Combining petroleum coke and natural gas for efficient liquid fuels production

Okeke, Ikenna J.; Adams, Thomas A.

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.058

Cited by 37 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…have reported a carbon efficiency of 52.2% in their modeling studies . Okeke and Adams have studied co‐processing petroleum coke (petcoke) and NG to liquid fuels via FT synthesis and have reported a carbon efficiency of 32–44% . Hence the results determined in this analysis compare well with other studies.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Understanding the role of Fischer–Tropsch reaction kinetics in techno‐economic analysis for co‐conversion of natural gas and biomass to liquid transportation fuels

Sahir

Zhang

Tan

et al. 2019

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increased availability of low-cost natural gas, the co-conversion of natural gas and biomass-to-liquid fuels has attracted attention from industry due to its potential for improving liquid fuel yields while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. This study provides an understanding of Fischer-Tropsch kinetics, improvements in processing strategies for hydrocarbon production, and of its impact on cost for the co-conversion of natural gas and biomass-to-transportation fuels. Studies that investigate the effect of Fischer-Tropsch reaction kinetics on techno-economic analysis can be used to develop process models that consider reaction stoichiometry and account for the effect of the paraffin-to-olefin ratio. We consider two processing scenarios: (1) one that does not employ a hydrocracker, and (2) the other where a hydrocracker serves as an integral part of the process scheme. Our analysis shows that co-processing natural gas not only facilitates the economic benefits of converting biomass-to-liquid fuels but also facilitates flexibility in process integration. The resulting minimum fuel selling price ranged from $2.47-$3.47/GGE (gallon gasoline equivalent) without the hydrocracker and ranged from $2.17-$3.60/ GGE with the inclusion of the hydrocracker, for a 50 million GGE hydrocarbon fuel production facility and for varying blending ratios for biomass from 0-100% with natural gas. The hydrocracker helps to increase the production of diesel and jet fuels substantially, with carbon efficiencies of 50% attained for a chain growth probability of 0.87. The cost penalty comes from the capital expenses of the hydrocracker, and the

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Understanding the role of Fischer–Tropsch reaction kinetics in techno‐economic analysis for co‐conversion of natural gas and biomass to liquid transportation fuels

Sahir

Zhang

Tan

et al. 2019

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in our previous studies, we widely employed the Peng-Robinson with the Boston-Mathias alpha function (PR-BM) in the flowsheet. [14] In addition, we used the predictive Redlich-Soave model for the CO 2 -H 2 O separation, capture, and compression of CO 2 as it has shown to perform accurately at very high operational pressures. [19] The reader is referred to those studies for explanations of why those models were chosen.…”

Section: Process Model Physical Properties and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some studies have shown the technical and economic feasibility of converting petcoke to fuels, chemicals, and electricity, [11][12][13][14] they have predominantly focused on the gasification pathway, which employs a highly energy-intensive solvent-based technology to capture CO 2 . In contrast to this approach, oxy-combustion conversion technology takes advantage of the flue gas containing primarily CO 2 and H 2 O, which requires relatively little energy to separate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9] Furthermore, a comparison of these plants' performances enabled us to draw conclusions about the most efficient means of petcoke disposal, which we have proposed in previous studies. [14,17] Figure 1 shows the process flow diagrams of the proposed petcoke oxy-combustion power plants, which differ in terms of how CO 2 is captured and purified. The upstream portions of the plant are the same for all three processes, which is described next.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advanced petroleum coke oxy‐combustion power generation with carbon capture and sequestration: Part I—Design and techno‐economic analysis

