opportunities and challenges for power-to-liquid ... and... · coal/gas -to...

Opportunities and Challenges for Power-to-Liquid Technologies towards

Sustainable Aviation

Sandra Adelung, Friedemann G. Albrecht, Zoé Béalu, Stefan Estelmann,

Simon Maier, Moritz Raab, Ralph-Uwe Dietrich

Research Area Alternative Fuels

Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics

DLR e.V.

12. June 2018

Frankfurt, Germany

Uwe Dietrich • Opportunities and Challenges for Power-to-Liquid Technologies towards sustainable aviation • 12. June 2018 DLR.de • Chart 1

Agenda

1. Motivation for Alternative Fuels • Need for GHG emission reduction • Actual GHG emissions in Europe • Biofuels options in European transport • Options to reduce GHG emissions

2. Alternative Fuels Options • Raw materials and available energy sources • Fuel potential in Europe

3. Process Evaluation of Renewable Kerosene • Introduction to DLR methodology • Example: PtL – Jet fuel by Fischer-Tropsch

4. Summary and Outlook

DLR.de • Chart 2 Uwe Dietrich • Opportunities and Challenges for Power-to-Liquid Technologies towards sustainable aviation • 12. June 2018

1. Climate Change – Driver for Renewable Fuels?


Source: https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

Thousands of Years ago

• Historic natural fluctuation between 180 and 280 ppm CO2 concentration

• undeniable break-out since 1960’s

• No visible impact of renewables introduction since 2000’s

1. GHG emission trend in Europe

• European GHG reduction behind target (slow reduction in Germany)

• Transport GHG emissions grow considerable


1. Growth in Aviation Sector

DLR.de • Chart 6

Source: Thess et al., DGLR-Mitgliedermagazin „Luft- und Raumfahrt“ edition 2/2016, p.20

(in billion passenger kilometers /a)

Ti

me

axis

Europe North America China

Fuel for sustainable

aviation

1210 2880 370

750 2720 60

(specific passenger kilometers per capita/a)

Assuming a saturation at around 3000 km/capita*a

+4% +150% +710%

Uwe Dietrich • Opportunities and Challenges for Power-to-Liquid Technologies towards sustainable aviation • 12. June 2018

1. IATA Technology Roadmap 4. Edition, June 2013

DLR.de • Chart 7

1

2

3

[1] FuelsEurope “Statistical Report“ 2010

CO2 emission forecast without reduction measures

Improvement of technologies, operations, infrastructure

Economic measures (CORSIA signed 2016)

Radical technology transitions and alternative fuels

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

Planned Measures:

No action

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

3

Technology

Source: iata.org

1 2

Operations

Airport

Infrastruct.

European Aviation fuel demand:

ca. 56.5 Mt[1] in 2010

(optimistic) assumption until 2050: biofuels are 100% CO2-„neutral“

demand of ≈ 56 - 60 Mt kerosene equivalent EU

-50 % CO2

by 2050

Aviation

Self-commitments:

Improvement of fuel

efficiency

≈ 1,5 % p.a. until 2020

Carbon-neutral growth

from 2020

CO2 emission reductions

of 50 % by 2050

(comp. to 2010)


Agenda






DLR.de • Chart 9

2. Sources & Routes for Alternative FT-Kerosene

Biofuel 1. Gen. Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL)

Waste-to-Liquid (WtL)

Power-to-Liquid (PtL)

Power and Biomass-to-Liquid (PBtL)

Coal/Gas-to-Liquid (CtL/GtL)

Power and Coal/Gas/Waste-

to-Liquid

Cultivated plants

(wheat, rape, beets etc.)

Fuel synthesis (2nd generation): Fischer-Tropsch / Methanol-to-Gasoline / Mixed Alcohol / etc.

Waste

Biomass (straw, organic waste, residues

forest wood etc.)

Green electricity (wind, sun,

water)

Conventional electricity

generation

CO2-source (air, industrial

flue gas)

Coal, natural gas

Biodiesel, HEFA, Methanol,

Ethanol, etc.

Optional production route

Strom

CO2

E-71

Wasserabtrennung

ATR/RWGS

E-75

KühlwasserDampf

1 Step DME Reaktor

Abtrennung

Dampferzeugung

Dampf

Wasser / Dampf

+ -

H2

O2

O2-Export

DME

RecyclePurgegas

Elektrolyse

Rectisol

Wasser

Methanol

Spülgas

Feuchtes Spülgas

Purge

- Low usable raw material potential

- RED II restriction?

