Next Article in Journal
An Improved Control and Energy Management Strategy of Three-Level NPC Converter Based DC Distribution Network
Previous Article in Journal
Complex Metal Hydrides for Hydrogen, Thermal and Electrochemical Energy Storage
Retraction published on 23 August 2019, see Energies 2019, 12(17), 3253.
Article

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

GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Fluid Systems Modelling, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2017, 10(10), 1643; https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101643
Received: 29 September 2017 / Revised: 11 October 2017 / Accepted: 13 October 2017 / Published: 18 October 2017
(This article belongs to the Section K: Energy Sources)
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) enables the utilisation of coal reserves that are currently not economically exploitable due to complex geological boundary conditions. Hereby, UCG produces a high-calorific synthesis gas that can be used for generation of electricity, fuels and chemical feedstock. The present study aims to identify economically competitive, site-specific end-use options for onshore and offshore produced UCG synthesis gas, taking into account the capture and storage (CCS) and/or utilisation (CCU) of resulting CO 2 . Modelling results show that boundary conditions that favour electricity, methanol and ammonia production expose low costs for air separation, high synthesis gas calorific values and H 2 /N 2 shares as well as low CO 2 portions of max. 10%. Hereby, a gasification agent ratio of more than 30% oxygen by volume is not favourable from economic and environmental viewpoints. Compared to the costs of an offshore platform with its technical equipment, offshore drilling costs are negligible. Thus, uncertainties related to parameters influenced by drilling costs are also negligible. In summary, techno-economic process modelling results reveal that scenarios with high CO 2 emissions are the most cost-intensive ones, offshore UCG-CCS/CCU costs are twice as high as the onshore ones, and yet all investigated scenarios except from offshore ammonia production are competitive on the European market. View Full-Text
Keywords: Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); economics; Cost of Electricity (COE); techno-economic model; methanol; ammonia; Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); electricity generation; process simulation Underground Coal Gasification (UCG); economics; Cost of Electricity (COE); techno-economic model; methanol; ammonia; Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); electricity generation; process simulation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Nakaten, N.C.; Kempka, T. Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness. Energies 2017, 10, 1643. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101643

AMA Style

Nakaten NC, Kempka T. Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness. Energies. 2017; 10(10):1643. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101643

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nakaten, Natalie C., and Thomas Kempka. 2017. "Techno-Economic Comparison of Onshore and Offshore Underground Coal Gasification End-Product Competitiveness" Energies 10, no. 10: 1643. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101643

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop