sustainability
Article
Economic and Technical Analysis of Power to Gas Factory
Taking Karamay as an Example
Wenyin Jiang, Songqing Zhao and Tianfang Yang *
Citation: Jiang, W.; Zhao, S.; Yang, T.
Economic and Technical Analysis of
Power to Gas Factory Taking
Karamay as an Example.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14105929
Academic Editor: Adam Smoliński
Received: 5 April 2022
Accepted: 9 May 2022
Published: 13 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105929
College of Arts and Science, China University of Petroleum-Beijing at Karamay, Karamay 834000, China;
2020592226@cupk.edu.cn (W.J.); 2237@cupk.edu.cn (S.Z.)
* Correspondence: 2018592013@cupk.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-0990-6633242
Abstract: Power to gas (PTG) refers to the technology of converting power into energy-storage gas,
which can absorb excess power when there is excess power and release energy-storage gas when
needed. Based on the carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission of Karamay City in Northwest China, this study
designed a process flow of the CO2 absorption process, and the hydrogen and CO2 methanation
process, in PTG technology. The results show that the efficiency of the CO2 absorption process was
91.5%, and the methanation efficiency was 77.5%. The heat recovery module was set during the
process, and the total heat recovered was 17.85 MW. The cost of producing synthetic natural gas
(SNG) in the PTG factory was 1782 USD/ton. In terms of cost, the cost of hydrogen production
from electrolyzed water accounted for the largest proportion. In terms of product profit, the sale
of pure oxygen was the largest part of the profit. At present, the carbon emission reduction index
profit brought by SNG production accounted for a small proportion. In the future, with technological
progress, industrial upgrading and the improvement in the carbon trading market, PTG technology
is expected to become one of the ways to achieve carbon-emission-reduction targets.
Keywords: carbon-dioxide capture; carbon-dioxide methanation; renewable energy; economic analysis;
hydrogen production
1. Introduction
With the further intensification of global warming, the climate has become an increas-
ingly serious issue. With the rapid growth in the global population and economy, more and
more greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere [1]. Among them, CO2 emissions
account for more than 60% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, which are the main cause
of global warming and climate change [2]. Therefore, countries have introduced policies
to reduce CO2 emissions. The European Union is committed to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by 80–95% by 2050, compared with 1990 [3]. The Biden government of the
United States promises to achieve 100% carbon-free emission in the power industry by
2035 [4]. India is committed to reducing its CO2 emissions by 33–35% by 2030, compared
with 2005 [5]. China is the world’s largest industrial country. Due to the rapid development
of its industry in the past two decades, China has emitted nearly 30% of the CO2 in the
world in 2020 alone [6]. Therefore, in the face of this situation, China has also set ambitious
emission-reduction targets: By 2030, CO2 emissions will reach a peak, at 50–60% lower
than that in 2005. In addition, carbon neutrality will be achieved by 2060 [7].
Carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technology is expected to achieve
climate commitments and solve climate problems. At present, CCUS technology has
two main research directions. One is to physically store the captured CO2 and store it in
oil fields or coalfields, so as to improve oil and gas recovery and reduce CO2 stock [8].
The second is to chemically convert the captured CO2 into methane and other fuels. In
this direction, electricity generated from renewable energy is used to electrolyze water to
produce hydrogen, which is converted into methane together with captured CO2 . This
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 2 of 15

