February 2004 ECN-C--04-001

High efficiency co-production of

Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels
and Substitute Natural Gas (SNG)
from biomass

H. Boerrigter
R.W.R. Zwart

Revisions
A
B
Made by: Approved & issued by:

H. Boerrigter &
R.W.R. Zwart ECN Biomass
Verified by:

H.J. Veringa
R. van Ree
Justification
The unit ECN Biomass of the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) has performed
the work described in this report. Although no partner in the project, Shell Global Solutions
International has supported the project by participating in the project meetings and providing
information, as well as experimental facilities. The project has been carried out within the
framework of the DEN program on behalf of the Netherlands Organisation for Energy and the
Environment (Novem). The Novem contract number is 2020-01-13-14-005 and the applicable
ECN project number is 7.2274. This report is the non-confidential and condensed version of the
confidential final report (published under report number ECN-CX--03-003, November 2003).

Abstract
The technical, economic, and ecological feasibility was studied of the co-production of 50 PJ of
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation liquids and 150 PJ of substitute natural gas (SNG) per year
(i.e. 10% of the 2001 Dutch consumption). In the co-production concepts part of the SNG is
produced by methanation of the FT off-gas, which already contains significant amounts of C1-
C4 SNG compounds. The additional required SNG is produced by dedicated methanation of part
of the gasification product gas. Co-production results in higher biomass-to-fuel efficiencies,
lower biomass input requirements, and less negative net present values (NPVs) compared to the
case of complete separate production of both fuels. Co-production concepts based on
pressurised oxygen-blown and indirect gasification result in the lowest CO2 emission reduction
costs of about 100 €/tonne. Co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels and
“green” SNG will be an economic feasible process in the Netherlands, when both energy
carriers receive the same tax exemptions as currently is given to green electricity or at crude
mineral oil prices above 56 $/bbl.

Keywords
Biomass, Gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Methanation, Transportation fuels, Substitute
Natural Gas (SNG), Co-production, Probability analysis, Technical analysis, Economic
analysis, Ecological analysis, Entrained flow gasification, Indirect gasification, circulating
fluidised bed (CFB) gasification.

2 ECN-C--04-001
CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 4
LIST OF FIGURES 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
1. INTRODUCTION 11
1.1 Introduction 11
1.2 Project background 11
1.3 Problem definition 12
1.4 Objective 13
1.5 Approach 13
2. SYSTEM DEFINITION 15
2.1 Overall System 15
2.2 Co-production options 16
2.3 Technical system modelling 17
2.3.1 Biomass gasification 17
2.3.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis 18
2.3.3 Methanation process 19
2.3.4 Aspen modelling 19
2.4 Economic system modelling 21
3. FEASIBILITY OF CO-PRODUCTION 23
3.1 Gasification concepts 23
3.2 Production efficiencies 23
3.3 “Spin-off” SNG production 24
3.4 Choice of co-production approach 25
4. INTEGRATED AND PARALLEL CO-PRODUCTION 27
4.1 Technical evaluation 27
4.1.1 Gasification concepts 27
4.1.2 Energy balances 27
4.1.3 SNG composition 28
4.2 Economic evaluation 28
4.2.1 CO2 emission reduction costs 29
4.2.2 Break-even mineral oil price 30
4.3 Integrated versus parallel co-production 31
5. CONCLUSIONS 33
REFERENCES 35
APPENDICES 37
APPENDIX A ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUT DATA 39
APPENDIX B GASIFICATION 41
APPENDIX C SYNTHESIS PROCESSES 43
APPENDIX D UTILITIES 49
APPENDIX E DUTCH NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE & REQUIREMENTS 53
APPENDIX F BIOMASS CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES 57
APPENDIX G SIMPLIFIED ENERGY BALANCES 61

ECN-C--04-001 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Product gas compositions and properties for the six gasification concepts 18
Table 2 Specific and total conversion efficiencies from biomass to FT liquids and SNG 24
Table 3 Product distribution by co-generation with maximum FT-liquids production
(ηc= 0.95 and α= 0.95) and SNG as "spin-off" product 24
Table 4 Summarised energy balances for five SNG and FT-liquids co-production
concepts. See text for explanation of the concepts. 28
Table 5 SNG compositions for the evaluated integrated co-production concepts. N.B.
all presented gases have a Wobbe-index of 43.7 MJ/mn3 and are on
specification for addition to the Dutch natural gas grid. All H2 and CO are
completely converted to CH4 29
Table 6 CO2 emission reduction costs, NPV, and IRR for the five co-production
concepts (ranking in order of increasing CO2 reduction costs) 29
Table 7 Break-even mineral oil prices at which CO2 emission reduction costs are zero
(ranking in order of increasing oil price) 31
Table 8 Selected data and assumptions used for the feasibility study 39
Table 9 Capital costs of upgrading synthesis gas to SNG (Gastec/Kema) 46
Table 10 Operational costs of upgrading synthesis gas to SNG (Gastec/Kema) 47
Table 13 General cryogenic air separation parameters 51
Table 14 Costs of compression of oxygen 51
Table 15 Investment costs of the HRSG section with steam turbine 52
Table 11 Composition of natural gas with Groningen quality 55
Table 12 Specification of the G-gas delivered by Gasunie to energy distribution
companies and the requirements concerning SNG, according to Gastec as
well as to the Danish and Swedish centre 56
Table 16 Specific biomass conversion efficiencies 57

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Optimal system for co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch transportation
fuels and “green” substitute natural gas (SNG) 10
Figure 2 System for the production of FT-liquids from biomass 12
Figure 3 System for the co-production of liquid FT transportation fuels and SNG 12
Figure 4 Overview of the overall system for the large-scale production of FT
transportation fuels and SNG from imported biomass 15
Figure 5 “Co-production”, “Integrated Co-production, as well as ” Parallel
Production” of FT-liquids and SNG 16
Figure 6 The general flow sheet of the co-production of FT-liquids and SNG from
biomass 17
Figure 7 Simplified flow sheet of the within Aspen+ simulated system. The red numbers
refer to explanations in the text 20
Figure 8 Operating conditions of the FT-synthesis (• and ηc) of that result in a co-
production product ratio of SNG to FT transportation fuels equal to three 25
Figure 9 Cumulative probability distributions of the CO2 emission reduction costs for
the five co-production concepts, with the uncertainties in biomass production
included (left) and excluded (right) 30
Figure 10 Optimal system for co-production of 50 PJ/yr “green” Fischer-Tropsch
transportation fuels and 150 PJ/yr “green” substitute natural gas (SNG),
which corresponds to 10% of the 2001 consumption 34

4 ECN-C--04-001
Figure 11 Schematic presentation of a pressurised (left) and atmospheric CFB gasifier
(right) 41
Figure 12 Schematic diagram of the indirect gasification concept 42
Figure 13 ASF as well as experimental distribution of FT product yields 44
Figure 14 Typical cost breakdown of the Fischer-Tropsch installation with natural gas
feed stock 45
Figure 16 Cryogenic air separation plant 50
Figure 15 The main gas transmission system (end 2000) 54
Figure 17 Efficiencies in case of co-production with indirect gasification 58
Figure 18 Efficiencies in case co-production with atmospheric O2-blown CFB
gasification 58
Figure 19 Efficiencies in case of co-production with pressurised O2-blown CFB
gasification 59
Figure 20 Efficiencies in case of co-production with Entrained Flow gasification 59
Figure 21 Co-generation by indirect gasification with additional production of SNG in
an integrated methanation step. 61
Figure 22 Co-production by pressurised oxygen-blown gasification with additional
production of SNG in an integrated methanation step. 61
Figure 23 Co- production by entrained flow gasification with additional production of
SNG in an integrated methanation step 62
Figure 24 Co-production by entrained flow gasification combined with parallel
production of SNG by indirect gasification 62
Figure 25 Co-production by entrained flow gasification combined with parallel
production of SNG by pressurised O2-blown gasification 62

ECN-C--04-001 5
6 ECN-C--04-001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction
Biomass is one of the most promising renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels and has
the unique characteristic that it is a feedstock for the production of chemicals as well as gaseous
and liquid fuels. In the Dutch situation, especially natural gas and transportation fuels are
important products with a total current consumption of approximately 2000 PJ/year. Production
of "green" substitute natural gas (SNG) and transportation fuels will allow the use of the
existing natural gas and transportation fuels infrastructure and, hence, make a gradual transition
from the present fossil fuel-based energy supply system to a complete biomass-based economy
possible. Gasification of biomass generates a product gas or synthesis gas that can be used to
produce SNG and transportation fuels by methanation and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis,
respectively.

During the conduction of a study to develop gas cleaning for integrated biomass/FT processes, it
was recognized that typical off-gases from FT synthesis, due to the high amount of CH4 and
higher hydrocarbons, resemble the composition of Groningen natural gas. The idea was
postulated that by upgrading this off-gas FT transportation fuels and SNG could be co-produced
and with probably a higher overall efficiency compared to two separate production processes.
However, the technical and economic bases for this concept were far from well investigated.

The objective of the underlying study was to determine the technical and economic feasibility of
large-scale systems of co-production of “green” FT transport fuels and “green” SNG from
biomass. The systems are assessed assuming a targeted annual production of 50 PJ of Fischer-
Tropsch transportation fuels and 150 PJ of SNG, which equals 10% of the current (2001) Dutch
consumption of these energy carriers. Co-production of 50 PJ/yr of FT transportation fuels and
150 PJ/yr of SNG leads to an annual CO2 emission reduction of approximately 12.5 Mtonne.

System definition
The evaluated overall system comprises the whole chain of biomass collection, transport,
syngas production by gasification, gas cleaning, and FT and SNG synthesis, similar to a
previous study on the feasibility of large-scale synthesis gas production from biomass (i.e.
virgin wood) imported from the Baltic States.

In case of co-production, part of the thermal biomass input is converted to liquid fuels via FT-
synthesis and the FT off-gas is methanated to afford SNG. The amount of SNG produced will
depend on both the chosen gasification concepts and the operating conditions of the FT-
synthesis. If additional SNG is required to meet the objective of replacing 10% of the annual
Dutch natural gas consumption, this needs to be produced in a separate dedicated process. In
integrated co-production concepts part of the product gas is used for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
and the other part for SNG synthesis, whereas in parallel co-production concepts two different
gasification processes are used.

For all evaluated systems an Aspen+ model is constructed in order to determine the mass, heat
and work balance of the processes. Six combinations are considered of gasifier type, operating
pressures, and pressurisation gas. The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is operated at a temperature of
220°C and a partial pressure of the syngas components (H2 and CO) of 40 bar. The FT feed gas
is shifted to a H2/CO ratio of two and all CO2 is removed. The FT-off-gas is shifted to a H2/CO
ratio of three, necessary for the methanation (at 66 bar). The produced SNG has a Wobbe-index
of 43.7 MJ/m n3 (regulated by either CO2 removal after methanation or by adding a part of the
CO2 removed before the FT-synthesis).

ECN-C--04-001 7
The economic assessment is based on the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Internal Rate of
Return (IRR). The economical and ecological feasibility is determined based on costs for the
CO2 emission reduction by the replacement of fossil-based fuels.

Feasibility of co-production
In the co-generation concept, 50 PJ/yr of Fischer-Tropsch liquids is produced with SNG as
“spin-off” product from FT synthesis. The assessment is concentrated on the four gasification
technologies:
q Atmospheric oxygen-blown CFB gasification [A-CFB(O2)];
q Pressurised (with carbon dioxide) oxygen-blown CFB gasification [PC-CFB(O2)];
q Indirect gasification (atmospheric) [indirect];
q Entrained-flow gasification (pressurised and oxygen-blown) [EF].

Overall efficiencies for a given gasification option are effectively independent of the energy
carrier produced (i.e. FT-liquids or SNG). This means that there is no incentive to produce
either energy carrier over the other, with respect to optimising the energy efficiency of a
process. The efficiencies for the independent energy carriers SNG (ηSNG) and FT-liquids (ηFT),
however, depend strongly on the CO-conversion in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (ηc) and the chain
growth probability factor α, which was demonstrated by lab-scale Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
experiments.

The amount of SNG produced in addition to the 50 PJ/yr of Fischer-Tropsch liquids depends on
both the chosen gasification concept and the operating conditions of the FT-synthesis and varies
from 3 (for entrained flow) to 134 PJ/yr (for pressurised O2-blown CFB) if the FT synthesis is
operated at maximum FT-production conditions (ηc as well as • equal to 0.95). At these
preferred conditions the additional SNG required to meet the 150 PJ/yr production target,
should be produced by methanation in a separate SNG process.

Integrated and parallel co-production

The amounts of FT transportation liquids and SNG to be produced were both targeted at 10% of
the current Dutch consumption of transportation fuels and natural gas, corresponding to 50 and
150 PJ per year for FT-liquids and SNG, respectively. The production of additional SNG can be
carried out via integrated or parallel co-production concepts. In these cases either a side-stream
of the gasifier is used for methanation or the product gas from a separated gasifier. Five co-
production concepts were considered:
q Integrated co-production with indirect gasification;
q Integrated co-production with pressurised oxygen-blown CFB gasification;
q Integrated co-production with entrained flow gasification;
q Co-production with entrained flow gasification and parallel indirect gasification and;
q Co-production with entrained flow gasification and parallel pressurised oxygen-blown CFB
gasification.

In the parallel systems, the Fischer-Tropsch liquids production is based on co-production with
entrained flow gasification as then (by far) the highest yield to Fischer-Tropsch liquids is
achieved. Although in all concepts the same amounts of FT-liquids and SNG are produced,
there is a huge variation in the required biomass input due to the different overall energy
efficiency. The integrated co-production concepts with indirect and pressurised gasification
require approximately 10% less biomass compared to both parallel concepts.

The major criterion for comparing the economic potential is the CO2 reduction costs. The
expected values for the CO2 emission reduction costs range from 99 to 174 €/tonne (based on a
biomass price of 2.3 €/GJ). The NPV is negative for all concepts, which means that co-
production of “green” FT transportation fuels and SNG will require some financial
(governmental) incentives or tax exemptions. Furthermore, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

8 ECN-C--04-001
has to be considered as a negative discount rate at which the NPV of that project equals zero,
which means that providing a loan would cost interest instead of yielding it. Integrated co-
production of FT-liquids and SNG by pressurised oxygen-blown CFB gasification, or indirect
gasification, is economically more attractive than by entrained flow gasification. Both concepts
with parallel SNG production appear less interesting, however, the differences are not
significant considering the uncertainties.

On the long term, increasing costs of mineral oil should make the co-production of “green” FT
transportation liquids and SNG from biomass competitive without financial (governmental)
incentives for energy investments. The break-even mineral oil prices range from 56 to
83 $/barrel - all well above the current average price of 20 $/barrel.

