Affordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and ... · Affordable LowAffordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and BiomassCarbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal

Affordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuelfrom Domestic Coal and Biomass

2008 Gasification Technologies Conference2008 Gasification Technologies ConferenceOctober 5th – 8th, 2008

Thomas J Tarka PE

GTC 2008, October 5th-8th, 2008

Thomas J. Tarka, PEOffice of Systems, Analyses, and Planning (OSAP)National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), US DOE

Coal and Biomass to Diesel FuelOverviewOverview

CBTL Presentation Outline• Background & Context

• Study Goals• Study Goals• Strategic Issues

• Methodology• Plant ConfigurationPlant Configuration• Economic Assumptions• GHG Accounting

• Results• FT Diesel GHG Profile• Capital Costs• Effects of Carbon Pricing on Economics

S mmar• Summary

2

Coal and Biomass to Diesel FuelOverviewOverview

CBTL Presentation Outline• Background & Context

• Study Goals• Study Goals• Strategic Issues

• Methodology• Plant ConfigurationPlant Configuration• Economic Assumptions• GHG Accounting

• Results Terminology• FT Diesel GHG Profile• Capital Costs• Effects of Carbon Pricing on Economics

S mmar

TerminologyCoal to Liquids (CTL)Coal and Biomass to Liquids (CBTL)Biomass to Liquids (BTL)

• SummaryCCS = Carbon Capture and StorageATR = Auto-Thermal Reformer

3

Coal and Biomass to Diesel FuelStudy Goals…Study Goals…

Affordable Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and BiomassAffordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and Biomass

4



“Affordable”AffordableComparable inprice to today’s

fuels and projectedfuture pricesfuture prices

5



“Affordable” “L C b ”AffordableComparable inprice to today’s

fuels and projectedfuture prices

“Low-Carbon”Having life-cycle GHGemissions similar to or

below petroleum-d i d di lfuture prices derived diesel

6



“Affordable” “L C b ” “D ti C l d Bi ”AffordableComparable inprice to today’s



below petroleum-d i d di l

“Domestic Coal and Biomass”Fuels are produced from

domestically available feedstocks. future prices derived diesel

7








domestically available feedstocksfuture prices derived diesel

E iE iEnergyEnergy

EconomicEconomicSustainabilitySustainability ClimateClimate

ChangeChange

gygySupplySupply

SecuritySecurity

8








domestically available feedstocksfuture prices derived diesel

E iE iEnergyEnergy E iE iEconomicEconomic

SustainabilitySustainability ClimateClimateChangeChange

gygySupplySupply

SecuritySecurity

EconomicEconomicSustainabilitySustainability

9

Energy Strategy Complexity

Economic Economic SustainabilitySustainabilityyy

Energy Energy Supply Supply Climate Climate

ChangeChangepp ypp ySecuritySecurity ChangeChange

10


Economic Economic SustainabilitySustainability

Energy Supply Security- 12 MMbpd of imports- 66% of our refinery inputs yy



11


Economic Sustainability- Oil is up 75% from Jan07

+ $326B sent off-shore in 2007+ $360B already spent as of July


$ y p y- Businesses hit hardest

+ Inelastic demand in diesel/jet+ Refining capacity limitations

yy



12


Climate Change- Highest GHG emissions


Highest GHG emissions of any sector

- No easy way to reduce emissions from existinginfrastructure: + S ll i t

yy+ Small point sources+ Dilute gas



13



Aiming for Balanced Solutionsyy



14

MethodologyPl t C fi ti• Plant Configurations

• Economic Terminology & Assumptions

• GHG Accounting

15

Coal and Biomass to Diesel FuelPlant ConfigurationsPlant Configurations

10 Plant ConfigurationsCoal to Liquids (CTL)Coal and Biomass to Liquids (CBTL)Biomass to Liquids (BTL)

CCS = Carbon Capture and StorageATR = Auto-Thermal Reformer Configuration Notes

• 50,000 bpd maximum plant size

• Max Biomass Feed: 4,000 dry tons per dayMarginal land only: Food Crops Not Displaced30-50 mile collection radiusNo soil/root carbon

CO Capture• Fuels Production Maximized

Zero Excess Power ProducedRecycle Configuration

CO2 Capture• CCS → >90% CO2 Capture

• CCS+ATR → >95% CO2 Capture

16

Economic MethodologyTerminology & AssumptionsTerminology & Assumptions

• Required Selling Price (RSP)• Price diesel fuel product must be sold at to cover costs• Price diesel fuel product must be sold at to cover costs

