1.37662!CHRISGAS - D127 and D28 - Cost Estimate For A Biomass Plant

Clean Hydrogen-rich Synthesis Gas
Contract No: SES6-CT-2004-502587

Report No. CHRISGAS_December2009_WP15_D127+D128
Deliverable D127 & D128

Cost Estimate of a Biomass Plant with a Fuel
Input of 20 to 80 Dry Tonnes/hr Producing
Different Motor Fuels
Authors: G. H. Huisman, J. Brinkert, G.L.M.A. van Rens, R.L. Cornelissen
Work Package: WP15, Task: WP15.1&WP15.2

Contributing &Responsible Partner: CCS
Distribution: Confidential
Date: 31 December 2009
Revision history:
Rev. no.
0
Date
Change information
CHRISGAS_December 2009_WP15_D127&D128:
Cost Estimate of a Biomass Plant with a Fuel Iinput of 20 to 80
Dry Tonnes/hr Producing Different Motor Fuels
2(30)
Table of Contents
1
Introduction...........................................................................................................................5
Background information......................................................................................................6
2.1
Plant description ..........................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Description of biomass handling and gasification plant....................................6
2.1.2 Description of the gas cleaning section................................................................6
2.1.3 Description of gas preparation for the methanol and DME section...............7
2.1.4 Description of hydrogen production section ......................................................7
2.2
Overview of mass and energy balances and additional assumptions ...................7
Investment Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass ......................................................................9

3.1
Land cost.......................................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Fuel Storage and Preparation.................................................................................9
3.1.2 Gasification and Gas Treatment Plant.................................................................9
3.1.3 Synthetic Fuel Preparation .....................................................................................9
3.1.4 Total surface area required.................................................................................. 10
3.2
Equipment Cost ........................................................................................................ 10
3.2.1 General approach ................................................................................................. 10
3.2.2 Fuel Preparation, including Drying.................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Air Separation Unit (ASU) .................................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Gasifier Plant......................................................................................................... 12
3.2.5 Syngas Preparation ............................................................................................... 12
3.2.6 Energy Recovery................................................................................................... 13
3.2.7 Fuel Synthesis Plants............................................................................................ 14
3.3
Total Investment Cost for the Plant ...................................................................... 15
Running Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass........................................................................ 17

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Plant availability......................................................................................................... 17
Fuel.............................................................................................................................. 17
Electricity ................................................................................................................... 17
Staffing and management ........................................................................................ 18
Maintenance............................................................................................................... 19
Amortisation and Cost of Capital........................................................................... 20
Yearly revenues of sale of district heat .................................................................. 20
Total annual running cost........................................................................................ 21
Production Cost of Synthetic Fuels ....................................................................... 22
Sensitivity of the cost estimate......................................................................................... 23

5.1
5.2
5.3
Scaling Effect on Costs ............................................................................................ 23