- Too large CO2 footprint

The supply of large quantities of alternative kerosene within low GHG emissions is possible by

coupling the sectors electricity generation and fuel markets (without biomass imports).


2. Renewable Energy Potential for Europe


[1] Eurostat database, 2015

[2] European Environment Agency, “Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential,” 2009.

Potential for Europe? – e.g. jet fuel from wind power

• Current jet fuel consumption: ≈ 56 Mt/a[1]

• Power demand for exclusively power based kerosene

in Europe: ≈ 1,410 TWh (ƞxtL ca. 50 %)

• European wind power potential[2]: 12,200 – 30,400 TWh

≈ 8.6 - 22 times of power based kerosene demand!

Agenda






PTL

Technical evaluation

Ecological evaluation

Economic assessment

3. Process Evaluation @ DLR


DLR-evaluation and

optimization tool

Efficiencies (X-to-Liquid, Overall) Carbon conversion Specific feedstock demand Exergy analysis

3. Multiple Options for Power-to-Liquid


Pyrolysis & gasification

Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

Separation & upgrading

Electrolysis

CO2 purification PtL

PBtL

BtL

Reverse water-gas-shift (900°C)

Water-gas-shift (230°C) + CO2

removal

CO2

H2

CO,H2,CO2

FT-Product

CO2

Internal Recycle

External Recycle

Off gas

Power

Biomass

Water

Steam

Steam

Oxy-fuel burner + steam cycle

Tail gas

CO2-recycle

O2

O2

Syngas supply Syngas upgrade Fuel production

Electrolysis technologies

•Alkaline

•Proton exchange

membrane (PEM)

•Solid oxide (SOEC)

FT technologies

• High Temp. /Low Temp.

• Fe- / Co-Catalyst

0

0,1

0 10 20 30

Ma

ss

Sh

are

/ -

C number / -

Fischer-Tropsch product distribution

= 0.75

= 0.85

CCU technologies

• Adsorption

• Absorption

• Membrane Sep.

PTL



Economic assessment



DLR-evaluation and

optimization tool

CAPEX, OPEX, NPC Sensitivity analysis Identification of most economic

feasible process design

3. Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) Methodology

• Adapted from best-practice chem. eng. methodology

• Meets AACE class 3-4, accuracy: +/- 30 %

• Year specific using annual CEPCI Index


Plant and unit sizes

Material and energy balance

Production costs €/l , €/kg , €/MJ

• Raw materials

• Operating materials

• Maintenance

• Wages …

• Equipment costs

• Piping & installation

• Factory buildings

• Engineering services …

Process simulation results

Aspen Plus®

Capital costs Operational costs TEPET-ASPEN

Link

3. TEA: Base Case definition


PtL Plant capacity:

Power Input: 293 MWe

Fuel Production: 100 kt/a

[1] G. Saur, Wind-To-Hydrogen Project: Electrolyzer Capital Cost Study, Technical Report NREL, 2008

[2] Peters M, Timmerhaus K, West R. Plant design and economics for chemical engineers, New York, 2004

[3] I. Hannula and E. Kurkela, Liquid transportation fuels via large-scale fluidised-bed gasification of lignocellulosic biomass, Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2013

[4] Eurostat, Preise Elektrizität für Industrieabnehmer in Deutschland, 2016

[5] NREL,“Appendix B: Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Sheets - Oxygen Production,“ US Department of Energy, 2013

[6] Own calculations based on natural gas price from Eurostat database

720

1,350 €/kW

17.44 Mio.€/(kmolfeed/s) [3]

Year: 30 years

Full load hours: 5%

Investment costs:

PEM-Electrolyzer (stack): €/kW [1]

PEM-Electrolyzer (system):

Steam (export): 14.7 €/t [6]

Fischer-Tropsch reactor:

Raw materials and utility costsGerman Grid Power: 83.7 €/MWh [4]

factors according to [2]

Oxygen (export): 23.7 €/t [5]

General economic assumptions:

2016 Plant lifetime:

8,260 h/a Interest rate:

3. Base Case Results of TEA


Power-to-Liquid (PTL)

Investment: ca. 742 mio. €

Fuel production: 100 kt/a

Fuel costs : ca. 2.25 €/l

Electrolyzer

Fischer-Tropsch

Remaining (CAPEX)

Power[3]

Remaining (Utilities)

Maintenance

Labor costs

Remaining (OPEX)

CAPEX:

17.0 %

65 %

(1.47 €/l)

Renewable kerosene can‘t compete against fossil kerosene

Renewable electricity price has to decrease tremendously

in order to make PtL fuels competitive

How to reduce the costs for renewable kerosene?

