This study analyses the impacts of technological improvements and increased operating experience on the techno-economic performance of integrated gasification (IG) facilities. The facilities investigated produce electricity (IGCC) or FT-liquids with electricity as by-product (IG-FT). Results suggest that a state-of-the-art (SOTA) coal-fired IGCC without CO₂ capture has electricity production costs of 17€/GJ (60€/MWh) with the potential to decrease to 11€/GJ (40€/MWh) in the long term. Specific direct CO₂ emissions may drop from about 0.71kgCO₂/kWh to 0.59kgCO₂/kWh. If CO₂ is captured, production costs may increase to 23€/GJ (83€/MWh), with the potential to drop to 14€/GJ (51€/MWh) in the long term. As a result, CO₂ avoidance costs would decrease from 35€/t CO₂ to 18€/t CO₂. The efficiency penalty due to CCS may decrease from 8.8%_pt to 3.7%_pt.CO₂ emissions can also be reduced by using torrefied biomass (TOPS) instead of coal. Production costs of a SOTA TOPS-fired IGCC without CO₂ capture are 18-25€/GJ (64-92€/MWh). In the long term, this may drop to 12€/GJ (44€/MWh), resulting in CO₂ avoidance costs of 7€/t CO₂. The greatest reduction in anthropogenic CO₂ emissions is obtained by using biomass combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS). A SOTA TOPS-fired IGCC with CCS has, depending on the biomass price, production costs of 25-35€/GJ (91-126€/MWh) with CO₂ avoidance costs of 19-40€/t CO₂. These values may decrease to 15€/GJ (55€/MWh) and 12€/t CO₂ avoided in the long term. As carbon from biomass is captured, specific direct CO₂ emissions are negative and estimated at -0.93kgCO₂/kWh for SOTA and -0.59kgCO₂/kWh in the long term. Even though more carbon is sequested in the future concepts, specific emissions drop due to an increase in the energetic conversion efficiency of the future facilities. New technologies in IG-FT facilities have a slightly smaller impact on production costs. In the long term, production costs of FT-liquids from coal may drop from 13€/GJ to 9€/GJ if CO₂ is vented and from 15€/GJ to 10€/GJ if CCS is applied. The use of TOPS results in 15-23€/GJ (Vent) and 17-24€/GJ (CCS) for SOTA facilities. These production costs may drop to 11-18€/GJ (Vent) and 12-19€/GJ (CCS) in the long term. Contrary to the IGCC cases, the coal-fired IG-FT facility shows the lowest CO₂ avoidance costs. The CO₂ emission of coal to FT-liquids with CCS is, however, similar to gasoline/diesel production from crude oil.

@en

This study aims to investigate the technological and economic prospects of integrated gasification facilities for power (IGCC) and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) liquid production with and without CCS over time. For this purpose, a component based experience curve was constructed and applied to identify the potential performance improvement of integrated gasification facilities. The results of the experience curve were compared with a bottom-up technology analysis conducted in previous work (Meerman et al., 2012). Results indicate that substantial cost reductions and performance improvements are possible, especially for IGCC with CCS. For instance, the costs of electricity production (COE) may decrease from 82€2008/MWh at present to 50€2008/MWh in 2050, if solid oxide fuel cells become commercially available (with a constant coal price of 2.25€2008/GJ). This cost decrease can only be realized if installed IGCC capacity increase to over 600GWe and installed CCS capacity to over 3000GWe equivalent. Also IGCC without CCS have considerable learning potential, with COE projected to decrease from the current 60 to 40€2008/MWh in the long term. Furthermore, the COE of IGCC without CCS could be competitive with the current market price in the short term. Initial support is, however, needed to realize the first 20GWe. Currently, coal-based FT-liquids are already competitive at an oil price of 77€2008/bbl for FT-liquids without CCS and of 83€2008/bbl with CCS, resulting in CO2 capture costs of only 11€2008/tCO2. By 2050, production costs of FT-liquids could drop to 9.3€2008/GJ for FT-liquids without CCS and to 10€2008/GJ for FT-liquids with CCS. To realize this cost reduction, an installed capacity of about 430GWth_FT is needed. The bottom-up and the component based experience curve analyses gave comparable trends regarding the potential development of efficiency, capital costs and production costs for a scenario with a strong growth in IGCC, FT and CCS capacity. The main advantage of combining the two approaches is that it becomes clear how cost reductions can be achieved, what kind of capacity development and the time frame is required to reach the projected improvements.@en

This study analyses the impact of technological improvements and increased operating experience on the techno-economic performance of integrated gasification facilities producing electricity and/or transportation fuels. Also, the impact of using torrefied biomass instead of coal and/or applying CCS is examined. Results indicate that current production costs of electricity and/or transportation fuels are above market prices. Future improvements, however, could reduce production costs sufficiently to make gasification facilities economical. Furthermore, although CCS can be used to reduce CO₂ emissions at relative low CO₂ avoidance costs, only the use of biomass allows the production of carbon neutral electricity and/or transportation fuels and in combination with CCS can even result in negative CO₂ emissions.

@en

This paper investigates the economics of integrated gasification polygeneration (IG-PG) facilities and assesses under which market conditions flexible facilities outperform static facilities. In this study, the facilities use Eucalyptus wood pellets (EP), torrefied wood pellets (TOPS) and Illinois #6 coal as feedstock to produce electricity, FT-liquids, methanol and urea. All facilities incorporate CCS. The findings show production costs from static IG-PG facilities ranging between 12 and 21 €/GJ using coal, 19-33 €/GJ using TOPS and 22-38 €/GJ using EP, which is above the average market prices. IG-PG facilities can become competitive if capital costs drop by 10%-27% for coal based facilities. Biomass based facilities will need lower biomass pellet prices or higher CO ₂ credit prices. Biomass becomes competitive with coal at a CO ₂ credit price of 50-55 €/t CO ₂. Variations in feedstock, CO ₂ credit and electricity prices can be offset by operating a feedstock flexible IG-PG facility, which can switch between coal and TOPS, thereby altering its electricity production. The additional investment is around 0.5% of the capital costs of a dedicated coal based IG-PG facility. At 30 €/t CO ₂, TOPS will be the preferred feedstock for 95% of the time at a feedstock price of 5.7 €/GJ. At these conditions, FT-liquids (gasoline/diesel) can be produced for 15.8 €/GJ (116 $/bbl). Historic records show price variations between 5.7 and 7.3 €/GJ for biomass pellet, 1.0-5.6 €/GJ for coal and 0-32 €/t CO ₂. Within these price ranges, coal is generally the preferred feedstock, but occasionally biomass is preferred. Lower biomass prices will increase the frequency of switching feedstock preference from coal to biomass, raising the desire for flexibility. Of the three investigated chemicals, an IG-PG facility producing FT-liquids benefits the most from flexibility. Our study suggests that if the uncertainty in commodity prices is high, a small additional investment can make flexible IG-PG facilities attractive.

@en