Cost sensitivity to the uncertainty in capital cost ................................................. 25
Cost sensitivity to the biomass price...................................................................... 26
Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 29
References ........................................................................................................................... 30
3(30)
4(30)
1 Introduction
Within the framework of European research project CHRISGAS, a cost estimate is made
of the production of different motor fuels from biomass. The investigation has been
centred around a gasification and gas processing plant with associated fuel production
with a biomass input of 40.8 metric ton per hour dry wood. In this report the production
costs of methanol, DME (dehydrated methanol) and hydrogen are estimated.
It is investigated to what extent the production costs are sensitive to biomass input
(within the range of 20,000 kg/h to 80,000 kg/h dry biomass), biomass price, capital cost
and the state of development of gasification, gas cleaning and fuel processing. In order to
investigate the latter, two cases are defined, being a present-day case and a near-future
case. In the present-day case proven technology is used as much as possible. The nearfuture case contains a number of new developments that may improve biomass to fuel
efficiency.
This report is based on prior work, reported in [Huisman et al., 2009a], [Huisman et al,
2009b], [Rep et al., 2008] and [De Lathouder et al., 2009], see for more details Chapter 7
References.
Chapter 2 gives a short description of the plant and a summary of the mass and energy
balances, reported in more detail in [Huisman et al., 2009b]. Chapter 3 describes the
investment costs of a biomass plant of a capacity of 40,800 kg/h dry biomass. In chapter
4 the production costs are calculated for the different biofuels on a yearly basis and per
GJ fuel. In chapter 5 it is investigated to what extent the calculated production costs are
sensitive to the different variables in the cost calculation, as mentioned above.
Conclusions are drawn in chapter 6, while the references can be found in chapter 7.
5(30)
2 Background information
2.1 Plant description
2.1.1 Description of biomass handling and gasification plant
It is assumed that the plant is located in a Nordic country. Two plants are designed. One
if one would have to build the plant today, the present-day case. And a plant which may
be build in the near future when a number of developments have come into production
This case is called the near-future case. The plant comprises of several sections. At the
gate chipped wood arrives in trucks and after weighing the wood is unloaded in a storage.
Tramp materials like stones and metals are removed; the wood is screened and any
oversized wood is chipped.
The moisture content of the wood (Nordic mix, 50% moisture content) is too high for
immediate processing in the gasification plant. The wood is therefore dried to a moisture
content of 10% in a dryer particularly suited for low grade heat. Air (310 kg/s) is heated
using mostly waste heat from the gas processing plant and fuel synthesis.
The dried wood is temporarily stored in silos in order to overcome any problems with
fuel pre-treatment and drying, and subsequently transported to the gasifier. Wood is fed
into the gasifier by either a lock hopper system (present-day case) or a plug feeder system
(near-future case). The latter has the advantage of reduced inert gas consumption1 and
hence less dilution of the produced gas.
A mixture of steam and oxygen is used as gasification agent and the dried wood (m.c.
10%) is gasified at elevated pressure (20 bar) and temperature (850C, present-day case,
900C near-future case). The oxygen is generated on site from air. Gaseous nitrogen is
available as a potential by-product. Sand is added as make up for the bed material. The
blanketing gas in the feed system is either recycled sour gas (CO2 diluted with H2S) in the
case of methanol or DME production, or nitrogen stemming from the oxygen
production plant in the case of hydrogen production
2.1.2 Description of the gas cleaning section
For the present-day case it is assumed that the currently available high temperature
particle filters cannot be applied at elevated temperature. Therefore the gas is cooled
down to 600C before entering the filter with ceramic candle elements to remove ash and
sand. The heat removed is used to produce saturated steam at 25 bar. The filter is
cleaned intermittently at regular intervals by using recycled purge gas from the fuel
synthesis system.
The gas still contains some methane and higher hydrocarbons (ethylene, tar,
naphthalene) and is therefore introduced in an autothermal reformer (ATR). Here the
methane and hydrocarbons are converted to CO and hydrogen at an elevated
temperature of 1200C. A mixture of oxygen and steam is used for this reaction.
For the near-future case it is expected that particle filtration can take place at the
temperature of the gas-outlet of the gasifier (i.e. 900C) and therefore no cooling is
1 However, the power consumption of a plug feeder may be considerably higher than for a lock hopper
system. Based on information provided by TKE [Koch, 2006] 3.5 MWe installed power is required for 40
ton/hour dry biomass feed.
6(30)
needed prior to gas filtration. The filtered gas is subsequently reformed in a catalytic
reformer operating at 900C. The big advantage is that no product is lost in heating the
gas to 1200C.
Downstream of the reformer a second cooler is located also generating saturated steam.
All of the steam (including steam generated in the fuel synthesis section) is superheated
to 400C.
2.1.3 Description of gas preparation for the methanol and DME
section
In order to obtain the correct CO to H2 ratio for fuel synthesis, CO is partially shifted to
hydrogen in a HT-Shift reactor (sour gas shift). The temperature of the gas entering the
reactor is about 337C. Usually saturated steam is injected in the gas to obtain the correct
CO to water ratio in order to obtain the correct CO to H2-ratio. For methanol synthesis
35% of the gas can bypass the HT-Shift reactor. The water gas shift reactions produce
heat that is removed in a cooler that generates saturated steam at 25 bar. The
temperature of the gas leaving the reactor and after mixing with the bypass is 151C. This
is high enough for preheating the feedwater in the steam system. The remainder of the
heat between 151C and 90C is used for the biomass dryer.
As a last stage before the fuel synthesis, the acid gases are removed in the AGR. Carbon
dioxide is removed and H2S. This gas, so-called sour gas, is used for a small part as
blanketing gas. The majority, however, is vented. However, after cleaning, the CO2 may
be sold, or even stored, thereby creating a process that reduces the global CO2
concentration.
Methanol is created in a catalyst and is purified in a distillation column. DME is
produced by dehydration of the produced methanol. DME is separated from the
methanol, which is recycled into the dehydration section, after it is separated from water.
See for more reading the work of WP 3 and WP 14 of CHRISGAS, reported in [De
Lathouder et al., 2009], [Huisman et al., 2009a] and [Rep et al., 2008].
2.1.4 Description of hydrogen production section
For the production of hydrogen as much CO as possible should be shifted to hydrogen.
In this case a HT-shift reactor is used as well. In many processes for the production of
hydrogen the shifted gas is led into a second shift reactor at lower temperature to further
reduce the CO content. However, the catalyst used in the low-temperature shift reactor is
sensitive for H2S which is still present in the gas. Therefore and also because the small
increase in hydrogen production it is expected that the cost of the LT-Shift does not
outweigh the additional income.
For the production of hydrogen a pressure swing adsorption system (a PSA system) was
selected, because it is not sensitive to H2S and removes CO2. See for more detail [De
Lathouder et al, 2009].
2.2 Overview of mass and energy balances and additional
assumptions
The mass and energy balances can be found in report D130 [Huisman et al., 2009b]. The
results are summarised in Table 1. The net heat available is at a level suitable for use as
district heat. The location of the plants needs to be in the vicinity of the biomass in order
to reduce transportation cost. The users of the fuel should be nearby for the same
7(30)
reason. This is particularly the case for hydrogen. It is assumed that hydrogen will be
produced in the gaseous phase. Transportation by pipeline is possible but becomes
expensive for large distances if no network exists. Alternatively the hydrogen can be
liquefied but this option has not been investigated.
Within the plant two industrial gases are produced as a by-product with potential
monetary value, nitrogen in the ASU and CO2 in the a AGR or the PSA (hydrogen). The
income from selling these gases can be considerable but they need to be pure and in the
liquid phase. This means additional investment cost for liquefaction of both gases and
purification of the sour gas (H2S removal) is needed. Additional power will be required as
well. This option has not been investigated into more detail.
Table 1. Mass and energy balances for the production of different fuels
Present-day case
Wet wood (50% m.c.) @ 81,540 kg/hour2
inlet dryer
Near-future case
81,540 kg/hour
230.5 MW (HHV)
230.5 MW (HHV)
18,237 kg/hour
22,765 kg/hour
116.0 MW
144.8 MW
Net power required
10.0
MW
18.0
MW
Net heat available
36.8
MW
7.7
MW
DME
13,085 kg/hour
16,333 kg/hour
115.2 MW
143.7 MW
Net power required
10.7
MW
18.1
MW
Net heat available
31.4
MW
1.7
MW
Hydrogen
2,581 kg/hour
3,155 kg/hour
101.5 MW
124.1 MW
Net power required
4.7
MW
9.4
MW
Net heat available
70.1
MW
50.2
MW
Methanol
81,540 kg/h wet biomass with 50% moisture content corresponds to 40,8 metric ton per hour dry
biomass
8(30)
3 Investment Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass

3.1 Land cost
A detailed study of the area needed for the site has not been performed. However, fairly
rigorous estimates have been made for the Methanol synthesis and DME synthesis plant.
Based on these, the required areas for gasifier and gas processing systems are estimated.
For the storage area of wet wood the volume in combination with maximum height
determines more or less the area.
3.1.1 Fuel Storage and Preparation
The area of the wood storage is estimated assuming that 5 days of storage are required to
secure continuous operation, while allowing for weekends, holidays, etc. This means that
9.8 kton of wet wood should be stored. The density of wet wood is approximately 300
kg/m3. So the total volume to be stored is 32,616 m3.
The storage of biomass can be achieved in several ways; in buildings, silos or outside in
the open. We will assume that the wet biomass is stored outside in several heaps.
Assuming an average height of 2 metres for each heap and adding slightly over 25%
additional area for fuel handling, leads to a required area storage space of 20,700 m2.
In addition to this some space is needed for the pre-treatment (removal of tramp
materials, screening, oversize chipping, etc), the dryer and the dry wood storage. It is
assumed that the latter is stored in silos. For each of these unit operations an area of 20 x
30 = 600 m2 is assumed.
Table 2. Required surface area for fuel storage and preparation
Area in m2
Wet fuel storage
20,700
Fuel pre-treatment
Dryer & dry wood storage
Total
600
1,200
21,900
3.1.2 Gasification and Gas Treatment Plant

