1

NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH

CARBON DIOXIDECARBON DIOXIDE

Author:Author: Mr. GW BASSONMr. GW BASSONCo-author:Co-author: Professor PWE BLOMProfessor PWE BLOM

Post Graduate School for Nuclear Science & Engineering

2

IntroductionIntroduction

3

OrderOrder

• Background• Process Description

– Plasma-arc Reformer– Production of Synthesis Gas– Production of Hydrogen

• Techno-economic Evaluation• Comparison with SMR• Conclusion

4

BackgroundBackground

• Current Technologies– Catalytic Steam Methane Reforming

CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2 ∆H0298K = +206 kJ/mol

CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 ∆H0298K = -41 kJ/mol

– Catalytic Dry Methane ReformingCH4 + CO2 → 2CO + 2H2 ∆H0

298K = +247 kJ/mol

– Four Major Causes of Catalyst Deactivation

5

Background Background continuedcontinued

• Plasma-arc Reforming– Advantages

• High Temperature and Power Densities• No Catalyst is needed for Reforming• High Chemical Reaction Rates (up to 100%)• Overall Efficiency of ~65%• CO2 instead of Steam as the Oxidizing Agent• Production Cost Competitive with SMR• Technology Demonstrated on Commercial

Scale

6

Background Background continuedcontinued

• Nuclear Synthesis Gas & H2 Production– ~30 Countries uses Nuclear Energy

– Steam Methane Reforming Considered

– High Temperature Gas Reactors (950°C)

– Safety Regulations more stringent

7

Process DescriptionProcess Description

• Plasma-arc Reformer– Conversion of SASOL

GAS to Synthesis Gas

– Operation Conditions• Potential – 6.6 kV

• Current – 1.2 kA

• Power – 8 MW

• Lifetime – 800-1000 h

• Efficiency – 80-90%

• Temperature – 2000-5000°C

8

Process Description Process Description continuedcontinued

• Assumptions

– CH4 and CO2 inlet Temperature - 25°C

– Flow Rate to Plasma-arc Reformer – 4000 Nm3/h– Thermal Efficiency – 88%– Conversion Rate – 95%– Plasma-arc Reformer Capacity – 8 MW– PBMR produces He at 950°C at 160 kg/s

9

Process Description Process Description continuedcontinued

• Plasma-arc Synthesis Gas Production– Process One → CO2 as Oxidizing Agentηη ~ 63% ~ 63%

10

Process Description Process Description continuedcontinued

– Process Two → CO2 & H2O as Oxidizing Agents

ηη ~ 65% ~ 65%

11

Process Description Process Description continuedcontinued

• Plasma-arc Hydrogen Gas Production– Process Three → Electrical Energy

ηη ~ 55% ~ 55%

12

Techno-economic EvaluationTechno-economic Evaluation

• Assumptions

– Higher Heating Value CH4 – 36.4 MJ/Nm3

– CH4 cost - $6 per GJ– CO2 cost - $5 per ton– Electricity - $0.045 per kWh– Plant Lifetime – 20 years– Discount rate – 9% per year– Inflation rate – 5% per year– Tax rate – 35%

13

Techno-economic Evaluation Techno-economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

• Assumptions for Sensitivity Evaluation

– Variation of CH4 between $3 to $10 per GJ

– Variation of CO2 between $0 to $20 per ton

– Variation of Electricity between $0.03 to $0.1 per kWh

– Increasing of Capital Investment by 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%

14

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

• Techno-economic Evaluation for Synthesis Gas Production– Process One

• Capital Investment → $90 397 381• Production Cost→ $9.63 per GJ ($0.17 per kg)

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

$6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $11.00 $12.00 $13.00 $14.00 $15.00

Production Cost (per GJ)

Ch

ang

e in

Raw

Mat

eria

l Co

st

Methane Carbon Dioxide Electricity Capital Cost

15

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

$100 $100 $300 $500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

Net Profit Value (million)

