Analyzing of Three Models Assessing Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (RSOFCs) in Alberta as a Carbon Utilization Technology

Abstract

Alberta’s economy is heavily dependent on the oil & gas sector, and with increasing concern over climate change and global warming from anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, there is an urgent need for decarbonizing the economy. Progress toward decarbonization has been made with the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line facilitating carbon capture, utilization and storage; however, additional clean-technology for carbon utilization is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while allowing continued oil production to meet the growing energy needs of the world. This study analyzes three models assessing Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (RSOFCs) in Alberta as a carbon utilization technology, with the ability to use waste CO2 while producing fuels, and chemicals; or as means to generate clean electricity. This study seeks to ascertain the environmental, economic, and energy, implications of this technology. The findings indicate that the technology is economically valuable, while providing environmental benefits and substantial energy applications.

Chapter 1: Introduction

A scientific consensus about global climate change has been established with a staggering 97% of climate scientists in agreement about the notion that the earth’s climate is warming, and that this is extremely likely to have an anthropogenic cause (Callery, Shaftel & Jackson, 2019). Climate data, collected since 1880, clearly shows this warming trend with rapidly rising global temperatures in the most recent decades and the 10 warmest years all occurring since 2005. Emissions from fossil fuel combustion, resulting in increased amounts of atmospheric greenhouse gases including Carbon Dioxide (CO2), are a primary driver to both global warming and climate change. Moreover, renewable energy, from intermittent sources such as wind and solar power, are becoming increasingly important for meeting the energy demands of the world, while simultaneously avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, my research will focus on the uses and benefits of Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (RSOFCs) in Alberta as a carbon utilization technology with the ability to use waste CO2 while producing fuels, chemicals and clean electricity.

RSOFCs can provide a source of clean electricity in the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) mode; meanwhile, in the Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell (SOEC) mode their functionality allows them to store energy in the form of chemical fuels and gases (Molero Sanchez, 2017). The SOECs electrolyze water (H2O) to hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2) or CO2 to carbon monoxide (CO) and O2. SOECs can also co-electrolyze CO2 and H2O to form syngas (a combination of H2 and carbon monoxide (CO)), and O2. When the RSOFC is operated in the SOFC mode, clean electricity and heat are produced from H2/CH4 or syngas and oxygen. This can be seen in Figure 1 which shows a schematic of a RSOFC (Addo, 2017). The terminology fuel electrode and oxygen electrode are used for the SOFC and the SOEC respectively; the revolutionary potential of these particular advanced-RSOFC is of great importance. The clean-tech company SeeO2 Energy Inc. has developed and scaled up, RSOFCs, that function at 800-1000C, in the SOEC mode with the ability to electrolyze:

1. water to hydrogen and oxygen,
2. carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and oxygen,
3. carbon dioxide and water to syngas.

Additionally, they function in the SOFC mode that is able to utilize the H2, CO, or syngas as fuels to produce clean electricity and heat.

Figure 1: Schematic of RSOFC (Addo, 2017).

1.1 Relevance for Alberta

Crude oil production in the province of Alberta accounts for nearly 80% of Canada’s total production, making Alberta the largest producer of crude oil in Canada with a staggering three- quarters of that production coming from Northern Alberta’s oil sands ("Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Alberta", 2019). In 2017 alone 3,538 Mb/d of crude oil were produced in the province with 2,823 Mb/d of that being oil sands bitumen. There are five refineries in the province of Alberta with a combined refining capacity of 541 Mb/d which amounts to 28% of the entire refining capacity in Canada. Crude oil processing uses hydrogen in the refining process to get fuels, like gasoline and diesel, and to get rid of contaminants such as sulphur ("Industrial Hydrogen Applications - XEBEC - A world powered by clean energy", 2019). About ¾ of the H2 used by refineries globally is obtained from large hydrogen plants, which produce H2 from natural gas or other fossil fuels. The other 25% of H2 needed comes from steams generated as a by-product of the refining process. Hydrogen is used in a wide range of other industries such as chemical production, metal refining, food processing and electronics manufacturing. Compressed liquid H2 is usually delivered to companies in these industries; however, sometimes H2 is made on-site by means of a process which uses water, called electrolysis. Hydrogen is high in energy, and hydrogen fuel cells are electrochemical devices that produce electrical energy from electrochemical reactions that combines H2 and oxygen to generate electricity, water and heat ("Hydrogen Energy", 2019). SeeO2 Energy Inc.’s SOFCs can operate with H2 as a fuel and this is a very significant functionality, especially in Canada which is at the forefront of advancing H2. Canada both produces and uses large amounts of H2 and is a world-leader for H2 expertise and fuel cell technology ("Canadian hydrogen and fuel cells industry", 2018). Canada’s H2 industry is robust and diverse, encompassing all aspects of the supply chain which presents a great opportunity for the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC to play a vital role in future H2 economies and infrastructure. The notion of “hydrogen from hydrocarbons” has the potential to develop into a vast hydrogen market and value chain. The RSOFC in the fuel cell mode (SOFC) could be used to provide electricity for buildings, and as a power source for electric vehicles.

Using SeeO2 Energy’s electrolyzers, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, when available, can provide electricity for the reaction to form Syngas (H2, CO) using the waste CO2 from Alberta’s energy sector as feedstock. The syngas can be transported, and stored, until it is needed; thus, allowing for a means to store energy from renewables. The SeeO2 technology also has profound implications for Alberta’s energy sector and economy in general, since it would allow oil refineries to use waste CO2, thereby reducing emissions, to produce their own H2 for use in the refining process. The RSOFC would not only enable companies to produce their own H2 and O2 for oil refining, but they could have additional revenue streams from syngas, CO, O2, and H2 for use in fuel cells or other industrial applications. Therefore, RSOFCs could play a vital role in securing a place for Alberta’s hydrocarbon resources in the world’s transition to a low-carbon future. Furthermore, the versatility of the technology may provide a better business-case for industry and prove economically valuable with the production of fuels, chemicals, and clean electricity.

Coupled with the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL), a 240 km CO2 pipeline network, owned by Wolf Midstream, which forms the core of an infrastructure capable of enabling carbon utilization strategies, SeeO2’s CO2 electrolyzer technology could have enormous environmental and economic benefits for Alberta (Wolfmidstream.com, 2018). The ACTL will capture 4400 tonnes of CO2 per day from Alberta’s industrial heartland ("The ACTL Project", 2019).

Figure 2: The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line

The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) which will transport CO2 captured from the Northwest Redwater Refinery and the Nutrien fertilizer facility north of Edmonton. The 4,400 tonnes per day of CO2 will be transported through 240 km of pipeline to oil reservoirs in central Alberta for enhanced oil recovery projects.

One of the two currently planned sources of the CO2 is the Redwater Refinery which uses a process of gasification to result in high purity CO2. The other source of the CO2 will be the Nutrien Fertilizer facility. The CO2 in the ACTL will be high purity, compressed to 17,926 kilopascals, for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) which entails pumping the CO2 into mature oil reservoirs thereby trapping the CO2 underground while enabling production of otherwise inaccessible oil. The CO2 is injected into mature reservoirs and pushes the remaining oil out of the pore spaces in the reservoir rock allowing for additional recovery of oil from the production wells. The Alberta oil sands are the third largest oil reserve on earth, and among the most carbon intensive crude oil operations being developed on a large scale (Israel, 2017). If CO2 from Alberta’s oil extraction or refining could be captured and transported via the ACTL, SeeO2’s CO2 electrolyzer technology has the potential to revolutionize the energy sector in Alberta, in addition to making a meaningful impact on both the environment and economy.

1.2 Importance of Research: Energy, Environment, and Economy

This project seeks to consider the energy, environment, and economic implications of the research question. The anthropogenically caused increase in atmospheric CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels and the resulting global warming and climate change consequences pose serious challenges for the world’s population both now and into the future. The oil and gas sector accounts for roughly 30% of all of Alberta’s economic activity, with the oil sands having the third- largest crude oil reserves in the world (Zimmerman, 2019). Also, two-thirds of Calgary’s 115 head offices are businesses in the energy sector or oil field services. Changing markets and the role of decarbonization become more important as the public and governments increase pressure to decarbonize the economy (Anderson, 2016). More specifically, the carbon content required to produce a barrel of oil is a significant factor for consumers. It is essential to determine and analyze the environmental, economic, and energy potential of RSOFCs as a means to reduce the carbon intensity of oil and gas production in Alberta’s energy sector, thereby reducing the environmental harm and adding economic value. This technology has the potential to be used to directly generate electricity in addition to facilitating cleaner exploitation of Alberta’s vast oil resources.

1.3 Overview of Research Paper

First, Chapter Two covers the literature review which includes essential background information pertaining to reversible fuel cell technologies and related topics pertaining to products of the SeeO2 Energy technology such as syngas, H2 and O2. Next, Chapter Three is the methodology section which outlines how the analysis is conducted including the use of the eDecisions modelling tool as well as a description of simulations that are built and the aspects of the research each model is designed to examine. Chapter Four is the analysis and findings section of the report which includes a description of data obtained from the models for each scenario created in the simulator. Chapter Five, the findings and interpretation section of the research, seeks to make a meaningful and in-depth examination of the results in order to compare, explain, and better understand the implications of the technology. Chapter Six, which is the conclusions and recommendations section, aims to provide an answer to the research question and give specific findings from the research for support. In the final section, Chapter 7, the future research opportunities and limitations of the current study are discussed and explored.