• Operating Costs• Debt Service• Repay Investors (20% IRROE)

17

Economic MethodologyTerminology & AssumptionsTerminology & Assumptions

• Required Selling Price (RSP)• Price diesel fuel product must be sold at to cover costs• Price diesel fuel product must be sold at to cover costs

• Operating Costs• Debt Service• Repay Investors (20% IRROE)

• Crude Oil Equivalent Price (COE)• Diesel market price defined by petroleum-derived diesel,

and therefore crude oil

• Historically, the price ratio of ultra-low sulfur petroleum diesel (ULSD) is sold for 125% the price of crude oil

• By-product Sales• Naphtha by-product market price is 77% of diesel price

18

Financing Scenarios for xTL Plants• Coal-based projects are unlikely to be financed in the near-termCoal based projects are unlikely to be financed in the near term

– Carbon regulatory uncertainty– Oil price uncertainty– Technical uncertainty

3 d 4th f ki d l t till id d i k• 3rd or 4th of a kind plant still considered risky– Require “High Risk” Financing – Fuels market has high level of uncertainty– Carbon regulation has passed, removing regulatory risk

• Government incentives can significant mitigate risks– Extend Debt Term and reduce interest rates– Applicable incentives already in place in EPACT 2005 and CCPI

Near-Term:100% Equity

Mid-Term: No Incentives

Mid-Term: Gov’t Incentives2

Debt/Equity Ratio 0 50/50 60/40

Debt Term1 n/a 15 years 25 years

Interest Rate n/a 9.5% 7.5%

IRROE 20% 20% 20%

19

1 Economic life of the plant is assumed to be 30 years.2 This is the NETL reference case.

Climate ChangePetroleum-Derived Diesel GHG EmissionsPetroleum Derived Diesel GHG Emissions

Crude Oil Extraction &

TransportationVehicle Transportation7%

Refining

Operation83%

9%

Transportation & Distribution

1%1%

Source: GREET 1.8b set at Year 2005

20

Climate ChangeEffects of GHG Regulation on EconomicsEffects of GHG Regulation on Economics

• Hypothetical Carbon Trading Scheme• Petroleum derived diesel is used as a reference case for emissions• Petroleum-derived diesel is used as a reference case for emissions

• FT diesel price is affected by life-cycle emissions of the fuel

C b dit i f di l f l ith d d i i• Carbon credit given for diesel fuel with reduced emissions Reduces RSP

• Carbon debit charged if emissions are greater than petroleum-dieselI RSPIncreases RSP

• NOTE: Price of petroleum-derived products are not affected (baseline)

L C b F l St d d (LCFS)• Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)