This area has about 12 main process operations plus the air separation unit (ASU).
Assume that they each will fit on an area of 100 m2. The total area will be about 4 times
bigger to allow for roads, buildings etc. So for this plant section 4,800 m2 should be
sufficient.
3.1.3 Synthetic Fuel Preparation
Required surface areas for methanol and DME preparation have been estimated before,
and are summarised in Table 3. For more reading please refer to [Huisman et al, 2009a].
It should be noted that the required area for DME is the sum of the area for the
methanol synthesis and DME synthesis from methanol.
9(30)
For hydrogen the land area can be considerable smaller, because only operation is
required (PSA) with preceding gas pressurisation and no storage of gaseous hydrogen is
considered. A total area of 20x40 m2 seems reasonable.
Table 3. Required surface area for different fuel preparation sections
Area in m2
Methanol
1,680
DME
3,680
Hydrogen
800
3.1.4 Total surface area required

The cost of land is very much depending on country and specific location. In the
Netherlands 50 per m2 is an average price for an industrial location. This prices will be
used but one should keep in mind that it may be much cheaper or more expensive in
other countries and areas.
Table 4. Total required surface area
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
21,900 m
21,900 m
21,900 m2
1.1 M
1.1 M
1.1 M
Gasification and gas

treatment plant
4,800 m2
4,800 m2
4,800 m2
0.2 M
0.2 M
0.2 M
Synthetic fuel
preparation
1,680 m2
3,680 m2
800 m2
0.1 M
0.2 M
0.04 M
28,380 m2
30,380 m2
27,500 m2
1.4 M
1.5 M
1.4 M
Fuel storage and

preparation
Total required
As can be seen in Table 4 the total area required is dominated by the area needed for wet
fuel storage.
3.2 Equipment Cost
3.2.1 General approach
The general approach for the preparation of the budget was to find investment cost for
equipment or entire package units. An additional fee of 46% was then added in order to
include:
Engineering & project management
Utilities & Auxiliaries
Installation
Start Up, Testing & Training
Contingency
10(30)
Only for process units for which a reliable price for the complete supply was available,
like the dryer and the ASU, no additional fee was added.
These cost where then multiplied by 1.18 in order to allow for 18% mark up for:
Profit & Risk
Insurance
Financing
Guarantee
Spare-parts
The cost for the fuel synthesis plants have been calculated earlier including the
mentioned mark-ups. The prices in the following sections include these mark-ups.
3.2.2 Fuel Preparation, including Drying
The cost for the wood fuel preparation and storage has been estimated. Such a plant can
be designed in various ways. It is possible to use uncovered storage and use automatic
and overhead cranes for transportation to the dryer. Wood is tipped is a concrete bunker
and transported by the overhead cranes to the stack. For a dry storage a building is
needed like an A-frame type. Large screw conveyors eat their way trough the stack near
the bottom and dump the wood in conveyer belts to the dryer. Again, a concrete bunker
can be used to receive the wood. Alternatively is possible to use shovels in combination
with outdoor storage. During the day shift wood is transported to the dryer and at the
end of the day sufficient wood should be in the feed bin to overcome the night. Wood
can be tipped on the floor and the shovels transport it to the storage area. A decision has
not been made but a reasonable provisional sum has been estimated to cover all these
cost. A budget price for the dryer has been provided by SEP.
Table 5. Equipment cost fuel preparation including drying
Cost mln.
Wood fuel preparation & storage
17.9
Dryer
10.0
Total Fuel Preparation & Drying
27.8
3.2.3 Air Separation Unit (ASU)

A budget quotation was received from Linde for 30 ton/hour gaseous oxygen. These
plants are packaged units, however, since the consumption of oxygen is lower, about 28
ton/hour for the present-day case and about 21 ton/hour for the near-future case, the
price has been adjusted downward. It may not be possible to purchase exactly this
smaller unit for a lower price but the lower consumption is now reflected in the
investment cost as well..
For the adjustment (and others when capacity changed) the power law as expressed in
formula 1 was used with exponent =0.75.
Cap new
xPold
Pnew
Cap
old
Formula 1
11(30)
Because the unit is supplied more or less turn key no adjustment was made for
engineering etc.
Table 6. Equipment cost air separation unit (ASU)
Equipment or Plant Section
Cost mln.
ASU for present-day case (~28 ton/hour)
34.7
ASU for near-future case (~21 ton/hour)
26.3
3.2.4 Gasifier Plant

The costs of the gasifier plant as presented in Table 7, is calculated from the various
components for which investment cost and manufacturing cost have been estimated.
Those components are:
Feed bins for wood fuel (couple of hours capacity)
Fuel Feeders & valves
Gasifier Vessel & Refractory
Steam & Oxygen Distribution System (Internal)
Cyclone & Return Pipe
Ash Discharge System & Cooling
Ash Storage & Truck Filling
Sand Storage & Supply System
Hot Gas Duct to Cooler or Filter
Detailed Engineering
The fuel feeder is a conventional lock hopper system for the present-day case and a plug
feeder for the near-future case. No difference in cost have been assumed.
Table 7. Equipment cost gasification plant
Cost mln.
Gasifier Plant
8.7
3.2.5 Syngas Preparation

