The search result changed since you submitted your search request. Documents might be displayed in a different sort order.
  • search hit 47183 of 57020
Back to Result List

Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness

  • Underground coal gasification (UCG) enables utilization of coal reserves, currently not economically exploitable due to complex geological boundary conditions. Hereby, UCG produces a high-calorific synthesis gas that can be used for generation of electricity, fuels, and chemical feedstock. The present study aims to identify economically-competitive, site-specific end-use options for onshore- and offshore-produced UCG synthesis gas, taking into account the capture and storage (CCS) and/or utilization (CCU) of produced CO2. Modeling results show that boundary conditions favoring electricity, methanol, and ammonia production expose low costs for air separation, low compression power requirements, and appropriate shares of H-2/N-2. Hereby, a gasification agent ratio of more than 30% oxygen by volume is not favorable from the economic and CO2 mitigation viewpoints. Compared to the costs of an offshore platform with its technical equipment, offshore drilling costs are marginal. Thus, uncertainties related to parameters influenced byUnderground coal gasification (UCG) enables utilization of coal reserves, currently not economically exploitable due to complex geological boundary conditions. Hereby, UCG produces a high-calorific synthesis gas that can be used for generation of electricity, fuels, and chemical feedstock. The present study aims to identify economically-competitive, site-specific end-use options for onshore- and offshore-produced UCG synthesis gas, taking into account the capture and storage (CCS) and/or utilization (CCU) of produced CO2. Modeling results show that boundary conditions favoring electricity, methanol, and ammonia production expose low costs for air separation, low compression power requirements, and appropriate shares of H-2/N-2. Hereby, a gasification agent ratio of more than 30% oxygen by volume is not favorable from the economic and CO2 mitigation viewpoints. Compared to the costs of an offshore platform with its technical equipment, offshore drilling costs are marginal. Thus, uncertainties related to parameters influenced by drilling costs are negligible. In summary, techno-economic process modeling results reveal that air-blown gasification scenarios are the most cost-effective ones, while offshore UCG-CCS/CCU scenarios are up to 1.7 times more expensive than the related onshore processes. Hereby, all investigated onshore scenarios except from ammonia production under the assumed worst-case conditions are competitive on the European market.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author details:Natalie Christine NakatenORCiDGND, Thomas KempkaORCiDGND
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/en12173252
ISSN:1996-1073
Title of parent work (English):Energies
Publisher:MDPI
Place of publishing:Basel
Publication type:Article
Language:English
Year of first publication:2019
Publication year:2019
Release date:2020/11/11
Tag:ammonia; carbon capture and storage (CCS); carbon capture and utilization (CCU); cost of electricity (COE); economics; electricity generation; methanol; process simulation; techno-economic model; underground coal gasification (UCG)
Volume:12
Issue:17
Number of pages:28
Funding institution:European Commission (EC)European Commission Joint Research CentreEuropean Community (EC) [608517]
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Geowissenschaften
DDC classification:5 Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik / 55 Geowissenschaften, Geologie / 550 Geowissenschaften
Peer review:Referiert
Publishing method:Open Access
Open Access / Gold Open-Access
DOAJ gelistet
Accept ✔
This website uses technically necessary session cookies. By continuing to use the website, you agree to this. You can find our privacy policy here.