Okeke

Adams

2021

Can J Chem Eng

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a first-of-its-kind design and economic analysis of a petroleum coke oxy-combustion electric power generation technology operated with and without carbon capture and sequestration. In this work, we examined three petroleum coke oxy-combustion designs: petcoke oxy-combustion, petcoke oxy-combustion operated with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and petcoke oxy-combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS. The technical and economic performance of the designs were assessed based on thermal efficiency, CO 2 capture rate, pipeline CO 2 purity, CO 2 emissions, and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). The results of our assessments yielded a base-case LCOE of $84.24/MWh for the petcoke oxy-combustion design, $90.94/MWh for the petcoke oxy-combustion design operated with CCS, and $102.8/MWh for petcoke oxy-combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS. Although the design that employed CO 2 purification had higher LCOE than the other designs, its captured CO 2 stream meets pipeline standards. Therefore, this design was selected for the proposed petroleum coke oxy-combustion technology. Further analysis carried out includes the cradleto-customer gate life-cycle environmental impact assessment of the petcoke oxy-combustion power plant which is presented in Part II of this work. Thus, this work represents the first study to present the eco-technoeconomic and life-cycle analysis that considered the impacts of O 2 removal from CO 2 captured from oxy-combustion exhaust via cryogenic distillation for solid fuels in general. K E Y W O R D SCO 2 capture, eco-techno-economic analysis, electricity, oxy-combustion, petcoke Abbreviations: CCA, cost of CO 2 avoided; CCS, carbon capture and sequestration; DCFROR, discounted cash flow rate of return; FGD, flue gas desulfurization; GHG, greenhouse gas; HEN, heat exchanger network; HHV, higher heating value; HPT, high-pressure turbine; HRSG, heat recovery steam generator; IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle; IPT, intermediate pressure turbine; LCOE, levelized cost of electricity; LPT, lowpressure turbine; OPEX, operating expenditure; POXY CCS, petcoke oxy-combustion with CCS; POXY, petcoke oxy-combustion; POXYD, petcoke oxy-combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS; ROR, rate of return; TCI, total capital investment.

show abstract

“…Bakshi and Fiksel suggest that the inclusion of sustainability objectives in a firm's decision-making strategy represents a shift in thinking: environmental and social aspects may not necessarily be conflicting with economic objectives but instead represent a business opportunity to increase shareholder profits [121,124]. Environmentally-friendly energy projects that also present economic opportunities include: exploitation of waste feedstocks [233,234] such as petcoke [30] or coke oven and blast furnace gas from steel making [235,236], improving energy efficiency through process integration [237], for instance by work and heat integration [238], freshwater use minimization [239,240], etc. In addition, adopting a proactive approach to including sustainability considerations voluntarily may have pragmatic value in preventing crippling regulations and political backlash [121].…”

Section: Modeling Sustainability Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling and Simulation of Energy Systems: A Review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy is a key driver of the modern economy, therefore modeling and simulation of energy systems has received significant research attention. We review the major developments in this area and propose two ways to categorize the diverse contributions. The first categorization is according to the modeling approach, namely into computational, mathematical, and physical models. With this categorization, we highlight certain novel hybrid approaches that combine aspects of the different groups proposed. The second categorization is according to field namely Process Systems Engineering (PSE) and Energy Economics (EE). We use the following criteria to illustrate the differences: the nature of variables, theoretical underpinnings, level of technological aggregation, spatial and temporal scales, and model purposes. Traditionally, the Process Systems Engineering approach models the technological characteristics of the energy system endogenously. However, the energy system is situated in a broader economic context that includes several stakeholders both within the energy sector and in other economic sectors. Complex relationships and feedback effects exist between these stakeholders, which may have a significant impact on strategic, tactical, and operational decision-making. Leveraging the expertise built in the Energy Economics field on modeling these complexities may be valuable to process systems engineers. With this categorization, we present the interactions between the two fields, and make the case for combining the two approaches. We point out three application areas: (1) optimal design and operation of flexible processes using demand and price forecasts, (2) sustainability analysis and process design using hybrid methods, and (3) accounting for the feedback effects of breakthrough technologies. These three examples highlight the value of combining Process Systems Engineering and Energy Economics models to get a holistic picture of the energy system in a wider economic and policy context.

show abstract

Combining petroleum coke and natural gas for efficient liquid fuels production

Cited by 37 publications

References 25 publications

Understanding the role of Fischer–Tropsch reaction kinetics in techno‐economic analysis for co‐conversion of natural gas and biomass to liquid transportation fuels

Understanding the role of Fischer–Tropsch reaction kinetics in techno‐economic analysis for co‐conversion of natural gas and biomass to liquid transportation fuels

Advanced petroleum coke oxy‐combustion power generation with carbon capture and sequestration: Part I—Design and techno‐economic analysis

Modeling and Simulation of Energy Systems: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About