| Summary: | Underground coal gasification (UCG) enables utilization of coal reserves, 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 utilization (CCU) of produced CO<inline-formula> <math display="inline"> <semantics> <msub> <mrow></mrow> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </semantics> </math> </inline-formula>. Modeling results show that boundary conditions favoring electricity, methanol, and ammonia production expose low costs for air separation, low compression power requirements, and appropriate shares of H<inline-formula> <math display="inline"> <semantics> <msub> <mrow></mrow> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </semantics> </math> </inline-formula>/N<inline-formula> <math display="inline"> <semantics> <msub> <mrow></mrow> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </semantics> </math> </inline-formula>. Hereby, a gasification agent ratio of more than 30% oxygen by volume is not favorable from the economic and CO<inline-formula> <math display="inline"> <semantics> <msub> <mrow></mrow> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </semantics> </math> </inline-formula> mitigation viewpoints. Compared to the costs of an offshore platform with its technical equipment, offshore drilling costs are marginal. Thus, uncertainties related to parameters influenced by drilling costs are negligible. In summary, techno-economic process modeling results reveal that air-blown gasification scenarios are the most cost-effective ones, while offshore UCG-CCS/CCU scenarios are up to 1.7 times more expensive than the related onshore processes. Hereby, all investigated onshore scenarios except from ammonia production under the assumed worst-case conditions are competitive on the European market.
|
|---|