technology is called PTG. At present, relevant PTG projects have been established in
many parts of the world to carry out miniaturization experiments and commercialization
attempts [9]. The first PTG project in the world is Ameland in the Netherlands. The project
uses a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer (PEM) to produce hydrogen, which is
mixed into the natural-gas pipe network and supplied to 14 families in apartments. The
operation of the project has no safety problems currently [10]. Project Hybridge is one of
the largest PTG projects in Europe. It is planned that it will design 100-MW electrolytic cells
to produce hydrogen before 2030. The hydrogen will be used for transportation, mixing
into the natural-gas pipeline network and conversion to methane [11]. At present, the
largest PTG project in operation is located in the Audi e-gas plant in Werlte, Germany.
The total capacity of its three electrolytic cells is 6.3 MW. Wind energy is used to provide
power, and the generated hydrogen is converted into methane and injected into the gas
network [12]. In general, based on literature research, there are nearly 130 PTG projects in
the world, involving 26 countries or regions [9]. However, it should be pointed out that
current projects often choose to provide surplus power in areas rich in renewable resources,
rely on existing thermal power plants, or choose to obtain convenient raw materials in
heavy industrial areas. Therefore, the choice of location is particularly important. Different
resources exist in different regions; there are different bank discount rates, labor, land-use
costs and product prices, leading to different project operation costs in different regions.
These reasons also led to the emergence of this work.
Another important factor is based on energy-storage considerations. In recent years,
renewable energy has received strong support from many countries, developed rapidly
and steadily increased its market share [13]. However, the research shows that, with the
increase in renewable installed capacity, the demand for power-system flexibility is also
increasing [14]. Energy storage is one of the important options to improve the flexibility of
power systems [15]. At present, the most widely used energy-storage technology is pumped
storage, but its disadvantage is also very obvious: that is, specific locations such as steep
slopes and nearby lakes are needed to meet the needs of system operation [16]. However,
it is worth noting that PTG technology is expected to become a solution for large-scale
energy-storage technology, which converts electric energy into hydrogen or methane [17].
At the same time, due to the construction of the “West-to-East gas transmission” project, the
region has more natural-gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage tanks. These
can significantly improve energy-storage capacity and utilization capacity.
The focus of this study is to simulate the establishment of a PTG plant based on
the distribution of renewable resources in Northwest China, CO2 emissions of industrial
enterprises in this region, local prices and labor costs, and explore the utilization of renew-
able resources and the CO2 conversion path in this region. The schematic diagram of the
plant is shown in Figure 1. The plant is composed of renewable-energy power generation,
electrolytic-cell hydrogen production, the CO2 absorption process and the CO2 methanation
process. The ratio of the CO2 absorption solution was 10 wt% MDEA + 30 wt% PZ, to save the
energy in the absorption process to the greatest extent. The heat of the absorption process
and methanation process was coupled to recover 17.85 MW of heat. Through the CO2
flow, the H2 flow was determined, and then the electrolytic cell capacity and renewable
power generation capacity were determined. The economy of the PTG plant was evaluated.
Combined with the corresponding carbon tax policy, the results show that the SNG cost
generated by PTG at this stage was 1782 USD/ton. The cost sensitivity analysis shows that
the cost of an electrolytic cell accounted for the largest proportion. In the future, with the
progress of technology and the improvement in electrolytic efficiency, this technology is
expected to run on a large scale, which is one of the technical paths towards decarbonization
in the future.
Sustainability 2022, 14,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 15
16

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of PTG plant.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of PTG plant.

2. Materials and Methods

This part focuses on the methods and technologies used in carbon-dioxide capture,
carbon-dioxide methanation
methanation and
and hydrogen
hydrogen production
production from
from electrolytic
electrolyticwater
water

2.1. Carbon Capture

Carbon capture
capture generally
generallyrequires
requiresspecific
specific sources
sources of CO
of CO 2 , such
2, such asgas
as tail tailfrom
gas from
large
large coal power plants, steel, cement and other large industries. Carbon
coal power plants, steel, cement and other large industries. Carbon capture can be imple- capture can be
implemented in three stages: post-combustion, pre-combustion
mented in three stages: post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel [18]. Post combi-and oxy-fuel [18]. Post
combination
nation is widely is widely
used in used in large-scale
large-scale industrialization.
industrialization. Dust and
Dust and sulfide needsulfide need to
to be removed
be
fromremoved fromflue
the treated thegas
treated
first. flue
These gas first. Thesesolutions,
amine-based amine-basedsuchsolutions, such as mo-
as monoethanolamine
noethanolamine
(MEA), amino methyl (MEA), amino methyl
propanol, propanol,
amino ethyl amino amino ethyl
ethanol, amino ethanol,
piperazine (PZ), andpiperazine
methyl-
(PZ), and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), are then used to absorb
diethanolamine (MDEA), are then used to absorb CO2. However, the disadvantage CO 2 . However, the dis-
of
advantage
amine-based technology is that the energy consumption is very high, which led which
of amine-based technology is that the energy consumption is very high, many
led many researchers
researchers to studyprocesses
to study efficient efficient processes
and solventsand solvents [19]. Previous
[19]. Previous work showed work showed
that op-
that optimizing the process can significantly reduce energy
timizing the process can significantly reduce energy consumption, by 20% [20]. consumption, by 20% [20].
Studies
Studies also showed that the configuration of new solvents can save
also showed that the configuration of new solvents can save 18% of current energy con- 18% of current energy
consumption
sumption [21].[21].
The establishment of
The establishment ofthe
theCO CO 2 absorption
2 absorption
model
model in this
in this studystudy is based
is based on Aspen
on Aspen HY-
HYSYS™ V.12 software (China University of Petroleum, Beijing authorized use. Beijing,
SYS™ V.12 software (China University of Petroleum, Beijing authorized use. Beijing, China). By
China). By visiting and investigating relevant petroleum and petrochemical enterprises in
visiting and investigating relevant petroleum and petrochemical enterprises in Karamay,
Karamay, the composition of tail gas to be absorbed was obtained, as shown in Table 1.
the composition of tail gas to be absorbed was obtained, as shown in Table 1.
The design of the CO2 absorption process is shown in Figure 2. The mixture of MDEA
and
Table 1. is
PZ consideredofas
Composition gasthe absorbent.
to be The absorption
treated (molar flow 1100 kg· liquid
mole/h,from the 40
12 MPa, absorption
°C). tower
enters the flash module (FLASH) through the heat exchanger (LNG-101) and is divided
Main Gas
into two parts: Composition
gas flow and liquid flow. Here, the richMole solventFraction (%) to produce
is flashed
a gas stream (composed N2 of H2 O and CO2 ), which is then compressed 62.1 and sent back to
the bottom of the flash CO2module. The liquid flow is at the top of23.1 the flash module. This
design can reduce theOsteam 2 demand of the distillation column (REGEN)
8.6 and heat the rich
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 4 of 15

solvent entering the heat exchanger (LNG-102). This design refers to the practice of Le
Moullec et al. [22]. Based on the heat-pump effect, the heat quality of the supply system
is improved.

