IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v10y2017i10p1643-d115490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie Christine 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)

Abstract

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 CO 2 . 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 H 2 /N 2 shares as well as low CO 2 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 CO 2 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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:10:p:1643-:d:115490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/10/1643/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/10/1643/
    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. Penkuhn, Mathias & Tsatsaronis, George, 2017. "Comparison of different ammonia synthesis loop configurations with the aid of advanced exergy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 854-864.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Eddouibi, Jaouad & Abderafi, Souad & Vaudreuil, Sébastien & Bounahmidi, Tijani, 2022. "Dynamic simulation of solar-powered ORC using open-source tools: A case study combining SAM and coolprop via Python," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    3. 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.
    4. Xuyue Chen & Jin Yang & Deli Gao & Yongcun Feng & Yanjun Li & Ming Luo, 2018. "The Maximum-Allowable Well Depth While Drilling of Extended-Reach Wells Targeting to Offshore Depleted Reservoirs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, April.

    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 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. Li, Wenjia & Hao, Yong & Wang, Hongsheng & Liu, Hao & Sui, Jun, 2017. "Efficient and low-carbon heat and power cogeneration with photovoltaics and thermochemical storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1523-1531.
    12. Ján Kačur & Marek Laciak & Milan Durdán & Patrik Flegner, 2023. "Investigation of Underground Coal Gasification in Laboratory Conditions: A Review of Recent Research," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-55, August.
    13. Al-Qahtani, Amjad & González-Garay, Andrés & Bernardi, Andrea & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Pozo, Carlos & Dowell, Niall Mac & Chachuat, Benoit & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2020. "Electricity grid decarbonisation or green methanol fuel? A life-cycle modelling and analysis of today′s transportation-power nexus," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    14. Olimpia Neagu, 2019. "The Link between Economic Complexity and Carbon Emissions in the European Union Countries: A Model Based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-27, August.
    15. Kim, Dongin & Han, Jeehoon, 2020. "Comprehensive analysis of two catalytic processes to produce formic acid from carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    16. Hanak, Dawid P. & Powell, Dante & Manovic, Vasilije, 2017. "Techno-economic analysis of oxy-combustion coal-fired power plant with cryogenic oxygen storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 193-203.
    17. Zhihua Zhang, 2015. "Techno-Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities Coupled to Coal-Fired Power Plants," Energy & Environment, , vol. 26(6-7), pages 1069-1080, November.
    18. Peng, Benhong & Zhao, Yinyin & Elahi, Ehsan & Wan, Anxia, 2023. "Can third-party market cooperation solve the dilemma of emissions reduction? A case study of energy investment project conflict analysis in the context of carbon neutrality," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Khalilpour, Rajab, 2014. "Multi-level investment planning and scheduling under electricity and carbon market dynamics: Retrofit of a power plant with PCC (post-combustion carbon capture) processes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 172-186.

    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:10:y:2017:i:10:p:1643-:d:115490. 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.