Page 81 - demo

PROBLEMS & ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

This estimate is based on 2008 US $. However, this is a preliminary estimate and the accuracy
is only about + 30%.
-
As compared to IGCC based power plants, the polygeneration plants having option for producing
both power and methanol/DME are more economically attractive, particularly when carbon
dioxide emission is to be controlled. Part of the carbon dioxide produced during gasification
and shift reaction is used within the plant for reforming and delivered along with methanol, as
in the case of other units producing FT diesel or methanol only.
While using Indian coal, there are several issues. Most of the technical issues have been
discussed in Section 4.2.1.
There are many reports indicating that compared to power generation from coal even using
IGCC, production of chemicals as well as power is more rewarding. Although the investment
cost is high, the benefits of reduced environmental penalty and possibility of using low grade
coal could justify putting up large coal based plants for power and chemical production in
India, with IGCC and carbon capture facility. To avoid long distance transportation of coal, it is
desirable to locate such plants near coal mines. However, Government support is required for
such a massive investment.

It is observed that the quality of Indian coal is deteriorating with time hence this issue also
should be kept in mind before investing in large scale coal based methanol plant. It may be
noted that the heating value of the order of 13 MJ/Kg, ie, almost half of the good quality coals
used eleswhere and methanol yield will also be proportionately reduced.
It is virtually impossible to have an accurate estimate of investment cost and economic viability
since there are large number of variables. Some of these are: type of feedstock (calorific value,
single feed or multi feed), choice of gasifier, capacity of plant, geographical location, strategy
of carbon capure, target product (single or multiple) etc. However, an attempt is made to
summarise the notional cost of gasification plants for different feed and configuration in Table
18. Although there is wide variation but it could give some general idea. The cost figuires are
rounded up and should be considered only as indicative.

TABLE 18
Investment Cost for Different Feedstocks, Capacity and Products

Calorific Net Power Alternative Investment Cost, US
Source /
Feed Value Configuration Output Products $ per KW or equiv for Reference
MJ/Kg Watt Hr/Kg In KG/Ton power production only
NG 47.3 NGCC 7.2 1255 Kg Me. 718 without CC Ref. 120
or 900 DME 1497 with CC, only power
580 Me or 2500 without CC 3650 with
Coal 22 to 29 IGCC 3 416 DME CC, only power Ref. 120

Wood 250 – 325 1327 to 4225 (for
biomass or 14 to 20 IGCC 1.3 to 1.7 Me eq. equivalent power) Ref. 121
Switch Grass

MSW 5 to 10 0.5 180 M or 140 Only power 2426 without Ref. 105
DME eq.
CC
Lignite 15 Air fired 1 approx 500 MW 750 and 250 MW Ref. 122
1000 in 2011 in India

NG 47.3 DME via 384 MW 67 T Me Eq 997 (DME 1000 TPD and Ref. 123
hr.eq, Plant
Methanol 217 TPD)
Gasification
DME/hr
output
NG: Natural Gas, NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle, IGCC: Integrated Gasification & Combined Cycle (Oxygen Fired),
CC: Carbon Capture

Methanol and DME Production: Survey and Roadmap | 2017 81