This presentation contains preliminary results from an ...Roadmap... · Benzene from coke oven...
Transcript of This presentation contains preliminary results from an ...Roadmap... · Benzene from coke oven...
ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap CatalysisICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap CatalysisICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap CatalysisICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis
DisclaimerDisclaimerThis presentation contains preliminary results from an ongoing project. g g p jThis data is still subject to revision and correction. The final results will be published in a joint roadmap.p j p
Petrochemical Industry Energy & GHG Savings via Catalysis –Still a Large OpportunityOpportunityRussel Mills, Dow Chemicals
Catalysis Roadmap Partners:INTERNATIONAL
Catalysis Roadmap Partners:INTERNATIONAL
COUNCIL OF
CHEMICAL
ASSOCIATIONS
COUNCIL OF
CHEMICAL
ASSOCIATIONS
ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap CatalysisICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap CatalysisICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap CatalysisICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis
High Level ObjectivesHigh Level ObjectivesProvide credible information on the potential of reducing energy & GHG emissions by applying g gy y pp y gcatalysisIdentify key technology breakthroughs, paths to achieve themGive responsible advice for policy makers on how
bl hi ienable this impact
ApproachApproachApproachApproachAssumptions:p
Large processes also have the largest saving potential (even if relative improvement potential seems low)The large number of small/medium-sized processes can be disregarded (even if relative improvement potential seems high)
ApproachApproachApproachApproachIdentify ~40 top energy consuming processesy p gy g pCut-off at top 10-20 for detailed analysis
9 108m
ptio
n
987
65
4
3
yco
nsum
2
1
‐ Total final BPT energy use (excl. electricity)(of 56 processes): 26.0 EJ/yr‐ Total final BPT energy use (excl. electricity)(corrected by 95% coverage): 27.4 EJ/yr‐ Total final reported energy use
Top 10 Chemicals(1) Steam cracking (6) Propylene FCC(2) Ammonia (7) Ethanol(3) Aromatics extraction (8) Butadiene (C4 sep.)(4) Methanol (9) Soda ash
Ene
rgy
Top processes accounting for the majorshare of energy consumption
Total final reported energy use (excl. electricity): 31.5 EJ/yr‐ World‐wide improvement potentials: 13.0%
(4) Methanol (9) Soda ash(5) Butylene (10) Carbon black
MethodologyMethodology IIMethodologyMethodology IIBottom up data compilation by surveyIndustrial manufacturers survey
Top energy consuming chemical processesSpecific energy consumption and direct GHG emissionsSpecific energy consumption and direct GHG emissions (1990 – 2020)Catalysis impact, future potential, hurdles
Catalyst manufacturers surveyChemical processes, refinery processes, other catalysis areasareasCatalysis impact, future potential, hurdles
Catalyst expertsy pNew catalytic processesExpected breakthroughs, feedstock change
Catalysis Roadmap Project l 6
Historical examples
MethodologyMethodology IIIIMethodologyMethodology IIIITop down data compilation p pSRI Consulting and Chemical Manufacturing Associates Inc. (CMAI)
P d ti l ith i l d t di t ib tiProduction volumes with regional and country distributionEnergy Consumptions and allocation to fuels, steam, electricity etc.yGHG estimates
Other sourcesAvailable benchmark studies and technical reportsGHG inventory reportsSpecial literatureSpecial literature
⇒ Synthesis of top down with bottom up data
Catalysis Roadmap Project l 7