• Increasing and subsidizing renewable power production

• Increase efficiency (e.g. electrolyzer)

• Reduce PtL CAPEX (e.g. electrolyzer, FT synthesis)

• System integration (Sector coupling and multiple products: Fuel,

chemicals, district heat, steam, oxygen, power-storage, etc.)

PTL



Economic assessment



DLR-evaluation and

optimization tool

CO2-footprint CO2-abatement costs

DLR.de • Chart 19

3. CO2-Footprint Calculation - Methodology

PtX - Concept

Power footprint

Carbon dioxide footprint

Footprint of products:

Fuel/Heat/H2 etc.

Carbon footprint of feedstock and energy sources

defines carbon footprint of product!

𝐶𝑂2 𝐴𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 €

𝑡𝐶𝑂2

= 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙/𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡/𝐻2 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

𝐶𝑂2 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Pla

nt effic

iency

Accounting for by-products

System integration Pla

nt e

mis

sio

ns

efficiency losses


DLR.de • Chart 20

3. CO2-Footprint calculation - Bounderies

Power Carbon dioxide Oxygen

Functional unit [kgCO2eq/MWh]a [kgCO2eq/t]b [kgCO2eq/t] c

Low boundary 10 5 100

Average 272.5 77.5 250

High boundary 535 150 400

a Low boundary value for pure wind electricity taken from[1]. High value corresponds to the actual CO2-footprint of the German electricity sector [2]. b Based on own calculations. The carbon footprint represents emissions arising from sequestration of CO2 from flue gas. Flue gas from cement

industry and coal fired power plants were investigated. The probably fossil nature of the flue gas was not taken into account. Low/high value:

energy demand of CO2-sequestration is covered with wind energy/German electricity mix. c Taken from ProBas databank [1]. Low/high value due to different electricity sources.

[1] Umweltbundesamt, “Prozessorientierte Basisdaten für Umweltmanagementsysteme,” http://www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de/php/index.php.

[2] Umweltbundesamt, “Entwicklung der spezifischen Kohlendioxid-Emissionen des deutschen Strommix in den Jahren 1990 – 2016,“ Dessau-Roßlau,2017.


PtL

DLR.de • Chart 21

3. CO2-Footprint - Results

Fossil fuel

reference:

Ca. 83.8 gCO2/MJ

CO2- emission reduction

PtL-concepts only viable using CO2-neutral power!

CO2-Abatement costs:

Case 1 – Status quo:

Price of fossil kerosene: ca. 0.5 €/l

Power price: 83.7 €/MWh

CO2-Abatement costs € / 𝑡𝐶𝑂2

Case PtL-Low

1 827

2 155

Case 2 – Pressure on fossil energy:

Price of fossil kerosene: ca. 1.0 €/l

Power price: 30 €/MWh

Current CO2 price of EU Emissions Trading System:

ca. 5-15 €/tCO2.eq

𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝑨𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 €

𝒕𝑪𝑶𝟐

= 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝑭𝒖𝒆𝒍/𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒕/𝑯𝟐 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔

𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝑬𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏


Option 4

Option 1

Option 3

Option 5

Option 6

CO

2-A

bat

emen

t co

sts

/ €/t

CO

2

CO2-Abatement Amount / tCO2/a

Option 8

Option 9

Option 10 Option 11

Option 2

Green Fuel 2 ???

Goal: CO2 reduction @ minimized GHG-Abatement cost, either by reducing GHG footprint or costs!

Standardized and verified methodology for LCA and TEA required!

EU instrument to reduce GHG emissions: CO2-certificates

Green Fuel 1 ???

3. Long-term Target: Merit-Order of Carbon Mitigation Technologies


4. Summary & Outlook

• European GHG emission reduction by 1 % p.a. required – only 5 EU28 countries on track

• Renewable kerosene will be long-term required for aviation

• Transparent and standardized methodology for cost estimation and GHG-footprint calculation available @ DLR

• European green fuels have large potential to contribute to GHG emission reduction


German Aerospace Center (DLR)

Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics, Stuttgart

Research Area Alternative Fuels

[email protected]

http://www.dlr.de/tt/en

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

VISIT US @ HALL 5.1, BOOTH C41


opportunities and challenges for power-to-liquid ... and... · coal/gas -to...

Documents