In this syngas preparation section the gas is cleaned and the composition adjusted to the
needs of the following synthetic fuel manufacturing plant. Most of the heat exchangers
are physically located within this section but their costs are included in section 3.2.6
Energy Recovery. The cost of the HT-Shift is based on a report published by Hamelinck
and Faaij in 2001 [Hamelinck and Faaij, 2001], where necessary after adjusting the
capacity by means of the power law of section 3.2.3. The investment cost for the thermal
reformer was based on modification studies (with budget quotations) for the Vrnamo
plant.
For the near-future case a catalytic reformer was used and price increase of 15% was
assumed. The cost for the HT gas filter was based on a ceramic candle filter quoted to
CHRISGAS for the rebuild of the Vrnamo project. The price had to be scaled up for
the larger capacity. For the near-future case a 10% price increase was assumed, because
more resistant materials are needed at the higher temperature (900C rather than 600C
12(30)
in the present-day case). A second adjustment was made for the increased gas flow,
because of the higher temperature.
The price of the AGR has been estimated based on various sources. The most important
one is the information available for the modification of the Vrnamo plant. These prices
were scaled up to the current size, once again using the power law. The cost are for a
generic system, however, various processes are available with different performance. A
simple water wash may be sufficient to remove the CO2 and most of the H2S. This
process is, however, not very selective and (some) hydrocarbons are removed as well.
Alternatives like amine wash or Rectisol or Selexol are probably better candidates. The
advantage of Rectisol is that it can remove H2S to about 0.1 ppm in the product.
Unfortunately it is more expensive than other processes. It has not been possible to get
reliable budget quotes for either process. The consequence of this is a considerable
uncertainty in the price of the AGR.
The price for the HT-Shift has been adjusted a bit for the hydrogen case because of the
higher gas flow (no gas bypass and more saturated steam needs to be injected).
Table 8. Overview of costs for syngas preparation
Present-day case
Equipment or
Section
Near-future case
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
Reformer
mln.
13.5
13.5
13.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
HT Gas Filter
9.7
9.7
9.7
14.3
14.3
14.3
HT-Shift
3.3
3.3
4.3
2.9
2.9
4.3
AGR
22.8
22.8
0.0
22.8
22.8
0.0
Total cost
49.3
49.3
27.5
55.5
55.5
34.1
3.2.6 Energy Recovery

The energy is recovered in the plant as steam that is partly superheated to 400C for use
in the gasifier and the reformer. Saturated steam is used to adjust the water to CO ratio at
the inlet of the HT-Shift reactor.
The main areas where heat is recovered are:
HT- Gas Cooler immediately downstream of gasifier
HT-Gas Cooler downstream of the reformer
Superheater
Steam generator in the HT-Shift section
Economiser after HT-Shift
District heat cooler (or to be used for the dryer) after economiser
Waste heat cooler after district heat cooler and immediately upstream of AGR
13(30)
The energy that is not needed for the plant is used to generate power3 or electricity in a
steam turbine. If that is the case the low pressure section has a condensor at 1 bar in
order to generate heat for a district heating system. In between, at about 5 bar, steam is
extracted from the turbine to supply energy for the reboilers in the methanol and DME
synthesis section The condensor is a major cost item because large quantities of heat are
exchanged at small temperature difference.
The investment cost for the primary gas coolers at high temperature (immediately
downstream of the gasifier and the reformer) has been scaled up from budget quotations
for the modification of the Vrnamo plant.
Table 9. Equipment cost for energy recovery
Present-day case
Equipment or
Section
Near-future case
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
Steam turbine
11.9
11.2
12.1
0.0
0.0
3.3
Heat exchangers
19.6
19.6
18.4
13.6
13.6
12.4
Utility boiler
2.9
2.9
7.9
3.4
4.4
8.8
Waste heat
cooler
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Condensor
5.2
4.1
7.7
0.0
0.0
2.9
Total cost
40.0
38.2
46.6
17.4
18.4
27.8
The utility boiler is used to convert the purge gases to steam to be used in the district
heat system. In one particular case (DME near-future case) more heat is required than is
available from the process. This additional heat requirement could be fulfilled by
supplying wood to the boiler. In this case, the boiler would be a combination of wood
and gas fuelled boiler.
It is certainly possible to use the purge gas to generate electricity, either in a conventional
boiler system and steam turbine or with a gas turbine (combined cycle). The latter is a
good alternative for the hydrogen production plant since a large amount of purge gas
with reasonable heating value is available. For the moment, however, it is assumed that
all surplus energy is used for district heat.
3.2.7 Fuel Synthesis Plants
The cost for these plants have been estimated in WP 14 of CHRISGAS and is reported
in [De Lathouder et al., 2009] and [Huisman et al, 2009a]. For convenience the
investment will be repeated here. All the cost include engineering etc. and mark-up for
the supplier for profit etc. For the near-future case the cost were scaled up to 125% by
using the power law from section 3.2.3, because of the larger syngas flow to the synthesis
plants.
It may be attractive to use a direct drive for some of the larger consumers like the make up and recycle
compressors in the methanol synthesis section
3
14(30)
Table 10. Cost of fuel synthesis plants

Present-day case Near-future case
Equipment or Plant Section
Cost mln.
Cost mln.
Methanol Synthesis
34.1
40.3
DME Synthesis (Methanol to DME)
20.7
24.5
DME Synthesis (Syngas to DME)
54.8
64.8
Hydrogen synthesis and compression
17.4
20.6
3.3 Total Investment Cost for the Plant

From the costs of the previous sections the total investment cost can be calculated. A
few items have been added. The balance of the plant, which includes items like:
Insulation
Painting
Piping Valves & Ducts
Electrical System incl. MCC + HV systems (transformers, switch gear)
Power Cables & Lighting
Heat Tracing
Control & Instrumentation
DCS & ESD
The total cost have been calculated as if an EPC company had to build the plant, i.e. the
cost for the turn key design supply and start-up of the plant. Usually the owner also has
to make costs for his engineering team. Assuming a construction period of 2 years and
taking one year ahead and one year after the construction period the owner has to
maintain an organisation for about 4 years. Suppose the organisation comprises of 10
engineers and a project manager say total annual cost 700.000 or 2.8 million for the 4
years. These cost are relatively insignificant when compared to the accuracy of the
investment cost (+/- 20 to 30%) so for the moment they are not added to the total.
15(30)
Table 11. Total investment cost for the plant

Present-day case
Equipment or Section
Near-future case
MeOH
DME
H2
MeOH
DME
H2
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
mln.
Fuel Preparation &

Drying
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
Air Separation Unit (ASU)
35.3
35.3
33.4
26.7
26.7
25.6
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
Syngas Preparation
49.1
49.1
27.4
55.3
55.3
34.0
Energy Recovery
39.9
38.1
46.4
17.3
18.3
27.7
Synthetic Fuel Plant
34.1
54.8
17.4
40.3
64.8
20.6
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
12.2
12.2
11.9
14.4
14.4
14.1
216.3
235.2
182.1
199.7
225.2
167.6
Gasification
Civil Works & Buildings

Balance of Plant
Total cost
16(30)
4 Running Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass

4.1 Plant availability
The running cost of the plant depend on the availability of the plant. When the plant is
not in operation there are no cost for wood and power. It is therefore necessary to
estimate the annual running hours. We will assume a technical lifetime of 20 years and
use this also as period for depreciation of the capital investment. During the first year the
availability will be low say 60%, the second year maybe 80% and from the third year on
we assume 90% availability. This means that annually 5 weeks are available for planned
(maintenance) and unplanned shut down. The average availability over the 20 years
becomes then (60 + 80 + 18 x 90)/20 = 88%. On average the plant is online for 7,709
hours per year during the 20 years.
4.2 Fuel
The fuel consumption is equal for all investigated cases 81,540 kg/hour for biomass with
50% moisture content. A common average for the price of chipped wood with moisture
content of 50% in Sweden is about SEK 200 SEK/MWh4 [VEAB, 2009]. It can be
assumed that this is MWh based on the lower heating value because in the heating
system the heat of condensation is normally of little use. For the conversion rate of SEK
to EUR we will use 10 SEK per EUR. The price of wood is then 20 per MWh or 46
per ton (m.c. 50%).
Table 12. Fuel cost
Cost mln. /year
Fuel (81,540 kg/hour during 7,709 hours)
29.1
4.3 Electricity
The required power varies for each case as was illustrated in Table 1. The price of
electricity is assumed to be 0.06 per kWh. For convenience sake the power demand
listed in Table 1 has been included in Table 13.
Table 13. Cost of electricity consumption
Present-day case
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
Electric power
4.6
kWe
Electric power
consumption
Near-future case
4.9
kWe
9,958
M/year
2.2
kWe
10,665
kWe
4,711
This price has been increased by about 15% this season (2009)
17(30)
8.3
17,951
8.4
kWe
18,139
4.3
kWe
9,394
4.4 Staffing and management

The staffing and management requirements have been based to some extent on an
assessment made by Sune Bengtsson for the feasibility study for the Vrnamo plant. Of
course a number of modifications had to be made since the plant under consideration in
this study is not only bigger but has more process operations. The number of operators
is based on a five shift operation. See Figure 1 for a possible organisation chart of the
plant.
It is assumed that the required staff is irrespective of the produced fuel and case under
consideration.
Table 14. Plant personnel
Plant section
Type of staff
No. Cost pp
Total cost
/ year
Overall plant
/ year
MD/Plant Manager
100,000
100,000
Administration
60,000
180,000
Mechanical maintenance
60,000
180,000
Electrical engineer
60,000
120,000
Purchasing, product handling
60,000
120,000
Security & Gatekeepers
60,000
300,000
Assistant manager (+ drying)
80,000
80,000
Operators (day shift only)
60,000
360,000
Fuel drying
Operators
60,000
300,000
Oxygen plant
Operators
60,000
300,000
Gasification
Assistant manager
80,000
80,000
Operators
15
60,000
900,000
Process engineer
60,000
60,000
Operators
60,000
300,000
Process engineer
60,000
60,000
Assistant manager
80,000
80,000
Operators
60,000
60,000
Process engineer
60,000
60,000
Fuel preparation
Syngas preparation
Fuel synthesis plant
Total
3,880,000
The personnel cost listed is the cost for the employer, which means that legally required
taxes, pension plans etc. are included. The cost for shift workers includes shift
compensation and overtime.
18(30)
Figure 1. Organisation chart of plant personnel

4.5 Maintenance
Maintenance is usually quoted as a fixed percentage of the investment cost. In this case
3.5% for the present-day case and 2.5% for the near-future case is used, because it is
expected that with more experience the near-future plant could be designed for less
maintenance. For convenience sake the investment costs as calculated in section 3.3 have
been included in Table 15. The cost for replacing the catalyst in the various units has
been calculated as a separate item This may potentially be a large amount of money.
Catalyst for the following reactors is included in the cost estimation:
HT-Shift reactor
Methanol Synthesis Reactor
DME Synthesis Reactor
Catalytic Reformer (near-future case).
The total estimated volume varied between 107 m3 for the DME near-future case to 7 m3
for the present day hydrogen case. Assuming average cost of 14,600 per m3 for catalyst
(which should be on the high side) and 3 and 4 years catalyst lifetime for the present-day
and optimistic case, the annual amount can be calculated. The labour cost for replacing
the catalyst is assumed to be part of the regular maintenance cost.
Table 15. Yearly maintenance costs
Present-day case
Cost item
Near-future case
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
Maintenance
7.6
8.2
6.4
5.0
5.6
4.2
Catalyst
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.1
Total
7.8
8.4
6.4
5.4
6.1
4.3
M
Investment Cost
M
216.3
M
235.2
M
182.1
19(30)
M
199.7
M
225.2
167.6
4.6 Amortisation and Cost of Capital

The easiest way of calculating the cost of capital is by assuming a reasonable rate of
interest and depreciation time of the project. However, this way it is not possible to allow
for future expected inflation. A better approach would be to calculate the cash flow of
the project each year for the lifetime and then calculate the internal rate of return. It is
expected that the first method has sufficient accuracy, in the light of other inaccuracies to
allow for comparison of the investigated alternatives. Therefore the first method is used
to calculate the cost of capital
The cost of capital also depends on the way the plant is financed. We will assume that
the investment is 40% private capital and 60% bank loan. The private investors will most
likely require a higher interest rate than the bank. It is not easy to find a reasonable
number and it depends very much on the technical risk and the economical feasibility of
the plant. For a very high-risk project the interest rate may be 25% or higher but for now
a value of 10% is assumed, which seems reasonable in view of current bank interest rates.
The rate of interest is currently low so a value of 5.5% is assumed for the bank loan. The
combination the interest rate is then 7.3% for the whole capital investment.
During the construction period only interest has to be paid. This amount will be divided
by the 20 years lifetime to calculate an average annual value. Also for the financing of the
land we will only use the interest since after the lifetime of the plant is completed the
land has the same or even higher value. During the operational time of the plant both
interest and annual rates for pay back of the loan should be paid.
The depreciation time is the technical lifetime of the plant, 20 years. A scrap value for the
plant of 10% has been assumed.
Table 16. Yearly capital cost
Present-day case
Cost item
Near-future case
Methanol DME
Hydrogen Methanol DME
Hydrogen
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
Capital cost for :

Plant
18.8
20.4
15.8
17.4
19.6
14.6
Land
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Construction
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
Total capital cost
19.7
21.4
16.6
18.2
20.5
15.3
4.7 Yearly revenues of sale of district heat

