A Techno-Economic Assessment of Fischer–Tropsch Fuels Based on Syngas from Co-Electrolysis

Abstract

As a part of the worldwide efforts to substantially reduce CO2 emissions, power-to-fuel technologies offer a promising path to make the transport sector CO2-free, complementing the electrification of vehicles. This study focused on the coupling of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis for the production of synthetic diesel and kerosene with a high-temperature electrolysis unit. For this purpose, a process model was set up consisting of several modules including a high-temperature co-electrolyzer and a steam electrolyzer, both of which were based on solid oxide electrolysis cell technology, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, a hydrocracker, and a carrier steam distillation. The integration of the fuel synthesis reduced the electrical energy demand of the co-electrolysis process by more than 20%. The results from the process simulations indicated a power-to-fuel efficiency that varied between 46% and 67%, with a decisive share of the energy consumption of the co-electrolysis process within the energy balance. Moreover, the utilization of excess heat can substantially to completely cover the energy demand for CO2 separation. The economic analysis suggests production costs of 1.85 €/lDE for the base case and the potential to cut the costs to 0.94 €/lDE in the best case scenario. These results underline the huge potential of the developed power-to-fuel technology.

Decentralised production of e-fuels for aviation: implications and trade-offs of a targeted small-scale production of sustainable aviation fuel based on Fischer–Tropsch synthesis

“…They highlight the important role of the electricity price on the final production costs. This is also supported by the finding of Peters et al , 17 which report efficiencies and product generation costs for a PtL process with integrated co-electrolysis for the synthesis gas production. The application of a co-electrolysis in a simplified plant setup is considered by Herz et al , 18 who investigate achievable plant efficiencies and the economic feasibility with a focus on the production of chemicals.…”

Techno-Economic Comparison of Low-Carbon Energy Carriers Based on Electricity for Air Mobility

“…The electricity requirements to produce H 2 and eFuels are very high [11,[13][14][15][16][17] and, therefore, the impacts associated with the production of these energy carriers shall be considered, namely cost and CO 2 , in this study.…”

“…A total of 65 kWh of electricity per kg of LH 2 is, therefore, considered in this study. Electricity for eFuel: as for LH 2 , electricity is the dominant factor when producing eFuel [11,17,28]. eFuel will require an optimized unit of production as proposed in [11,17] using either direct air capture or biogenic CO 2 [28].…”

Syngas Production from CO2 and H2O via Solid-Oxide Electrolyzer Cells: Fundamentals, Materials, Degradation, Operating Conditions, and Applications

“…Becker et al 109 provided a range of gasoline production costs from 0.96 to 3.30 $ L −1 when electricity prices ranged from 0.02 to 0.14 $ kW h −1 . Peters et al 405 showed that the basic diesel production cost was 1.97 $ L −1 (by assuming an electricity price of 42.54 $ kW h −1 , electrolyzer efficiency of 80%, depreciation period of 12 years, SOEC cost of 812 $ kW h −1 , and CO 2 price of 74.44 × 10 −3 $ kg −1 ). In the best-case scenario, the cost can be reduced to 1 $ L −1 (by assuming an electricity price of 21.27 $ kW h −1 , electrolyzer efficiency of 100%, depreciation period of 15 years, SOEC cost of 463 $ kW h −1 , and CO 2 price of 21.27 × 10 −3 $ kg −1 ).…”