Chapter 2: Related Literature

Currently, there is much interest in reversible fuel cells since the operation of these devices can either deliver electricity or store energy (Molero Sanchez, 2017). The thesis entitled “Development of Oxygen Electrodes for Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells” by Beatriz Molero Sanchez aimed to develop stable oxygen electrodes that have high performance for use in RSOFCs. Moreover, the thesis by Paul Addo entitled “Development of Fuel Electrodes for Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Applications” determined the electrochemical performance and tolerances of the fuel electrodes for SeeO2’s RSOFCs (Addo, 2017). The synthesis of a new symmetrical electrode material, which can be used as both fuel and O2 electrode, was a major achievement for overcoming the problem of O2 and fuel electrode stability over a long time; as well as solving the issues of impurities tolerance, and low conversion rates. This builds on much of the previous work that details the ability of Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, operating in the SOFC mode, to generate electricity by way of an electrochemical process that combines a fuel, such as H2 and CO, with air (Minh & Mogensen, 2013). Also, it has been well established that when paired with an energy source in the SOEC mode, the RSOFC would produce either H2 and O2, from water; or fuel chemicals, like syngas and O2, from a mixture of CO2 and H2O, or CO and O2 derived from CO2. The work of Minh and Mogensen (2013) also identifies RSOFCs as having all of the characteristics and features that would make them an ideal technology for green, energy efficient systems. They state that the RSOFC is a realistic and feasible technology for sustainable energy systems such as renewables like wind and solar. However, Minh and Mogensen (2013) clearly stated that more work was needed, at that time, to address some critical issues having to do with the performance of the oxygen electrode. This research gap was addressed extensively by Beatriz Molero Sanchez (Molero Sanchez, 2017) and Paul Addo (Addo, 2017) in their respective research work. This body of research includes ground-breaking and essential work on high performance electrodes for RSOFCs (Addo, Molero-Sanchez, Chen, Paulson & Birss, 2015; Molero-Sánchez et al., 2015).

Similarly, it has been identified that SOFC/ SOEC technology has tremendous potential for the energy sector, and for providing solutions for electricity generation that is both efficient as well as environmentally friendly (Papazisi et al., 2017). Reports on energy storage such as the IVA’s report “Energy Storage: Electricity Storage Technologies” by Nordling, Englund, Hembjer & Mannberg (2016), have examined various different energy storage technologies, such as flow batteries, but have yet to consider RSOFCs. Thus, given that the work of Molero Sanchez (2017) and Addo (2017) has overcome the major issue of long-term stability, a barrier of RSOFCs identified in the past literature. Moreover, the academic works of Beatriz Molero Sanchez and Paul Addo also include research on the stability of materials and methods essential to the development of RSOFCs (Molero-Sánchez, Addo, Buyukaksoy & Birss, 2017; Molero-Sánchez, Prado-Gonjal, Ávila-Brande, Birss & Morán, 2015). Examining the applications and benefits of RSOFCs in Alberta’s context will be done using the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC technology.

None of the previous literature has examined the possible environmental, economic, or energy implications of RSOFCs specifically as a carbon utilization technology with respect to  Alberta’s energy sector. Thus far, the primary way of dealing with waste CO2 in Alberta has been to store it underground in geological formations by way of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), as was done in the Shell Quest project. The global market for CO2 utilization has the potential to be an US$800 billion market by the year 2030 ("Global Roadmap for Implementing CO2 Utilization", 2016).  This is indeed a very exciting economic opportunity for Alberta as SeeO2’s RSOFCs can use carbon dioxide as feedstock for useful products or energy, and in doing so, decrease the carbon emissions of the province.

2.1 Syngas

Syngas is comprised of hydrogen (H2), and carbon monoxide (CO) and is a very important intermediary in many industries (Rostrup-Nielsen & Christiansen, 2011). The production of syngas can be carried out from nearly any carbon source such as natural gas, coal, and even biomass. Syngas is used mainly to synthesize other chemicals, and in the agricultural sector it plays an important role in the industrial production of fertilizers and ammonia. In the petroleum-refining industry, syngas is primarily used for the production of pure H2 for hydrocracking operations as well as hydrodesulfurization. Although H2 is created as a by-product within the refinery, it does not usually supply adequate amounts for what is needed in the refinery. As a result, steam methane reforming is commonly used to produce H2 in most refineries ("The Global Syngas Technologies Council", 2019). Steam methane reforming is usually carried out on-site and the feedstock used is typically natural gas or other light hydrocarbons. Hydrocracking is the process of cracking heavier petroleum fractions into fuel products which are more valuable. As part of the cracking reactions, hydrogen is added in order to saturate the hydrocracked fuel compounds which reduces the content of aromatics resulting in cracked products which are almost completely contaminant free since sulfur and nitrogen are removed.

The cost of producing syngas from underground coal gasification (UCG) was found to be in the range of $37.27/TCM (where TCM is thousand cubic meters) to $39.80/TCM depending on the coal used (Pei, Korom, Ling & Nasah, 2014). The cost range for syngas production by means of underground coal gasification is $0.0373/m3 to $0.0398/m3 or from $1.06/mcf to $1.13/mcf. Meanwhile, if natural gas is used, the cost of producing syngas varies between $24.46/TCM ($0.024/m3) and $90.09/TCM ($0.090/m3), in which case, the price of natural gas was the main determining factor for the cost of producing syngas. The process of producing syngas from coal results in about two-thirds of the carbon in the coal to be converted into CO2 and the carbon that remains becomes a component of the syngas as CO (Chandel & Williams, 2009). Syngas has about half, or roughly only 50% of the energy density of natural gas ("What is Syngas - BioFuel Information", 2010). Steam reforming of natural gas has a CO2 intensity of 0.05CO2e /MJ of syngas, which is the equivalent of 50kg of CO2 per GJ of syngas (Hoppe, Thonemann & Bringezu, 2017). The syngas density of 0.5 kg/m3 and heating value of 0.02456 GJ/kg was estimated based on the syngas composition as modelled by Fu et al. (2010) for co-electrolysis of CO2 and water in SOEC to produce syngas (Fu, Mabilat, Zahid, Brisse & Gautier, 2010). Using a density of 0.5 kg/m3 for syngas, the cost of producing syngas from natural gas would range from $0.05/kg to $0.18/kg.

There is a strong market demand and a stable price for syngas which is considered a clean energy alternative to burning coal, especially in emerging markets like China ("SinoCoking Issues Update on Syngas Production and the Company's Contribution to a Greener China", 2019). For instance, in 2015 the Chinese company SinoCoking and Coke Chemical Industries set out to become one of the largest producers of syngas in China, which is cleaner burning than coal, and planned to completely transition away from the conventional use of coal and coking. Syngas has a stable market price between USD $0.10/m3 and $0.11/m3 (or CDN $0.13/m3 and $0.14/m3). The global market for syngas is even expected to experience significant growth in the coming years due to the extensive use of syngas as an intermediary in the production of fuels, fertilizers, solvents, and synthetics ("Syngas Market Value 2019, Latest Research Report, Price Trend, Size Estimation, Industry Outlook, Demand Overview and Business Key Players 2023", 2019). Some of the main chemicals produced using syngas are ammonia, acetic acid, methanol, dimethyl carbonate, and oxo-chemicals. The chemical industry experiences growth as a result of the growth of connected industries such as agriculture, petroleum, automotive, and construction; and as such, this is a major contributing factor to the increasing global demand for syngas. Some of the most high-profile companies operating in the global syngas market are Shell in the Netherlands, Sasol in South Africa, Air Liquide in France, Air Products and Chemicals Inc. in the United States and Methanex in Canada. The syngas market greatly varies based on the feedstock, process used, application, and different gasifiers. However, the market for syngas is expected to grow in the coming years and the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is expected to be 11.02% for the period from 2019 to 2024 ("Global Syngas Market Growth, Trends, and Forecast to 2024: Market is Expected to Grow at a CAGR of 11.02%", 2019). This is mainly due to the growing demand from the chemical industry and the petroleum and energy sector where the is an increase in demand for gaseous fuels. However, when considering the cost of syngas from bio-gasification in the United States, an economic model was used to determine the unit-cost of syngas production and was found to be $1.22/m3 at standard pressure and temperature (Kim, Parajuli, Yu & Columbus, 2011). The syngas produced in that study had a content of 22% CO, 18% H2 and was produced from wood chips using air gasification.

Therefore, to summarize, syngas is primarily used as an intermediate in the production of fertilizer and liquid fuels, in addition to its importance as feedstock in the chemical industry. Syngas is also combustible and can be used as a fuel or to generate electricity, and thus lends itself well to being a valuable commodity in energy future of Alberta.

2.2 Oxygen

As the most abundant element on earth Oxygen is essential to all life, and by weight, makes up 46% of the earth’s crust, 21% of the air, and 89% of the water ("Gas - Oxygen", 2019). Oxygen is able to combine with all other elements (with the exception of rare gases) and has the ability to oxidize them. This property makes oxygen valuable in many industrial processes and applications as an oxidizing agent. Oxygen can also increase efficiency because it serves to decrease the amount of fuel used in a number of combustive processes and reduces CO2 emissions. Oxygen is used in industries such as oil and gas, metal fabrication, construction, environmental, mining, pulp and paper, and the chemical industry. For instance, oxygen can be used to boost flame properties in torches and burners, it can also be used for ferrous and non-ferrous oxycombustion in metal fabrication. Oxygen is used in construction for increasing cement kiln capacity, as well as in the pulp and paper industry for delignification, bleaching, liquor oxidation and kiln enrichment.

Oxygen, as the 2nd most widely used industrial gas, has a global market which maintains a steady 5-6% growth rate ("Oxygen global market report", 2007). Interestingly, the majority of this growth has been in developing countries, and the steel industry is the largest end-user of oxygen as it consumes nearly half of the global oxygen output which amounts to about 600,000 tonnes per day (tpd). Not surprisingly, steel demand drives most of the oxygen market growth as the consumption of O2 per ton of crude steel produced goes up regardless of the technologies used for steel production. Although a large amount of this O2 usage is captive, meaning that it is both produced and consumed by the end-user; industrial gas companies supply the majority of oxygen in the global market. The chemical industry, including refined products, petrochemicals, agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and polymers, is the second largest end-user with 19% of the worldwide O2 demand with approximately 40% of the O2 being supplied on-site. There is the potential for a huge demand for O2 from the growing Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) industry, such as GTL refineries or projects that gasify coal or natural gas to produce clean transport fuels. These industry trends indicate that global O2 demand will continue to rise.