Table 1. Composition of gas to be treated (molar flow 1100 kg·mole/h, 12 MPa, 40 ◦ C).

Main Gas Composition Mole Fraction (%)

N2 62.1
CO2 23.1
O2 8.6
H2 O 6.2

Figure 2. Carbon capture flow chart.

2.2. CO2 Methanation

The methanation of CO2 refers to the process of producing methane and water with
CO2 (and a small part of CO) under high pressure and a certain temperature. At present,
the catalysts used in large-scale commercial use are nickel or nickel-based catalysts [23].
The methanation process is shown in Equations (1)–(4). Here, (1) and (2) represent the
hydrogenation of CO2 and CO, (3) represents the reverse reaction of water gas, and
(4) represents the Boudouard reaction. The whole reaction process is strongly exothermic,
but some studies have shown that a temperature exceeding 500 ◦ C will lead to carbon
deposition and deactivation of the catalyst. High temperatures will inhibit the conversion
of CO2 ; therefore, it is necessary to control the reaction temperature to ensure the progress of
the reaction. Processes (1)–(3) will produce water, which can be supplied to the electrolytic cell.

CO2 + 4H2 CH4 + 2H2 O ( ∆H0 = −165.1 KJ/Mol) (1)

CO + 3H2 CH4 + 2H2 O ( ∆H0 = −206.3 KJ/Mol) (2)

0
CO2 + H2 CO + H2 O ( ∆H = +41. 2 KJ/Mol) (3)
2CO C(S) +CO2 ( ∆H0 = −172.5 KJ/Mol) (4)
The establishment of the CO2 methanation model in this study is based on Aspen
Plus™ V.12 software. The methanation reactors adopt fixed-bed adiabatic reactors, which
can adapt to large-scale methanation production. The process flow is shown in Figure 3.
Four fixed-bed adiabatic reactors (R-1; R-2; R-3; R-4) are set; each stage is equipped with
a cooling system (S13; S16; S22; S25) to ensure that the reaction temperature is controlled
at 350 ◦ C, so as to avoid carbon deposition (coking) and ensure that the catalyst will not
be inactivated. At the same time, the heat taken away by the cooling system will not be
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 5 of 15

wasted and will be used in the CO2 -capture process or sold to the public sector for use (if
any). The molar flow ratio of feed ports S1 (CO2 ) and S3 (H2 ) is 1:4. The reason for setting
this ratio is available in a previous study [24]. The synthesized methane gas contains a lot
of water, which must be removed in the use stage. Therefore, a condensation module (B19)
is set to separate the water. Finally, further dehydrogenation (B24) and pressurization are
required to produce SNG that meets the existing natural-gas pipeline standards.

Figure 3. CO2 methanation process.

2.3. Hydrogen Production from Electrolytic Water

Hydrogen production from electrolyzed water refers to the use of renewable energy,
such as wind, solar and tidal energy, to generate electricity. Electricity is supplied to the
electrolytic cell, and electrolyzed water produces hydrogen. The reaction equation of
this process is shown in (5) [25]. Since renewable energy is used and the products are
oxygen and hydrogen, this method has also become an environment-friendly technology
option. At present, researchers have developed three typical electrolytic cells: alkaline
water electrolytic (AWE), solid oxide electrolytic (SOE), and proton exchange membrane
electrolytic (PEM). The technical specifications of the three electrolyzers are shown in
Table 2 [26,27].
Table 2. Typical specifications of electrolyzers.

Specifications Unit AWE PEM SOE

Technology Large-scale Certain Laboratory
maturity commercialization commercialization research
System life year 20–30 10–20 -
Hydrogen purity % >99.8 99.999 -
Cold
min 15 <15 >60
start-up time
Investment cost $/kW 890–1700 1550–2300 >2200

However, due to low conversion rate and high energy consumption, the biggest prob-
lem of electrolytic hydrogen production is low economic competitiveness. However, with
the goal of energy decarbonization and the approaching pressure of carbon neutralization,
coupling this technology with existing old power plants, photovoltaic power plants and
wind power plants; using excess power to produce hydrogen; and storing it as energy-
storage gas seems to be a scheme that can improve economic competitiveness and be
implemented commercially.

