Table 1: Standard enthalpy change and Gibbs energy change for the selected CO
2
reaction pathways. ................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Energy auditing using block analysis method for Cases A and B. ............................. 3
Table 3: Energy auditing using block analysis method for Cases C and D. ............................. 4
Table 4: Energy auditing using block analysis method for Case E. ......................................... 5
Table 5: Economic evaluation using block analysis method for Cases A and B. ..................... 6
Table 6: Economic evaluation using block analysis method for Cases C and D. ..................... 7
Table 7: Economic evaluation using block analysis method for Case E. ................................. 8
Table 8: Summary results of ETII, energy and cost evaluations for Cases A to E. .................. 9
Table B.1: Standard heat of formation and standard Gibbs energy of formation for various components. (Atkins and Paula, 2005) .................................................................................... 10
Table C.1: Economic parameters for evaluating capital cost, operating costs and value of products. ................................................................................................................................... 11
1

Table 1: Standard enthalpy change and Gibbs energy change for the selected CO
2
reaction pathways.
Reaction
CO
2
( g ) + 4H
2
( g
) → CH
4
( g ) + 2H
2
O ( l )
CO
2
( g ) + 3H
2
( g
) → CH
3
OH ( l ) + H
2
O ( l )
CO
2
( g ) + H
2
( g
) → HCOOH ( l )
CO
2
( g ) + CH
4
( g
) → 2CO ( g ) + 2H
2
( g )

H

R
(kJ/mol)
−253.0
−131.0
−31.2
+247.3

G

R
(kJ/mol) Equation
−130.6
(1)
−9.0 (2)
+33.0
+170.7
(3)
(4)
2

Table 2: Energy auditing using block analysis method for Cases A and B.
Net Energy
Case
Block
Energy Requirement (MW)
1.
Steam requirement for WGS
2.
Oxygen production (ASU)
3.
Steam requirement in CO
2
capture system (Rectisol)
4.
Electricity requirement in CO
2
capture system (Rectisol)
5.
CO
2
compressor
6.
Steam requirement for heating CO
2
feed into methanator
7.
Air and syngas compressor
Sub-total
Energy Generation (MW)
1.
Gasification and syngas cooler
2.
Syngas expander
3.
CO
2
expander
4.
Gas turbine
5.
HRSG
6.
METHANOL and ACEREACT
Sub-total
I
2.42
14.83
17.25
846.77
11.75
Case A
II+III
9.40
4.98
2.52
16.90
IV
9.89
9.89
2.64
3.31
I
2.42
14.83
17.25
846.77
11.75
Case B
II+III
7.63
22.01
0.75
9.40
4.98
IV
858.52 0.00
49.24
55.19 858.52 0.75
49.24
55.19
841.27 −16.90 45.30 841.27 −21.26 45.30
9.89
9.89
2.64
3.31
3

Table 3: Energy auditing using block analysis method for Cases C and D.
Case
Block
Energy Requirement (MW)
1.
Steam requirement for WGS
2.
Oxygen production (ASU)
3.
Steam requirement in CO
2
capture system (Rectisol)
4.
Electricity requirement in CO
2
capture system (Rectisol)
5.
CO
2
compressor
6.
Energy required for tri-reforming process
7.
Air compressor / syngas compressor
8.
Energy for heating feed into GTCOMB.
Sub-total
Energy Generation (MW)
1.
Gasification and syngas cooler
2.
Syngas expander
3.
Methanol gas expander
4.
METHANOL
5.
Gas turbine
6.
HRSG
Sub-total
Net Energy
I
16.48
14.83
31.31
864.61
Case C
II+III
10.44
5.53
7.67
23.64
IV
42.88
14.23
57.11
I
27.50
14.83
Case D
III
8.96
917.12
346.87
IV
23.55
9.25
24.25
42.33 1272.95 57.05
864.61
11.56 11.56
60.71
441.00
85.66
105.54
45.4
83.1
876.17 0.00 191.2 876.17 501.71 128.5
844.86 −23.64 134.09 833.84 −771.24 71.45
4

Table 4: Energy auditing using block analysis method for Case E.
Case
Block
Energy Requirement (MW)
1.
Oxygen production (ASU)
2.
Steam requirement for oxidiser
3.
Air compressor
4.
Heat duty for heating Fe
2
O
3
(make-up and recycle)
5.
Endothermic heat of reducer
6.
Heat duty for heating Fe
3
O
4
Sub-total
Energy Generation (MW)
1.
Gasification and syngas cooler
2.
Syngas expander
3.
CO
2
cooling
4.
H
2
cooling
5.
Exothermic heat of oxidiser
6.
Exothermic heat of combustor
7.
Air cooler
Sub-total
Net Energy
I
14.83
Case E
II+III
74.23
14.83
9.78
56.37
26.01
44.61
211.0
846.77
10.02
141.85
10.57
71.23
12.61
70.41
856.79 306.67
841.96 95.67
5

