Development of a techno-economic model for dynamic calculation of cost of electricity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of an integrated UCG–CCS process

Nakaten, Natalie; Schlüter, Ralph; Azzam, Rafig; Kempka, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.014

Cited by 86 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 4 lists further fuel production costs that related to the UCG process, summing up to 876 Me for electricity as well as 603 Me for methanol and 380 Me for ammonia production. We applied a modified version of the model developed by Nakaten et al [5] to assess the costs of two offshore UCG-CCS/CCU production chains, aiming at methanol and ammonia generation. For comparability, the generic offshore model parametrisation is equal to that of the previously discussed onshore model.…”

Section: Model Input Parameters Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tool applied for economic assessment is the techno-economic model developed by Nakaten et al [5]. This model is applicable to calculate the costs of using UCG synthesis gas for electricity generation in a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant coupled with CCS, taking into account site-specific geological, chemical, technical and market-dependent boundary conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hereby, a target coal seam is converted by the injection of a gasification agent into a synthesis gas within a controlled, sub-stoichiometric gasification process [1][2][3][4][5]. After processing, UCG synthesis gas is applicable for different end-use options, such as the provision of chemical raw materials, liquid fuels, hydrogen, fertilizers or electricity (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

RETRACTED: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness

Nakaten

Kempka

2017

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) enables the utilisation of coal reserves that are currently not economically exploitable due to complex geological boundary conditions. Hereby, UCG produces a high-calorific synthesis gas that can be used for generation of electricity, fuels and chemical feedstock. The present study aims to identify economically competitive, site-specific end-use options for onshore and offshore produced UCG synthesis gas, taking into account the capture and storage (CCS) and/or utilisation (CCU) of resulting CO 2 . Modelling results show that boundary conditions that favour electricity, methanol and ammonia production expose low costs for air separation, high synthesis gas calorific values and H 2 /N 2 shares as well as low CO 2 portions of max. 10%. Hereby, a gasification agent ratio of more than 30% oxygen by volume is not favourable from economic and environmental viewpoints. Compared to the costs of an offshore platform with its technical equipment, offshore drilling costs are negligible. Thus, uncertainties related to parameters influenced by drilling costs are also negligible. In summary, techno-economic process modelling results reveal that scenarios with high CO 2 emissions are the most cost-intensive ones, offshore UCG-CCS/CCU costs are twice as high as the onshore ones, and yet all investigated scenarios except from offshore ammonia production are competitive on the European market.

show abstract

Section: Model Input Parameters Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RETRACTED: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness

Nakaten

Kempka

2017

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In deeper view of the basic flowsheet build-up procedure, the integration of main sections (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) was oriented at the in-situ reactor zone distribution known from principal previous UCG field experiments and related excavation experiences that have been well documented in several preceding UCG publications [1,3,8,59,60]. The basic reactor distribution is thus characterized by development of an oxidant impacted high-temperature reduction/partial zone near the injection well (cf.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Underground Coal Gasification provides a promising technical and economic potential to solve current long-term power supply conflicts worldwide by controlled in-situ conversion of otherwise non-mineable coal reserves [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. While the technique itself is a rather simple concept in theory, experience from major international field trials over the last decades shows its control in practice is much more complicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative thermodynamic underground coal gasification model for coupled synthesis gas quality and tar production analyses

Klebingat

Kempka

Schulten

et al. 2016

Fuel

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originally published as:Klebingat, S., Kempka, T., Schulten, M., Azzam, R., Fernández-Steeger, T. M. (2016): Innovative thermodynamic underground coal gasification model for coupled synthesis gas quality and tar production analyses. Underground Coal Gasification, Thermodynamic model, Synthesis gas quality, Tar production, Environmental impacts 2 ABSTRACT Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) technology is steadily improving due to high scientific and industrial efforts in currently over 14 countries worldwide. A fundamental UCG objective refers to syngas production for multiple end-uses, accompanied by environmental impact mitigation focusing contaminant reduction. In terms of this topic, the control of groundwater quality endangering tars has been a key problem rarely addressed in UCG publications so far.Considering UCG main sub-processes, operating parameters and tar spectrum knowledge

show abstract

Application of Sorbents for Industrial Waste Water Purification

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sorption technique was tested for decontamination of post‐processing underground coal gasification (UCG) water contaminated by a variety of organic and inorganic substances. Four sorbents (two zeolites and two activated carbons) with nanoiron were chosen for laboratory and pilot sorption experiments. Four main phenol contaminants typical for UCG water served as markers for sorption efficiency. Axial dispersion was evaluated for three pilot channel positions filled with gravel, sand, and sand with stones. Both activated carbons revealed the best sorption efficiency in laboratory as well as in pilot experiments for organic and inorganic contaminants. A sandwich structure of different sorbents was suggested as the optimal design of a reactive bed suitable for tests in the experimental mine.

show abstract

Development of a techno-economic model for dynamic calculation of cost of electricity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of an integrated UCG–CCS process

Cited by 86 publications

References 21 publications

RETRACTED: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness

RETRACTED: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness

Innovative thermodynamic underground coal gasification model for coupled synthesis gas quality and tar production analyses

Application of Sorbents for Industrial Waste Water Purification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About