Integrated co-production concepts have higher net energy efficiencies than the parallel co-
production concepts, i.e. higher biomass-to-fuel efficiencies. Correspondingly, the economic
perspectives, expressed as CO2 emission reduction costs, of the integrated co-production
concepts are better.

Conclusions
This study was directed towards the determination of the technical and economic feasibility of
systems for the co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch liquid transportation fuels and
“green” Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) from biomass. The major conclusions with respect to the
technical feasibility of producing SNG as “spin-off” product from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
(i.e. by co-generation) are:
• There is no incentive to produce either SNG or FT-liquids as for a given gasification option,
the conversion efficiencies to both products essentially equal. The product ratio of SNG and
FT-liquids can be controlled by the CO-conversion (ηc) and chain growth factor (α).
• The overall efficiencies (FT liquids plus SNG) are higher for CFB and indirect gasification
concepts compared to EF gasification as already much CH4 and C2 compounds are present in
the product gas. On the other hand, the efficiency to FT-liquids is much higher for EF
gasification resulting from the presence of all the chemical energy in the gas as syngas
components (CO and H2).
• Additional SNG can be produced either by “Integrated co-production”, in which a side-
stream of the product gas of the gasifier is used for dedicated methanation or by “Parallel
co-production”, in which part of the biomass is fed to a second (other type of) gasifier
coupled to a dedicated stand-alone methanation.
• Integrated or parallel SNG co-production is preferred over changing the FT synthesis
conditions, as it is optimal to operate the FT synthesis at maximum α (i.e. α= 0.95), i.e. due
to the smaller gas volume flows and the better ‘quality’ of the liquid FT products.

The major conclusions of the economic evaluation with respect to producing fixed amounts of
50 and 150 PJ of Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels and SNG, respectively, are:
• The integrated co-production concepts have generally higher net energy efficiencies
compared to the parallel co-production concepts.
• None of the co-production concepts is economically feasible at current conditions and with a
biomass price of 2.3 €/GJ, as follows from the negative net present values (NPV). The
concepts would become economic feasible at mineral oil prices (well) above 56 $/barrel
crude oil (in the study a crude oil price of 20 $/barrel is assumed).
• The corresponding CO2 emission reduction costs range from 99 to 175 €/tonne. The trend in
CO2 costs corresponds to the trend in efficiencies.
• In general, pressurised oxygen-blow CFB gasification [PC-CFB(O2)] and Indirect
gasification are the most suitable technologies for co-production (see figure 1), with CO2
reduction costs in the range of the energy tax exemption for “green power” in the
Netherlands of 100 €/tonne.

ECN-C--04-001 9
 FT liquids

FT-synthesis Methanation
Biomass PC- CFB (O 2)
or Indirect SNG
Gasification
Methanation

Figure 1 Optimal system for co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch

transportation fuels and “green” substitute natural gas (SNG)

The main conclusion of the study is that the co-production of Fischer-Tropsch transportation
fuels and substitute natural gas (SNG) from biomass is economically more feasible than the
production of energy carriers in separate processes. Co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch
transportation fuels and “green” SNG will become an economic feasible process in the
Netherlands, when both energy carriers receive the same tax exemptions as currently is given to
green electricity.

10 ECN-C--04-001
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Worldwide energy supply is currently mainly based on fossil fuels. Scenario studies on future
energy supply predict a decreased use of these fossil fuels and an increase of the application of
renewable fuels [1,2]. Reasons for these expected trends are the finiteness of fossil fuel
resources and the environmental problems, especially the emission of greenhouse gases,
associated with the use of fossil fuels. Biomass is one of the most promising renewable energy
sources considered for replacing fossil fuels. An important aspect of biomass is that besides
electricity and heat, chemicals as well as gaseous and liquid fuels can be produced from this
renewable source.

In the Dutch situation, especially Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and transportation fuels are
important products in this respect. With a total current consumption of natural gas and
transportation fuels in the Netherlands of approximately 2000 PJ/year [3,4] the substitution of a
part of the natural gas and transportation fuels market will already lead to a significant
contribution towards the sustainability of the energy supply. Furthermore, production of "green"
SNG and transportation fuels will allow the use of the existing natural gas and transportation
fuels infrastructure and, hence, make a gradual transition from the present fossil fuel-based
energy supply system to a complete biomass-based economy possible.

Various technologies are under development for converting biomass into chemicals and
transportation fuels. Examples comprise biochemical conversion by fermentation of agricultural
residues (i.e. to produce bio-ethanol) and chemical conversion by esterification of vegetable oils
(i.e. to produce bio-diesel). Another technology is thermal conversion by gasification in which
the solid biomass is converted into a product gas or synthesis gas [5]. This route has two major
advantages, viz. almost all biomass materials are suitable for gasification and synthesis gas
being a possible universal intermediate in many synthesis processes. Also SNG and
transportation fuels can be produced from syngas by methanation and Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
synthesis, respectively.

1.2 Project background

The production of SNG and Fischer-Tropsch liquids from biomass are important topics in the
ECN Biomass research programme. In a recently finalised joint ECN Biomass and Shell study,
co-financed by the Agency for Research in Sustainable Energy (SDE), the necessary gas
cleaning and optimal systems designs were developed for integrated biomass/FT
processes [6,7,8]. In the catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis one mole of CO reacts with two
moles of H2 to form a hydrocarbon chain extension -(CH2)-. This polymerisation-like chain-
growth reaction results in a range of products, comprising light gaseous hydrocarbons (C1-C4),
naphtha (C5-C10), diesel (C11-C20), and wax (>C20) fractions. All the liquid compounds, i.e. the
C5+ hydrocarbons, are products applicable as transportation fuel, whereas the C1-C4 compounds
together with the unconverted CO and H2 form the reactor off-gas. To optimise the product
yield, the off-gas of the FT synthesis unit (containing unconverted CO and H2, inerts, and light
hydrocarbons) can be recycled to the syngas unit (figure 2).

ECN-C--04-001 11
 off-gas

Biomass Gasifier FT-synthesis FT-liquid

Figure 2 System for the production of FT-liquids from biomass

During the conduction of the before-mentioned project it was recognized that the hydrocarbon
composition of typical experimentally obtained Fischer-Tropsch off-gases resemble the
composition of the Groningen natural gas [9], i.e. the gas standard for the Netherlands. These
off-gases can be upgraded to Groningen gas quality by methanation of the little CO present and
removing CO2 to adjust the Wobbe-index to the right value. Based on this observation the idea
was postulated that, if both “green” FT liquids and “green” SNG are desired products, it is
probably more efficient to synthesize SNG from the FT off-gas (figure 3) rather than in a
separate process. Or in other words: a higher biomass-to-fuel efficiency will be obtained by co-
production of liquids (FT) transportation fuels and SNG.

Methanation SNG
off-gas

Biomass Gasifier FT-synthesis FT-liquids

Figure 3 System for the co-production of liquid FT transportation fuels and SNG

1.3 Problem definition

Due to the high amount of CH4 and higher hydrocarbons in the off-gas of FT-synthesis, this gas
seems to be highly suitable for upgrading to SNG, and by intuition this increases the overall
efficiency of the process. However, the technical and economic bases for this concept are far
from well investigated.

Furthermore, in the co-production concept (figure 3) the amount of SNG that can be produced is
determined by the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis conditions. Typically, the yield of SNG will be
less than 10% at conditions for optimised production of C5+ FT-liquids. In the current Dutch
situation the consumption of transportation fuels and SNG is approximately 1:3 on energy basis.
With this co-production concept, this product ratio can only be achieved by operating the FT
synthesis at sub-optimal conditions (i.e. resulting in effective lower overall efficiencies).

Alternatively, to have the flexibility to produce “green” FT-liquids and “green” SNG in
different ratios, the additional required amount of SNG can be produced from a syngas side
stream of the gasifier. In this integrated co-production system, the methanation step is assumed
to use part of the syngas from the gasifier.

Product gases from different types of gasifiers, however, have very different compositions and
correspondingly are more or less suitable for methanation. Therefore, it might be more efficient
to produce the additional required amount of SNG in a parallel system. In this so-called parallel
co-production concept, the parallel system will be optimised for the separate production of SNG
and allows the application of another gasifier being ideal for SNG production.

12 ECN-C--04-001
1.4 Objective
The objective of the study is to determine the technical and economic feasibility of systems of
co-generation of “green” Fischer-Tropsch liquid transport fuels and “green” Substitute Natural
Gas from biomass. The study is limited to large-scale production, as this is required to make a
significant contribution to the Dutch renewable energy targets. The main questions to be
answered are: which route of co-generation has the highest efficiency and which route has the
highest economic potential? The systems are assessed assuming a targeted annual production of
50 PJ of Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels and 150 PJ of SNG, which equals 10% of the
current Dutch consumption of both these energy carriers. This corresponds to the expected EU
targets of 10% renewable energy carriers in 2020. Co-production of 50 PJ/yr of FT
transportation fuels and 150 PJ/yr of SNG leads to an annual CO2 emission reduction of
approximately 12.5 Mtonne.

1.5 Approach
In order to fulfil the stated objective, first the overall technical system of gasification, Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, and methanation and the boundaries are defined. Within the system six
combinations of gasifier-type and gasification conditions are evaluated. Based on an initial
evaluation of the technical aspects, the most promising concepts are evaluated in more detail on
their economic and ecological feasibility.

ECN-C--04-001 13
14 ECN-C--04-001
2. SYSTEM DEFINITION
2.1 Overall System
The overall system evaluated within this study comprises the whole chain of biomass collection,
transport, syngas production by gasification, gas cleaning, and FT and SNG synthesis. The same
system was evaluated in a previous study on the “technical and economic feasibility of large-
scale synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock”. ECN
Biomass, Shell, BTG, University of Utrecht, and Ecofys jointly carried out this study in
2002 [5]. In principle, in the current study several assumptions and conclusions are taken from
that study, as they will not be different for the syngas production part in this study (selected data
are presented in appendix A).

In the overall system (figure 4), the biomass is collected in a number of production locations
and transported to collection facilities (A), from where it will be transported to and stored at a
central port (B). From the central port, the biomass is shipped (C) to the location of the syngas
manufacturing facility (D). At the manufacturing facility, biomass will initially be stored before
being pre-treated and gasified (E).

I
A
SNG

B
H J
syngas transportation
A C G conversion fuels
syngas
cleaning /
E conditioning

D gasification
A F
biomass air separation biomass
collection conversion

Figure 4 Overview of the overall system for the large-scale production of FT transportation
fuels and SNG from imported biomass

The biosyngas from the gasifier is cleaned and conditioned (G) to the specifications of the
syngas conversion facility (H). The two conversion facilities considered within this study are
the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis in order to produce transportation fuels and methanation in
order to produce SNG.

Feedstock. As biomass source, sustainable produced virgin wood (both logs and forestry
residues like branches and chips) has been chosen. It can be efficiently collected in the large
quantities required for co-generation of SNG and transportation fuels and does not require a
major change in land use. Furthermore, its production will lead to a consistent quality of the
biomass and offers a realistic alternative for fossil feedstocks, taking into account conversion
efficiencies and biomass price. In the process evaluation, biomass is obtained from the Baltic
States for reasons of the Baltic States being included within the EU in the near future and the
EU striving for less dependency on external energy sources. In addition, the Baltic States have
large forestry acreage and reliable biomass contracts with Baltic suppliers are expected to be
feasible. The amount of biomass required for syngas production, however, exceeds the current

ECN-C--04-001 15
production capacities of the Baltic States, but it is assumed that on a “global” basis biomass
import will also be possible from other areas. In this study an average biomass price of 2.3 €/GJ
is taken for the biomass delivered to the collection facility. This value corresponds to a biomass
mixture of 1:1 logs and residues at prices of 0.6 and 4.0 €/GJ, respectively.

Product yields. Within the study the amounts of Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels and SNG
to be produced were fixed. These amounts were (arbitrarily) set to equal 10% of the current
Dutch consumption of both energy carriers. With the current annual consumption being ~500
and ~1500 PJ for transportation fuels [4] and natural gas [3], respectively, the targeted
production levels in this study are 50 PJ/year of FT fuels and 150 PJ/year of SNG.

2.2 Co-production options

SNG and FT transportation fuels can be produced by co-production, integrated co-production,
or by parallel co-production. In case of co-production a part of the thermal biomass input is
converted to liquid fuels by once-through FT-synthesis. The off-gas of the FT-synthesis,
containing non-converted CO and H2, CH4 (as well as smaller amounts of C2 hydrocarbons)
produced during gasification and gaseous hydrocarbons produced during the FT-synthesis (C2 to
C4), is upgraded to the standard quality of natural gas by methanation of the remaining CO. A
simplified flow sheet of this co- production process is presented as first option in figure 5. Due
to the high amount of CH4 and higher hydrocarbons in the off-gas of the FT-synthesis, the off-
gas is highly suitable for the relatively simple upgrading to SNG. The amount of SNG that can
be produced will, however, depend on both the chosen gasification concept and the operating
conditions of the FT-synthesis.

FT liquids

Biomass
Gasifier FT-synthesis Methanation SNG

Co-production

FT liquids

FT-synthesis Methanation
Biomass
Gasifier SNG

Methanation
Integrated Co-production

FT liquids

Gasifier #1 FT-synthesis Methanation

Biomass
SNG

Gasifier #2 Methanation

Parallel Co-production

Figure 5 “Co-production”, “Integrated Co-production, as well as ” Parallel Co-

Production” of FT-liquids and SNG

16 ECN-C--04-001
Although upgrading of the FT off-gas to "spin-off" SNG is most likely the most attractive
concept of co-generation, the amount of SNG that can be produced is limited and fixed by the
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis conditions. To be able to meet the objective of replacing 10% of the
annual Dutch natural gas consumption, additional SNG needs to be produced. This is realized
with a separate dedicated SNG production process, either by integrated or parallel co-production
(see second and third concepts in figure 5, respectively). In the integrated concept the product
gas of the gasifier is used partly for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and partly for SNG synthesis;
whereas in the parallel concept two different gasification processes are used.

2.3 Technical system modelling

The co-generation of Fischer-Tropsch liquids and SNG has been modelled in accordance to the
general flow sheet presented in figure 6.

CO 2 water CO 2

Biomass
Biomass Shift CO 2 Fischer- Shift CO 2
Methanation
Gasification H2:CO = 2:1 removal Tropsch H2:CO = 3:1 removal
SNG
(C1-C4)

FT-liquids
(C5+)

Figure 6 The general flow sheet of the co-production of FT-liquids and SNG from biomass

2.3.1 Biomass gasification

Three gasifier types are considered for gasification: circulating fluidised bed (CFB), entrained
flow (EF), and indirect gasifiers. Additionally, for the CFB gasifier, air and oxygen-blown
gasification as well as atmospheric and pressurised gasification are considered. The atmospheric
air-blown CFB gasification technology is included, as it is the preferred current technology for
biomass integrated gasification combined cycle systems (BIG-CC). However, the disadvantage
is that the product gas is diluted with nitrogen. Alternatives are technologies that produce a non-
diluted syngas, hence either oxygen-blown CFB gasification and indirect gasification. Oxygen-
blown gasifiers, however, have the disadvantage of additional capital costs associated with the
oxygen plant.