2.3 Compression and Pumping of CO2

The transport of large quantities of CO2 necessitates that pipelines can operate above the critical pressure of CO2 which is 1,071 psi or 7.39 MPa (Jackson & Brodal, 2018). When CO2 is above its critical pressure of 7,384 kPa, its behavior mimics the properties of a liquid at 25 C. The process of pumping CO2 from below its critical pressure to its final pressure requires refrigeration to cool and further condense CO2 to a point where it is below ambient temperature. Due to the fact that the vast majority of CO2 capture processes involve low pressure CO2, the compression of CO2 is needed from any point of capture to the pipeline. Either more conventional multi-stage compressors or the latest shockwave type compressors may be employed to achieve this compression. Moreover, pumping may also be required if CO2 is compressed below its critical point.

The addition of carbon capture, compression and pumping has a significant impact on the efficiency of a typical power plant. For example, an average coal-fired power plant with the addition of post combustion capture of CO2 will decrease efficiency anywhere from 7-12%. The efficiency loss is typically expressed as the amount of lost electrical power production per CO2 unit captured or compressed; for instance, kWhe/tCO2. A state-of-the-art CCS plant would use 250-300 kWhe/tCO2 for capture, while the compression of CO2 would consume as much as 90- 120 kWhe/tCO2 of electrical power.

For the assessment purposes of this paper, the post-RSOFC compression and pumping of CO2 will not be assessed as part of the analysis. It will be assumed that the technology, cost, and energy for compressing and pumping the CO2 back into the ACTL will be available. Circulating any CO2 gas produced by the RSOFC back into the ACTL will yield a carbon neutral or carbon negative result.

Chapter 3: Methodology

The aim of this research is to encompass energy, the environment and the economy when considering RSOFCs as a viable carbon utilization technology tapping into the ACTL, to supplement EOR prior to the CO2 being stored underground. Although RSOFCs are not batteries, this research project also seeks to understand the various applications and possible advantages of RSOFCs with respect to energy storage options from renewables.

The energy aspect of the research will assess the amount of energy produced from RSOFCs, for a given amount of CO2 utilized, in three different scenarios. The necessary data will be obtained from SeeO2 and Wolf Midstream. Additionally, an analysis of the energy storage capacity and efficiencies from SeeO2’s RSOFC will be performed. Any data for the purpose of comparison will be collected from the available literature and published reports, and all relevant data pertaining to SeeO2’s RSOFCs will be obtained from the company.

The economic analysis of the research will assess the economic value of products produced using CO2, via SeeO2’s SOECs, such as CO or H2. These products have uses in many different industries such as food production, pharmaceuticals, the steel industry, and chemical production. The analysis will consider the monetary benefit of the added revenue streams as well as the economic value of heat and energy produced. Additionally, the cost of the RSOFC technology will be evaluated to calculate the income statement for each scenario. Also, from the income statements, the cash net income and payback period for each scenario will be determined. The economic aspect will also consider the cost per kWh of SeeO2’s RSOFC technology. Cost is typically the main obstacle to overcome for new technologies, however, the cost may drop dramatically in the short-term future because of technological advances, economies of scale or the rising cost of carbon.

Finally, this capstone project will seek to examine and compare the environmental impacts and benefits of using RSOFCs to utilize CO2 from the ACTL in addition to the underground CO2 storage from EOR. The potential amount of CO2 feedstock that can be utilized by RSOFCs for syngas production will be assessed. This will attempt to take into account the potential CO2 utilization capability of the SeeO2 RSOFC. Data will be collected from the available literature and published life-cycle assessments for any comparisons. By examining the energy characteristics (syngas/electricity/heat), economic factors (revenues/expenditures), and environmental implications (CO2 utilization) of RSOFCs, we can begin to understand the possible benefits of RSOFCs for Alberta’s energy sector, economy and environment.

Use of the cutting-edge software tool called eDecisions will be a valuable component of this capstone research project. This software is an energy efficiency decision platform which is designed to aid in environmental analysis, financial analysis, and facility analysis. The eDecisions program is most commonly used by business owners, consultants, or energy analysts in order to build models for assessing different options for utilizing renewables or clean technology in facilities. The tool is used to identify action items and build a business case for making changes or improvements in order to implement renewables or more efficient technologies. The SeeO2 RSOFC has been added to eDecisions in order to model the technology and generate data for analysis. Simulating the technology in eDecisions was based on the mass balance and electrical inputs/outputs of the RSOFC (see figure 2) attained from SeeO2 Energy. The input and output rates, in kg/kWh, provided by SeeO2 Energy were essential to simulate the RSOFC and assess its performance to determine the implications for energy, environment, and economics. Therefore, the eDecisions tool will facilitate the analysis of how SeeO2 Energy’s RSOFC technology could impact Alberta’s energy sector, environment, and economy. This tool can take into account information about location, weather information, such as sunlight and wind, and cost information for inputs. Also, the tool can model performance and provide data for variables such as electricity generated, CO2 consumed, O2 produced, heat generated, and syngas produced.

Mass balance rates and electrical input for SeeO2 SOEC stack were obtained and used for the design of the simulations. The SeeO2 Energy RSOFC stack is both modular and scalable. Proprietary information has been excluded from the figure below.

Figure 3: Mass Balance & Electrical Input

Models built in the eDecisions simulator allow for analysis of energy, environment, and economic aspects of the RSOFC technology. Using data from SeeO2 Energy, giving the input and output rate of mass flow for the RSOFC, and the energy input required to produce 1kg/hr of syngas, the RSOFC technology was coded into the eDecisions energy efficiency program. Scenario 1 will examine the SOEC functionality of the technology by building a model located at Clive, Alberta and assumes to use the 4,400 tonnes/day supply of CO2 from the ACTL. This model will also utilize the weather data and specifically the solar energy at that specific location in central Alberta. Using the eDecisions software, weather data is downloaded into the simulator from the National Solar Radiation Database, or NSRDB, which has meteorological and solar irradiance data that is publicly available.

3.1 Scenario 1: CO2 Utilization and Syngas Production

Scenario 1 models 2 MW capacity solar panels in conjunction with 1600 kW SOEC, therefore allowing solar energy to provide the input electricity for the SOEC for 1 year while utilizing CO2 from the ACTL. One-year worth of data will be output from the software including the amount of input electricity, syngas production, carbon dioxide consumption, oxygen production, and water consumption. The data for scenario 1 will allow for the energy implications to be considered by analyzing the energy efficiency of the technology and the energy content of the syngas produced. Also, this first scenario allows for the economic component to be explored by analyzing the capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure of running the technology in this case. This will include an income statement which has the value of the inputs and costs of the outputs giving a cash net income and payback period for the scenario modelled. The environmental aspect will be addressed using the data generated by the model and evaluating the environmental impacts for CO2 utilization, oxygen production, and water consumption.

3.2 Scenario 2: Clean Electricity Generation

Scenario 2 will be modelled using eDecisions to assess the RSOFC technology’s performance in the SOFC functionality when fuelled by natural gas and running at base-load for one year to generate electricity and heat. This model will generate one year’s worth of data, which most importantly includes natural gas consumption, and electricity and heat production by the fuel cell. This allows for assessing the energy, environment, and economic aspects of using the technology in this mode. The useful thermal output from the SOFC and the efficiency in this mode will be determined giving important information for the scope of the research. Carbon utilization data will also be assessed allowing for the environmental angle to be explored further. The economic aspect for the scenario 2 simulation will also include an income statement and determining the cash net income and payback period for the scenario.

3.3 Scenario 3: Combined mode of both SOEC and SOFC

Finally, the third scenario will attempt to model the RSOFC technology as it utilizes CO2 from the ACTL and solar energy from a 2MW capacity solar facility, in order to produce syngas which is continuously used as fuel to produce electricity and heat by the SOFC functionality. The data generated for a one-year simulation will be used to evaluate the environmental, economic and energy aspects of the technology. The carbon utilization data will be instrumental in assessing the environmental component, along with evaluating the ability of the RSOFC to provide a steady and consistent level of electricity output from an otherwise intermittent renewable source such as solar. This is a key environmental consideration, as renewables play an increasing role in the energy mix. The syngas, electricity and heat production will allow for assessment of the energy aspect, and the economic aspect will be considered from the income statement. The income statement in this case will take into account all of the capital expenditures, inclucding the value of the electricity and heat produced, as well as the value of the CO2 utilized. The operating expenditures, which include any costs associated with the scenario, such as maintenance and inputs. The cost of the solar and RSOFC will be used along with the cash net income in order to determine the payback period for this scenario.

Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings

Currently, oil sands mining, in situ and upgrading accounts for 26% of emissions, electricity generation accounts for 18% and conventional oil and gas about 17% ("Climate change in Alberta", 2019). Analysis using eDecisions will examine various scenarios in order to attain data and determine findings. Building various scenarios using eDecisions allows for the modelling of the RSOFC technology in Clive, Alberta, at the southern end of ACTL, and the planned site of the Enhanced Oil Recovery operations (EOR). Thus, at that location, the assumption is being made that there is an abundant supply of high pressure, pure CO2 from the ACTL. Also, eDecisions can take into account relevant data for modelling at that location such as weather data, the price of electricity, cost of gas, and the size and cost of the technology since it is scalable. All models referenced in this section of the research paper, and the data derived therefrom, are created by the author and all figures shown below are also author-created using data from the models.

