PRODUCTION OF FISHER TROPSCH

LIQUID FUEL USING SOLID OXIDE

ELECTROLYSIS CELLS

11.1.2016Neocarbon WP3 seminar

Marjut Suomalainen, VTT

RationalePROCESS• Co-electrolysis of carbon dioxide CO2 and steam H2O at high temperature in

solid oxide electrolyser (SOEC) producing syngas • Syngas (mainly hydrogen H2 and carbon monoxide CO) is used in Fisher-

Tropsch process producing liquid fuels (etc diesel, kerosene, gasoline)WHY• Replacement of gasoline and diesel and utilisation of CO2 (CCU)

Ø high value product

• SOEC is the only electrolyser which enables co-electrolysis of H2O and CO2 to produce syngas

• Syngas is required as input for Fisher-Tropsch plant (otherwise converting CO2 to CO is complicated and energy consuming)

• SOEC has higher electricity to gas efficiency than other electrolysers

Markets• Global market size

– Motor gasoline 14.1 million barrels per day (2014)• America 10.6 million barrels per day• Europe 1.9 million barrels per day• Asia & Oceania 1.6 million barrels per day

– Diesel oil 13.0 million barrels per day (2014)• America 5.3 million barrels per day• Europe 5.9 million barrels per day• Asia & Oceania 1.8 million barrels per day

– Crude oil global demand 96 million barrels per day (2015 4Q)• Future outlook

– No indication that the demand would decrease in near future– However, low crude oil price decreases the potential revenue

Data from IEA webpageshttps://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

General assumptions• SOEC future costs are based on following assumptions

– technical challenges will be solved – the annual mass manufacturing volume will be over 250 MWØ Thus meaning that the realistic time frame may be nearer 2050 than 2030

• Annual sum of electricity cost used in the calculation– Annual average range used 0 – 100 €/MWh

• Policy framework excludedØ No subsidies included in the calculations

• FCR markets were not taken into considerationParameter/variable Basic case

Operation and maintenance costs (of investments per year) % 4

WACC % 8

Annual operation time h 4000

Lifetime a 20

Lifetime of SOEC stack a 5

Electricity price €/MWh 36

CO2 price €/t CO2 40

Technical implementation ofSOEC – Fisher Tropsch plant

Efficiency assumptions and otheroperating conditions

• SOEC• Atmospheric pressure, 800 oC• 10.8 MWe input into electrolyser• Gas composition input

• H2 10 %• CO2 29 %• Steam 61 %

• SOEC • ASR 0.2 Ωcm2, • Reactant utilisation 80 %, • Faradic loss 1 %• Heat loss 2 %

• Rectifier efficiency 96 %

Fisher-Tropsch• Pressure 30 bar• T = 200 oC• Catalyst productivity 1500 kg/m3• CO conversion 72.5 % per pass• α = 0.9 • C5+ selectivity 84 %• CH4 selectivity 9 mass%

Upgrading process (hydro-cracking)• 40 bar• 325 oC• Mass ratio of required hydrogen to

hydrocracker feed 1%• Gas make from the process 2 %

• Total electricity consumption 12.0 MWe• Electricity to fuel efficiency 52.8 %(LHV)• No heat integration

– Heat demand of the plant is assumed to met by the heat produced in the plant

SOEC Co-electrolysis & FT

plant

CO2 (0.74 kg/s)Water (0.64 kg/s)

Electricity (12.0 MWe)

PtL (6.3 MWfuel LHV)

Material and energy balances

Material and energy balances

• Values for full load operation• Heat demand of the SOEC +

FT plant is assumed to met by the heat produced in the plant

– No detailed heat integration– Steam is produced in FT– LFG is combusted producing steam– Assumption that steam required is produced in the

plant

– With detailed heat integration there may bepotential to produce some of power required in the SOEC from steam produced in the whilecombusting LFG

Efficiency 52,8 % LHVnet

Solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) Fisher Tropsch refineryWater

2304 kg/h syngas NapthaCapacity 12,0 Mwe 2108 kg/h (dry) 197 kg/h

CO22664 kg/h Diesel

320 kg/h

Air Enriched air3531 kg/h kg/h 5903

O2 mol-% 50

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

• Total electricity consumption 11.4 MWe– SOEC 10.8 MWe– Rectifier loss 0.45 MWe– Other consumption 0.72 MWe

SOEC cost• SOEC stack cost is based on SOFC stack cost (same cells)

– SOFC stack cost is based on two comprehensive studies of estimating futureSOFC system cost in case of mass manufacturing

• Thjissen (2007) 175 $/kWe (HHV) • James (2012) 200$/kWe (HHV)

• SOEC system cost estimations vary ~ 200-300 €/kWe– assumpting that technical challenges has been solved and that the annual mass

manufacturing volume is over 250 MW– In this study

• Investment cost of SOEC system was 280 €/kWe• Stack replacement cost was132 €/kW

