ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis

Disclaimer Disclaimer

This presentation contains preliminary results from

an ongoing project. g g p j

This data is still subject to revision and correction. The final results will be published in a joint roadmap.

p j p

Petrochemical Industry Energy & GHG Savings via Catalysis –Still a Large Opportunity Opportunity

Russel Mills, Dow Chemicals

Catalysis Roadmap Partners:

INTERNATIONAL

Catalysis Roadmap Partners:

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHEMICAL ASSOCIATIONS COUNCIL OF CHEMICAL ASSOCIATIONS

ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis ICCA/IEA/DECHEMA Roadmap Catalysis

High Level Objectives High Level Objectives

Provide credible information on the potential of

reducing energy & GHG emissions by applying g gy y pp y g catalysis

Identify key technology breakthroughs, paths to

achieve them

Give responsible advice for policy makers on how

bl hi i enable this impact

Approach Approach Approach Approach

Assumptions: p

Large processes also have the largest saving

potential (even if relative improvement potential seems low)

The large number of small/medium-sized processes

can be disregarded (even if relative improvement potential seems high)

Approach Approach Approach Approach

Identify ~40 top energy consuming processes

y p gy g p

Cut-off at top 10-20 for detailed analysis

9 10 8

mption

9 8 7 6 5 4 3

y consum

2 1

‐ Total final BPT energy use (excl. electricity) (of 56 processes): 26.0 EJ/yr ‐ Total final BPT energy use (excl. electricity) (corrected by 95% coverage): 27.4 EJ/yr ‐ Total final reported energy use Top 10 Chemicals (1) Steam cracking (6) Propylene FCC (2) Ammonia (7) Ethanol (3) Aromatics extraction (8) Butadiene (C4 sep.) (4) Methanol (9) Soda ash

Energy Top processes accounting for the major share of energy consumption

Total final reported energy use (excl. electricity): 31.5 EJ/yr ‐ World‐wide improvement potentials: 13.0% (4) Methanol (9) Soda ash (5) Butylene (10) Carbon black

Methodology Methodology I Methodology Methodology I

Bottom up data compilation by survey

Industrial manufacturers survey

Top energy consuming chemical processes Specific energy consumption and direct GHG emissions Specific energy consumption and direct GHG emissions

(1990 – 2020)

Catalysis impact, future potential, hurdles

Catalyst manufacturers survey

Chemical processes, refinery processes, other catalysis

areas areas

Catalysis impact, future potential, hurdles

Catalyst experts y p

New catalytic processes Expected breakthroughs, feedstock change Catalysis Roadmap Project l 6 Historical examples

Methodology Methodology II II Methodology Methodology II II

Top down data compilation p p

SRI Consulting and Chemical Manufacturing Associates Inc. (CMAI) P d ti l ith i l d t di t ib ti

Production volumes with regional and country distribution Energy Consumptions and allocation to fuels, steam,

electricity etc. y

GHG estimates

Other sources

Available benchmark studies and technical reports GHG inventory reports Special literature Special literature

⇒ Synthesis of top down with bottom up data

Catalysis Roadmap Project l 7

Selection of Subset: Top Energy Selection of Subset: Top Energy Consuming Processes Consuming Processes Consuming Processes Consuming Processes

World Total Energy Consumption Chemical & Petrochemical Sector (IEA 2009): 14,9 EJ excl. feedstock (36,2 EJ incl. feedstock) ( ) Preselection: 40 major products manufactured by energy intensive processes (catalytic or with potential to run catalytically) Selection of 18 top products, p p , representing: 9 5 EJ (64% of energy consumption 9,5 EJ (64% of energy consumption

• f world total chemical production)

Top Top energy energy consuming consuming processes processes Top Top energy energy consuming consuming processes processes

Ammonia Acrylonitrile Ethylene Propylene Methanol Caprolactam Cumene Ethylene Dichloride (EDC) Methanol BTX Terephthalic Acid (TPA) Ethylene Dichloride (EDC) Ethylbenzene Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

p ( )

Polyethylene Styrene

y y ( )

Phthalic Anhydride Acetone Ethylene Oxide Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) Polypropylene Butadiene Acetic Acid Vinyl Acetate (VAM) Polypropylene Propylene Oxide Ethylene Glycol Vinyl Acetate (VAM) Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Nitric Acid

y y

Phenol Formaldehyde

Top 18 Top 18 chemicals chemicals: ~130 : ~130 processes processes Top 18 Top 18 chemicals chemicals: 130 : 130 processes processes

