H / CO 2 cost: 4000 / 50 $/t
Negative EBITDA
Negative EBITDA
CH
FT
Carbon-
Urea
PPC
CH
Urea
PPC
FT
Carbon- ation Xylenes
MeOH
Oxo (butanal)
Polyols
ation Xylenes
Polyols
MeOH
Oxo (butanal)
Figure 5 Relative capital cost
Figure 6 Payback – 2030 scenario
intensive due to either high compression requirements or large equipment sizes if operating at lower pressures. The additional capital costs will be limited if the carbon utilisation plant is integrated into a much larger existing complex that can provide the utilities needed and has spare offsite and control room facilities. However, adding the outside battery limits (OSBL) costs will be very significant for a remote greenfield project with high import utility requirements. Overall financial performance A simple payback time has been calculated as the ratio of the capital cost estimate to the operating revenue/cost balance (see Part 1). Note that the capital cost expressed in 2021 USD is assumed to remain unchanged. The higher the bar in Figures 6 and 7 , the longer the payback time. This simplified key performance indicator (KPI) can be used for a preliminary selection of the technologies to consider. A more rigorous financial analysis can then be performed in a future phase. The payback time is significantly lower in the 2050 scenario with high CO 2 cost and low hydrogen cost than in the 2030 scenario with
much lower CO 2 cost and high hydrogen cost. For the technologies that consume no hydrogen (urea, carbonation, polyols, polypropylene carbonate (PPC)), this is largely due to the increased carbon abatement revenue. The graphs also reconfirm that hydrogen cost is the primary economic driver for hydrogen- intensive technologies. Despite the less appealing 2030 scenario, some of the technologies remain economically attractive due to their limited capital requirements (carbonation, polyols, Oxo) and/ or ability to generate high-value products (polypropylene carbonate, Oxo). Market size Table 4 shows the size of the global market demand for each technology considered. Market demand will not be the primary consideration for the size of carbon utilisation
unit producing products like methane, methanol, FT, and building materials.
However, butanal (Oxo) polyols, and especially polypropylene carbonate, are in much lower
# Technology
Global product market*
1 Methanation 2 Methanol 3 Fischer-Tropsch 4 Oxo synthesis 5 Carbonation
Large Large Large Small Large Large Small
H / CO2 cost: 1500 / 200 $/t
6 Xylenes
Medium
7 Urea
8 Polyols
9 Polymeric carbonates Small * Large: > 100 million t/y, Medium: 10-100 million t/y, Small: <10 million t/y
CH
FT
Carbon-
Urea
PPC
Oxo (butanal)
Polyols
MeOH
ation Xylenes
Figure 7 Payback – 2050 scenario
Table 4 Carbon utilisation product market size
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
36
Powered by FlippingBook