Life Cycle Assessment and Greenhouse Gas Abatement Costs of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification by Aman Verma A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta © Aman Verma, 2014 Abstract Large amounts of hydrogen (H ) are required for the upgrading of bitumen from oil sands 2 to produce synthetic crude oil (SCO). Currently, natural gas is used in the bitumen upgrading industry to produce H through steam methane reforming (SMR). This process 2 has a significant life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint. Due to rising SCO production from the Canadian oil sands and climate change concerns, there is a growing need to explore more environmentally sustainable pathways for H production that have 2 lower GHG footprint. Western Canada is endowed with considerable reserves of deep un- mineable coal that can be converted to syngas through a gasification process called underground coal gasification (UCG). The syngas can be transformed into H through 2 commercially available technologies used in conventional fossil-fuel based H production 2 pathways. Moreover, GHGs (mainly CO ) from the H plant operation can be captured 2 2 using a physical solvent like Selexol and sequestered underground or used as a feedstock for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. A life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool to evaluate the environmental impact of a system. This research presents a model to perform energy balances, estimate H 2 conversion efficiency, and implement LCA to quantify life cycle GHG emissions in different unit operations of H production from UCG-based syngas with and without 2 carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In addition, a detailed analysis of the impact of key UCG parameters, i.e., H O-to-O injection ratio, ground water influx, and steam-to- 2 2 i i carbon ratio in syngas conversion, is completed on the results. Furthermore, seven practical H production scenarios, applicable to western Canada, are considered to assess 2 the GHG abatement costs of implementing UCG vis-à-vis SMR along with the consideration of CCS. The life cycle GHG emissions are calculated to be 0.91 and 18.0 kg-CO -eq/kg-H in a 2 2 small-scale H production (16.3 tonnes/day) from UCG-based syngas with and without 2 CCS, respectively. The heat exchanger efficiency and the separation efficiency of the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit are major parameters affecting these emissions. The emissions increase marginally with a rise in the H O-to-O injection ratio and the 2 2 steam-to-carbon ratio in H production from UCG with CCS. Considering SMR 2 technology without CCS as the base case, the GHG abatement costs of implementing the UCG-CCS technology is calculated to be in the range of C$41-109 /tonne-CO -eq 2 depending on the transportation distance from the UCG-H production plant to the CCS 2 site. On the other hand, the GHG abatement costs for SMR-CCS-based scenarios are higher than for UCG-CCS-based scenarios; they range from C$87-158 /tonne-CO -eq in 2 a similar manner to UCG-CCS. However, there is no GHG abatement for implementing UCG without CCS; the life cycle GHG emissions are higher in UCG than in SMR. The sale of the CO captured in the H production plant (applicable in SMR-CCS and UCG- 2 2 CCS) to an EOR operator reduces the GHG abatement costs; in fact, a prospect for revenue generation is realized in the UCG-CCS case. ii i Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank Dr. Amit Kumar for his ongoing support and guidance starting from my transition to the University of Alberta from Clemson University. During the course of the graduate program, as a supervisor and a mentor, Dr. Kumar provided constructive criticism for my research work. It was a wonderful experience to learn from and contribute to his research group. I have progressed at a personal level working with him. His professional conduct has and will continue to benefit my career development. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the NSERC/Cenovus/Alberta Innovates Associate Industrial Research Chair Program in Energy and Environmental Systems Engineering and the Cenovus Energy Endowed Chair Program in Environmental Engineering for providing financial support for the research project. In addition, I thank my supervisory committee for reviewing the dissertation and providing useful insights and feedback. I thank Babatunde Olateju for reviewing the research results and the papers. I express my thanks to Astrid Blodgett for providing editorial support for all the journal papers and the thesis. Our Sustainable Energy Research Laboratory was no less than a home away from home. Intellectual and meaningful discussions among peers were helpful in increasing my curiosity in various aspects of research and life in general. The diversity in the lab helped me to understand the cultures and traditions of different countries. Birthday celebrations, iv pizza parties, and potlucks truly made the experience unforgettable. Undoubtedly, the associations made, and the camaraderie I share with some members in the lab, will be memorable and are for a lifetime. Lastly, I would like pay regards and thank my lovely parents, grandmother, sister-in-law and brother, who from miles away provided unconditional love and mental support. They have been pillars of my success and failures. v Preface Chapter 2 of this thesis will be submitted to International Journal of Hydrogen Energy as Verma A., Olateju B., Kumar A., Gupta R., “Development of a Process Simulation Model for Energy Analysis of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification (UCG)”. Chapter 3 of this thesis has been submitted to Applied Energy as Verma A., Kumar A., “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)”. Chapter 4 of this thesis has been submitted to Energy as Verma A., Olateju B., Kumar A., “Greenhouse Gas Abatement Costs of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification (UCG)”. I was responsible for the concept development, data gathering, model development, analysis of the results, and arrangement of the manuscripts. A. Kumar was the supervising author and was involved in the concept development, analysis of the results, and arrangement of the manuscripts. R. Gupta helped in model development and reviewed the overall results specially related to simulation of the UCG process. B. Olateju reviewed the results. v i Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Preface................................................................................................................................ vi Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii Nomenclature ................................................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Life cycle assessment ............................................................................................... 5 1.3. Research motivation............................................................................................... 10 1.4. Thesis objectives .................................................................................................... 