Pressurised gasification is included as this holds the advantage of only having to compress the
gasification medium instead of the product gas with a larger volume. However, disadvantages
are the higher capital costs for the gasifier and the necessity to use inert pressurisation gas. In
this study pressurised CFB gasifiers operate at 20 bar. For the CFB both the cases with N2 and
CO2 as pressurisation medium are considered.

Whereas the CFB and indirect gasifiers are operated at 850°C, the entrained flow (EF) gasifier
operates at 1400°C to ensure complete carbon conversion in the short residence time. In this
study an oxygen-blown and pressurised (40 bar) EF gasifier is considered, using CO2 as inert
gas for the feed pressurisation.

This results in six different combinations that are assessed:

q Atmospheric air-blown CFB gasification [A-CFB];
q Atmospheric oxygen-blown CFB gasification [A-CFB(O2)];
q Pressurised (with nitrogen) oxygen-blown CFB gasification [PN-CFB(O2)];
q Pressurised (with carbon dioxide) oxygen-blown CFB gasification [PC-CFB(O2)];
q Indirect gasification (atmospheric) [indirect];

ECN-C--04-001 17
q Entrained-flow gasification (pressurised and oxygen-blown) [EF].

Brief descriptions of the gasification technologies are presented in appendix B and the product
gas compositions are shown in table 1. Calculations are based on untreated wood as biomass
feed (average composition obtained from the ECN Phyllis database [10]).

Table 1 Product gas compositions and properties for the six gasification concepts

A-CFB A-CFB(O2) PN-CFB(O2) PC-CFB(O2) Indirect EF

CO [vol.%dry] 19.3 26.9 16.1 16.1 42.5 46.1
H2 [vol.%dry] 15.6 33.1 18.3 18.3 23.1 26.6
CO2 [vol.%dry] 15.0 29.9 35.4 46.9 12.3 26.9
H2O [vol.%ar] 13.4 32.2 34.0 34.0 37.1 16.7
CH4 [vol.%dry] 4.2 7.0 13.5 13.5 16.6 0.0
N2/Ar [vol.%dry] 44.5 0.7 12.3 0.8 0 0.4
C2 [vol.%dry] 1.4 2.4 4.4 4.4 5.5 0.0
CGE* [%] 79.1 80.6 79.1 79.1 80.4 77.9
LHV [MJ/mn³] 5.76 8.85 8.44 8.05 13.64 7.43
HHV [MJ/mn³] 6.39 9.11 9.18 9.19 12.59 8.03
ρ [kg/mn³] 1.11 0.97 1.09 1.14 0.92 1.08
* Cold Gas Efficiency. Defined as the chemical output of product gas divided by the thermal biomass
input of the gasifier

2.3.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

Detailed description and background information on the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is given in
appendix C. In Fischer-Tropsch synthesis one mole of CO reacts with approximately two moles
of H2. In the modelling, an exact consumption ratio of H2/CO = 2 is assumed, see equation (1)
and, therefore, the product gas is shifted to match this ratio before entering the Fischer-Tropsch
reactor.

CO + 2 H 2 ⇒ −(CH 2 ) − + H 2 O (1)

In order to reduce the operating pressure of the FT-synthesis, all CO2 is removed from the
gasification product gas upstream of the reactor. Within the model, removal of CO2 is assumed
to be possible with a selectivity and purity of 100%. The actual selectivity and purity of CO2
removal will depend on the CO2 removal technique used within the process (see appendix D).

In Fischer-Tropsch synthesis hydrocarbons are formed in the whole range of C1 to >C100. In the
modelling the formation of products is assumed to follow the ideal Anderson-Schulz-Flory
(ASF) equation (2):

log
Wn
= n ⋅ log α + log
(1 − α ) 2
(2)
n α

where Wn is the mass fraction of a product consisting of n carbon atoms and α the chain growth
probability factor. To incorporate the deviation from the ideal ASF distribution with regard to
the yields of the C1-C4 hydrocarbon, these values are calculated according to equations (3)
and (4).

18 ECN-C--04-001
 ∞
W1 = 1 2 (1 − ∑Wi ) (3)
i=5
∞
W2,3,4 = 16 (1 − ∑Wi ) (4)
i=5

The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is evaluated for α values varying from 0.5 to 0.95 and a CO-
conversion to Fischer-Tropsch products (ηc) of 0 to 0.95, where ηc = 0 is used to model Stand-
Alone SNG production, i.e. no FT production

The gaseous C1-C4 hydrocarbons leave the reactor in the off-gas, which is fed to the
methanation. All the liquid C5+ hydrocarbons are assumed to be products. Water formed in
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is separated and removed.

2.3.3 Methanation process

Detailed description and background information on the methanation is given in Section C.2 in
the Appendices. In the methanation step [11], carbon monoxide is converted to methane
according to equation (5). In contrast to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, methanation requires an
H2/CO-ratio of three. The FT off-gas is shifted to the exact ratio of H2/CO = 3. In the
methanation, a 100% conversion of CO is assumed and, resultantly due to the set H2/CO ratio,
the hydrogen conversion will be also 100%. Hydrocarbons already present in the syngas are
assumed to behave as inert during methanation.

CO + 3 H 2 ⇒ CH 4 + H 2 O (5)

CO2 removal takes place after methanation. The amount of CO2 removed is defined by the
condition that the product SNG must have a quality, expressed by the Wobbe-index, comparable
to that of standard Dutch natural (Groningen) gas so it can be delivered to the Dutch natural gas
grid. More detailed description and background information on the natural gas infrastructure
and SNG gas requirements is given in appendix E.

In the model, a value of 43.7 MJ/mn3 is used (the Wobbe-index of Groningen gas has a value
between 43.5 and 44.4 MJ/mn3 [12]). The Wobbe-index W is defined, according equation (6), as
the ratio of the gross calorific value to the square root of the relative density, with HHV the
High Heating Value (MJ/mn³), and ρg and ρair the gas and air densities (in kg/mn3) [13].

HHV
W= (6)
ρg
ρ air

In some cases in the modelling CO2 had to be added to the raw SNG, as after shift the Wobbe-
index was too high. In this case recompressed CO2 previously removed from the gas upstream
of the FT reactor was used.

2.3.4 Aspen modelling

For all evaluated systems an Aspen+ model is constructed in order to determine the mass,
energy, and work balances of the process. In order to clarify the model a simplified flow sheet
of the simulated system is presented in figure 7. The product gas from the gasifier |1| is cooled
and cleaned from tars and inorganic impurities. Tar removal is established with the ECN OLGA
technology [14] (the tars are returned to the gasifier and destructed) and inorganics (i.e. water

ECN-C--04-001 19
soluble impurities) are subsequently removed by wet scrubbing at 20°C (|2|). The heat duty
resulting from the product gas cooling is used for steam and electricity generation. In case of
CFB and indirect gasification, the amount of usable heat is limited by a temperature region of
900 to 400°C due to the application of an OLGA unit, with some additional amount of heat
resulting from OLGA at a temperature level of at most 200°C. In case of entrained flow
gasification usable heat can be obtained at temperature levels from 1300 to 110°C (no OLGA is
applied as the product gas is tar free due to the high gasification temperature). After cleaning,
the product gas is led to either the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis section |3-11| or the methanation
section |12-16|.

SNG

12 13 16
15 CO2

steam
14 H2O steam SNG
8 10
2 6 11
steam
7 9
1
H2 O
biomass
3
5
H2O & FT-liquids
4 CO2
gas.med. waste

Figure 7 Simplified flow sheet of the within Aspen+ simulated system. The red numbers refer
to explanations in the text

The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is operated at a temperature of 220°C and a partial pressure of

the syngas components (H2 and CO) of 40 bar. As gasification is carried out at 20 bar, the
product gases need to be compressed |3| and up to total pressures well above 40 bar due to the
presence of inert N2. For oxygen-blown CFB gasification this pressure is 53.5 bar and for
indirect gasification 61.8 bar, whereas in case of entrained flow gasification no additional
compression is required as the gasification is carried out at 40 bar and the conditioned product
gas only consists of H2 and CO.

Before entering the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis |6|, the synthesis gas is shifted |4| in order to
obtain a H2/CO ratio of two and all CO2 is removed |5|. At a temperature of 5°C the water and
FT-liquids are separated from the gas |7|. The FT-off-gas is then compressed to 66 bar |8|, before
being shifted |9| to obtain a H2/CO ratio of three, necessary for the methanation |10|. During
methanation, operated at 66 bar to match the maximum pressure of the high-pressure
transmission lines of the Dutch natural gas grid (cf. appendix E) and 270°C, all CO is converted.
The SNG produced is free of water |11| and has a Wobbe-index of 43.7 MJ/mn³ (regulated by
adding a part of the recompressed CO2 removed before the FT-synthesis).

As methanation takes place at 66 bar, gas fed directly to the methanation section has to be
compressed |12| in all cases. As with the off-gas of the FT-synthesis, the synthesis gas is shifted
in order to obtain the H2/CO ratio of 3 |13| before being methanated |14|. After methanation the
SNG is dried |15|. The Wobbe-index is regulated to a value of 43.7 MJ/mn³ by removing part of
the CO2 in the SNG.

The heat duties from the cooling of the synthesis gas, as well as the sensible heat from the
methanation and FT-synthesis (at a temperature level of 270 and 220°C, respectively) are used
for the generation of high-pressure superheated steam. This steam is used for heating purposes
(within the system) and electricity generation, by expanding in a steam turbine. Part of the

20 ECN-C--04-001
produced steam is also required within the gasifier. The amount of CO2 removed from the gases
might be used for CO2 sequestration in deep coal layers. This will, however, require
compression of the CO2, as the CO2 is obtained at atmospheric pressure.

2.4 Economic system modelling

The economic assessment is based on the Net Present Value and the Internal Rate of Return.
The Net Present Value (NPV) represents an approach used in capital budgeting where the
present value of cash inflow is subtracted from the present value of cash outflows. This
relationship is expressed by the following formula (7):

T
CFt
NPV = ∑ (7)
t=0 (1 + r ) t
with CFt the cash flow at time t and r the cost of capital (i.e. interest or discount rate). When the
NPV is greater than zero the benefits of the project outweigh the costs at the chosen cost of
capital, and the project represents a worthwhile investment. Providing the discount rate has been
chosen appropriately, all projects with NPV greater than zero should be considered worthwhile
investments [15]. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of a project is the discount rate at which the
NPV of that project equals zero, hence:

T
CFt
∑ (1 + IRR )
t =0
t
=0 (8)

The IRR decision rule specifies that all (independent) projects with an IRR greater than the cost
of capital should be accepted. When choosing among mutually exclusive projects, the project
with the highest IRR should be selected (as long as the IRR is greater than the cost of capital).
The IRR, unlike the NPV, has the advantage that it does not relate to the size of the original
investment [15]. However, in this approach the ‘risk’ related to capital investment in a project is
neglected. If the ‘risk’ of a project is included in the investment consideration, a project with a
lower IRR and a low risk might be more attractive than a project with a high IRR but also a
higher risk.

In this study, the determination of the economic and ecological feasibility will be based on the
CO2 emission reduction costs. By producing either transportation fuels or SNG from biomass a
certain amount of CO2 emission is avoided due to the replacement of fossil-based fuels. The
CO2 emission reduction costs or specific environmental costs involved can be determined by
relating the additional production costs (or negative NPV) to the avoided CO2 emission.

All the input data concerning biomass properties, storage and transport, investment costs, utility
consumption, waste production and costs, O&M costs and economic parameters are summarised
in appendix A.

ECN-C--04-001 21
22 ECN-C--04-001
3. FEASIBILITY OF CO-PRODUCTION
In this chapter, the technical feasibility of the co-production concept is studied. The amount of
Fischer-Tropsch liquids to be produced is taken equal to 10% of the current transportation fuels
consumption (500 PJ/yr), hence 50 PJ/yr. As SNG is a “spin-off” product from FT synthesis, the
amount produced will depend on both the chosen gasification concept and the FT operating
conditions.

3.1 Gasification concepts

In the system definition six combinations of gasifier type, gasification pressure and medium,
and pressurisation medium were initially selected in this study (section 2.3.1). However, from
the first system modelling it was apparent that in the case of two gasifier product gases it was
impossible to meet SNG specifications. Due to the presence of large concentrations of nitrogen
in the product gases from the air-blown and the nitrogen-pressurised CFB, the Wobbbe-index of
43.7 MJ/mn3 could not be reached. As nitrogen, unlike CO2, cannot (economic competitive) be
removed from the gas, it is not possible to adjust the quality of the gas to the standard quality of
the Groningen natural gas. In the further study, these two gasification concepts are therefore
excluded and the assessment is concentrated on the remaining four combinations:
q Atmospheric air-blown CFB gasification [A-CFB];
q Atmospheric oxygen-blown CFB gasification [A-CFB(O2)];
q Pressurised (with nitrogen) oxygen-blown CFB gasification [PN-CFB(O2)];
q Pressurised (with carbon dioxide) oxygen-blown CFB gasification [PC-CFB(O2)];
q Indirect gasification (atmospheric) [indirect];
q Entrained-flow gasification (pressurised and oxygen-blown) [EF].

3.2 Production efficiencies

For the four different gasification options the production efficiency from biomass to FT-liquids
(C5+) and SNG as well as the overall efficiencies have been determined as a function of the CO-
conversion in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (ηc) and the chain growth probability factor α. In
table 2 the results are presented for three extreme cases:
• Maximum FT production (ηc= 0.95), with maximum liquids C5+ yield (α= 0.95);
• Maximum FT production (ηc= 0.95), with significant gaseous C1-C4 yield (α= 0.5);
• No Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (ηc= 0), only SNG production.

More detailed results are presented in appendix F. It is interesting to note that overall
efficiencies for each gasification option are effectively independent of the energy carrier
produced (i.e. FT-liquids or SNG). The efficiency for sole SNG production is slightly lower,
however, this effect can be solely contributed to the larger extent of water-gas shift required for
SNG production (i.e. to H2/CO= 3) compared to FT synthesis (H2/CO= 2). The equal production
efficiencies means that there is no incentive to produce either energy carrier over the other, with
respect to optimising the energy efficiency of a process.

On the other hand, the efficiencies for the independent energy carriers SNG (ηSNG) and FT-
liquids (ηFT) depend strongly on the FT CO-conversion (ηc) and the chain growth factor α. In
case sole production of FT-liquids is preferred, entrained flow gasification is the preferred
concept as this has the largest efficiency towards FT-liquids (55.4%). When sole SNG
production is preferred, the concept of pressurised oxygen blown CFB gasification (efficiency
towards SNG of 72.8%) is preferred. However, the differences with the atmospheric and
indirect gasification concepts are small.