The plant also produces heat that can be used as district heat. Unfortunately the plant has
to run continuously during the year with some short periods for maintenance, say once
every two years or so. But district heat cannot be sold in summer. This means that not
all available district heat can be sold. How much will depend on the demand during the
season. For the moment we will assume that 50% of the generated district heat can be
sold. The price for district heat is assumed to be 65 per MWh [VEAB, 2009]. Available
district heat is repeated from Table 1.
20(30)
Table 17. Yearly revenues by sale of district heat

Present-day case
Cost item
Near-future case
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
District heat
9.2
MWth
District heat
7.9
17.6
MWth
36.8
M/year
MWth
31.4
1.9
MWth
70.1
0.4
MWth
7.7
12.6
MWth
1.7
50.2
4.8 Total annual running cost

The total annual running costs are shown in Table 18. From this table it is clear that
there are two major items that determine the yearly running cost; the biomass costs and
the capital costs, or in other words the capital investment.
Table 18. Overview of yearly running costs including yearly revenues by sale of district heat
Present-day case
Cost item
Biomass
Near-future case
Methanol DME
Hydrogen Methanol DME
Hydrogen
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
M/year
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
Electricity
4.6
4.9
2.2
8.3
8.4
4.3
Staff
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Maintenance
7.6
8.2
6.4
5.0
5.6
4.2
Capital
19.7
21.4
16.6
18.2
20.5
15.3
Total
64.9
67.5
58.2
64.5
67.5
56.8
9.2
7.9
17.6
1.9
0.4
12.6
55.7
59.6
40.6
62.6
67.1
44.2
Revenues by sale
of district heat
Net cost
A couple of small cost items have not been included in this cost estimation. These are for
instance make up water, sand, discharge of waste water, oil and greases etc.
21(30)
4.9 Production Cost of Synthetic Fuels

The production cost of several different synthetic fuels is listed in Table 19. The new
developments that are incorporated in the near-future case will reduce the production
costs for all three investigated fuels. It is most expensive to produce a kilogram of
hydrogen, however because hydrogen has the highest energy content, it is also the
cheapest fuel to produce per GJ.
Table 19. Overview of the production cost of different motor fuels
Present-day case
Methanol
Net cost
(M/year)
55.7
DME
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
59.6
40.6
DME
Hydrogen
62.6
67.1
44.2
175.5
125.9
24.3
Production Rate
kton/year
140.6
100.9
19.9
Specific Production Cost Synthetic Fuels

per ton fuel
396
591
2,041
357
533
1,817
per GJ HHV
17.3
18.6
14.4
15.6
16.8
12.8
per GJ LHV
19.7
20.5
17.0
17.8
18.5
15.1
The current market price for methanol is 223 per ton [Methanex, 2009]. Therefore,
without a grant it seems now difficult to produce methanol from wood on a strictly
commercial basis. However, the price has gone up and down in the past few years. It has
been as high as 500 per ton early 2008. It can be expected that the price will go up when
fossil fuels become more expensive and the need for renewable fuels increases. DME is
currently made out of methanol. Because the same process is used in the DME-frombiomass plant, the same economical considerations that apply to methanol apply to
DME. What obscures the discussion is that at present no price is available for the use of
green fuels.
22(30)
5 Sensitivity of the cost estimate

5.1 Scaling Effect on Costs
For scaling up and down the following procedure was used:
Fuel cost, electricity and district heat are proportional to the capacity
Staff requirements remain the same
Mainteance and capital cost are scaled with the exponential law (see section 3.2.3)
and exponent 0.75
For the 20 t/h dry wood plant it has been assumed that the plant efficiency
decreases by 2%, compared to 40 ton per hour dry wood input
For the 80 t/h dry wood plant it has been assumed that the plant efficiency
increases by 2%, compared to 40 ton per hour dry wood input
This results of the scaling effects are presented in Table 20 and Table 21. As expected
the cost of production per ton fuel increases for the smaller plant, and decreases for the
larger plant. In Figure 2 the trend of the methanol production cost is plotted as a
function of the plant size. It shows that indeed production cost decreases with increasing
plant size, but that increasing plant size alone, is not enough for economically sound
production of methanol from wood.
Table 20. Fuel production cost of a plant with an input of 20 t/h dry wood
Present-day case
Methanol
Total cost
(M/year)
District heat
(M/year)
Net cost
(M/year)
DME
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
37.0
38.5
33.2
36.4
38.2
32.2
4.6
3.9
8.8
1.0
0.2
6.3
32.3
34.6
24.4
35.4
38.0
25.9
86.0
61.7
11.9
Production Rate
kton/year
68.9
49.4
9.7

per ton fuel
470
700
2,504
412
616
2,174
per GJ HHV
20.1
22.1
17.3
17.6
19.4
15.0
per GJ LHV
22.9
24.2
20.4
20.1
21.3
17.7
23(30)
Table 21. Fuel production cost of a plant with an input of 80 t/h dry wood
Present-day case
Methanol
Total cost
(M/year)
DME
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
117.2
121.8
105.1
117.7
122.9
103.6
District heat
(M/year)
18.4
15.7
35.1
3.9
0.8
25.2
Net cost
(M/year)
98.7
106.1
70.0
113.9
122.1
78.4
358.0
256.8
49.6
Production Rate
kton/year
286.8
205.8
40.6

344
516
1,725
318
475
1,580
per GJ HHV
15.3
16.3
12.4
14.2
15.0
11.4
per GJ LHV
17.5
17.9
14.6
16.1
16.5
13.4
Methanol production cost (/ton)
per ton fuel
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
present-day case
100
near-future case
Methanol price [Methanex, 2009]
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
Dry biomass input
Figure 2. Trend analysis of the production cost as a function of the plant size
24(30)
100
5.2 Cost sensitivity to the uncertainty in capital cost