4.1 Model 1: Solar

The case for renewables such as solar and wind in Alberta is a strong one with the shift away from coal power scheduled to take place by the year 2030. A model was designed using eDecisions which looked at a Solar facility in Clive, Alberta. The weather data for the models in in this research project was downloaded from the National Solar Resource Database (NSRDB) ("NSRDB Viewer | National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB)", 2019). Modelling of a Solar PV installation with premium modern solar panels in a fixed roof array was designed with a tilt of 50 degrees, an azimuth of 180 degrees, and assuming 10% losses. The capacity of the solar photovoltaic installation in this model was 2 MW, or 2000 kW. This capacity value was chosen to match the system size of the solar farm at Bassano, Alberta ("2MW Solar Farm: Bassano, Alberta |  SkyFire  Energy  |  Solar  Power  Systems",  2019).  Also,  Alberta  has  the  second-best  solar production potential in Canada ("Solar Energy Maps Canada (Every Province)", 2019). This capacity to turn light into electricity makes Alberta the 2nd best province to produce solar power in the country and adds credibility to the assumptions for this scenario. Figure 3 shows the monthly totals of the energy output of the selected solar array. It is the output power given the orientation and configuration parameters selected, therefore, the solar energy can be seen to dip in June because of the inclination of the solar array. A tilt of 50 degrees was selected for the array in the models in order to give the most overall power throughout the year. However, as a consequence, there is slightly less power in the summer.

Figure 4: Solar Performance

Solar performance chart showing the energy output of the selected solar array, with a tilt of 50 used in the models.

The solar power system in this model would produce 2,710,160 KWh/year. The graph below shows the intermittency of the electricity produced from the solar panels in central Alberta over the course of the year. The cost, or capital expenditure, required for the fixed assets of the 2000 kW solar installation would be approximately $4,000,000 based on the assumed $2000/kW cost of solar ("Cost of Solar Power In Canada (Complete Guide 2019)", 2019).

Figure 5: Solar Electricity Profile

Model, created with eDecisions, of Electricity produced by 2000 kW Solar PV at Clive, Alberta over the course of a year which clearly shows the intermittent quality.

4.2 Scenario 1: 2 MW Solar and 1600 kW SOEC

The 2MW Solar facility at Bassano, Alberta was used to determine the size of the solar capacity in the model for this scenario as it indicates what a realistic size of solar facility should be going forward. The facility in the scenario is located at Clive, Alberta and is assumed to have the solar panels on it or around it. Also, the facility in this case merely houses the SOEC and the required storage tanks for input gases, such as CO2, and output gases, such as syngas and O2.

In this model, the solar capacity is 2MW and has the same specifications, location, cost, and weather data described in section 4.1 above. Building on this, the SOEC was added to the model with a 1600kW capacity in order to gauge the possible value of just the electrolysis cell functionality of the RSOFC. This scenario also seeks to determine the possible economic value of the gases produced, and the environmental benefit of CO2 utilization.

Figure 6: Scenario 1 Electricity Profile

Electricity profile showing the remaining electricity sold to the grid from the 2MW solar in combination with 1600 kW SOEC in central Alberta. The electricity profile shows what is left after the 1600 kW SOEC functions at full capacity to produce syngas.

The above figure (Figure 6) shows the remaining electricity produced by the solar panels that would be sold to the grid throughout the year. The excess electricity produced by the solar panels resulted due to the solar capacity in the model being slightly oversized to ensure continuous generation of syngas by the 1600 kW SOEC. The 2 MW solar panels would produce 2,700,707.8 kWh of electricity during the year and the 1600 kW SOEC would consume approximately 98% of that electricity in utilizing CO2 to producing syngas, and O2. Assessing the SOEC, in the absence of the SOFC functionality, to produce syngas, and oxygen in this scenario allows us to determine the value of the gases produced. The capital expenditure, or capex, required for the 1600 kW SOEC would range from $800,000 to $2,400,000 since this is a new technology which SeeO2 Energy has only produced on a very small scale. Thus, the cost estimate of this technology ranges from $500/kW at the low end to $1500/kW at the high end (Scataglini et al., 2015). As production of the RSOFC’s begins and eventually increases, the price is expected to decrease significantly. However, for the purpose of this project, a median value of $1000/kW was assumed which results in a capex of $1,600,000 for the 1600 kW SOEC. When combined with the 2MW solar, which has an estimated CAPEX of $4 million, the total capex for the fixed assets of the solar/SOEC scenario is approximately  $5,600,000.  The  operational  expenditure required for maintenance of the RSOFC, or OPEX, is assumed to be 2% of the CAPEX which would be $32,000 in this case assuming the median price per kW (Scataglini et al., 2015). However, at the low end of the cost estimate for the RSOFC, the price may be as low as $500/kW, in which case the CAPEX for the SOEC would be $800,000 for the 1600 kW SOEC. Therefore, the CAPEX for the SOEC in scenario 1 ranges between $800,000 at the low-end, if the cost/kW is $500/kW; and $2.4 million at the high-end, if the cost/kW is $1500/kW. In this scenario, the modeling software estimates that the SOEC would produce 377,697.94 kg of syngas over the course of the year.

Figure 7: Syngas Production

Syngas produced by 1600 kW SOEC using electricity produced by 2 MW capacity solar over 1 year.

The syngas is assumed to have a density of 0.5 kg/m3 and a heating value of 0.02456 GJ/kg. Therefore, this would mean that, over the course of the 2016 year modeled, there is 755,395.88 m3 of syngas and, in terms of energy, is equivalent to 9276.26 GJ or 2,576,738.89 kWh worth of syngas. Over a 5-year period for the SOEC in this scenario, that works out to 1,888,489.70 kg of syngas.

Figure 8: Syngas Production and Carbon Dioxide Consumption

CO2 consumed by 1600 kW SOEC over the course of the year modelled in Scenario 1 while producing syngas.

According to the simulation, the amount of CO2 consumed by the SOEC in order to make the syngas amounts to 497,390.95 kg CO2. Therefore, 497,390.9507 kg CO2/9,276.26 GJ of syngas results in 53.62 kg CO2 consumed per GJ of syngas produced from the SOEC. The location of the model in the simulation is along the ACTL and the CO2 is assumed to come directly from the ACTL which would have a supply of pure CO2 that could be utilized by the SOEC and turned into syngas. In producing syngas throughout the course of the year modelled, the 1600 kW SOEC uses 388,337.32 kg of water and produces 531,968.93 kg of oxygen (see Figure 9). Converted to m3, this is 399,676.13 m3 of O2 produced with a density of 1.331 kg/m3; and with a water density of 1000 kg/m3, the result is 388.34 m3 of water used.

Figure 9: SOEC Performance

Graph showing 1600 kW SOEC CO2 & water consumption as well as Syngas & O2 production over the course of the year modelled. The terminology “storage” refers to syngas produced and CO2 consumed in the model.

4.3 Scenario 2: 400 kW SOFC and Natural Gas

The eDecisions simulator allowed for the modelling of just the SOFC running on natural gas in order to ascertain the characteristics of how the fuel cell aspect of the SeeO2 RSOFC functions. In this scenario, the RSOFC is only operating as a 400 kW fuel cell, or SOFC, which consumes natural gas. For this model, it is assumed that the input rate for natural gas as fuel into the SOFC is the same as the input rate for syngas when used as fuel in the normal functioning of the RSOFC.  The simulator data shows that the SOFC operating at a constant load is consuming

2.38 GJ of natural gas each hour over the entire year modelled which results in a total of 20,848.80 GJ of natural gas over the entire year. This works out to 661.11 kW each hour or 5,791,333.33 kWh over the entire year (2.38 GJ each hour for the year and a total of 20,848.8 GJ for the year, or 5,791,333.33 kWh worth of natural gas). This simulation shows that the SOFC functionality delivers a constant 400 kW of electricity output every hour resulting in a total of 3,504,000 kWh, or 3,504 MWh, for the entire year. Thus, taking the into consideration both the total electricity produced by the fuel cell of 3,504,000 kWh, and the input energy of 5,791,333.33 kWh from the natural gas, we arrive at an efficiency of 60.5% for the SOFC.

The heat produced by the SOFC is 164.80 kWh, or 0.5933 GJ for every hour modelled throughout the year which results in a total of 1,443,647.22 kWh, or 5197.13 GJ for the entire year. When the heat produced by the SOFC is included, the total system efficiency is 85.43% which is calculated by taking the sum of the net useful electric output for the SOFC and the net useful thermal output of the SOFC, 3,504,000 kWh + 1,443,648.16 kWh respectively, divided by the total fuel energy input from natural gas (5,791,333.33 kWh). Therefore, including the heat energy increases the efficiency by 24.92% and provides a significant amount of heat that can be used to heat water in a cogeneration. The Alberta Energy Company (AECO) price is a benchmark for the wholesale natural gas market in Alberta and is the largest natural gas trading hub in Canada, therefore this is used to estimate the cost of natural gas for Scenario 2. The AECO 2017 average price for natural gas of $2.09/GJ, which gives a total cost of $43,473.08 for the 20,848.8 GJ of natural gas used for running the SOFC at base load for the duration of the year ("Natural Gas Facts | Natural Resources Canada", 2018).

Figure 10: SOFC Energy Consumption and Production

The 400 kW SOFC base-load energy production and consumption of natural gas over the course of the year modelled. This demonstrates the consistent electricity production by the SOFC.

