IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i17p3252-d260351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie Nakaten

    (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Fluid Systems Modelling, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany)

  • Thomas Kempka

    (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Fluid Systems Modelling, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
    University of Potsdam, Institute of Geosciences, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany)

Abstract

Underground coal gasification (UCG) enables utilization of coal reserves, 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 utilization (CCU) of produced CO 2 . Modeling results show that boundary conditions favoring electricity, methanol, and ammonia production expose low costs for air separation, low compression power requirements, and appropriate shares of H 2 /N 2 . Hereby, a gasification agent ratio of more than 30% oxygen by volume is not favorable from the economic and CO 2 mitigation viewpoints. Compared to the costs of an offshore platform with its technical equipment, offshore drilling costs are marginal. Thus, uncertainties related to parameters influenced by drilling costs are negligible. In summary, techno-economic process modeling results reveal that air-blown gasification scenarios are the most cost-effective ones, while offshore UCG-CCS/CCU scenarios are up to 1.7 times more expensive than the related onshore processes. Hereby, all investigated onshore scenarios except from ammonia production under the assumed worst-case conditions are competitive on the European market.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie Nakaten & Thomas Kempka, 2019. "Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-28, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:17:p:3252-:d:260351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/17/3252/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/17/3252/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Y. Klimenko, 2009. "Early Ideas in Underground Coal Gasification and Their Evolution," Energies, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Hammond, G.P. & Akwe, S.S. Ondo & Williams, S., 2011. "Techno-economic appraisal of fossil-fuelled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 975-984.
    3. Pérez-Fortes, Mar & Schöneberger, Jan C. & Boulamanti, Aikaterini & Tzimas, Evangelos, 2016. "Methanol synthesis using captured CO2 as raw material: Techno-economic and environmental assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 718-732.
    4. Li, Hailong & Ditaranto, Mario & Berstad, David, 2011. "Technologies for increasing CO2 concentration in exhaust gas from natural gas-fired power production with post-combustion, amine-based CO2 capture," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 1124-1133.
    5. Prabu, V. & Jayanti, S., 2011. "Simulation of cavity formation in underground coal gasification using bore hole combustion experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 5854-5864.
    6. Christopher Otto & Thomas Kempka, 2017. "Prediction of Steam Jacket Dynamics and Water Balances in Underground Coal Gasification," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    7. Nakaten, Natalie & Schlüter, Ralph & Azzam, Rafig & Kempka, Thomas, 2014. "Development of a techno-economic model for dynamic calculation of cost of electricity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of an integrated UCG–CCS process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 779-790.
    8. Mocek, Piotr & Pieszczek, Marek & Świądrowski, Jerzy & Kapusta, Krzysztof & Wiatowski, Marian & Stańczyk, Krzysztof, 2016. "Pilot-scale underground coal gasification (UCG) experiment in an operating Mine “Wieczorek” in Poland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 313-321.
    9. Christopher Otto & Thomas Kempka, 2015. "Thermo-Mechanical Simulations of Rock Behavior in Underground Coal Gasification Show Negligible Impact of Temperature-Dependent Parameters on Permeability Changes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-28, June.
    10. McCollum, David L & Ogden, Joan M, 2006. "Techno-Economic Models for Carbon Dioxide Compression, Transport, and Storage & Correlations for Estimating Carbon Dioxide Density and Viscosity," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1zg00532, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mehrdad Massoudi, 2020. "Mathematical Modeling of Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Petroleum Industries and Geothermal Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-4, March.
    2. Oleg Bazaluk & Vasyl Lozynskyi & Volodymyr Falshtynskyi & Pavlo Saik & Roman Dychkovskyi & Edgar Cabana, 2021. "Experimental Studies of the Effect of Design and Technological Solutions on the Intensification of an Underground Coal Gasification Process," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Christopher Otto & Thomas Kempka, 2020. "Synthesis Gas Composition Prediction for Underground Coal Gasification Using a Thermochemical Equilibrium Modeling Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Krzysztof Skrzypkowski & Krzysztof Zagórski & Anna Zagórska, 2021. "Determination of the Extent of the Rock Destruction Zones around a Gasification Channel on the Basis of Strength Tests of Sandstone and Claystone Samples Heated at High Temperatures up to 1200 °C and ," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-27, October.