Although the capital cost is estimated to the best of our abilities, a considerable
uncertainty surrounds these costs. Some costs were estimated, and there is always
uncertainty in cost of metals of which the equipment is made. The interest rate may be
different etc. An uncertainty in capital cost of 20 to 30% is expected. Table 22 and Table
23 present the influence of varying the capital cost with 25% in case of a dry biomass
input of 40.8 ton/h. The net cost listed in those tables is the total cost minus the
revenues by sale of district heat. The maintenance costs were kept constant. The
influence of 25% variation in capital cost is shown graphically in Figure 3. The variation
in fuel production costs, due to variation in capital costs ranges between 7 and 10
percent.
Table 22. Influence of 25% decrease in capital cost on specific biofuel production cost
Present-day case
Methanol
Net cost
(M/year)
DME
50.8
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
54.3
36.5
DME
Hydrogen
58.1
62.0
40.4
175.5
125.9
24.3
Production Rate
kton/year
140.6
100.9
19.9

per ton fuel
361
538
1,832
331
492
1,660
per GJ HHV
15.8
17.0
12.9
14.4
15.5
11.7
per GJ LHV
18.0
18.6
15.2
16.5
17.0
13.8
Table 23. Influence of 25% increase in capital cost on specific biofuel production cost
Present-day case
Methanol
Net cost
(M/year)
60.6
DME
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
65.0
44.8
DME
Hydrogen
67.2
72.2
48.0
175.5
125.9
24.3
Production Rate
kton/year
140.6
100.9
19.9

per ton fuel
431
644
2,249
383
574
1,975
per GJ HHV
18.8
20.3
15.9
16.7
18.1
13.9
per GJ LHV
21.5
22.3
18.7
19.0
19.9
16.4
25(30)
Production cost (/GJ HHV)
25.0
20.0
15.0
present-day case
near-future case
10.0
5.0
0.0
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
Figure 3. Sensitivity of fuel production cost to a 25% change in capital cost

5.3 Cost sensitivity to the biomass price
Another important uncertainty in the cost estimation is the biomass price. [VEAB, 2009]
indicated that in 2009 alone the price of biomass in Sweden has increased by 15% to 46
per metric ton wet biomass (50% moisture content) or in other words 20 per MWh.
This is the value used in the presented cost calculation. However, biomass price may
drop again, or continue to increase. Biomass price in Southern Europe has been subject
to research presented in [Esteban et al., 2006] and [Esteban et al., 2007]. In Table 17 of
[Esteban et al., 2006] cost of biomass in oven dry (metric) ton (odt) is presented. Oven
dry biomass is biomass of 0% moisture content. These costs are repeated in Table 24.
Table 24. Biomass costs in (/odt) in several South European countries after [Esteban et. al., 2006]
Agricultural residues
Forest residues
Spain
23.03
49.70
France
24.23
64.13
Greece
22.77
43.77
Italy
33.22
74.03
Portugal
21.37
27.38
The costs in Table 24 do not include transportation costs. In [Esteban et al. 2007] the
transport cost to two locations in Spain have been investigated. For both locations the
price of woody biomass including transportation costs was about 70 per odt. This is an
increase of about 20 per odt. Based on data from [Esteban et al, 2007] and [VEAB,
2009] biomass costs in Southern Europe are significantly cheaper than biomass costs in
Northern Europe (Sweden). Note that 46 per metric ton wet fuel corresponds to a price
of 92 per metric ton dry biomass.
For the lower extreme of biomass price, used in the price sensitivity analysis, it seems
reasonable to use 50% of the price of Nordic mix. This is more or less equivalent to the
production costs in Portugal for forest residue, when assuming that similar
transportation costs apply to Portugal as in Spain. It is assumed that the (dry) energy
content of forest residues is the same as used for the Northern mix, and that the same
fuel production plant is used (i.e. including a biomass dryer). Agricultural residues are
26(30)
even cheaper as a feedstock. It is expected that some changes to the plant are necessary
to use agricultural residues as a feedstock, because C:H ratio, ash content and specific
energy content are different from wood. Therefore, it has not been included in the cost
sensitivity analysis. However, price of agricultural residues is close to the price of forest
residues in Portugal. At the other extreme a biomass price increase of 50% of the
Northern mix has been used. This is a big deviation, however with a price increase of
15% alone in 2009 [VEAB, 2009], such an increase is not unthinkable over the plant
lifetime. Note that when waste wood would be gasified the biomass could be free, or one
could actually be paid to gasify the biomass. In that case production costs may be
competitive. However, waste wood may contain a number of pollutants, which have not
been taking into account during plant design.
Table 25. Influence of a 50% reduction of biomass price on specific biofuel production cost
Present-day case
Methanol
Net cost
(M/year)
DME
41.2
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
45.1
26.1
DME
Hydrogen
48.1
52.6
29.7
175.5
125.9
24.3
Production Rate
kton/year
140.6
100.9
19.9

per ton fuel
293
447
1309
274
417
1219
per GJ HHV
12.8
14.1
9.2
12.0
13.2
8.6
per GJ LHV
14.6
15.5
10.9
13.6
14.5
10.1
Table 26. Influence of a 50% increase of biomass price on specific biofuel production cost
Present-day case
Methanol
Net cost
(M/year)
70.3
DME
Near-future case
Hydrogen Methanol
74.2
55.2
DME
Hydrogen
77.2
81.7
58.8
175.5
125.9
24.3
Production Rate
kton/year
140.6
100.9
19.9