Table 5: Economic evaluation using block analysis method for Cases A and B.
Case
Block
Capital Cost (million Euro)
1.
GASIFIER
2.
WGS
3.
SYNGCOOL
4.
ASU
5.
Expander
6.
Rectisol
7.
CO
2
transport and storage
8.
Compressor
9.
Methanator
10.
Gas turbine
11.
HRSG
12.
Methanol reactor
13.
Acetic acid reactor
14.
H
2
/CO separation
Sub-total (million Euro)
Annualised capital cost (million Euro/year)
Operating Cost (million Euro/year)
1.
Coal
2.
Hydrogen
Sub-total (million Euro/year)
17.5
53.4
53.4
Value of Products (million Euro/year)
1.
Electricity
2.
Methanol
3.
Acetic acid
4.
Hydrogen
5.
Methane
Sub-total (million Euro/year) 0.0
Economic Value (million Euro/year) [value of product – (capital cost + operating cost)]
−70.9
Total Plant Investment (million Euro/year) [(capital cost + operating cost)] 70.9
I
73.4
9.2
33.0
40.3
3.3
159.2
0.0
−7.5
7.5
0.0
7.5
61.0
4.5
2.4
67.9
Case A
II+III
0.0
1.5
72.8
4.8
107.0
20.0
201.3
0.5
7.3
14.6
13.2
43.7
6.0
2.2
IV
196.5
4.8
8.9
164.1
164.1
71.1
71.1
−101.9
173.0
61.0
19.8
81.3
Case B
II+III
0.5
0.0
−70.9
70.9
17.5
53.4
53.4
159.2
I
73.4
9.2
33.0
40.3
3.3
0.0
1.5
72.8
4.8
107.0
20.0
201.3
0.5
7.3
14.6
13.2
43.7
6.0
2.2
IV
196.5
4.8
6

Table 6: Economic evaluation using block analysis method for Cases C and D.
Case
Block
Capital Cost (million Euro)
1.
GASIFIER
2.
WGS
3.
SYNGCOOL
4.
ASU
5.
Expander
6.
Rectisol
7.
CO
2
transport and storage
8.
Compressor
9.
Tri-reformer
10.
Gas turbine
11.
HRSG
12.
Methanol reactor
13.
PSA
Sub-total (million Euro)
Annualised capital cost (million Euro/year)
Operating Cost (million Euro/year)
1.
Coal
2.
Natural gas
Sub-total (million Euro/year)
172.5
19.0
53.4
53.4
Value of Products (million Euro/year)
1.
Electricity
2.
Methanol
Sub-total (million Euro/year) 0.0
Economic Value (million Euro/year) [value of product – (capital cost + operating cost)] −72.4
Total Plant Investment (million Euro/year) [(capital cost + operating cost)] 72.4
I
73.4
18.4
37.1
40.3
3.3
0.0
−9.8
9.8
88.5
9.8
0.0
77.1
6.4
5.0
Case C
II+III
61.1
6.7
0.0
48.2
48.2
16.0
29.8
15.3
IV
41.5
6.7
0.0
−71.4
71.4
163.3
18.0
53.4
53.4
I
73.4
9.2
37.1
40.3
3.3
181.4
20.0
383.0
383.0
1246.7
1246.7
64.8
43.4
31.8
Case D
III
31.3
10.1
843.7
403.0
25.5
25.5
−35.3
60.8
131.7
14.5
46.3
46.3
5.7
18.5
12.0
44.7
IV
50.8
7

Table 7: Economic evaluation using block analysis method for Case E.
Case
Block
Capital Cost (million Euro)
1.
GASIFIER
2.
SYNGCOOL
3.
ASU
4.
Expander
5.
Chemical looping system
6.
CO
2
transport and storage
7.
Compressor
Sub-total (million Euro) 149.7
Annualised capital cost (million Euro/year)
Operating Cost (million Euro/year)
1.
Coal
Sub-total (million Euro/year)
16.5
53.4
53.4
Value of Products (million Euro/year)
1.
Hydrogen
Sub-total (million Euro/year) 0.0
Economic Value (million Euro/year) [value of product – (capital cost + operating cost)]
−69.9
Total Plant Investment (million Euro/year) [(capital cost + operating cost)] 69.9
I
73.4
33.0
Case E
II+III
40.3
3.0
70.6
82.0
9.4
8.3
5.9
84.8
9.4
0.0
91.4
91.4
8

