Gasification

Carbon negative SNG from

waste, biomass and coal:
a cost-effective way to decarbonise
gas-fired generation
When waste is gasified, along with biomass and coal, the economics of producing carbon negative SNG (synthetic natural
gas) are transformed. In the scheme proposed here, using the highly fuel flexible BGL gasifier, in conjunction with HICOM
combined catalytic shift and methanation, plus the Timmins CCS process, the cost per unit energy of carbon negative SNG
is estimated to be as little as 1/15th of the ‘whole system’ cost of wind power. Carbon negative SNG fuelled dispatchable
power generation may produce lower whole system emissions than intermittent wind, when emissions from fossil fuel back
up are considered.
A. R. Day, cost consultant; A. Williams, GL Noble Denton Ltd; Chris Hodrien, Timmins CCS Ltd

L
ow cost carbon negative SNG (substitute
Figure 1. Carbon negative SNG scheme
natural gas) produced from co-gasified S Boiler feed water 150 bar
(source GL Noble Denton Ltd)
waste, biomass and coal, and CO2
decarbonised at source prior to injection into
the gas transmission system, will assist in
decarbonising downstream gas users – power, COS H2S Syngas HICOM CO2
removal
heat, transport and industry – at no cost to hydrolysis removal storage methanation (Timmins)
businesses and consumers, without alteration
to their existing use of energy, provided that 70 bar
carbon negative SNG is cost competitive with 80% waste
fossil natural gas. & biomass BGL Gas cooling
NG import Drying
20% coal gasifier and cleaning Steam
S
Particularly attractive is the integration of
SNG production technology initially
N2 CCGT
developed by British Gas Corporation
storage
and the UK government as part of a plan to
supply the whole of UK gas demand by SNG SNG
(when North Sea gas ran out) with BGL multi- O2 Site power
storage ASU
fuel co-gasification (as demonstrated by the
Electrical SNG
SVZ company operating what was once export export
Europe’s largest lignite to town gas 60 bar
production plant, at Schwarze Pumpe in
former E. Germany), together with the
Timmins CCS concept.* The cost per unit energy of carbon negative produce ‘green’ hydrogen, oxygen and heat for
The basic idea (Figure 1) is to use high SNG is estimated to be between 1/10th and low cost demand management and energy
efficiency slagging co-gasification to produce 1/15th of the ‘whole system’ cost of wind storage (see Figure 2).
carbon negative synthetic natural gas with power, and produces lower emissions than For the main carbon negative SNG scheme
CCS. The low cost carbon negative SNG, with wind when emissions from fossil fuel back up discussed here, the following results have been
gas storage, and natural gas back up, is used in are taken into account. obtained:
a conventional natural gas fired combined cycle The carbon negative SNG scheme can also Plant scale: 1.0 to 1.5 million tonnes per
plant with no loss of efficiency or operational be extended to include integrated electrolysis, annum of nominally 50% mixed wastes, 30%
flexibility. powered by low cost excess wind ‘lopping’, to biomass and 20% coal by mass.

*This article draws on the presentation given by Dr Williams at the IChemE Gasification Conference in Cagliari, Sardinia, May 2012. It also follows on from the article on
Timmins CCS published in the January 2013 edition of Modern Power Systems.
Timmins CCS is a generic CO2 separation scheme for any gas flow above 10 bar pressure, using rearranged standard gas processing plant. In the Timmins CCS scheme
the whole plant operates at high pressure, thus avoiding de-pressurisation and re-pressurisation costs, and producing high purity high pressure liquid CO2. Timmins CCS may
be integrated into a wide variety of power generation, gas processing, reforming, urea and petrochemical plants where it is desired to separate CO2 as a high purity, high
pressure liquid.
Three different schemes, based on three different fuels, using the Timmins CCS process for gas turbine power generation, are currently being developed:
Waste, biomass and coal: co-gasification with CCS to produce carbon negative SNG (as described in the present article), currently, the most advanced development of
Timmins CCS.
Coal: IGCC with CCS and a hydrogen fired CCGT. This was the topic of the January 2013 article in MPS. An update is planned, reporting on the latest results, which are
greatly improved relative to those published previously.
Natural gas: partial oxidation (POX) with autothermal reforming with a dual fuel high-hydrogen syngas/natural gas fired CCGT. Energy is recovered from the hot gases
produced by the POX reactor in an expansion turbine prior to further reforming, CCS and the CCGT. The additional energy recovered by the expander turbine offsets the
energy losses in the reforming stages.

36 MODERN POWER SYSTEMS | www.modernpowersystems.com April 2013

 Gasification

Gross efficiency, for carbon negative SNG:

Figure 2. Diversified low cost low carbon energy system with large scale ‘green’ gas and
78.5%.
energy storage (source Fraunhofer Institute)
Net efficiency for carbon negative SNG,
allowing for parasitic plant loads: 76.75%. ELECTRICITY
Net fuel cost: £-0.4/GJ. NETWORK
Super Smart Grid
Carbon content of fuel: 54.6% biogenic, Power Nuclear
45.4% fossil carbon. Storage and NATURAL GAS
Payback period: 20 years, 8% weighted energy mgt. NETWORK
Electro- Combust.
aggregate cost of capital. Transport
mobility engine*
Cost of 60 bar carbon negative SNG: 40 to 45 Hydro,
ocean Natural gas, shale gas
p/therm. Heat Heating
Heat coal bed methane,
Implied cost of carbon negative SNG fired pumps systems underground coal
Geothermal
power generation: £40 to 50/MWh. gasificaton
HEAT NETWORK
Cost of 150 bar high purity supercritical
CO2: £0.4 per tonne CO2 excluding transport Storage
Solar
and storage. CHP,
turbines,
Cost of CO2 transport and storage: 33% of CO2 recycling, fuel cells Storage
the unit cost of CO2 transport and storage Wind CCS
H2O Optional
per unit energy output compared with a
fossil fuel power station. Coal, gas H2O
with CCS H2 Biomethane
Net emissions intensity: -45 gCO2/kWh, Electrolysis
CH4
C
H2-tank Co-gasific-
assuming carbon negative SNG is used in a
ation
60% efficient CCGT. CO2

Decarbonising gas turbine based CO2 O2

generation
Natural gas fired combined cycle plants are the
thermal generation technology of choice in
most of the Western world due to the
combination of: flexible operation; high
efficiency; low emissions; low capital cost;
readily available fuel supply system; low land
take; and low water consumption. However,
fitting post-capture CCS to a natural gas fired
CCGT significantly compromises many of those
advantages.
Our approach is to decarbonise gas at
source, prior to its injection into the gas grid,
thus enabling existing CCGT operators to
generate decarbonised electricity with no loss
of: energy efficiency; plant load factor;
operational flexibility; or rate of capital recovery.
This highly attractive proposition depends on
the cost of carbon negative SNG being
competitive with the cost of fossil natural gas.
Methane is the simplest and most common
hydrocarbon gas, and is the world’s most
highly developed, internationally traded,
fungible and storable gaseous energy resource
and vector. But methane is not necessarily a
Figure 3. Waste, biomass and coal to carbon negative SNG emissions balance
(source A. R. Day)
54.6% bio C
Fuel Gasification
45.4% fossil C
29.9% bio C
EMISSIONS BALANCE
Fossil carbon emissions 20.6%
Sequestered biogenic carbon -29.9%
NET NEGATIVE EMISSIONS - 9.3%
CO2 Waste (65% bio C)
Methana-
storage Biomass
tion, CCS
H2O Coal
Electricial energy Chemical energy (hydrogen)
Thermal energy CO2
Mechanical energy Green gas
Chemical energy (methane)
fossil fuel. The fossil CO2 emissions intensity of methane. Emitted biogenic carbon, and
methane used for energy purposes depends on sequestered fossil carbon are accounted as
what fuel the methane is made from, how it is carbon neutral. Sequestered biogenic carbon is
made, and the end use. Fossil CO2 emissions accounted as carbon negative, and offsets
from the use of methane can be negated by a fossil carbon emissions at the SNG’s final point
combination of partly biogenic carbon fuels and of use. The biomass is assumed to be
CCS (Figure 3). sustainably resourced. Residual waste has
A typical mixed waste stream contains already had at least one economic use, and any
around 65% biogenic carbon. A typical 50% emissions associated with the original
mixed residual waste, 30% biomass and 20% materials processing and use are assumed to
coal fuel mix contains 50 to 55% net biogenic have been accounted for in the original use.
carbon (as a proportion of total carbon). A Residual wastes are those wastes left after
typical methanation plant produces nearly 55% waste reduction reuse and recycling, for which
of total carbon throughput as CO2, which is there is no further economic use.
available for sequestration, and 45% as Methane synthesis is an attractive route to
delivering low cost CCS. SNG plants are
inherently carbon capture ready as they produce
CO2 as a waste byproduct. Compared with fossil
fuel power stations, SNG plants produce
24.7% bio C
relatively low volumes of high CO2 partial
Gas grid/
Methanation 45.3% pressure mixed SNG and CO2, and can be
end users
converted economically to CCS. This has been
20.6% fossil C demonstrated at the Great Plains synfuel plant
54.7% in Dakota, since 1984 the world’s largest and
24.8% fossil C longest-running SNG plant, which was retro-
fitted in 2000 with CO2 capture and pipeline
CCS Emissions compression for EOR at Weyburn in Canada.
The carbon negative SNG with Timmins CCS
Sequestered biogenic scheme discussed here uses the same British
carbon offsets fossil Gas developed catalysts as at Great Plains.
carbon emissions
Reducing the cost of CCS
CCS installed on fossil fuel thermal power
generation is currently uneconomic due to the

April 2013 www.modernpowersystems.com | MODERN POWER SYSTEMS 37

 Gasification
Figure 4. Comparative CO2 partial pressures for four power generation CCS processes
(source Timmins CCS Ltd)
Low partial pressure, high cost CCS
CO2 capture after combustion – post-combustion capture
Conventional PP with CO2 flushing
g processes. Plastic in the waste increases
Coal
Conventional SSP Flue gas cleaning
Air
y
Oxyfuel combustion
Coal
Steam generator Flue gas cleaning
Oxygen
CO2/H2O
CO2 capture before combustion – pre-combustion capture
IGCC
Coal Syngas
Gasification cleaning
Oxygen CO2 shift
10 m3/sec 45% CO2 30 bar
Decarbonised synthetic natural gas
Waste
Syngas
Biomass Gasification
cleaning
Coal
High partial pressure, 2.5 m3/sec 54% CO2 60 bar
low cost CCS
high cost of CO2 capture and compression from
power station flue gases. This is the largest
single impediment to the large scale
deployment of CCS on power generation. On
the other hand, CCS on gas based processes is
already economic, and in use at commercial
scale.
The solubility of gaseous CO2 in a liquid
solvent carrier is proportional to the
concentration of CO2 in the original mixed gas
stream, and the pressure of the gas stream.
Concentration x pressure = partial pressure.
CO2 partial pressure is thus the ‘key’
determinant of the capital and operational cost
of CO2 separation and compression.
The IEA recently stated “The higher the
CO2 partial pressure, the greater the ease of
capture, and the lower the cost per tonne of
CO2 captured and stored.” At the point of CO2
separation, and for the same plant energy
input, the gas flow rate in an SNG plant with
Timmins CCS is 400 times less, and the CO2
partial pressure is 250 times greater, than in a
post-combustion fossil fuel power plant. This is
a massive engineering, operational and
financial advantage and explains why the cost
of CO2 capture and compression from an SNG
plant is two orders of magnitude lower than for
post-combustion CCS on a fossil fuel power
station. See Figure 4.
Reducing the cost of producing SNG
from coal
80% of the unit cost of SNG is the cost of fuel
and the cost of capital. Both may be reduced by
improving net process efficiency. The 1955 to
1992 UK government/British Gas Corporation
’30 Year plan’ to produce SNG from coal to
supply the whole of UK gas demand when
38 MODERN POWER SYSTEMS | www.modernpowersystems.com
1000 m3/sec 13% CO2 1 bar
CO2 capture CO2
200 m3/sec 60-70% CO2 1 bar
Condensation CO2
CO2 H2 turbine
capture Combined cycle
CO2
Shift, CCGT, heat,
methanation, industry,
CO2 capture transport
CO2
North Sea gas ran out remains the world’s
highest efficiency coal to SNG scheme, at 76%
net efficiency unabated.
This compares with 61% net efficiency in
the recently published US DOE/NETL Worley
Parson coal or lignite to SNG scheme, with the
option of fertiliser co-production. The British
Gas scheme delivers 25% more SNG per tonne
of coal than the DOE/NETL scheme.
The technology was successfully
demonstrated at the British Gas SNG
development plant at Westfield prior to its
closure in 1992.
The high efficiency of the British Gas SNG
scheme is achieved by integrating the BGL
