This paper presents a cost modeling approach and the economic feasibility for selected plant configurations operating under three modes: air gasification, mixed air-steam gasification, and steam gasification combined cycle solid oxide fuel cell(SOFC)systems. In this study, three cases of biomass gasification integrated SOFC without combined cycle (base case 1) are compared with biomass gasification integrated SOFC-gas turbine (GT) with heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) hybrid configuration (case 2) and biomass gasification integrated SOFC-steam turbine (ST) cycle (case 3) for biomass feed stock. The plant design cases of integrated biomass gasification processes, SOFC, and combined cycles are investigated primarily employing aspen plus™ flow sheeting models. Based on the mass and energy balance results of the system simulations, the economic model calculates the size and cost estimates for the plant configuration equipments. Detailed purchase cost estimations for each piece of equipments and the corresponding total bare module cost were established based on the bare module factor, and the total direct permanent investment were established. The calculated direct permanent investment was used for economic feasibility analysis of the cogeneration plant configuration. The economic feasibility decision parameters, such as purchase cost estimations, total specific plant cost per kW, the financial net present value (FNPV), internal rate of return, and benefit to cost ratio for the system configurations were compared for three design cases. The results shows that the cost of the steam gasification system is shown to be highest compared to the mixed air steam gasification system and air gasification system due to the higher hydrogen production. Other than the SOFC and gasification costs, a significant cost towards the heat exchangers is about 15% to 20% of the total equipment purchase cost. The specific plant cost for the air gasification varied from the 16 600 US$/kW to 19 200 US$/kWe. For the case of biomass gasification-integrated SOFC-GT configuration, the major cost portions are shared by the SOFC, HRSG, and gasifier. The HRSG equipment shared a cost portion of 25% to 30% for all the operating modes. The cost is decreased with a similar trend as that of steam, mixed air-steam and air gasification systems. For the case of biomass gasification integrated with SOFC-ST configuration, the total equipment purchase cost decreases at a rate of 15% to 20% for both mixed air steam and air gasification system. Plant specific cost for the steam gasification mode varied from 15 200 to 17 200 US $/kW which is significantly very high.
The financial support from the research council of Norway and five industry partners through the project KRAV (enabling small-scale biomass CHP in Norway) is gratefully acknowledged
A. Techno-economic studies
II. PLANT DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS
A. Case 1: Biomass gasification integrated SOFC (base case)
B. Case 2: Biomass gasification integrated SOFC-Gas turbine (Brayton-HRSG cycle)
C. Case 3: Biomass gasification integrated SOFC-steam turbine configuration
A. Plant system simulation approach
1. Best operating conditions
2. Equipment purchase cost modeling
3. Total Bare module cost (CTBM)
4. Economic feasibility analysis
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Electrical power output and electrical efficiency at best operating conditions
B. Plant cost results
1. Case 1: Biomass-gasification integrated SOFC stand-alone configuration
2. Case 2: Biomass gasification-integrated SOFC-GT combined cycle configuration
3. Case 3: Biomass gasification integrated SOFC-ST combined cycle configuration
C. Financial feasibility
1. Air gasification
2. Mixed air-steam gasification
3. Steam gasification
4. Comparison of FNPV, IRR on project, IRR on equity, and BC ratio at future electricity price
- Solid oxide fuel cells
- Gasification systems
- Fuel cell systems
- Molten carbonate fuel cells
- Fuel cell technology
Data & Media loading...
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...