4.6 Article

Techno-economic analysis of gasification routes for ammonia production from Victorian brown coal

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 57-68

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2015.06.008

关键词

Moving bed gasification; Lignite; Process synthesis; Acid gas removal; LCA; CCS

资金

  1. Hubei Yihua Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The environmental, economic, and technical viability of high and low pressure gasification technologies for the production of ammonia from low rank coal was examined. Three cases were developed starting with different gasification technologies (UGI and BGL), leading to different flowsheets, mass and energy balances, and finally heat integration. Environmental and economic analyses were performed on each of the cases. Three further cases were considered for the treatment of CO2 generated in the process: direct emission, use in urea production, and carbon capture and storage. CO2 emissions for the base cases were found to be 2.36-3.15 kg CO2-e/kg NH3, with a low pressure, UGI gasifier based process giving the lowest emissions. All values obtained are higher than the range of 1.25-1.80 kg CO2-e/kg NH3 for natural gas based ammonia plants in Australia. In comparison with 2013 ammonia prices, the cases were found to be similarly economically unviable. At a discount rate of 15%, the break-even prices achieved are in the order of 2.5 times the current prices, at A$1500/t-A$1600/t in most cases. While no overall benefit for a particular case was clear economically or technically, the use of certain technologies gave notable results. The low-pressure UGI gasifiers, after accounting for compression costs, gave an economic benefit over the high-pressure BGL gasifiers. The liquid nitrogen wash unit, when placed before the ammonia synthesis loop, recovered methane that is suitable for power generation. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据