According to the simulation, the CO2 emissions from 400 kW SOFC working at base-load on a steady supply of natural gas would produce 1,226,400 kg of CO2 over the course of the year. Ideally, it is assumed that in all scenarios designed in eDecisions, the CO2 would be borrowed from the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL). Thus, it is taken from the high pressure, pure CO2 supply in the ACTL and utilized in the SOEC in Scenario 1 to produce syngas. However, in Scenario 2, the CO2 which is produced by the SOFC to generate electricity and heat would be returned to the ACTL, thus making the SOFC carbon neutral. The 1,226,400 kg of CO2 produced by the 400 kW SOFC would be compressed and pumped back into the ACTL to be utilized for EOR. The input natural gas has heating value of 0.0523 GJ/kg which is almost double that of syngas ("Fuel Gases Heating Values", 2005). Also, natural gas has a density between 0.7 kg/m3 and 0.9 kg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure (Unitrove Limited, 2019). Therefore, according to the simulation, an input of 2.38 GJ worth of natural gas going into the SOFC each hour equals about 45.51 kg of natural gas each hour, and if the density of natural gas is assumed to be 0.8 kg/m3, it would equal to 56.88 m3 every hour. The yearly total is 20,848.80 GJ for natural gas used by the fuel cell, which is 398,638.62 kg or 498,298.28 m3. Assuming a typical value of about 52 kg/GJ is used for the CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion, this would result in 1,084,137.60 kg of CO2 emissions from the total amount of natural gas consumed (personal communication, Mark Chidwick, June 21, 2019). Using this value of 52 kgCO2/GJ, gives a result that is less than the 1,226,400 kg of CO2 produced by the SOFC in scenario 2. However, unlike a power plant combusting natural gas, the SOFC also acts to sequester the CO2 that it produces; since the CO2 it produces is highly pure and separated from other products. Other values in the literature for the CO2 emission factor (kg/GJ) of natural gas combustion are as low as 49.46 kg/GJ ("2014 B.C. Best Practices Methodology For Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions", 2014). Using a lower value of 49.46 kg/GJ for the CO2 emission factor of natural gas would result in a total of 1,031,181.65 kg CO2 emitted for the combustion of the same amount of natural gas (20,848.80 GJ), a difference of 195,218.35 kg CO2 with respect to the SOFC in the simulator, or 15.92% less. Regardless of the value used, the SOFC has a clear environmental advantage since the CO2 is pure, and already captured and separated allowing for it to be placed in to the ACTL and used for EOR.

The water produced from the 400 kW SOFC for the year is 1,194,864 kg, or 1,194.86 m3 which is assumed to have a value of $1.00/m3 in this project, as it could be sold for use in other industries or used locally for agriculture. The water produced would be of high purity and has many potential applications and uses. Hence, it is safe to assume that the water produced would be quite valuable, however, for the purpose of this analysis, it will be assumed to be worth $1 per cubic meter.

4.4 Scenario 3: 2 MW solar with 1600 kW SOEC and 400 kW SOFC

In Scenario 3, for the same Clive, Alberta location with the same weather data we see that 2 MW of solar power providing the clean, renewable energy for a 1600 kW SOEC produces enough syngas for a 160 kW SOFC to generate steady and consistent electricity output. This scenario will provide insights as to whether this technology has the potential to act as a means to transform intermittent energy from renewables into a steady and reliable source of electricity. The efficiency of the 160 kW SOFC is 42.61% and the total amount of electricity produced by the SOFC over the course of the year is 1,097,959.131 kWh, or 3,952.65 GJ. The combination of the electricity consumed and produced, respectively, of the 1600 kW SOEC and 160 kW SOFC totals 2,659,844.656 kWh, or 98.5% of the total 2,700,707.8 kWh produced by the 2 MW solar panels. The efficiency of the 1600 kW SOEC is approximately 95% with respect to solar energy required to produce syngas. This is attained by dividing the 2,576,738.89 kWh of energy in the syngas by the 2,700,707.8 kWh of solar energy. The SOEC converts 95% of the electricity generated by the 2MW solar panels into energy in the form of syngas. The roundtrip efficiency is 40.65% from the input of the solar energy (2,700,707.8 kWh), through the SOEC production and storage of syngas, and finally to the conversion of the syngas into electricity by the 160 kW SOFC. The SOEC uses 98.5% of the energy generated by the 2MW solar panels, by ultimately consuming 2,659,844.66 kWh of the 2,700,707.8 kWh produced by the solar panels throughout the entire year in order to produce 377,697.94 kg of syngas. Using the heating value of 0.02456 GJ/kg, we get 9,276.26 GJ or 2,576,738.89 kWh for the energy content of the syngas. However, 95.41% of the electricity generated by the solar panels actually ends up as energy in the form of syngas. As is expected, the total electricity consumed by the 1600 kW SOEC, and syngas produced, are exactly the same as in Scenario 1. However, in this case the 160 kW SOFC is constantly consuming the syngas as it is produced throughout the year resulting in steady and constant electricity output rather than the intermittent electricity of solar. Figure 11 shows that the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC is capable of producing consistent and steady electricity from renewables. This can be seen in Figure 11 where the graph shows a straight line across most of the year at the 160 kWh level indicating the constant 160 kW produced by the SOFC each hour for year modelled. The spikes in the graph represent days with excess electricity generated by the 2 MW capacity solar panel array in the model. The technology is linearly scalable, depending on the amount of renewable energy produced, the SOEC/SOFC can be scaled to produce higher amounts of levelized electricity from intermittent renewables.

Figure 11: Constant Electricity from Intermittent Solar

Constant level of electricity output from 1600 kW SOEC, powered by 2 MW solar power, with 160 kW SOFC generating a constant 160 kW of electricity throughout the entire year resulting in a total of 1,097,959 kWh of electricity produced.

The heat produced by the 160 kW SOFC while generating electricity from the syngas amounts to a total of 452,361.11 kWh, or 1,628.5 GJ over the entire year. Storing energy typically consumes some of that energy in the process of saving it before utilizing it out of storage; therefore, the roundtrip efficiency is the ratio of energy put into storage, in this case as syngas, to the energy retrieved from that storage, via the SOFC converting the syngas to electricity. In this way, the RSOFC is reminiscent of a battery. The additional heat energy increases the roundtrip efficiency by 17.56%, from 42.61% to 60.17%. This heat can be captured and harnessed to heat water or used to heat a space.

Figure 12: Scenario 3 Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency of various functionalities of the technology in Scenario 3.

Above, in Figure 12, the theoretical efficiencies obtained from the model for Scenario 3 shows that the SOEC function is 95% efficient and the SOFC is 60% efficient when the heat energy is included. With the useful heat allowing for the possibility of heating water for cogeneration, this extra 17.56% has the potential to be used for space heating in the facility saving money and fuel. This useful thermal output would have economic and environmental benefits while providing the heat energy that would be needed by the facility. This heat would otherwise most likely be obtained by burning natural gas in order to heat the facility.

Figure 13: Scenario 3 Electricity and Heat Production

Electricity and heat produced by 160 kW SOFC over the year modelled. Total heat produced was 452,361.11 kWh and the total electricity was 1,097,959.13 kWh.

Figure 13, shown above, highlights the steady production of both electricity and heat from the RSOFC when converting syngas to electricity in Scenario 3. The steady electrical output of 160 kW each hour for most of the year is apparent along with the consistent production of 65.92 kW worth of heat each hour. Using the technology in this mode has significant implication for the energy sector in Alberta as well as the Alberta electric system as the transition away from coal continues.

Figure 14: Scenario 3 Energy Production and Consumption

Electricity levels from Scenario 3 with solar, SOEC, and SOFC. Positive values represent electricity produced and negative values indicate the electricity consumed.

All of the syngas, 377,697.94 kg, that is generated by the 1600 kW SOEC throughout the year is ultimately consumed by the 160 kW SOFC in producing the 1,097,959.13 kWh of electricity. This was one of the intended objectives of the model and serves to test the usefulness of the technology as a means to transform an intermittent renewable energy source into a steady and predictable source of electricity.

Figure 15: Scenario 3 Electricity Production

Electricity produced by the 160 kW SOFC from the end of April to the End of May. Consistent electricity generation of 160 kW each hour for most of the year is achieved from an otherwise intermittent source.

As can be seen above in Figure 15, one finding of the model in Scenario 3, which combines both functionalities of the technology, is a consistent output of 160 kWh of electricity throughout most of the year from the SOFC as it consumes the syngas produced throughout the year by the SOEC. The spikes seen in Figure 15 represent the excess solar energy which exceed the capacity of the SOEC to produce syngas. This excess electricity can be sold to the grid or stored in a battery; however, it will be omitted for the purpose of this research project. The size of the SOEC in this scenario was intended to use almost all of the solar energy from the solar facility and the aim was to have a large solar capacity than the SOEC in order to saturate the SOEC with electricity.

Chapter 5: Findings and Interpretation

The energy, environment, and economic implications of the technology are explored further in this section with regards to the different functionalities explored in each of the 3 scenarios. The research seeks to expand upon the data in order to make meaningful comparisons which serve to accurately gauge how the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC might benefit Alberta’s energy, environment or economy. All figures and tables in this section are author created using the data generated from the models or derived from the analysis.

5.1 Scenario 1: Solar and SOEC

In the solar and SOEC model created with eDecisions which is located at Clive, Alberta and uses weather data from the year 2016 for that location. The system is assumed to have an unlimited and pure supply of CO2 feedstock from the ACTL, which is planned to carry 4400 tonnes of CO2 per day ("The ACTL Project", 2019).