Ethylene from ethyl alcohol Ethylene from gas oil h l f ( /b ) Acrylonitrile from acetylene Acrylonitrile from propane A l i il f l Ethylene from ethyl alcohol Ethylene from gas oil / Ethylene from LPG (propane/butane) Ethylene from mixed feedstocks Ethylene from naphtha Ethylene from naphtha with BZ Ethylene from propane Acrylonitrile from propylene Ammonia from coal (partial oxidation) Ammonia from heavy fuel oil (partial oxidation) Ammonia from naphtha (steam reforming) Ammonia from natural gas (steam reforming) y p py Ammonia from coal (partial oxidation) Ammonia from heavy fuel oil (partial oxidation) Ammonia from naphtha (steam reforming) Ammonia from natural gas (steam reforming) Ethylene from LPG (propane/butane) Ethylene from mixed feedstocks Ethylene from naphtha Ethylene from naphtha with BZ Ethylene from propane Ethylene from refinery off‐gases Ethylene from selected gas streams from coal‐to‐oil Ethylene from Superflex technology Ethylene Glycol from ethylene (ethylene glycol) Ethylene Glycol from ethylene oxide (hydration) Benzene from catalytic reformate Benzene from coal tar Benzene from coke oven light oil Benzene from mixed xylenes via toluene disproportionation (MSTDP) Benzene from mixed xylenes via toluene disproportionation (MTPX) Ethylene from refinery off‐gases Ethylene Glycol from ethylene oxide (hydration) Ethylene Glycol from unspecified raw materials Ethylene Oxide from ethylene (chlorohydrin process) Ethylene Oxide from ethylene (direct oxidation) Ethylene Oxide from unspecified raw materials HDPE G Ph Benzene from mixed xylenes via toluene disproportionation (MTPX) Benzene from propane/butanes (Cyclar) Benzene from pyrolysis gasoline Benzene from toluene dealkylation Benzene from toluene disproportionation B f t l / l HDPE Gas Phase HDPE Slurry HDPE Solution HDPE Unidentified LDPE Autoclave Benzene from toluene/xylenes Benzene from unspecified raw materials Caprolactam from cyclohexane (via cyclohexanone) Caprolactam from cyclohexanone (phenol or cyclohexane‐based) Caprolactam from phenol (via cyclohexanone) LDPE Tubular LLDPE Autoclave LLDPE Gas Phase LLDPE Slurry LLDPE Solution Caprolactam from toluene Cumene from propylene and benzene Cumene from recovered Ethylene from butane Ethylene from condensate Ethylene from butane Ethylene from condensate LLDPE Solution LLDPE Tubular LLDPE Unidentified LLDPE/HDPE Gas Phase Ethylene from condensate Ethylene from deep catalytic cracking of VGO Ethylene from ethane Ethylene from ethane/propane Ethylene from condensate Ethylene from deep catalytic cracking of VGO Ethylene from ethane Ethylene from ethane/propane

Boundary Boundary conditions conditions Boundary Boundary conditions conditions

Process system boundaries:

• fence to fence (e.g. for EO: ethylene as feedstock,

ethylene production not included)

Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) includes: Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) includes:

• direct energy (fuel, steam)
• Indirect energy (electricity)

gy ( y)

• Energy equivalent of feedstock is not included

GHG emissions

• Direct process emissions as CO2 equivalents
• Direct utilities emissions (fuel)
• Indirect emissions (electricity) MWh/t > tCO /t*
• Indirect emissions (electricity) MWh/t -> tCO2/t

* based on an average energy mix in the U.S (0,584 MT/MWh (electricity) and 0,05598 MT/GJ (heat + fuel))

Energy Energy consumption consumption top 18 top 18 chemical chemical products products

Ammonia

2,75

Energy Energy consumption consumption top 18 top 18 chemical chemical products products

2,25 2,50

Ethylene

1,75 2,00

ption [EJ]

1,25 1,50

y Consump ACN MeOH Propylene

0,75 1,00

Energy ACN Caprolactam EG h l

5,9 EJ = 62% Total: 9,5 EJ

BTX C EO PE PO PP TPA VCM

0,25 0,50

Phenol PX Styrene

1,3 EJ = 14% 2,3 EJ = 24%

Cumene

0,00 ‐ 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000

Production volume [kt]

Process related GHG emissions Process related GHG emissions top 18 chemical products top 18 chemical products

Ethylene

600 100

top 18 chemical products top 18 chemical products

• ill. t]

Ethylene Ammonia

500 80 90 CO2eq [M 400 60 70

[Mill. t]

ia GHG as

MeOH Propylene TPA

300 40 50

as CO2eq

Total 960 Mill t

Ammoni

BTX Capro‐ lactam EO PE PP PX TPA

200 20 30

GHG a

600 Mill. t = 62% 103 Mill 11% Total: 960 Mill. t

ACN Cumene EG Phenol PO PP Styrene VCM

100 10 20

103 Mill. t = 11% 257 Mill. t = 27%

Cumene

‐ ‐ 50.000 100.000 150.000

Production volume[kt]