ECN-C--04-001 23
The overall yield of the EF concept is in all cases much lower than for the other three concepts.
This is a result from the high concentrations of CH4 and C2 compounds that are already present
in the product gases of these three gasifiers. In all cases the co-generation of SNG with FT-
liquids at conditions for maximum FT production results in a significant increase of the overall
yield to energy carriers.

Table 2 Specific and total conversion efficiencies from biomass to FT liquids and SNG

η SNG η FT ηoverall
Indirect gasification [indirect]
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.95 45.5 25.9 71.4
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.5 66.0 5.5 71.5
ηc = 0 - 71.2 0 71.2
Atmospheric O2-blown gasification [A-CFB(O2)]
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.95 31.7 37.4 69.1
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.5 61.4 7.9 69.3
ηc = 0 - 68.9 0 68.9
Pressurised O2-blown gasification [PC-CFB(O2)]
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.95 53.2 19.8 73.0
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.5 68.8 4.1 73.0
ηc = 0 - 72.8 0 72.8
Entrained flow gasification [EF]
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.95 3.3 55.4 58.7
ηc= 0.95 α= 0.5 47.2 11.7 58.9
ηc = 0 - 58.3 0 58.3

3.3 “Spin-off” SNG production

The amount of FT-product to be produced is taken equal to 10% of the current transportation
fuels consumption (500 PJ/yr), hence 50 PJ/yr (cf. section 2.1). In case of SNG being a “spin-
off” product of the FT-synthesis, the amount of SNG produced will depend on both the chosen
gasification concept and the operating conditions of the FT-synthesis. If the Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis is operated at maximum FT-production conditions (CO-conversion as well as α equal
to 0.95), the product ratio of SNG to transportation fuels varies from 0.06 (for entrained flow) to
2.7 (for pressurised O2-blown CFB), as shown in table 3.

Table 3 Product distribution by co-generation with maximum FT-liquids production

(ηc= 0.95 and α= 0.95) and SNG as "spin-off" product

Transportation fuels SNG Product ratio

[PJ/yr] [PJ/yr] [-]
Entrained flow 50 3 0.06
Atmospheric O2-blown CFB 50 42 0.85
Indirect 50 88 1.8
Pressurised O2-blown CFB 50 134 2.7

In this study, however, the targeted amount of SNG to be produced is 150 PJ/year, equal to 10%
of the Dutch natural gas consumption. Therefore, the desired product ratio of SNG and FT-
liquids is 3. The product ratio of SNG and FT-liquids can easily be controlled by adjustment of

24 ECN-C--04-001
the operating conditions of the FT-synthesis (i.e. lowering • and/or ηc). As both α and ηc have a
significant influence on the amount of SNG produced there are innumerable combinations for
which a product ratio of SNG to transportation fuels equal to 3 can be obtained. These
combinations of α and ηc are presented in figure 8. Decreasing either • or ηc results in a
decreased production of FT transportation fuels and a higher SNG production (cf. data in
table 2). The correlation between the synthesis conditions and the product formation (e.g. the
amount of methane and a estimated value of α) was also shown by experiments in the ECN
micro-flow Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reactor [16].

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7 more
FT-products
ηc

0.6

0.5

0.4
Pressurised O2 Blown CFB
Indirect
0.3 Atmospheric O2 Blown CFB
EF
0.2
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
α

Figure 8 Operating conditions of the FT-synthesis (• and ηc) of that result in a co-
production product ratio of SNG to FT transportation fuels equal to three

3.4 Choice of co-production approach

Alternatively to varying the operating conditions (i.e. decreasing α and/or ηc) of the Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, also part of the product gas can be directly fed to the SNG synthesis section,
bypassing the FT-synthesis. This is preferable based on economic considerations, as the overall
investment costs for the FT section will be lower due to the smaller volume flow through the
FT-synthesis section, whereas its has (almost) no influence on the total flow through the
methanation section. More important, however, is that C5+ liquids produced at high values of
the chain growth probability factor α in the FT-synthesis afford better “quality” transportation
fuels.1 Therefore, the FT-synthesis is preferably operated at α= 0.95. As at these conditions the
targeted amount of SNG cannot be produced as “spin-off” product, additional methanation of
part of the product gas would be necessary. Considering both the economic and product quality
arguments, it was decided to assume in further assessment in all cases operational conditions for
maximum FT-synthesis (i.e. maximum conversion and chain growth probability: α= •c= 0.95).
Additional SNG is co-produced by methanation in a dedicated SNG section.

1
. Detailed assessment of the quality of FT products and upgrading of the liquids to transportations fuels is not
within the scope of this study. However, is short: the main application of FT-derived transportation fuels is foreseen
as diesel substitute (being approx. the C12-C22 hydrocarbons range). FT diesel can be directly synthesises, as well as,
produce by mild and selective hydrocracking of the higher (i.e. >C 22) hydrocarbons. The shorter FT liquids (e.g. C5-
C11) have no diesel application. Lower α values afford more short hydrocarbons - also explaining the larger yield of
SNG compounds - and resultantly a lower yield of FT-liquids of the right “quality”.

ECN-C--04-001 25
26 ECN-C--04-001
4. INTEGRATED AND PARALLEL CO-PRODUCTION
The amounts of FT transportation liquids and SNG to be produced were both targeted at 10% of
the current Dutch consumption of transportation fuels and natural gas. This corresponds to 50
and 150 PJ per year for FT-liquids and SNG, respectively. The assessment of the concepts for
co-production of FT-liquids and SNG in the previous chapter concluded that at conditions for
optimal FT-synthesis not sufficient SNG is produced. Furthermore, sub-optimal operation of the
FT-synthesis to increase the SNG yield was not preferred. Therefore, additional SNG
production by separate integrated or parallel methanation is required.

4.1 Technical evaluation

4.1.1 Gasification concepts

The production of additional SNG can be carried out via an integrated or parallel co-production
concept. In these concepts, respectively, a side-stream of the gasifier is used for methanation or
the product gas from a separate gasifier (cf. the systems depicted in figure 5). Five co-
production concepts are considered:
q Integrated co-production with indirect gasification;
q Integrated co-production with pressurised oxygen-blown CFB gasification;
q Integrated co-production with entrained flow gasification;
q Co-production with entrained flow gasification and parallel indirect gasification;
q Co-production with entrained flow gasification and parallel pressurised oxygen-blown CFB
gasification.

To reduce the number of concepts to be assessed, the atmospheric oxygen-blown CFB concept
is not further studied. The indirect and pressurised CFB gasification concepts are selected as
they give the highest yield to SNG (compared to atmospheric CFB gasification). In the parallel
systems, the Fischer-Tropsch liquids production is based on co-generation with entrained flow
gasification as then (by far) the highest yield to Fischer-Tropsch liquids is achieved.

4.1.2 Energy balances

The targeted annual production of 50 PJ of FT-liquids and 150 PJ of SNG corresponds to
production capacities of 1.75 and 5.25 GWth, respectively, with an annual plant operating time
of 8000 hours. The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is operated at maximum FT-production
conditions (CO-conversion as well as α equal to 0.95). The simplified energy balances for the
five co-production concepts are presented in appendix G and the results are summarised in
table 4.

It is striking to see that, although in all concepts the same amounts of FT-liquids and SNG are
produced, there is a huge variation in the required biomass input due to the different overall
energy efficiencies. The integrated co-production concepts with indirect and pressurised
gasification require approximately 10% less biomass compared to both parallel concepts (the
last columns in table 4). On the other hand, the integrated entrained flow concept requires even
more than 30% biomass due to the relatively low overall efficiency of 58%. Solely based on the
overall system efficiency, an integrated system based on pressurised oxygen-blown gasification
would be preferred.

ECN-C--04-001 27
Table 4 Summarised energy balances for five SNG and FT-liquids co-production concepts.
See text for explanation of the concepts.

Co-production System Indirect PC-CFB(O2) EF EF & EF &

Energy flows in [GWth] Indirect PC-CFB(O2)
Total biomass input 9.95 9.48 12.20 10.56 10.42
Biomass to co-production - - - 3.21 3.21
Biomass to SNG - - - 7.37 7.21
Product gas flow 8.0 7.5 9.5 - -
Feed gas to co-production 5.5 7.0 2.5 - -
Feed gas to SNG 2.5 0.5 7.0 - -
FT-liquids* 1.76 1.75 1.78 1.78 1.78
SNG from FT off-gas 3.11 4.71 0.11 0.11 0.11
Stand-alone SNG 2.22 0.46 5.23 5.25 5.25
Total SNG* 5.33 5.17 5.34 5.36 5.36
Net energy efficiency 71% 73% 58% 68% 69%
* The small differences compared to the targeted energy flows of 1.75 and 5.25 GWth for the FT-
liquids and SNG, respectively, are due to iterations in the calculations.

4.1.3 SNG composition

The specification for the SNG produced is that the Wobbe-index is equal to 43.7 MJ/mn3, which
is achieved by removing the right amount of CO2 from the raw SNG. The molar composition
and the lower heating value (LHV) of the produced SNG depend on the production concepts. In
table 5 the SNG properties are presented for three gasifiers in the cases where the SNG is
produced from the FT off-gas as well as in the separate methanation. Furthermore, the
composition of the SNG stream is presented that is obtained when both streams are mixed in the
integrated co-production concepts. For illustration, also the composition of the Groningen
natural gas is included in table 5.

The major differences in the SNG streams are found between entrained flow gasification and the
other two gasification concepts. The SNG from indirect and CFB gasification contains large
amounts of C2 compounds that are already present in the gasification product gas. By entrained
flow gasification all hydrocarbons are converted mainly into CO, so the only C2 present is a
product from FT synthesis. Therefore, the SNG from entrained flow gasification consists mainly
of methane.

4.2 Economic evaluation

The five co-production systems are all technically feasible for the co-production of 50 PJ of
transportation fuels and 150 PJ of SNG per year to replace 10% of the national Dutch
consumption of these energy carriers. However, the major criterion for further development or
implementation is the economic feasibility. In this study, the CO2 reduction costs are used as
comparing value for the economic and ecological potential.

The assessment of the economic potential is carried out primarily with the same data, and under
the same assumptions, as the previous study on the “technical and economic feasibility of large-
scale synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock” [5]. The
input data for the evaluation are presented in appendix A. Most data are presented in a certain
(probability) range with a minimum, maximum, and expected value in order to enable
sensitivity and risk analysis of CO2 emission reduction costs, Net Present Value (NPV), and
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) towards the uncertainty in the assumptions made.

28 ECN-C--04-001
Table 5 SNG compositions for the evaluated integrated co-production concepts. N.B. all
presented gases have a Wobbe-index of 43.7 MJ/mn3 and are on specification for
addition to the Dutch natural gas grid. All H2 and CO are completely converted to
CH4

SNG composition CH4 CO2 N2 C2 C3 C4 LHV

[mol%] [mol%] [mol%] [mol%] [mol%] [mol%] [MJ/kg]
Indirect gasification [Indirect]
SNG from FT off-gas 63.0 16.6 - 20.2 0.1 0.1 33.9
Stand-alone SNG 73.6 14.1 - 12.3 - - 35.3
Mix SNG 67.5 15.5 - 16.8 0.1 0.1 34.4
Pressurised oxygen-blown CFB gasification [Pc-CFB(O2)]
SNG from FT off-gas 62.3 13.8 3.5 20.2 0.1 0.1 34.2
Stand-alone SNG 70.5 12.8 2.4 14.3 - - 35.1
Mix SNG 63.1 13.7 3.4 19.6 0.1 0.1 34.3
Entrained flow gasification [EF]
SNG from FT off-gas* - - - - - - -
Stand-alone SNG 88.7 9.5 1.8 - - - 37.7
Mix SNG 88.3 9.1 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 37.7
Groningen natural gas 81.3 0.9 14.4 2.9 0.4 0.1
* The quality of the product SNG from methanation of the FT off-gas is too good to meet the Wobbe-
index, i.e. addition of CO2 would be required. Therefore, this product is mixed with the stand-alone
produced SNG and the mix fraction is brought to the Wobbe-index specification by CO2 removal.

4.2.1 CO2 emission reduction costs

The expected values for the costs of CO2 emission reduction, as well as the NPV and IRR are
presented in table 6. With the NPV being negative for all concepts, co-production of “green” FT
transportation fuels and SNG will require some financial (governmental) incentives for
profitable energy investments. Furthermore, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the project has
to be considered as a negative discount rate at which the NPV of that project equals zero, which
means that providing a loan would cost interest instead of yielding it.

Table 6 CO2 emission reduction costs, NPV, and IRR for the five co-production concepts
(ranking in order of increasing CO2 reduction costs)

Co-production concepts CO2 reduction costs NPV IRR

[€/tonne] [109 €] [%]
Pressurised CFB(O2) 99 -3.0 -16.5
Indirect 107 -3.5 -17.8
Entrained flow & Pressurised CFB(O2) 117 -3.3 -16.6
Entrained flow & Indirect 124 -4.0 -18.6
Entrained flow 175 -6.4 -23.0

The uncertainties in the CO2 reduction costs, NPV, and IRR are the result of the uncertainties in
the assumptions and input data used for the feasibility study. In figure 9 (left plot) the
uncertainties in the CO2 costs are presented as cumulative probability distributions. The
cumulative probability distributions of the five different co-production concepts show
significant overlapping, making it difficult to draw a comparison between the economic and
ecological feasibility of the concepts.

ECN-C--04-001 29
The major contributors to these uncertainties, however, are biomass related (e.g. biomass
production capacity and price). These uncertainties apply equally to all concepts. Therefore,
cumulative probability distributions of the CO2 costs after exclusion of the uncertainties in
biomass production give a more relevant representation of the differences between the five
concepts. From the right plot of figure 9 can be seen that due to the exclusion of these major
uncertainties the curves become much steeper and less overlapping.

1 1

Mean=106.7
Cumulative probability [-]

Cumulative probability [-]

0.8 0.8
Mean=124.2 Mean=174.5

0.6 0.6

Indirect
0.4 Indirect 0.4
Mean=116.9 Pressurised O2 CFB
Pressurised O2 CFB
EF EF
0.2 Mean=98.5 0.2
Indirect & EF Indirect & EF

Pressurised O2 CFB & EF Pressurised O2 CFB & EF

0 0
40 75 110 145 180 215 250 40 75 110 145 180 215 250

Costs per tonne CO2 avoided [Euro/tonne] Costs per tonne CO2 avoided [Euro/tonne]

Figure 9 Cumulative probability distributions of the CO2 emission reduction costs for the five
co-production concepts, with the uncertainties in biomass production included (left)
and excluded (right)

Integrated co-production of FT-liquids and SNG by pressurised oxygen-blown CFB

gasification, or indirect gasification, is clearly economically more attractive than by entrained
flow gasification. Both concepts with parallel SNG production appear less interesting, however,
due to the large overlap of the probability curves the differences are not significant. The ranking
of the five concepts based on CO2 reduction costs correlates to the net energy efficiencies (cf.
table 4). Due to the (relatively) high biomass price used in this study (2.3 €/GJ), a lower
efficiency implies higher costs, as more biomass is required.