The 377,697.94 kg, or 755,395.88 m3, of syngas generated by the 1600 kW SOEC over the course of the year using solar energy would be the equivalent of 9,276.26 GJ. In other words, the syngas produced is equivalent to 2,576,738.89 kWh of energy and is the amount of energy in 1,516 barrels of oil since there is approximately 1,700 kWh in one barrel, or 159 L, of oil (Chen, 2019). The average home in Alberta uses 7200 kWh of electricity and 120 GJ of natural gas in a year ("Average Alberta Energy Consumption", 2018). The syngas produced in this scenario is enough to provide 77.3 Alberta homes with enough gas for a whole year. This syngas has a monetary value of $105,755.42 in one year if the price of $0.14/m3 is used to estimate the value. In the 5-year life- span of the SOEC, this works out to $528,777.10. The cost of syngas production from steam reforming of natural gas ranges from $0.05/kg to $0.18/kg. Thus, to generate an equal amount of syngas using this standard method would cost $67,985.63 if we assume the price to be on the higher end, and $18,884.90 for the lower end price. However, the price for syngas production via steam reforming of natural gas is a more well-established process that has had efficiency improvements over time. Thus, the comparison is valuable, however, it must be kept in mind that the SeeO2 Energy technology will improve over time as efficiency can be increased with experience. So, as the RSOFC technology matures, it will become cheaper and more competitive in terms of performance. The amount of syngas produced in scenario 1 was 755,395.88 m3 after  1 year, and assuming a market price for syngas of $0.14/m3, this results in a market value of $105,755.42. The potential value of syngas within the Alberta context cannot be understated, especially considering its growing use as an intermediary in the production of fuels and fertilizers, therefore providing a possible significant opportunity in two of the most important industries in Alberta’s economy. Moreover, the international price of syngas used in this report, based largely on Chinese production, has been stable at around $0.13/m3 to $0.14/m3 giving a reliable revenue stream and steady economic value. However, it is fair to assume that the price of syngas could be much higher based on the unit-cost of syngas production from gasification in the U.S. Using the value  of  $1.22/m3   to  determine  the  monetary  value  of  the  syngas  results  in  a  revenue  of

$921,582.97 for the model in Scenario 1. Figure 16 (shown below) illustrates the material inputs and outputs for Scenario 1 over the course of the year simulated.

Figure 16: Scenario 1 CO2 Utilization and Syngas Production

Amounts of Syngas and O2 produced; as well as amounts of CO2 consumed and water used in Scenario 1.

The CO2 emissions from the steam reforming of natural gas is 0.05 CO2 e/MJ of syngas which is the same as 50 kg CO2 per 1 GJ of syngas produced. In scenario 1, which has only the 2 MW solar with 1600 kW SOEC, a total of 497,390.9507 kg of CO2 is consumed by the electrolysis cell to produce the syngas (9276.26 GJ of syngas). The environmental implications of the 1600 kW SOEC in this example using almost 500 tonnes of CO2 in the year to produce syngas is very significant from an environmental perspective. That is the equivalent of the CO2 emissions from the consumption of 1,152 barrels of oil, or 2.7 railcars of burned coal ("Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA", 2018). Using Canada’s federal carbon price of $50/tonne by 2022, we can estimate the economic value of utilizing 497.39 tonnes of CO2 in this scenario would be $24,869.50 per year. The value of the CO2 is evident as it would save an additional $24,869.50 in carbon tax with the utilization of 497.39 tonnes of CO2 in this scenario. Because the carbon dioxide is being taken from the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line the value in this scenario is determined from the federal carbon price. The assumption is that using the RSOFC technology only with the Electrolysis functionality is favorable when there is a price on carbon, and thus, in the SOEC mode CO2 is taken out of the ACTL. Therefore, the monetary value of the 53.62 kg CO2 which is consumed per GJ of syngas produced from the SOEC in this scenario, can be added to the value of the 9,276.26 GJ of syngas. The price that is being paid in the US for CO2 used in EOR is $2/Mcf which is about $2.62/28.32 m3, or $0.093/m3 ("Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery", 2010). With a density of 1.98 kg/m3, 251,207.55 m3 of CO2 is consumed and this would have a value of $23,362.30 if that amount of CO2 were to be sold for EOR. The value of the CO2 consumed during the year is approximately the same whether we estimate it using the federal price on carbon or the value of CO2 for EOR.

Meanwhile, in order to produce that same amount of syngas from steam reforming of natural gas, which has an intensity of 50 kg CO2 per 1 GJ of syngas, results in 463,813 kg CO2 being produced. Thus, for syngas production, the SeeO2 Energy SOEC has the potential to greatly reduce CO2 emissions when compared to conventional steam reforming of natural gas. This is significant for the refining industry, and the agricultural industry in Alberta. Even with the $50/tonne carbon price taken, the real benefit regarding CO2 consumption by the SOEC is environmental and not economic. The ability to utilize 497,390.95 kg of CO2 in one year in this scenario with only 1 modest sized 1600 kW SOEC shows that the SeeO2 RSOFC is a legitimate option for carbon utilization.

The 1600 kW SOEC in Scenario 1 produced 531,968.93 kg of O2 which has a density of 1.331 kg/m3. Thus, the O2 from the SOEC amounts to approximately 399,676.13 m3. A reliable source at Praxair, a territory manager for specialty gases in southern Alberta, has informed me that high purity O2 can be worth $250 to $300 for a cylinder containing 9.35m3 which gives a value of $29.41/m3 for the high purity O2 (personal communication, Mitchell Jenkins, June 25, 2019). Thus, the 399,676.13 m3 of high purity O2 would be worth $11,754,475.03 according to the market retail industrial value in Alberta. Meanwhile, according to Praxair, the O2 which is not certified as high purity, still has a retail value of $90/9.35 m3 or $9.63/m3. Therefore, even for the regular price of O2, as opposed to the certified high purity O2, which is $9.63/m3, the value of the O2 would be $3,848,881.13 approximately for the year. Understanding that this is the commercial, or packaged value, and is not necessarily an accurately representation of the value of the O2 created in this scenario is important. Nevertheless, it still indicates that there is great potential for a high market value for the oxygen produced. Also, because the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC produces O2 on its own at one electrode, with a purity which is greater than 99%, the price of $9.63 per m3 will be used to estimate the value of the O2.  Using this commercial price attained from Praxair yields a value  of $3,848,881.13.  Even  at  a  lower  value  estimates  for  O2  of  $40-$60  per  ton,  which  equals $0.07335/m3, the yearly O2 produced by the 1600 kW SOEC still has a value of $29,321.47 if the $50/ton price is used. Thus, the O2 value is very significant.

It is assumed that surface water will be consumed by the SOEC for the electrolysis process. The cost of the surface water consumed by the SOEC can be assumed to be $1 per m3 (City of Calgary, 2015). The amount of water used by the SOEC in the eDecisions simulator was 388,337.32 kg (388.34 m3) over the year, which results in an estimated cost of $388.34 for the year simulated. Therefore, using the RSOFC in Scenario 1, the total revenue generated would be $975,768.71 if we consider the price of syngas to be $1.22/m3 and lowest estimated value of O2. Moreover, if we assume the median value of $1000/kW for the RSOFC and $2000/kW for the solar panels, giving a CAPEX of $5.6 million, the payback period will be 1.4 years (Scataglini et al., 2015).

Table 1: Income statement for Scenario 1 showing revenue, expenditure and cash net income.

With a price of syngas at $1.22/m3, the syngas produced in scenario 1 would be worth $921,582.97 while the value of the CO2 would be $24,869.50 the most conservative estimate of the value of the O2 would be $29,316.24. After subtracting the cost of water, and the operating expenditure of 2% of the CAPEX, the cash net income would be $4,122,945.26. If the lowest estimated CAPEX of $2.8 million is taken, based on a $500/kW cost for the RSOFC technology and $2000/kW for the solar, then the payback period would be 0.68 years. With the price of syngas at $1.22/m3 the RSOFC and solar described in scenario 1 would be economically feasible. In the more likely case, where the CAPEX is $6.4 million, resulting from a price per kW of $1500 for the RSOFC and $2000 for the solar, then the payback period would be 1.6 years, which is still quite good for a new technology. Thus, assuming the median CAPEX cost $5.6 million, the payback period would be 1.4 years. With this more optimistic syngas price of $1.22/m3, based on the unit-cost of producing syngas from gasification, even if the cost per kW were to be $2000/kW for both the solar and RSOFC yielding a CAPEX of $7.2 million, the payback period would still be a very reasonable 1.7 years for a new technology that utilizes CO2 to produce a valuable commodity. Thus, given that the market for syngas is expected to grow at a CAGR of 11.02% during the period from 2019 to 2024, it is not unrealistic to expect the value to be at least $1.22/m3 in the near future.

5.2 Scenario 2: SOFC and Natural Gas

In scenario 2, the efficiency is 60.5% for the SOFC when running at base load for the entire year while utilizing natural gas. Using the average price of electricity over the past year, $56.59/MW, calculated from the pool prices on the AESO website, the 3,504 MWh produced over the entire year would have a value of $198,291.36. The amount of natural gas utilized in the year was 20,848.8 GJ worth, and assuming that the price of natural gas is $2.09/GJ based on the AECO average wholesale price from 2017, then, the cost of natural gas would be $43,473.08 for the year ("Natural Gas Facts | Natural Resources Canada", 2018). The average Alberta home uses 7,200 kWh of electricity per year, which means the 400 kW SeeO2 Energy Fuel cell in this model would be able to provide enough electricity for about 487 home for an entire year ("Residential Electricity and Natural Gas Plans & Options", 2019).

Figure 17 shown below illustrates the fuel cell efficiency of the SeeO2 Energy technology as determined from the model in Scenario 2. The high efficiencies when compared to conventional combustion-based power plants serve to demonstrate the potential for the technology to be used as a cogeneration power-plant for generating both electricity and heat.

Figure 17: Scenario 2 Fuel Cell Efficiency

Scenario 2 energy efficiency for electricity produced, thermal output and sum of both.

When the 1,443,648.16 kWh or 5197.13 GJ of useful thermal output of the 400 kW SOFC being operated at baseload is added, the efficiency of the system goes up by 24.92% to 85.43%. The value of this heat is estimated based on the assumption that all of the heat is needed to heat the facility. Assuming that the facility would otherwise need to generate heat for space heating from an average industrial boiler using natural gas with 75% efficiency. Therefore, with a 75% efficiency boiler, 6929.51 GJ of natural gas would be needed over the course of the year to produce 5,197.13 GJ of heat. Assuming the same price of natural gas of $2.09/GJ, the cost of natural gas fuel for space heating would otherwise be $14,482.67. The value of the SOFC thermal output would be $14,482.67. Also, the water produced by the SOFC over the course of the year modelled equaled 1,194.86 m3 and this water would have a monetary value of $1,194.86 if we assume the price of it to be $1/m3. Furthermore, the water has an environmental value as it would theoretically be pure and useful for industry, agriculture or possibly even consumption.