Potential Potential energy energy reduction reduction options

• ptions

Potential Potential energy energy reduction reduction options

• ptions

Impact Impact Gamechangers Emerging Technologies Best Practise Technology Deployment Emerging Technologies Incremental improvements Best Practise Technology Deployment

1-3 4-10 11-15 >15 Time [Years]

Reduction Reduction options

• ptions

Reduction Reduction options

• ptions

Incremental improvements

• ll

ti t h l i l d

small, continuous technological advances retrofits to already existing plants Best practise technology (BPT) implementation Best practise technology (BPT) implementation Most energy-efficient process configurations established technologies in existing plants or new facilities Emerging technologies step-change advances via application of new technology currently in demonstration or later R&D stages Here: catalytic olefin technologies, MTO G

h

Gamechangers significant change of process; direct routes, alternative feedstocks far from commercialization, high economic and technical hurdles,

, g , relatively high risk

Here: renewable hydrogen for NH3 and MeOH and biomass

Compared Compared scenarios scenarios Compared Compared scenarios scenarios

Optimistic scenario

All new and retrofitted plants with energy efficiency at the

new technology level new technology level

Conservative scenario

50% of new plants at new technology level 30% of retrofitted plants at new technology level, 70% at

average energy consumption average energy consumption

Potential energy Potential energy reduction reduction options

• ptions

Potential energy Potential energy reduction reduction options

• ptions

25,5

Current technology level

20 5 23,0 5,5 18,0 20,5 [EJ]

12,2 EJ

13,0 15,5 Total Energy 8,0 10,5 T 3,0 5,5 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Expected Expected production production volumes volumes Expected Expected production production volumes volumes

2.500 Caprolactam Ph l 2.000 2.500 Phenol PO Cumene Toluene

1976 2315

1.500

• lume [kt]

EO VCM EG Styrene

1260 1470 1637

1.000 duction vo Sty e e Benzene PX Mixed Xylenes PP

851 60 1048

500 Prod PP TPA PE MeOH ACN ‐ 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 ACN Propylene Ethylene Ammonia

Avrg

• Avrg. Energy

Energy Intensity Intensity Avrg Avrg. . Energy Energy Intensity Intensity

12 00 11,00 12,00 uct] 9,00 10,00 [GJ/tprodu Incremental 8,00 Intensity [ BPT conservative BPT optimistic 6,00 7,00 Energy 5,00 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Impact Impact of

• f gamechangers

gamechangers Impact Impact of

• f gamechangers

gamechangers

Discussed options Discussed options

Biomass as feedstock for olefins (ethylene,

propylene) propylene)

Hydrogen as feedstock for chemical processes

available from renewable energy sources available from renewable energy sources

Biobased Biobased ethylene ethylene and and propylene propylene Biobased Biobased ethylene ethylene and and propylene propylene

Biomass and fossil energy use of biomass routes

120 140 ]

Biomass and fossil energy use of biomass routes

60 80 100 120 137 100 e [GJ/tHVC] bio‐based fossil 20 40 ‐6 14 12 ‐17 16,4 53 37 100 Energy use ‐20 Lignocell. via FT Naphtha Lignocell. via MeOH Maize via EtOH Sugar Cane via EtOH Napthta cracking 17 Naphtha EtOH

Substantial biomass-derived energy consumption Reduced fossil energy consumption Reduced fossil energy consumption

Biobased Biobased ethylene ethylene and and propylene propylene Biobased Biobased ethylene ethylene and and propylene propylene

GHG emissions of biomass routes

2 0,15 0,63 0,15 0,57 0,3 0,28 0,06 0,7 1 2 HVC] CO2 captured in , ‐1,6 ‐3,5 3 ‐2 ‐1 G [tCO2eq/tH CO2 captured in biomass HVC production ‐3,5 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 GHG 2nd feedstock production

• Prim. Feedstock

production ‐6

• Lignocell. via

MeOH Sugar Cane via EtOH Napthta cracking production

Reduced GHG emissions due to carbon captured in biomass and Reduced GHG emissions due to carbon captured in biomass and

sequestered in MeOH/HVCs

Process related GHG emissions comparable to fossil routes, in some

cases lower*

*depending on process configuration, e.g. co-generation of electricity

cases lower*

Hydrogen Hydrogen option

• ption

Hydrogen Hydrogen option

• ption

Syngas/ Coal or CO2 MeOH

• Electr. water

cleavage H2 compression Syngas/ Shift MeOH synthesis cleavage compression NH3 synthesis N2 from ASU SEC H2 route [GJ/t] SEC BPT (gas) [GJ/t] GHG reduction Ammonia 37,3 7,2-9,0 1,2 t/tNH3 MeOH from coal 27,8* 9,0-10,0

