date: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
pdf:PDFVersion: 1.6
pdf:docinfo:title: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness
xmp:CreatorTool: LaTeX with hyperref package
access_permission:can_print_degraded: true
subject: 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 CO2. 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 H2/N2 shares as well as low CO2 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 CO2 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.
dc:format: application/pdf; version=1.6
pdf:docinfo:creator_tool: LaTeX with hyperref package
access_permission:fill_in_form: true
pdf:encrypted: false
dc:title: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness
modified: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
cp:subject: 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 CO2. 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 H2/N2 shares as well as low CO2 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 CO2 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.
pdf:docinfo:subject: 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 CO2. 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 H2/N2 shares as well as low CO2 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 CO2 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.
pdf:docinfo:creator: Natalie Christine Nakaten and Thomas Kempka
PTEX.Fullbanner: This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.17 (TeX Live 2016/W32TeX) kpathsea version 6.2.2
meta:author: Natalie Christine Nakaten and Thomas Kempka
trapped: False
meta:creation-date: 2017-10-19T03:46:21Z
created: Thu Oct 19 05:46:21 CEST 2017
access_permission:extract_for_accessibility: true
Creation-Date: 2017-10-19T03:46:21Z
Author: Natalie Christine Nakaten and Thomas Kempka
producer: pdfTeX-1.40.17
pdf:docinfo:producer: pdfTeX-1.40.17
dc:description: 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 CO2. 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 H2/N2 shares as well as low CO2 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 CO2 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.
Keywords: Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); economics; Cost of Electricity (COE); techno-economic model; methanol; ammonia; Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); electricity generation; process simulation
access_permission:modify_annotations: true
dc:creator: Natalie Christine Nakaten and Thomas Kempka
description: 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 CO2. 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 H2/N2 shares as well as low CO2 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 CO2 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.
dcterms:created: 2017-10-19T03:46:21Z
Last-Modified: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
dcterms:modified: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
title: Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness
xmpMM:DocumentID: uuid:d1d31f30-2cb5-4bf4-9cfc-357147d72a70
Last-Save-Date: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
pdf:docinfo:keywords: Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); economics; Cost of Electricity (COE); techno-economic model; methanol; ammonia; Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); electricity generation; process simulation
pdf:docinfo:modified: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
meta:save-date: 2017-10-20T09:05:47Z
pdf:docinfo:custom:PTEX.Fullbanner: This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.17 (TeX Live 2016/W32TeX) kpathsea version 6.2.2
Content-Type: application/pdf
X-Parsed-By: org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser
creator: Natalie Christine Nakaten and Thomas Kempka
dc:subject: Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); economics; Cost of Electricity (COE); techno-economic model; methanol; ammonia; Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); electricity generation; process simulation
access_permission:assemble_document: true
xmpTPg:NPages: 28
access_permission:extract_content: true
access_permission:can_print: true
pdf:docinfo:trapped: False
meta:keyword: Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); economics; Cost of Electricity (COE); techno-economic model; methanol; ammonia; Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); electricity generation; process simulation
access_permission:can_modify: true
pdf:docinfo:created: 2017-10-19T03:46:21Z