Table 2: Income statement for Scenario 2 showing revenue, expenditure and cash net income.

The total revenue of the electricity sold, and the thermal output of the SOFC is $271,572.51 and the total expenditures is $51,473.08 resulting in a cash net income of $180,099.43 for the year modelled in this simulation. Assuming an optimistic price per kw of $1000/kW, which is the median value in the range given by Scataglini et al. (2015), the CAPEX for the RSOFC in this scenario is $400,000 and the payback period would be 2.2 years. Even if the price per kW was $2000/kW, making the CAPEX $800,000.00, the payback period would still only be 4.4 years which is still very good.

The 1,226,400 kg of CO2 produced by the SOFC over the duration of the year would be put into the ACTL in order to be used for EOR, and in doing so, making the 3,504,000 kWh electricity produced by the SOFC carbon neutral. The SeeO2 Energy RSOFC technology also serves as a carbon sequestration technology since the CO2 that is produced is of very high purity and would not require any carbon capture technology before going into the ACTL. The 1,226,400 kg of CO2 produced by the 400 kW SOFC equates to 619,393.94 m3 and would be worth $0.093/m3 for EOR and therefore would have a value of $57,603.64 when placed into the ACTL in order to be utilized for EOR. Also, the value of the 1,226.4 tonnes of CO2 put back into the ACTL, based on the assumed federal price on carbon of $50/tonne, would be $61,320.00. However, under the assumption that the circumstances are more favourable for EOR, and therefore to use the RSOFC only in its SOFC functionality, we will assume the EOR utilization value for the CO2 of $57,603.64 for use in the income statement. Normally, the CO2 emissions from 3,504 MW of electricity produced by the 400 kW SOFC running at base-load would otherwise be equal to the CO2 emissions from 2,839 barrels of oil consumed, or equal to the CO2 from generating enough electricity to power 214 homes for 1 year ("Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA", 2018). However, in this study it is assumed that the RSOFC’s are used along the ACTL, and all CO2 consumed or produced by the technology would be supplied by the ACTL, or be re-injected back into the ACTL, respectively.

Generating electricity using the combustion of natural gas produces 49.46 kg CO2/GJ ("2014 B.C. Best Practices Methodology For Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions", 2014). Thus, to generate the same 3,504,000 kWh (or 12,614.40 GJ) of electricity produced by the 400 kW SOFC during the year used 20,848.80 GJ worth of natural gas and the combustion of that amount of natural gas would result in approximately 1,031,181.65 kg CO2 emissions. This is a difference of 195,218.35 kg CO2 between using the SOFC running on natural gas at base-load and producing electricity by combusting the same amount of natural gas. However, conventional power plants deriving electricity from combustion-based methods are only 33 to 35% efficient resulting in more fuel consumption to get the same electricity production, and in this case, utilizing 20,848 GJ of natural gas would only yield 7,297.08 GJ of electricity. Furthermore, to get 12,614.40 GJ of electricity from a combustion-based power plant with 35% efficiency, approximately 36,041 GJ of natural gas would be required rather than the 20,848 GJ needed by the RSOFC in this scenario. Therefore, assuming that the combustion of natural gas produces 49.46 kg CO2/GJ, then the combustion of 36,041 GJ of natural gas results in 1,782,594.93 kg of CO2. The cost of using 36,041 GJ of natural gas would be $75,325.69 which is $31,753.37 more expensive than the fuel cost for the RSOFC in this scenario. The difference in the efficiency of the conventional natural gas power plant results in 42% cost increase for the additional fuel required. Therefore, the combustion-based electricity generation from a conventional natural gas power plant generates 556,194.93 kg of CO2 more than producing the same amount of electricity from natural gas using the RSOFC. Therefore, this would save 31% of the CO2 emissions from producing the same amount of electricity by means of the less efficient, conventional natural gas power plant (see Figure 18). The savings in emissions from using the RSOFC, to the tune of 556,194.93 kg of CO2 is equivalent to saving the CO2 emissions from the combustion of 1,288 barrels of oil, or 3 railcars worth of coal burned ("Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA", 2018). However, since Alberta still relies on heavily on coal for electricity generation, as 44.9% of Alberta’s electricity supply is still from coal ("Electricity facts | Natural Resources Canada", 2019). For coal combustion, approximately 96 kg CO2/GJ can be expected and ("List of Constants and Default CO2 emission factors", 2014). Therefore, assuming 35% efficiency for coal power plants, producing the 12,614.40 GJ of electricity in this scenario would require 36,041.14 GJ of coal fuel and the resulting in 3,459,949.44 kg of CO2 emitted. This means that using a 35% efficient coal power plant would produce 2,233,549.44 kg more of CO2 emissions than the SOFC in Scenario 2. That is the equivalent of saving the emissions from 5,171 barrels of oil consumed, or 12.2 railcars worth of coal burned ("Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA", 2018). This represents a 64.6% savings in CO2 emissions from the SOFC over a coal power plant over a coal power plant. One of the main environmental advantages of the RSOFC would be that the pure CO2 produced from using the technology in fuel cell mode would allow for the CO2 to be re-injected into the ACTL and utilized for EOR. The natural gas and coal power plants would not have high purity CO2 emissions and would require not only the capture of CO2 but also the CO2 would need to be separated from other gases in the emission. The sequestration of high purity CO2 in the SOFC mode is a huge advantage of this technology over conventional combustion-based power plants. Improving natural gas or coal power plants to make them on par with the SOFC in this regard would require effective carbon capture methods to be retrofitted or implemented in the construction of new facilities.

Figure 18: Scenario 2 Emissions Comparison

To produce the same amount of electricity as generated by the SOFC in Scenario 2 (12,614.40 GJ), conventional combustion-based natural gas and coal power-plants will produce more CO2 emissions and will require more input fuel resulting in higher costs.

Due to the reversible nature of the RSOFC technology, all scenarios assume that the CO2 is only borrowed, or taken out, of the ACTL when in SOEC mode; and that the CO2 produced from the SOFC is always pressurized and pumped back into the ACTL. It is important to consider that the technology functioning in SOFC mode acts to sequester CO2 and produces it in high purity which is ideal for the ACTL and EOR. Since the ACTL supplies CO2 for EOR and the emissions become permanently sequestered in underground rock formations. This would yield a carbon neutral, or carbon negative result. In the case of Scenario 2, the 1,226,400 kg of pure CO2 produced by the SOFC would be reinjected into the ACTL and ultimately stored underground as part of the EOR process, therefore justifying the value of $57,603.64 based on the cost of CO2 for EOR at $2 per Mcf or $2.62/28.32 m3 ("Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery", 2010). Therefore, the cost to an oil company paying for CO2 to use in EOR, of the volume of CO2 placed back into the ACTL by the SOFC in Scenario 2 would be $57,603.64 approximately.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are the most energy efficient devices for deriving power from fuels, and for instance, while power plants relying on conventional electrical generation based on combustion are typically 33-35%, fuel cell systems are able to generate electricity with up to 60% efficiency or higher with cogeneration ("Fuel Cells", 2019). The findings in Scenario 2 are therefore confirmed by this, and it can be concluded that RSOFCs can dramatically reduce the amount of fuel needed and ultimately result in greenhouse gas reductions because of the significant efficiency improvement. This has serious environmental implications within Alberta’s context especially since 44% of the province’s electricity still comes from coal. Thus, using the fuel cell capability of the RSOFCs as a means of generating electricity and cogeneration for buildings or district heating would be advantageous for Alberta’s environmental and energy prospects.

5.3 Scenario 3: 2 MW Solar with 1600 kW SOEC, and 160kW SOFC

The value of the electricity in this scenario, based on the price of $56.59/MW for electricity, and given the 1,097.96 MW of electricity produced, would be $62,133.51 for one year. Determining the value of the thermal output of the SOFC is based on the assumption that the facility would otherwise need to be heated, and a boiler with 75% efficiency using natural gas would have to be used to otherwise produce that heat. Also, as used for Scenario 2, the price of natural gas that would be required to otherwise heat the facility is assumed to be $2.09/GJ. Therefore, 2,171.33 GJ of natural gas would be needed to create 1,628.50 GJ worth of heat energy, which is what we get as useful thermal output from the SOFC in this scenario. Hence, the value of the useful thermal output from the SOFC would be $4,538.08. The CAPEX for this scenario, assuming that the median value of $1000/kW from Scataglini et al. (2015) for the price per kW is used, would be $1,760,000.00 for both the 1600 kW SOEC and the 160 kW SOFC. The solar panels have a price per kW of $2000/kW and their capital expenditure would be $4 million dollars. Thus, the total CAPEX for this scenario would be $5,760,000.00 for both the RSOFC and the solar panels. The operating expenditure for maintenance would be assumed to be 2% of the CAPEX annually making it $115,200.00 for the year. The discount rate is assumed to be 10% of the CAPEX resulting in an expenditure of $576,000.00 for the year assessed in the income statement. Since the SOEC side of the technology uses CO2 while the SOFC side produces it, the net CO2 used by the RSOFC system in this scenario would be approximately 112,479.39 kg or 112.5 tonnes. With a density of 1.98 kg/m3 the volume of CO2 consumed in this scenario is 56807.77m3. Assuming the $0.093/m3 value, which is based on the price paid for utilizing CO2 in EOR, the net CO2 consumed would  have  a  value  of  $5,283.12.  However,  based  on  the  assumed  federal  carbon  price of $50/tonne this CO2 would have a value of $5,623.97 and since we are assuming a carbon credit value to the CO2, this is the value that will be taken.