H2 O + Electricity (237.2 KJ/Mol) + Heat (48.6 KJ/Mol) → H2 + 1/2O2 (5)

AWE was first proposed by Troostwijk and Diemann in 1789 [28]. The electrolysis pro-
cess is shown in Figure 4. The alkaline solution (KOH/NaOH) near the cathode is reduced
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 6 of 15

to one hydrogen molecule (H2 ) and two hydroxyl ions (OH− ) are generated. Hydrogen
molecules escape from the cathode surface. Under the influence of current, hydroxyl groups
are transferred to the anode through the middle diaphragm, where they are converted
into 1/2 oxygen molecules (O2 ) and one water molecule (H2 O). Finally, oxygen molecules
escape from the anode surface. The working temperature of the electrolytic is 40–90 °C
and the service life can reach 30 years. Moreover, with the progress of technology, the
response time of electrolytic has also gradually shortened. A study in 2014 showed that
the restart time after shutdown was shortened to 15 min, which can adapt to fluctuating
renewable power [29]. However, some studies have shown that the scheduling model is
very important for the flexible operation of an electrolytic [30]. Generally speaking, an
alkaline electrolyzer is the most mature, stable and cheap commercial cell because of its
early development. Therefore, AWE was selected for hydrogen-production facilities.

Figure 4. Principle of alkaline water electrolysis.

3. Results
This section mainly analyzes the CO2 capture process, methanation process, hydrogen
production from AWE, and energy consumption designed above. For the CO2 capture pro-
cess, the energy consumption of different absorbents was analyzed and the CO2 absorption
efficiency was calculated. For the methanation process, the flow data of each reaction stage
are given as Supplementary Materials, and the final methanation efficiency was calculated.
Through the hydrogen flow rate at the feed inlet of the methanation process, an AWE group
was constructed to stably produce hydrogen.

3.1. Carbon-Capture Process

Select the CO2 adsorbent to be used: MDEA, PZ, and the mixture of MDEA and PZ.
Referring to previous studies [31,32], the 40 wt% concentration of a PZ solution was used as
a CO2 capture solvent. Then the concentration of the absorbent solution was set to 40 wt%.
For PZ + MDEA mixed solution, the total solution mass fraction remained unchanged, and
only the proportion of the two solutions changed. In order to ensure that the solvent ratio
was the only variable, the pressure of the absorption tower and distillation tower should
be consistent, in which the pressure of the absorption tower was 12 MPa and the pressure
of the distillation tower was 52 MPa. By changing the composition of the absorbent, the
total energy required in the absorption process was investigated. The energy required for
different solvent processes is shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that, when the absorption
solution is composed of 10 wt% MDEA + 30 wt% PZ, the energy required for the whole
process is the least. Therefore, that solvent was selected as the CO2 absorbent.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 7 of 15

Figure 5. Absorbed energy required by different solvents.

Through the whole carbon-capture process, the captured gas was obtained, and the
components are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Gas composition after capture (molar flow 208.9 kmol/h, 50 MPa, 40 ◦ C).

Main Gas Composition Mole Fraction (%)

N2 0.2%
CO2 98.43%
H2 O 1.55%

In order to investigate the carbon-capture efficiency, the CO2 -absorption efficiency is

defined, ηCO2 , as shown in Equation (6).

ηCO2 = fproduced/ fin (6)

where, fproduced is the molar flow rate of CO2 in the product, and fin is the molar flow rate
of CO2 at the feed end. Through calculation, the capture efficiency was 91.5%. At the same
time, Table 4 gives some performance specifications of the CO2 -capture device.

3.2. CO2 Methanation

This section discusses the output results of the CO2 methanation process. Table 5
shows the changes in gas components in each part of the methanation process.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 8 of 15

Table 4. Performance specifications of CO2 capture.

Parameters Values
Waste gas
N2 712.499 kmol/h
CO2 18.9572 kmol/h
O2 94.7028 kmol/h
H2 O 56.0436 kmol/h
CO 0.0146 kmlo/h
SO2 0.0006 kmol/h
NO 0.0052 kmol/h
Energy demand
Compressor 1.039 MW
Pumps 0.085 MW
Coolers 6.728 MW
Total 319 MW
Material requirement
PZ 1.3931 kmol/h
MDEA 0.3357 kmol/h

Table 5. Molar gas flow of each module.

Gas Composition S1 S3 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 S38

Total molar flow
211 827.12 3258.72 842.974 793.894 625.741 202.02
(kmol/h)
CH4 (%) / / 3.09 11.57 15.38 32.95 99.90
CO2 (%) 98 / 18.06 12.96 10.66 0.09 0.01
H2 (%) / 99.9 72.14 51.72 42.56 0.25 0.07
H2 O (%) 1.98 0.1 6.7 23.74 31.39 66.7 0.02
O2 (%) / / / / / / /
N2 (%) 0.12 / / / / / /

In order to investigate the methanation efficiency of the process, methanation efficiency

ηh-c is shown in (7). Where, ηH-C is methanation efficiency, λc-out is the molar flow of (S38)
CH4 at the outlet of the reaction process (kmol/s), λh-out is the molar flow of (S36) H2 at the
outlet of the reaction process (kmol/s), λh-in is the molar flow rate of (S3) H2 at the reaction
inlet (kmol/s). Mc and Mh are the molar mass (kg/mol) of CH4 and H2 , respectively, and
Lc and Lh are the low calorific values (MJ/kg) of CH4 and H2 , respectively. Finally, the
methanation efficiency of this process was 77.5%.