21

Results

22

Emissions of CBTL Plants Compared to Petroleum DieselPetroleum Diesel

)- 7

4%

%), -

40%

%CTL w/o CCS, +152%

300%

ssio

ns

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

364%

w/ CCS, -

324%

/o C

CS, - 98

%

L w/CCS+

ATR (3

0wt%

),

L w/ CCS+A

TR (1

5wt%

),

L w/ CCS (1

5wt%

), -31

%

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

10%

w/ CCS, -2

%

,

100%

200%

iese

l GH

G E

mis

BTL w

/

BTL w

/

BTL w

/o

CBTL w

CBTL w

CBTL

CTL w

CTL w

100%

0%

05 P

etro

leum

Di

-200%

-100%

hang

e fr

om 2

00

400%

-300%

Perc

enta

ge C

h

23

-400%Source for Petroleum-derived diesel: GREET 1.8b, 2005 base year


)- 7

4%

%), -

40%

%CTL w/o CCS, +152%

300%

ssio

ns

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

364%

w/ CCS, -

324%

/o C

CS, - 98

%

L w/CCS+

ATR (3

0wt%

),

L w/ CCS+A

TR (1

5wt%

),

L w/ CCS (1

5wt%

), -31

%

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

10%

w/ CCS, -2

%

,

100%

200%

iese

l GH

G E

mis

BTL w

/

BTL w

/

BTL w

/o

CBTL w

CBTL w

CBTL

CTL w

CTL w

100%

0%

05 P

etro

leum

Di

-200%

-100%

hang

e fr

om 2

00

Adding CCS brings

400%

-300%

Perc

enta

ge C

h

CTL 2-10% below

Petroleum diesel

24



)- 7

4%

%), -

40%

%CTL w/o CCS, +152%

300%

ssio

ns

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

364%

w/ CCS, -

324%

/o C

CS, - 98

%

L w/CCS+

ATR (3

0wt%

),

L w/ CCS+A

TR (1

5wt%

),

L w/ CCS (1

5wt%

), -31

%

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

10%

w/ CCS, -2

%

,

100%

200%

iese

l GH

G E

mis

BTL w

/

BTL w

/

BTL w

/o

CBTL w

CBTL w

CBTL

CTL w

CTL w

100%

0%

05 P

etro

leum

Di

-200%

-100%

hang

e fr

om 2

00

400%

-300%

Perc

enta

ge C

h

Adding up to 30 wt% biomass brings CBTL 74% below petroleum diesel

25



)- 7

4%

%), -

40%

%CTL w/o CCS, +152%

300%

ssio

ns

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

364%

w/ CCS, -

324%

/o C

CS, - 98

%

L w/CCS+

ATR (3

0wt%

),

L w/ CCS+A

TR (1

5wt%

),

L w/ CCS (1

5wt%

), -31

%

w/ CCS+A

TR, -

10%

w/ CCS, -2

%

,

100%

200%

iese

l GH

G E

mis

BTL w

/

BTL w

/

BTL w

/o

CBTL w

CBTL w

CBTL

CTL w

CTL w

100%

0%

05 P

etro

leum

Di

-200%

-100%

hang

e fr

om 2

00

400%

-300%

Perc

enta

ge C

h

BTL with CCS is 300+% below petroleum diesel

26


Required Selling Price for Diesel Product

210

230

250bb

l

100% SG, no CCS, 5k bpd, -110%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

D/E 60/40 I t 7 5%

170

190

210

ice,

Jan

-08

$/b D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%;

Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%

130

150

170

Cru

de O

il Pr

i

90

110

130

Equi

vale

nt

CTL and BTL without CCS

70

90

0 50 100 150 200 250Credit/Debit for Life-Cycle GHG Emissions Below/Above Petroleum Baseline,

27

y ,Jan-08 $/metric ton CO2-equivalent


210

230

250bb

l

100% SG, no CCS, 5k bpd, -110%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

D/E 60/40 I t 7 5%

When the GHG emission value is zero, BTL isn’t feasible until oil is well

170

190

210

ice,

Jan

-08

$/b D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%;

Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%

over $200/bbl.

130

150

170

Cru

de O

il Pr

i

90

110

130

Equi

vale

nt

CTL is feasible when

70

90


CTL is feasible when oil exceeds $84/bbl.

28



210

230

250bb

l100% SG, no CCS, 5k bpd, -110%

100% SG, CCS, 5k bpd, -324%

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

170

190

210

ce, J

an-0

8 $/

b , , p ,

D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%; Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%

Adding CCS and an ATR to the BTL case d lif l GHG i i t l l

130

150

170

Cru

de O

il Pr

i reduces life-cycle GHG emissions to a level 364% below the petroleum baseline. But it is not economically preferred until the GHG

emission value exceeds $95/tonne.

90

110

130

Equi

vale

nt

70

90


29


120


110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

D/E 60/40 I t 7 5%

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$/ D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%; Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%When the option of

CTL+CCS is added, it becomes economically

90

Cru

de O

il Pr

becomes economically preferred when the GHG

emission value is between $5 and $135/tonne.

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250

Credit/Debit for Life-Cycle GHGEmissions Below/Above PetroleumBaseline,

30

Credit/Debit for Life Cycle GHG Emissions Below/Above Petroleum Baseline, Jan-08 $/metric ton CO2-equivalent

120


110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

D/E 60/40 I t 7 5%

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$/ D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%; Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%Adding CCS increases the

RSP by only $2/bbl (to $84/bbl) while reducing life cycle GHG

90

Cru

de O

il Pr while reducing life-cycle GHG

emissions to a level that is 2% less than the petroleum

baseline.

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250


31


120100% SG CCS ATR 5k b d 364%


110

$/bb

l

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

100% Coal, CCS+ATR, 50k bpd, -10%

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$


Adding an ATR reduces GHG emissions to a level 10% below the petroleum baseline but is not an

90

t Cru

de O

il Pr petroleum baseline, but is not an

economically preferred option.