Selection of Subset: Top Energy Selection of Subset: Top Energy Consuming ProcessesConsuming ProcessesConsuming ProcessesConsuming Processes
World Total Energy Consumption Chemical & Petrochemical Sector (IEA 2009): 14,9 EJ excl. feedstock (36,2 EJ incl. feedstock) ( )
Preselection: 40 major products manufactured by energy intensive processes (catalytic or with potential to run catalytically)
Selection of 18 top products, p p ,representing:
9 5 EJ (64% of energy consumption9,5 EJ (64% of energy consumption of world total chemical production)
TopTop energyenergy consumingconsuming processesprocessesTop Top energyenergy consumingconsuming processesprocessesAmmonia AcrylonitrileEthylenePropyleneMethanol
CaprolactamCumeneEthylene Dichloride (EDC)Methanol
BTXTerephthalic Acid (TPA)
Ethylene Dichloride (EDC)EthylbenzenePolyvinyl Chloride (PVC)p ( )
PolyethyleneStyrene
y y ( )Phthalic AnhydrideAcetone
Ethylene OxideVinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM)Polypropylene
ButadieneAcetic AcidVinyl Acetate (VAM)Polypropylene
Propylene OxideEthylene Glycol
Vinyl Acetate (VAM)Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)Nitric Acidy y
Phenol Formaldehyde
Top 18Top 18 chemicalschemicals: ~130: ~130 processesprocessesTop 18 Top 18 chemicalschemicals: 130 : 130 processesprocessesEthylene from ethyl alcoholEthylene from gas oilh l f ( /b )
Acrylonitrile from acetyleneAcrylonitrile from propaneA l i il f l
Ethylene from ethyl alcoholEthylene from gas oil
/Ethylene from LPG (propane/butane)Ethylene from mixed feedstocksEthylene from naphthaEthylene from naphtha with BZEthylene from propane
Acrylonitrile from propyleneAmmonia from coal (partial oxidation)Ammonia from heavy fuel oil (partial oxidation)Ammonia from naphtha (steam reforming)Ammonia from natural gas (steam reforming)
y p pyAmmonia from coal (partial oxidation)Ammonia from heavy fuel oil (partial oxidation)Ammonia from naphtha (steam reforming)Ammonia from natural gas (steam reforming)
Ethylene from LPG (propane/butane)Ethylene from mixed feedstocksEthylene from naphthaEthylene from naphtha with BZEthylene from propaneEthylene from refinery off‐gasesEthylene from selected gas streams from coal‐to‐oilEthylene from Superflex technologyEthylene Glycol from ethylene (ethylene glycol)Ethylene Glycol from ethylene oxide (hydration)
Benzene from catalytic reformateBenzene from coal tarBenzene from coke oven light oilBenzene from mixed xylenes via toluene disproportionation (MSTDP)Benzene frommixed xylenes via toluene disproportionation (MTPX)
Ethylene from refinery off‐gases
Ethylene Glycol from ethylene oxide (hydration)Ethylene Glycol from unspecified raw materialsEthylene Oxide from ethylene (chlorohydrin process)Ethylene Oxide from ethylene (direct oxidation)Ethylene Oxide from unspecified raw materialsHDPE G Ph
Benzene from mixed xylenes via toluene disproportionation (MTPX)Benzene from propane/butanes (Cyclar)Benzene from pyrolysis gasolineBenzene from toluene dealkylationBenzene from toluene disproportionationB f t l / l HDPE Gas Phase
HDPE SlurryHDPE SolutionHDPE UnidentifiedLDPE Autoclave
Benzene from toluene/xylenesBenzene from unspecified raw materialsCaprolactam from cyclohexane (via cyclohexanone)Caprolactam from cyclohexanone (phenol or cyclohexane‐based)Caprolactam from phenol (via cyclohexanone)
LDPE TubularLLDPE AutoclaveLLDPE Gas PhaseLLDPE SlurryLLDPE Solution
Caprolactam from tolueneCumene from propylene and benzeneCumene from recoveredEthylene from butaneEthylene from condensateEthylene from butaneEthylene from condensate LLDPE Solution
LLDPE TubularLLDPE UnidentifiedLLDPE/HDPE Gas Phase
