification processes—yesterday s, today s or tomorrow s —an excessive quantity of carbon monoxide is produced. This must be reduced to near zero in order to meet market requirements—safety, interchangeability with natural gas, and lowest delivered cost to distant markets. 

G. A. White We have looked at a case consisting of a Koppers-Totzek gas, at essentially atmospheric pressure, in combination with the COED liquefaction process. We considered the residue gas that came from gasification at atmospheric pressure, methanated it at atmospheric pressure, and took out C02 at atmospheric pressure before compression. That was the minimum cost for our system. It is obvious that each system will have some difference in economics, depending on what you can achieve by methanation. 

---