1. 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

2. 3 Introduction

3. 4 Order Background Process Description –Plasma-arc Reformer –Production of Synthesis Gas –Production of Hydrogen Techno-economic Evaluation Comparison with SMR Conclusion

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 – 800-1000 h Efficiency – 80-90% Temperature – 2000-5000°C

8. 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

9. 10 Process Description continued Plasma-arc Synthesis Gas Production –Process One CO 2 as Oxidizing Agent η ~ 63%

10. 11 Process Description continued –Process Two CO 2 & H 2 O as Oxidizing Agents η ~ 65%

11. 12 Process Description continued Plasma-arc Hydrogen Gas Production –Process Three Electrical Energy η ~ 55%

12. 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%

13. 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%

14. 15 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Techno-economic Evaluation for Synthesis Gas Production –Process One Capital Investment $90 397 381 Production Cost $9.63 per GJ ($0.17 per kg)

15. 16 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued

16. 17 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Selling Price (per GJ) NPV PBP (years ) ROIIRR $11$41.47 million7.720.3% 12.2 % $12$196.33 million4.241.8% 23.5 % $13$351.19 million2.963.2% 34.3 % Table 1:Effect of Selling Price

17. 18 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued –Process Two Capital Investment $93 456 159 H 2 /CO Ratio Synthesis Gas Flow Rate (Nm 3 /year) Production Cost (per GJ)(per kg) 1.01 435 million$9.63$0.17 1.51 435 million$9.56$0.20 2.01 435 million$9.52$0.23 2.51 435 million$9.49$0.26 3.01 435 million$9.47$0.29 Table 2:Effect of H 2 /CO Ratio on Production Cost

18. 19 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued

19. 20 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Selling Price (per GJ) NPV PBP (years) ROIIRR $11$2.19 million9.714.8%9.2% $12$153.08 million4.934.8%19.9% $13$303.97 million3.354.8%30.1% Table 3:Effect of Selling Price

20. 21 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued –Process Three Capital Investment $244 742 652 Production Cost $12.81 per GJ ($1.60 per kg)

21. 22 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued

22. 23 Techno-Economic Evaluation continued Selling Price (per GJ) NPV PBP (years) ROIIRR $17$61.21 million8.717.7%10.6% $18$192.90 million6.823.9%14.0% $19$324.60 million5.630.2%17.3% $20$456.30 million4.836.4%20.6% Table 4:Effect of Selling Price

23. 24 Comparison with SMR Steam methane reforming* –Capacity 250 000 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.3797-3810) ($14.25 per GJ) ($245 million)

24. 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

25. 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

26. 27 Thank You NON-CATALYTIC PLASMA-ARC REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS WITH CARBON DIOXIDE