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250

Credit/Debit for Life-Cycle GHG Emissions Below/Above Petroleum Baseline,

32


120% SG CCS %


110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

15 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -31%

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$/

30 wt% SG, CCS, 30k bpd, -61%


CBTL+CCS:

30 wt%

90

Cru

de O

il Pr 15 wt%

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250


33


120% SG CCS %


110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

15 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -31%15 wt% reduces life-cycle

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$/

30 wt% SG, CCS, 30k bpd, -61%


15 wt% reduces life-cycle GHG emissions to a level 31% below the petroleum baseline and is feasible

$ /

90

Cru

de O

il Pr when oil exceeds $93/bbl.

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250


34


120% SG CCS %


110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

15 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -31%

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$/

30 wt% SG, CCS, 30k bpd, -61%


The 15wt% CBTL+CCS ti i i ll

90

Cru

de O

il Pr option is economically

preferred when the GHG emission value is between

$100 and $140/tonne.

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250


35


120% SG CCS %


110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%

100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%

15 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -31%

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$/

30 wt% SG, CCS, 30k bpd, -61%


30 wt% reduces life-cycle GHG emissions to a level 61%

90

Cru

de O

il Pr below the petroleum baseline

but is not an economically preferred option

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250


36


120100% SG CCS+ATR 5k bpd 364%


110

$/bb

l

100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%

15 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -31%

9 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -20%

D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%;

100

rice,

Jan

-08

$ Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%

If a low-carbon fuel standard mandated a 20% life-cycle GHG emission reduction, all the

90

t Cru

de O

il Pr

life cycle GHG emission reduction, all the coal-only options would be eliminated.

80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250


37


Summary of Economic Analysis

• CTL without CCS is the economically preferred alternative when GHG emission values are less than $5/metric ton of CO2-equiv.CO2 equiv.

• CTL is economically feasible over this range of GHG emission values when crude oil prices are $84/bbl or higheremission values when crude oil prices are $84/bbl or higher.

• Adding CCS to CTL is economically justified when the GHG i i l d $5/ t i t CO i demission value exceeds $5/metric ton CO2 equiv. and

produces diesel fuel with life-cycle GHG emissions that are 2% below the petroleum baseline.

• Adding CCS to CTL is very inexpensive, increasing the COE-RSP by only $2/bbl

38

Summary of Economic AnalysisAbsent a low carbon fuel standard CBTL is not an economically• Absent a low-carbon fuel standard, CBTL is not an economically preferred option unless GHG emission values exceed $100/metric ton of CO2-equiv.

• Under a 20% LCFS, the coal-only cases do not qualify and CBTL configurations would be economically preferred when GHG emission values range between $0 and $140/metric ton of CO2-equiv.

• The 15wt% CBTL plant has life-cycle GHG emissions that are 31% b l th t l b li d i i ll f ibl hbelow the petroleum baseline and is economically feasible when oil prices are $93/bbl or higher, even if the GHG emission value is zero.

• BTL plants are not economically preferred unless GHG emission values are extraordinarily high (above $140/metric ton of CO2-equiv).

39

Effect of Financing Scenarios on Diesel RSP(when GHG Emission Value is Zero)

350

324

300

350/b

bl

Today - 100% Equity

Mid-Term - No Gov't Incentive

Mid Term Loan Guarantee (NETL Ref )

263

229

200

250

rice,

Jan

-08

$/ Mid-Term - Loan Guarantee (NETL Ref.)

Mid-term scenarios assume a carbon regulation has been passed. All scenarios assume that two or three CTL/CBTL plants have been demonstrated in the U.S.

2 4 36

150

200

t Cru

de O

il Pr

121

124 13

2

134

13

96 99 105

107

108

82 84 89 91 93

50

100

Equi

vale

nt

0CTL w/o CCS,

50K bpdCTL+CCS, 50K

bpdCTL+CCS+ATR,

50K bpd9 wt%

CBTL+CCS, 50K 15 wt%

CBTL+CCS, 50K BTL+CCS+ATR,

30K bpd

40

p p p ,bpd

,bpd

p

Effect of Financing Scenarios on Jet Fuel RSP(when CO2 Allowance Price is Zero)(when CO2 Allowance Price is Zero)

405400

450

$/bb

l Today - 100% Equity

Mid-Term - No Gov't Incentive

328

86250

300

350

Pric

e, J

an-0

8

Mid-Term - Loan Guarantee (NETL Ref.)