Ethylene from condensateEthylene from deep catalytic cracking of VGOEthylene from ethaneEthylene from ethane/propane
Ethylene from condensateEthylene from deep catalytic cracking of VGOEthylene from ethaneEthylene from ethane/propane
BoundaryBoundary conditionsconditionsBoundaryBoundary conditionsconditionsProcess system boundaries:
fence to fence (e.g. for EO: ethylene as feedstock, ethylene production not included)
Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) includes:Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) includes: direct energy (fuel, steam)Indirect energy (electricity)gy ( y)Energy equivalent of feedstock is not included
GHG emissionsDirect process emissions as CO2 equivalentsDirect utilities emissions (fuel) Indirect emissions (electricity) MWh/t > tCO /t*Indirect emissions (electricity) MWh/t -> tCO2/t
* based on an average energy mix in the U.S (0,584 MT/MWh (electricity) and 0,05598 MT/GJ (heat + fuel))
EnergyEnergy consumptionconsumption top 18top 18 chemicalchemical productsproducts
Ammonia2,75
EnergyEnergy consumptionconsumption top 18 top 18 chemicalchemical productsproducts
2,25
2,50
Ethylene1,75
2,00
ption [E
J]
1,25
1,50
y Co
nsum
p
ACN
MeOH
Propylene
0,75
1,00
Energy ACN
CaprolactamEGh l
5,9 EJ = 62%
Total: 9,5 EJ
BTX
C
EO PEPO PPTPAVCM0,25
0,50 PhenolPXStyrene
1,3 EJ = 14%
2,3 EJ = 24%Cumene0,00
‐ 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000
Production volume [kt]
Process related GHG emissions Process related GHG emissions top 18 chemical productstop 18 chemical products
Ethylene600 100
top 18 chemical productstop 18 chemical products
ill. t
]
Ethylene
Ammonia500
80
90
CO
2eq
[M
400
60
70
[Mill. t]
iaG
HG
as
MeOHPropylene
TPA
300
40
50
as CO2e
q
Total 960 Mill t
Am
mon
i
BTX
Capro‐lactam
EO PE
PPPX
TPA200
20
30GHG a
600 Mill. t = 62%
103 Mill 11%
Total: 960 Mill. t
ACN
Cumene
EG
Phenol
POPPStyrene
VCM100
10
20 103 Mill. t = 11%
257 Mill. t = 27%Cumene ‐0
‐ 50.000 100.000 150.000
Production volume[kt]
PotentialPotential energyenergy reductionreduction optionsoptionsPotential Potential energyenergy reductionreduction optionsoptions
ImpactImpact
Gamechangers
Emerging Technologies
Best Practise Technology Deployment
Emerging Technologies
Incremental improvements
Best Practise Technology Deployment
1-3 4-10 11-15 >15 Time [Years]
ReductionReduction optionsoptionsReductionReduction optionsoptionsIncremental improvements
ll ti t h l i l dsmall, continuous technological advancesretrofits to already existing plants
Best practise technology (BPT) implementationBest practise technology (BPT) implementation Most energy-efficient process configurationsestablished technologies in existing plants or new facilities
Emerging technologiesstep-change advances via application of new technology currently in demonstration or later R&D stagesHere: catalytic olefin technologies, MTO
G hGamechangerssignificant change of process; direct routes, alternative feedstocksfar from commercialization, high economic and technical hurdles, , g ,relatively high riskHere: renewable hydrogen for NH3 and MeOH and biomass
ComparedCompared scenariosscenariosComparedCompared scenariosscenarios
Optimistic scenarioAll new and retrofitted plants with energy efficiency at the new technology levelnew technology level
Conservative scenario50% of new plants at new technology level30% of retrofitted plants at new technology level, 70% at average energy consumptionaverage energy consumption
Potential energyPotential energy reductionreduction optionsoptionsPotential energy Potential energy reductionreduction optionsoptions
25,5Current technology