4.2.2 Break-even mineral oil price

The economic evaluation and the calculations of the CO2 emission reduction costs are based on
a mineral oil price of 20 $/barrel of crude oil. On the long term, increasing costs of mineral oil
should make the co-production of “green” FT transportation liquids and SNG from biomass
competitive without financial (governmental) incentives for energy investments. In other words,
the CO2 emission reduction costs will then be zero. In table 7 the break-even mineral oil prices
are shown for the five concepts. The break-even mineral oil prices are all well above the current
average price of 20 $/barrel.

The CO2 reduction costs for the integrated co-production options are in range with the energy
tax exemption that applies for “green electricity” in the Netherlands (viz. the MEP). When for
the green fuels a comparable taxation regulation would apply, short-term market
implementation of “green” FT transportation liquids and SNG would be made possible.

30 ECN-C--04-001
 Table 7 Break-even mineral oil prices at which CO2 emission
reduction costs are zero (ranking in order of increasing oil
price)

Break-even mineral oil price

[$/barrel]
Pressurised CFB(O2) 56.0
Indirect 57.9
Entrained flow & Pressurised CFB(O2) 62.5
Entrained flow & Indirect 64.4
Entrained flow 82.9

4.3 Integrated versus parallel co-production

The motivation to perform the current study was that co-production of FT transportation liquids
and SNG from biomass would result in higher biomass-to-fuel efficiencies compared to two
separate parallel production process. Resultantly, the economic perspectives of the fuel
production would be better.

Actually, the two co-production concepts with parallel SNG production, i.e. EF&Indirect and
EF&CFB(O2), can be considered as complete “separate” production concepts as in these cases
only 2% of the targeted amount of SNG is co-generated with the 1.75 GWth of FT-liquids. From
table 4 it follows that these concepts have a lower net energy efficiency than the integrated co-
production concepts based on indirect or pressurised CFB(O2) gasification. This proves that by
co-production the energy efficiency indeed can be increased. Correspondingly, the economic
and ecological perspectives, expressed as CO2 emission reduction costs, of the integrated co-
production concepts based on these concepts are better (cf. table 6).

In the study the annual amounts of FT transportation fuels and SNG to be produced were fixed
(at 50 PJ and 150 PJ, respectively). The conclusions of the study will not change when, for
example, equal production quantities of 100 PJ are taken. However, the lower the SNG/FT
production ratio, the more SNG can be produced by integrated co-production or by co-
generation. In that case the economic perspectives will improve compared to the cases assessed
in this study.

ECN-C--04-001 31
32 ECN-C--04-001
5. CONCLUSIONS
This study was directed towards the determination of the technical, economic, and ecological
feasibility of systems for the co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch liquid transportation
fuels and “green” Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) from biomass.

The major conclusions with respect to the technical feasibility of producing SNG as “spin-off”
product from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis are:
• Air-blown [A-CFB] or nitrogen-pressurised [PN-CFB(O2)] gasification concepts are not
suitable for co-production as due to the amount of nitrogen in the gas the Wobbe-index
specification for SNG cannot be met.
• There is no incentive to produce either SNG or FT-liquids with respect to optimising the
utilisation of biomass, as the conversion efficiencies to both energy carriers are essentially
equal for a chosen gasification concept.
• The product ratio of SNG and FT-liquids can be controlled by the CO-conversion (ηc) and
chain growth factor (α) in the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. At decreasing values of ηc and α,
increasing amounts of SNG can be co-produced.
• The overall efficiencies (of both FT-liquids and SNG) are in the same range for all
gasification concepts, except for entrained flow [EF] gasification that has a much lower
efficiency (i.e. 10-15%-points). This is a result from the high concentrations of CH4 and C2
compounds already present in the product gases from CFB and indirect gasifiers.
• The efficiency to FT-liquids is much higher for EF gasification (e.g. almost threefold
compared to pressurised CFB gasification) resulting from the presence of all the chemical
energy in the gas as syngas compounds (CO and H2), which is available for FT synthesis.
• Additional SNG can be produced either by “Integrated co-production”, in which a side-
stream of the product gas of the gasifier is used for dedicated methanation or by “Parallel
co-production”, in which part of the biomass is fed to a second (other type of) gasifier
coupled to a dedicated stand-alone methanation.
• Integrated or parallel SNG co-production is preferred over changing the FT synthesis
conditions (•, •c), as it is optimal to operate the FT synthesis at maximum α (i.e. α= 0.95).

In the economic evaluation the amounts of Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels and SNG to be
produced were fixed at 10% of the current Dutch consumption, i.e. 50 and 150 PJ, respectively.
The major conclusions with respect to the economic evaluation are:
• The integrated co-production concepts have higher net energy efficiencies compared to the
parallel production concepts (i.e. 71-73% versus 68-69%) and, resultantly, require the least
biomass input. The exception is the integrated entrained flow co-production concept, which
has an efficiency of only 58% due to the absence of SNG C1-C4 compounds in the product
gas.
• None of the co-production concepts is economically feasible at current conditions and with a
biomass price of 2.3 €/GJ, as follows from the negative net present values (NPV) of 3.0 to
6.4 billion euros. The concepts would become economic feasible at mineral oil prices above
56 $/barrel crude oil (in the study a current crude oil price of 20 $/barrel is assumed).
• The corresponding CO2 emission reduction costs range from 99 to 175 €/tonne. The trend in
CO2 costs corresponds to the trend in efficiencies. The lower value is just in the range of the
energy tax exemption for “green power” in the Netherlands of 100 €/tonne.
• In general, pressurised oxygen-blow CFB gasification [PC-CFB(O2)] and Indirect
gasification are the most suitable technology for co-production (see figure 10). This is due to
the presence of already large amounts of methane and C2 components in the product gases
from gasification.

ECN-C--04-001 33
 FT liquids

FT-synthesis Methanation
Biomass PC-CFB (O2)
or Indirect SNG
Gasification
Methanation

Figure 10 Optimal system for co-production of 50 PJ/yr “green” Fischer-Tropsch

transportation fuels and 150 PJ/yr “green” substitute natural gas (SNG),
which corresponds to 10% of the 2001 consumption

The main conclusion of the study is that the co-production of Fischer-Tropsch transportation
fuels and substitute natural gas (SNG) from biomass is economically more feasible than the
production of both energy carriers in separate processes. The net biomass-to-fuel energy
efficiency is higher, less biomass is required, and the NPVs are less negative (i.e. lower CO 2
emission reduction costs).

The co-production of “green” Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels and “green” SNG will
become an economically feasible process in the Netherlands, when both energy carriers receive
the same tax exemptions as is currently given to green electricity or at crude mineral oil prices
above 56 $ per barrel.

34 ECN-C--04-001
REFERENCES
1. Shell (1995): The evolution of the world's energy system 1860-2020. Shell International,
London, 1995.
2. WEC (1995): Global energy perspectives to 2050 and beyond. World Energy Council,
London.
3. ECN: Energie Verslag Nederland 2000.
4. ECN: Nationale Energie Verkenningen 1995-2020 – Trends en thema's. March 1998.
5. Calis, H.P.A.; Haan, J.P.; Peppink, G.; Boerrigter, H.; Drift, A. van der; Venderbosch, R.J.;
Faaij, A.P.C.; Broek, R. van den: Technical and economic feasibility of large scale
synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock - a Strategic
Decision Analysis study, Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass and Waste, Expert
Meeting, 30 September - 1 October 2002, Strasbourg, France.
6. Boerrigter, H. et al. ECN report CX-04-004, in preparation.
7. Boerrigter, H.; Uil, H. den; Calis, H.-P.: Green diesel from biomass via Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis: new insights in gas cleaning and process design, Pyrolysis and Gasification of
Biomass and Waste, Bridgewater, A.V. (ed.), CPL press, Newbury, United Kingdom,
2003, pp. 371-383.
8. (a) Boerrigter, H.; Drift, A. van der: Liquid fuels from solid biomass: The ECN concept(s)
for integrated FT-diesel production systems, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands
(ECN), Petten, The Netherlands, report RX--03-060, October 2003, 18 pp.
(b) Boerrigter, H.; Uil, H. den: Green diesel from biomass by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis:
new insights in gas cleaning and process design, Energy research Centre of the
Netherlands (ECN), Petten, The Netherlands, report RX--03-047, July 2003, 15 pp.
9. Physical properties of natural gases. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, June 1988.
10. Phyllis, ECN database on the composition of biomass and waste materials (www.
Phyllis.nl).
11. Catalyst Handbook. second edition, Edited by M.V. Twigg, ISBN 1874545359, 1996.
12. Mozaffarian, M.; Zwart, R.W.R.: Feasibility of SNG production by biomass hydro-
gasification. ECN-CX--01-115, June 2002.
13. Physical properties of natural gases. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, June 1988.
14. Bergman, P.C.A.; Van Paasen, S.V.B.; Boerrigter, H. The novel “OLGA” technology for
complete tar removal from biomass producer gas, Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass
and Waste, Expert Meeting, 30 September - 1 October 2002, Strasbourg, France.
15. Corporate Finance Live: http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/bp/app/cfldemo/.
16. ECN results 2003, to be published elsewhere.

ECN-C--04-001 35
36 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUT DATA 39
APPENDIX B GASIFICATION 41
APPENDIX C SYNTHESIS PROCESSES 43
APPENDIX D UTILITIES 49
APPENDIX E DUTCH NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE & REQUIREMENTS 53
APPENDIX F BIOMASS CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES 57
APPENDIX G SIMPLIFIED ENERGY BALANCES 61
LITERATURE AND REFERENCES IN APPENDICES 63

ECN-C--04-001 37
38 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX A ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUT DATA

In this appendix selected input data concerning biomass properties, investment costs, and
economic parameters are summarised. Most data in table 8 are derived from reference [1].

Table 8 Selected data and assumptions used for the feasibility study

Parameter Minimum Expected value Maximum Unit

General
Dollar exchange rate 0.91 1.13 1.36 €/$
Dutch electricity price - 40 - €/MWh
Dutch required IRR 0.09 0.12 0.15
Interest rate 4 6 8 %
Mineral oil costs 15 20 26 $/barrel
Specific CO2 emission natural gas - 56.0 - kg/GJ
Specific CO2 emission transportation fuels - 81.1 - kg/GJ

Biomass related
Biomass price - 2.3 - €/GJ
Biomass production 2 - 10 tonnedry/acre/yr
Bulk density logs 310 - 375 kg/m³
Bulk density residues 200 - 300 kg/m³
Calorific value logs (HHVdaf) 19 20 21 GJ/tonne
Calorific value residues (HHVdaf) 19 20 21 GJ/tonne
Moisture content logs (wt.%wet) 0.25 0.30 0.50 -
Moisture content residues (wt.%wet) 0.25 0.30 0.50 -
Volume percentage of residues in biomass 0.30 0.50 0.70 -

Plant related
Investment air separation 2.355 2.944 3.532 M€/(kg/s)
Investment indirect gasifier 0.120 0.150 0.285 M€/MWth,dry,in
Investment CO2 compression 800 850 900 €/kW
Investment CO2 removal 0.011 0.014 0.017 M€/MWth,syngas
Investment EF gasifier 0.075 0.084 0.092 M€/MWth,dry,in
Investment Fischer-Tropsch synthesis 12 14 16 k$/bpd
Investment fuel gas compression 0.022 0.027 0.032 M€/MWth,syngas
Investment methanation 30.8 41.1 51.3 M€/GWth
Investment Press.O2 blown CFB gasifier 0.080 0.100 0.190 M€/MWth,dry,in
Investment steam system 428 547 667 k€/(kg/s)
Investment water-gas-shift 0.009 0.011 0.013 M€/MWth,syngas
Plant capacity factor 0.85 0.90 0.95 -

ECN-C--04-001 39
40 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX B GASIFICATION

Gasification is a technology that converts solid fuel (such as biomass) into a gaseous fuel
consisting mainly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. After cleaning, the produced gas can be
used as fuel gas for power generation, or as syngas in the (petro) chemical industry. In the latter
case, the gas can also be used to produce liquid fuels or hydrogen (after additional reforming
and shifting) or upgraded to substitute natural gas (after additional methanation and gas
conditioning) and distributed through the existing gas infrastructure.

B.1 Circulated Fluidised Bed (CFB) gasifier

Three out of five gasifiers are based on Circulated Fluidised Bed gasification, either with air or
oxygen as gasifying agent and operated either at atmospheric or elevated pressure (20 bar). The
gasifying agent is fed to a riser at the bottom (primary) or at several axial positions (secondary).
The biomass fuel is introduced just above the primary inlet of the gasifying medium. Before
gasification the fuel has to be dried to 15% moisture and chipped to about 30 mm.

Oxygen versus air blown gasification

The application of oxygen instead of air avoids the dilution of syngas with nitrogen. As a result
the heating value of the cooled and purified syngas is higher and the syngas volume is about
half that for an air-blown unit for the same amount of biomass gasification energy, thus gas
handling and cleanup requires smaller units. Furthermore, the sizes of the gasifier and the heat
exchangers, required for the recovery of sensible heat from the syngas, are reduced. The main
disadvantage of oxygen-blown gasification is that it has been far less developed than air-blown
gasification and that production of oxygen is expensive.

Pressurised Atmospheric
CFB Syngas CFB Syngas
Gas Gas
clean-up clean-up
Biomass Biomass Compression

Chipping / Chipping /
Drying Drying

O2 Air / O
2
Compression

Figure 11 Schematic presentation of a pressurised (left) and atmospheric CFB gasifier (right)

Atmospheric versus pressurised gasification

The net cold gas efficiency of a pressurised gasification system decreases with increasing
operating pressures. The overall system efficiency, however, will not be determined solely by
the cold gas efficiency, but also by the electricity consumption of the system. Considering
power generation from or upgrading of the gas from the gasifier (e.g. FT-synthesis or
methanation to SNG) the syn- or product gas will be utilised at elevated pressures. By gasifying
at elevated pressures, compression of the product gas from the gasifier is not necessary. On the
other hand, compression of gasifier inlet gases, e.g. CO2 or N2 (for the compression of the
biomass fed to the gasifier) and air or oxygen (as gasifying medium), will be required. The
reduction of the electricity consumption will compensate for the reduction of cold gas

ECN-C--04-001 41
efficiency; hence, pressurised gasification will lead to a higher overall net efficiency of the
process. A schematic presentation of a pressurised as well as an atmospheric CFB gasifier is
presented in figure 11.