Mid-term scenarios assume a carbon regulation has been passed All scenarios assume that tw o or three

A “moderate” incentive, such as a loan guarantee, could make the use of CCS and biomass

69

28

150

200

250

uel S

ellin

g P been passed. All scenarios assume that tw o or three

CTL/CBTL plants have been demonstrated in the U.S.could make the use of CCS and biomass

economically preferable to CTL without CCS (even when CO2 allowances are valued at zero).

151

154 16

119

122 13

4

102

105 115

50

100

150

Req

'd J

et F

u

0CTL w /o CCS, 50K

bpdCTL+CCS, 50K bpd 15 w t% CBTL+CCS,

50K bpdBTL+CCS+ATR, 30K

bpd

R

41

The Path ForwardFuture Publications and AcknowledgementsFuture Publications and Acknowledgements

PublicationsAffordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and Biomasso dab e, o Ca bo ese ue o o est c Coa a d o assEstimated Publication Date: October 2008

Petroleum Baseline Life Cycle GHG AnalysisEstimated Publication Date: October 2008

Noblis– David Gray

Estimated Publication Date: October 2008

David Gray– Charles White

Princeton Environmental Institute– Dr Robert WilliamsDr. Robert Williams– Eric Larson – Thomas Kreutz

42

Questions?Questions?

43

Additi l I f tiAdditional Information

44

Total As-Spent Capital Cost(includes escalation & interest during construction)(includes escalation & interest during construction)

225,000

250,000

275,000ear

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

city, m

ixed

‐ye

75,000

100,000

125,000

barrel of capac

‐

25,000

50,000

$ per daily b

CTL 5

0k bp

dCT

L+CC

S 50k

bpd

L+CC

S+AT

R 50

k bpd

%CB

TL+C

CS 50

k bpd

%CB

TL+C

CS 50

k bpd

%CB

TL+C

CS 30

k bpd

TL+C

CS+A

TR 5k

bpd

45

CTL+

9% C

15%

C

30%

C

BTL

Distribution of Total Overnight Capital Costs15 wt% CBTL+CCS, 50k bpd15 wt% CBTL CCS, 50k bpd

Fuel Handling, Prep & Feed

11%

Inventory, Pre‐Production & Owner's Costs

Contingencies20%

6%

Gasification Island

20%

Island32%

Engineering & Construction

Mgmt.

CO2 Removal, Comp., Transport, Seq & MonitoringFT Synthesis

Balance of Plant

6%

46

Seq. & Monitoring5%

FT Synthesis11%

9%

Basis of Scenario 2A Finance Structure

ustr

y-Ba

sed

mm

enda

tion

Scen

ario

2 (1

)

ely

Ran

ge o

f n

Gua

rant

ee

mpa

cts (2

)

mpt

ions

for

enar

io 2

A

Comments

Indu

Rec

omfo

r S

Lik

eL

oan Im

Ass

u Sce

Capital, % Debt 50

up to 30 point

i

60 (10 point i )

The percentage of capital financed with debt was limited to 60% such that the DSCR was above 2.0 given the debt interest rate, debt term and IRROE assumed below. DSCR values above 1.75 will likely be required to secure debt financing increase increase) y q g

[1].

Debt Interest Rate, %

9.5 (LIBOR+6)

1 to 2.5 point

decrease

7.5 (2 point

decrease; LIBOR+4)

The interest rate on the guaranteed loans would likely be well below LIBOR+4, perhaps equal to the rate of a Treasury Bond. However, the competitive selection process may result in awards of federal loan guarantees that cover only a portion of the project debt. Consequently, the rate assumed here can be interpreted as the

weighted average of the guaranteed and unguaranteed ratesweighted average of the guaranteed and unguaranteed rates.

Debt Term, years 15

up to 15 year

increase

25 (10 year increase)

Required IRROE (over 20 no

impact

20 (no

30 years), % impact change)• The 12-month LIBOR is assumed to be 3.5%. • The debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) is the ratio of the operating profit to the cost of debt service (principal plus interest). • (1) Based on a 2008 NETL report that recommends finance structures for fossil energy projects [1]. • (2) Based on 2007 NETL report that assesses the impact of government incentives on the economics of a Fischer-Tropsch plant [2].