The RSOFC both consumes and produces O2, and in this scenario, the net oxygen produced in this scenario is 529,025.30 kg, or 397,464.54 m3, and using the Praxair price estimate of $9.63/m3 for O2, this gives a value of $3,827,583.52 for the net O2 produced. Oxygen is produced at one electrode, and it will be safe to assume that it is of very high purity (greater than 99%); therefore, taking the $9.63/m3 which is the more conservative estimate of the commercial prices of oxygen attained from Praxair, is a reasonable assumption. Since the RSOFC both uses and consumes water, the net water used in this system modelled over 1 year was 13,933.25 kg or 13.93 m3 which, at a price of $1/m3, results in a cost of $13.93. The total revenue for Scenario 3 is $3,951,858.75 while  the  total  expenditure  amounts  to  $691,213.93.  Therefore,  the  cash  net  income  of $3,260,644.82 results for scenario 3 as can be seen in table 3. With a CAPEX of $5,760,000.00, using the $1000 per kW price for the RSOFC, the payback period would be 1.8 years which is very good for a new technology (Scataglini et al., 2015). However, even if we use the $2000 per kW price for the RSOFC, the CAPEX would be $7,520,000.00 and the payback period would still only be 2.3 years.

Table 3: Income statement for scenario 3 showing revenue, expenditure and cash net income.

This scenario illustrates the potential for the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC to be used, in conjunction with, renewables, as a peaking power plant, also known as a “peaker”, to supply clean electricity when the demand is highest. The Alberta Electric System Operator, AESO, provides current and historical market data that can be used to find the times when the market prices are higher on average. The hourly pool price for an entire year was taken from July 3, 2018 to July 4, 2019 and the prices for each hour were averaged for the entire year. The 2-hour period of time with the highest price was the time from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm each day. This window of time with the highest average hourly price each day over the past year was found to have a price of $95.02/MWh. In contrast, the average hourly price for the time period from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm was found to be $66.47/MWh which yields a price differential of $28.55/MWh. The average price over the year from  1:00  am  to  1:00  pm  is  $48.51/MWh,  therefore,  this  makes  for  a  price  difference  of $46.50/MWh with the 2 hours with the highest average price over the year, from 5pm to 7 pm. This price difference for electricity presents an opportunity for utilizing the RSOFC as a peaker in order to capitalize on the consistently higher average price. The SOEC can be run during the day, from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, using solar power and CO2 from the ACTL in order to produce syngas. Syngas production from a 1600 kW SOEC and using the 2 MW solar capacity during the 8:00 am to 4:00 pm time period each day would produce somewhere around 1034.78 kg of syngas, with a heating value of 0.02456 GJ/kg, equaling 25.41 GJ of syngas on average. This example gives only 25.41 GJ, or 7059.56 kWh, of syngas; however, the RSOFC is linearly scalable and can be adjusted in size to meet the required demand. The RSOFC, has a roundtrip efficiency of 41% when converting CO2 to syngas, and then using the syngas to produce electricity. The SOFC functionality converts syngas to electricity with 60% efficiency and would produce 2.894 MWh (4,235.74 kWh or 4.236 MWh) and therefore, for the 2 peak hours with an average pool price of $95.02/MWh, would make $804.96. Over an entire year of using the RSOFC as a peaker, the revenue generated from selling electricity for only the 2 hours of the day with the highest average price amounts to approximately $293,810.41. Producing enough electricity with the SOFC to sell during the 5 hours between 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm, with an average price of $88.2/MWh, would generate $1,868.17 per day and $681,883.19 in a year. From Scenario 2, the 1600 kW SOEC produced 9,276.26 GJ of syngas using electricity from 2 MW solar capacity.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

In answer to the research question, the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC technology does in fact have very useful applications in the Alberta context. From the models analyzed in scenario 1, it can be concluded that utilizing the electrolysis functionality (SOEC) along the ACTL produces syngas from the carbon dioxide emissions captured and transported in the ACTL. Furthermore, based on the findings from the model in Scenario 1, which determined that a 1600 kW capacity SOEC utilized nearly 500 tonnes of CO2 from the ACTL to produce valuable commodities such as 9,276 GJ of syngas and nearly 400,000 m3 of oxygen in one year. This could provide a carbon utilization technology which makes use of the CO2 emissions from the Northwest Redwater Refinery and the Nutrien Fertilizer plant, as well as any other sources of CO2 which may supply carbon dioxide in the future. The potential for the RSOFC to provide for a means of carbon utilization along the length of the ACTL has powerful environmental implications. Additionally, the CO2 which is converted to syngas via the RSOFCs, provides a valuable commodity to refineries and the agriculture and fertilizer industries. The estimated value of the syngas produced in Scenario 1 was $921,582.97 leading to a cash net income of $303,380.37 for the year modelled despite the high capital expenditure cost in the model due to the addition of the 2 MW capacity solar. Therefore, there is a strong economic case for this technology given the extremely flexibility applications of the syngas and other products that can be generated. The syngas has value for the Alberta energy sector as it is used in refineries and petrochemical applications such as cracking to break long chain hydrocarbons into lighter hydrocarbons. Since it can also be used as a fuel and to produce electricity, which can not only add to the energy mix, but also, provide a means to store energy from renewables; syngas may have more untapped potential as a valuable commodity.

The case for the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC as a technology that can greatly benefit the economy, environment and energy sector in Alberta is strengthened with the findings from Scenarios 2 and 3. In Scenario 2, running a 400 kW fuel cell on natural gas at base load for an entire year proved to be 85% efficient when including both electricity and useful thermal output. This demonstrates the potential for utilization of the RSOFCs to generate electricity or in a cogeneration capacity in facilities along the ACTL. The energy and environmental implications are significant since Alberta still derives 44.9% of its electricity from coal and using RSOFCs to produce electricity would be more efficient than a conventional combustion-based coal power plant ("Electricity facts | Natural Resources Canada", 2019). Scenario 2 showed that, to produce the same amount of electricity, the coal power plant would emit 65% more carbon dioxide, and the natural gas power plant would produce 31% more CO2. Also, the increased fuel required for a conventional natural gas power plant would result in a 42% cost increase. The model suggests that using the technology in fuel cell mode would have environmental and economic benefits over conventional combustion-based power plants for the generation of electricity in the province. The higher efficiency in contrast to conventional combustion-based power-plants allows for using less natural gas which saves money while reducing emissions; thus, providing a better means of meeting Alberta’s energy needs. Additionally, this could facilitate the transition away from coal fired power plants while promoting the use of renewables. This is supported by the results of Scenario 3 where it can be shown that producing syngas with 95% efficiency from intermittent solar energy allows the energy from renewables to be stored in order to be used during periods of higher demand. This application of the technology has the potential to play an immense role in advancing the use of clean sources of renewable energy since it allows for the energy from renewables to be stored.

Chapter 7: Limitations and Future Research

The research data collected from the eDecisions simulator was theoretical and based on modelling of the technology from the input and output rates of water, CO2, syngas, heat, O2 and energy. The limitations of the research also include performing the analysis without accounting for the compression and pumping of the CO2. Although it was acknowledged that compression of CO2 is energy intensive, requiring 90-120 kWh per tonne of CO2 compressed, the pumping and compression of carbon dioxide is not be included as part of this analysis. Thus, more precise and accurate models could be designed and built to allow for a better understanding of how the technology performs and the best applications of it in Alberta’s context. The models did not account for the degradation of the catalyst used in SeeO2 Energy’s RSOFC technology and this represents another limitation of the current research. Without the time limitations of the capstone project, more sophisticated and accurate models can be designed and built to better gauge the performance of the technology. The data generated for the RSOFC with eDecisions do not take into account any lag time required for starting the RSOFC and reaching the required temperature range of 800-1000 C. Due to the constraints of this capstone project and the scope of the research, another limitation was assessing the true value and potential uses of the water produced in the fuel cell mode. The water would be of high purity and would potentially be able to be used for agriculture, industry or possibly even consumption. This has significant environmental implications as water is an essential resource experiencing an ever-increasing pressure and demand on it. There would also be an economic upside to exploiting the water producing capability of the technology and this could be further explored as well. Moreover, this research project did not explore the ability of the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC to produce H2 or use it as a fuel in order to generate clean electricity.

Future research should investigate the uses and applications of the RSOFC in specific facilities. One such facility that should be modelled is an oil refinery in order to assess the advantages of using the RSOFC on site to produce syngas/H2 for use in the cracking process. The model could incorporate CO2 emissions, and syngas demand, in addition to the facility’s electricity and heat usage, in order to assess the possible applications of the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC in a typical Alberta refinery.

Further research is required to understand the full scope and potential of the SeeO2 Energy RSOFC in terms of the potential to use H2 as a fuel source in the SOFC mode to produce clean electricity. This has important implications for Canada’s energy future and possible H2 economies across the country.

Also, in order to fully investigate the cogeneration capabilities of the RSOFC, modelling of a leisure center, school or some other community building should be conducted to ascertain the full potential of the cogeneration application of the technology. Furthermore, investigations should be conducted to model the use of multiple RSOFCs all along the ACTL in order to determine the large-scale implications for the province-wide implementation of this technology with respect to CO2 utilization, and electricity generation. Future analysis should also include a study of the implications for smaller communities specifically with respect to the electricity production and cogeneration possibilities from the SeeO2 Energy technology. The research could explore how smaller RSOFC power plants can provide electricity and district heating for more self-sufficient communities. This might include the production of useful fuels and chemicals near facilities that can utilize them in their various industrial processes.

Source: www.aladdin-e.com

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

1. Indo Tambangraya Megah (ITMG)
2. Bukit Asam (PTBA)
3. Baramulti Sukses Sarana (BSSR)
4. Harum Energy (HRUM)
5. Mitrabara Adiperdana (MBAP)
6. Adaro Energy (ADRO)
7. Bumi Resources (BUMI)
8. Samindo Resources (MYOH)
9. United Tractors (UNTR)
10. Berau Coal

Click Here for Top World Clean Coal Technologies Contractors