TY - JOUR
T1 - Techno-economic analysis of methanol production units coupling solid oxide cells and thermochemical biomass conversion via the TwoStage gasifier
AU - Butera, Giacomo
AU - Jensen, Søren H.
AU - Ahrenfeldt, Jesper
AU - Clausen, Lasse R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Energy dense liquid biofuels are needed where direct electrification is infeasible, such as the heavy-transports sector. A novel flexible methanol production unit with highly integrated solid oxide cells, characterized by five operating modes, is compared with two non-flexible units from a techno-economic perspective. The aim is to investigate whether a more complex flexible methanol production facility that is able to both store and produce electricity could be cost-competitive with single-mode solutions, by ensuring a higher capacity factor. The flexible solution has the highest capital cost (620 M$2019), followed by the so-called electricity storage single-mode unit (490 M$2019) and the conventional unit (390 M$2019). Decomposition of the methanol production costs shows that electricity and biomass are the major cost factors. The minimum fuel selling price is generally lowest for the conventional unit (92–117 $/MWhth), followed by the electricity storage single-mode unit (87–127 $/MWhth), and the flexible system (93–125 $/MWhth). Flexibility is generally not a key-strength for the flexible unit, as the increased investment cost associated to a major complexity represents a disadvantage. However, flexibility becomes relevant when imposing constraints on the use of electricity produced from fossil fuels to produce methanol, since it ensures higher capacity factor and methanol yield.
AB - Energy dense liquid biofuels are needed where direct electrification is infeasible, such as the heavy-transports sector. A novel flexible methanol production unit with highly integrated solid oxide cells, characterized by five operating modes, is compared with two non-flexible units from a techno-economic perspective. The aim is to investigate whether a more complex flexible methanol production facility that is able to both store and produce electricity could be cost-competitive with single-mode solutions, by ensuring a higher capacity factor. The flexible solution has the highest capital cost (620 M$2019), followed by the so-called electricity storage single-mode unit (490 M$2019) and the conventional unit (390 M$2019). Decomposition of the methanol production costs shows that electricity and biomass are the major cost factors. The minimum fuel selling price is generally lowest for the conventional unit (92–117 $/MWhth), followed by the electricity storage single-mode unit (87–127 $/MWhth), and the flexible system (93–125 $/MWhth). Flexibility is generally not a key-strength for the flexible unit, as the increased investment cost associated to a major complexity represents a disadvantage. However, flexibility becomes relevant when imposing constraints on the use of electricity produced from fossil fuels to produce methanol, since it ensures higher capacity factor and methanol yield.
KW - Bio-methanol
KW - Biomass gasification
KW - Indirect electrification
KW - Solid oxide cells
KW - Techno-economic analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101458935&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106718
DO - 10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106718
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85101458935
SN - 0378-3820
VL - 215
JO - Fuel Processing Technology
JF - Fuel Processing Technology
M1 - 106718
ER -