• 0,52 t/tMeOH

M OH f CO 43 7** 1 84 t/tM OH MeOH from CO2 43,7**

• 1,84 t/tMeOH

Hydrogen Hydrogen option

• ption

Hydrogen Hydrogen option

• ption

Energy impact of hydrogen based ammonia gy p y g and methanol production

2,50 EJ]

30%

Deployment rate Example:

0,46 0,82

1 00 1,50 2,00 sil savings [ Total Energy MeOH

20% 30%

Deployment rate Example:

30% deployment in

2050:

0 09 0 19 0,21 0,46 0,98 1,57 0,07 0,18

0 00 0,50 1,00

• ns. vs. foss

Total Energy NH3 Fossil energy M OH

10% 5%

• 1,4 EJ more energy
• 1,15 EJ less fossil

‐0,09 ‐0,19 ‐0,41 ‐0,66 ‐0,04 ‐0,11 ‐0,28 ‐0,50

‐1,00 ‐0,50 0,00

• t. energy co

MeOH Fossil energy NH3

energy

‐1,50

2020 2030 2040 2050

Tot

Hydrogen Hydrogen option

• ption

Hydrogen Hydrogen option

• ption

GHG impact of hydrogen based ammonia p y g and methanol production

2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 ‐40 ‐20 CO2eq]

5% 10% 2,5%

Example:

30% deployment in

‐100 ‐80 ‐60 gs [Mill. t C Methanol Ammonia

10% 20%

30% deployment in

2050:

• GHG reductions of

170 Mill t CO2

‐160 ‐140 ‐120 GHG saving

20% 30%

170 Mill t CO2eq.

‐180

30%

Potential GHG Potential GHG reduction reduction options

• ptions

2 4

Potential GHG Potential GHG reduction reduction options

• ptions
• Incr. improvement

Current techn. level BPT conservative 2,0 2,4 BPT optimistic Hydrogen 1,6 Gt]

1,2 Gt

• ptimistic

Bio optimistic 1,2

• tal GHG [G

0,8 To 0,0 0,4 , 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Regional Regional impact impact: : example example ammonia ammonia

Energy consumption

Other Asia 5% Africa 2% Economies in Transition 12%

Energy consumption

250

Ammonia Production

Economies in Transition

China (Coal) 40% OECD North America 7% OECD Pacific 2% 5%

200 250 12 8 28 29 e [Mill. t] Africa Other Asia OECD Pacific

China 6% India 7% Latin America 5% Middle East 6% OECD Europe 8%

100 150 16 17 18 21 11 19 21 16 12 12 14 9 24 ction volume OECD North America OECD Europe Middle East

6% 5%

‐ 50 42 63 69 11 16 14 Produc Latin America India China China (Coal)

Africa 2% Economies in Transition

GHG emissions

Primary feedstock for ammonia and methanol in Chi C l

2010 2020 2030 China (Coal)

China (Coal) 41% OECD North America OECD Pacific 2% Other Asia 5% 12%

China: Coal

• 1.7 x higher energy consumption compared to gas
• 2.3 x higher CO2 emissions compared to gas

India Middle East 5% OECD Europe 8% 7% China 6% 7% Latin America 5% 5%

Regional Regional impact impact: : example example methanol methanol

160

Methanol Production

Economies in Transition

Energy consumption

120 140 160 23 10 14 [Mill. t] Economies in Transition OECD Pacific OECD N h A i

China (Coal) 32% 6%

60 80 100 14 22 13 16 19 3 ction volume OECD North America Middle East Latin America

China 10% Middle East 25%

‐ 20 40 10 41 56 5 14 8 14 3 Produc China China (Coal)

Latin America 14%

Economies in

GHG emissions

Primary feedstock for ammonia and methanol in

2010 2020 2030

Middl E t Economies in Transition 3%

China: Coal

• 1.7 x higher energy consumption compared to gas
• 2.3 x higher CO2 emissions compared to gas

China (Coal) 56% Latin America 8% Middle East 14% China 11%

Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions

Potential energy & emissions savings via catalysis in the

gy g y chemical segment vs. a “do nothing” case of 12 EJ/yr and 0.86 Gt CO2/yr by 2050 (incremental + BPT scenarios)

Full implementation of Best Practice Technology could improve Full implementation of Best Practice Technology could improve

energy intensity per ton of product by as much as 40% by 2050.

While these energy savings are sizeable on an absolute scale,

expected production increases globally will likely outpace these savings and overall energy and GHGs will likely increase

Reducing energy use or GHG emissions by half or more by

2030 or 2050 does not seem realistic even in developed regions with lower growth such as Europe regions with lower growth such as Europe .

Gamechangers could yield additional reductions in GHGs, but

would increase energy use and require huge investments to / develop / lower operational costs