Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringHilde Vandecasteele – 23 June 2009

Methanisering voor Power to Gas: een case studie

Methanisation for Power to Gas: a case study

Content of presentation• Biogas upgrading• Biological upgrading• Assets for West-Flanders• Casestudies

Biogas upgrading - compositionComponent Hoeveelheid Effect(en)

CH4 45 – 85 Vol% Energy carrier

CO2 25 – 50 Vol% Lowering caloric value

Better methane number

Can produce corrosive

hydrogencarbonate in combination with

water.

H2S 0 – 2 Vol% Corrosive

Highly damaging to motor

SO2 < 0,1 Vol% Noxious emission

N2O 0 – 5 Vol% Lowering motor preformance

Waterdamp 1 – 5 Vol% Corrosion

Dangerous when freezing

O2 0 – 2 Vol% Explosive

N2 0 – 2 Vol% Inert

siloxanen 0 – 50 mg/m³ Abrasive depositions of SiO2

stofdeeltjes Clugs pipes, etc

Biogas upgradingThree Strategies

1. Removing the CO22. Addition of reduced substrates in the reactor 3. Additional post-methanation (chemical of biological)

Biological upgrading - Partial pressureLaw of Henry: p = kh*c

Henry-constants biogas components:

• CO2 0.35 mol/kg*MPa• NH3 610 mol/kg*MPa• H2 0.0078 mol/kg*MPa• CH4 0.014 mol/kg*Mpa

Biological upgrading – direct H2 injection (strategy 2)

• Strevett et al. 1995• Luo et al. 2011• Casier, 2012• Voets (2013) – onderzoek HOWEST

How to inject H2 is the problem due to low solubility

Biological upgrading – specific reactor (strategy 3)

• Cfr. Syngas (CO en H2) research preformed• CSRT looks the most logical (Rittmann et al. 2013)• 3 cases

• Electrochaea• Krajete• MicrobEnergy

Biological upgrading

Assets for (West)-Flanders

Assets of (West)-Flanders

Biogasinstallation Municipality Installed power(kWe)

Permit capacity (ton/a)

Agrikracht Moorslede Moorslede 1.486 48.000Agrikracht Rumbeke Rumbeke 835 35.000Ampower Egem 7.445 180.000Barts Potato Company Vleteren 1.666 60.000Bio-Electric bvba Beernem 2.461 60.000Biomass Center (Ieper) bvba Ieper 2.085 50.000Digrom Energy nv Ardooie 1.486 44.000IVVO Ieper 1.408 50.000Leiestroom nv Menen 4.500 95.000Senergho bvba Hooglede 1.064 45.000Shanks Vlaanderen Roeselare 4.024 40.000Veurne Snack Foods Veurne 732 7.500Waterleau New Energy Ieper 3.192 120.000

Nutrient issues for West-Flanders

CasestudyTechnical-economical model:

• 2 scenario’s• Buffering of hydrogen

Selection of feasible sites:

Casestudy- Calculations (model)

Casestudy- Calculations (model)Input ElektrolyseElektriciteit inname van net draaiuren/jaar (elektrolyser) draaiuren (waterstofbuffer) draaiuren/jaar (methanatie) draaiuren/jaar (vergister‐biogas) specifiek grondgebruik elektrolyse specifiek grondgebruik methanatie 

grootte elektrolyser ogenblikkelijke waterstofproductie zuurstofproductie waterbehoefte elektrolyser watertransport met gas totaal energie inname/jaar totaal waterstof/jaar totaal zuurstof/jaar totaal waterbehoefte/jaar grondgebruik elektrolyse 

Waterstofbuffer  Methanatie gemiddeld daggebruik buffer technische buffer gemiddelde waterstofoutput gebufferde waterstof 

grootte methanatie unit waterproductie methanatie methaanproductie uit waterstof koolstofdioxide voor methanatie waterstof niet omgezet koolstofdioxide niet omgezet biogas aanvoer voor methanatie niet omgezet gas in methanatie zuiverheid gas uit methanatie

Onderdeel CAPEX OPEXElektrolyse  1000 €/kW  4,5% van CAPEX Waterstofbuffer  44 €/Nm³  0,04494 €/Nm³ Methanatie  500 €/Nm³ reactor  10% van CAPEX Voorbereidingskosten werken 5% investering  n.v.t.Inkomsten Methaan  0,535 €/Nm³ Zuurstof 0,8 €/Nm³

 

Economical goals set:

Debt/equity = 75/25IRR = 12%Loan = 10 years

Outcome: electricity price

Casestudy- Calculations (model)

