Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030 - Usinfo.org
Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030 - Usinfo.org
Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030 - Usinfo.org
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Issues in Focusammonia plants, and most are relatively mature;however, the suite of integrated GTL technologieshas not been used on a commercial scale. One loominguncertainty <strong>with</strong> regard <strong>to</strong> GTL is whether a provenpilot plant can be scaled up <strong>to</strong> the size of a commercialplant while reducing capital and operating costs. Akey engineering goal is <strong>to</strong> improve the thermal efficiencyof the GTL process, which is more complexthan either LNG liquefaction or petroleum refining.The leading GTL processes include those developedby Shell, Sasol, Exxon, Rentech, and Syntroleum. Atthis time, there is no indication as <strong>to</strong> which technologywill prevail. Currently, the proponents of thesevarious processes have nearly 800,000 barrels per dayof first generation capacity under development inQatar.AEO<strong>2006</strong> projects domestic GTL production originatingin Alaska, reflecting a longstanding proposal <strong>to</strong>monetize stranded natural gas on the North Slope.GTL liquids would be transported <strong>to</strong> the lower 48refining system. In <strong>2030</strong>, domestic GTL production<strong>to</strong>tals 200,000 barrels per day in the high price case,even though it competes directly <strong>with</strong> the Alaska naturalgas pipeline project. In AEO<strong>2006</strong>, both investmentsare feasible simultaneously. What will actuallyoccur depends on how and where Alaska natural gasstakeholders ultimately decide <strong>to</strong> make their investments.GTL production worldwide exceeds 1.1 millionbarrels per day in the reference case and 2.6million barrels per day in the high price case in <strong>2030</strong>.Biomass-<strong>to</strong>-Liquids. BTL encompasses the productionof fuels from waste wood and other non-foodplant sources, in contrast <strong>to</strong> conventional biodieselproduction, which is based primarily on food-relatedcrops. Because BTL does not ordinarily usefood-related crops, it does not conflict <strong>with</strong> increasingfood demands, although crops grown for BTLfeeds<strong>to</strong>cks would compete <strong>with</strong> food crops for land.BTL gasification technology is based on the CTL process.The resulting syngas is similar, but the distributionof the hydrocarbon components differs. BTL useslower temperatures and pressures than CTL. LikeGTL, the BTL reaction is exothermic and requires acatalyst [67]. There are at least 13 known processescovering directly and indirectly heated gasifiers forthis step.BTL originates from renewable sources, includingwood waste, straw, grain waste, crop waste, garbage,and sewage/sludge. According <strong>to</strong> a leading processdeveloper, 5 <strong>to</strong>ns of biomass yields 1 <strong>to</strong>n of BTL [68].One hectare (2.471 acres) of land generates 4 <strong>to</strong>ns ofBTL. A modestly sized BTL plant under sustainedoperation would require the biomass of slightly morethan 12,000 acres [69]. Unlike biodiesel or ethanol,BTL uses the entire plant and, thereby, requires lessland use.BTL fuels are several times more expensive <strong>to</strong> producethan gasoline or diesel. Without taxes and distributionexpenses, a leading European developerestimates BTL production costs approaching $3.35per gallon by 2007 and falling <strong>to</strong> $2.43 per gallon by2020 [70]. This equates <strong>to</strong> a crude oil equivalent pricein the high $80 per barrel range at current capital costlevels.BTL technology is at the pilot-plant stage of development.The capital cost of a commercial-scale BTLplant could approach $140,000 (2004 dollars) per barrelof capacity, according <strong>to</strong> a study conducted forDOE by Bechtel in 1998 [71]. The estimated initialinvestment level is comparable <strong>with</strong> those for earlyCTL and GTL plants, which have since declined by 50percent or more. Technological innovations over timeand economies of scale could further reduce BTLcosts. The first commercial-scale BTL plant, <strong>with</strong> acapacity just over 4,000 barrels per day. is planned <strong>to</strong>begin operation in Germany after 2008, followed byfour additional facilities. About two-thirds of a BTLplant’s capital cost is related <strong>to</strong> biomass handling andgasification. BTL front-end technology is new andevolving and has parallels <strong>with</strong> cellulose ethanoltechnology.Large BTL plants require huge catchment (staging)areas and incur high transportation costs <strong>to</strong> movefeeds<strong>to</strong>cks <strong>to</strong> a central plant. From a process standpoint,the main challenge for BTL is the high cost ofremoving oxygen. It is unclear whether gasificationand other processing steps can achieve the cost reductionsnecessary <strong>to</strong> make it more competitive. Catalystcosts are high, as they are for other Fischer-Tropschprocesses. Without additional technological advances<strong>to</strong> lower costs, BTL could be limited <strong>to</strong> the productionof fuel extenders rather than primary fuels.Renewable BiofuelsNot <strong>to</strong> be confused <strong>with</strong> BTLs are the renewablebiofuels, ethanol and biodiesel. These fuels can beblended <strong>with</strong> conventional fuels, which enhancestheir commercial attractiveness. Biofuels have highproduction costs and are about 2 <strong>to</strong> 3 times moreexpensive than conventional fuels. Renewable biofueltechnology is relatively mature for corn-based ethanolproduction, and future innovations are notexpected <strong>to</strong> bring its costs down substantially. Future56 <strong>Energy</strong> Information Administration / <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Energy</strong> <strong>Outlook</strong> <strong>2006</strong>