Investment cost

FT reactor10 %

HC recovery plant5 %

H2 production

(PSA unit etc)6 %

Wax hydrocrackin

g22 %

FT recycle compressor

0 %

Syngas compressor

6 %

SOEC system23 %

Boiler+ HRSG26 %

Steam turbine and condenser

2 %

• Total investmentcost 20.4 M€

– Installed component costs 13.6 M€

– Indirect costs 15%– Project contingency 30%

OPEX and CAPEX

• Sum of OPEX and CAPEX 7.39 M€/aParameter/variableBasic case

Operation and maintenance costs (of investments per year) % 4

WACC % 8

Annual operation time h 7446

Lifetime a 20

Lifetime of SOEC stack a 5

Electricity price €/MWh 36

CO2 price €/t CO2 40

14 %

3 %0 %

25 %

11 %

47 %

Electricity €/a

CO2 €/a

Water €/a

Labour and maintenance €/aAnnuity of stack replacement €/aCAPEX (Annuity of the investment) €/a

Sensitivity to annual operation time• Due to high investment costs, the system is very sensitive to

operation time (cost distribution at 1000 h operation time)

14 %

3 %0 %

25 %

11 %

47 %

Electricity €/a

CO2 €/a

Water €/a

Labour and maintenance €/aAnnuity of stack replacement €/aCAPEX (Annuity of the investment) €/a

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Prod

uctio

n co

st, €

/MW

h

Operation time, h

Profitability 2030-2050

Profit -371 k€/aEBIT 459 k€/aEBIT DA1500 k€/aPayback time 31.5years

• SOEC is not available now• Not profitable with the basic parameters using optimistic naptha price 690 €/t

and diesel price 770 €/t• Not realistic with these assumptions• Profitable at 85 % availability, 5 €/MWh el, 5 €/t CO2, WACC 4 %

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

50 100 150

Payb

ack

time,

a

Investment, % (100 % default)

WACC 2

WACC 4

WACC 6

Discussion and conclusions• SOEC is a solution for the future

– Technology still in R&D phase– Operating parameters are optimistic assumptions of the future potential– Cost estimation assumption based on mass production 2030-2050

• Combined SOEC and FT plant was not profitable using basecase assumptions

– In these calculations policy framework was excluded and FCR markets were nottaken into consideration

– Subsidies or higher product prices are required– Heat optimisation may provide better electrical efficiency due to producing part of

the power from excess heat available in the process– Larger scale may improve feasibility

THANK YOU!

QUESTIONS?

WP3: NCE REPORTING

Production of FT-diesel from solid oxide electrolysis cells (Marjut Suomalainen)

Rationale:• Replacement of gasoline and diesel and utilisation of CO2 (CCU) à high value product• Co-electrolysis of CO2 and steam in high temperature SOEC produces syngas which consists

mainly of hydrogen and CO. Syngas is used as feed stream for Fisher-Tropsch process which produces diesel. SOEC is the only electrolyser which enables co-electrolysis of H2O and CO2to produce syngas

• SOEC has higher electricity to gas efficiency than other electrolysers and heat integration of SOEC with downstream processes may increase overall efficiency significantly.

Content:§ The conceptual case study for the production of Fisher Tropsch diesel fuel from high

temperature SOEC will include mass and energy balances and economic assessment. § The economic assessment will be based on the futuristic vision of the SOEC investment costs

when SOEC is in mass production (up to 10 000 units/year). Schedule, reporting, deliverables:

§ Results presented in WP3 seminar in January 2016§ Publication in 2016

Co-operation aspects:§ Sophia EU-project

Technical results• Electricity to fuel efficiency 52.8 %(LHV)• Total electricity consumption 12.0 MWe

– SOEC 10.8 MWe– Rectifier loss 0.5 MWe– Other consumption 0.7 MWe

• Heat demand of the plant is assumed to met by the heatproduced in the plant

SOEC Co-electrolysis & FT

plant

CO2 (0.74 kg/s)Water (0.64 kg/s)

Electricity (12.0 MWe)

PtL (6.3 MWfuel LHV)

Economic results• Electricity to fuel efficiency 52.8 %(LHV)• Total electricity consumption 12.0 Mwe• Total investment cost 20.4 M€

– Installed component costs 13.6 M€– Indirect costs 15 %– Project contingency 30 %

• Total annualised production costs 7.39 M€/a• Plant is not feasible with base case assumptions

Investment costdistribution

Annual cost distribution

Economic parametersBasic case

Operation and maintenance costs (of investments per year) % 4WACC % 8Annual operation time h 7446Lifetime a 20Lifetime of SOEC stack a 5Electricity price €/MWh 36

CO2 price€/t

CO2 40