Nitrogen versus carbon dioxide pressurisation

For compression of the biomass fed to a pressurised gasifier both nitrogen and carbon dioxide
can be used. The choice for either of the two may depend on the availability on a specific site.
Both CO2 and N2 will dilute the product gas. However, CO2 in contrast to N2 can easily be
removed from the gas thus allowing ‘upgrading’ of the gas.

B.2 Indirect gasifier

Within the indirect gasification concept the energy required by for the gasification process is
obtained from the combustion of char in a secondary reactor. A schematic presentation of the
process with global energy duties is presented in figure 12. Typical gasification temperatures are
800-900°C. The advantage of indirect gasification is that a nitrogen-free gas is produced. As the
gasification and combustion are separated the N2 of the air supplied to the reactor will end up in
the flue gas and not in the product gas.

Fuelgas Fluegas
80% chem. 12%
10% sens.

Char 25%
Fuel
100% Pyrolysis Combustion
1% loss 2% loss
Energy 16%

Air
Steam 5%

Figure 12 Schematic diagram of the indirect

gasification concept

B.3 Entrained flow gasifiers

In contrast to the other gasifiers an entrained flow (EF) gasifier is operated without bed material
(e.g. sand). The (pulverised) feed and the gasifying medium are supplied to the reactor at high
velocity and pass the reactor in plug-flow while the biomass is gasified. Typically, oxygen is
used instead of air as the gasifying medium, in order to achieve high conversion efficiencies
despite the low residence time in the reactor. Similarly, the feed needs to be pulverised to less
than 1 mm.

42 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX C SYNTHESIS PROCESSES
C.1 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

C.1.1 Reactions
The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis was discovered in 1923 by F. Fischer and H. Tropsch at the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Coal Research in Mülheim, Germany [2]. In the catalytic Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, one mole of CO reacts with two moles of H2 to form mainly aliphatic
straight-chain hydrocarbons (CxHy) and minor amounts of olefins (alkenes) and alcohols;
equation (9). The methylene group –(CH2)– shown in this equation is used to represent the
hydrocarbon chain. About 20% of the initial chemical energy is released as heat in this
exothermic reaction:

CO + 2H 2 ⇒ −(CH 2 ) − + H 2 O (9)

Typical operation conditions for FT-synthesis, when aiming for long-chain products, are
temperatures of 200-250°C and pressures of 25-60 bar [3]. Typical FT catalysts are based on
iron or cobalt. As follows from this equation, the FT reaction consumes hydrogen and carbon
monoxide in a ratio of H2/CO equal to 2. When the ratio in the feed gas is lower, it can be
adjusted with the water-gas shift (WGS) reaction, equation (10):

CO + H 2 O ⇔ CO 2 + H 2 (10)

Iron-based FT catalysts show considerable WGS activity and the H2/CO ratio is adjusted in the
synthesis reactor. In case of cobalt-based catalysts the ratio needs to be adjusted prior to FT-
synthesis. The polymerisation-like chain-growth FT reaction results in a range of products,
comprising light hydrocarbons (C1-C2), LPG (C3-C4), naphtha (C5-C11), diesel (C9-C20), and wax
(>C20) fractions. The distribution of the products depends on the catalyst and the process
operation conditions. The chain length distribution can be described by means of the Anderson-
Schulz-Flory (ASF) equation, which is represented as [3]:

log
Wn
= n ⋅ log α + log
(1 − α )
2
(11)
n α

where Wn is the mass fraction of a product consisting of n carbon atoms and α the chain growth
probability factor. Higher values of α give more high molecular weight products. The value of
α is characteristic of the particular catalyst employed in the Fischer-Tropsch process, and
depending on the needs of a particular production process, catalysts can be tailored towards the
production of predominantly low or higher molecular weight hydrocarbons. In practice, there is
often a deviation from the ideal ASF distribution with regards to the lower hydrocarbon yields.
C1 yields are usually higher than predicted, whereas C2 (as well as C3 and C4) yields are often
lower than predicted as shown in figure 13 [4].

ECN-C--04-001 43
 Figure 13 ASF as well as experimental distribution of FT product yields

In order to correct for this deviation, the C1 to C4 yields are calculated according to equations
(12) and (13), whereas the yields of the higher hydrocarbons (C5+) are calculated according to
the ASF distribution, i.e. equation (11).

∞
W1 = 1
2 (1 − ∑ Wi ) (12)
i =5
∞
W 2, 3, 4 = 6 (1 − ∑ Wi )
1 (13)
i =5

With respect to the production of “green” diesel, process conditions can be selected to produce
maximum amounts of products in the diesel-range. However, an even higher yield of diesel can
be achieved when the FT-synthesis is optimised towards production of wax. The wax can be
selectively cracked to yield predominantly diesel. For this hydrocracking additional hydrogen is
required, which can be produced from a syngas side-stream that is completely shifted to
hydrogen via the WGS reaction.

C.1.2 Economics
A detailed consideration of the economics of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is a complex matter as
all commercial implementations have been driven by either political (Germany, South Africa) or
strategic (Shell) considerations rather than by straightforward economics [5]. The total
investment for the first commercial Shell project is about $660 million for the 12,000 bbl/day
Bintulu project [6], whereas a single module of the Sasol slurry phase distillate plant, that
converts natural gas into 10,000 bbl/day of liquid transport fuels, costs about $250 million [7].
Several studies, however, mention that there is a large incentive to reduce capital cost of the
Fischer-Tropsch process.

With an expected capacity of approximately 25,000 bbl/day (i.e. 1.75 GWth2) and an assumed
location factor of 1.25 [8] the specific costs of a Fischer-Tropsch installation are estimated to be
between 30 and 40 k$/bpd with an expected value of 35 k$/bpd. These costs include oxygen
plant and gas purification, synthesis gas generation, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and product
upgrade. The relative distribution of capital expenditure for the various phases is presented in

2
The lower heating value of Fischer-Tropsch liquids is estimated to be 36.3 MJ/litre or 5.66 GJ/barrel, with 1 barrel
(bbl) equals to 159 litres

44 ECN-C--04-001
figure 14 [9]. According to this cost breakdown the actual Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and
product upgrading make up for only 40% of the total plant costs, hence the capital expenditure
of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and product upgrading will be between 12 and 16 k$/bpd with
an expected value of 14 k$/bpd.

10%

35%

Oxygen plant and gas purification

Synthesis gas generation
Fischer-Tropsch
30%
Product upgrade

25%

Figure 14 Typical cost breakdown of the Fischer-Tropsch installation with natural gas feed
stock

The operational expenditure of the SMDS process is approximately $10 per barrel. These costs
consist of fixed and variable operating costs as well as feedstock costs. According to Eilers et
al. [6], the fixed and variable operating costs are approximately $4 per barrel. This amount
corresponds well to the non-feedstock operating costs for gas-to-liquids plants mentioned by
Gaffney, Cline & Associates ($4-$4.5 per barrel) [9] and by Sasol ($5 per barrel) [7]. Within
this study, therefore, the operational expenditures will be estimated to be between 4 and
5.5 $/bbl with an expected value of $4.5 per barrel.

C.2 Methanation

C.2.1 Reactions
In the methanation step, carbon monoxide is converted to methane according to reaction:

CO + 3H2 ⇔ CH4 + H2O (14)

Also, either the forward or reverse of the water-gas shift reaction takes place.

CO + H2O ⇔ CO 2 + H2 (15)

The methanation reactions are highly exothermic. Such high heat releases strongly affect the
process design of the methanation plant since it is necessary to prevent excessively high
temperatures in order to avoid catalyst deactivation and carbon laydown. The maximum yield of
methane will be at low temperatures. At temperatures to 300°C a 99% conversion or better will
be reached [10]. High pressures, up to 100 bar, can improve the conversion at higher
temperatures.

Beside the above-mentioned reactions, the conditions mainly at the inlet of a methanation
reactor are such that thermodynamically carbon could be formed via reactions:
2CO ⇔ CO 2 + C (16)

ECN-C--04-001 45
CO + H2 ↔ H2O + C (17)

Also cracking reactions of alkenes and aromatic compounds can lead to carbon formation [11].
Since carbon formation and carbon laydown would plug the catalyst bed, for practical operation
of methanation it is essential to avoid the undesired carbon forming reactions. These reactions
may be avoided by operating the methanation reactors under conditions where carbon is not a
stable phase.

Commercial methanation catalysts are mainly in the form of nickel metal dispersed on a support
consisting of various oxide mixtures, such as alumina, silica, lime and magnesia, together with
compounds such as calcium aluminate cements. Nickel catalysts are extremely sensitive to
sulphides and chlorides. Sulphur compounds affect the nickel catalyst through the reaction of
hydrogen sulphide with nickel. Hydrogen chloride is a permanent irreversible poison to the
methanation activity of nickel catalyst; an HCl/HF concentration of less than 25 ppb would be
admissible for nickel catalysts [11].

C.2.2 Economics
In 2001 Polman et al. performed a study on the conversion of biomass into a sustainable gas by
means of an internally cooled methanation reactor. Synthesis gas from either an atmospheric or
pressurised oxygen-blown gasifier at 15 bar is (compressed to 15 bar) cleaned, methanated (at
15 bar), and dried in order to produce SNG suitable for the natural gas grid. The costs of the
promotion of synthesis gas to natural gas quality were based on investment costs, maintenance
costs (4% of the investment costs), costs of chemicals and of waste disposal [11].

Considering a 100 MWth gasifier the capital costs presented by them are given in table 9.
Besides the thermal biomass input, the thermal synthesis gas input of the gas upgrading section
is also presented. The operational costs are presented in table 10. The CO2 removal is based on
membrane separation techniques. The thorough gas clean up is required mainly for the removal
of sulphuric and halide elements. The consumption of electricity is almost completely linked to
compression/expansion of gases. The costs of adding THT (tetra-hydro thiophene), used for
odourisation of the SNG, are relatively low and are therefore not mentioned in the breakdown of
the operational costs.

Table 9 Capital costs of upgrading synthesis gas to SNG (Gastec/Kema)

Capital costs 100 MWth gasifier at 1.2 bar 100 MWth gasifier at 15 bar
[M€] (78.88 MWth) (79.78 MWth)
Compression 3.6 -
Thorough gas clean-up 0.7 0.8
Methanation 2.6 2.8
Drying 1.1 1.2
CO2 removal 1.6 1.8
Delivery 0.4 0.5
Total 10.0 7.1

46 ECN-C--04-001
 Table 10 Operational costs of upgrading synthesis gas to SNG (Gastec/Kema)

Operational costs 100 MWth gasifier at 1.2 bar 100 MWth gasifier at 15 bar
[M€] (78.88 MWth) (79.78 MWth)
Operation 0.1 0.1
Maintenance 0.4 0.3
Adsorbents 1.5 1.5
Catalyst 0.3 0.3
Electricity 1.7 -0.4
Waste disposal 0.1 0.1
Total 4.0 1.8

Within this study capital and operational expenditures (CAPEX and OPEX) of the upgrading
will, as far as methanation, drying and gas delivery, be based on the costs mentioned by Polman
et al. [11].

ECN-C--04-001 47
48 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX D UTILITIES
D.1 CO2 removal
In order to obtain a SNG that matches the standard quality of natural gas, it might be necessary
to remove carbon dioxide from the SNG. For the separation of carbon dioxide from methane,
several technologies can be used [10], some selected technologies are briefly discussed in this
section.

D.1.1 Membrane separation of CO2

Gas separation by membranes is based on the differences in permeation coefficients of different
gas components. Permeation denotes the sequence of absorption (solution) of the component in
the membrane material, diffusion through the membrane, and desorption. Membranes may
consist of ceramic or metallic materials, organic liquids, or polymers [12]. Since the upgraded
gas with reduced CO2 content is retained at the high-pressure side of the membrane, it leaves the
upgrading process at high pressure, which means that the need for further compression prior to
its introduction to a gas grid is reduced or eliminated. Typical operating pressures are in the
range of 25 to 40 bar [10]. The efficiency of membrane separation varies between 73 and 83%,
with an energy efficiency (energy input related to energy output) of approximately 10% [13].
The specific investment costs of membrane systems for syngas to SNG upgrading are
approximately 215 to 270 €/(mn3SNG/h) [11]. As membrane separation will be a modular based
process, cost reduction as a result of large scale processing is limited.

D.1.2 Absorption of CO2

Numerous proven chemical and physical absorption processes are available for removing,
among others, carbon dioxide, with an efficiency of approximately 95% [13]. Physical
absorption processes are used predominantly to remove carbon dioxide from gases with high
carbon dioxide partial pressure, especially converted gases produced in partial oxidation plants
based on coal and residual oil. Here the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is above the level
appropriate for economic application of chemical absorption systems. Chemical absorption
processes (normal amine-based) are used widely, especially for crude gas containing carbon
dioxide at low partial pressure. The selection of amine is influenced by specific process
conditions such as the presence of further impurities in the raw gas.

D.1.3 Comparison of CO2 removal techniques

Within the study on CO2 capture from power stations the combined use of membranes and
scrubbing solvents to remove CO2 was highlighted [14]. In most cases it has been found
extremely viable to operate such units in series, with the membrane removing the bulk of the
gas and the chemical solvent cleaning up the trace quantities. Considering SNG production, it
however will not be necessary to remove trace quantities of carbon dioxide, as they will not
result in problems when adding the SNG to the natural gas grid. Hence, bulk removal of carbon
dioxide will be sufficient and, therefore, membrane separation seems to be the most interesting
option [11]. In case of FT-synthesis, maximum CO2 removal is required at elevated pressure. As
membrane systems usually cannot achieve high degrees of separation they will require multiple
stages or recycling of one of the streams necessary. The multiplicity of required membrane
modules will make the membrane system less and physical absorption processes more
interesting [15].

ECN-C--04-001 49
D.2 Oxygen production
In the late 1800s, various attempts were made to separate oxygen from air on a commercial
scale. These all relied on chemical processes employing thermal cycling. Nowadays mainly
three technologies for commercial oxygen production are commercially available, i.e. cryogenic
separation, pressure-swing adsorption, and membrane air separation. Cryogenic air separation is
the O2 production technique commonly used when large capacities are required as well as the
technique that enables production of highly pure oxygen (>99.5%).

Cryogenic separation can be applied technology for oxygen production up to 2250 tonnes of
gaseous oxygen per day and production costs of 35-75 $/tonne of oxygen. Cryogenic air
separation involves three steps:
1. Purification of the incoming air to remove particles, carbon dioxide, and water;
2. Refrigeration and economisation of refrigeration values contained in the product and waste
streams;
3. Separation by distillation.