ηh-c = (λc-out ·Mc ·Lc + λh-out ·Mh ·Lh )/λh-in ·Mh ·Lh (7)

Similarly, Table 6 shows the operating specifications of other equipment in the metha-
nation process. The specific dimensions of the four adiabatic reactors and the mass of the
catalyst are given in Table 7.

Table 6. Performance specifications of CO2 methanation.

Parameters Values
Energy demand
Compressor 0.967 MW
Coolers −7.9026 MW
Reactor
Operating pressure 100 MPa
Pressure loss 2%
Operating temperature 350 ◦ C
Catalyzer Ni/MgAl2 O4
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 9 of 15

Table 7. Adiabatic reactor specification.

Parameters R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4

Length 4.97 m 5.56 m 6.83 m 6.62 m
Diameter 2m 1.4 m 1.2 m 1.2 m
Catalyst weight 22 ton 5.87 ton 5.44 ton 7.47 ton

3.3. Electrolytic Scale

This part discusses the capacity of the electrolytic cell to ensure the stable supply of
hydrogen required in the methanation stage. It can be seen from Table 4 that the hydrogen
molar flow rate at the feed inlet (S3) of the methanation process was 826.29 kmol/h. In
order to adapt to this flow, through sufficient market research and literature research, China
Huaneng Group Clean Energy Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd. was selected to
develop an alkaline electrolytic [33]. The specific specifications are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Technical specifications of alkaline electrolyzer.

Parameters Values
Rated hydrogen production 1300 Nm/h
Maximum hydrogen production 1500 Nm/h
Maximum current density 6000 A/m
Energy consumption <4.2 kWh/NmH

Then, the required electrolytic capacity was obtained. It was specified that the elec-
trolytic works with customized hydrogen power. Through calculation, the electrolytic
capacity is 158 MW, that is, 29 alkaline electrolytics. Considering the start-up, shutdown,
maintenance, and other operations of the electrolytic, the capacity of the electrolytic was
expanded by 10% to ensure stable output. Then, 174 MW capacity was required, that is,
32 sets of the equipment are required.
In conclusion, based on the industrial tail gas emission of Karamay City, the scale of
the carbon capture process, methanation process and hydrogen production from electrolytic
water were designed. Table 9 is a summary of these works. The table shows the materials,
output, and other information required by the PTG plant.

Table 9. PTG-plant energy consumption and material consumption.

Specification Values
Carbon capture Tail gas 34.109 ton/h
CO2 methanation inputs CO2 9.177 ton/h
H2 1.681 ton/h
Cooling water 14.8 ton/h
Hydrogen production Number of electrolytic cells 30
PtG outputs SNG 3.236 ton/h

4. Discussion
This section mainly analyzes the economy and technology of the PTG plant. The energy
consumption of the plant was analyzed, and the heat circulation module was added to make
better use of heat. Based on the current market levels, current policies, and bank discount
rates, the prices of land, equipment, labor, raw materials, and products were fully considered,
and the economic feasibility of establishing PTG factory was explored at this stage.

4.1. Energy Consumption Analysis

As the methanation process is highly exothermic, it can collect heat for carbon capture,
or send it to a steam turbine for power generation to provide power for plant operation.
Figure 6 shows the composite curve of the cooling and heating load of the PTG plant. The
total heat recovered was 17.85mw and the temperature range was 40–350 ◦ C. At 150 ◦ C,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 10 of 15

this part of heat can be sent to the distillation tower of the CO2 process. This part of the
heat was 5.16 MW, which can effectively compensate for the heat demand of the process.

Figure 6. Hot and cold composite curves of PTG plant.

At the same time, it should be pointed out that the adiabatic reactor in the methanation
stage is equipped with a cooling module. This high-temperature steam can be sent to the
steam turbine to generate electricity, to be used for the consumption of compressors and
pumps. The turbine heat rate [34] was 8063.6 kJ/kWh. The total molar enthalpy of cooling
modules (S14, S17, S21, S27) per unit time was 196075.147 MJ, so the power generated by the
steam turbine can fully meet the power required by the carbon-capture and methanation
equipment, with reference to Tables 4 and 6.

