skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Techno-Economic Analysis of Methane Pyrolysis in Molten Metals: Decarbonizing Natural Gas

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3];  [4]
  1. University of Queensland, Dow Centre for Sustainable Engineering Innovation, 4072 Brisbane, QLD Australia
  2. Loughborough University, Department of Chemical Engineering, LE11 3TU Leicestershire UK
  3. University of California, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, CA 93106-9510 Santa Barbara USA
  4. University of Queensland, Dow Centre for Sustainable Engineering Innovation, 4072 Brisbane, QLD Australia, University of California, Department of Chemical Engineering, CA 93106-5080 Santa Barbara USA
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1400609
Grant/Contract Number:
DEFG02-89ER14048
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Publisher's Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Chemical Engineering and Technology
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 40; Journal Issue: 6; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-10-20 15:01:20; Journal ID: ISSN 0930-7516
Publisher:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Country of Publication:
Germany
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Parkinson, Brett, Matthews, Joshua W., McConnaughy, Thomas B., Upham, D. Chester, and McFarland, Eric W.. Techno-Economic Analysis of Methane Pyrolysis in Molten Metals: Decarbonizing Natural Gas. Germany: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/ceat.201600414.
Parkinson, Brett, Matthews, Joshua W., McConnaughy, Thomas B., Upham, D. Chester, & McFarland, Eric W.. Techno-Economic Analysis of Methane Pyrolysis in Molten Metals: Decarbonizing Natural Gas. Germany. doi:10.1002/ceat.201600414.
Parkinson, Brett, Matthews, Joshua W., McConnaughy, Thomas B., Upham, D. Chester, and McFarland, Eric W.. Mon . "Techno-Economic Analysis of Methane Pyrolysis in Molten Metals: Decarbonizing Natural Gas". Germany. doi:10.1002/ceat.201600414.
@article{osti_1400609,
title = {Techno-Economic Analysis of Methane Pyrolysis in Molten Metals: Decarbonizing Natural Gas},
author = {Parkinson, Brett and Matthews, Joshua W. and McConnaughy, Thomas B. and Upham, D. Chester and McFarland, Eric W.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1002/ceat.201600414},
journal = {Chemical Engineering and Technology},
number = 6,
volume = 40,
place = {Germany},
year = {Mon Mar 27 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Mon Mar 27 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1002/ceat.201600414

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 3works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:
  • This work shows preliminary results from techno-economic analysis and life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of the conversion of seven (7) biomass feedstocks to produce liquid transportation fuels via fast pyrolysis and upgrading via hydrodeoxygenation. The biomass consists of five (5) pure feeds (pine, tulip poplar, hybrid poplar, switchgrass, corn stover) and two blends. Blend 1 consists of equal weights of pine, tulip poplar and switchgrass, and blend 2 is 67% pine and 33% hybrid poplar. Upgraded oil product yield is one of the most significant parameters affecting the process economics, and is a function of both fast pyrolysis oil yieldmore » and hydrotreating oil yield. Pure pine produced the highest overall yield, while switchgrass produced the lowest. Interestingly, herbaceous materials blended with woody biomass performed nearly as well as pure woody feedstock, suggesting a non-trivial relationship between feedstock attributes and production yield. Production costs are also highly dependent upon hydrotreating catalyst-related costs. The catalysts contribute an average of ~15% to the total fuel cost, which can be reduced through research and development focused on achieving performance at increased space velocity (e.g., reduced catalyst loading) and prolonging catalyst lifetime. Green-house-gas reduction does not necessarily align with favorable economics. From the greenhouse gas analysis, processing tulip poplar achieves the largest GHG emission reduction relative to petroleum (~70%) because of its lower hydrogen consumption in the upgrading stage that results in a lower natural gas requirement for hydrogen production. Conversely, processing blend 1 results in the smallest GHG emission reduction from petroleum (~58%) because of high natural gas demand for hydrogen production.« less
  • This study evaluates the techno-economic uncertainty in cost estimates for two emerging biorefinery technologies for biofuel production: in situ and ex situ catalytic pyrolysis. Stochastic simulations based on process and economic parameter distributions are applied to calculate biorefinery performance and production costs. The probability distributions for the minimum fuel-selling price (MFSP) indicate that in situ catalytic pyrolysis has an expected MFSP of $4.20 per gallon with a standard deviation of 1.15, while the ex situ catalytic pyrolysis has a similar MFSP with a smaller deviation ($4.27 per gallon and 0.79 respectively). These results suggest that a biorefinery based on exmore » situ catalytic pyrolysis could have a lower techno-economic risk than in situ pyrolysis despite a slightly higher MFSP cost estimate. Analysis of how each parameter affects the NPV indicates that internal rate of return, feedstock price, total project investment, electricity price, biochar yield and bio-oil yield are significant parameters which have substantial impact on the MFSP for both in situ and ex situ catalytic pyrolysis.« less
  • The high cost of wafers suitable for epitaxial deposition of III-V solar cells has been a primary barrier to widespread use of these cells in low-concentration and one-sun terrestrial solar applications. A possible solution is to reuse the substrate many times, thus spreading its cost across many cells. We performed a bottom-up techno-economic analysis of three different strategies for substrate reuse in high-volume manufacturing: epitaxial lift-off, spalling, and the use of a porous germanium release layer. The analysis shows that the potential cost reduction resulting from substrate reuse is limited in all three strategies--not by the number of reuse cyclesmore » achievable, but by the costs that are incurred in each cycle to prepare the substrate for another epitaxial deposition. The dominant substrate-preparation cost component is different for each of the three strategies, and the cost-ranking of these strategies is subject to change if future developments substantially reduce the cost of epitaxial deposition.« less