Filtered air compressed to 6-7 bar is cooled and scrubbed in a direct-contact water wash tower
(a) and then directed into a plate-fin reversing heat exchanger (b), where it is cooled further in
counter-flow to product oxygen and waste nitrogen (figure 15). Carbon dioxide and water are
removed from the air stream by condensation and solidification in this heat exchanger. Every
few minutes, the paths of the incoming air and the waste nitrogen streams are reversed so that
deposited impurities can be purged from the exchanger. In this way, the process is able to
operate continuously on a cyclic basis. State-of-the-art plants are, however, being constructed
with molecular sieve adsorption units, in place of the reversing heat exchangers. After carbon
dioxide and water removal, the incoming air is cooled by cold waste gas in counter-flow heat
exchangers.

Figure 15 Cryogenic air separation plant

Refrigeration for this process is achieved primarily by the Claude principle of conversion of
energy into work by the expansion of a compressed gas in a turbine. Some of the cooled air is
returned through the cold end of the heat exchanger before expansion to ca. 1.2 bar in a turbine
(c), and then introduced at an appropriate point in the upper, low-pressure column of the double
column rectifier (d). The remainder of the air passes into the lower, high-pressure column at
5-6 bar where it is separated into nitrogen gas at the top and oxygen-enriched liquid (38% O2) at
the bottom. Gaseous nitrogen is condensed by liquid oxygen (which is vaporised) in the

50 ECN-C--04-001
condenser-reboiler (e). Part of this liquid nitrogen is returned as reflux to the lower column, and
part is expanded into the top of the upper column as reflux liquid. The oxygen-enriched liquid
(rich liquid) from the sump of the lower column is expanded as feed into an appropriate point in
the upper column. The reflux liquids used are sub-cooled by returning nitrogen in the heat
exchanger (f), to reduce the amount of liquid vaporised on expansion. In the upper column, the
feed is separated into pure oxygen (>99.5%) at the bottom and waste nitrogen with 1-2%
oxygen at the top. The adsorber (g), packed with silica gel, removes trace hydrocarbon matter
from liquid oxygen in the condenser-reboiler and from the rich liquid, ensuring that unsafe
hydrocarbon concentrations do not accumulate in the process. In table 11 the most important
parameters of cryogenic air separation are presented [16].

Table 11 General cryogenic air separation parameters

Cryogenic air separation 118.9 kg/s O2(g)

Power requirement 135.1 MWe
Outlet pressure O2(g) 1 atm.
Outlet pressure N2(g) 1 atm.
Investment costs [17] 280 ~ 420 M€
Scale O2-plant (more trains) 9000 tonnes O2/day

As the gaseous oxygen is obtained at atmospheric pressure and is required at elevated pressure,
additional costs concerning the compression of oxygen have to be taken into account. The costs
of compression of oxygen from 1 atmosphere to either 20 or 40 bar are presented in table 12.

Table 12 Costs of compression of oxygen

Oxygen compression 1.0 kg/s O2(g)

Compression 1 atm. • 20 bar3 0.55 MW
Compression 1 atm. • 40 bar 0.77 MW
Investment costs [18] 850 €/kW

D.3 HRSG section with steam turbine

Within the Heat Recovery Steam Generation section (HRSG) flue gases are cooled as far as
possible in order to produce a maximum amount of steam. The superheated steam, produced in
the HRSG, is expanded in a partly condensing steam turbine, producing an amount of electricity
in a turbine-coupled generator. The expanded steam, mainly vapour, is subsequently condensed
completely in a surface water-cooled condenser. After de-aerating of the water, it is compressed
to a pressure of 66 bar by water pumps, and fed to the boiler feed water heater in the HRSG. As
steam is withdrawn at several pressure levels for shifting purposes, the HRSG will require a
certain amount of fresh water. Within a study on long term perspectives of biomass integrated
gasification with combined cycle technology the costs of a HRSG section with steam turbine
were presented for state of the art, as well as advanced systems at three different scales, as
presented within table 13.

3
Compression power has been calculated within the Aspen Plus flow sheet simulation package

ECN-C--04-001 51
 Table 13 Investment costs of the HRSG section with steam turbine

Investment costs [M€] Amount of steam

13.2 kg/s 26.4 kg/s 44.4 kg/s
HRSG 2.4 ~ 3.3 4.4 ~ 6.0 8.8 ~ 11.9
Steam turbine & condenser 3.2 ~ 4.3 5.4 ~ 7.4 9.9 ~ 13.4
Water & steam system 0.3 ~ 0.4 0.5 ~ 0.7 1.1 ~ 1.5
Cooling 0.7 ~ 0.9 0.9 ~ 1.2 1.1 ~ 1.5
Total 6.6 ~ 8.8 11.3 ~ 15.2 21.0 ~ 28.3

The cost estimations on HRSG and steam turbine within this study are based on these cost
figures, with a minimum, maximum and expected value of the total investment costs of 428, 667
and 547 k€ per kg/s steam.

52 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX E DUTCH NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE &
REQUIREMENTS

In the Netherlands, Gasunie is responsible for the gas transport and providing the gas to the
customers, viz. the Dutch gas supply companies, large industrial consumers, and for gas export
to some European countries. Gasunie [19] buys natural gas from a large number of producers
that supply the gas via feeding stations at a pressure of around 65 bar. The main supplier is
NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij), the company that operates the 29 well clusters on
the Groningen field. Additionally, a small volume of gas is imported from Norway.

E.1 Transmission infrastructure

The Gasunie transmission system comprises approximately 11,000 km of natural gas pipelines
plus plants and equipment for compressing, blending, metering, and regulating the different gas
flows (see figure 16 [20]). The pipeline diameters range from 45 up to 120 cm. The pipes are
made of various grades of steel and a cathodic protection system against corrosion.

High-pressure Transmission Lines

Gasunie’s High-pressure Transmission Lines (HTL) network has a length of 5,000 km. It
comprises 48-inch pipes, carrying gas at pressures in the range 43 to 66 bar, and occasionally as
high as 80 bar. The gas enters the system at either producers’ gas conditioning stations on the
gas fields, or at import stations on the border. Nine compressor stations maintain the pipeline
pressure at every 80-100 km in the HTL network. HTL end points are the metering and
regulating stations (M&R), which form the link between the HTL and the Regional
Transmission Lines (RTL) networks, and the export stations.

Regional Transmission Lines

Gasunie’s RTL network has a total length of 6,000 km. The operating pressure generally ranges
from 16 to 40 bar. The RTL network is supplied from the HTL network via the M&R stations.
At M&R stations, the pressure in the HTL system is reduced to an operating pressure of not
more than 40 bar. Another function performed at the M&R stations is to give the gas its
characteristic smell, i.e. odourisation of the odour-free gas by adding tetrahydrothiophene
(THT) at a rate of 18 mg/m³. Odourisation is mainly for the benefit of the domestic consumer.
Heavier business and institutional users will often have their own gas detection systems. M&R
stations also supply measurement data relating to pressure and flow, which are vital for the
control of the gas flows in the network.

The gas networks of the gas supply companies operate at pressures of 8 bar or lower. The
pressure drop of more than 30 bar (RTL stations), and as much as 60 bar (HTL stations) is
accompanied by a substantial drop in temperature. To prevent exit temperatures from falling too
low, the gas is preheated. By the time the gas enters domestic gas pipes, the relative pressure is
down to 25 millibar, the standard appliance pressure in the Netherlands.

ECN-C--04-001 53
 Figure 16 The main gas transmission system (end 2000)

E.1.1 Specifications
The supplied gas has to meet strict specifications, regarding composition, Wobbe-index,
calorific value, and relative density. Fifteen blending stations mix gas streams from different

54 ECN-C--04-001
sources to produce the desired qualities. The specification of natural gas with Groningen quality
(G-gas) is presented in table 14.

Table 14 Composition of natural gas with

Groningen quality

Natural gas [21]

CH4 [mol.%] 81.30
H2 [mol.%] 0.00
CO2 [mol.%] 0.89
C2 [mol.%] 2.85
C3 [mol.%] 0.37
C4+ [mol.%] 0.23
N2 [mol.%] 14.35
O2 [mol.%] 0.01
H2O [mol.%] Dew-point < -10ºC
CO [mol.%] 0.00
Wobbe [MJ/mn³] 43.70

Not all natural gas is the same as Groningen gas. In the North Sea large amounts of high-
calorific gas are released during the extraction of mineral oil, as associated gas, with high
concentration of high hydrocarbons. Also many of the small fields contain gas of high calorific
value (H-gas), while others contain gas of low calorific value (L-gas), rich in carbon
dioxide [22]. Since the gas appliances of nearly all Dutch consumers are designed for G-gas,
various facilities are needed in order to supply the different groups of customers with the
required gas quality:

q To serve large industrial users, whose installations could be converted to operation on

H-gas, an extra system of main transmission pipelines was built;
q H-gas and L-gas were mixed to produce a gas of Groningen quality, which could be
introduced into the main transmission system for G-gas;
q H-gas was diluted with nitrogen to achieve Groningen quality before introduction into the
G-gas pipelines.4

E.2 Potential & requirements for SNG transport

As the produced SNG would be transported through the natural gas net, it has to satisfy the
requirements concerning the Wobbe-index and composition that are set to the G-gas. The
specification of the G-gas delivered by Gasunie to energy distribution companies is presented in
table 15 [10,11]. Also the requirements concerning the SNG, according to Gastec study [11], are
given in this table.

The quality of Groningen natural gas is related to a Wobbe-index of about 43.7 MJ/mn3. The
SNG should also have a composition resulting in a comparable Wobbe-index. Furthermore,
there are a number of compounds in SNG that are not present in Groningen natural gas. The
assumed requirements for these compounds are, among others, based on the MAC-values and
sensitivity to corrosion [11]. The water content of SNG should be reduced, in order to achieve a
dew point lower than -10ºC (at the gas-delivery pressure). This prevents condensation problems
within the gas net [23], and therefore, corrosion problems [19].

4
Groningen gas itself contains no less than 14.35% nitrogen.

ECN-C--04-001 55
Table 15 Specification of the G-gas delivered by Gasunie to energy distribution companies
and the requirements concerning SNG, according to Gastec as well as to the Danish
and Swedish centre

Component or quality G-gas SNG [11] SNG [10]

Wobbe-index [MJ/mn3] 43.46< W <44.41 43.46< W <44.41 *

H2 [mol%] - <12 <12

CO [mol%] - <0.8 <1
O2 [mol%] <0.5 (wet net) <2.5 (dry net) <0.5 (wet) & <4 (dry)
C2H4 [mol%] - conform Wobbe -
BTX (incl. naftalene) [ppm] <500 <500 -
Aromatic comp. [g/mn³] - - <10
HCl [ppm] - <1 -
NH3 - <1 ppm <3 NH3
HCN - <10 ppm <150 mg/mn³
H2O Dew-point < -10ºC Dew-point < -10ºC Not any liquid at any P or
T in the grid
H2S [mg/mn³] <5 <2 <6
Mercaptanes [mg/mn³] <10.0 <5.0 <5
S total [mg/mn³] <45 <25 <120
Hg [mg/mn³] 0 <0.01 -
Dust [mg/mn³] 0 <0.5 0
THT [mg/mn³] >10 and <30 >10 and <30 -
* The Wobbe-index will be dependent on the reference natural gas. Nearly all natural gases in Europe are within
high quality limits (between 46 and 57), however Dutch natural gas is within low quality limits (between 38 and 47)

56 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX F BIOMASS CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES

In this appendix the plots (in figure 17 through figure 20) are presented for the conversion
efficiencies from biomass to FT liquids and SNG as function of the CO conversion (ηC) in the
FT synthesis and the α ASF product distribution parameter. The FT liquids are subdivided into
the C5-C10 fraction and the C11+ fraction. Furthermore, a plot over the summarised yield is
presented. N.B. the gasification efficiencies are incorporated. The data are summarised in
table 16.

Results for co-production with four gasification processes are presented:

q Indirect gasification (atmospheric) [indirect];
q Atmospheric oxygen-blown CFB gasification [A-CFB(O2)];
q Pressurised (with carbon dioxide) oxygen-blown CFB gasification [PC-CFB(O2)];
q Entrained-flow gasification (pressurised and oxygen-blown) [EF].

Table 16 Specific biomass conversion efficiencies

ηoverall ηSNG ηC5-C10 ηC11+

Indirect gasification
ηc = 0 71.2 71.2 0.0 0.0
α=0.95, ηc=0.95 71.4 45.5 2.1 23.7
α=0.5, ηc=0.95 71.5 66.0 5.3 0.2
Atmospheric O2-blown gasification
ηc = 0 68.9 68.9 0.0 0.0
α=0.95, ηc=0.95 69.1 31.7 3.1 34.3
α=0.5, ηc=0.95 69.3 61.4 7.7 0.2
Pressurised O2-blown gasification
ηc = 0 72.8 72.8 0.0 0.0
α=0.95, ηc=0.95 73.0 53.2 1.6 18.2
α=0.5, ηc=0.95 73.0 68.8 4.0 0.1
Entrained Flow gasification
ηc = 0 58.3 58.3 0.0 0.0
α=0.95, ηc=0.95 58.7 3.3 4.6 50.8
α=0.5, ηc=0.95 58.9 47.2 11.3 0.4

ECN-C--04-001 57
 0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8 70.0-75.0

α 71.4-71.5 α 65.0-70.0
0.7 71.3-71.4 0.7 60.0-65.0
71.2-71.3 55.0-60.0
0.6 71.1-71.2 0.6 50.0-55.0
45.0-50.0
ηoverall 0.5 η SNG 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95
ηc ηc

0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9
21.0-24.0
0.8 10.0-12.0 0.8 18.0-21.0
α 8.0-10.0 α 15.0-18.0
0.7 6.0-8.0 0.7 12.0-15.0
4.0-6.0 9.0-12.0
0.6 2.0-4.0 0.6 6.0-9.0
0.0-2.0 3.0-6.0
ηC5-C10 0.5 ηC11+ 0.5
0.0-3.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95
ηc ηc

Figure 17 Efficiencies in case of co-production with indirect gasification

0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9
65.0-70.0
0.8 0.8 60.0-65.0
69.2-69.3
α 69.1-69.2 α 55.0-60.0
0.7 0.7 50.0-55.0
69.0-69.1
45.0-50.0
68.9-69.0
0.6 0.6 40.0-45.0
68.8-68.9
35.0-40.0
ηoverall 0.5 η SNG 0.5
30.0-35.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95
ηc ηc

0.95 0.95
33.0-36.0
0.9 0.9 30.0-33.0
16.0-18.0
27.0-30.0
14.0-16.0
0.8 0.8 24.0-27.0
12.0-14.0
α 10.0-12.0 α 21.0-24.0
0.7 0.7 18.0-21.0
8.0-10.0
15.0-18.0
6.0-8.0
0.6 0.6 12.0-15.0
4.0-6.0
9.0-12.0
2.0-4.0
ηC5-C10 ηC11+ 6.0-9.0
0.5 0.0-2.0 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 3.0-6.0
ηc ηc 0.0-3.0