level
20 5
23,0
5,5
18,0
20,5
[EJ]
12,2 EJ
13,0
15,5
Total Ene
rgy
8,0
10,5
T
3,0
5,5
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
ExpectedExpected productionproduction volumesvolumesExpectedExpected productionproduction volumesvolumes
2.500 CaprolactamPh l
2.000
2.500 PhenolPOCumeneToluene
1976
2315
1.500
olum
e [kt] EO
VCMEGStyrene1260
14701637
1.000
duction vo Sty e e
BenzenePXMixed XylenesPP
851
60
1048
500 Prod
PPTPAPEMeOHACN
‐2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050
ACNPropyleneEthyleneAmmonia
AvrgAvrg.. EnergyEnergy IntensityIntensityAvrgAvrg. . EnergyEnergy IntensityIntensity
12 00
11,00
12,00uct]
9,00
10,00
[GJ/tprodu
Incremental
8,00
Intensity [
BPT conservative
BPT optimistic
6,00
7,00
Energy
5,002010 2015 2020 2025 2030
ImpactImpact ofof gamechangersgamechangersImpact Impact ofof gamechangersgamechangers
Discussed optionsDiscussed optionsBiomass as feedstock for olefins (ethylene, propylene)propylene)
Hydrogen as feedstock for chemical processes available from renewable energy sourcesavailable from renewable energy sources
BiobasedBiobased ethyleneethylene andand propylenepropyleneBiobasedBiobased ethyleneethylene and and propylenepropylene
Biomass and fossil energy use of biomass routes
120
140
]Biomass and fossil energy use of biomass routes
60
80
100
120
137100e
[GJ/tHVC] bio‐based
fossil
0
20
40
‐6 14 12‐17
16,4
5337
100
Energy use
‐20Lignocell. via FT
Naphtha
Lignocell. via MeOH
Maize via EtOH
Sugar Cane via EtOH
Napthta cracking
17
Naphtha EtOH
Substantial biomass-derived energy consumptionReduced fossil energy consumptionReduced fossil energy consumption
BiobasedBiobased ethyleneethylene andand propylenepropyleneBiobasedBiobased ethyleneethylene and and propylenepropyleneGHG emissions of biomass routes
2
0,150,63
0,150,57 0,30,28 0,06 0,7
0
1
2HVC]
CO2 captured in,‐1,6
‐3,5
3
‐2
‐1
G [tCO2eq/tH CO2 captured in
biomass
HVC production
‐3,5
‐5
‐4
‐3
GHG
2nd feedstock production
Prim. Feedstock production
‐6Lignocell. via
MeOHSugar Cane via
EtOHNapthta cracking
production
Reduced GHG emissions due to carbon captured in biomass andReduced GHG emissions due to carbon captured in biomass and sequestered in MeOH/HVCs Process related GHG emissions comparable to fossil routes, in some cases lower*
*depending on process configuration, e.g. co-generation of electricity
cases lower*
HydrogenHydrogen optionoptionHydrogen Hydrogen optionoption
Syngas/Coal or CO2
MeOH
Electr. watercleavage
H2compression
Syngas/Shift
MeOHsynthesis
cleavage compressionNH3
synthesisN2 from ASU
SEC H2 route [GJ/t] SEC BPT (gas) [GJ/t] GHG reduction
Ammonia 37,3 7,2-9,0 1,2 t/tNH3
MeOH from coal 27,8*9,0-10,0
-0,52 t/tMeOH
M OH f CO 43 7** 1 84 t/tM OHMeOH from CO2 43,7** -1,84 t/tMeOH
HydrogenHydrogen optionoptionHydrogen Hydrogen optionoptionEnergy impact of hydrogen based ammoniagy p y g
and methanol production2,50
EJ]
30%Deployment rate Example:
0,46
0,82
1 00
1,50
2,00
sil savings [
Total Energy MeOH
20%
30%Deployment rate Example:
30% deployment in 2050:
0 09 0 190,21 0,46
0,981,57
0,070,18
0 00
0,50
1,00
ons. vs. foss Total Energy
NH3
Fossil energy M OH
10%5% 1,4 EJ more energy
1,15 EJ less fossil ‐0,09 ‐0,19 ‐0,41 ‐0,66‐0,04 ‐0,11
‐0,28
‐0,50‐1,00
‐0,50
0,00
t. energy
co MeOH
Fossil energy NH3
energy
‐1,50
2020 2030 2040 2050
Tot
HydrogenHydrogen optionoptionHydrogen Hydrogen optionoption
GHG impact of hydrogen based ammonia p y gand methanol production
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050
‐40
‐20
0
CO2e
q]
5%10%
2,5% Example:
30% deployment in
‐100
‐80
‐60
gs [Mill. t C
Methanol
Ammonia
10%
20%
30% deployment in 2050:
