PTQ Q1 2023 Issue

CO₂ reduction and associated cost, feedstock substitution, 2019 Western European pricing

Item

Feedstock,

Renewable feedstock/

CO₂

Investment,

€/t CO₂ avoided

KTA

reduction,

M€

(30% higher feedstock)

crude, %

KTA

(30% higher utility prices)

(MPW/vegetable oil prices)

Mixed plastic waste

0.7

195

-58 1 -13 2

-54

-38

Vegetable oil

1300

15.0

3878

763

-8

1. Assuming products resulting from MPW processing are ‘green’ and command a 100 €/t premium relative to their fossil fuel equivalents. MPW cost 200 €/t. 2. Assuming products command a 100 €/t premium relative to their fossil fuel equivalents; vegetable oil cost of 400 €/t; excluding cost of ATR CO 2 disposal.

Table 4

REDII FEEDS

FG/LPG to SMR

HVO

RWD/SAF

Green power

GreenH

Motor fuels

Pyrolysis

Process units

Mixed plastic waste

Products

E-fuels

Crude

Green power

Utilities

E-methanol

SMR

Urea

Blue hydrogen

Green power

ATR

Ethylene carbonate

Green H

Electrolyser

Figure 1 CO₂ abatement options

[HVO] unit) or MPW processed in a pyrolysis unit is the basic premise for feedstock substitution. Their products can be labelled ‘green’ (i.e., not counting towards emis- sions). While this is generally accepted for vegetable oil co-processing, it is less clear for MPW processing. In the latter case, true circularity may not be achieved unless the resultant products are reused as feedstock (for example, to a steam cracker) to be worked up into plastics that (part of) the MPW feed originated from. The effects are shown in Table 4 for new MPW/HVO unit sizes of 67 and 1300 KTA capacity, respectively. With these capacities, the refinery’s renewable fuels output comes close to 14%, the EC’s RED-II target. The calculations are based on a reduction in refinery crude rate to maintain a constant output of motor fuels. The liquid products from the MPW/HVO units are sold as-is with a ‘green’ premium over their fossil fuel homologues. Any credit/debit in CO₂ emis - sions associated with purchasing alternative feedstocks relative to crude oil, normally factored in as Scope 3 emis- sions, is not considered. The vegetable oil case includes the installation of a new ATR-based hydrogen plant and a vegetable oil pretreat- ment unit. The economics greatly depend on feedstock prices and the premium of the green products relative to their fossil fuel equivalents.

CO₂ capture Figure 1 shows in green some of the CO₂ abatement options that will be considered in the ensuing discussion, together with the feedstock/fuel substitution options. A key element is CO₂ capture from process gases (pre-combus - tion) or flue gases (post-combustion). Presently the largest outlet for captured CO₂ is enhanced oil recovery or direct underground storage. In our case, we assume underground storage is available but at such a distance that transport by ship needs to be considered. This will also require a CO₂ liquefaction and loading facility. It is also assumed that up to 400 KTA of CO₂ can be used in the immediate vicinity of the refinery for crop growth in greenhouses. The image further shows a number of CO₂ utilisation options with or without green hydrogen as co-feed. Other CO₂ utilisation options, such as reuse in building materials, are also possible. Further options may still be in develop- ment. 4 Urea manufacturing is considered a mature pathway. The true CO₂ reduction potential of both urea manufac - turing (with green ammonia) and crop growth may be con- troversial and truly depends on the reference scenario being considered. When urea is spread over farmland as fertiliser for crop growth, the nitrogen is absorbed while the CO₂ is released again. 5 The CO₂ reduction potential resides in the fact that the CO₂ is sourced via capture from flue gases

PTQ Q1 2023