    5. Natalie Nakaten & Thomas Kempka, 2019. "Retraction: Nakaten N. and Kempka T. Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness. Energies 2017, 10 , 1643," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-1, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Natalie Christine Nakaten & Thomas Kempka, 2017. "Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, October.
    2. Nakaten, Natalie & Schlüter, Ralph & Azzam, Rafig & Kempka, Thomas, 2014. "Development of a techno-economic model for dynamic calculation of cost of electricity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of an integrated UCG–CCS process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 779-790.
    3. Olateju, Babatunde & Kumar, Amit, 2013. "Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification (UCG) in Western Canada with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for upgrading bitumen from oil sands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 428-440.
    4. Christopher Otto & Thomas Kempka, 2015. "Thermo-Mechanical Simulations of Rock Behavior in Underground Coal Gasification Show Negligible Impact of Temperature-Dependent Parameters on Permeability Changes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Fa-qiang Su & Akihiro Hamanaka & Ken-ichi Itakura & Gota Deguchi & Wenyan Zhang & Hua Nan, 2018. "Evaluation of a Compact Coaxial Underground Coal Gasification System Inside an Artificial Coal Seam," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-11, April.
    6. Karol Kostúr & Marek Laciak & Milan Durdan, 2018. "Some Influences of Underground Coal Gasification on the Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-31, May.
    7. Md M. Khan & Joseph P. Mmbaga & Ahad S. Shirazi & Japan Trivedi & Qingzia Liu & Rajender Gupta, 2015. "Modelling Underground Coal Gasification—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-66, November.
    8. Yao, Xing & Zhong, Ping & Zhang, Xian & Zhu, Lei, 2018. "Business model design for the carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) project in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 519-533.
    9. Xin, Lin & An, Mingyu & Feng, Mingze & Li, Kaixuan & Cheng, Weimin & Liu, Weitao & Hu, Xiangming & Wang, Zhigang & Han, Limin, 2021. "Study on pyrolysis characteristics of lump coal in the context of underground coal gasification," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    10. Yuteng Xiao & Jihang Yin & Yifan Hu & Junzhe Wang & Hongsheng Yin & Honggang Qi, 2019. "Monitoring and Control in Underground Coal Gasification: Current Research Status and Future Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Carapellucci, Roberto & Giordano, Lorena & Vaccarelli, Maura, 2017. "Application of an amine-based CO2 capture system in retrofitting combined gas-steam power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 808-826.
    12. Prabu, V. & Geeta, K., 2015. "CO2 enhanced in-situ oxy-coal gasification based carbon-neutral conventional power generating systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 672-683.
    13. Xi Lin & Qingya Liu & Zhenyu Liu, 2018. "Estimation of Effective Diffusion Coefficient of O 2 in Ash Layer in Underground Coal Gasification by Thermogravimetric Apparatus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Christopher Otto & Thomas Kempka, 2017. "Prediction of Steam Jacket Dynamics and Water Balances in Underground Coal Gasification," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    15. Chen, Wei-Hsin & Hou, Yu-Lin & Hung, Chen-I., 2012. "A study of influence of acoustic excitation on carbon dioxide capture by a droplet," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 311-321.
    16. Yang, Yu & Liu, Jing & Shen, Weifeng & Li, Jie & Chien, I-Lung, 2018. "High-efficiency utilization of CO2 in the methanol production by a novel parallel-series system combining steam and dry methane reforming," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 820-829.
    17. Verma, Aman & Olateju, Babatunde & Kumar, Amit, 2015. "Greenhouse gas abatement costs of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 556-568.
    18. Jiaquan Li & Yunbing Hou & Pengtao Wang & Bo Yang, 2018. "A Review of Carbon Capture and Storage Project Investment and Operational Decision-Making Based on Bibliometrics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Ma, Jianli & Li, Qi & Kühn, Michael & Nakaten, Natalie, 2018. "Power-to-gas based subsurface energy storage: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 478-496.
    20. Krzemień, Alicja, 2019. "Fire risk prevention in underground coal gasification (UCG) within active mines: Temperature forecast by means of MARS models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 777-790.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:17:p:3252-:d:260351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.