GHG reductions of 170 Mill t CO2
‐160
‐140
‐120
GHG saving 20%
30%
170 Mill t CO2eq.
‐180 30%
Potential GHGPotential GHG reductionreduction optionsoptions
2 4
Potential GHG Potential GHG reductionreduction optionsoptions
Incr. improvementCurrent techn. level
BPT conservative2,0
2,4
BPT optimisticHydrogen
1,6
Gt]
1,2 Gt
optimisticBio optimistic 1,2
otal G
HG [G
0,8
To
0,0
0,4
,2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Regional Regional impactimpact: : exampleexample ammoniaammoniaEnergy consumption
Other Asia5%
Africa2%
Economies in Transition
12%
Energy consumption
250
Ammonia ProductionEconomies in Transition
China (Coal)40%OECD North
America7%
OECD Pacific2%
5%
200
250
128
28 29
e [M
ill. t]
Africa
Other Asia
OECD Pacific
China6%
India7%Latin America
5%
Middle East6%
OECD Europe8%
100
150
16 17 18 21
11
19 21
16
12 12
14
9 24
ction volume
OECD North America
OECD Europe
Middle East6%5%
‐
50 42
63 69 11
16 14
Prod
uc Latin America
India
China
China (Coal)
Africa2%
Economies in Transition
GHG emissions
Primary feedstock for ammonia and methanol in Chi C l
2010 2020 2030 China (Coal)
China (Coal)41%
OECD North America
OECD Pacific2%
Other Asia5%
12%
China: Coal• 1.7 x higher energy consumption compared to gas • 2.3 x higher CO2 emissions compared to gas
IndiaMiddle East
5%
OECD Europe8%
7%
China6%
7%Latin America5%
5%
Regional Regional impactimpact: : exampleexample methanolmethanol
160
Methanol ProductionEconomies in Transition
Energy consumption
120
140
160
23 10
14
[Mill. t] Economies in Transition
OECD Pacific
OECDN h A i
China (Coal)32%
6%
60
80
100
14
22 13
16 19
3ction volume OECD North America
Middle East
Latin America China10%
Middle East25%
‐
20
40
10
41 56
5
14
8 14 3
Prod
uc China
China (Coal)
Latin America14%
Economies in
GHG emissions
Primary feedstock for ammonia and methanol in
2010 2020 2030
Middl E t
Economies in Transition
3%
China: Coal• 1.7 x higher energy consumption compared to gas • 2.3 x higher CO2 emissions compared to gas China (Coal)
56%Latin America
8%
Middle East14%
China11%
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsPotential energy & emissions savings via catalysis in the gy g ychemical segment vs. a “do nothing” case of 12 EJ/yr and 0.86 Gt CO2/yr by 2050 (incremental + BPT scenarios)Full implementation of Best Practice Technology could improveFull implementation of Best Practice Technology could improve energy intensity per ton of product by as much as 40% by 2050. While these energy savings are sizeable on an absolute scale, expected production increases globally will likely outpace these savings and overall energy and GHGs will likely increase Reducing energy use or GHG emissions by half or more by 2030 or 2050 does not seem realistic even in developed regions with lower growth such as Europeregions with lower growth such as Europe . Gamechangers could yield additional reductions in GHGs, but would increase energy use and require huge investments to
/develop / lower operational costs