per ton fuel
500
735
2,772
440
648
2,416
per GJ HHV
21.8
23.2
19.6
19.2
20.5
17.1
per GJ LHV
24.9
25.5
23.1
21.9
22.5
20.1
While the biofuel production costs drop significantly when the biomass price drops 50%
compared to the present price of Nordic mix, they do not drop below the present
methanol price of 223 per ton [Methanex, 2009]. Figure 4 illustrates the sensitivity
graphically. The fuel production cost vary by 20 to 35%, if the biomass price varies 50%.
Clearly the fuel production cost depends heavily on the biomass price. In the near-future
27(30)
cases the production costs are less sensitive to biomass price, because of the larger
conversion of biomass into fuel.
Production cost (/GJ HHV)
25.0
20.0
15.0
present-day case
near-future case
10.0
5.0
0.0
Methanol
DME
Hydrogen
Figure 4. Sensitivity of fuel production cost to 50% variation in biomass price
28(30)
6 Conclusions
The costs of the production of biofuels from gasification of biomass have been
determined. The initial investment in process equipment for a biomass plant with 40.8
ton/h input of dry wood (no moisture) is estimated at 216 million euro for the
production of methanol if one would like to build a plant today. For DME and
hydrogen an investment in process equipment is required of 235 and 182 million euro,
respectively. A cost estimation is made as well for a plant which could be build in the
near-future. This plant contains amongst others a catalytic tar reformer and a hot gas
filter that can operate at the outlet temperature of the gasifier (900C). The near-future
plant would require an investment of 200, 225 or 168 million euro for methanol, DME
and hydrogen, respectively. All plants have a yield of district heat that can be sold. This is
incorporated in the annual operating costs to get a net annual operating cost. Net annual
operating costs for the present-day case are 56, 60 and 41 million euro for methanol,
DME and hydrogen, respectively. The net annual operating costs for the near-future case
are higher at 63, 67 and 44 million euro for the three fuels respectively. This has two
reasons. Firstly, more high pressure steam for power generation can be generated in the
present-day case, because more high temperature heat is available. Secondly, the revenues
of the sale of district heat of the present-day case are higher. The annual costs are
predominantly determined by the annual capital costs and the biomass costs.
The production costs per ton or GJ fuel is the lowest in the near-future case, because the
larger conversion of biomass into fuel. Production costs for methanol, DME and
hydrogen are 357, 533 and 1817 euro per metric ton, respectively. Production costs are
higher than the present market prices. However, methanol prices have fluctuated a lot in
the past and the methanol price has been as high as 500 euro per ton.
It has been investigated, how sensitive the calculated cost estimation is to plant scale,
capital cost and biomass price. The production costs drop by about 15% when the plant
size is doubled to 80 ton/h (oven) dry biomass. The uncertainty of the cost estimate is
between 7 and 10% when an uncertainty in the capital cost is assumed of 25%. The cost
estimate is highly sensitive to biomass price. Costs vary between 20 and 35% with a
biomass price increase or decrease of 50%. When biomass would be free, i.e. if a waste
product is used, production costs may be competitive. Production costs in the nearfuture case are less sensitive to biomass price than the present-day case, because of the
higher biomass to fuel conversion.
With the present plant design and product prices, methanol, DME and hydrogen cannot
be manufactured in an economically sound way from biomass. One of the reasons is that
no economical value is given to the fact that the produced fuel is environmentally
friendly.
29(30)
7 References
De Lathouder, H., Huisman, G.H., and Brinkert, J., Clean Hydrogen-rich synthesis gas,
Hydrogen Plant Study, Process Design and Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Plant (from
50 t/h biomass), Report No: CHRISGAS_July 2009_WP14 Deliverable, 2009
Esteban, L.S., Garca, R., Ciria, P. and Carrasco, J., Clean Hydrogen-rich Synthesis Gas,
Biomass Resources and Costs in Spain and Southern EU Countries, Report No. 1
Deliverable number 36 CIEMAT, 2006
Esteban, L.S., Garca, R., Miguel Fernndez, P.P., and Carrasco, J.Clean Hydrogen-rich
Synthesis Gas, Fuel Supply Logistics and Costs for Typical FuelChains in Southern European
Countries, Report No. CHRISGAS October 2007_WP5_D38, 2007
Hamelinck and Faaij, Future Prospects for Production f Methanol and Hydrogen from Biomass,
2001
Huisman, G.H., De Lathouder, H. and Cornelissen, R.L., Clean Hydrogen-rich Synthesis
Gas, Synthesis System Study, Report No. CHRISGAS_April 2009_WP14 Deliverable,
2009a
Huisman, G.H., Brinkert, J., Rens, G.L.M.A. van, and, Cornelissen, R.L., Clean
Hydrogen-rich Synthesis Gas, Mass and Energy Balance for the Whole Plant and
Suggestions for Optimisation, Report No. CHRISGAS_December 2009_WP15_D130,
2009b
Koch, T., IEA Workshop Chicago October 2006
Methanex, http://www.methanex.com/products/methanolprice.html, last visited 22-122009
Rep, M., Cornelissen, R.L., Clevers, S., De Lathouder, H. and Huisman, G.H., Clean
Hydrogen-rich Synthesis Gas, Budgetary Assessment of Post-CHRISGAS Transportation
Fuel Installation, Report No: CHRISGAS March 2009_WP3_D14, Deliverable
Number D14, 2008
VEAB, personal communication with A.C. Tranvik of Vxj Energi AB, 2009
30(30)

1.37662!CHRISGAS - D127 and D28 - Cost Estimate For A Biomass Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1.37662!CHRISGAS - D127 and D28 - Cost Estimate For A Biomass Plant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.37662!CHRISGAS - D127 and D28 - Cost Estimate For A Biomass Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clean Hydrogen-rich Synthesis Gas

Contract No: SES6-CT-2004-502587

Deliverable D127 & D128

Work Package: WP15, Task: WP15.1&WP15.2

Investment Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass ......................................................................9

Running Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass........................................................................ 17

Sensitivity of the cost estimate......................................................................................... 23

Scaling Effect on Costs ............................................................................................ 23

Net power required

Net heat available

Net power required

Net heat available

Net power required

Net heat available

3 Investment Costs for 40.8 t/h dry biomass

3.1.2 Gasification and Gas Treatment Plant

3.1.4 Total surface area required

Gasification and gas

Fuel storage and

Engineering & project management

Utilities & Auxiliaries

Start Up, Testing & Training

Profit & Risk

Total Fuel Preparation & Drying

3.2.3 Air Separation Unit (ASU)

ASU for present-day case (~28 ton/hour)

ASU for near-future case (~21 ton/hour)

3.2.4 Gasifier Plant

Feed bins for wood fuel (couple of hours capacity)

Fuel Feeders & valves

Gasifier Vessel & Refractory

Steam & Oxygen Distribution System (Internal)

Cyclone & Return Pipe

Ash Discharge System & Cooling

Ash Storage & Truck Filling

Sand Storage & Supply System

Hot Gas Duct to Cooler or Filter

3.2.5 Syngas Preparation

3.2.6 Energy Recovery

HT- Gas Cooler immediately downstream of gasifier

HT-Gas Cooler downstream of the reformer

Steam generator in the HT-Shift section

Economiser after HT-Shift

Table 10. Cost of fuel synthesis plants

DME Synthesis (Methanol to DME)

DME Synthesis (Syngas to DME)

Hydrogen synthesis and compression

3.3 Total Investment Cost for the Plant

Piping Valves & Ducts

Electrical System incl. MCC + HV systems (transformers, switch gear)

Power Cables & Lighting

Control & Instrumentation

DCS & ESD

Table 11. Total investment cost for the plant

Fuel Preparation &

Air Separation Unit (ASU)

Synthetic Fuel Plant