4.2. Economic Analysis

In this section, the investment cost and operation cost of the PTG plant is simulated
and evaluated according to the simulation results, and the plant income is calculated
according to the products. The cost coefficient method was used to calculate the fixed
investment cost, as shown in (8).
!
n
P1 = P2 · 1 + ∑ Ri ·N (8)
i=1

Among them, P1 is the total investment in fixed assets; P2 is the investment in equip-
ment, taken to be 1.2; Ri is the cost coefficient of each part; and N is the comprehensive
coefficient. Table 10 shows the cost coefficients of each part. The operating period is
assumed to be 20 years and the residual value is assumed to be 0. The total project cost
C is defined as Equation (9) [35], where Ci is the cost of each part; see Table 11 for details.
Methane and pure oxygen can be sold, and carbon-emission reductions can be sold through
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 11 of 15

the carbon trading market. The price is based on the national carbon trading price on
4 June 2021 [36], and the labor cost refers to the per capita disposable income of the city.
n
C = P1 + ∑ Ci (9)
i=1

Table 10. Cost coefficient of each part.

Part Expense Type i Cost Coefficient Ri

Existing equipment and plant 1
Purchased equipment 0.47
Instrumentation and
0.36
control equipment
Direct cost
The conduit 0.68
Electrical system 0.11
Building service facilities 0.18
Plant-improvement facilities 0.10
Living-service facilities 0.60
Engineering supervision 0.28
Construction cost 0.31
Indirect cost Legal service fee 0.04
Contractor’s costs 0.18
Contingency expenditure 0.35

Table 11. Operating costs of various parts of the project.

Project (i) Specific Matters Cost

1 Raw material
2 Public utility
Plant operation and
3
maintenance costs
4 Depreciation
5 General expenses
Amine solvent: 3.5 USD/kg, catalyzer: 240 USD/kg, industrial water: 0.24 USD/ton,
electrolytic water: 1.57 USD/kg, hydrogen: produced by electrolysis; selling
price of methane: 0.32 USD/Nm3, price of industrial oxygen: 157 USD/ton
Cooling water: 0.03 USD/ton, electric energy required for electrolysis [37], 0.047 USD/kWh;
40 people/shift, 3 shifts/day,
Labor cost
9432 USD/person·year
Maintenance and repair 6% of capital investment
Consumption of operating supplies 15% of working capital
20-year operation cycle, with a maturity discount of 0 USD
15% of the total product cost

Regarding the cost of the alkaline electrolyzer, with the maturity of large-scale com-
mercial technology and sufficient market competition, the equipment investment price
will continue to decline. The investment cost of the alkaline electrolyzer selected in this
study is 314 USD/kW [38]. Then, the calculation method of hydrogen production costs
from electrolytic water is shown in (10).

S = (S1 + S2 + S3 )/(C·Y) + SE ·B (10)

where S is hydrogen production cost, S1 is the investment cost for the electrolytic, S2 and S3
are the renewal and maintenance costs of electrolytic; these costs are 40% and 5%. C is the
annual output of hydrogen, and Y is the operation cycle of the unit, which is 20 years. SE is
the power cost of the electrolytic, and B is the power required to produce 1kg of hydrogen.
After calculation, the hydrogen cost of electrolytic water was 4.66 USD/kg.
According to Formulas (8) and (9), Tables 8 and 9, the cost required for each ton of
natural gas produced by the PTG plant can be calculated, as shown in Figure 7.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 12 of 15

Figure 7. Cost of producing one ton of SNG in PTG plant.

The cost of producing SNG in the PTG plant is 1782 USD/ton, which is also shown in
Guilera. et al. [39], and Chauvy et al. [3], within the cost range assessed. Compared with
the traditional LNG price [40] of 607.7 USD/ton, the SNG produced by the PTG plant is
three times the traditional price. However, it is worth noting that, from Figure 7, it can be
seen that the high cost of hydrogen production increases the cost of SNG. Product pure
oxygen and methanation product SNG can be sold to improve system revenue. It is worth
noting that China launched the carbon trading market in 2017, so the CO2 used in the
methanation stage can be sold as a carbon reduction quota, but the profit proportion is not
high at this stage.
In order to further investigate the economy of the PTG plant, the sensitivity analysis of
a large part of the cost was carried out. This included electrolytic electricity price, oxygen
price, carbon trading price, etc., as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. SNG cost sensitivity analysis.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 13 of 15

Through sensitivity analysis, it can be seen that the change in electrolytic cell power
consumption in the hydrogen production stage has the greatest impact on SNG cost. In the
future, through technological progress, the improvement of electrolytic cell efficiency and
the decrease in power consumption, the production cost of SNG can be reduced. Changes in
oxygen sales profits and carbon trading prices can also have a certain impact on SNG costs.

5. Conclusions
The current work evaluates the technical route of setting up a PTG plant to produce
SNG with CO2 . Based on Karamay industrial tail gas emissions, the carbon capture process
and methanation process were designed using Aspen Hysys™ V.12 software and Aspen
Plus™ V.12 software. The heat flow in the process was recycled to ensure the balance of
quality and energy. The alkaline electrolyzer module was designed to supply hydrogen
stably. The results show that the PTG plant can produce 3.326 tons of natural gas per hour
and consume 8.899 tons of CO2 at the same time. The final carbon capture efficiency was
91.5%, and the methanation efficiency was 77.5%. The price of one ton of SNG produced
by the PTG plant was USD 1782, which is three times the price of traditional natural
gas. At present, it is not economically competitive. According to the cost analysis, the
cost of hydrogen accounted for the largest proportion, which is due to the high-power
consumption of electrolytic hydrogen production. However, it is worth noting that the
implementation of large-scale commercial electrolysis cases in the future will gradually
reduce the electrolysis cost, and then reduce SNG production costs. With the continuous
improvement of the national carbon trading market, the carbon price is expected to rise in
the future, which can also bring objective benefits to the PTG plant.
It should be pointed out that, although this study gives a economic and technological
construction scheme of a PTG plant in Karamay, it is based on the flue gas produced by
industrial enterprises. In future research, more flexible schemes can be designed. For
example, matching the thermal power plant, using the surplus power of the thermal power
plant to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, and then converting it into methane as energy-
storage gas, which is expected to greatly reduce the cost. In a previous study, Momeni and
others chose a 500 MW gas-fired power plant, which can produce 579.8 ktons of methane
per year by recovering tail gas and excess power, reducing the carbon emission of the
power plant by 66%. In addition, it can also be combined with power-grid energy storage
and peak shaving. Electricity is provided through renewable energy, hydrogen is produced
by electrolysis, and then converted into methane with the captured CO2 , which is used as
energy-storage gas to regulate the grid load. However, with technological progress, PTG
technology is expected to be implemented on a large scale, and is one of the technologies to
achieve carbon neutrality in the future.

Supplementary Materials: The supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.

com/article/10.3390/su14105929/s1.
Author Contributions: Formal analysis, W.J.; Funding acquisition, T.Y.; Investigation, T.Y.; Method-
ology, W.J.; Project administration, S.Z. and T.Y.; Resources, S.Z.; Software, W.J.; Supervision, S.Z.;
Visualization, W.J.; Writing—original draft, W.J.; Writing—review & editing, W.J. and S.Z. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
Region, No. 2019D01A103 and Geological Research Institute of CNPC West Drilling Engineering Co.,
Ltd., grant number XQHX20200029.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study did not require ethical approval.
Informed Consent Statement: This study did not involve humans.
Data Availability Statement: This study did not report any data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 14 of 15

References
1. Sohani, A.; Rezapour, S.; Sayyaadi, H. Comprehensive performance evaluation and demands’ sensitivity analysis of different
optimum sizing strategies for a combined cooling, heating, and power system. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123225. [CrossRef]
2. Razmi, A.; Soltani, M.; Kashkooli, F.M.; Garousi Farshi, L. Energy and exergy analysis of an environmentally-friendly hybrid
absorption/recompression refrigeration system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 164, 59–69. [CrossRef]
3. Chauvy, R.; Dubois, L.; Lybaert, P.; Thomas, D.; de Weireld, G. Production of synthetic natural gas from industrial carbon dioxide.
Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114249. [CrossRef]
4. Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan. Available online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/0
3/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ (accessed on 21 January 2022).
5. Vishal, V.; Chandra, D.; Singh, U.; Verma, Y. Understanding initial opportunities and key challenges for CCUS deployment in
India at scale. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105829. [CrossRef]
6. Analysis of Global Carbon Dioxide Emission in 2020. Available online: https://www.chyxx.com/industry/202108/966523.html
(accessed on 21 January 2022).
7. Li, Y.; Lan, S.; Ryberg, M.; Pérez-Ramírez, J.; Wang, X. A quantitative roadmap for China towards carbon neutrality in 2060 using
methanol and ammonia as energy carriers. iScience 2021, 24, 102513. [CrossRef]
8. Sun, L.; Chen, W. Development and application of a multi-stage CCUS source–sink matching model. Appl. Energy 2017, 185,
1424–1432. [CrossRef]
9. Quarton, C.J.; Samsatli, S. Power-to-gas for injection into the gas grid: What can we learn from real-life projects, economic
assessments and systems modelling? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 98, 302–316. [CrossRef]
10. Kippers, M.; de Laat, J.; Hermkens, R.; Overdiep, J.; van der Molen, G.; van Erp, S.; van der Meer, S. International Gas Union
Research Conference. 2011. Available online: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/a8a1c899-1486-33c5-91f8-135646a8217e/
(accessed on 21 January 2022).
11. Hybridge. Hybridge—A Project of Amprion and Open Grid Europe 2020. Available online: https://www.hybridge.net/index-2.
html (accessed on 21 January 2022).
12. Bailera, M.; Lisbona, P.; Romeo, L.M.; Espatolero, S. Power to Gas projects review: Lab, pilot and demo plants for storing
renewable energy and CO2 . Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 292–312. [CrossRef]
13. Administration UEI. Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook
2017. Available online: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph240/muhammadshittu1/docs/eia-apr17.pdf (accessed on
21 January 2022).
14. Belderbos, A.; Virag, A.; D’haeseleer, W.; Delarue, E. Considerations on the need for electricity storage requirements: Power
versus energy. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 143, 137–149. [CrossRef]
15. Ekman, C.K.; Jensen, S.H. Prospects for large scale electricity storage in Denmark. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010, 51, 1140–1147.
[CrossRef]
16. US Energy Information Administration. International Energy Statistics. 2017. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/ (accessed
on 20 April 2022).
17. DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability. Systems Analyses Power to Gas. 2013. Available online: https://docplayer.net/7637393-
Dnv-kema-energy-sustainability-final-report-systems-analyses-power-to-gas-deliverable-1-technology-review.html (accessed
on 20 April 2022).
18. Straka, P. A comprehensive study of Power-to-Gas technology: Technical implementations overview, economic assessments,
methanation plant as auxiliary operation of lignite-fired power station. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127642. [CrossRef]
19. le Moullec, Y.; Kanniche, M. Screening of flowsheet modifications for an efficient monoethanolamine (MEA) based post-
combustion CO2 capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 727–740. [CrossRef]
20. Mostafavi, E.; Ashrafi, O.; Navarri, P. Assessment of process modifications for amine-based post-combustion carbon capture
processes. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 4, 100249. [CrossRef]
21. Dubois, L.; Thomas, D. Carbon dioxide absorption into aqueous amine based solvents: Modeling and absorption tests. Energy Procedia
2011, 4, 1353–1360. [CrossRef]
22. le Moullec, Y.; Neveux, T.; al Azki, A.; Chikukwa, A.; Hoff, K.A. Process modifications for solvent-based post-combustion CO2
capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 31, 96–112. [CrossRef]
23. Xu, J.; Froment, G.F. Methane steam reforming, methanation and water-gas shift: I. Intrinsic kinetics. AIChE J. 1989, 35, 88–96.
[CrossRef]
24. Chauvy, R.; Dubois, L.; Thomas, D.; de Weireld, G. Environmental impacts of the production of synthetic natural gas from
industrial carbon dioxide. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 301–315. [CrossRef]
25. Kumar, S.S.; Himabindu, V. Hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis—A review. Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 2019,
2, 442–454. [CrossRef]
26. Buttler, A.; Spliethoff, H. Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-
gas and power-to-liquids: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2440–2454. [CrossRef]
27. Dincer, I.; Acar, C. Review and Evaluation of Hydrogen Production Methods for Better Sustainability. Altern. Energy Ecol. (ISJAEE)
2016, 11–12, 14–36. [CrossRef]
28. Trasatti, S. Water electrolysis: Who first? J. Electroanal. Chem. 1999, 476, 90–91. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5929 15 of 15