Casestudy - Hydrogen buffering Off peak production

‐250

‐200

‐150

‐100

‐50

0

50

100

0 6 12 18 24

Price (€/M

Wh)

Time (h)

June 16 ‐ 2013

October 19 ‐ 2013

December 31 ‐ 2013

Casestudy - Scenario 1: Decentralized650 Nm³/h biogas (60% CH4)

No buffer 2/3 buffer

electrolyser 6000 kW 18000 kWInstant hydrogenproduction

1083 Nm³/h 3251 Nm³/h

Oxygen production 541 Nm³/h 1625 Nm³/hMethane productionfrom H2

261Nm³/h

Reactor volume 1390 m³CAPEX 7.172.965 € 20.980.706 €OPEX 4.211.957 € in year1 4.787.464 € in year 1Income 5.023.354 € in year 1 5.023.354 € in year 1Electricity price cap 0,07323 €/kWh 0,02707 €/kWh

Casestudy - Scenario 2: Centralized2000 Nm³/h biogas (60% CH4)Scale advantage: 10%

No buffer 2/3 buffer

electrolyser 18250 kW 54750 kWInstant hydrogenproduction

3297 Nm³/h 9890 Nm³/h

Oxygen production 1648 Nm³/h 4945 Nm³/hMethane productionfrom H2

795 Nm³/h

Reactor volume 4228 m³CAPEX 19.834.336€ 58.014.831 €OPEX 13.035.732 € in year 1 8.716.799 € in year 1Income 15.279.368 € in year 1 15.279.368 € in year 1Electricity price cap 0,08279 €/kWh 0,03663 €/kWh

Selection of feasible sites

Location Installed wind power (MW) Installed solar power(installations >10kW)(MW)

Roeselare-Beveren 4 MWe

Izegem: 12,6 13,7Izegem: 2,6

Menen 4,5 MWe 4,6 7,5

Ieper 6,6 MWe 20,7 9,1

Pittem 7,45 MWe 0 2,5

Casestudy - Selection of feasible sites

Roeselare

Ieper

Casestudy - Roeselare• Shanks Vlaanderen• Next to Mandel river• 4 Mwe• 587 Nm²/h biogas• 32,5% CO2

Casestudy - RoeselareFairly the same as scenario 1

No buffer 2/3 buffer

electrolyser 4400 kW 13200 kWInstant hydrogenproduction

795 Nm³/h 2385 Nm³/h

Oxygen production 397 Nm³/h 1192 Nm³/hMethane productionfrom H2

192Nm³/h

Reactor volume 641 m³CAPEX 5.026.310 € 15.081.986 €OPEX 3.115.222 € in jaar 1 1.977.736€ in jaar 1Income 3.683.793 € in jaar 1 3.683.793 € in jaar 1Electricity price cap 0,07447 €/kWh 0,02860 €/kWh

Casestudy - IeperBiomass Center Ieper – 2,1 MweWaterleau – 3,1 MweIVVO – 1,4 Mwe

900 Nm³/h biogas 40% CO2 - estimated

Casestudy - IeperSmaller then scenario 2 Scale advantage: 4,5%

No buffer 2/3 buffer

electrolyser 8250 kW 24750 kWInstant hydrogenproduction

1490 Nm³/h 4470 Nm³/h

Oxygen production 745 Nm³/h 2235 Nm³/hMethane productionfrom H2

360 Nm³/h

Reactor volume 1911 m³CAPEX 9.438.112 € 27.606.193 €OPEX 5.839.483 € in jaar 1 3.784.331 € in jaar 1Income 6.907.111 € in jaar 1 6.907.111 € in jaar 1Electricity price cap 0,07753 €/kWh 0,03137 €/kWh

General SWOT Strenghts

• Staffed and experienced personnel in biological processes

• Cluster: risk spreading, scale advantage, input/output flexibility

Weaknesses

• Bad investment climate in biogas sector

• Long term strategies missing in most biogas companies

• Costs of electrolysis• Market readiness• Land use

Opportunities

• Increasing power of solar and wind• Good natural gas grid• Available fleet for biomethane

valorization• Market changes – adding flexibility

Threats

• Competition for other hydrogen purposes

• Competition with fysicochemicalbiogas upgrading

Cluster: internal competition, crossing public domain

QUESTIONS?

University of Ghent - LiWet

Jonathan De Meyjonathan.demey@ugent.bejonathan.de.mey@biogas-e.be+32(0)476509253

www.biogas-e.be