Ch

ang

e in

Par

amet

ers

Methane Carbon Dioxide Electricity Capital Cost Selling Price

16

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

Selling Price(per GJ)

NPVPBP

(years)ROI IRR

$11 $41.47 million 7.7 20.3% 12.2%

$12 $196.33 million 4.2 41.8% 23.5%

$13 $351.19 million 2.9 63.2% 34.3%

Table 1:Table 1: Effect of Selling PriceEffect of Selling Price

17

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

– Process Two• Capital Investment → $93 456 159

H2/CO RatioSynthesis Gas

Flow Rate(Nm3/year)

Production Cost

(per GJ) (per kg)

1.0 1 435 million $9.63 $0.17

1.5 1 435 million $9.56 $0.20

2.0 1 435 million $9.52 $0.23

2.5 1 435 million $9.49 $0.26

3.0 1 435 million $9.47 $0.29

Table 2:Table 2: Effect of HEffect of H22/CO Ratio on Production Cost/CO Ratio on Production Cost

18

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

$100 $100 $300 $500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300 $1,500

Net Profit Value (million)

Ch

ang

e in

Par

amet

ers

Methane Carbon Dioxide Electricity Capital Cost Selling Price

19

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

Selling Price(per GJ)

NPVPBP

(years)ROI IRR

$11 $2.19 million 9.7 14.8% 9.2%

$12 $153.08 million 4.9 34.8% 19.9%

$13 $303.97 million 3.3 54.8% 30.1%

Table 3:Table 3: Effect of Selling PriceEffect of Selling Price

20

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

– Process Three• Capital Investment → $244 742 652• Production Cost → $12.81 per GJ ($1.60 per

kg)

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

$9.00 $10.00 $11.00 $12.00 $13.00 $14.00 $15.00

Production Cost of Hydrogen (per GJ)

Ch

ang

e in

Raw

Mat

eria

l C

ost

s

Methane Cost CO2 Cost Electricity Cost

21

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

$300 $100 $100 $300 $500 $700 $900 $1,100

Net Profit Value (million)

Ch

ang

e in

Par

amet

ers

Methane Carbon Dioxide Electricity Capital Cost Selling Price

22

Techno-Economic Evaluation Techno-Economic Evaluation continuedcontinued

Selling Price(per GJ)

NPVPBP

(years)ROI IRR

$17 $61.21 million 8.7 17.7% 10.6%

$18 $192.90 million 6.8 23.9% 14.0%

$19 $324.60 million 5.6 30.2% 17.3%

$20 $456.30 million 4.8 36.4% 20.6%

Table 4:Table 4: Effect of Selling PriceEffect of Selling Price

23

Comparison with SMRComparison with SMR

• Steam methane reforming*– Capacity → 250 000 Nm3/h– Methane Cost → $8 per GJ– Production Cost → $12.70 per GJ– Total Capital Investment → $221.6 million

• Steam methane reforming with Carbon Capture*– Production Cost → $14.77 per GJ– Total Capital Investment → $252.6 million

*(Mueller-Langer, F., Tzimas, E., Kaltchmitt, M. & Peteves, S., 2007, “Techno-economic Assesment of Hydrogen Production Processes for the Hydrogen Economy for Short and Medium Term”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32, pp.3797-3810)

($14.25 per GJ)

($245 million)

24

ConclusionConclusion

• CH4 and Electrical Costs have Major impact on Production of Synthesis and H2 Gas

• Non-catalytic Plasma-arc Reforming Competitive with SMR

25

Conclusion Conclusion continuedcontinued

• Highlights– Nuclear Energy used for Thermal and Electrical

Generation

– NO CO2 produced by Synthesis gas when used in Chemical Industry

– CO2 produced H2 production less than conventional SMR

26

Thank YouThank You

NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH

CARBON DIOXIDECARBON DIOXIDE