29. Bhandari, R.; Trudewind, C.A.; Zapp, P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis—A review. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 85, 151–163. [CrossRef]
30. Varela, C.; Mostafa, M.; Zondervan, E. Modeling alkaline water electrolysis for power-to-x applications: A scheduling approach.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 9303–9313. [CrossRef]
31. van der Ham, L.V.; Romano, M.C.; Kvamsdal, H.M.; Bonalumi, D.; van Os, P.; Goetheer, E.L.V. Concentrated Aqueous Piperazine
as CO2 Capture Solvent: Detailed Evaluation of the Integration with a Power Plant. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 1218–1222. [CrossRef]
32. Freeman, S.A.; Dugas, R.; van Wagener, D.H.; Nguyen, T.; Rochelle, G.T. Carbon dioxide capture with concentrated, aqueous
piperazine. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2010, 4, 119–124. [CrossRef]
33. A Single Alkaline Electrolyzer with the World’s Largest Capacity of Production Was Successfully Manufactured Today. Available
online: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1717508822523316353&wfr=spider&for=pc (accessed on 27 January 2022).
34. Guo, L.; Ding, Y.; Liao, Q.; Zhu, X.; Wang, H. A new heat supply strategy for CO2 capture process based on the heat recovery
from turbine exhaust steam in a coal-fired power plant. Energy 2022, 239, 121817. [CrossRef]
35. Mills, G.A.; Steffgen, F.W. Catalytic Methanation. Catal. Rev. 1974, 8, 159–210. [CrossRef]
36. K-line Trend Chart of China’s Seven Carbon Markets. Available online: http://www.tanpaifang.com/tanhangqing/ (accessed on
30 January 2022).
37. Chengdu Hydrogen Energy Subsidy Policy. Available online: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/328100548 (accessed on 30 January 2022).
38. Technological Breakthrough in Alkaline Electrolyzer. Available online: http://www.cnenergynews.cn/guonei/2021/12/08
/detail_20211208112828.html (accessed on 29 January 2022).
39. Guilera, J.; Morante, J.R.; Andreu, T. Economic viability of SNG production from power and CO2 . Energy Convers. Manag. 2018,
162, 218–224. [CrossRef]
40. Tips on Gas Price Changes on January 26. Available online: http://news.10jqka.com.cn/20220126/c636364119.shtml (accessed on
30 January 2022).