47

Climate ChangePetroleum-Derived Diesel GHG EmissionsPetroleum Derived Diesel GHG Emissions

Raw Material Acquisition(coal and/or non-food biomass)

Raw Material Acquisition(coal and/or non-food biomass)

Raw Material Acquisition(coal and/or non-food biomass)( )

Transport to theEnergy Conversion Facility

( )

Transport to theEnergy Conversion Facility

( )

Transport to theEnergy Conversion Facilitygy y

Energy Conversion Facility(with carbon capture and transport)

gy y

Energy Conversion Facility(with carbon capture and transport)

gy y

Energy Conversion Facility(with carbon capture and transport)(with carbon capture and transport)

Transport, Storage,

(with carbon capture and transport)

Transport, Storage,

(with carbon capture and transport)

Transport, Storage,and Dispensing

End Use

and Dispensing

End Use

and Dispensing

End Use

48

Study BoundaryStudy BoundaryStudy Boundary

Life-Cycle GHG Emissions Equation

Total Cradle-to-Gate GHG Emissions for Producing Diesel, Naphtha, and Electricity (Raw Material Acquisition thru the exit gate of the energy conversion facility)

(−) Carbon Content (converted to CO2) of the Biomass Feedstock Utilized by the Energy Conversion Facility (applicable to CBTL facilities only)

(−) Naphtha Cradle-to-Gate GHG Co-product Displacement Value per Million Btu of Naphtha Produced

(−) Electricity Cradle-to-Gate GHG Co-product Displacement Value per Million Btu of Electricity Produced

(+) GHG Emissions from Transportation & Distribution of Diesel Fuel to the End User

(+) GHG Emissions from Combustion of the Diesel Fuel in the End Users Vehicle

Total Life-Cycle GHG Emissions for FT diesel Produced from a CTL or CBTL Facility

49

Comparison of Diesel Fuel Greenhouse Gas Profiles from Various StudiesProfiles from Various Studies

McCann O&G Journal (1999) Venezuela Heavy Crude

McCann, O&G Journal (1999), Venezuela Very Heavy Crude

EPA OTAQ (2006) Maximum Value

GM Study WTT (2001)

McCann, O&G Journal (1999), Canadian Light Crude

California LCFS (2007) - modified GREET Model

McCann, O&G Journal (1999), Saudia Light Crude

McCann, O&G Journal (1999), Venezuela Heavy Crude

…to Fuel Dispensing

NREL Biodiesel Study (1998)

GREET Ver. 1.8b (2008), Year 2005

EPA, OTAQ (2006) Average Value

GREET Ver. 1.8b (2008), Year 2010

U.C. Davis, LEM (2003), Year 2015

EPA, OTAQ (2006) Maximum Value …to Fuel Dispensing( vehicle tank).

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Life Cycle GHG Contribution (g-CO2E/mmBtu of Fuel Dispensed)

EPA, OTAQ (2006) Minimum ValueFrom Extraction (oil well)...

50

Life-Cycle GHG Emissions for15wt% CBTL with CCS15wt% CBTL with CCS

Net to Atmosphere+ 2,015 tc/d

- -

9 425 BPD S th ti Di l

8,091 tc/dIn

9,425 BPD Synthetic Diesel20,575 BPD Synthetic Naphtha

8,091 tc/dOut

51

Required Selling Price for Diesel Product120

110

/bbl

100% SG, CCS, 5k bpd, -324%100% SG, CCS+ATR, 5k bpd, -364%100% Coal, no CCS, 50k bpd, +152%100% Coal, CCS, 50k bpd, -2%100% Coal, CCS+ATR, 50k bpd, -10%

100

ice,

Jan

-08

$/

, , p ,15 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -31%15 wt% SG, CCS+ATR, 50k bpd, -40%30 wt% SG, CCS, 30k bpd, -61%30 wt% SG, CCS+ATR, 30k bpd, -74%9 t% SG CCS 50k b d 20%

90

Cru

de O

il Pr

i 9 wt% SG, CCS, 50k bpd, -20%


80

Equi

vale

nt

700 50 100 150 200 250

Credit/Debit for Life-Cycle GHGEmissions Below/Above PetroleumBaseline

52


Affordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and ... · Affordable LowAffordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and BiomassCarbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal

Documents