Figure 18 Efficiencies in case co-production with atmospheric O2-blown CFB gasification

58 ECN-C--04-001
 0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8 70.0-75.0

α 73.0-73.1 α
65.0-70.0
0.7 72.9-73.0 0.7 60.0-65.0
72.8-72.9 55.0-60.0
0.6 0.6 50.0-55.0

ηoverall 0.5 η SNG 0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95
ηc ηc

0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9

18.0-21.0
0.8 8.0-10.0 0.8 15.0-18.0
α 6.0-8.0 α 12.0-15.0
0.7 4.0-6.0 0.7 9.0-12.0
2.0-4.0 6.0-9.0
0.6 0.0-2.0 0.6 3.0-6.0
0.0-3.0
ηC5-C10 0.5 ηC11+ 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95
ηc ηc

Figure 19 Efficiencies in case of co-production with pressurised O2-blown CFB gasification

0.95 0.95
55.0-60.0
0.9 0.9 50.0-55.0
45.0-50.0
58.9-59.0
0.8 0.8 40.0-45.0
58.8-58.9
α 58.7-58.8 α 35.0-40.0
0.7 0.7 30.0-35.0
58.6-58.7
25.0-30.0
58.5-58.6
0.6 0.6 20.0-25.0
58.4-58.5
15.0-20.0
58.3-58.4
ηoverall 0.5 η SNG 0.5
10.0-15.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 5.0-10.0
ηc ηc 0.0-5.0

0.95 0.95

50.0-55.0
0.9 0.9
24.0-27.0 45.0-50.0
21.0-24.0 40.0-45.0
0.8 18.0-21.0 0.8 35.0-40.0
α 15.0-18.0 α 30.0-35.0
0.7 12.0-15.0 0.7 25.0-30.0
9.0-12.0 20.0-25.0
0.6 6.0-9.0 0.6 15.0-20.0
3.0-6.0 10.0-15.0
ηC5-C10 0.5 0.0-3.0 ηC11+ 0.5 5.0-10.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.95
0.0-5.0
ηc ηc

Figure 20 Efficiencies in case of co-production with Entrained Flow gasification

ECN-C--04-001 59
60 ECN-C--04-001
APPENDIX G SIMPLIFIED ENERGY BALANCES

The flow sheets for the evaluated integrated and parallel co-production concepts are presented.
These concepts are:
q Integrated co-production with indirect gasification;
q Integrated co-production with pressurised oxygen-blown gasification;
q Integrated co-production with entrained flow gasification;
q Co-production with entrained flow gasification and parallel indirect gasification;
q Co-production with entrained flow gasification and parallel pressurised oxygen-blown
gasification.

G.1 Indirect gasification

1.76 Fischer-Tropsch

FT from SNG from

5.50 32.1% 56.6% 3.11 SNG
CGE syngas FT off-gas
9.95 80.4% 8.00
gasifier SNG from
2.50 88.6% 2.21 SNG
Indirect
syngas

1.76 Fischer-Tropsch (1.75 GWth )

5.33 SNG (5.25 GWth )

Figure 21 Co-generation by indirect gasification with additional production of SNG in an

integrated methanation step.

G.2 Pressurised O2-blown gasification

1.75 Fischer-Tropsch

FT from SNG from

7.00 25.0% 67.3% 4.71 SNG
CGE syngas FT off-gas
9.48 79.1% 7.5
gasifier SNG from
Pressurised O 2 blown 0.50 92.0% 0.46 SNG
syngas

1.75 Fischer-Tropsch (1.75 GWth)

5.17 SNG (5.25 GWth)

Figure 22 Co-production by pressurised oxygen-blown gasification with additional production

of SNG in an integrated methanation step.

ECN-C--04-001 61
G.3 Entrained flow gasification
1.78 Fischer-Tropsch

FT from SNG from

2.50 71.1% 4.2% 0.11 SNG
CGE syngas FT off-gas
12.20 77.9% 9.5
gasifier SNG from
7.00 74.8% 5.24 SNG
Entrained flow
syngas

1.78 Fischer-Tropsch (1.75 GWth)

5.34 SNG (5.25 GWth)

Figure 23 Co- production by entrained flow gasification with additional production of SNG in
an integrated methanation step

G.4 Entrained flow gasification & Indirect gasification

CGE SNG from

7.37 80.4% 5.93 88.6% 5.25 SNG
gasifier syngas

Indirect
5.25 SNG (5.25 GW th)

1.78 Fischer-Tropsch

CGE FT from SNG from

3.21 77.9% 2.50 71.1% 4.2% 0.11 SNG
gasifier syngas FT off-gas

Entrained flow
1.78 Fischer-Tropsch (1.75 GWth)
0.11 SNG

Figure 24 Co-production by entrained flow gasification combined with parallel production of

SNG by indirect gasification

G.5 Entrained flow gasification & Pressurised O2-blown gasification

CGE SNG from

7.21 79.1% 5.70 92.0% 5.25 SNG
gasifier syngas

Pressurised O 2 blown
5.25 SNG (5.25 GWth)

1.78 Fischer-Tropsch

CGE FT from SNG from

3.21 77.9% 2.50 71.1% 4.2% 0.11 SNG
gasifier syngas FT off-gas

Entrained flow
1.78 Fischer-Tropsch (1.75 GWth)
0.11 SNG

Figure 25 Co-production by entrained flow gasification combined with parallel production of

SNG by pressurised O2-blown gasification

62 ECN-C--04-001
LITERATURE AND REFERENCES IN APPENDICES
1. Calis, H.P.A.; Haan, J.P.; Peppink, G; Boerrigter, H.; Drift, A. van der; Venderbosch, R.J.;
Faaij, A.P.C., Broek, R. van den. Technical and economic feasibility of large scale
synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock - a Strategic
Decision Analysis study. May 2002.
2. Mozaffarian, M.; Zwart, R.W.R. Feasibility of SNG production by biomass
hydrogasification. ECN-CX--01-115, June 2002.
3. Dry, M.E. The Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in Anderson, J.R. and Boudart, M., editors,
Catalysis-Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981, pp 159-255.
4. Oukaci, R. Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. 2nd Annual Global GTL Summit Executive
Briefing, May 28-30, 2002, London, UK.
5. Hugill, J.A. Applications of syngas. ECN-CX--00-057 (Confidential), May 2000.
6. Eilers, J.; Posthuma, S.A.; Sie, S.T. The Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis Process (SMDS).
Catalysis Letters, 7, pp.253-270, July 1990.
7. Sasol internet site (www.sasol.com).
8. Yakobson, D.L. GTL's impact on U.S. energy security. Rentech, Inc. Presentation to the
CWC group conference, Houston, Texas, November 22, 2002..
9. Gaffney, Cline & Associates. Review of a gas to liquids industry for Australia. Prepared for
the department of industry, science & resources (DISR), May 2001.
10. Hagen, M.; Polman, E.; Myken, A.; Jensen, J.; Jönsson, O.; Dahl, A. Adding gas from
biomass to the gas grid. Altener XVII/4.1030/Z/99-412, June 2001 .
11. Polman, E.A.; Rens, A.M. van; Alderliesten, A.B.; Mulder, G.; Broeke, W.F. van den;
Meijer, R.; Woesik, P. van; Konings, A.J.A. Systeemstudie naar de omzetting van biomassa
in duurzaam gas. May 2001.
12. Gasunie Internet site (www.gasunie.nl).
13. Annual report 2000. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie.
14. Physical properties of natural gases. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, June 1988.
15. Elderman, M.; Becht, H.Y.; Rutten, B.J.C.M. Gefaseerde inzet van waterstof in de energie-
infrastructuur van aardgas. Studie uitgevoerd door het Centrum voor Energiebesparing en
schone technologie in opdracht van Novem, maart 1990.
16. Personnal communication Mozaffarian, M., ECN, with Postmus, E.J. (Manager
Environment & Gas Application), Gasunie, August 2001.
17. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 6th edition, 1999 Electronic Release.
18. Schomaker, A.H.H.M.; Boerboom, A.A.M.; Visser, A.; Pfeifer, A.E. Anaerobic digestion
of agro-industrial wastes: information networks – technical summary on gas treatment.
FAIR-CT96-2083, August 1999.
19. Carbon dioxide capture from power stations. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
ISBN 1 898373 15 9.
20. McKee, B. Solutions for the 21st century – zero emissions technologies for fossil fuels.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2002.
21. Ree, R. van. Verbranding van poederkool in een CO2(g)/O2(g)-atmosfeer. ECN-I--92-047,
December 1992.
22. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Stations. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
(www.ieagreen.org.uk/sr1p.htm).
23. Dijkstra, J.W.; Tillemans, F.W.A. Technical and economic prospects of processes for
oxygen production with oxygen conducting membranes. ECN-7.6460-GR02/1, December
2002.

ECN-C--04-001 63
1. Shell (1995): The evolution of the world's energy system 1860-2020. Shell International,
London, 1995.
2. WEC (1995): Global energy perspectives to 2050 and beyond. World Energy Council,
London.
3. ECN: Energie Verslag Nederland 2000.
4. ECN: Nationale Energie Verkenningen 1995-2020 – Trends en thema's. March 1998.
5. H.P.A. Calis, J.P. Haan, G. Peppink, H. Boerrigter, B. van der Drift, R.J. Venderbosch,
A.P.C. Faaij, R. van den Broek: Technical and economic feasibility of large scale synthesis
gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock - a Strategic Decision
Analysis study, Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass and Waste, Expert Meeting, 30
September - 1 October 2002, Strasbourg, France.
6. Boerrigter, H. et al. ECN report in preparation.
7. Boerrigter, H.; Uil, H. den; Calis, H.-P.: Green diesel from biomass via Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis: new insights in gas cleaning and process design, Pyrolysis and Gasification of
Biomass and Waste, Bridgewater, A.V. (ed.), CPL press, Newbury, United Kingdom,
2003, pp. 371-383.
8. (a) Boerrigter, H.; Drift, A. van der: Liquid fuels from solid biomass: The ECN concept(s)
for integrated FT-diesel production systems, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands
(ECN), Petten, The Netherlands, report RX--03-060, October 2003, 18 pp.
(b) Boerrigter, H.; Uil, H. den: Green diesel from biomass by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis:
new insights in gas cleaning and process design, Energy research Centre of the
Netherlands (ECN), Petten, The Netherlands, report RX--03-047, July 2003, 15 pp.
9. Physical properties of natural gases. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, June 1988.
10. Phyllis, ECN database on the composition of biomass and waste materials (www.
Phyllis.nl).
11. Catalyst Handbook. second edition, Edited by M.V. Twigg, ISBN 1874545359, 1996.
12. M. Mozaffarian, R.W.R. Zwart: Feasibility of SNG production by biomass hydro-
gasification. ECN-CX--01-115, June 2002.
13. Physical properties of natural gases. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, June 1988.
14. Bergman, P.C.A.; Van Paasen, S.V.B.; Boerrigter, H. The novel “OLGA” technology for
complete tar removal from biomass producer gas, Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass
and Waste, Expert Meeting, 30 September - 1 October 2002, Strasbourg, France.
15. Corporate Finance Live: http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/bp/app/cfldemo/.
16. ECN results 2003, to be published elsewhere.

1. Calis, H.P.A.; Haan, J.P.; Peppink, G; Boerrigter, H.; Drift, A. van der; Venderbosch, R.J.;
Faaij, A.P.C., Broek, R. van den. Technical and economic feasibility of large scale
synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock - a Strategic
Decision Analysis study. May 2002.
2. Mozaffarian, M.; Zwart, R.W.R. Feasibility of SNG production by biomass
hydrogasification. ECN-CX--01-115, June 2002.
3. Dry, M.E. The Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in Anderson, J.R. and Boudart, M., editors,
Catalysis-Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981, pp 159-255.
4. Oukaci, R. Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. 2nd Annual Global GTL Summit Executive
Briefing, May 28-30, 2002, London, UK.
5. Hugill, J.A. Applications of syngas. ECN-CX--00-057 (Confidential), May 2000.
6. Eilers, J.; Posthuma, S.A.; Sie, S.T. The Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis Process (SMDS).
Catalysis Letters, 7, pp.253-270, July 1990.
7. Sasol internet site (www.sasol.com).
8. Yakobson, D.L. GTL's impact on U.S. energy security. Rentech, Inc. Presentation to the
CWC group conference, Houston, Texas, November 22, 2002..

64 ECN-C--04-001
9. Gaffney, Cline & Associates. Review of a gas to liquids industry for Australia. Prepared for
the department of industry, science & resources (DISR), May 2001.
10. Hagen, M.; Polman, E.; Myken, A.; Jensen, J.; Jönsson, O.; Dahl, A. Adding gas from
biomass to the gas grid. Altener XVII/4.1030/Z/99-412, June 2001 .
11. Polman, E.A.; Rens, A.M. van; Alderliesten, A.B.; Mulder, G.; Broeke, W.F. van den;
Meijer, R.; Woesik, P. van; Konings, A.J.A. Systeemstudie naar de omzetting van biomassa
in duurzaam gas. May 2001.
12. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 6th edition, 1999 Electronic Release.
13. Schomaker, A.H.H.M.; Boerboom, A.A.M.; Visser, A.; Pfeifer, A.E. Anaerobic digestion
of agro-industrial wastes: information networks – technical summary on gas treatment.
FAIR-CT96-2083, August 1999.
14. Carbon dioxide capture from power stations. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
ISBN 1 898373 15 9.
15. McKee, B. Solutions for the 21st century – zero emissions technologies for fossil fuels.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2002.
16. Ree, R. van. Verbranding van poederkool in een CO2(g)/O2(g)-atmosfeer. ECN-I--92-047,
December 1992.
17. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Stations. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
(www.ieagreen.org.uk/sr1p.htm).
18. Dijkstra, J.W.; Tillemans, F.W.A. Technical and economic prospects of processes for
oxygen production with oxygen conducting membranes. ECN-7.6460-GR02/1, December
2002.
19. Gasunie Internet site (www.gasunie.nl).
20. Annual report 2000. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie.
21. Physical properties of natural gases. N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, June 1988.
22. Elderman, M.; Becht, H.Y.; Rutten, B.J.C.M. Gefaseerde inzet van waterstof in de energie-
infrastructuur van aardgas. Studie uitgevoerd door het Centrum voor Energiebesparing en
schone technologie in opdracht van Novem, maart 1990.
23. Personnal communication Mozaffarian, M., ECN, with Postmus, E.J. (Manager
Environment & Gas Application), Gasunie, August 2001.

ECN-C--04-001 65