2 NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH CARBON DIOXIDE Author:Mr. GW BASSON Co-author:Professor PWE BLOM Post Graduate School for Nuclear Science & Engineering

3 Introduction

4 Order Background Process Description –Plasma-arc Reformer –Production of Synthesis Gas –Production of Hydrogen Techno-economic Evaluation Comparison with SMR Conclusion

5 Background Current Technologies –Catalytic Steam Methane Reforming CH 4 + H 2 O CO + 3H 2 H 0 298K = +206 kJ/mol CO + H 2 O CO 2 + H 2 H 0 298K = -41 kJ/mol –Catalytic Dry Methane Reforming CH 4 + CO 2 2CO + 2H 2 H 0 298K = +247 kJ/mol –Four Major Causes of Catalyst Deactivation

6 Background continued Plasma-arc Reforming –Advantages High Temperature and Power Densities No Catalyst is needed for Reforming High Chemical Reaction Rates (up to 100%) Overall Efficiency of ~65% CO 2 instead of Steam as the Oxidizing Agent Production Cost Competitive with SMR Technology Demonstrated on Commercial Scale

7 Background continued Nuclear Synthesis Gas & H 2 Production –~30 Countries uses Nuclear Energy –Steam Methane Reforming Considered –High Temperature Gas Reactors (950°C) –Safety Regulations more stringent

8 Process Description Plasma-arc Reformer –Conversion of SASOL GAS to Synthesis Gas –Operation Conditions Potential – 6.6 kV Current – 1.2 kA Power – 8 MW Lifetime – h Efficiency – 80-90% Temperature – °C

9 Process Description continued Assumptions –CH 4 and CO 2 inlet Temperature - 25°C –Flow Rate to Plasma-arc Reformer – 4000 Nm 3 /h –Thermal Efficiency – 88% –Conversion Rate – 95% –Plasma-arc Reformer Capacity – 8 MW –PBMR produces He at 950°C at 160 kg/s

10 Process Description continued Plasma-arc Synthesis Gas Production –Process One CO 2 as Oxidizing Agent η ~ 63%

11 Process Description continued –Process Two CO 2 & H 2 O as Oxidizing Agents η ~ 65%

12 Process Description continued Plasma-arc Hydrogen Gas Production –Process Three Electrical Energy η ~ 55%

13 Techno-economic Evaluation Assumptions –Higher Heating Value CH 4 – 36.4 MJ/Nm 3 –CH 4 cost - $6 per GJ –CO 2 cost - $5 per ton –Electricity - $0.045 per kWh –Plant Lifetime – 20 years –Discount rate – 9% per year –Inflation rate – 5% per year –Tax rate – 35%

14 Techno-economic Evaluation continued Assumptions for Sensitivity Evaluation –Variation of CH 4 between $3 to $10 per GJ –Variation of CO 2 between $0 to $20 per ton –Variation of Electricity between $0.03 to $0.1 per kWh –Increasing of Capital Investment by 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%

15 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Techno-economic Evaluation for Synthesis Gas Production –Process One Capital Investment $ Production Cost $9.63 per GJ ($0.17 per kg)

16 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued

17 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Selling Price (per GJ) NPV PBP (years ) ROIIRR $11$41.47 million % 12.2 % $12$ million % 23.5 % $13$ million % 34.3 % Table 1:Effect of Selling Price

18 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued –Process Two Capital Investment $ H 2 /CO Ratio Synthesis Gas Flow Rate (Nm 3 /year) Production Cost (per GJ)(per kg) million$9.63$ million$9.56$ million$9.52$ million$9.49$ million$9.47$0.29 Table 2:Effect of H 2 /CO Ratio on Production Cost

19 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued

20 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Selling Price (per GJ) NPV PBP (years) ROIIRR $11$2.19 million %9.2% $12$ million %19.9% $13$ million %30.1% Table 3:Effect of Selling Price

21 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued –Process Three Capital Investment $ Production Cost $12.81 per GJ ($1.60 per kg)

22 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued

23 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Selling Price (per GJ) NPV PBP (years) ROIIRR $17$61.21 million %10.6% $18$ million %14.0% $19$ million %17.3% $20$ million %20.6% Table 4:Effect of Selling Price

24 Comparison with SMR Steam methane reforming* –Capacity Nm 3 /h –Methane Cost $8 per GJ –Production Cost $12.70 per GJ –Total Capital Investment $221.6 million Steam methane reforming with Carbon Capture* –Production Cost $14.77 per GJ –Total Capital Investment $252.6 million *(Mueller-Langer, F., Tzimas, E., Kaltchmitt, M. & Peteves, S., 2007, Techno-economic Assesment of Hydrogen Production Processes for the Hydrogen Economy for Short and Medium Term, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32, pp ) ($14.25 per GJ) ($245 million)

25 Conclusion CH 4 and Electrical Costs have Major impact on Production of Synthesis and H 2 Gas Non-catalytic Plasma-arc Reforming Competitive with SMR

26 Conclusion continued Highlights –Nuclear Energy used for Thermal and Electrical Generation –NO CO 2 produced by Synthesis gas when used in Chemical Industry –CO 2 produced H 2 production less than conventional SMR

27 Thank You NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH CARBON DIOXIDE