12 1.5. Organization of thesis ............................................................................................ 13 Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................... 15 Development of a Process Simulation Model for Energy Analysis of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) ................................................. 15 2.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 15 2.2. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1. Plant layout overview: H production from UCG with and without CCS .......... 16 2 vi i 2.2.2. H production from UCG – An overview of unit operations .......................... 19 2 2.2.2.1. Injection ................................................................................................... 19 2.2.2.2. Underground coal gasification ................................................................. 19 2.2.2.3. Hydrogen sulphide (H S) removal ........................................................... 24 2 2.2.2.4. Syngas to H conversion .......................................................................... 25 2 2.2.2.5. CO removal and transportation ............................................................... 26 2 2.2.2.6. H removal and transportation ................................................................. 29 2 2.2.2.7. Co-generation plant .................................................................................. 30 2.3. Results and discussion ........................................................................................... 32 2.3.1. Power requirement in different unit operations: H production from UCG with 2 and without CCS ....................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2. Effect of the steam-to-carbon ratio on Ƞ , and Ƞ ........................................... 39 h e 2.3.3. The effect of H O-to-O injection flow ratio on coal-to-H conversion 2 2 2 efficiency, Ƞ ............................................................................................................. 43 h 2.3.4. Electricity production from UCG with and without CCS ............................... 46 2.3.5. Comparative analysis: H production from UCG vs. SCG vs. SMR .............. 47 2 2.3.6. Sensitivity analysis.......................................................................................... 50 2.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 52 Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 53 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) ................................ 53 3.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 53 3.2. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 54 vi ii 3.2.1. Goal and Scope ............................................................................................... 55 3.2.1.1. Functional unit ......................................................................................... 55 3.2.1.2. System boundaries ................................................................................... 56 3.2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) .............................................................................. 58 3.2.2.1. H production from UCG ......................................................................... 58 2 3.2.2.2. Drilling ..................................................................................................... 64 3.2.2.3. CO pipeline design and EOR well characteristics for sequestration ...... 64 2 3.2.2.4. H pipeline design .................................................................................... 66 2 3.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) ............................................................. 67 3.3. Results and discussion ........................................................................................... 69 3.3.1. Life cycle GHG emissions .............................................................................. 69 3.3.2. Net energy ratio (NER) ................................................................................... 74 3.3.3. The effect of steam-to-carbon ratio on life cycle GHG emissions ................. 77 3.3.4. The effect of the H O-to-O injection ratio on life cycle GHG emissions ..... 81 2 2 3.3.5. Comparative assessment of life cycle GHG emissions in H production from 2 UCG with other H production pathways ................................................................. 84 2 3.3.6. Sensitivity analysis.......................................................................................... 88 3.3.6.1 Sensitivity analysis on net life cycle GHG emissions .............................. 88 3.3.6.2 Sensitivity analysis on gross life cycle GHG emissions ........................... 90 3.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 92 Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 93 Greenhouse Gas Abatement Costs of Hydrogen Production from Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) ........................................................................................................... 93 ix 4.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 93 4.2. Western Canadian H production scenarios ........................................................... 95 2 4.3. Method ................................................................................................................... 98 4.3.1. Scope of study ................................................................................................. 98 4.3.2. System boundaries: H production from UCG and SMR with and without 2 CCS ......................................................................................................................... 102 4.4. Results and discussion ......................................................................................... 106 4.4.1. Life cycle GHG emissions in SMR-based H production scenarios............. 106 2 4.4.2. Life cycle GHG emissions in UCG-based H production scenarios............. 110 2 4.4.3. GHG abatement costs in H production scenarios ........................................ 112 2 4.4.4. GHG mitigation potential of UCG-CCS and SMR-CCS technologies for H 2 production ............................................................................................................... 115 4.5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 117 Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................... 118 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work .................................................... 118 5.1. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 118 5.1.1. Research limitations ...................................................................................... 121 5.2. Recommendations for future work ...................................................................... 122 References ....................................................................................................................... 125 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 137 Aspen Plus Simulation Model ........................................................................................ 137 x