Table 8: Summary results of ETII, energy and cost evaluations for Cases A to E.
Case
ETII
Block I
Coal (MW)
Net energy from process units (MW)
Overall Net Energy (MW/MW coal)
Total Plant Investment (million Euro/year)
Total Plant Investment (Euro/MWh coal)
Block II+III+IV
Syngas LHV (MW)
Additional feed LHV (MW)
Product LHV (MW)
Net energy from process units (MW)
Net energy from streams (product – additional feed) (MW)
Overall Net Energy (MW/MW syngas)
Total Plant Investment (million Euro/year)
Total Plant Investment (Euro/MWh syngas)
A
Polygeneration with CCS
0.47
B
Polygeneration with methanation
11.19
648.1
841.3
1.30
70.9
13.7
412.6
0.0
330.8
28.4
330.8
0.87
12.3
3.7
648.1
841.3
1.30
70.9
13.7
412.6
619.8
749.1
24.0
129.3
0.37
177.9
53.9
C
Cogeneration with CCS
0.58
648.1
844.9
1.30
72.4
14.0
405.7
0.0
0.0
110.4
0.0
0.27
16.5
5.1
D
Polygeneration with trireforming
8.74
648.1
833.8
1.29
71.4
13.8
400.9
2802.6
2852.8
−699.8
50.2
− 1.62
463.8
144.6
E
Chemical
Looping
0.38
648.1
842.0
1.30
69.9
13.5
424.7
0.0
345.4
95.7
345.4
1.04
9.4
2.8
9

Table B.1: Standard heat of formation and standard Gibbs energy of formation for various components. (Atkins and Paula, 2005)
Component
CO
2
( g )
H
2
( g )
CH
3
OH ( l )
H
2
O ( l )
CH
4
( g )
HCOOH ( l )
CO ( g )
Standard heat of formation at 298.15 K,

H
 f
(kJ/mol)
−393.51
0
−238.66
−285.83
−74.81
−424.72
−110.53
Standard Gibbs energy of formation at 298.15 K,

G
 f
(kJ/mol)
−394.36
0
−166.27
−237.13
−50.72
−361.35
−137.17
10

Table C.1: Economic parameters for evaluating capital cost, operating costs and value of products.
Capital cost
No. Process unit
1 Gasifier (GE type) a
2 Water-gas shift reactor a
3 Rectisol b, i
4 CO
2
transport and storage c
5 Methanol reactor b
6 Acetic acid reactor d
7 H
2
/CO separation b, ii
8 Gas turbine a
9 HRSG a
10 SYNGCOOL a
11 ASU a
12 Compressor a
13 Expander a
14 Tri-reformer/ Methanator b, iii
Operating cost
Base Cost
(million USD)
62.92
12.24
54.1
28
56
41.2
25.4
35.6
4.83
2.41
9.4
Scale factor
0.67
0.67
0.7
5.6 Euro/t CO
2
7
2 times of (5)
0.6
0.7
0.75
1
0.6
0.5
0.67
0.67
0.6
Base scale
Scale unit
716 MW coal input
1377 MW LHV coal input
9909 kmol CO
2
/h
87.5
9600
266
355
77 t MeOH/h kmol/h feed
MW
MW heat duty
MW heat duty
76.6 t O
2
/h
10
10
1390
MW
MW kmol/h feed
No. Raw material
1 Natural Gas e
2 Coal e
3 Hydrogen f
Market price
Cost Estimation
18 Euro/MWh
2.86 Euro/GJ
1104 Euro/t
No.
1 Electricity e
2 Methanol g
3 Acetic acid
h
4 Hydrogen f
5 Methane e
Product Price
70.29 Euro/MWh
305 Euro/t
550 Euro/t
1104 Euro/t
18 Euro/MWh
Note: a
Larson et al., 2005. Economic parameters taken from year 2003. Assume 1USD = 0.9 Euro (2003). b
Hamelinck and Faaij, 2002. Economic parameters taken from year 2001. Assume 1 USD = 1.1 Euro (2001). c
IPCC, 2005. Cost of CO
2
transport: 0-5 USD/t CO values of CO
2
transport and storage are taken.
2
; Cost of CO
2
storage: 0.6-8.3 USD/t CO
Assume 1 USD = 0.8 Euro (2010).
2
. Average d
Cost of acetic acid reactor is estimated based on 2 times of the cost of methanol reactor, as suggested by Zhu and Jones, 2009. e
DECC, 2010. f
Stigel and Ramezan, 2006. g
Methanex, 2011. Contract price valid from April to June 2011. h
ICIS pricing, 2010. i
Cost of Rectisol is assumed to be 2 times of Selexol, as suggested by Denton, 2003. ii
Cost of H
2
/CO separation unit is estimated based on the cost of PSA. iii
Costs of tri-reformer and methanator are assumed to be the same as the cost of steam reformer.
CEPCI
2001= 394.3; 2003=402.0; 2010 (November)=556.8
11