Consumption of raw materials
Specific consumption (per MT of fuel) PtL pathway
PBtL pathway
Biomethane/CBG (CH 4 )
Not applicable
0.86 MT
}
}
Renewable power (electrolysis) Water (H 2 O) (electrolysis) Renewable power (process)
26 MWh
Not applicable Not applicable
Green hydrogen (H 2 )
0.45MT (H 2 )
5.0 MT
4.2 MWh (rWGS + FT)
5.5 MWh (3.9 PBR + 1.6 FT)
Water (H 2 O) (process) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 )
Not applicable
0.64 MT 0.78 MT
3.17 MT
Table 1
USPs and Opex/Capex benefits of PBtL The integrated technology platform, consisting of the three-in-one reactor and FT synthesis- cum-refining/product upgrading unit, is capable of producing sustainable fuels on a large scale. The PBtL plant produces drop-in-compatible transportation fuels, such as kerosene, diesel, and naphtha, through a process made possible in a compact, modular plant. Up to a 92% reduction in CO₂ emissions (gCO₂eq/MJ of energy) from an established baseline has been reported in the life cycle analysis (LCA) carried out by the Technical University of Hamburg, Germany,8 which is superior to any other SAF pathway. Biogas feedstock is easier to convert into renewable fuels using the integrated technology platform, requiring very little front-end equipment as compared to other pathways. Moreover, it does not require costly green H2 in any of the process steps, unlike HEFA, AtJ, or PtL pathways, which require H2 for completion of the hydroprocessing or hydrogenation steps for the former two pathways, and the rWGS step for the latter. A PBtL plant has a significantly lower demand for renewable power for the production of SAF by a factor of approximately six times compared to a conventional PtL plant via the rWGS route. A typical breakdown of the production cost of e-SAF based on the PtL pathway is depicted in Figure 4 . It is imperative that the production cost of SAF via the PBtL pathway is clearly lower than the production cost of e-SAF via the PtL pathway. It is a bit premature to accurately estimate Opex due to wide variations in site-specific costs of raw materials, utilities, manpower, capital, factory overheads, as well as fixed and indirect costs. Preferring to err on the conservative side, the
This is followed by a final step of refining/ product upgrading to produce SAF and RD – typically, in a ratio of 80%w: 20%w – with flexibility to produce up to 100% SAF. The product distribution can be adjusted freely within this range, allowing the process to respond dynamically to shifts in demand for either fuel. Importantly, the total hydrocarbon yield remains unchanged regardless of the SAF-RD ratio, and these adjustments can be made with only modest changes to operating conditions without any unit shutdowns. This flexibility allows the PBtL technology to efficiently adapt to market pricing and demand while maintaining high efficiency. The process produces high-quality synthetic hydrocarbons in the range of SAF (C₈ to C1₆ – ideal carbon chain) that are virtually free of sulphur. The process has an extremely low energy requirement, a low carbon footprint with no byproducts, and the final SAF product complies with regulatory ASTM D7566 Annex A1 blend-in standards for jet fuel. A comparative tabulation of the expected specific consumption of main raw materials (ideal case) for SAF plants based on PtL and PBtL pathways, respectively, is presented in Table 1 . The current procurement price of CBG in India is ₹77.4/kg (excluding Goods and Services Tax [GST])5,compared to the prevailing levelised cost of green H₂, which is ~₹350-400/kg⁶ (excluding GST). The round-the-clock renewable energy (RTC-RE) tariff is ₹4-4.5/kWh.⁷ Overall, the economics of both pathways is driven by the price of renewable electricity, green H₂ (or biomethane), and captured CO₂. Prima facie, the above data indicate that the PBtL pathway is a significant improvement on the conventional PtL pathway.
Refining India
8
Powered by FlippingBook