4.7 Article

Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen enhanced methanol to gasoline process from biomass-derived synthesis gas

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 216, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106776

关键词

MtG; Biomass to liquid (BtL); 2nd generation biofuel; Synthetic fuel; Renewable energy; Techno-economic analysis

资金

  1. Helmholtz Association under the Joint Initiative Energy System [2050 -A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper analyzes the implications of using hydrogen in the Biomass-to-Liquid process, showing that hydrogen enhancement leads to higher product yield and conversion efficiency. However, economic analysis reveals that the process is currently unprofitable due to high costs for hydrogen provision.
In this paper, the implications of the use of hydrogen on product yield and conversion efficiency as well as on economic performance of a hydrogen enhanced Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL) process are analyzed. A process concept for the synthesis of fuel (gasoline and LPG) from biomass-derived synthesis gas via Methanol-to-Gasoline (MtG) route with utilization of carbon dioxide from gasification by feeding additional hydrogen is developed and modeled in Aspen Plus. The modeled process produces 0.36 kg fuel per kg dry straw. Additionally, 99 MW electrical power are recovered from purge and off gases from fuel synthesis in CCGT process, covering the electricity consumption of fuel synthesis and synthesis gas generation. The hydrogen enhanced BtL procces reaches a combined chemical and electrical efficiency of 48.2% and overall carbon efficiency of 69.5%. The total product costs (TPC) sum up to 3.24 (sic)/kg fuel. Raw materials (hydrogen and straw) make up the largest fraction of TPC with a total share of 75%. The hydrogen enhanced BtL process shows increased chemical, energy and carbon efficiencies and thus higher product yields. However, economic analysis shows that the process is unprofitable under current conditions due to high costs for hydrogen provision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据