slagging gasifier, the world’s highest cold gas
efficiency industrial scale solid fuel co-gasifier
(Figure 5), and the HICOM combined catalytic
shift and methanation process, with a range of
standard industrial gas cleaning processes:
Rectisol pre-wash, COS hydrolysis, Selefining,
Claus/Scot and Selexol.
Both the BGL and HICOM rely on internal
mass and energy exchange thus enabling the
energy released by the oxidation of carbon to
be used efficiently to transfer hydrogen bonds
with oxygen in steam to hydrogen bonds with
carbon in methane.
Some of the processes are endothermic, and
some are exothermic. Highly developed waste
heat recovery producing 540°C 155 bar steam
drives on-site power supply, air separation and
a range of plant processes. Increasing the
gasification pressure increases methane
production, decreases tar production, increases
overall plant efficiency and reduces capital
costs per unit output. A high pressure BGL was
operated at 65 bar pressure at Westfield in the
late 1980s.
Reduced operational costs with
Timmins CCS
Integrating the use of partly waste based fuels
and Timmins CCS (Figure 6) with HICOM and
Selexol acid gas removal increases the
efficiency of the base BGL, HICOM and Selexol
methane production in the gasifier, thus
reducing the load on the methane synthesis
process.
The recycling of part of the CO2 stream to
HICOM reduces the amount of product gas
recycled for cooling purposes. It also assists in
suppressing the Boudouard reaction (2CO = C
+ CO2), thus reducing the need to inject excess
steam to suppress Boudouard, and
subsequently to remove the steam prior to gas
separation.
Cryogenic separation of part of the CO2
stream prior to Selexol, and maintaining the
gas flow at high pressure, reduces the capital
and operational costs of the base Selexol
plant. The improvements in efficiency in the
base HICOM and Selexol plants offset the
efficiency penalty for the Timmins CCS
cryogenic plant.
A carbon capture ready SNG plant with the
Timmins CCS process produces high purity
ambient temperature liquid CO2 at 60 bar. In
order to convert the plant to fully abated CCS
state, it is only necessary compress the already
liquid CO2 to 150 bar supercritical state. This
requires the addition of a small liquid CO2
pump with only 0.06% net energy penalty and
0.2% CAPEX penalty. This explains the
exceptionally low marginal abatement cost of
carbon for the carbon negative SNG scheme
with Timmins CCS.
Steam Byproduct
Coal recycle
4.4
13.2
100
Heat
in slag
0.6
Gaseous
Heat sulphur
losses compounds
3.7 1.0
Fuel
gas
Recoverable High cold
heat gas efficiency
5.5 93.5
Figure 5. Sankey diagram for British Gas
Lurgi (BGL) slagging gasifier.
Features of the BGL process include: heat
recovery from product gas by contact with
coal bed; low oxygen consumption, 50-60%
of that for entrained flow gasifiers; high
cold gas efficiency; high carbon conversion;
low gasifier outlet temperature; inexpensive
and well proven conventional gas cooling
train; low CO2 content in syngas; and, of
particular significance, high methane output
suitable for SNG production
April 2013
 Gasification

Building on waste gasification

Figure 6. Integrated Timmins CCS, BGL gasifier and HICOM methanation (source Timmins
experience, the key to viable
CCS Ltd). The whole plant runs at high pressure. Marginal abatement cost of dry 99.6% purity
economics
150 bar CO2 is 40 p/tonne CO2 at the plant gate.
The big question is: can carbon negative SNG
be produced at a price which is competitive
with fossil natural gas? Some 80% of the Base plant (CCR) Add 60-150 bar pump
Coal 70 bar
levelised cost of SNG is CAPEX recovery and to convert from CCR
BG HICOM 60 bar to CCS. Plant gate
fuel costs. The answer is “yes” if waste Waste BGL methanation
cost <£0.5/ton of CO2
gasification is factored in. gasifier
Our work has concentrated on reducing Biomass plant
fuel costs by using waste as the primary fuel, Liquid Future
with biomass and coal as the secondary fuels. CO2 carbon
The basic physics and chemistry of modern 2/3 60 bar Cryo to pipe capture
pump
high pressure gasification were developed
1/3 Cryo 150 bar
before WW1. The first commercial coal fuelled Part of syngas
flow used as sep’n
dry ash Lurgi gasifier was built in the late CO2 CO2
‘stripper’ gas 60 bar
1930s. The first pilot oxygen blown slagging to separate recycle
Lurgi gasifier, designed to run on Italian CO2 in selexol Selexol 60 bar
lignite, was built in 1943. Its existence was regenerator
SNG to GRID
disclosed to allied intelligence in Frankfurt in
April 1945 and reported to the UK government
Add cryogenic
Ministry of Fuel and Power in 1947. The separation to
slagging gasifier used less steam than the dry British Gas
ash gasifier, and could operate on low grade SNG scheme
fuels. The UK government reported in 1947
than the cost benefit of using low grade fuel
had to be balanced against the cost of oxygen. From 1990 onwards the design of a A changing economic landscape for
A second pilot slagging Lurgi gasifier was commercial scale BGL gasifier, using waste
built in Germany in 1953. The joint rights to operational data from Westfield, resulted in The combination of landfill tax, various
the design were acquired by the UK Ministry full environmental consent being granted in incentives for the use of renewables and the
of Fuel and Power in 1955. From 1955 to 1992 1998 for the use of the BGL to co-gasify carbon floor price have revolutionised the
the British Gas Lurgi (BGL) slagging gasifier several hundred different classifications of economic landscape in the UK for waste,
was developed in the UK, first at the Midlands hazardous and non-hazardous wastes at biomass and coal co-gasification, when
Research Station (MRS) in Solihull, and Schwarze Pumpe, at up to 85% waste/15% combined with low cost CCS. We believe that
latterly at the Westfield development centre. coal. Commercial operations commenced in the BGL is the world’s highest net efficiency,
Use of waste as a low cost substitute fuel 2000. The plant was dismantled in 2007, and and most operationally flexible, large scale
was first considered at MRS in the early is now in India awaiting re-erection as a gasifier capable of handling high waste content
1970s, and some low key experiments were lignite to fertiliser plant. fuels and biomass.
carried out. In the late 1980s British Gas Typically the BGL at Schwarze Pumpe ran In many parts of the world, residual waste
assisted the East German state run town gas on a 75 to 80% mixed wastes/20 to 25% mixed (after reduction, recycling and re-use) is the
plant at Schwarze Pumpe with experiments coal and lignite feed stock. Test runs in 2003, most widely available and lowest cost
using a converted dry ash Lurgi gasifier, supported by the European plastics industry sustainable indigenous fuel resource, but
fitted with a slagging hearth, to co-gasify a (Tecpol), indicated stable operation on 80% burning waste in a moving grate incinerator to
50/50 waste/coal mix. mixed wastes/20% coal fuel mix. produce low grade steam for base load power

Figure 7. BGL gasifier at

SVZ (source GL Noble
Denton Ltd, Envirotherm
GmbH)

April 2013 www.modernpowersystems.com | MODERN POWER SYSTEMS 41

 Gasification
generation at around 25% net efficiency is
expensive and inefficient. In comparison the
British Gas originated SNG scheme with
Timmins CCS can produce carbon negative
SNG, which is a storable and dispatchable
energy commodity, at 76.75% net efficiency, ie
three times more ‘bang for your buck’.
Due to the far higher net energy efficiency,
the capital cost per unit output energy of a
waste gasification plant is lower than for a
waste incinerator.
Around 34% of a waste incinerator’s mass
throughput is produced as solid, liquid and
gaseous emissions requiring expensive flue gas
clean up, and secondary hazardous or leachable
waste processing and disposal operations.
Coal and waste are both dirty hydrocarbon
fuels. High temperature oxygen blown ‘clean
coal’ slagging gasification technology,
designed to co-vitrify the heavy metal and
minerals in low grade coal or lignite is equally
applicable to waste processing, and massively
reduces the secondary waste processing
problems associated with waste incineration.
Indeed the BGL slagging gasifier can utilise the
hazardous air pollution control residues
produced by waste incinerators as a flux to
promote slag formation.
As already noted, the BGL gasifier at SVZ
Schwarze Pumpe (Figure 7) was granted full
environmental certification in 1998 to co-gasify
up to 85% mixed hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes, and 15% coal, and was approved by
UNEP in 2006 for the highly efficient (99.99%)
permanent destruction of persistent organic
pollutants. Hazardous heavy metals are
immobilised in a certified non-leaching vitrified
recyclate.
Coal to SNG is not economic in Europe or
USA due to the low price ‘spread’ per unit
energy between coal and natural gas being
insufficient to cover the capital cost of an SNG
plant. SNG developments are proceeding apace
in China due to the large ‘spread’ between the
low cost of stranded coal assets in western
China, and the high cost of gas on the eastern
China seaboard. Gas pipelines are the lowest
CAPEX method of bulk energy transmission.
There is already experience with BGL and SNG
production in China, see Figures 8 and 9.
The Great Plains synfuel plant is
commercially viable due to a combination of:
low cost mine-mouth lignite as fuel; economic
co-production of SNG, power, fertiliser, phenol
and CO2 for commercial EOR at Weyburn in
Canada; and the low capital recovery rate for
federal funds invested in the project. Our
concept is to increase the price ‘spread’
between solid fuels and natural gas by using
waste as a low cost fuel to displace a large part
of the coal supply.
In order to reduce the use of landfill for
waste disposal, many countries tax the use of
landfill from waste, and incentivise the
production of ‘clean’ energy from waste. The
UK landfill tax escalator runs until 2015, then is
flat to 2021, with proposed inflation indexation
from 2021 to 2028. The 2015 landfill tax will be
£80/tonne. Assuming a typical mixed non-
42 MODERN POWER SYSTEMS | www.modernpowersystems.com
hazardous waste stream contains an average of
10 GJ/tonne of thermochemical energy, the
avoided cost of landfill tax is an effective £-8/GJ
fuel subsidy. This can be used to offset the
typical UK cost of coal and biomass at around
£3.0 to 3.50/GJ. Using an average 50:30:20
waste, biomass, coal (by mass) fuel mix as a
basis, combined with processing of hazardous
air pollution control residues produced in
waste incinerators, it is possible to devise a net
negative cost fuel mix with nearly 55%
biogenic carbon content.
A strong case in the UK, EU and
elsewhere
Our analysis shows that under a range of
feasible policy scenarios, during the period
2012 to 2030, a carbon negative SNG plant in
UK, with a fuel input of around 1.0 to 1.5 million
tonnes pa (660 to 1000 MWt fuel input) of
mixed fuels will produce carbon negative SNG
at a cost of around 40 to 45 p/therm, based on
a 20 year payback period and 8% weighted
aggregated cost of capital.
The cost of carbon negative SNG in the UK
case includes the avoided cost of UK landfill
tax, the avoided cost of the UK carbon floor
price, and a substantial developer’s risk
premium, but excludes the additional revenue
from the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) until
2031, currently 104 p/therm for 54.6% biogenic
carbon content SNG.
The current open market wholesale price of
natural gas in the UK is around 65 p/therm.
This is expected to increase to around 70
p/therm by 2015, and then gradually decrease
from the mid 2020s onwards. There is
considerable debate about the long-term price
trajectory for gas in EU and UK. It depends on,
among other things, the rate at which
conventional gas is supplemented by
unconventional gas, and the impact this has on
long-run oil-indexed gas prices. Informal advice
from parties associated with shale gas
development in the UK suggests that a
technically and financially robust scheme,
which is cost competitive with the long-term
price trajectory for gas of around 40 to 45
p/therm, is considered to be ‘bankable’.
Figure 9. Recently completed methanation plant at
Datang, China (courtesy Datang Chemical Engineering
Co, Johnson Matthey plc, Davy Process Technology Ltd).
This uses the same catalyst as that developed for HICOM
Figure 8. BGL gasifier in China, during
construction (source GL Noble Denton Ltd,
Zemag GmbH)
The UK CCS cost reduction task force
recently reported that by 2030 the cost of
power generation with “conventional” CCS
might feasibly be reduced from around
£160/MWh to around £100/MWh base load
(8000 hours pa), the cost of sequestered carbon
reduced from around £150/tonne to about
£50/tonne, and the rate of CO2 capture
increased from 85% to 90%.
Over the same period, and using the same
assumptions as the task force, the cost of
power generation from carbon negative SNG
would reduce from £55/MWh to £40/MWh, the
cost of sequestered carbon would reduce from
£15/tonne to £3/tonne, with the equivalent of
110% CO2 capture rate. Even allowing for
optimism bias, and discounting any benefit
from the RHI, there is a strong case to be made
for developing carbon negative SNG in the UK,
and elsewhere in the EU.
There is also a strong case to be made for
developing low cost carbon negative SNG with
Timmins CCS in a number of countries (eg,
USA, China, S Korea, Japan as well as in the
EU) as a means of economically supplementing
natural gas resources, addressing the problem
of ever increasing production of hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes, and reducing
atmospheric emissions. The specific
circumstances of each country would of course
need to be taken into account when developing
any particular scheme. MPS
April 2013